WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING… This essential book shows why language education policy will never work if it is top-down and ignores local contexts and stakeholders. It illustrates the fundamental importance of taking local contexts into consideration and actively engaging and empowering local stakeholders in the development and implementation of all language education policy. A better blueprint for successful language education policy would be hard to find. ⎯ Dr. Andy Kirkpatrick, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia; author of English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN: A Multilingual Model While Thailand prepares its linguistic policy by organizing several annual seminars since 2007, this book is a climax of satisfaction for me to read what my country should do in order to have a better understanding of what is happening in my neighboring countries and in particular in Thailand. As everything is “glocalizing”, the sub title of this book, global perspectives and local perspectives, well explains this trend: in a local context, education needs to be internationalized for a better exchange in all kinds of interests. In an international context, education needs potential local actors to contribute to create new opportunities for all. That is the question because education is one of the vital public services that must be assured by the state.
⎯ Dr. Sombat Khruathong, Associate Professor & Associate Dean, Faculty of International Studies, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand This stimulating volume does a wonderful job of focusing critically on the practices of language education policies with its wide-ranging and detailed attention to key issues around the globe. The authors mobilize an impressive array of historical, ideological, political and economic frameworks to explore real problems in language education policy, which has emerged as an important and independent field in the academic world. ⎯ Dr. Qi SHEN, Ass. Professor, Shanghai International Studies University, China The volume delivers a powerful statement for the necessity of Language Education Policies to be based, as Tochon puts it succinctly, on a reflection of society, political philosophy, and cultural anthropology.
⎯ Dr. Andreas Gardt, Professor of Applied Linguistics, Germanist Institute, Kassel University, Germany, author of Sprache und Wissen (Language and Knowledge)
An indispensable volume on language education policy of interest for all actors involved in language education at a time in which the interest in multilingualism is growing fast. The volume presents multiples perspectives on language education policy making and its enactment. The book will represent a landmark in this relatively new field inquiry.
⎯ Dr. Manuel Jiménez Raya, Professor and Head of the English Department, University of Granada, Spain, author of Pedagogy for Autonomy in Language Education in Europe Brilliant overview on language planning in educational contexts around the world —many of which normally stay outside Western sight — heightening the indispensableness of local perspectives and ecologies for language policymaking. Imperative reading for those willing to broaden their horizons concerning education and language in multilingual contexts. ⎯ Dr. Carlos Maroto Guerola, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis (SC), Brazil Given that Intercultural Communication is insufficiently integrated into the educational environment, and thus merits more attention, Language Education Policy and its Limits: From Global Perspectives to Local Practices is an important contribution to this direction, in particular because of the practical points of views which are highly relevant to language educators in LEP and Peace Studies courses. By providing invaluable insights from specific contexts, it will significantly advance broader scholarship and will be of interest to researchers and practitioners in the field of language education policy studies.
⎯ Dr. Aneta Stojić, Professor, University of Rijeka, Croatia This volume is inspiring for language policy researchers as it draws on a broad and deep disciplinary basis including classical philosophy, critical and ethical hermeneutics. The book is a tmely call for lifting the Kantian veil of ignorance that still persists in civil society vis-a-vis minority languages. The authors managed to present the global picture with due attention to the local perspectives.
⎯ Dr. Anikó Hatoss, Doctoral convenor, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; author of Displacement, Language Maintenance and Identity The collection of chapters is likely to be of great use to readers with a central interest in language-in-education policy and practices (especially in multilingual context) and to those studying or researching in world languages and teaching areas.
⎯ Dr. Haihong WANG, Professor in Comparative Education, School of International Studies, Zhejiang University
This wide-ranging collection provides a global context for understanding how language policy is conceived an enacted in many parts of the modern world. It provides a powerful analysis the need for local engagement and empowerment in policy to bring about change.
⎯ Dr. Anthony J. Liddicoat, Research Centre for Languages and Cultures, University of South Australia , Adelaide This book is a landmark with a comprehensive analysis of the key issues in educational language policy and practice at a time when linguistic diversity is threatened as never before. Narrow bureaucratic views of national language policies, globalization and the growing impact of “killer languages” like English have led to homogenization and standardization of languages seriously disadvantaging the indigenous and dominated languages all over the world. Under such conditions, increasing number of mother tongues get diminished as heritage languages whereas dominant global languages become the new (enforced) mother tongues. On the positive side, there is a growing interest in multilingualism and multilingual education has become a global movement. The book offers a very timely emphasis on the need for a flexible, culturally rooted and inclusive approach to LEP.
⎯ Dr. Ajit Mohanty, Professor and Chief Adviser, National Multilingual Education Resource Consortium, Jawaharalal Nehru University, India This impressive volume has something for everyone who wishes to gain rich insights into the issues and processes involved in the development of language education policy. Through its chapters, we are able to appreciate the diversity of this relatively new field of scholarship, as we journey around the world, exploring a myriad of issues in a wide range of national contexts and educational sectors, considering the ways in which different actors (teachers, learners, policymakers, families etc) interface with the ongoing development of language education policies in relation to numerous languages. Yet the book is held together by an exploration of human values and experiences, such as respect for diversity, engagement, struggle, ethics and social justice, which provide the basis of a coherent and critical theoretical framework that can support further development of the field.
⎯ Dr. Terry Lamb, Professor, Sheffield University, United Kingdom; President of the International Federation of Language Teachers Associations
Deep University Online! For updates and more resources Visit the Deep University Website: www.deepuniversity.net
Copyright © 2015 by Poiesis Creations Ltd - Deep University Press Member of Independent Book Publishers Association (IBPA) All rights reserved. Permission is granted to copy or reprint portions up to 5% of the book for noncommercial use. Excerpts may not be posted online without written permission from the publisher. For permissions, contact: [email protected]
ISBN 978-1-939755-06-3 (pb) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 1. Language Policy Studies. 2. Second Language Acquisition—Study and teaching. 3. Language Education. 4. Tochon, Francois Victor Keywords: Language Education Policy, linguistic human rights, minority languages, official languages, language discrimination, lingua franca Target audience: Collegiate language instructors – language education instructors – second language acquisition – field researchers – cultural studies students –graduate students - university researchers Topics: assimilation, linguistic pluralism, determinism, international education, national identity, multi-literacies Version 2 Cover photo: phovoir/yaymicro.com Proofreading: Kristine Harrison
LANGUAGE EDUCATION POLICY UNLIMITED GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES AND LOCAL PRACTICES Dr. François Victor Tochon, Editor University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Deep University Press with the sponsorship of the International Network for Language Education Policy Studies Blue Mounds, Wisconsin, USA
Contents Preface: From the Language of Economic Power and Prestige to Languages for the Planet François Victor Tochon University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA Overview of the chapters
1. Language Education Policy Studies in a Global Context: An Introduction François Victor Tochon University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
2. Teachers’ Discourses Related to Literacy and Diversity An International Analysis Catherine Compton-Lilly University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
3. Language Policy in Education in Kazakhstan Practical and Ideological Constraints Timothy Reagan Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan
4. Language Policy in Uzbekistan Formation of Uzbek national identity – Madina Djuraeva University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
5. China's English-Chinese Bilingual Education: Policy and Practice Ye Zhu Shanghai International Studies University, China
6. An Eye on the English Curriculum Development A Case Study in China Jing Peng and Shicheng Zheng Chongqing University, China
7. Language in Education Policy and Its Impact on Out-of-Class Language Use and Preferred Communication Media A Hong Kong Case of University Education Bertha Du-Babcock, City University of Hong Kong Hai-Ying Feng, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, China 151 8. ASEAN From The Analysis Of Geolinguistics Dinh Van Duc, Center of Asia and Pacific Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi 187 9. Research on Portuguese as a non-native language in Portugal: Inquiring into its transformative potential Flávia Vieira and Maria Alfredo Moreira University of Minho, Portugal Helena Peralta University of Lisbon, Portugal 198 10. Educational Policies and Curricular Models of Language Teaching in Spain José Gijón Puerta and Manuel Fernández Cruz University of Granada, Spain
11. Bilingual Education In The Basque Country (1960-2013) Felix Etxeberria and Juan Etxeberria University of the Basque Country, Spain
12. Small, Steady Gains: The Rise of Basque Language Education In French Public Schools Sunny Schomaker University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA 278 13. When a lingua franca is not enough: The case of Wolofization in Senegal Teresa Speciale University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
14. Teachers appropriating policy in a city of conflict and inequality: The case of Medellín, Colombia Jaime Usma University of Antioquia, Colombia
15. Interpreting Language in Education Policies: Historical, Disciplinary, Conceptual and Pedagogical Parameters for Multilingual Educational Environments Kristine M. Harrison and François Victor Tochon University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA 351 16. Policy Enforcement as Abusive Parenting? Governmentalities towards Autonomy François Victor Tochon University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
17. Conclusion: From Determinism to Humanism in Language Education Policies François Victor Tochon University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Deep University Press: Scientific Board Members
Guide to Authors
Preface From the Language of Economic Power and Prestige to Languages for the Planet Francois Victor Tochon University of Wisconsin-Madison The unavoidability of language makes it critical that language policies appeal to some notion of language neutrality as part of their rationale, in order to assuage concerns that the policies might otherwise be unduly discriminatory. However, the idea of language neutrality is deeply ideological in nature, since it is not only an attempt to treat language itself as a homogenous entity, but also the group of speakers (typically understood as the ethnic group or the nation) for whom the language represents some policy-related concern. (Wee, 2010, p.421)
A number of people were consulted on the cover of this book. Aisha, Harrison's daughter, suggested a change in the title: Language Education Policy and its Limits felt limited in its ability to convey what we meant. Language Education Policy Unlimited suggests the possible arrogance of policy makers choosing for others the destiny of their language and the orientation their culture should take. The title is a play on words, Harrison wrote: Language Education Policies act through the definition, delimitation and limitation of languages in power associated with standardized education and assessment systems. Limited and limitative regulations stifle language and education practices that are actually unlimited. The multilingual whole, an unlimited continuum of linguistic diversity, and its evolving and dynamic parts maintain a moving system of meaning. The whole system cannot be fixed as a bricolage, applying limited policies here and there that are then presented as unlimited. This book and the multitude and decades of work that it stands on support the premise that language education policy can be unlimited rather by conversation, contemplation, awareness and cohesive practices connecting communities and making sense out of complexity.
10 François Victor Tochon
The picture on the cover page of this book represents figuratively what numerous activists with a pitch of humor might think should be a good thing: a young dynamic guy taking the responsibility for repairing the planet and straightening the state of affairs, such that it could bring a form of flourishing and peace. The idealistic view of the possibility for humanity to fix its future is not without problem, though. Firstly, notice the activist on the cover picture is a white male. It is difficult not to recognize that the mayhem the planet is in comes in large part precisely from the worldwide action of a certain type of white male. Any categorization has its limits. Financial globalists may not be that representative of all the white males, and this remark does not imply that non-white might not have collaborated and contributed as well to the disaster we are living around this planet, not to speak of white females. Notwithstanding an in-depth analysis of the picture symbolically may raise doubt as to whether a white male, moreover alone, might be the right person to solve issues that evidently have been perpetrated by people with a similar mindset: fixing the world in a proactive and authoritative fashion, with a smile. This reminds me of two quotes, one from Albert Einstein who suggested that we cannot solve a problem from the level of understanding which created it, meaning a new mindset is in order. The second quote is from Ivan Illich who advised young dogooders from America not to travel to Mexico to fix local houses and thus destabilize the social ecology of villages, but rather stay home and work within their neighborhoods to improve their own communities. Obviously both Einstein and Illich were white males. Yet the guy on the cover page has a saw to fix the world. He may cut things straight his own way, maybe by the rule of law, which brings us to the topic of this book. "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it" expresses a shared understanding among American blue-collar workers. The instrumentalist view that tools (rather than ideas, collaboration, struggle against corruption) can do wonders if only one good guy had the courage to do it, is by excellence the representation of the
American Do-It-Yourself attitude. The cliché is culturally-bound. Not only would we need females and people of various colors and ethnicities in the picture, but possibly suggestions for other forms of action than simplistic boy-scout bricolage. Admittedly the Boy Scout founder Baden Powell did a good deal to prepare youth for a different future in which means for survival would be key to help humans build a society that would not be based on greed and money. And I believe in service education and volunteering to a certain extent, the extent to which it is not imposed on the young in the name of freedom and free will, like Hitler youth. The issue here is to question the idea of doing good to others or, in other terms, deciding for others what is good for them. In this generous attempt, I see the seed of fascism. At the same time I understand that as a society we need to have safeguards and constructive principles to create the possibility of smooth functioning even if such smooth functioning represents an ideal whose equilibrium is to be constantly verified and rebalanced. As a society we must make certain choices to envision an equilibrium of contradictory forces, if not to build a better future but to keep some hope; however shouldn't the steps, policy regulations and procedures remain local and imply some freedom in the realization process, rather than being homogenized for all? As a Preface to this collective work, with its effort to represent many varied situations in which Language Education Policy studies are most often very relevant and sometimes crucial to policy makers and to the lives of large sectors of the population, let us posit that this edition is but the first step in a forthcoming series of books that will aim at illuminating many linguistically unjust situations around the planet. The unfair repartition of resources in relation to the languages spoken or to the ways they are written deserves educated attention and non-doctrinal responses. In one book it was simply impossible to cover the entire field and review each continent in detail. Thus we are aware that
12 François Victor Tochon
despite the high number of chapters in this volume, there are many missing aspects and blind spots. For example, we would have liked to expand this volume to further analyses of the ASEAN situation, which is fresh and much more than symbolic, which will affect millions of people, and for which Language Education Policy study provides necessary understandings. ASEAN ideology sets up a counter hegemony in a region dominated by external powers; it asserts a new identity and thus creates a new power block in the global systems that may help balance power relations, which is not without its contradictions, as the new claim for the becoming of a new global power may largely transcend regional interests. For example when multilingual Vietnam must expeditiously enhance its English education to provide a counterweight to Thai corporations that bring their own employees and workforce onto Vietnamese soil on the pretext that Vietnamese workforce would not master English, then regional tax exemptions may serve interests other than regional. As well the situation in Africa should have been explored and probably will in one forthcoming volume of its own. For example as regards South Africa, Alexander (2012, p.3) noted that “there is a material reason for the maintenance of a particular language policy in any given period.” It creates some form of stability in the production and exchange of goods and is often dictated by the rules of the market, which was the case for South Africa: most Black people continued to see mother tongue education as Bantu education, and as a tool for their exclusion. This helped English to hike the ladder of the most influential language of the nation for market reasons. “Unless African languages are given market value, that is, unless their instrumentality for the processes of production, exchange and distribution is enhanced, no amount of policy change at school level can guarantee their use in high-status functions and, thus, eventual escape from the dominance and the hegemony of English” (Alexander, 2012, p.6). Here is another example of the relevance of Language Education Policy studies in Africa: Kinyarwanda is the sole official language of Rwanda, spoken by most Rwandans. Nonetheless Kinyarwanda is
increasingly absent from the language debates in this country, which focus on choosing between English and French. While Kinyarwanda has clear developmental potential and symbolic value as the mother tongue of the nation, decision makers seem to disregard it (Rurangirwa, 2012). Ager (2005) studied how policies develop a sense of the prestige (or image) of a language. His case analyses suggest that (1) image or prestige is related to imagined or real ethnic and civic identity (real or imagined), in the case of Québec; (2) image or prestige is used to implement and manipulate language policy, as in Wales; (3) image relates to the motives and actions of language planners and the communities they plan for, as in Malaysia. These aspects apply to many situations. Baldauf (2004), for example, notes that the decline of Chinese ‘dialects’ and the increasing usage of Mandarin bears some direct relation to these government-sponsored image planning campaigns where Mandarin is portrayed as unifying and progressive, while the Chinese ‘dialects’ are portrayed as backward and divisive. Language education policies tend to pursue the following sustaining orientations (Busch, 2011; Duarte, 2011; Gorter & Cenoz, 2011; Ziegler, 2011): •
Help elite access a prestigious foreign language (mainly English).
Ensure minority or migrant education systems make the transition to the dominant language easier as in shelter classes.
Ensure mother language maintenance and literacy acquisition in complementary classes.
Promote two-way-bilingual programs targeting heterogeneous students and fostering bilingualism for all learners.
Having their language recognized meets an identity-valuing goal of immigrant communities. Prestige reinforcement becomes a method for making monolinguals more conscious of foreignlanguage values and of the need for specific languages. Valuing the
14 François Victor Tochon
languages motivates potential speakers who might vote for political parties in support of the prestige given to their community. Thus the motivation for policy may arise from (1) support for a large educated and prosperous immigrant population; (2) professional associations and language lobby groups, including Indigenous peoples, and (3) economic gains visà-vis foreign neighbors. The question often arises as to whether applied linguists can have any usefulness in today’s multilingual society with all its complexity, and whether language education policy specialists can help policy makers make the right decisions. There were two cases of recognized errors made by policy makers in the Singapore government that are quite informative in that respect. Singapore’s main ethnic population is composed of 77% Chinese, 14% Malay, and 8% Indian. Language education policy aims at cultivating bilingual proficiency in the English language and a mother tongue that is officially recognized by ethnic community. The mother tongue is valued as a cultural anchor, while English serves socio-economic advantages (Rappa and Wee 2006). Citizens from Singapore use their mother tongue to understand themselves, who they are, where they come from and what they want. Yet this distinction of official languages led to forms of segregations across communities, with unidirectional bilingualism with English but not across local communities. Moreover the official mother tongue language policy ignored variation within each community and supported the disappearance of languages such as Cantonese, Hakka, Hokkien, and Teochew for the Chinese community. As well the emphasis on English led Chinese speakers to abandon Mandarin to the benefit of English even at home. Home statistics regarding language use led the government to reconsider the mother tongue policy as wrong and revise their policies (Wee, 2011). Note that in other places, mother tongue language education works well. A second policy, recognized in 2009, based on the belief that people could become perfectly
bilingual in a similar way in two languages, erred in its neglect of partial bilingualisms and the need for Chinese children to spend more time on Chinese writing in the early stages. This was a common mistake in ASEAN countries, as noted Kirkpatrick (2010). Chinese lessons were too difficult and ‘successive generations of students paid a heavy price because of my ignorance,’ expressed Lee on November 18, 2009, in an article of The Straits Times, the government voice of Singapore. In the United States, bilingual education is not a recent concern. It actually has a history since the colonial times. More recently, social changes in 1950-1970 increased interest in bilingual education. The Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 influenced its practice and prevented segregation, promoting equal opportunities for all students. The ideology of “two monolingualisms” leads policy makers to believe that bilingual individuals are those in control of two complete sets of monolingual proficiencies, however fluency in two languages is quite seldom (Wee, 2007). Different policy levels may be informed by different ideologies that impact the populations their own way and are often not questioned because people share the same social representation or deeply entrenched ideology. If entrenched ideologies about language deserved and received careful scrutiny, researchers could decipher policy formulation, especially in “nanny states” with an authoritarian style of governance such as Singapore (Mauzy and Milne 2002, p.35). The ability of language experts to contribute to policy of course depends on the willingness on the part of the governing authority to get such expertise. The language experts’ involvement is often limited to advice on policy implementation rather than critical feedback on ideological assumptions. Over the past decades, the focus of bilingual education shifted from an emphasis on speakers’ identities and homogenous imagined communities to an interest in learners’ diverse repertoires. Policy orientations and language distribution practices derive from such conceptions.
16 François Victor Tochon
“While earlier work foregrounded a universal individual perspective with a sequential language acquisition model, later research considers the institution of the school from the perspective of a historical–critical analysis, emphasising its social function, criticising its monolingual habitus and advocating for an approach that relates teaching and learning practices to the specific social context” (Busch, 2011, p.543).
The concept of sustainability helps certain researchers working on language education policies that are more natural and respectful of the families’ and neighborhoods’ environments. Such initiatives come from a deep criticism of economic development “that overlooks almost totally the natural environment - the precise context where this development takes place - and which thus leads it to a final end devoid of resources and clearly harmful for the life of human beings… Against this economicist view, which is blind to its very important side effects, some academic and activist enclaves have proposed the perspective of ‘sustainable development’ or ‘lasting development’. In other words, they have theorized, constructed, and begun to practice an economic and urbanistic development respectful of, integrated into, and keeping with the dynamics of nature. Such perspective provides a way of improving the material aspects of human life while at the same time not damaging other environmental aspects still more necessary and fundamental for the quality —and even for the simple possibility - of human existence.” (Bastardas-Boada, 2004, p.1).
In Europe, three types of structured language distribution can be observed: •
One-person-one-language model alternating monolingual with bilingual input in team-teaching sequences (Duarte, 2011).
Partial immersion and alternation of learning in 2-3 languages on a regular basis, e.g. one day (Purkarthofer and Mossakowski 2011; Verra 2006)
Content and language integrated Learning (CLIL) in which
specific subjects are taught over a certain period of time with possible alternation between three or four languages.
In bilingual situations, linguistic subsidiarity implies that “everything that a local language can do need not be done by a more global language” (Bastardas-Boada, 2004, p.8). The priorities of LEPs for linguistic sustainability should be (p.27): 1. “Stop the abusive uses of the large interlanguages, and extend the ideology of linguistic equality and solidarity; 2. Dignify the self-image of subordinated, nonmajority language groups; 3. Allow these linguistic groups to be able to control their own communicative space, autonomously regulating their public linguistic uses; 4. Distribute communicative functions, providing exclusive and effective functions to the codes of linguistic groups currently in a situation of subordination; and, 5. Create awareness in governments, commercial firms, and societies in general, on the importance of attaining linguistic sustainability, urging them to habitually incorporate necessary studies on sociolinguistic impact in their decision-making processes”.
Conclusion Any use of language is social since its purpose is to communicate. Moreover language as soon as it is expressed allows the audience to perceive elements of emotion and identity, of provenance, and social class (Blommaert, 2005). Spolsky (2004) observed that language policy enmeshes the speakers’ language practices; language ideologies that evaluate these practices are desirable, correct, and standard; and language management is to modify practices, through schooling, official selections and the valuing and creation of status.
18 François Victor Tochon
In the spread of English, a key additional role is played by its economic prestige, an image that is fabricated in a process Haarmann (1990) named prestige planning: while corpus selection, status planning and language education policy are production-related activities, prestige planning works on values to influence policy makers and the way the new language may be received by the potential L2 speakers. Even in Anglophone countries pertaining to the inner circle of countries where English is the first language, prestige planning often contributes covertly or overtly to the successful implementation of specific foreign languages. The hegemony of English, or of other languages, is not merely tolerated in the developing world - it is considered a legitimate model for society. In many newly independent states, a tiny Englishspeaking elite controls state policymaking organs while the masses of the people remain excluded. A world system that is more just and equitable depends upon an understanding of how people can gain control of their own institutions. A key issue is the role of language in organizing and reproducing those institutions. (Alexander, 2012, p.3)
Yet, “we have to be exceptionally careful not to fall into the trap of prescribing cures that turn out to be worse than the sickness itself” (Alexander, 2012, p.4). Since teachers are active in shaping ideological and implemental spaces that influence language policies and classroom practices (Hornberger, 2006), we need to examine the local factors that drive their actions while keeping in mind some overall realities and guiding principles. This book is an attempt in this direction. Particular thanks go to the authors and the reviewers of this collaborative work for their contributions and their patience, and to Kristine M. Harrison for her proofreading of the chapters in this book.
Preface 19 References
Ager, D. (2005) Prestige and image planning. In E. Hinkel (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 1035–54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Alexander, N. (2012). The centrality of the language question in postapartheid South Africa: Revisiting a perennial issue. South African Journal of Science, 108(9/10), 1-7. Baldauf, R.B. Jr. (2004). Issues of Prestige and Image in Language-inEducation Planning in Australia. Current Issues In Language Planning, 5(4), 376-388. Bastardas-Boada, A. (2004). Linguistic Sustainability for a Multilingual Humanity. Plenary speech for the X Linguapax Congress on ‘Linguistic diversity, sustainability and peace’, Forum 2004, CUSC – Centre Universitari de Sociolingüística i Comunicació (University Centre of Sociolinguistics and Comunication), and Department of General Linguistics, University of Barcelona, Barcelona. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Busch, B. (2011). Trends and innovative practices in multilingual education in Europe: An overview. International Review of Education, 57, 541-549. Duarte, J. (2011). Migrants’ educational success through innovation: The case of the Hamburg bilingual schools. International Review of Education, 57(5–6). Gorter, D., & Cenoz, J. (2011). Multilingual education for European minority languages: The Basque Country and Friesland. International Review of Education, 57(5–6). Haarmann, H. (1990) Language planning in the light of a general theory of language: A methodological framework. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 86, 103–26. Harrison, K. M. (2015, February). Title. Personal communication. February 2d, 2015 at 11:13 am. Hornberger, N.H. (2006). Nichols to NCLB: Local and global perspectives on US language education policy. In O. Garcia, T. Skutnabb-Kangas and M.E. Torres-Guzman (Eds.), Imagining multilingual schools: Languages in education and globalization (pp.223–37). Tonawanda: Multilingual Matters. Johnson, E. J. (2012). Arbitrating repression: language policy and education in Arizona. Language and Education, 26(1), 53–76. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN: a multilingual model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Mauzy, D. K., & Milne, R. S. (2002). Singapore politics under the people’s action party. New York: Routledge.
20 François Victor Tochon
Purkarthofer, J., & Mossakowski, J. (2011). Bilingual teaching for multilingual students? Innovative dual medium models in SloveneGerman schools in Austria. International Review of Education, 57, 5–6. Rappa, A., & Wee, L. (2006). Language Policy and Modernity in Southeast Asia. New York: Springer. Rurangirwa, S. (2012). The Absence of Kinyarwanda in the Current Language Policy of Rwanda. The Journal of Pan African Studies, 5(8), 169-177. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Verra, R. (2006). Die ladinische Schule und ihre Mehrsprachigkeit. In W. Wiater (Ed.), Schule in mehrsprachigen Regionen Europas (pp.136–225). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang. Wee, L. (2007). Linguistic human rights and mobility. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 28(3), 325–338. Wee, L. (2010). Neutrality in language policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31(4), 421-434. Wee, L. (2011). Language policy mistakes in Singapore: Governance, expertise and the deliberation of language ideologies. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 203-221. Ziegler, G. (2011). Innovation in learning and development in multilingual and multicultural contexts: Principles learned from a higher educational study programme in Luxembourg. International Review of Education, 57(5–6).
Overview of the Book Chapters
Chapter 1 An Introduction to Language Education Policy Studies The chapter provides a definition and brief history of the field within the broader area of study on language planning, with its focus on acquisition planning and status planning: curriculum planning addresses how languages are learned whereas status planning addresses what languages are learned and the rationale behind societal choices. François Victor Tochon reviews the questions that define the sectors of language acquisition management, with a demonstration that such categories of understanding cannot be treated as universals but deserve local responses in their contexts, for example when policy makers deal with minority languages, verifying that the people concerned are engaged in decision making, and their linguistic ecosystem is given enough autonomy to ensure sustainability. This connection to local concerns is equality relevant when dealing with transnational English and bilingual education. Language Education Policies should be born from a reflection on society, political philosophy, and cultural anthropology. The postulate that policy makers are entitled to organize peoples' existence and decide what is important for others situates the paradox of policy making as a field of action that needs to be informed by ethics and wisdom rather than bureaucratic or technocratic motives. Policymaking relates to the management of human eco-systems and their fabrication, maintenance and dissolution. It is healthy to question the imaginaries behind decisions that affect masses of people, and their underlying motives, which should be guided by principles for a better society, yet fully informed of the limits of reductive generalization attempts.
Chapter 2 International Analysis Of Teachers’ Discourses On Literacy And Diversity In this chapter, Compton-Lilly uses discourse analysis procedures to explore similarities and differences among the ways reading and writing
Language Education Policy
are taught in five English speaking countries. Specifically, she explores how university professors and practicing teachers describe the relationship between student diversity and learning to read. Her study involved educators in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, England and the United States. Although interviews were conducted in different parts of the worlds with educators who worked with children from a vast range of communities (e.g., African American, Maori, Australian Aboriginal, British Traveler, Canadian Aboriginal, various immigrant communities), similar discourses were used across these sites to describe the literacy learning challenges faced by children from diverse backgrounds. Identified discourses included deficit discourses about families, comments about language deficiencies, and accounts that highlighted injustices enacted in classrooms.
Chapter 3 Language Policy in Education in Kazakhstan Timothy Reagan is Dean of Education in Kazakhstan's presidential university in Alana. In the chapter, he explores how Kazakhstan emerged as an independent nation in 1991 after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and has in most ways been the great success story of the Central Asian countries that did so. Post-independence Kazakhstan is a country with a relatively small population (approximately 17 million), spread across a huge geographic expanse (it is the ninth largest country in the world based on land area). Linguistically, the country is demographically multilingual, with two major languages coexisting – Kazakh, the official language (called the State Language in Kazakhstan) of the country, and Russian, which continues to function to a significant degree as the country’s common interlanguage. This chapter discusses the historical and current tensions and challenges with respect to educational language policies in Kazakhstan, and explores the ideological issues which frame these policies. Timothy Reagan suggests that current language policies in the country reflect the ethnolinguistic, demographic and regional tensions that exist in Kazakhstani society.
An Overview of the Chapters
Language Education Policy in Uzbekistan
In this chapter, Madina Djuraeva examines Language Education Policy in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan has become visible to the international world after the collapse of the Soviet Union and proclamation of its independence in 1991. The Republic of Uzbekistan is the most populous Central Asian (CA) country, with a total population of 28, 661, 000 (according to ethnologue.com), which equals, if not supersedes, the combined population of the remaining four CA states. Its considerable population and proactive efforts to maintain a leading role in ex-Soviet Muslim states (Landau & Kellner-Heinkele, 2001) has turned Uzbekistan into an exemplary case study. The chapter will first map out the linguistic and ethnic diversity of current day Uzbekistan through historical and post-colonial lenses. Madina Djuraeva then discusses the language reforms and policies which were in place before, during and immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is important to discuss the historical context of the region, because it explicates ‘an understanding of the present and of collective memory as the weaving together of multiple historical configurations that establishes connections that make for the common sense’ (Popkewitz et al., 2001, p. 4). Finally and thereby, the author argues that the newly-formed Uzbek national identity is a product of the historical, political and cultural events that largely drew on a language as a symbolic system for building such an identity.
Chapter 5 Bilingual Education Policy and its Impact in China Since entering the 21st century, China has witnessed the popularity of English-Chinese (E-C) bilingual education among teachers, students and their parents. But despite the promotion at different levels of endeavors to improve and develop programs, not much satisfactory improvement has been achieved. And in fact, some problems have hindered its development in a sustainable, rapid and sound manner. These problems include the lack of qualified teachers, appropriate textbooks and teaching materials, and effective teaching models and
Language Education Policy
approaches. Furthermore, by probing into the status of the EnglishChinese (E-C) bilingual tertiary education in China, the researcher found that the deficiency of bilingual education policy has resulted in the lack of development. Although the Ministry of Education has issued several regulations concerning the promoting of English-Chinese bilingual education (or instruction) since 2000, they have failed to compensate for the deficiency of bilingual education policy at other levels of education, and thus have still not succeeded in the development of English-Chinese bilingual education overall. Therefore, the researcher calls for the development of policies at different levels.
Chapter 6 The English Curriculum Development in China In 2001, The Ministry of Education Guidelines for Actively Promoting Primary School English Course was issued by China’s Ministry of Education, mandating that students start to learn English as a compulsory subject from the third grade. Some empirical studies have since examined such issues as its negative impact on Mandarin Chinese teaching and the impracticality in rural schools, irrespective of insights from school leaders and teachers in coping with and responding to the LEP changes. This case study, through field visits and in-depth interviews with school principals, teachers, graduates, looks at an urban primary school in Southwest China. It attempts to unveil how it has strategically and structurally embraced the fresh yet biting climate of the language policy to design a school-based English curriculum. The study found that the curriculum development went through three main phases to its maturity, modeled by the schooling strategy as “responsible, English-featured and diversified”. The study has implications for schools that are trying to construct their own school-based English curriculum in the wake of the challenges imposed by the national curriculum reform.
Chapter 7 Language in Higher Education Policy in Hong Kong This chapter reports out-of-class communication of Hong Kong, mainland China, Japan, and Korean university students at a Hong Kong
An Overview of the Chapters
university where language education policy (LEP) prescribes English as the medium of instruction. Three research questions (RQs) are proposed to investigate the relationship between language proficiency and student’s confidence (positive) and anxiety (negative) in using English (RQ1); preferred language use (RQ2); and preferred communication media (RQ3) in communicating with professors and fellow students. Data were gathered through a written questionnaire together with followup interviews. In student-professor communication, students with higher English proficiency were more willing to use English than lower proficiency students while native language was preferred between fellow students. As for communication media, students with high English proficiency preferred face-to-face communication; whereas, preference of low proficiency students showed variance, either a preference for email to avoid direct contact with professors or because their language deficiencies would be exposed. Regardless of English proficiency, telephone communication was not preferred. The results as disclosed by path analysis were largely consistent over the student groups although some differences were found. Following the reporting of results, the chapter concludes with a summary, implications, and recommendations.
Chapter 8 ASEAN From the Analysis of Geolinguistics This chapter On the ASEAN From the Analysis of Geolinguistics aims to provide an alternative approach explaining the diversity and the complexity of factors influencing the ASEAN community today and in the future. Economy and politics are leading factors in this equation. However, when viewed geolinguistically, cultural and linguistic forms of influence also shape the diversity, which seems unavoidable. This chapter focuses on the following points: (1) Geolinguistics enables us to clearly identify the distinctive aspects of a socio-political space, such as in the ASEAN case. (2) The ASEAN interrelationships were founded for reasons other than cultural, economic or geographical criteria. Yet today the community is striving for such broader strategic priorities and economic goals. (3) ASEAN is a group of countries including mainland, multi peninsula and islands. The culture, the people and the area do not constitute a unified entity. Multi-dimensional diversity, even cultural
Language Education Policy
distinctions, between countries are likely to reduce the chances to move forward to a unitary type of structure. (4) Given the non-unified geography, the languages in these areas may move and be dispersed, but fundamentally they remain localized in their geographical areas. Despite the close geographical proximity, the Southeast Asian nations will still be distant in various areas for a long time. (5) The situations of language contact in the geographical areas of ASEAN are dissimilar to those of Europe, Central Asia or the Caribbean. (6) The types of scripts (form of writing) constitute a unique feature of this region. (7) The specific language policies of the states in the ASEAN are quite flexible. The Philippines and Singapore also have their own particularities. The ASEAN countries have traditionally been preoccupied with national language policy rather than the perspective of the whole community. Therefore, in the future finding a geolinguistic common ground for the ASEAN from its own community is challenging and rather unrealistic.
Chapter 9 Portuguese as a non-native language in Portugal This chapter reviews a selective corpus of empirical and theoretical research on Portuguese as a non-native language (PNNL) in Portugal. A descriptive and interpretative approach is adopted to inquire into the transformative potential of research, with a focus on its scope, purposes, conceptual and methodological frameworks, outcomes and implications. Four sub-themes were identified which are related to current policies and practices of language pedagogy and teacher education: 1) PNNL, bilingualism and multilingualism; 2) perceptions of PNNL; 3) programme design, assessment, and certification; and 4) teaching PNNL. The transformative potential of the studies is enhanced by the intention to question and reshape dominant practices on the basis of democratic values; an empowering view of language, pedagogy and teacher education; a close relation between pedagogy and teacher education; and the identification of constraints to, and conditions for, change. However, there seems to be a need to develop strategies that counteract limitations as regards the scope and impact of naturalistic inquiry, as well as expand school-based inquiry and foster intervention in teacher education settings.
An Overview of the Chapters
Educational Policies and Curricular Models of Language Teaching in Spain
The Spanish political structure changed radically in 1978, articulating its territory into seventeen Autonomous Communities (AC) each with its own government and parliament. In some of these Autonomous Communities, all or just part of each, other languages besides Spanish or Castilian are spoken (Basque, Galician, Valencian and Catalan). In this chapter we describe the linguistic teaching policies that affect the languages spoken in Spain and the intrinsic relation between them and the general political dynamics of the country. For this we will present a present-day historical perspective of language teaching and we will describe the models existing at present in the different Autonomous Communities. We conclude with some reflections about the connection between language education policies, the construction of national identities and the need to deepen the educational and social impact of the teaching of languages in Spain.
Chapter 11 Bilingual Education in the Basque Country (1960-2013) During the Francoist dictatorship (1936-1975), Basque language and culture were banned in the Basque Country. However, from the 1960s on, Basque was somewhat tolerated and the first schools opened teaching in Basque. After the death of the dictator Franco in 1975 and with the restoration of democracy, there was a great expansion of the Basque language and, in the 1980s, Euskara became the official language of the Basque Country. The first ikastolas (ikastola = school in Basque) appeared in the sixties, and teaching in these was carried out entirely in Basque. The majority of pupils and teachers were Basque speakers. The following decade, however, saw the pupil composition change fundamentally. Spanish-speaking families and pupils were enrolling in the Basque schools in ever-increasing numbers. With this increase, in the 80s a profound transformation took place. In order to respond to the different sociocultural situations - family motivations, sociolinguistic zones, the training of teachers, and for educational, political and other
Language Education Policy
reasons - bilingual education in the Basque Country was organized in three levels or models (A, B, D), from a minimum use of the Basque language (A), to an instrumental use of it in learning through Basque (D). In model B, both Spanish and Basque are used as a vehicle of learning, about 50% in each. In this chapter, Felix Etxeberria and Juan Etxeberria show that, 30 years after this three-tier system was introduced, today we can affirm that the system has made important achievements: 1) facilitating the massive and conflict-free incorporation of families into the most intensive models (D+B make up 95% of the overall intake); 2) enabling the gradual qualification in proficiency in Basque of the teaching staff; 3) facilitating the recovery of Basque for new generations of students; 4) resulting in internal and external evaluations (PISA 2003-20012) showing that, besides learning the Basque language, the academic performance of pupils studying in Basque is a successful one.
Chapter 12 The Rise Of Basque Language Education In French Schools Scholars of language policy struggle with capturing the disparate forces that shape and are shaped by language and educational policies. Of particular difficulty is understanding the sociolinguistic context of Basque, both in Spain and in France. Despite centuries of neglect and repression by national entities, the language continues to survive, if not thrive. However, even in the relatively hospitable context of the Basque Autonomous Community (BAC) certain indicators, such as daily use and enrollment in Basque-medium education at the secondary level, are troubling to those who seek to promote the language. Nevertheless, a robust regional language policy in the BAC has led to an increase in the total number of Basque speakers since the development of Basquemedium education. In the French context, there has been considerable growth in bilingual programs for Basque in French public schools. The caveat is that, despite these gains in the number of and enrollments in bilingual programs, attrition in the number of Basque speakers still marks the linguistic profile of the region. This paradox raises two questions: what factors have contributed to the growth of bilingual
An Overview of the Chapters
education, and what factors have limited the efforts of Basque language activists in the promotion and maintenance of their language. Using complexity theory, this study seeks to elucidate the nested systems that interact and create new contexts that challenge or support language promotion efforts.
Chapter 13 When a lingua franca is not enough: The case of Wolofization in Senegal In this chapter, Teresa Speciale discusses the phenomenon of Wolofization (the spread of the Wolof language) in Senegal and its implications for language and education policy in the country. Specifically, she looks at the dynamics that create an environment in which the Wolof language is largely accepted as a lingua franca, but is strenuously resisted as a de jure official language. The chapter consists of three main sections: an overview of the languages in Senegal; a tracing of the historical context in which the Wolof language emerged as the Senegalese lingua franca; and the history of the country’s language and education policies and the difficulties posed by Wolofization. She argues that local language hierarchies need to be addressed when developing new language education policies.
Chapter 14 Teachers appropriating policy in Medellín, Colombia In this chapter, Jaime Usma focuses on the evolution of Language Education Policies in Colombia. He reports on how recent language education policies in Colombia respond to the increasing interest to appear more competitive and attractive to worldwide investment through standardization and English, and how these policy discourses are reinterpreted by different educational actors and policymakers in the city of Medellín. In this line of thought, and reinforcing the dynamic nature of policymaking processes, this study shows how state officials continue to implement their own agendas according to their personal and political interests, concerns, and alliances, whereas school teachers appropriate policy discourses according to their school communities’ needs and
Language Education Policy
traditions and use current discourses around bilingualism and English as an opportunity to engage students in formal schooling. In this sense, this chapter confirms the critical role played by teachers inside school communities and the need to consider their views in policy formulation during the current times of policy traveling and apparent homogenization.
Chapter 15 Interpreting Language in Education Policies: Conceptual, Disciplinary, Indigenous and Deep Parameters for Multilingual Environments This chapter is a contribution to a theoretical and principled interpretive base for Language-in-Education Policy (LEP) studies. Through ideals and concepts of language and education that support the value of linguistic diversity, and promote multilingualism through education—the goals of the chapter are first: to draw parameters around such ideals and concepts that could be established as principles for multilingual education, in other words to conceptualize; and second: to propose an interpretive approach useful for practical goals of policy makers, administrators, teachers, and other educational actors, for instance to identify and assess language education policy levels and policies, evaluate the impacts of curriculum conceptions, and so on. The chapter frames the problem in the current dominant reality of neoliberalism and new alliances emerging to challenge market inequalities that affect languages, such as the Indigenous paradigm and Tochon’s Deep Approach.
Chapter 16 Autonomy as Education Policy for a Deeper Understanding of Languages and Cultures This chapter questions the concept of policy regarding the right of peoples to express themselves the way they want. In many contexts, policy making creates interferences that makes portions of society subservient to an elite and in turn fabricates the opposition to current regimes. Soft and negotiated policy strategies need to be explored. In a
An Overview of the Chapters
similar way, what happens in school settings in terms of acquisition planning often resembles a form of enforcement of policies focusing on control and assessment in a way that is simply counterproductive if proficiency is the goal. Proficiency development as well as bilingualism require some form of autonomy for the learner. From a dynamic systems perspective, autonomy defines the optimization of resources towards personal identity goals in harmony with a community of practice. Motivation research in Education scientifically demonstrates that learning autonomy, self-regulated learning and self-determination lead to better, more meaningful and deeper learning. This legitimates language education policies aiming at providing more autonomy to the learners and their teachers. Yet, is there a paradox in determining the condition of autonomy for others? This chapter is an attempt at dealing with this issue. It explores the challenges of sharing autonomy at all levels of the school and university systems, as a response to the urgent need to stimulate creative citizens to envision a world with new opportunities. The goal of the chapter is to envision an approach that enables language education policies for autonomy, aiming to developing a plurality of linguistic and cultural contacts, within the perspective of a freer world composed of open societies. It is the vision of a Deep Approach associated with autonomous learning and teaching.
Chapter 17 Conclusion: From Determinism to Humanism in Language Education Policies In the conclusion, François Victor Tochon gathers the various elements that problematize Language Education Policy as a field of study, examining what dynamic systems theory tells us about the attempts at regulating complex systems. Namely, any slight move to regulate a system is followed by a rebalancing move from the entire system that redefines its balance after the initial impulse. Action often appears counterproductive from a complex system perspective, unless local areas are equally engaged and empowered in the decision making process. Beyond determinisms that condition either assimilationist policymaking or pluralist moves, Tochon looks for a conceptual basis that explicates the ways a federalist perspective can respect the civil rights of
Language Education Policy
local populations while keeping the balance of the system. The transdisciplinary model appears to resolve the emergence of disruptive oppositions in the system, in a way that is not so foreign to Habermas's model of a strong democratic opposition.
Landau, J. M., & Kellner-Heinkele, B. (2001). Politics of language in the ex-Soviet Muslim states: Azerbayjan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. London: Hurst and Company. Popkewitz et al. (2001). Cultural History and Education: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Schooling. RoutledgeFalmer. Tochon, F. V. (2013). Homepage: INLEPS — International Network for Language in Education Policy Studies. In F. V. Tochon (Ed.), Language Education Policy Studies (online). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin—Madison. Retrieved from: http://ww.languageeducationpolicy.org
1. Language Education Policy Studies in a Global Context: An Introduction François Victor Tochon University of Wisconsin-Madison
Language Education Policy represents a relatively new field of study that establishes a cross section between educational policy studies and language policy studies. It inherits from an abundance of intellectual and methodological traditions while opening new perspectives that focus on the interface between policymaking and its enactment in a classroom or an educational setting. More precisely, the study of the interface between the macro-policy level of the political stage and the micro-policies of education in practice implies a focus on how policy decisions are translated into regulations that affect the lives of people in the educational milieu. How do the actors in the educational field live, experience, act and react to policies set by the various stakeholders, how do they shape them and transform them? What principles can be derived from this understanding for better education policy making in relation to languages and their diversity, as they appear and are used in kindergartens, elementary schools, middle schools and high schools as well as various vocational education settings, higher education settings and universities.
The Areas of Language Education Policy As a field of study, Language Education Policy was born from concerns related to Language Policy and Planning (LPP). Several researchers described its areas of influence. Cooper (1989) was one of the first researchers to discuss language program development and language cultivation in terms of language acquisition policy and planning. Nowadays, language acquisition
Chapter 1 — François Victor Tochon
management is most often addressed in terms of language-ineducation policy (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997, 2003) or language education policy (Spolsky, 2004), as it is one of its components. Fishman's (2006) introduction to language planning suggests in many ways on what premises language education policies are based: corpus planning, for one, soon manifests into education practices (Liddicoat, 2005). An example of such manifestation is when, after major women associations posited themselves against andocentric occupational practices, corrective gendering of English or French and its application in universities occurred. From written standards to the enforcement of authoritative, gender-neutral spelling, status-related language practices were codified and enforced. The "Siamese twins" of corpus planning and status planning compose language education policies in the name of language purity, to fight vernacularity, for example Spanglish, Frenglish, or Ebonic. Status planning entails governance or efforts to impose or give prestige to one language rather than others, for example English. The invasive role of English is often understood as instrumental in Westernization, language imperialism being a Trojan horse for capitalism and neoliberal politics (Philipson, 1992). The criteria inherent in Westernization, as Fishman (2006) puts it, is bipolar. It entails both inclusion and exclusion. Language education policy as a subset of language planning focuses on "what languages are desirable in the repertoire of speakers in the community and for what purposes those languages will be used" (Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997, p.126). This focus includes acquisition planning and status planning in the field of education. Planning acquisition through language curricula focuses on the language users: how users might be supported (or not) in the advancement of their proficiency and cultural learning fostered within or beyond the confines of the classroom (Cooper, 1989). Formal education is an institutionalized space where language planning can be shaped through policies that guide curricula and resources, and is "one of the most powerful forces in language management" (Spolsky, 2009, p.90). Language status
and its acquisition are intertwined components of language education policies. Indeed the social functions of a language are inseparable from its users’ language and culture acquisition (Hult, 2004). More specifically, status planning addresses what languages are learned, where curriculum planning addresses how languages are learned. Status planning relates to the societal functions of the language, a core type of planning involving formal and public aspects of language use and the selection of the means for instruction and its contents (Hornberger 2006). Both of these aspects are relevant for signs languages as well (Hult & Compton, 2012). To sum up, Language Acquisition and Planning was the first denomination given to a major aspect of Language Education Policy. This concept integrates corpus planning and status planning, which both define societal choices regarding what, how and why certain languages are being taught and learned. Acquisition Planning is derived from these two areas that have a substantial impact on curriculum planning and its teaching enactment, which so far few Language Policy researchers have considered worthy of attention however crucial it may be as it serves as an interface with actual practices in school settings.
Curriculum Planning as Policy Macro policies are translated into language learning standards that are integrated in school settings. National frameworks entail the standardization and management of certain languages to the exclusion of many. Language acquisition and use is managed through master programs and curricula most often formatted in terms of standards. Certain languages are excluded from the standardization process: a mother tongue that is not represented in schools would have no status and no standards. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) was developed and piloted since 1993 and published by the Council of Europe in 2001. The American Council for the Teaching of Foreign
Chapter 1 — François Victor Tochon
Languages (ACTFL) has set its own standards in 1999, which are the focus of research and systematic training as they are related to proficiency levels linked to certification. Such frameworks propose a shared metalanguage to designate language proficiency levels and design curricula. They provide conceptual tools for practitioners to track their students’ progress and agree on a taxonomy of goals covering language task domains, strategies and competences at various thresholds on an empirical scale (North, 2008; Tochon, 2014). The term “planning” does not have a restrictive acceptation here: it designates broadly cognitive, metacognitive and semiotic intent as much as policy regulation. The way teachers enact such regulatory guidelines is however far more fluid. While the Council of Europe’s authors had no claim such as imposing answers to practice questions, they still proposed categories that are soon reified into assessment tools and administrative measures and serve as guideline for curriculum building and program certification (Council of Europe, 2003). Such taxonomies create a de facto learning order. It serves as policy statement to compare programs, their effectiveness and students’ achievement (Tochon, 2013). Nonetheless the way teachers plan for learning partly escapes such frameworks. Thus invisible or unexpressed policies are active in the classroom. These classroom ‘policies’ are understudied. Arguably, language-in-education policy circumscribes decisions made in various sectors of language acquisition management (Baldauf, Li & Zhao, 2008): 1. Who should study what languages at which levels for how long (issues related to access management)? 2. What are the requirements in terms of teacher education (personnel training policy)? 3. What curricula are mandated and developed by whom (curricular policy)?
4. What instructional methods and materials should be used and how to evaluate their implementation (instructional policy)? 5. Who supports language education? How and who will pay for it and is it fair to all (resources policy)? 6. What agency is provided to students and populations? Are local communities consulted about the languages being offered and the way it is being done (community policy)? 7. What are the criteria used to evaluate the impact of language education policies? Is teacher quality evaluated through students’ measures? Are multiple choice tests exclusively used and are the evaluation modalities congruent with the proposed approaches? Is culture integrated in proficiency assessment (assessment policy)? 8. Do teachers have agency in curriculum building and in their classes (teacher policy)? Nonetheless there are living, cognitive as well as sociocultural dimensions to language acquisition management that pertain both to the inner lives of the teachers and their relations and rapport to their students, as much as to relationships among the students themselves who create particular interactional ecosystems. The medium of instruction, and the selection of languages and the form in which they will be introduced in the schools, such as monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual planning are influenced by the aforementioned variables. In addition, certain parameters influence the role and forms of language acquisition and its management in nonmainstream, local contexts (Fettes, 2003): •
Value of language proficiency as a professional qualification in a multilingual world;
Globalized economic activities and mobility;
Impacts of information technologies on human and vocational life.
Lifelong learning and the deregulation of education sectors.
Chapter 1 — François Victor Tochon
This section briefly explored the stage of curriculum planning from its standardization to the numerous questions that its implementation raises. Because of the many intersecting interests that intervene in this area of policy making, it is clearly complex, with subtle and complicated decisions that have immeasurable impacts. This complexity is particularly overwhelming when a high number of languages are present in a region, which leads nations to provide a different status to minority languages.
The Cultivation of Minority Languages Nations are populated by tens or even hundreds of languages spoken by ethnic groups that present particular challenges where language education policies are concerned, along the lines of the eight sectors formerly described: how to choose official languages, what impacts will it have on the sense of the languages political majority or minority in the country, and how to cultivate certain languages and ignore some of them in the way policies are enunciated (Lewis & Trudell, 2008). Since language disappearance is accelerated by the impact of modern medias that are overwhelmingly monolingual, cultivating minority languages is an area of concern. Language cultivation depends on a range of regulatory and implementation issues, such as the availability of resources and expertise, adaptation to new medias, national willingness to create national guidelines, their local interpretations, and readiness to participate in their implementation (UNESCO, 2003). Lewis & Trudell (2008, pp.267-270) reviewed the key questions that guide the education policy environment when it comes to language cultivation: •
Which language or languages will be the focus of explicit national language policy and will be implemented in education settings?
What will be the education policy regarding language diversity?
What will be the social, political, educational, and cultural implications of these policy decisions?
What instructional resources are implementation of this language policy?
Who should participate in language cultivation?
The convergence or conflict between official language education policies and the local community choices illustrate how national and local values interact. Successful language cultivation requires an awareness of the way the various levels—private and public, local and national, governmental and non-governmental— influence policy implementation. The vision of the local community appears critical, especially where national resources for implementation are limited. Social and political marginalization may be misleading regarding the effectiveness of policy guidelines, as local decisions are far more important than national policy in the creation of a proactive substrate for language maintenance. A local language is such a community-sited cultural phenomenon anchored into local identities, that “language use decisions made by the speakers themselves ultimately carry far more weight in the language cultivation arena than official formulations of policy – no matter how politically disenfranchised the speakers are” (Lewis & Trudell, 2008, p.271). Local engagement is the key to success of policy reforms. Such bottom up movement is crucial yet not enough alone. The ecological dimension of language education policy is thus important to investigate the relationships between language and its social environment (Baldauf, 2006). In this line of thought, Hornberger and Hult (2008) reviewed the principles that are relevant in the study of multilingualism from the perspective of language ecology : The ecology of language, or ecolinguistics, now encompasses diverse, though not necessarily mutually exclusive, lines of inquiry such as environmental discourse analysis, language and biocultural diversity, social semiotics, and societal multilingualism. (p.281)
Chapter 1 — François Victor Tochon
The language ecology focus is on interactions across languages “in the minds of bi- and multilingual speakers . . .” as well as “its interaction with the society in which it functions as a medium of communication” (Haugen, 1972, p.325). The goal of the researchers is to map the language environment in its various aspects. Such mapping includes description and preservation that are enmeshed when a good description can help create a lexicon and a grammar that with community support and motivation can be taught to cultivate and perpetuate a minority language. This focus however is profoundly affected by the transnational interference of dominant languages on the world stage.
The Transnational Role of English English has emerged as the current global lingua franca, “a factor that needs to be taken into account in its language policy by any nation-state” (Spolsky, 2004, p.91). The dominant or official language of over 70 territories, English is taught as the primary foreign language in the schools of many countries. The number of native English-speakers is estimated at more that three hundred million, and the double for second language speakers. Many nations around the globe reformed their programs to provide English instruction. The relationship between language education policies and the spread of English as a lingua franca can be understood in terms of the diffusion of either a dominating paradigm or an ecology of languages paradigm (Tsuda, 1994 and 1997). As noted by Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas (1996, p.436), the diffusion of English is associated with capitalism; science and technology; modernization; monolingualism; ideological globalization and internationalization; Americanization and homogenization of world culture; and linguistic, cultural, and media imperialism. In contrast, the ecology of languages paradigm, as Skutnabb-Kangas (2000, p.657) elaborates, favors linguistic parity: multilingualism and linguistic diversity;
promotion of additive foreign/second language learning;
equality in communication;
maintenance and exchange of cultures;
ideological localization and exchange;
human rights perspective, holistic integrative values;
sustainability through promotion of diversity; qualitative growth;
protection of local production and national sovereignties;
redistribution of the world’s material resources.
Tollefson and Tsui (2004) had uncovered that medium-ofinstruction policy was central in sociopolitical processes because social hierarchies, economic opportunity, and cultural capital are enmeshed in language education. Questioning the agenda behind policies is crucial. The choice of particular languages for instruction determine the balance of power in political systems, who has the right to claim an existence and priority in a world of scarce resources. Linguistic domination is part of the apparatus of the elites to keep control of the masses, on par with financial restrictions, military might and the marketability of disease. This enmeshing appears particularly powerful where lowincome minorities are concerned. Few such minorities in the world enjoy language rights. Even in multilingual and democratic India, where linguistic minorities are protected, the politics of language recognition may interfere with such rights (Benedikter, 2009). The very diverse ten nations of Southeast Asia gathered by the ASEAN treaty are challenged by the need to create a cohesive structure enforcing obligations on matters such as English instruction "to accelerate the economic growth, social progress and cultural development," which is their primary goal1.
Bangkok Declaration (link next page):
Chapter 1 — François Victor Tochon
Kirkpatrick (2010) demonstrated that the adoption of English in early elementary grades led to immense problems in keeping the ability for children to write in their first language. In Indonesia as well as in Africa, hybrid urban forms of multilingualism and diglossia emerge in which Englishes are re-appropriated and transfigured, and take a local life of their own. The metamorphosis of English into various lingua francas suggests that its destiny may well be similar—despite current electronic means of communication—to the one of Latin when it broke down in many roman languages and "vulgar" varieties. The rise of Bakhtinian multivocality in the spread of various World Englishes is well described, in the African context, by Higgins (2009), in the move towards building transculturality. Centripetal forces, counter-narratives to colonialism and counter hegemonic forces operate à rebours of globalization, like the bouncing movement of a wave on the rocks, that suddenly splashes away from its target with the full force of its initial impulse. Such was Aimé Cézaire's (1955/1972) négritude in the French language, a sudden claim for Blackness as the powerful and positive identity force that may win against colonization. Interpretive authority is dead or has shifted into a myriad of reappropriations of local cultures in which outsiders mutate to acquire the new status of multi-insiders. To sum up, the ability to communicate in English is often viewed as a literacy that may no longer convey Western ideologies, as computer literacy is considered as a requirement for today’s global citizens (Cha & Ham, 2008). This may be true in the current diaspora of World Englishes that create a substrate for local creoles, however it may take time before English ceases to convey market invasive ideologies. Policy makers should be aware of that influence, which may be more lenient if choice and a plurality of languages are introduced.
Language Education Policy as an Expression of Political Philosophy The previous considerations on the underlying ideologies behind Language Education Policies raise the attention on a new area of focus: the philosophy of language. The vast field of study of Language Education Policy having just been broadly circumscribed, remains to say that political philosophy inevitably informs the analyses and decisions. The current understanding of how fields of study are conceptualized is that no one is able to use analytical tools without interpretive frame. Framing the analysis may be done through one or more specific conceptual frameworks, a theoretical paradigm or mini-paradigm, a philosophy. Eliciting the philosophy that underlies analyses, interpretation and how the results are understood is therefore an inherent part of the research methodology, even if statistics are used and the approach uses numbers to situate policy stakes. Facts are inevitably filtered though an interpretive lens, and numbers are numbering qualities, therefore ways of apprehending possible perspectives on reality. Following are a few interpretive contexts that inform language education policy studies. Immanuel Kant’s stand that humans could emancipate themselves from epistemic and moral imprisonment using the power of reason forms such a context. The veil of ignorance and domination, in the Kantian model could be lifted through reflection. Hegel pursued this idea that individuals were social beings fulfilling ethical ends through a civil society, under governments that were the final authorities in the creation of a system of justice, on the ground of universal reason (Cohen & Arato, 1994). The Kantian model was socialized and historicized in Hegel’s conception of spirit and later in Marx’s critical philosophy (Samp, 1978). Marx's universal claims were assimilationist: one language for all would help the cause of the International. In regard, the nuanced, libertarian ideas of Michel Bakounine were more prone to welcome a diversity of positions, political cultures and languages. Bakounine was probably the most progressive activist in favor of a deep intercultural comprehension across
Chapter 1 — François Victor Tochon
peoples through the mastery of a plurality of languages (Grawitz, 1990). His quasi-native proficiency in English, French, German, Italian, as well as his native Russian helped him negotiate treaties and conceptualize international policies that were respectful of local identities, which made him, at their time, considerably more famous than Karl Marx. Emancipation, in the later models, would result from a deep inquiry into the historical, cultural, and social problems of the past and the present. The turmoil of Eurocentric modernity with its exclusion and domination of the South, the Indigenous, and its subservience of the local created financial dependency, colonialism and imperialism, various forms of totalitarianism and genocides, in the main subjugating and exploiting resources from the Third World. Such are the contradictions of the so-called global mindset. These aspects are developed in a number of chapters and are theorized in Chapter 15 in particular. As in many respects globalization may appear as a technofascist take-over organized by international corporations and financial organizations that place themselves above national laws, the idea of civil democracy is being reactivated in progressive milieus. Jürgen Habermas postulated that modernity as a project was evolving and evolutionary, and various proposals emerge from this perspective, such as Werner Ulrich’s critical hermeneutic. It highlights key principles for a direct civil democracy, which legitimate a return to the local. Yet in various fields defining the local seems to be an uneasy endeavor (Druc, 2013). To deal with the underside of modernity from a progressive perspective equates adopting some form of struggle to liberate oneself and the other from marginalization, subconscious bias and intellectual inadvertency, and mental and economic slavery (Tamdgidi, 2013). Whether language education policies may contribute to this emancipation or, on the contrary, maintain a status quo in which financial elites keep their privileges over a vast majority of peoples placed under control may be highlighted by such critical and ethical hermeneutics (Barber, 1998).
There is not much research on the way this struggle relates to language education policy. Language education, as well as language-in-education, play a somewhat invisible role in the vast oppression schemes exercised by modern societies and governments, whether they claim being on the right or the left of the political spectrum (Shohamy, 2006). In both cases, mass systems of schooling and higher education alike appear to alienate and “kill” certain languages and cultures for the sake of preserving the power and interest of the locally and internationally dominant. Language Education Policy studies may highlight new disparities at a time the role of Education is changing, as it is more and more delegated to electronic technologies and their dominant languages, very few actually. The numerous extrications and mutual implications of a large variety of factors affecting the use of languages in education settings, the way they are controlled or on the contrary escape control and sometimes are “plebiscited” by populations of parents make such studies potentially compelling in their complexity. While more and more international partners of educational change ponder the impact of the Westernization of economies, cultures and the languages of schooling, possible reformulations in the Eurocentric assumptions are proposed at a time of crucial shift of power from the West to the East. An alliance of some 130 non-aligned countries demands that the rules of functioning of the United Nations be fundamentally modified for a better representation of the soft powers (…). Powerful whistleblowers denounce the abuse of power of corruption of the International Monetary Fund as well as the World Bank (…). They gather with the new financial powers of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) to create a new international financial banking systems and fight against the poverty, ecological devastation, and social injustice born from the Western banking practices and abusive usury (Perkins, 2007). Within this new context, there is an opportunity for Language Education Policy studies to develop more culturally relevant and respectful schemes, able to smooth language conflicts and promote a large variety of school and education contexts for
Chapter 1 — François Victor Tochon
minorities and those language speakers who may not be a numerical minority but lack political power. In sum, political philosophy is required to make language education policies sharper and more relevant.
Language Education Policy and Social Reflection English as a lingua franca is re-visited with critical assumptions: it is becoming the ownership of the outer circle of English Second Language speakers, who represent twice the number of native English speakers. While English may have been considered the language of wealth, as would attest its teaching in elite and military academia around the planet (Rahman, 2004), it is associated with market ideology that has proven to lead to the devastation of our world and its various ecosystems. Therefore new rationales are emerging for a re-thinking of the ideology behind the language of power, and the need to conceptualize language education policies in terms that will support the survival of the human species rather than its extinction, which has been anticipated by various ecologists and economists to happen in the second half of the present century, unless a drastic change of orientation occurs in our wary, absurd and irresponsible ways of life. Schooling is subservient to political control and systems of reason that channel official knowledge, and authorize certain imaginaries to the exclusions of others. Its focus on reproduction is scaffolded by policies that maintain the status quo. Changing policy may not modify the perpetuation of this game of power, in which decisions are almost inevitably meant to strengthen the financial interests of major stakeholders who lobby government to make sure any decision will profit their group rather than the interests of all. In this light policy studies should be reframed in an analytics of how and why policy regulations are enacted in ways that may contradict their initial intent. This concerns policy implementation. Menken and Garcia (2010) noted in their introduction that "little research exists about the complex process
of language policy implementation within educational contexts" (p.1). They consider that educators, in a broad sense, are "at the epicenter of language policy in education," as they interpret, negotiate, resist and (re)create language policies in the classroom. Thus they define the new field of research as the study "bridging the divide between policy and practice by analyzing their interconnectedness" (cover page). They propose ten guiding principles for teachers to research and become aware of language education policies and practices in their school environment surrounding the population they serve: understanding sociolinguistic profiling, management policy, beliefs, attitudes, ideologies and motivations, and how staffing, organization and leadership structure in school interact with curriculum and pedagogy and impact teacher planning. For the teacher, becoming aware of the implicit or explicit, covert or overt language education policies may help them bridge their practices with goals that are crucial for social justice, as Osborn (2006) demonstrated. The chapters in this book will attest that, in various countries, the metanarrative of globalization transgresses borders to create intercultural imaginaries that convey implicit but efficacious arguments leading peoples to accept an imperial language as the key competitor of their mother tongue is their own lives (Liddicoat, 2013; Ramanathan, 2013). The linguistic spaces that we share shape our existence through identities that connect and disconnect us from particular communities. The idea that communication of practices might be freely chosen is absent from the concept of language education policy. Even counter policies might enforce strategies opposing the principle of free will idealized by modern societies. Citizenship appears to be ineluctably framed, maybe reframed, however free will and autonomy in the choice of language practices could be considered the seed for anarchistic dis-citizenships, as laws define the rules of inclusion and exclusion in terms of power and status differentials (Lo Bianco, 2009; Makoni, 2013). Our lack of civil reflection and of depth in education propels our market-based so-named civilization like a car at full speed in
Chapter 1 — François Victor Tochon
the direction of a brick wall, and the only policies proposed are similar to slightly reducing the speed by 10%, not to change the direction (Latouche, 2010). One way out with a vision of change would be a re-valuing of the philosophies so far foreclosed, ignored, and rejected in the underside of modernity, and giving to the “other” philosophies of life the place they deserve, as money making is not the only possible goal in life, and the search for happiness may require a new type of society, maybe less profitable for the elites but safer for all of us, nicer and more livable that the current rat race in which, like the 1820 painting Duel au gourdin of Francisco José de Goya illustrated, we all are like struggling fighters in a dangerous moving quicksand ground. A shallow analysis may suggest that our current state of affairs is directed by a superclass (Rothkopf, 2008) whose means to stay in power are usury, obedience systems, disinformation and tight control of the medias, fear, systemic propagation of disease in the name of health, theft, murder, corruption and bribery. Notwithstanding a deeper analysis might reveal that even without the self-serving financial superclass evidenced by Swiss Polytechnicum research on financial corporations (Vitali, Glattfelder & Battiston, 2011), the concept of mass regulation through policies is highly problematic. Policies often produce results at the opposite of expectations. By the simple impact of the naming process, policies may enslave when they were supposed to free certain groups, stimulating strong and lasting antagonistic relations, or creating a climate of suspicion in which it becomes impossible to produce positive effects. Thus Language Education Policies cannot be separated from a reflection on society, political philosophy, and cultural anthropology. The underlying postulate that proponents of language education policies, whatever they may be, could organize existence and what is important for others situates the inherent challenge and paradox of this field of action, in theory and practice. It relates to human eco-systems and their fabrication, maintenance and dissolution, and for that reason it leads to question the imaginaries behind mass decisions, and their impacts
regarding such principles as freedom, autonomy, diversity, social justice, peace, and choices for a better society. At a time some scientists believe that we live the 6th major extinction of species on this planet, as fifty to two hundred species apparently disappeared every day for the last thirty years (Wilson, 1993) and the situation is getting worse as so called economic growth has a side impact and increases natural catastrophes linearly, governments are shy at taking any significant measures to change the trend, only a measure of the limitations of policies themselves. The urgent need for awakening civil citizenship may help us move in a new direction. This is not a work of imposed education but the creation of a new momentum for individuals and local microsocieties alike to take care of their own information about ways to change their lives, and do otherwise in their own way, as soon as possible, which means now. Regulations and policies may become obstructive depending the context, maybe faulty, off track and lead to chaos and greater mayhem than the absence of such policies. The simplistic view that some people can regulate disorder is itself a cause for the greatest disorders this humanity may have ever known: world wards among other events. Regulators and policy makers should be held accountable for the mayhem they create in the name, for example, of accountability. The willingness to control human destiny so far seems to have been grounded in some of the elites’ desire to create the most profitable situation for themselves, rather than providing the tools of emancipation and empowerment that would ensure their own survival as well. In this light, policies need to be re-framed in a more proactive way: indicated on the basis of clear philosophical, moral and practical grounding that only a move in the direction of our general interest on the basis of free will and deliberate local action may turn into recovering forms of diversity able to produce a variety of answers to the dilemmas we are facing today.
50 Chapter 1 — François Victor Tochon References
Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (2006). Rearticulating the case for micro language planning in a language ecology context. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(2–3), 147–170. Baldauf, R. B., Jr. , Li, M., & Zhao S. (2008). Language acquisition management inside and outside the school. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The Handbook of Educational Linguistics (pp.233250). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Barber, M. D. (1998). Ethical Hermeneutics. New York: Fordham University Press. Benedikter, T. (2009). Language Policy and Linguistic Minorities in India. Berlin & Piscataway, NJ: Lit Verlag & Transaction Publishers. Cézaire, A. (1955). Discours sur le colonialisme, suivi de Discours sur la Négritude. Paris: Présence Africaine. Cézaire, A. (1972). Discourse on Colonialism (Trans. J. Pinkham). New York: Monthly Review Press. Cha, Y.-K., & Ham, S.-H. (2008). The impact of English on the school curriculum. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The Handbook of Educational Linguistics (pp.313-327). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Cohen, J. L., & Arato, A. (1994). Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe (2003). Relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Druc, I. C. (2013). What is local: Looking at ceramic production in the Peruvian Highlands and beyond. Journal of Archaeological Research, 69(4), 485-514. Fettes, M. (2003). The geostrategies of interlingualism. In J. Maurais & M. A. Morris (eds.), Languages in a Globalising World (pp. 37–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fishman, J. A. (2006). DO NOT Leave Your Language Alone: The Hidden Status Agendas Within Corpus Planning in Language Policy. London & New York: Routledge. Grawitz, M. (1990). Michel Bakounine. Paris: Plon. Habermas, J. (1985). Theorie des Kommunikativen Handels (The theory of communicative action). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag. Higgins, C. (2009). English as a Local Language: Post-colonial Identities and Multilingual Practices. Multilingual Matters. Hornberger, N. H., & Hult, F. M. (2008). Ecological Language Education Policy. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The Handbook of Educational Linguistics (pp.280-296). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hult, F. M. (2004). Planning for Multilingualism and Minority Language Rights in Sweden. Language Policy 3(2): 181—201. Hult, F. M. (2010). Analysis of Language Policy Discourses across the Scales of Space and Time. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 202, 7-24. Hult, F. M., & Compton, S. E. (2012). Deaf Education Policy as Language Policy: A Comparative Analysis of Sweden and the United States. Sign Language Studies, 12(4), 602-620. Kant, I. (2005). Kant Political writings (Hans Reiss ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, R. B. & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (1997). Language Planning From Practice to Theory. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kaplan, R. B. & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (2003). Language and Language-inEducation Planning in the Pacific Basin. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN: a multilingual model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Latouche, S. (2010). Farewell to Growth. New York: Polity. Lewis, M. P., & Trudell, B. (2008). Language Cultivation in Contexts of Multiple Community Languages. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The Handbook of Educational Linguistics (pp.266-279). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Liddicoat, A. J. (2005). Corpus planning. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 993– 1011). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chapter 1 — François Victor Tochon
Liddicoat, A. (2013). Language-in-education Policies: The Discursive Construction of Intercultural Relations. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Lo Bianco, J. (2009). Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and language policy and planning (LPP): Constraints and applications of the critical in language planning. In T. Le, Q. Le and M. Short (Eds.), Critical Discourse Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp.101-119). New York: Nova Science. Makoni, B. (2013). Language, Gender and Citizenship: Re-framing Citizenship from a Gender Equality Perspective. In V. Ramanathan (Ed.), Language Policies and (Dis)Citizenship. Rights, Access, Pedagogies (pp.19-34). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters. Menken, K., & Garcia, O. (2010). Negotiating Language Policies in Schools. Educators as Policymakers. London & New York: Routledge. North, B. (2008). Levels and Goals: Central Frameworks and Local Strategies. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The Handbook of Educational Linguistics (pp.220-232). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Osborn, T. A. (2006). Teaching world languages for social justice. A sourcebook of principles and practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Perkins, J. (2007). The secret history of the American Empire: Economic hit men, jackals, and the truth about global corruption. New York: Dutton. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1996). English only worldwide or language ecology? TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 429–452. Rahman, T. (2004). English Teaching Institutions in Pakistant. In S. Mansoor, S. Meraj and A. Tahir (Eds.), Language Policy and Planning in Practice (pp.27-52). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Ramanathan, V. (2013). Language Policies and (Dis)Citizenship. Rights, Access, Pedagogies. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters. Rothkopf, D. (2008). Superclass: the global power elite and the world they are making. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Samp, M. (1978). Marxism and Education. London & New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. New York: Routledge. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic Genocide in Education or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spolsky, B. (2009). Language Management. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tamdgidi, M. H. (2013). Tackling the Enormity of Intellectual Inadvertency. Human Architecture: Journal of he Sociology of SelfKnowledge, 11(1), vii-xxii. Tochon, F. V. (2013). Effectiveness Of Deep, Blended Language Learning As Measured By Oral Proficiency And Course Evaluation. J. of the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages, 14, 53-88. Tochon, F. V. (2014). Help Them Learn a Language Deeply: François Victor Tochon’s Deep Approach to World Language and Cultures. Blue Mounds, WI: Deep University Press. Tollefson, J. W., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). Medium of Instruction Policies. Which Agenda? Whose Agenda? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tsuda, Y. (1994). The diffusion of English: Its impact on culture and communication. Keio Communication Review, 16, 49–61. Tsuda, Y. (1997). Hegemony of English vs. ecology of language: Building equality in international communication. In L. Smith & M. Forman (eds.), World Englishes 2000, Vol. 14 (pp. 21–31). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Ulrich, W. (2000). Reflective practice in the civil society: The contribution of critically systemic thinking. Reflective Practice, 1(2), 247–268. UNESCO (2003). Education in a Multilingual World. Paris: UNESCO. Vitali, S., Glattfelder, J. B., & Battiston, S. (2011). The network of global control. Zurich, CH: ETH Zurich, System Designs. Retrieved from: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf Wilson, E. D. (1993). The Diversity of Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, Belknap Press.
Notes on the contributors Dr. Maria Alfredo Moreira (Ph.D. in Foreign Language Education, 2004) is an Assistant Professor at the University of Minho, Portugal. She works as a teacher educator and has been involved in research projects and publications in the areas of foreign language education, teacher supervision, and action research as a teacher development strategy. She has been involved in projects funded by the UNICEF, by national governments (Timor-Leste) and by the European Union. These projects involved the design of secondary education and teacher education curricula, as well as teaching, and R&D activities in a multicultural and multilingual environment. She supervises Brazilian Ph.D. students and East Timorese M.Ed. students. Her post-doctoral research was undertaken at the University of Washington (Seattle) on teacher education for multicultural social justice. She has participated in conferences and published in both national and international contexts, such as USA, Brazil, Middle East, and several European countries (besides Portugal). She has also been involved in the organization of several conferences, including for the American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies. Currently she is the chief editor for Revista Portuguesa de Educação (Portuguese Journal of Education) and served as a reviewer for several national and international scientific journals and conferences, among which the AERA. Contact: [email protected]
Dr. Catherine Compton-Lilly is an Associate Professor in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin Madison. She teaches courses in literacy studies and works with professional development schools in Madison. Among the books she has edited or authored are: Reading Families: The Literate Lives of Urban Children (Teachers College Press, 2003), Rereading Families (Teachers College Press, 2007), and Reading Time: The literate lives of urban secondary students and their families (Teachers College Press, 2012). In these books she describes her experiences in following eight of her former first
Notes on the Contributors
grade students through middle school. She is currently writing about the high school experiences of these same students. Dr. Compton-Lilly has authored articles in the Reading Research Quarterly, Research in the Teaching of English, The Reading Teacher, Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, The Reading Teacher, and Language Arts. Dr. Compton-Lilly engages in longitudinal research projects that last over long periods of time. Her interests include examining how time operates as a contextual factor in children’s lives as they progress through school and construct their identities as students and readers. In a ongoing study, Dr. Compton-Lilly is working with a team of graduate students to follow fifteen children from immigrant families from primary school through high school. Catherine Compton-Lilly is currently the editor-in-chief of Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research. Contact: [email protected]
Raised as trilingual in a multilingual area, Bukhara, Uzbekistan, Madina Djuraeva is currently writing her dissertation proposal in the World Language Education Area in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of WisconsinMadison. Her dissertation work is on multilingual practices of the youth in Kazakhstan. She is especially interested in how broader socio-economic and cultural-historic events situate a multilingual subject. Therefore, along with a historical and socio-cultural lense, she employs a policy lens by looking at language policies and reforms of the state. She has presented at various conferences such as AAAL 2014, MEHAT 2013 and CESS 2013, where she presented on her papers about multilingualism and identity, internationalization of language education, and language policies in higher education. She is currently located at Wisconsin Center for Education Research where she works as a Project Assistant for Word Instructional Design and Assessment Consortium, which supports academic language development and academic achievement for linguistically diverse students through high quality standards, assessments, research, and professional development for educators. Contact: [email protected]
426 Language Education Policy
Dr. Bertha Du-Babcock is Associate Professor at City University of Hong Kong. She is currently in her second term as the Vice President for the Asia and the Pacific Region of the Association for Business Communication. She has received the Distinguished Member Award in 2010, the Kitty O Locker Outstanding Researcher in 2008, the Meada Gibbs Outstanding Teaching Award in 2004, the Outstanding Article Award in the Journal of Business Communication in 2007, and the Outstanding Article Award in the Business Communication Quarterly in 2001. Her research interests focus primarily on the development of language-based communication zones, organizational communication in multinational corporations, and the communication behaviors in intercultural decision-making meetings; and secondly, the teaching of professional communication and crosscultural management and communication. Dr. Du-Babcock’s research has been published in various international refereed journals. She also has served as an editorial reviewer and guess reviewer for ten international refereed journals and external examiner for PhD theses and managerial communication courses. Contact: [email protected]
Dr. Dinh Van Duc did his major in Linguistics and Vietname Studies and graduated from Hanoi University, Lecturer in 1965. He received his Doctorate degree from Moscow National University in 1978), then became a Senior Lecturer and, since 1991 an associate professor, and since 1996 a professor of Linguistics at VNU. He headed the Department of Linguistics and Vietnamese Studies at VNU from 1995 to 2004, and was the Director of the Center for Asian- Pacific Studies from 2006 to 2012. Since 2012 he is Professor at Hong Bang University International in Ho Chi Minh City. He was an invited professor in various universities such as the University Paris VII (1991 & 2006), OPEL- UREF (Paris ,1994), Laval University (Quebec, 1995), the University of Wisconsin in the SEASSI Program (1995) and the University of Oregon (1998), Hankuk Seoul University, South Korea (2005). Among other publications, the Professor Van Duc published a History of the Vietnamese languages, a Grammar and various
Notes on the Contributors
linguistic analyses on aspect and functional aspects of the language. He is the author of Language and Mind: An Approach (VNU Hanoi Press, 2013) and Studies in Vietnamese Grammar (I&II, VNU Hanoi Press, 2014). Prof. Van Duc is the author of more than 50 articles on Theoretical Vietnamese Linguistics, Historical Vietnamese Linguistics, and Vietnamese Linguistic Culture. Contact: [email protected]
Dr. Haiying Feng is Assistant Professor at the University of International Business and Economics in China, and Associate Editor for the Asian ESP Journal. Her primary research interests are in English for Specific Purposes, genre analysis, intercultural rhetoric and intercultural communication. She published several journal articles and a book with Peter Lang on academic grantseeking activity, and recently an article on Chinese scholarly publication policy in the journal of Language Policy. She is currently working on a research project on Chinese women scholars’ identity construction in seeking academic publication and also a collaborative project with Bertha Du-Babcock on intercultural business persuasive writing. Contact: [email protected]
Dr. Manuel Fernández Cruz, Bachelor of Education and Doctor of Education, is Professor at the University of Granada since 1992. He is currently Head of Department in Curriculum and School Administration, and General Coordinator of International Consortium MUNDUSFOR (Erasmus Mundus Master in Professionals in Training). He is also research team coordinator on Competences & Higher Education of the Doctorate on Education at University of Granada. Dr. Fernández Cruz has authored several articles and books about auto-biographicalnarrative method, in the field of teachers professional development. Since 2010, he is Director of Programmes of consulting company labOSfor. Dr. Fernández Cruz engages in researches on Early Childhood Development in several countries of Latin America, and he is editor-in-chief of scientific and professional magazine Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT. Contact: [email protected]
428 Language Education Policy
Dr. Felix Etxeberria, Doctorate in Child Education and Diploma in Psychology, is professor of Education at the University of the Basque Country. He is also Jean Monnet Professor (Education and European Construction). His main research lines are bilingualism and education, education with immigrants, school drop-out and failure, and violence at school. He has published many articles and books on those topics and his latest works are Basque, Spanish and Immigrant Minority Languages in Basque School, (2008), Integración del alumnado inmigrante: obstáculos y propuestas (2010), Alumnado inmigrante: entre la marginación y la asimilación (2010). Contact: [email protected]
Kristine M. Harrison is in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin-‐Madison. Her doctoral research focuses on Indigenous Studies of Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory in the Caribbean under the jurisdiction of U.S. Language Education Policy. She is analyzing the policy and curriculum, as well as conducting interviews with teachers about their constraints and practices, regarding the erasure or maintenance of language and knowledge about the Indigenous presence on the island. She is also focusing on the effect of how curriculum and teaching affect identity formation. She started her doctoral studies by studying the many extreme factors that surround Native American educational and language history, such as forced language shift and cultural assimilation, as well as unwritten historical connections and legacies. Her goal is to work in the field of Multilingual Education developing educational strategies at many levels for language reclamation and revitalization, hopefully in Puerto Rico as well as with a Wisconsin language group; and to become the liaison between Indigenous language preservation groups and the broader political, philosophical and pedagogical themes that are involved. Her language teaching includes English and Spanish in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Morocco, Oman, and Wisconsin. Contact: [email protected]
Notes on the Contributors
Dr. Jose Gijón Puerta, Bachelor of Biology and Doctor of Pedagogy, is Assistant Professor at the University of Granada since 2008, specialized in Social Education teaching. Currently is Vice Dean of Innovation, Transfer and Quality of Faculty of Education. As researcher, he is Head of the Research Group SEJ059 ProfesioLab, focused on training and professionalization. Dr. Gijón Puerta research in the fields of concept mapping and in the area of internationalization of higher education, has been published in various international refereed journals. Currently he is working in researches on competencies-based teaching and training for entrepreneurship. Dr. Gijón Puerta has been Advisor of Andalusian Council of Education from 1998 to 2004 and since 2010 he is Head of Internationalization of consulting company labOSfor. Contact: [email protected]
Jing Peng, Ph.D., is a Professor at the Research Centre of Language, Cognition and Language Application, Chongqing University, China. She teaches English Curriculum and Instruction to MA students in Foreign Language College. Her areas of interest include: teacher education, teacher development, and ELT methodology. In recent years she has done school, regional and national projects for primary and secondary schools and published extensively in the areas of ELT curriculum innovations, methodology, and teacher education. She has also been involved in teacher education program sponsored by Tin Ka Pin Foundation, Hong Kong, and projects supported by British Council. Contact: [email protected]
Timothy Reagan (Ph.D., University of Illinois, ChampaignUrbana), is currently the Dean of the Graduate School of Education at Nazarbayev University in Astana, Kazakhstan. He has held numerous faculty and administrative positions in the United States, South Africa, and Kazakhstan. His areas of interest include language-in-education policy in South Africa, foreign language education and critical pedagogy, and the linguistics of both American Sign Language and South African Sign Language. Most recently, he has been engaged in work on language policy in Kazakhstan. Reagan is the author of more than a dozen books and
430 Language Education Policy
150 refereed journal articles and book chapters, dealing with issues related to educational policy studies, educational reform, comparative education, educational linguistics, and interlinguistics. His most recent book, published by Gallaudet University Press in 2012, is Language Policy and Planning for Sign Languages. Reagan is also becoming the Editor-in-Chief of the international journal Language Problems and Language Planning later in 2013. Contact: [email protected]
Sunny Schomaker (ABD) is a PhD candidate in the World Language Education program in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Areas of research include how language and educational policy, at all levels, is interpreted through classroom practices, as well as how policy shapes and is shaped by discourse(s) about language(s). Her dissertation, Resistance Is Durable, Not Futile: Local Organization in an Arabic Immersion Program, investigates the co-constructed nature of resistance in the language classroom. She has taught English as a Second Language for community programs, private language schools, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and has taught French at Madison College. Contact: [email protected]
Teresa Speciale is a doctoral student in Educational Policy Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She has a master’s degree in International Education from The George Washington University. Her research areas include language policy in West Africa, education in urban Africa, and privatization of schooling in Africa. Her dissertation research focuses on the relationship between language, education, and social class in Dakar, Senegal. She can be reached at [email protected]
. Dr. Francois Victor Tochon is a Professor in the Departments of Curriculum & Instruction and French & Italian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He has a Ph.D. in Curriculum & Instruction (Université Laval), a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology (Ottawa University), and received the equivalent of Honorary Doctorates from two universities in Argentina and Peru. From 2001 to 2007, he headed World Language Education and since 2008 the Graduate Program in World Language Education. Prof.
Notes on the Contributors
Tochon worked on intercultural issues related to bilingualism in various countries and international language policies, looking for new ways to organize language teaching and learning. In 20092011, he received an award from the U.S. Department of Education to create, research and evaluate a Deep Approach to foreign language curricula that would respect a pluralistic and federative view of language policies. It allowed him to format an interface between language policies and classroom curricula and practices. He was also awarded grants from Spencer and Tubitak— National Science and Technology Foundation of Turkey—to study ways to internationalize Education through e-portfolios, world languages and an intercultural approach. With twenty-five books and more than hundred fifty articles and book chapters to his credit, Prof. Tochon has also been Visiting Professor in many universities in 20 countries. He is currently published in 11 languages. Among his books: Tropics of Teaching: Productivity, Warfare, and Priesthood (University of Toronto Press); The Foreign Self: Truth Telling as Educational Inquiry (Atwood); Help them Learn a Language Deeply (Deep University Press). He received the 2010 Award of Best Review of Research from the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the 2012 Award of International Excellence from the University of Granada, Spain. He is among the 1% most visited profiles on both LinkedIn and Academia, and received the 2013-2014 Medal of the International Lions Club Foundation for his contributions to Academia and Humanity. Contact: [email protected]
Jaime Usma is a teacher educator and active researcher at Grupo de Investigación Acción y Evaluación en Lenguas Extranjeras, GIAE at the School of Languages, University of Antioquia in Colombia. He combines his research, publications, and teaching on foreign language education policymaking with an active participation in policy initiatives at the city, university, and school level. Since 2010, and based on his research inside schools around the city, he has lead a professional development initiative currently called “IN SITU Program”, which has a direct impact on more than 150 schools and 400 teachers in the public sector in
432 Language Education Policy
Medellín. This program, funded with public resources of the Secretariat of Education in Medellín, is now being used by the local and national authorities as a locally created and responsive model to improve the teaching and learning conditions inside schools, and to respond to the current reforms being adopted in the city and country. Contact: [email protected]
Shicheng Zheng is a graduate student major in English curriculum and instruction, Chongqing University. He has been working as a teaching assistant in the College of Foreign Languages and Cultures. His areas of interest include: curriculum, EFL teaching methodology, and teacher talk. He mainly focuses on the group of young learners (age 7-12). He has done several studies and researches on the curriculum development and methodologies of teaching English as a foreign language to young EFL learners in China. Currently, he is working with Dr. Peng on a longitudinal case study on the assessment of EFL young learners in a primary school in Chongqing, China. Contact: [email protected]
Dr. Ye Zhu is an associate professor of English language and literature at the Shanghai International Studies University, China. His research interests include applied linguistics, bilingual education and intercultural communication. He is the author of about 10 academic monographs, dictionaries and research articles as well as the developer of 5 national English textbooks for university and high school students. He conducted his postdoctoral research “English-Chinese Bilingual Education in China: Problems and Suggested Solutions” at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University from 2008 to 2010. Currently he is writing the book “China’s English-Chinese Bilingual Education in the 21st Century”. Contact: [email protected]
Academia: Cultural community of practice engaged in education and research to collaborate in the fixation of beliefs in every branch of learning. The akademeia outside Athens was Plato’s famous learning center, or gymnasium. Accuracy: Normed language production. Achievement test: A test supposed to measure what students have learned from a program of study; evaluative part of most language programs, which attempts at matching the goals of the language course. Expression of a reductionist trend hypothesizing that achievement can be defined and measured is ways that can be generalized for all students in the same manner. Very few such tests measure deep learning; on the contrary, these tests often tend to induce shallow learning. Activism: Engagement in community organizing for social change and meaningful involvement. Activity Theory: A Soviet psychological framework rooted in the sociocultural approach of Alexei Leontyev and S. L. Rubinshtein. It became one of the major theories for applied psychology, education and work psychology. Alternative education: non-traditional approach to teaching and learning for students of all ages and all levels of education. Assessment: Is the validation of learning activities with a logic of accountability that may, in many cases, be counterproductive and backlash in reducing the power to learn. Autodidactism or autodidacticism: Self-education or self-directed learning, one of the conditions for deep learning. An autodidact is a mostly self-taught person, who has an enthusiasm for selfeducation and a high degree of intrinsic motivation. Bilingual education as various definitions: • • • •
two languages are used for teaching; help is provided for children to become bilingual (such as twoway bilingual education); regional or native language is first used, followed by mainstreaming in classes in the national of official language; regional or native language is used with minimal instruction the other language.
434 Language Education Policy
Biliteracy: being literate in two or more languages, and considered stronger than being simply bilingual, as reading and writing are added to proficiency in listening and speaking. Brainwashing: Use of covert or overt coercion to change the beliefs or behavior of people for ideological, moral, educational, religious, economic or political purposes. Coaching: A coach is a learning facilitator who teaches and trains another person via encouragement, feedback and offer motivational support and advice. Code-switching: Interlingual switching by bilingual speakers or intralingual switching between discourse types. Switching between subcodes in any sign system. Communicative competence: One of the key goals of language learning, achieved through: •
how well a person has learned features and rules of the language (grammatical competence), which includes vocabulary, pronunciation, and sentence formation.
how well a person speaks and is understood in social contexts (sociolinguistic competence ), which depends on factors such as status, purpose, and expectations.
how well a person combines grammatical forms and meanings to achieve different genres of speaking or writing (discourse competence ).
how well the person uses both verbal forms and non-verbal communication to compensate for lack of other competences (strategic competence ).
Communicative Language Teaching: an approach to world language learning that emphasizes communicative competence, as a reaction away from grammar-based approaches such as the audiolingual approach. Communicative teaching focuses on expression and understanding of functions such as requesting, describing likes and dislikes, using language appropriately in various situations, performing tasks, solving puzzles, or using language for social interaction with other people. Not incompatible with a Deep Approach if integrated with extensive reading and watching, such as reading clubs and video clubs, and intensive writing such as writing workshops.
Community of practice: Process of social learning occurring when learners or teachers who have a common interest in some discipline, topic or problem collaborate over an extended period to share plans and projects, look for solutions, and create innovations. Constructivism: Constructivism views all of knowledge as constructed, because it does not reflect any external transcendent reality; it is contingent on convention, perception and social experience. An extreme expansion of social determinism, it assumes that representations of physical and biological reality, including gender and race, are socially constructed. Set of assumptions about the nature of human learning guiding active learning theories and teaching methods: constructivism values developmentally appropriate, learner-centered learning that is initiated and directed by the student. Constructivist epistemology: A development in philosophy which criticizes essentialism, whether it is in the form of realism, rationalism, positivism or empiricism. It originated in sociology under the term social constructionism and has been given the name constructivism when referring to philosophical epistemology. Constructionism and constructivism are often used interchangeably. The common thread between various forms of constructivism is that they do not focus on an ontological reality, but on reality construction. Controlled practice: Teacher-controlled practice of language forms. Critical pedagogy: A teaching approach which attempts to help students question and challenge domination, and the beliefs and practices that dominate. In other words, it is a theory and practice of helping students achieve critical consciousness. In this tradition the teacher works to lead students to question ideologies and practices considered oppressive (including those at school), and encourage liberatory collective and individual responses to the actual conditions of their own lives. Critical thinking: Consists of a mental process of analyzing or evaluating information, particularly statements or propositions that people have offered as true. It forms a process of reflecting upon the meaning of statements, examining the offered evidence and reasoning, and forming judgments about the facts. Critical thinkers can gather such information from observation, experience, reasoning, and/or communication. Critical thinking has its basis in intellectual values that go beyond subject-matter divisions and
436 Language Education Policy
which include: clarity, accuracy, precision, evidence, thoroughness and fairness.
Cultural learning: The way a group of people within a society or culture tend to learn and pass on new information. Learning styles are greatly influenced by how a culture socializes with its children and young people. Culture: The sum of the beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, habits and customs of a group of people. Curriculum (plural curricula): The set of courses and their contents offered by an institution such as a school or university. In some cases, a curriculum may be partially or entirely determined by an external body. In the United States, the basic curriculum is established by each state with the individual school districts adjusting it to their desires. A designated set of related courses focused on a field of study. Deductive teaching: Also known as deduction, from the verb “to deduce”; a teaching technique in which the teacher presents language rules and the students then practice those rules in activities. Deductive teaching is usually based on grammar-based methodology and proceeds from generalizations about the language to specifics. (See “Inductive teaching”.) Deep Approach: Deep, reflective language learning stressing reading and writing before listening and speaking; promoting open projectbased activities such team and peer work, placing the student as curriculum builders on the basic of intrinsic motivation; codeswitching and scaffolding among peers is considered a natural part of deep second and third language development, which results not from automatism but from reflexive output in writing accompanied with extensive reading and listening or watching, and then in speaking. Deictic: Property of discourse markers specifying identity or spatial or temporal location from the perspective of the participants in an interaction, either in a situation or in surrounding discourse. Dialogical: in the form of dialogue, or relating to or using dialogue; of, pertaining to, or characterized by dialogue Discourse: system of representation including a repertoire of concepts and codes for creating and maintaining worldviews within an ontological domain or discursive field.
Distance education or distance learning) A field of education that focuses on the pedagogy/andragogy, technology, and instructional systems design that is effectively incorporated in delivering education to students who are not physically "on site" to receive their education. Instead, teachers and students may communicate asynchronously (at times of their own choosing) by exchanging printed or electronic media, or through technology that allows them to communicate in real time (synchronously). Distance education courses that require a physical on-site presence for any reason including the taking of examinations is considered to be a hybrid or blended course or program. Educational evaluation: Characterizing, valuing and appraising some aspect of education. No criteria can be exempt from subjectivity in the assessment process, even automated. Educational evaluation is a matter of choices on what to value and devalue, and therefore is social and political. Educational organization: Organization for the purpose of education. This does not mean organizing the educational system as a process; it rather deals with how organizational theory applies to educating humans. Education policy: Collection of explicit and implicit rules that govern the behavior of persons in schools. Education policy analysis is the scholarly study of education policy and common policy practices in a particular education setting. Education reform: Policy, program, plan or movement attempting to bring about a systemic change in education theory and practice across a school system, school district(s), community, a nation, or society. Efficacy: Measured on the basis of educational evaluation. Related to a paradigm or conceptual framework that defines what is to be considering important in terms of efficacy. Any evaluation paradigm may shadow possibly crucial aspects of learning and teaching. Empirical knowledge: Propositional experience or sensorial information.
Encoding: Producing text or discourse in actualizing relevant codes, foregrounding some meanings and backgrounding others. Engagement: The sentiment a student or teacher feels or does not feel towards learning or teaching, or the educational environment.
438 Language Education Policy
Epistemology: Branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, form, origin and scope of knowledge. Analysis of the way of knowing, focusing on the nature and type of knowledge and how it relates to verisimilitude, truth, trustworthiness, and belief, with a concern for the justification of knowledge claims. Experiential education, learning by doing: The process of actively engaging students in an authentic experience that will have benefits and consequences. Students make discoveries and experiment with knowledge themselves instead of hearing or reading about the experiences of others. Students also reflect on their experiences, thus developing new skills, new attitudes, and new theories or ways of thinking. Experiential education is related to the constructivist learning theory. Fluency: Natural, normal, native-like speech characterized by appropriate pauses, intonation, stress, register, word choice, interjections and interruptions. Form-focused instruction: The teaching of specific language content (lexis, structure, phonology). See “language content”. Genre: The category a piece of literature belongs to (ex: science fiction, biography). Grammar translation: A method of language teaching characterized by translation and the study of grammar rules. Involves presentation of grammatical rules, vocabulary lists, and translation. Emphasizes reading rather than communicative competence. Guided practice: An midway stage in teaching - between controlled and free practice activities; this stage implies limited guidance from the teacher who works as a facilitator. Heritage speaker: Student who is exposed to a language other than the official or national language at home. Some students have full oral fluency and literacy in the home language; others may have full oral fluency but their written literacy was not developed because they were schooled in English. Another group of students -- typically third- or fourth-generation -- can speak to a limited degree but cannot express themselves on a wide range of topics. Students from any of these categories may also have gaps in knowledge about their cultural heritage. Teachers who have heritage speakers of the target language in their class should assess which proficiencies need to be maintained and which need to be developed further. See also native speaker.
Heuristic teaching: helping students to learn through discovery and investigation; a method of teaching allowing pupils to learn things for themselves. Hidden curriculum: Idea that schools do more than simply transmit knowledge written in the curricula: curricula may have invisible agendas, social implications, political underpinnings, and cultural outcomes. Holistic: related to holism, non-binary, integrative and responding the transdisciplinary principle of the inclusive third in its relation to the whole rather than the parts of a complex system. Homeostasis: process by which a complex system keeps balance within stable conditions of functioning whatever the conditions in its environment. Homologous: having a related or similar position, structure Illocutionary: of or relating to the intention of a statement rather than it's overt meaning Immersion: In this model, most commonly found in elementary schools, general academic content (the primary educational goal) is taught in the target language, and language proficiency is a parallel outcome. Individual districts design their programs such that English is introduced at a given grade level, with a gradually increasing percentage of time given to English language instruction. Partial immersion programs differ in the amount of time and number of courses taught in English and in the target language. Individualized instruction: A method of instruction in which content, instructional materials, instructional media, and pace of learning are based upon the abilities and interests of each individual learner. Inductive teaching: Also known as induction, from the verb “to induce”; a facilitative, student-centered teaching technique where the students discover language rules through extensive use of the language and exposure to many examples. This is the preferred technique in communicative language teaching. (See “ Deductive teaching”.) Informal assessment: During an informal assessment, a teacher evaluates students' progress while they are participating in a learning activity, for example, a small-group discussion. Results are typically used to make decisions about what to do next, namely,
440 Language Education Policy
whether the students are ready to move on or whether they need more practice with the material.
Interference: A phenomenon in language learning where the first language interferes with learning the target or foreign language. Interlanguage: The language a learner uses before mastering the foreign language; it may contain features of the first language and the target language as well as non-standard features. Interpretive community: Group of people sharing the same codes. Inquiry education: A student-centered method of education focused on asking questions. Students are encouraged to ask questions which are meaningful to them, and which do not necessarily have easy answers; teachers are encouraged to avoid speaking at all when this is possible, and in any case to avoid giving answers in favor of asking more questions. Instructional design: The analysis of learning needs and systematic development of instruction. Instructional designers often use instructional technology as a method for developing instruction. Instructional design models typically specify a method, that if followed will facilitate the transfer of knowledge, skills and attitude to the recipient or acquirer of the instruction. Instructional scaffolding: The provision of sufficient supports to promote learning when concepts and skills are being first introduced to students. Integrative learning: A learning theory describing a movement toward integrated lessons helping students make connections across curricula. This higher education concept is distinct from the elementary and high school "integrated curriculum" movement. Intrinsic motivation: Evident when people engage in an activity for its own sake, without some obvious external incentive present. A hobby is a typical example. Language Education Policy: Language Education Policy is a field of study that establishes a cross section between educational policy studies and language policy studies. It inherits from an abundance of intellectual and methodological traditions while opening new perspectives that focus on the interface between policymaking and its enactment in a classroom or an educational setting. The study of the interface between the macro-policy level of the political stage and the micro-policies of education in practice implies a focus on
how policy decisions are translated into regulations that affect the lives of people in the educational milieu.
Learning standard: Standardized Approaches to Content Development, Itemization, Publication, Assessments, Presentation, Feedback, Transmission and Runtime Packaging. There are various related and unrelated Learning Standards. Name any that apply to the specific piece of content. Lifelong learning: The concept that "It's never too soon or too late for learning", a philosophy that has taken root in a whole host of different organizations. Lifelong learning sees citizens provided with learning opportunities at all ages and in numerous contexts: at work, at home and through leisure activities, not just through formal channels such as school and higher education. Literacy: The quality of being educated and literate, and the ability to read and write with mastery over specific fields of knowledge. In modern context, the word means reading and writing in a level adequate for written communication and generally a level that enables one to successfully function at certain levels of a society. Literacy is now deictic, in other words sensitive to spatiotemporal changes, and is continually changing as technologies and social practices emerge while older practices fade away. Two features of contemporary literacies are: (1) the use of digital technologies for accessing, producing, interacting with and sharing meaningful content; (2) their hybrid and distributed, collaborative and participatory nature. Metalanguage: Language used to describe, analyze or explain another language. Metalanguage includes, for example, grammatical terms and the rules of syntax. The term is sometimes used to mean the language used in class to give instructions, explain things, etc. – in essence, to refer to all teacher talk that does not specifically include the “target language”. Motivation: The driving force behind all actions of human beings and other animals. It is an internal state that activates behavior and gives it direction. Emotion is closely related to motivation, and may be regarded as the subjectively experienced component of motivational states. Paradox: Students’ main motivators are factors the teacher has little control over (integrated versus instrumental motivation, which heavily influence time on task), yet motivation is critical to learning. Native speakers: Those who speak English as their mother tongue. A native speaker considers the target language to be his or her first
442 Language Education Policy
language. Teachers seek opportunities for students to communicate in person or through technology with native speakers. Students in foreign language classes who are first- or second-generation immigrants and who use the language extensively outside the classroom are also considered native speakers. These students typically maintain the cultural norms of their heritage in certain situations. See also heritage speaker.
Negotiation of meaning: In this process, teachers and students try to convey information to one another and reach mutual comprehension through restating, clarifying, and confirming information. The teacher may help students get started or work through a stumbling block using linguistic and other approaches. Paradigmatic shift: The term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to describe the process and result of a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. Don Tapscott was the first to use the term to describe information technology and business in his book of the same title. It has since become widely applied to many other realms of human experience as well. Peace education: The process of acquiring the knowledge and developing the attitudes, skills, and behavior to live in harmony with oneself and with others. Peace education is based on a philosophy that teaches nonviolence, love, compassion, trust, fairness, cooperation, respect, and a reverence for the human family and all life on our planet. It is a social practice with shared values to which anyone can make a significant contribution. Pedagogy: The art and science of teaching children, often used, by extension, for adult education. The term comes from the Greek paidagogos, the slave who took little boys to and from school. "Paidia" means ‘children’, which is why pedagogy is normally meant for children and andragogy is meant for adults. The Latin word for pedagogy, education, is more widely used. Personal development (self-development or personal growth): Comprises the development of the self. The term may also refer to: traditional concepts of education or training; counseling and coaching for personal transformation; New Age movement and spiritual beliefs & concepts - including "inner pathways" to solve social and psychological issues; or professional development educators treating the whole person instead of the profession only). Praxis: the practice and practical side of a profession or field of study, as opposed to the theory
Prescriptive grammar: Grammar that is described in terms of grammar rules of what is considered the best usage, often by grammarians; prescriptive grammar may not agree with what people actually say or write. Project: An extensive task purposely and collectively undertaken by group or individuals to apply knowledge and skills toward a targeted goal which will result in a product, within a certain timeframe. Proficiency level: Describes how well a student can use the language. Proficiency describes how well a person functions in a language. The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages further defines proficiency with a set of guidelines for assessing communicative abilities. The guidelines cover how an individual performs across three criteria: function, content/context, and accuracy. When combined, these criteria determine the student's communicative ability to be Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, or Superior. Proficiency tests: General tests that provide overall information on a student’s language proficiency level or ability; can be used to determine entry and exit levels of a language program or to adjust the curriculum according to the abilities of the students. Professionalism: More than simple vocational practice, professionalism characterizes an ethical attitude in professional problem solving, which indicates working with a conscience. Rapport: Relationship, usually a harmonious one, established within a classroom between teacher and students and among students. Reify: to consider or make (an abstract idea or concept) real or concrete Rhizomatic: rhizomatous: of or relating to a thick horizontal underground stem (called a rhizome) of plants such as the mint and iris whose buds develop new roots and shoots. Rote learning: A learning technique which avoids grasping the inner complexities and inferences of the subject that is being learned and instead focuses on memorizing the material so that it can be recalled by the learner exactly the way it was read or heard. Rubric: Set of criteria and standards linked to learning objectives, used to assess students’ performance, such as on a test, project, or essay. A type of assessment in which a score is derived from a list of expectations. Schooling: Teaching and learning that takes place in formal education environments.
444 Language Education Policy
Self-concept or self-identity: The mental and conceptual awareness and persistent regard that sentient beings hold with regard their own being. Components of a being's self-concept include physical, psychological, and social attributes; and can be influenced by its attitudes, habits, beliefs and ideas. These components and attributes can each be condensed to the general concepts of self-image and the self-esteem. Self-efficacy: The belief that one has the capabilities to execute the courses of actions required to manage prospective situations. Unlike efficacy, which is the power to produce an effect (in essence, competence), self-efficacy is the belief (however accurate) that one has the power to produce that effect. It is important here to understand the distinction between self-esteem and self efficacy. Self-esteem relates to a person’s sense of self-worth, whereas self efficacy relates to a person’s perception of their ability to reach a goal. For example, say a person is a terrible rock climber. They would likely have a poor efficacy in regard to rock climbing, but this wouldn’t need to affect their self-esteem; most people don’t invest much of their self-esteem in this activity. Self-study: The content is intended to be used as a medium of study that relies on one's own self to follow through on learning tasks related to a course, module, lesson or lab medium which are all also self-contained in a unit of medium or as a file type. Service learning: A method of teaching, learning and reflecting that combines academic classroom curriculum with meaningful youth service throughout the community. As a teaching methodology, it falls under the category of experiential education. More specifically, it integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, encourage lifelong civic engagement, and strengthen communities. Situated learning: Education that takes place in a setting functionally identical to that where the learning will be applied. Skill: An ability, usually learned, to perform actions. Social constructionism: A sociological theory of knowledge developed by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckman with their 1966 book, The Social Construction of Reality. The focus of social constructionism is to uncover the ways in which individuals and groups participate in the creation of their perceived reality. As an approach, it involves looking at the ways social phenomena are created, institutionalized, and made into tradition by humans.
Socially constructed reality is seen as an ongoing, dynamic process; reality is re-produced by people acting on their interpretations and their knowledge of it.
Social context: Environment in which meanings are exchanged. It can be analyzed in terms of the field of discourse, tenor of discourse, and mode of discourse. The field of discourse refers to what is being discussed; the tenor of discourse refers to the participants in the exchange of meaning, including who they are and their relationships with each other (for example, teacher and students); the mode of discourse refers to what part the language is playing with what production channel (writing or speaking). Student activism: A form of youth-led community organizing that is specifically oriented towards engaging students as activists in order to create change in the educational system. Student-centered learning: An approach to education focusing on the needs of the students, rather than those of others involved in the educational process, such as teachers and administrators. This approach has many implications for the design of curriculum, course content, and interactivity of courses. Also called learnercentered, a way of teaching that centers on the goals, needs, interests and existing knowledge of the students. Students actively participate in such classrooms and may even be involved in setting learning outcomes. Teachers in student-centered classrooms ask students for input on their goals, needs and interests and on what they know before providing them with study topics or answers to questions (for example, grammar rules). They may also ask students to generate (help produce) materials. The teacher is seen more as a facilitator or helper than the dominant figure in the classroom. Student teacher: Pre-service teacher having initial classroom experiences and practical training under the supervision of a cooperating teacher, or mentor teacher. Syntax: Sometimes called word order; how words combine to form sentences and the rules governing sentence formation. Taxonomy: the science or practice of classification, An educational taxonomy that classifies educational objectives into three domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Teacher: In education, one who teaches students, a course of study that requires planning instructional units, enabling the development of practical skills, including learning and thinking skills. There are numerous ways to teach and help students learn, often referred to as
446 Language Education Policy
pedagogy. When deciding what teaching method to use, a teacher usually considers the students' prior knowledge, the environment, and school genres, standards and curricula set by their school district. However the teacher rarely considers the ways to free the students from the system of alienation put into place to provide more space for autonomy and deep learning.
Teaching: the purposeful direction and management of fruitful conditions for deep learning processes to happen. Whole language: A term used by reading teachers to describe an instructional philosophy which focuses on reading as an activity best taught in a broader context of meaning. Rather than focusing on reading as a mechanical skill, it is taught as an ongoing part of every student's existing language and life experience. Building on language skills each student already possesses, reading and writing are seen as a part of a broader "whole language" spectrum. Wisdom: Intangible quality gained through experience, ability to make correct judgments and decisions, foreseeing consequences and acting to maximize beneficial results. From a complex system theory perspective, wisdom would be the attainment of homeostatic equilibrium, the balance between opposites. Wisdom is pragmatically determined by common sense, cultural, philosophical and spiritual sources.
Deep University Press 447
DEEP UNIVERSITY PRESS SCIENTIFIC BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Ronald C. Arnett, Chair and Professor, Department of Communication & Rhetorical Studies, Duquesne University Dr. Gilles Baillat, Rector, ex-Director of CDIUFM Conference of French Teacher Education Directors, University of Reims, France Dr. Niels Brouwer, Graduate School of Education, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, The Netherlands Dr. Yuangshan Chuang, President of APAMALL, NETPAW Director, Tajen University, Taiwan, ROC Dr. Enrique Correa Molina, Professor and Vice-Dean, Faculty of Education, University of Sherbrooke, Canada Dr. José Correia, Dean of Education, University of Porto, Portugal Dr. Muhammet Demirbilek, Head, Educational Science Department, Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey Dr. Ángel Díaz-Barriga Casales, Professor, Autonomous National University of México UNAM (Mexico) Dr. Isabelle C. Druc, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA Bertha Du-Babcock, Professor, Department of English for Business, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China Dr. W. John Coletta , Professor, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, USA Marc Durand, Professor, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Geneva, Switzerland Dr. Paul Durning, Doctoral School, French National Observatory, EUSARF, University of Paris X Nanterre, Paris, France
448 Language Education Policy Dr. Stephanie Fonvielle, Associate Professor, Teacher Education University Institute, University of Aix-Marseille, France Dr. Elliot Gaines, Professor, Wright State University, President of the Semiotic Society of America, Internat. Communicology Institute Dr. Mingle Gao, Dean, College of Education, Beijing Language and Culture University (BLCU), Beijing, China Dr. Mercedes González Sanmamed, Professor at the University of Coruña, Spain Dr. Gabriela Hernández Vega, Professor, University of Nariño, Colombia Dr. Liliana Morandi, Associate Professor, National University of Rio Cuarto, Cordoba, Argentina Dr. Joëlle Morrissette, Professor, Department of Educational Psychology, Université of Montreal, Quebec, Canada Dr. Martha Murzi Vivas, Professor, University of Los Andes, Venezuela Dr. Thi Cuc Phuong Nguyen, Vice Rector, Hanoi University, Vietnam Dr. Shirley O'Neill, Associate Professor, President of the International Society for leadership in Pedagogies and Learning, University of Southern Queensland, Australia Dr. José-Luis Ortega, Professor, Foreign Language Education, Faculty of Education, University of Granada, Spain Dr. Surendra Pathak, Head and Professor, Department of Value Education, IASE University of Gandhi Viday Mandir, India Dr. Charls Pearson, Logic, Semiotics, Philosophy of Science, Peirce Studies, Director of Research, Semiotics Research Institute Dr. Luis Porta Vázquez, Professor at the National University of Mar del Plata CONICET (Argentina) Dr. Shen Qi, Associate Professor, Shanghai Foreign Studies University (SHISU), Shanghai, China
Deep University Press 449 Dr. Timothy Reagan, Professor and Dean of the Graduate School of Education, ISLS Executive, Nazarbayev University, Kazaksthan Dr. Antonia Schleicher, Professor, NARLC Director, NCTOLCTL Exec. Director, ACTFL Board, Indiana University-Bloomington, USA Dr. Farouk Y. Seif, Exec. Director of the Semiotic Society of America, Center for Creative Change, Antioch University Seattle, Washington Dr. Gary Shank, Professor, Educational Foundations and Leadership, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Dr. Kemal Silay, Professor, Flagship Program Director, Department of Central Eurasia, Indiana University-Bloomington, USA Dr. José Tejada Fernández, Professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain Dr. François Victor Tochon, Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison, President of the International Network for Language Education Policy Studies, USA Dr. Brooke Williams Deely, Women, Culture and Society Program, Philosophy Department, University of St. Thomas, Houston Dr. Ronghui Zhao, Director, Institute of Linguistic Studies, Shanghai Foreign Studies University, Shanghai, China Other referees may be contacted depending the Book Series or the nature and topic of the manuscript proposed. Contact: [email protected]
450 Language Education Policy
Deep Language Learning Book Series Language learning needs to be reconceptualized in two ways: first, as an expression of dynamic planning prototypes that can be activated through self-directed projects. Second, integrating structure and agency to meet deeper, humane aims. The dynamism of human exchange is meaning- producing through multiple connected intentions among language task domains. Language-learning tasks have a cross-cultural purpose which then become meaningful within broader projects that meet higher values and aims such as deep ecology, deep culture, deep politics and deep humane economics. Applied semiotics will be a tool beyond the linguistic in favor of value-loaded projects that are chosen in order to revolutionize the current state of affairs, in increasing our sense of responsibility for our actions as humans vis-à-vis our fellow humans and our home planet. In this respect, deep instructional planning offers a grammar for action. Understanding adaptive and complex cross-cultural situations is the prime focus of such a hermeneutic inquiry.
For more, see here: http://deepuniversity.com/deeplanguage.html
Deep University Press 451
Language Education Policy Book Series Language Education Policy (LEP) is the process through which the ideals, goals, and contents of a language policy can be realized in education practices. Language policies express ideological processes. Their analysis reveals the perceptions of realities proper to certain sociocultural contexts. LEPs further their ideologies by defining and disseminating the values of policymakers. Because Language Education Policies are related to status, ideology, and vision of what society should be and traditions of thoughts, such issues are complex, quickly evolving, submitted to trends and political views, and they need to be studied calmly. The way to approach them is to get comparative information on what has been done in many settings, which are working or not, which are their flaws and merits, and try to grasp the contextual variables that might apply in specific locations, without generalizing too fast. Policy discourses and curricula reveal the ideological framing of the constructs that they encode and create, project, enact, and enforce aspects such as language status, power and rights through projective texts generated to forward and describe the contexts of their enactments. Policy documents are therefore socially transformative through their evaluative function that frames and guides action in order to achieve language reforms. While temperance and reflection are required to address such complex issues, because moving to fast may create trouble, nonetheless the absence of action in this domain may lead to systemic intolerance, injustice, inequity, mass discrimination and even, genocidal crimes.
452 Language Education Policy
Science Teachers Who Draw: The Red Is Always There Dr. Merrie Koester Project Draw for Science Center for Science Education University of South Carolina This book documents the ways in which science teacher researchers used drawing to construct semiotic spaces inside which students acquired significant aesthetic capital and agency. Many previously failing students brokered this new capital into improved academic achievement and a sense of felt freedom. Science Teachers Who Draw: The Red is Always There is a book which asks, “What happens when science teachers adopt an aesthetic approach to inquiry, using drawing to communicate deep understanding?” This narrative inquiry was driven by quantitative studies which reveal a robust positive correlation between students’ test scores in reading and science, beginning at the middle school level. When the data are disaggregated, there exists a vast achievement gap for low income and English language learners. Science teachers are faced with a semiotic nightmare. Often possessing inadequate pedagogical content knowledge themselves, science teachers must somehow symbolically communicate often highly abstract knowledge in ways that can be not only be decoded by their students’ but later used to construct deeper, more differentiated knowledge, which can be applied to make sense of and adapt successfully to life on Planet Earth. An invaluable resource for teachers, teacher educators, and qualitative researchers.
Deep University Press 453
Out of Havana: Memoirs of Ordinary Life in Cuba Dr. Araceli Alonso University of Wisconsin-Madison Out of Havana provides an uncommon ordinary woman’s insight into the last half century of Cuba’s tumultuous recent history. More powerfully than an academic study or historical account, it allows us intimately to grasp the enthusiasm, commitment and sense of promise that defined many average Cubans’ experience of the 1959 Revolution and the first triumphant decades of the Castro regime. As the story shifts into the final decades of the last century (the 1980s Mariel Boatlift, the so-called “special period in time of peace” [from 1991 to the end of the decade], and the 1994 Balseros or Rafters Crisis), it starts gradually to reveal, with understated yet relentless eloquence, an ultimately insuperable rift between the high-flown official rhetoric of uncompromising struggle and revolutionary sacrifice and the harsh conditions and cruelly absurd situations that the protagonist, along with the majority of Cubans, begin routinely to live out. It is a rare and important document, a unique personal chronicle of an everyday Cuban reality that most Americans continue to know only fragmentarily. Dr. Araceli Alonso is a 2013 United Nations Award Winner for her activism on women’s health and women right. Associate Faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies and in the School of Medicine and Public Health, she is the Founder and Director of the award-winning non-profit organization Health by Motorbike.
454 Language Education Policy
Formación Y Desarrollo De Profesionales De La Educación: Un enfoque profundo Manuel Fernández Cruz Universidad de Granada El libro contiene herramientas prácticas para la intervención formativa. Se plantea la formación desde la perspectiva del desarrollo profesional y se adopta un enfoque profundo novedoso que integra los ámbitos racionales, emocionales y vivenciales que requiere el aprendizaje y la actualización permanente en las profesiones educativas: la docencia, la pedagogía, la psicología, o la formación de formadores. •
El estudiante universitario va a contar con un manual teórico-práctico de referencia para dominar el ámbito de la formación y el desarrollo profesional. El educador va a encontrar en el texto herramientas provechosas para encarar su propio proceso de desarrollo y perfeccionamiento. El formador de formadores va a disponer de referencias teóricas y actividades prácticas que facilitarán su intervención.
Dr. Manuel Fernández Cruz, Licenciado en Pedagogía y Doctor en Ciencias de la Educación, es profesor de la Universidad de Granada desde 1992. Actualmente es Director del Departamento de Didáctica y Organización Escolar y Coordinador General del Consorcio Internacional MUNDUSFOR (Formación de Profesionales de la Formación).
Deep University Press 455
Guide to Authors What our Publishing Team can offer: !
An international editorial team, in more than 20 universities around the world.
Dedicated and experienced topic editors who will review and provide feedback on your initial proposal.
A specific format that will speed up the production of your book and its publication.
Higher royalties than most publishers and a discount on batch orders of 25+ copies.
Global distribution and marketing in the U.S., UK, Australia, China, Russia, and many other countries.
Fast recognition of your work in your area of specialization.
Quality design and affordable sales pricing. Using the latest technology, our books are produced efficiently, quickly and attractively.
A global marketing plan, including electronic and web marketing on social networks and review mailing.
Book Series: Deep Education; Deep Language Learning; Signs & Symbols in Education; Language Education Policy; Deep Professional Development; Deep Activism.
Contact : [email protected]
456 Language Education Policy
Deep University Online ! For updates and more resources Visit the Deep University Website: www.deepuniversity.net Contact : [email protected]
" Online Certificate and Courses on Deep Education: http://www.deepuniversity.com/graduatecourses.html " Facebook group on Deep Language Learning : https://www.facebook.com/groups/deep.approach/ " Twitter: http://twitter.com/Deep_Approach
Correspondence Francois Victor Tochon, Department of Curriculum & Instruction, Teacher Education Building, UW-Madison, 225 North Mills street, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 USA. Fax: (608) 263-9992. E-mail: [email protected]