Conceptualizing Language Learners: Socioinstitutional Mechanisms and their Consequences

Abstract

Through examination of one recently manufactured term for language learners (Long‐term English Learners) and review of a century of MLJ articles, we examine varying ‘socioinstitutional’ conceptualizations of second/foreign/heritage language learners as shaped by educational institutions and related stakeholders over time, given evolving understandings of the practice of language teaching that are directly related to theoretical, political, and institutional discourses. We focus very specifically on constructions of language learners that reflect different views and definitions of language learning, language acquisition/development, and ultimate attainment, examining the intersections of these definitions with formalized language instruction as a particularly significant force for learner categorizations. We argue that formalized language instruction both creates and requires categorizations/classifications of learners that are not neutral and that often have life‐impacting consequences for individuals. These constructions of learners, moreover, are shaped by a number of interacting and intersecting mechanisms, including theoretical perspectives, educational policies, informing disciplines, instructional materials, pedagogical traditions, and testing and accountability requirements.

Looking ahead: Future directions in, and future research into, second language acquisition

“…In a more salutary light, the compression of time and space that technology affords, the opportunities for international travel and careers in a global society, and the chances for ordinary citizens to lead transnational lives have made the advantages of knowing another language more apparent. Given the polarity of the zeitgeist, amidst “the increasing complexities of language use in a global society … it is clear that simple answers to the question, ‘how does one teach language?’ (or ‘who are learners?’) will not be forthcoming” (Kibler & Valdés, , p. 110). It is equally obvious that seeking answers in SLA research amidst such complexity will require a new mode of thinking.…”

Two viewpoints of English learner (re)classification: The implications of federal requirements for defining English learners in U.S. schools

“…It also includes students who should be labeled as ELs, but are not because they were not flagged on a home language survey or because of an overly generous scoring on an ELP screener. These students may not receive services appropriate to their linguistic needs because of the way they were initially labeled (Cimpian et al, 2017;Kibler & Valdés, 2016).…”

“…Another issue from the fluid viewpoint is that EL classification can be a stigmatizing label for students from minoritized language backgrounds close to proficiency (Dabach, 2014;Umansky, 2016). Kibler and Valdés (2016) conducted a historical review of the conceptualization of long-term ELs in which they deconstructed the sequential progression assumed in EL classification. In doing so, these authors argued that the EL label can do more harm than good for students identified as long-term ELs.…”

The Foreign Language Classroom: Current Perspectives and Future Considerations

“…The article concludes with the identification of some aspects of FL classrooms that merit research attention as the MLJ moves into its second century. A number of additional central issues related to the FL classroom receive detailed treatment in other contributions to this volume, notably the roles of teachers (Kubanyiova & Crookes, 2016); applications of technology within and beyond the classroom walls (Chun, Smith, & Kern, 2016); and socioinstitutional perspectives on classroom learners (Kibler & Valdés, 2016).…”