Language-in-Education Planning

Abstract

This paper attempts to survey language-in-education planning in the 1980s drawing on both formal publications and the more “ephemeral” but often more directky influential documents of government education departments and other authorities. Two problems are immediately evident: first, the influential ephemeral documents are hard to obtain. The second problem in surveying language-in-education planning is symptomatic of language policy-making in general; it is necessary to differentiate between, on the one hand, policy which is little more than uncoordinated good or bad ideas, limited in the range of needs that it seeks to answer, or incidental to policy serving other purposee (e.g., immigration policy) and, on the other hand, systematic, formalized language-in-education planning (cf., Rist 1982). This paper also focuses on only that part of language-in-education policy concerned with second or foreign language teaching and learning; other papers in this volume deal with the areas of literacy and bilingual education.

The effect of language attitudes on Kenyan stakeholder involvement in mother tongue policy implementation

“…Batibo 2005) and beyond (e.g. Choi 2003;Ingram 1989). Once stakeholders have favourable attitudes towards MT education, Igboanusi (2008, 731) is right in his observation that 'the cooperation and active participation of all the stakeholders .…”

“…A focus on attitudes to be generated is regarded as a vital part of language-ineducation (LiE) planning (Ingram 1989). The priority placed by Ingram on attitudes along with practical concerns such as teacher supply and materials is particularly important in minority language-contexts where attitudes are thought to influence the success or failure of entire language planning strategies (Ó Riagáin 2008).…”

Issues of Prestige and Image in Language-in-Education Planning in Australia

“…Haarmann (1990) does not refer directly to language-in-education planning (e.g. Baldauf & Ingram, 2003;Ingram, 1990) or acquisition planning (Cooper, 1989), as this dimension was subsumed by the models of the time under status planning cultivation (see Haugen, 1983). 7.…”

Diller arası Etkileşim Süreçlerini Belirleyen Kimi Etkenler

“…While language-ineducation planning occurs most often in schools, it also implicates less systematic teaching situations in the community or the workplace. (Baldauf & Ingram, 2003;Corson, 1999;Ingram, 1990;Tollefson, 2002a) The chapter goes on to examine seven key language-in education policy (i.e., access policy, personnel policy, curriculum policy, methodology and materials policy, resourcing policy, community policy, evaluation policy) and four key language in education planning (i.e., language maintenance, language reacquisition, foreign / second language learning, language shift) goals by looking at examples of the implementation of these goals in three polities: Japan, Sweden and North Korea. A number of general implications for language-in-education are then drawn from these descriptions and those from other similar polity studies available in the published literature.…”