Nama : Shofawi Abdul Manan

NIM : 196121170
Class : PBI 3E

Bagaimana Cara Mendorong Hasil Linguistik yang Diinginkan untuk Para Siswa dan
Guru?
Mendorong hasil linguistik yang diinginkan – baik pengetahuan maupun keterampilan yang
diterapkan – diantara siswa dan guru memerlukan pembelajaran lebih tentang proses bahasa,
dan mencari tahu seberapa baik menerapkan apa yang kita tahu. Kita membahas tantangan ini
dalam 4 judul: yang pertama kita membahas cara baru melakukan pendidikan penelitian
termasuk pendidikan linguistik, dan selanjutnya kita menyajikan beberapa domain spesifik di
mana penelitian itu dapat difokuskan.

Memperbanyak penelitian – hubungan praktek

Tema yang disinggung banyak bab adalah yang sudah disebutkan di atas: nilai dari
menanamkan penelitian ke realita praktek. Penting dicatat bahwa artikel di Bagian III:
Penelitian – Hubungan Praktek di bagian ini berfokus pada akuisisi bahasa kedua. Dominasi
pekerjaan pada pembelajaran bahasa kedua dan pengajaran bahasa melebihi bahasa pertama
dan area konten pembelajaran mencerminkan realita saat ini di bidang pendidikan linguistik,
dan berasal dari peran bahasa kedua / pengajaran bahasa asing. Kita berpendapat, bahwa
perlu lebih banyak perhatian yang dicurahkan ke peran keterampilan bahasa lisan dalam
pencapaian literasi dan keterampilan akademik, domain di mana faktor linguistik mungkin
kurang jelas, tapi tidak kalah penting.
Jika, sebagai beberapa bab dalam volume ini diterima, kolaborasi peneliti – praktisi
produktif dalam meningkatkan kualitas baik penelitian dan praktek, kemudian yang menjadi
pertanyaan: Bagaimana kita membangun kolaborasi peneliti – praktisi sehingga layak, kuat
dan saling menguntungkan informatif? Bagaimana kita mendapatkan guru – khususnya guru
area konten – tertarik, sadar, dan reflektif tentang bahasa dalam praktek keseharian mereka?
Jika penelitian benar-benar harus diinformasikan oleh pengetahuan praktisi, maka
cara sistematis harus ada bagi peneliti untuk mempelajari apa yang dipikirkan dan dipikirkan
praktisi apa yang ingin mereka ketahui. SERP, misalnya, telah meluncurkan survei
percontohan ke mengumpulkan informasi tentang keyakinan terkait keaksaraan guru sekolah
menengah dan pertanyaan (www.serpinstitute.org); beberapa data dari survei praktisi
pertanyaan yang belum terjawab tentang Pembelajaran Bahasa dengan Bantuan Komputer
tersedia di http://www.stanford.edu/∼efs/callsurvey/index.html.
Selain merumuskan pertanyaan berdasarkan keprihatinan praktisi, peneliti perlu
memikirkan tentang bagaimana merancang pengumpulan dan analisis data itu bermanfaat
bagi semua peserta yang terlibat. Studi penelitian berorientasi praktik pada pengajaran bahasa
kedua atau asing menawarkan contoh yang berharga. Seperti yang dijelaskan oleh Pica (Bab
37, volume ini), bidang akuisisi bahasa kedua memiliki baru-baru ini pindah ke arah
kolaborasi guru-peneliti yang lebih dekat yang menggambarkan jenis pendekatan yang
diilhami dan relevan dengan praktik yang kami anjurkan di sini. Strategi yang diterapkan, dan
pelajaran yang didapat dalam studi ini, adalah relevan di luar bidang SLA dan dapat
menginformasikan penelitian tentang bahasa sekolah dan literasi secara lebih luas. Dalam
membahas teknik pembelajaran, Pica mengusulkan empat prinsip dasar yang tampaknya
relevan sebagai pedoman untuk penelitian yang relevan dengan praktik, terlepas dari konten
kurikuler tertentu yang dipilih. Mengikuti prinsip dasarnya, kami pikir kolaborasi yang
efektif akan menjadi itu yang berfokus pada tugas-tugas otentik, implementasi yang paling
tidak kompleks, area di mana siswa membutuhkan instruksi tambahan yang ditargetkan, dan
hasil yang terlihat sukses. Kemitraan yang sukses akan menghasilkan hubungan dua arah, di
mana penelitian menginformasikan praktik, dan teori dirumuskan kembali dan
disempurnakan berdasarkan pertemuan mereka dengan tantangan kehidupan nyata.
Mengingat penelitian terbaru tentang kedua penguasaan bahasa membuktikan kelayakan dan
keberhasilan timbal balik ini pengaruh (lihat Pica, Bab 37, volume ini), subbidang pendidikan
lainnya linguistik dapat menggunakan prinsip-prinsip ini sebagai titik awal untuk menempa
teori dan hubungan praktik. Dalam kolaborasi ini, pembuatan kebijakan perlu dilibatkan hasil
yang sukses. Menghubungkan standar yang digunakan di seluruh instruksi, penilaian, dan
pembuatan kebijakan merupakan persyaratan utama untuk integrasi yang efisien sistem yang
menawarkan umpan balik ke berbagai komponennya. Seperti yang dibicarakan oleh King dan
Benson (Bab 24, volume ini), misalnya, berbagai definisi literasi tidak hanya digunakan di
berbagai belahan dunia, tetapi juga definisi ini. cenderung sempit dan sederhana di beberapa
lingkaran kebijakan. Sebuah elaborasi dari komitmen untuk praktek-tertanam penelitian
adalah orientasi pragmatis yang dianut oleh diskusi Davies (Bab 34, volume ini) dari desain
PISA, dengan fokusnya pada pengukuran pengetahuan yang dibutuhkan dalam tugas sehari-
hari di luar pengaturan sekolah. Davies juga mengusulkan studi tentang dampak penilaian
bahasa pada kualitas pengajaran dan kualitas standar yang diusulkan. Pendekatan ini
menekankan sejauh mana baik pengajaran bahasa memanfaatkan informasi dari penilaian
untuk menginformasikan lebih baik instruksi dan menetapkan tujuan pendidikan yang lebih
jelas.
Dua area di mana Hudson (Bab 5, volume ini) membagi teori sangat relevan dengan
pemikiran tentang bagaimana peneliti (termasuk ahli teori linguistik), praktisi, dan pembuat
kebijakan dapat masuk ke dialog. Hudson membedakan antara ide dan model, makhluk yang
pertama jauh lebih tidak kontroversial dibandingkan yang terakhir. Dia mendefinisikan ide
sebagai konsep tentang sifat bahasa, yang sebagian besar mewakili "masalah yang dapat
disetujui oleh ahli bahasa". Misalnya, semua ahli bahasa setuju bahwa keterampilan bahasa
terus berlanjut untuk berkembang menjadi dewasa, meskipun mereka mungkin tidak setuju
tentang mengapa dan bagaimana keterampilan ini berubah; mereka juga semua setuju bahwa
berbagai keterampilan bahasa (fonologi, kosa kata, tata bahasa, pragmatik) dapat dipisahkan
dan bahkan mungkin tidak berkorelasi. Model “ada di garis depan penelitian” karena
memberikan penjelasan alternatif yang sifatnya kontroversial. Seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh
Hudson, ahli bahasa adalah prihatin dengan model, dan perdebatan mereka tentang model
sering kali mengaburkan mereka kesepakatan tentang ide-ide besar. Sedangkan ahli bahasa
dan psikolog perkembangan dapat berdebat tentang spesifikasi model teoritis yang bervariasi,
tugas linguistik pendidikan bukanlah untuk mencari bukti untuk formulasi teoritis, tetapi
untuk menghasilkan ide-ide yang relevan untuk praktik pendidikan. Jika menjelaskan apa
guru, yang perlu diketahui siswa, pembuat kebijakan, dan peserta pendidikan lainnya bahasa
untuk mencapai hasil yang sukses adalah tujuan, kemudian fokus pada ide bukannya model
menawarkan solusi yang bijaksana. Ide-ide, seperti yang ditunjukkan Hudson, tidak mudah
disimpulkan dari tulisan-tulisan linguistik teoritis; ahli bahasa bisa berkontribusi pada
pendidikan dengan menguraikan ide-ide kunci secara jelas. Memang, kolaborasi antara ahli
bahasa teoretis dan pendidikan bisa saling membuktikan menguntungkan karena ide-ide yang
relevan dengan praktik pendidikan diidentifikasi, dan sebagai data nyata dari siswa
menantang ide-ide tersebut dan menawarkan bukti model linguistik yang lebih komprehensif
mungkin dibangun.
Tentu saja, banyak dari "gagasan besar" yang umumnya dianggap benar di komunitas
ahli bahasa pendidikan perlu dibuat lebih khusus jika mereka akan mempengaruhi praktik
pendidikan. Misalnya, klaim bahwa pengajaran L1 memiliki efek positif pada akuisisi literasi
L2, atau literasi lanjutan keterampilan terkait dengan pemahaman bahasa lisan, secara umum
diterima sebagai kebenaran, tapi apa sebenarnya artinya untuk latihan di kelas?
Review Reaser dan Adger (Bab 12, volume ini) mencoba untuk mengungkap faktor
terkait bahasa tertentu yang menjelaskan mengapa ketidaksesuaian antara bahasa sehari-hari
dan bahasa standar menjadi tantangan di sekolah. Reaser dan studi tinjauan Adger yang
dilakukan oleh Labov dan rekan-rekannya, menunjukkan bahwa ada hubungan yang
kompleks antara bahasa daerah dan bacaan. Misalnya, beberapa fitur bahasa Inggris Amerika
Afrika – diperkenalkan saat membaca teks standar bahasa Inggris dengan lantang - lebih
mungkin dibandingkan yang lain merupakan kesalahan membaca.
Semakin spesifik dan pertanyaan penelitian yang relevan dengan praktik, semakin
banyak mereka dapat menghasilkan pertanyaan relevan lainnya dan memberikan kontribusi
yang signifikan untuk peningkatan pengajaran dan pembelajaran siswa. Contoh dari
Pertanyaan seperti itu berdasarkan penelitian Reaser dan Adger yang direview adalah: “Why
apakah pengetahuan tentang Bahasa Inggris Standar sangat bervariasi di SES rendah
populasi. . . dan mekanisme apa yang meningkatkan pengetahuan Bahasa Inggris Amerika
Standar lebih menyukai belajar membaca? ” Jawaban untuk jenis pertanyaan ini memiliki
potensi besar untuk diberikan secara khusus dan berguna nasihat untuk praktik pendidikan.
Level lain di mana penelitian perlu dibuat relevan dengan praktisi sedang dalam
penyebaran temuan. Sebagai Reaser dan Adger (Bab 12, ini volume) di latar depan,
komunikasi wawasan penting ahli bahasa untuk peneliti pendidikan membutuhkan
pendekatan yang berbeda dari komunikasi dengan ahli bahasa. Selain itu, ahli bahasa
pendidikan harus menyesuaikan pesan mereka dengan berbagai pesan mereka khalayak -
peneliti pendidikan, guru, pembuat kebijakan, dan praktisi lainnya. Dimensi bahasa yang
diminati masing-masing kelompok ini, dan terminologi dan contoh ilustratif yang menarik
bagi masing-masing, berbeda dengan cara-cara penting.
Jadi, dalam dialog yang benar-benar bermanfaat, ahli bahasa akan mengartikulasikan
kebesaran mereka ide, praktisi akan meminta implikasi khusus untuk latihan, dan ahli bahasa
akan melacak keefektifan implikasi praktis tersebut secara berurutan untuk mengasah ide
besar mereka. Dalam dialog yang bermanfaat, kedua peserta memiliki banyak manfaat untuk
mempelajari.
Nilai berbagi wawasan antara yang pertama dan kedua penelitian akuisisi
bahasa
Tema lain yang ditemui di seluruh bab adalah nilai penelitian pertama akuisisi bahasa
sebagai sumber daya bagi ahli bahasa pendidikan, dan, khususnya, sebagai dasar untuk
berpikir tentang penelitian dan praktik di kedua / luar negeri akuisisi bahasa (Huhta, Bab 33,
volume ini). Sebagaimana dibuktikan di seluruh bab dalam buku ini, ada beberapa area di
mana SLA memiliki lintasan yang lebih panjang dari akumulasi pengetahuan dalam
kaitannya dengan penelitian di L1, seperti kolaborasi penelitian-praktek yang dibahas di atas
(Pica, Bab 37, ini volume). Sebaliknya, ada bidang lain yang penelitian tentang L1 lebih
mendalam sumber daya dan teori yang diartikulasikan dengan lebih baik, seperti penilaian
keaksaraan awal (Huhta, Bab 33, volume ini). Kami merayakan kontribusi penelitian bahasa
pertama untuk pengajaran bahasa kedua, tetapi perhatikan bahwa literaturnya sangat luas
pada akuisisi bahasa pertama hampir secara eksklusif dikhususkan untuk mendeskripsikan
alami, akuisisi tidak terlatih, dan muncul dari komitmen untuk konstruktivis tampilan, di
mana anak dilihat secara spontan menggunakan data masukan untuk menemukan bahasa
baru. Meskipun baru-baru ini meningkatkan upaya untuk meningkatkan keterampilan
kosakata melalui instruksi eksplisit (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Carlo dkk., 2004;
Biemiller & Boote, 2006), masih sedikit penelitian tentang peran instruksi implisit atau
eksplisit dalam akuisisi bahasa pertama, meskipun baru-baru ini temuan telah
mendokumentasikan perbedaan yang sangat besar antara berkembang normal anak-anak
dalam keterampilan bahasa (misalnya, Hart & Risley, 1995), dan mulai mendokumentasikan
efek keterampilan bahasa pada pembelajaran dan penilaian area konten (Abedi, 2003; Butler
et al., 2004).
Hal yang juga mengejutkan adalah penelitian tentang akuisisi bahasa pertama adalah
sumbernya inspirasi bagi ahli bahasa pendidikan, problematisasi sangat sedikit dalam
linguistik pendidikan pertanyaan penting tentang praktik yang berkaitan dengan pembelajaran
bahasa pertama. Mengingat perbedaan besar di antara anak-anak dalam bahasa keterampilan
yang tersedia bagi mereka saat masuk ke sekolah, dan konsekuensi yang ditunjukkan dari
perbedaan tersebut untuk keberhasilan sekolah di kemudian hari (Tabors, Roach, & Snow,
2001; Tabors, Snow, & Dickinson, 2001), sepertinya ahli bahasa pendidikan perlu fokus pada
pertanyaan tentang bagaimana memperkaya kesempatan belajar bahasa di anak usia dini.
Misalnya: Praktik apa yang harus kami rekomendasikan kepada orang tua dan guru
prasekolah untuk memastikan perkembangan bahasa awal yang optimal? Bagaimana paparan
aktivitas yang berbeda dan struktur aktivitas (rekan bermain, diskusi membaca buku, bermain
pura-pura, dll.) mendorong perkembangan bahasa, terutama dasar untuk bahasa akademis?
Ironisnya, linguistik pendidikan sangat mendalami penelitian tentang penguasaan
bahasa awal, tetapi hanya memperhatikan secara minimal konsekuensi dari variasi dalam
keterampilan bahasa yang diperoleh awal untuk hasil pendidikan dan memiliki, untuk
sebagian besar, tidak memanfaatkan kemajuan dalam pengajaran bahasa asing / kedua
metode untuk menginformasikan instruksi dalam kosakata dan bahasa akademis untuk satu
bahasa. Tidaklah bijaksana untuk tidak memanfaatkan wawasan dari bidang yang diteliti
dengan baik, seperti instruksi kosakata untuk L2, untuk mengeksplorasi bagaimana membawa
mereka ke dalam arus utama praktik pendidikan. Apakah komponen diidentifikasi sebagai
penting dalam penelitian bahasa kedua, seperti kesadaran metalinguistik (Ellis, Bab 31,
volume ini), atau "mendekam" (Swain & Suzuki, Bab 39, volume ini), juga faktor-faktor
yang terkait secara positif dengan definisi yang lebih luas bahasa sekolah dan keterampilan
melek huruf? Utara (Bab 16, volume ini) bahkan bertanya jika kerangka umum
dikembangkan untuk pengajaran bahasa asing atau bahasa kedua dapat diterapkan di sekolah
dasar untuk mengajar ibu lidah. Seperti yang dia tunjukkan, kita tidak boleh melupakan
perbedaan intrinsik membedakan kedua proses pembelajaran tersebut dan meminimalkan
nilai sederhana ekstrapolasi dari satu bidang ke bidang lainnya. Namun, temuan dalam SLA
direplikasi dengan baik atau penelitian FL menghasilkan hipotesis tentang pembelajaran
bahasa secara lebih luas didefinisikan yang pantas mendapat perhatian. Temuan ini mungkin
memiliki relevansi khusus hingga masalah yang muncul ketika ruang kelas melayani anak-
anak dari berbagai bahasa latar belakang, misalnya mereka yang muncul dalam berpikir
tentang pertanyaan Walter (Bab 10, volume ini) tentang apa yang terjadi jika anak tidak
berbicara bahasa kelas.
Pertanyaan global tentang penguasaan bahasa yang mungkin menjadi pusat perhatian
dari agenda penelitian sistematis untuk linguistik pendidikan adalah sebagai berikut: Apa
sifat pengetahuan tentang bahasa yang tersedia bagi seorang mahir pembicara pada berbagai
tahap pengembangan keterampilan lisan dan melek huruf? Akibat wajar dari pertanyaan
global ini adalah sebagai berikut: Bagaimana kita bisa mendefinisikan dan menilai
keterampilan bahasa yang lebih maju yang biasanya dikembangkan selama masa kanak-
kanak dan remaja? Jika kita punya jawaban untuk pertanyaan-pertanyaan ini, maka banyak
masalah lain yang mengganggu (mis., Keterampilan bahasa baru apa yang dibutuhkan untuk
memproses teks akademis atau disiplin? Apa saja kemungkinan transfer dari a pertama ke
bahasa kedua dan / atau sistem literasi? Bagaimana seharusnya guru menanggapi dialek non-
standar? Apa yang merupakan diskusi kelas yang baik?) akan menjadi jauh lebih penurut.
Terlepas dari nilai yang sangat besar dari pekerjaan dasar yang dilakukan pada
penguasaan bahasa bagi ahli bahasa pendidikan, penting untuk menekankan bahwa
peningkatan dalam bahasa domain seperti pengajaran bahasa dan penilaian bahasa tidak bisa
menunggu lebih banyak data dan teori yang lebih baik tentang penguasaan bahasa pertama
atau kedua. Masalah praktik terlalu besar dan terlalu mendesak, seperti yang ditekankan oleh
Jones dan Saville (Bab 35, volume ini), agar solusi ditunda sampai semuanya data
dikumpulkan. Memang, salah satu kontribusi praktisi untuk penelitian adalah untuk
memberikan kandidat praktik terbaik yang kemudian dapat dikenakan studi dan evaluasi
lebih lanjut, dan yang keberhasilan atau kegagalannya mungkin menginformasikan teori.
Tantangan pengajaran dan penilaian dengan lebih banyak pelajar tingkat lanjut
Peneliti pengembangan bahasa, seperti disebutkan di atas, memiliki fokus utama pada
anak-anak muda dan kemajuan besar dalam keterampilan bahasa tercapai antara usia 1 dan 3–
4 tahun. Pekerjaan mereka secara langsung relevan dengan praktik pendidik anak usia dini
dan telah menginformasikan dan meningkatkan desain program keterlibatan orang tua dan
prasekolah. Namun, kebanyakan pendidik mengambil pencapaian awal itu begitu saja, dan
menjadi perhatian diri mereka nanti pengembangan bahasa - pengembangan kapasitas untuk
terlibat dalam ruang kelas diskusi, untuk menghasilkan wacana diperpanjang secara lisan dan
tertulis, untuk memperoleh kosakata canggih, dan menerapkan tata bahasa yang kompleks.
Memahami ini tantangan perkembangan selanjutnya, bagi siswa yang mengoperasikan bahasa
pertama mereka dan bagi mereka yang menguasai bahasa kedua, adalah tugas yang mendidik
linguistik bisa membantu. Seperti yang ditunjukkan Hull dan Hernandez (Bab 23, volume ini)
keluar, literasi remaja akhir-akhir ini mendapat lebih banyak perhatian; bagaimanapun, ada
masih banyak celah yang harus diisi untuk memahami sepenuhnya bagaimana melayani
lansia dengan lebih baik siswa.
Sebagai Jones dan Saville (Bab 35, volume ini), dan Davies (Bab 34, volume ini)
membahas, kemahiran bahasa menjadi lebih luas dan lebih multidimensi di usia / kelas
selanjutnya. Oleh karena itu tantangan untuk menilai ini keterampilan bahasa yang lebih
canggih juga meningkat. Namun, dalam dunia pendidikan yang didorong oleh akuntabilitas,
mengembangkan penilaian untuk keterampilan bahasa yang lebih canggih ini adalah
kuncinya, karena jika tidak dinilai, mereka tidak mungkin untuk dilayani di dalam kelas.
Selanjutnya keputusan tentang penempatan pembelajar bahasa kedua di ruang kelas utama
harus bergantung pada penilaian valid dari kemampuan mereka untuk memahami dan
menghasilkan bahasa akademis yang dibutuhkan untuk sukses di ruang kelas itu; itu masih
Kasus tes kecakapan bahasa kedua sering berfokus pada dasar daripada daripada kemampuan
bahasa akademis, dan dengan demikian, siswa keluar yang tidak siap tugas yang akan mereka
hadapi di ruang kelas utama (Kieffer, Lesaux, & Snow, 2006).
Terutama ketika memikirkan pelajar yang lebih tua, untuk siapa bahasa dan
Keterampilan literasi adalah pintu gerbang untuk semua pembelajaran, kebutuhan untuk
mengintegrasikan instruksi dan penilaian menjadi mendesak. Kami setuju dengan Huhta (Ba
33, ini volume) tentang kebutuhan untuk mengembangkan penilaian diagnostik yang
menginformasikan guru berlatih dan memungkinkan umpan balik berkelanjutan antara guru
dan siswa. Jika, seperti yang diklaim oleh Reaser dan Adger, memang benar ahli bahasa dan
pendidikan ahli bahasa menjadi tertarik untuk berkolaborasi dengan pendidik untuk
menghasilkan penilaian praktis dan bahan untuk digunakan di kelas, lalu kesenjangannya
yang saat ini ada dalam ketersediaan materi tentang variasi bahasa dapat diisi secara
produktif. Memang, kolaborasi terkini di antara ahli bahasa, ahli bahasa pendidikan, dan
praktisi dalam desain dan produksi Bahan ajar dan penilaian sudah mulai membuahkan hasil
hasil (Labov dan Baker, 2001, dikutip oleh Reaser dan Adger, Bab 12, ini volume).
Pertanyaan yang muncul, kemudian, meliputi yang berikut: Apa karakteristik kunci dari
bahasa akademis yang dibutuhkan untuk sukses di tingkat menengah dan menengah nilai?
Bagaimana keterampilan bahasa ini dapat diajarkan dengan baik? Apakah siswa mendapat
manfaat dari perhatian instruksional untuk keterampilan ini sebagai bahasa lisan di dasar atau
bahkan tahun prasekolah? Apakah siswa yang telah menguasai bahasa akademis keterampilan
dalam bahasa pertama mentransfer pengetahuan yang berguna tentang mereka ke bahasa
kedua, dan jika demikian, dalam keadaan apa dan untuk kombinasi apa bahasa pertama dan
bahasa kedua?
Di luar bahasa sebagai keterampilan: Motivasi dan identitas dalam pembelajaran
bahasa
Masalah yang berulang dalam pengajaran bahasa adalah motivasi pelajar. Motivasi
adalah masalah yang rumit di kelas bahasa asing, di mana kekurangan alasan positif untuk
menguasai bahasa mungkin juga diperparah oleh segala macam motivasi negatif, misalnya
rasa malu, takut membuat kesalahan, kehilangan harga diri, atau kesulitan presentasi diri
yang terhormat selama tahap awal pembelajaran bahasa (lihat McKinney & Norton, Bab 14,
ini volume). Motivasi juga dapat berperan dalam kesediaan pelajar untuk beralih dari non-
standar ke dialek standar (lihat Mesthrie, Bab 6, volume ini), atau untuk mengadopsi fitur
bahasa akademik yang diinginkan untuk diskusi kelas dan untuk melek huruf.
Ada banyak penelitian yang dilakukan yang menunjukkan dampak motivasi pada
pembelajaran bahasa kedua / asing dan mengeksplorasi interaksi antara jenis motivasi dan
pengaturan sosial dalam menentukan hasil. Namun, perluasan gagasan tersebut ke masalah
konstruksi identitas di dalamnya bahasa pertama belum terjadi. Di dalam berbagai area
konten, di sana adalah menumbuhkan perhatian pada pertanyaan penting dalam bentuk: Apa
artinya berbicara / menulis seperti sejarawan atau ilmuwan? Keterampilan bahasa apa yang
terlibat, dan seberapa berbeda mereka untuk area konten yang berbeda? Pertanyaan terkait
motivasi yang menyertai ini adalah: Bagaimana kita menciptakan ruang kelas kondisi di
mana siswa termotivasi untuk memperoleh identitas akademis dan keterampilan bahasa yang
terkait dengan mereka?
Mengangkat isu identitas dan motivasi juga mengingatkan kita sampai pada tingkatan
itu yang penelitian dalam linguistik pendidikan difokuskan pada beberapa populasi dan
variasi bahasa dengan mengesampingkan orang lain. Agenda penelitian akan tidak lengkap
tanpa panggilan mendesak untuk memasukkan mereka yang diabaikan populasi dan variasi
bahasa, seperti yang disoroti oleh berbagai penulis di sini volume:
-Reaser dan Adger (Bab 12) untuk varietas non-standar di luar Afrika Inggris
Amerika;
• Supalla and Cripps (Bab 13) untuk anak-anak tunarungu;
 • McCarty, Skutnabb-Kangas, dan Magga (Bab 21) untuk terancam punah bahasa di
berbagai belahan dunia;
• King dan Benson (Bab 24) untuk bahasa asli;
• Hull dan Hernandez (Bab 23) dengan panggilan yang lebih umum untuk belajar
yang beragam budaya, etnis, kelas sosial, dan jenis kelamin.
Terbukti dari berbagai seruan ini, daftar populasi masih panjang menunggu perhatian
peneliti.
Kesimpulan
Kekayaan dan luasnya karya yang disajikan dalam buku ini menekankan pada nilai
kejelasan yang lebih besar tentang definisi linguistik pendidikan, tujuannya, dan pertanyaan
mendasar yang harus dihadapi. Pendidikan linguistik terletak di persimpangan antara
penelitian pendidikan dan penelitian linguistik terapan (lihat LoBianco, Bab 9, volume ini).
Saat Diterapkan Linguistik adalah cabang ilmu linguistik yang menggunakan teori linguistik
untuk mengalaminya masalah dunia nyata, Linguistik Pendidikan adalah cabang dari
Linguistik Terapan yang membahas masalah dunia nyata dalam pendidikan. Sejauh ini yang
terbesar subbidang dalam linguistik pendidikan selalu menjadi studi kedua penguasaan
bahasa dan pengajaran bahasa kedua, dan pencapaian yang kaya dari subbidang itu tercermin
dalam beberapa bab yang dikhususkan untuk itu dalam hal ini. volume. Namun, linguistik
pendidikan memiliki cakupan yang lebih luas dari sekedar pengajaran bahasa kedua / asing.
Faktanya, seperti yang dikatakan oleh van Lier (Bab 42, volume ini), harus mencakup semua
pembelajaran akademis yang dimediasi oleh bahasa dalam satu bentuk atau lainnya.
Kami berpendapat bahwa kebutuhan linguistik pendidikan di satu sisi mempersempit
fokusnya untuk memberi perhatian khusus pada dunia nyata yang paling mendesak masalah
pendidikan, dan di sisi lain untuk memperluas fokusnya pengajaran / pembelajaran bahasa
untuk memahami bagaimana bahasa menengahi semua pertemuan pendidikan. Selanjutnya
dalam mempelajari peran bahasa dalam semua pembelajaran dan pengajaran, sangat
membantu mengingat kontinum diusulkan oleh Bailey, Burkett, dan Freeman (Bab 43,
volume ini): dari situasi pembelajaran di mana bahasa yang digunakan transparan untuk
semua pihak (guru dan siswa berbagi bahasa dan siswa mengontrol akademik bahasa kelas)
untuk situasi di mana penggunaan bahasa tidak jelas (siswa masih mempelajari dasar-dasar
bahasa kelas, bahkan saat belajar melalui bahasa itu diharapkan). Poin perantara pada
kontinum itu, di mana sebagian besar siswa dan guru mungkin menemukan diri mereka
sendiri, mewakili derajat tembus pandang yang berbeda - yaitu, siswa dan guru berbagi
bahasa tetapi belum tentu semua fitur linguistik spesifik yang menjadi ciri disipliner,
metakognitif, atau penggunaan bahasa kelas. Mengidentifikasi situasi di mana kurangnya
pengetahuan bahasa bersama mengganggu pembelajaran, dan mengkarakterisasi pendekatan
yang berguna untuk situasi tersebut, dalam bentuk strategi pedagogis, penyesuaian kurikuler,
komitmen siswa, atau reorganisasi pembelajaran pengaturan, adalah tantangan umum dan
mendesak bagi ahli bahasa pendidikan.
note
 Dukungan untuk penyusunan makalah ini datang dari Institut Pendidikan Ilmu
Pengetahuan, Departemen Pendidikan AS, melalui hibah bernomor R305G050201 dan
R305G050029, serta dari Spencer dan Hewlett Foundation melalui Lembaga Kemitraan
Penelitian Pendidikan Strategis.
If research is truly to be informed by practitioner knowledge, then systematic ways
must exist for researchers to learn what practitioners think and what they want to know.
SERP, for example, has launched a pilot survey to collect information about middle school
teachers’ literacy-related beliefs and questions (www.serpinstitute.org); some data from a
practitioners’ survey of unanswered questions about Computer Assisted Language Learning
is available at http://www.stanford.edu/∼efs/callsurvey/index.html.
In addition to formulating questions based on practitioners’ concerns, researchers
need to think about how to design data collection and analyses that are beneficial to all
participants involved. Practice-oriented research studies on second or foreign language
teaching offer valuable examples. As described by Pica (Chapter 37, this volume), the field of
second language acquisition has recently moved toward closer teacher–researcher
collaborations that illustrate the type of practice-inspired and practice-relevant approach we
advocate here. The strategies implemented, and the lessons learned in these studies, are
relevant beyond the field of SLA and can inform research on the language of schooling and
on literacy more broadly. In discussing instructional techniques, Pica proposes four basic
principles that seem relevant as guidelines for practicerelevant research, independent of the
specific curricular content selected. Following her basic principles, we think effective
collaborations will be those that focus on authentic tasks, the least complex implementation
possible, areas where students need additional targeted instruction, and noticeably successful
outcomes. Successful partnerships would result in a bi-directional relationship, in which
research informs practice, and theories are reformulated and refined based on their encounters
with real-life challenges. Given that recent research on second language acquisition attests to
the feasibility and fruitfulness of this reciprocal influence (see Pica, Chapter 37, this volume),
other subfields of educational linguistics can use these principles as starting points to forge
theory and practic relationships. In this collaboration, policy making needs to be involved for
successful results. Connecting the standards used across instruction, assessment, and policy
making is a key requirement for an efficiently integrated system that offers feedback to its
different components. As discussed by King and Benson (Chapter 24, this volume), for
instance, not only are various definitions of literacy used in different parts of the world, but
these definitions tend to be narrow and simplistic in some policy circles. An elaboration of
the commitment to practice-embedded research is the pragmatic orientation embraced by
Davies’ discussion (Chapter 34, this volume) of the design of the PISA, with its focus on
measuring knowledge required in everyday tasks beyond the school setting. Davies also
proposes studies of the impact of language assessment on the quality of instruction and on the
quality of the standards proposed. This approach emphasizes the degree to which good
language teaching exploits information from assessment to inform better instruction and set
more clearly defined educational objectives.
If research is truly to be informed by practitioner knowledge, then systematic ways
must exist for researchers to learn what practitioners think and what they want to know.
SERP, for example, has launched a pilot survey to collect information about middle school
teachers’ literacy-related beliefs and questions (www.serpinstitute.org); some data from a
practitioners’ survey of unanswered questions about Computer Assisted Language Learning
is available at http://www.stanford.edu/∼efs/callsurvey/index.html.
The two areas into which Hudson (Chapter 5, this volume) divides theory are of great
relevance to thinking about how researchers (including linguistic theorists), practitioners, and
policy makers might enter into a more fruitful dialogue. Hudson distinguishes between ideas
and models, the former being much less controversial than the latter. He defines ideas as
concepts about the nature of language, which for the most part represent “issues on which
linguists can agree.” For instance, all linguists agree that language skills continue to develop
into adulthood, although they might disagree on why and how these skills change; they also
all agree that various language skills (phonology,vocabulary, grammar, pragmatics) are
separable and perhaps even uncorrelated. Models “exist at the frontier of research” as they
provide alternative explanations that are controversial by nature. As pointed out by Hudson,
linguists are concerned with models, and their debates about models often obscure their
agreement on big ideas. Whereas linguists and developmental psychologists can argue about
the specifics of varied theoretical models, the job of educational linguistics is not to seek
proofs for theoretical formulations, but to generate relevant ideas for educational practice. If
elucidating what teachers, students, policy makers, and other educational participants need to
know about language to achieve successful outcomes is the goal, then focusing on ideas
instead of models offers a wise solution. Ideas, as Hudson points out, however, are not easily
inferred from theoretical linguistic writings; linguists could contribute to education by
spelling out the key ideas clearly. Indeed, collaborations among theoretical and educational
linguists could prove mutually advantageous as ideas relevant to educational practice are
identified, and as real data from students challenge those ideas and offer evidence on which
more comprehensive linguistic models might be built.
Dua area di mana teori Hudson (Bab 5, volume ini) membagi sangat relevan dengan
pemikiran tentang bagaimana peneliti (termasuk ahli teori linguistik), praktisi, dan pembuat
kebijakan dapat masuk ke dalam dialog yang lebih bermanfaat. Hudson membedakan antara
ide dan model, model pertama kurang kontroversial dibandingkan model kedua. Dia
mendefinisikan ide sebagai konsep tentang sifat bahasa, yang sebagian besar mewakili
"masalah yang dapat disetujui oleh ahli bahasa." Misalnya, semua ahli bahasa setuju bahwa
keterampilan bahasa terus berkembang hingga dewasa, meskipun mereka mungkin tidak
setuju tentang mengapa dan bagaimana keterampilan ini berubah; mereka juga semua setuju
bahwa berbagai keterampilan bahasa (fonologi, kosakata, tata bahasa, pragmatik) dapat
dipisahkan dan bahkan mungkin tidak berkorelasi. Model “ada di garis depan penelitian”
karena memberikan penjelasan alternatif yang sifatnya kontroversial. Seperti yang
ditunjukkan oleh Hudson, ahli bahasa prihatin dengan model, dan perdebatan mereka tentang
model sering mengaburkan kesepakatan mereka tentang ide-ide besar. Sementara ahli bahasa
dan psikolog perkembangan dapat berdebat tentang spesifikasi model teoritis yang bervariasi,
tugas linguistik pendidikan bukanlah mencari bukti untuk formulasi teoritis, tetapi untuk
menghasilkan ide yang relevan untuk praktik pendidikan. Jika tujuannya adalah menjelaskan
apa yang perlu diketahui oleh guru, siswa, pembuat kebijakan, dan peserta pendidikan
lainnya tentang bahasa untuk mencapai hasil yang sukses, maka fokus pada ide daripada
model menawarkan solusi yang bijaksana. Ide-ide, seperti yang ditunjukkan Hudson, tidak
mudah disimpulkan dari tulisan-tulisan linguistik teoritis; ahli bahasa dapat berkontribusi
pada pendidikan dengan mengeja ide-ide kunci secara jelas. Memang, kolaborasi antara ahli
bahasa teoritis dan pendidikan dapat terbukti saling menguntungkan karena ide-ide yang
relevan dengan praktik pendidikan diidentifikasi, dan sebagai data nyata dari siswa
menantang ide-ide tersebut dan menawarkan bukti di mana model linguistik yang lebih
komprehensif dapat dibangun.
Of course, many of the “big ideas” commonly assumed to be true in the community of
educational linguists need to be made more particular if they are to influence educational
practice. For example, the claim that L1 instruction has a positive effect on L2 literacy
acquisition, or that advanced literacy skill is related to oral language comprehension, are
generally accepted as true, but what do they actually mean for classroom practice? Reaser
and Adger (Chapter 12, this volume) review attempts to unravel specific language-related
factors that explain why the mismatch between vernacular and standard languages constitutes
such a challenge in school. Reaser and Adger review studies carried out by Labov and his
colleagues, showing that there is a complex relationship between vernacular languages and
reading. For example, some features of African American English – introduced when reading
aloud standard English texts – are more likely than others to constitute reading errors.
The more specific and practice-relevant research questions get, the more they can
generate other relevant questions and make significant contributions to the improvement of
students’ instruction and learning. An example of such a question based on the research
Reaser and Adger reviewed is: “Why is it that knowledge of Standard English is so variable
in the low SES population . . . and what are the mechanisms by which increased knowledge
of Standard American English favors learning to read?” Answers to this type of question have
great potential to provide specifically targeted and useful advice for educational practice.
Another level at which research needs to be made relevant to practitioners is in the
dissemination of findings. As Reaser and Adger (Chapter 12, this volume) foreground,
communication of linguists’ important insights to educational researchers requires different
approaches than communication to linguists. Moreover, educational linguists should tailor
their message to their various audiences – educational researchers, teachers, policy makers,
and other practitioners. The dimensions of language in which each of these groups is
interested, and the terminology and illustrative examples that will appeal to each, differ in
important ways.
In a truly fruitful dialogue, then, linguists would articulate their big ideas,
practitioners would request specific implications for practice, and linguists would track the
effectiveness of those practical implications in order to hone their big ideas. In a fruitful
dialogue, both participants have much to learn.
Another theme encountered across chapters is the value of research on first language
acquisition as a resource to educational linguists, and, in particular, as a basis for thinking
about both research and practice in second/foreign language acquisition (Huhta, Chapter 33,
this volume). As evidenced across chapters in this book, there are some areas in which SLA
has a longer trajectory of accumulated knowledge in relation to research on L1, such as the
research–practice collaborations discussed above (Pica, Chapter 37, this volume).
Conversely, there are other fields in which research on L1 has deeper resources and better
articulated theories, such as early literacy assessment (Huhta, Chapter 33, this volume). We
celebrate the contributions of first language research to second language instruction, but note
that the vast literature on first language acquisition is almost exclusively devoted to
describing natural, untutored acquisition, and emerges from a commitment to constructivist
views, in which the child is seen as spontaneously using input data to invent language anew.
Despite recently increasing efforts to improve students’ vocabulary skills via explicit
instruction (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Carlo et al., 2004; Biemiller & Boote, 2006),
there is still scarce research on the role of implicit or explicit instruction in first language
acquisition, even though recent findings have documented enormous differences among
normally developing children in language skills (e.g., Hart & Risley, 1995), and are
beginning to document the effects of language skills on content-area learning and assessment
(Abedi, 2003; Butler et al., 2004).
It is also striking that, while research on first language acquisition is a source of
inspiration to educational linguists, there is very little problematization within educational
linguistics of crucial questions of practice related to first language learning. Given huge
differences among children in the language skills available to them at entry to schooling, and
the demonstrated consequences of those differences for later school success (Tabors, Roach,
& Snow, 2001; Tabors, Snow, & Dickinson, 2001), it seems as if educational linguists need
to focus on questions about how to enrich language learning opportunities in early childhood.
For example: What practices should we recommend to parents and preschool teachers to
ensure optimal early language development? How does exposure to different activities and
activity structures (peer play, book-reading discussions, pretend play, etc.) promote the
development of language, especially the foundation for academic language?
Ironically, then, educational linguistics draws deeply on research aboutearly language
acquisition, but attends only minimally to the consequences of variation in early acquired
language skills for educational outcomes and has, for the most part, not exploited advances in
foreign/second language teaching methods to inform instruction in vocabulary and academic
language for monolinguals. It would be unwise not to take advantage of insights from
wellresearched areas, such as vocabulary instruction for L2, to explore how to bring them
into the mainstream of education practices. Are components identified as crucial in second
language research, such as metalinguistic awareness (Ellis, Chapter 31, this volume), or
“languaging” (Swain & Suzuki, Chapter 39, this volume), also factors positively associated
with more broadly defined school language and literacy skills? North (Chapter 16, this
volume) even asks if a common framework developed for the teaching of foreign or second
languages could be applied in primary school to the teaching of the mother tongue. As he
points out, we should not lose sight of the intrinsic differences distinguishing these two
learning processes and minimize the value of simple extrapolations from one field to another.
Still, well-replicated findings in SLA or FL research generate hypotheses about language
learning more broadly defined that deserve attention. These findings might be of particular
relevance to issues that arise when classrooms serve children from multiple language
backgrounds, for example those that emerge in thinking about Walter’s (Chapter 10, this
volume) question about what happens when the child does not speak the language of the
classroom.

The global question about language acquisition that might be at the center of a
systematic research agenda for educational linguistics is the following: What is the nature of
the knowledge about language available to a proficient speaker at different stages of
development of oral and literate skills? A corollary of this global question is the following
one: How can we define and assess the more advanced language skills typically developed
during middle childhood and adolescence? If we had the answers to these questions, then
many other troubling issues (e.g., What new language skills are needed to process academic
or disciplinary texts? What are the possibilities for transfer from a first to a second language
and/or literacy system? How should teachers respond to non-standard dialects? What
constitutes good classroom discussion?) would become much more tractable.
Despite the enormous value of the basic work done on language acquisition to
educational linguists, it is important to emphasize that improvements in domains such as
language teaching and language assessment cannot wait for more data and better theories
about either first or second language acquisition. The problems of practice are too large and
too urgent, as emphasized by Jones and Saville (Chapter 35, this volume), for solutions to be
postponed until all the data are collected. Indeed, one of the contributions of practitioners to
research is to provide candidates of excellent practice that can then be subjected to further
study and evaluation, and whose success or failure might inform theory.
Language development researchers, as noted above, have focused primarily on young
children and the major advances in language skills achieved between ages 1 and 3–4 years.
Their work is directly relevant to the practice of early childhood educators and has informed
and improved the design of preschool and parent-involvement programs. Most educators,
though, take those early accomplishments for granted, and concern themselves with later
language development – development of the capacity to engage in classroom discussion, to
produce extended discourse orally and in writing, to acquire sophisticated vocabulary, and
deploy complex grammar. Understanding these later developmental challenges, for students
operating in their first language and for those acquiring a second language, is a task with
which educational linguistics could help. As Hull and Hernandez (Chapter 23, this volume)
point out, adolescent literacy has lately received more attention; however, there are still
numerous gaps to fill in to fully understand how to better serve older students.
As both Jones and Saville (Chapter 35, this volume), and Davies (Chapter 34, this
volume) discuss, language proficiency becomes broader and more multidimensional at later
ages/grades. Therefore the challenge of assessing these more sophisticated language skills
also increases. Yet, in the accountabilitydriven world of education, developing assessments
for these more sophisticated language skills is key, because if they are not assessed, they are
unlikely to be attended to in the classroom. Furthermore, decisions about placement of
second language learners in mainstream classrooms should depend on valid assessments of
their ability to comprehend and produce the academic language needed for success in those
classrooms; it is still the case that second language proficiency tests often focus on basic
rather than academic language skills, and thus, exit students who are unprepared for the tasks
they will face in mainstream classrooms (Kieffer, Lesaux, & Snow, 2006).
Particularly when thinking about older learners, for whom language and literacy skills
are the gateway to all learning, the need to integrate instruction and assessment becomes
urgent. We agree with Huhta (Chapter 33, this volume) on the need to develop diagnostic
assessments that inform teacher practice and allow for ongoing feedback between teacher and
students. If, as claimed by Reaser and Adger, it is true that linguists and educational linguists
are becoming interested in collaborating with educators to produce practical assessments and
materials for classroom use, then the gap that currently exists in the availability of materials
on language variation could be filled productively. Indeed, recent collaborations among
linguists, educational linguists, and practitioners in the design and production of instructional
materials and assessment have started to produce successful results (Labov and Baker, 2001,
quoted by Reaser and Adger, Chapter 12, this volume).
Questions that arise, then, include the following: What are the key characteristics of
academic language needed for success in the middle and secondary grades? How can these
language skills best be taught? Do students benefit from instructional attention to these skills
as oral language in the primary or even preschool years? Do students who have acquired
academic language skills in a first language transfer useful knowledge of them to a second
language, and if so, under what circumstances and for what combinations of first and second
languages?
A recurrent issue in language teaching is the motivation of learners. Motivation is a
complicated issue in foreign language classes, in which the lack of a positive reason to master
the language might well be compounded by all sorts of negative motivations, e.g.,
embarrassment, fear of making errors, loss of self-esteem, or difficulty of an honorable self-
presentation during the early stages of language learning (see McKinney & Norton, Chapter
14, this volume). Motivation can also play a role in learners’ willingness to shift from a non-
standard to a standard dialect (see Mesthrie, Chapter 6, this volume), or to adopt the academic
language features desired for classroom discussion and for literacy.
There has been considerable research done showing the impact of motivation on
second/foreign language learning and exploring the interaction between types of motivation
and social setting in determining outcomes. However, the extension of these ideas to issues of
identity construction withina first language has not yet happened. Within the various content
areas, there is growing attention to important questions of the form: What does it mean to
speak/write like a historian or a scientist? What language skills are involved,and how
distinctive are they for the different content areas? The motivationrelated question that
accompanies these is: How do we create classroom conditions under which students are
motivated to acquire academic identities and the language skills associated with them?
Raising issues of identity and motivation also alerts us to the degree to which research
in educational linguistics has focused on some populations and language varieties to the
exclusion of others. The research agenda would not be complete without an urgent call for the
inclusion of those neglected populations and language varieties, as highlighted by various
authors in this volume:
• Reaser and Adger (Chapter 12) for non-standard varieties beyond African American
English;
• Supalla and Cripps (Chapter 13) for deaf children;
• McCarty, Skutnabb-Kangas, and Magga (Chapter 21) for endangered languages in
different parts of the world;
• King and Benson (Chapter 24) for indigenous languages;
• Hull and Hernandez (Chapter 23) with a more general call to study diverse cultures,
ethnicities, social classes, and gender.
As evidenced by these various calls, there is still a long list of populations awaiting
researchers’ attention.
The richness and breadth of the work presented in this volume emphasize the value of
greater clarity about the definition of educational linguistics, its goals, and the fundamental
questions with which it should grapple. Educational linguistics lies at the intersection of
research on education and research on applied linguistics (see LoBianco, Chapter 9, this
volume). While Applied Linguistics is the branch of linguistics that uses linguistic theory to
address real-world problems, Educational Linguistics is the branch of Applied Linguistics
that addresses real-world problems in education. By far the largest subfield within
educational linguistics has always been the study of second language acquisition and second
language teaching, and the rich accomplishments of that subfield are reflected in the several
chapters devoted to it in this volume. However, educational linguistics is much broader in
scope than just second/foreign language teaching. In fact, as argued by van Lier (Chapter 42,
this volume), it should encompass all academic learning mediated by language in one form or
another.
We have argued that educational linguistics needs on the one hand to narrow its focus
to pay particular attention to the most pressing real-world educational problems, and on the
other hand to expand its focus beyond language teaching/learning to an understanding of how
language mediates all educational encounters. Furthermore, in studying the role of language
in all learning and teaching, it is extremely helpful to remember the continuum proposed by
Bailey, Burkett, and Freeman (Chapter 43, this volume): from learning situations in which the
language used is transparent to all concerned (teacher and students share a language and
students control the academic language of the classroom) to situations were language use is
opaque (students are still learning the basics of the classroom language, even as learning
through that language is expected). Intermediate points on that continuum, where most
students and teachers probably find themselves, represent differing degrees of translucency –
i.e., students and teacher share a language but not necessarily all the specific linguistic
features that characterize disciplinary, metacognitive, or classroom language use. Identifying
the situations where lack of shared language knowledge interferes with learning, and
characterizing helpful approaches to those situations, in the form of pedagogical strategies,
curricular adjustments, student commitments, or reorganization of learning settings, is the
common and urgent challenge for educational linguists.
Still, well-replicated findings in SLA or FL research generate hypotheses about
language learning more broadly defined that deserve attention. These findings might be of
particular relevance to issues that arise when classrooms serve children from multiple
language backgrounds, for example those that emerge in thinking about Walter’s (Chapter 10,
this volume) question about what happens when the child does not speak the language of the
classroom.

Upaya untuk membuat pengaturan pendidikan yang berfungsi seperti rumah sakit pendidikan,

di mana dokter dan peneliti bekerja berdampingan, telah diluncurkan.

Sekolah pengembangan profesional (lihat http://www.ncate.org/public/

pdswhat.asp? ch = 133) adalah salah satu contohnya. Penelitian Pendidikan Strategis

Kemitraan (SERP; Donovan, Wigdor, & Snow, 2003) telah membentuk 'bidang

situs di distrik sekolah kolaborasi tempat praktisi mencalonkan masalah

peduli dan membangun solusi bersama dengan peneliti yang melihat diri mereka sendiri
sebagai insinyur yang membangun alat untuk memecahkan masalah praktik. Kebutuhan

untuk

ahli bahasa pendidikan untuk bekerja dalam pengaturan seperti itu jelas, karena banyak dari

masalah praktik yang dinominasikan sangat terkait dengan bahasa. Untuk

Misalnya, di situs lapangan SERP yang didirikan di Sekolah Umum Boston, file

Masalah utama yang menjadi perhatian adalah pemahaman membaca siswa sekolah

menengah, di

khususnya pengetahuan kosakata mereka, dan kapasitas mereka untuk memahami

wacana teks area konten. Of course, many of the “big ideas” commonly assumed to be true in

the community of educational linguists need to be made more particular if they are to

influence educational practice. For example, the claim that L1 instruction has a positive effect

on L2 literacy acquisition, or that advanced literacy skill is related to oral language

comprehension, are generally accepted as true, but what do they actually mean for classroom

practice?

Of course, many of the “big ideas” commonly assumed to be true in the

community of educational linguists need to be made more particular if they
are to influence educational practice. For example, the claim that L1 instruction has a positive effect on L2
literacy acquisition, or that advanced literacy
skill is related to oral language comprehension, are generally accepted as true,
but what do they actually mean for classroom practice?
If research is truly to be informed by practitioner knowledge, then systematic ways must exist for researchers to
learn what practitioners think and
what they want to know. SERP, for example, has launched a pilot survey to
collect information about middle school teachers’ literacy-related beliefs and
questions (www.serpinstitute.org); some data from a practitioners’ survey of
unanswered questions about Computer Assisted Language Learning is available at
http://www.stanford.edu/∼efs/callsurvey/index.html.

The two areas into which Hudson (Chapter 5, this volume) divides theory
are of great relevance to thinking about how researchers (including linguistic theorists), practitioners, and policy
makers might enter into a more fruitful
dialogue. Hudson distinguishes between ideas and models, the former being
much less controversial than the latter. He defines ideas as concepts about the
nature of language, which for the most part represent “issues on which linguists can agree.” For instance, all
linguists agree that language skills continue
to develop into adulthood, although they might disagree on why and how
these skills change; they also all agree that various language skills (phonology,
vocabulary, grammar, pragmatics) are separable and perhaps even uncorrelated.
Models “exist at the frontier of research” as they provide alternative explanations that are controversial by
nature. As pointed out by Hudson, linguists are
concerned with models, and their debates about models often obscure their
agreement on big ideas. Whereas linguists and developmental psychologists
can argue about the specifics of varied theoretical models, the job of educational linguistics is not to seek proofs
for theoretical formulations, but to generate relevant ideas for educational practice. If elucidating what teachers,
students, policy makers, and other educational participants need to know about
language to achieve successful outcomes is the goal, then focusing on ideas
instead of models offers a wise solution. Ideas, as Hudson points out, however, are not easily inferred from
theoretical linguistic writings; linguists could
contribute to education by spelling out the key ideas clearly. Indeed, collaborations among theoretical and
educational linguists could prove mutually
advantageous as ideas relevant to educational practice are identified, and as
real data from students challenge those ideas and offer evidence on which
more comprehensive linguistic models might be built.

Dua area di mana teori Hudson (Bab 5, volume ini)

membagi sangat relevan dengan pemikiran tentang
bagaimana peneliti (termasuk ahli teori linguistik),
praktisi, dan pembuat kebijakan dapat masuk ke
dalam dialog yang lebih bermanfaat. Hudson
membedakan antara ide dan model, model pertama
kurang kontroversial dibandingkan model kedua. Dia
mendefinisikan ide sebagai konsep tentang sifat
bahasa, yang sebagian besar mewakili "masalah yang
dapat disetujui oleh ahli bahasa." Misalnya, semua
ahli bahasa setuju bahwa keterampilan bahasa terus
berkembang hingga dewasa, meskipun mereka
mungkin tidak setuju tentang mengapa dan
bagaimana keterampilan ini berubah; mereka juga
semua setuju bahwa berbagai keterampilan bahasa
(fonologi, kosakata, tata bahasa, pragmatik) dapat
dipisahkan dan bahkan mungkin tidak berkorelasi.
Model “ada di garis depan penelitian” karena
memberikan penjelasan alternatif yang sifatnya
kontroversial. Seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh Hudson,
ahli bahasa prihatin dengan model, dan perdebatan
mereka tentang model sering mengaburkan
kesepakatan mereka tentang ide-ide besar. Sementara
ahli bahasa dan psikolog perkembangan dapat
berdebat tentang spesifikasi model teoritis yang
bervariasi, tugas linguistik pendidikan bukanlah
mencari bukti untuk formulasi teoritis, tetapi untuk
menghasilkan ide yang relevan untuk praktik
pendidikan. Jika tujuannya adalah menjelaskan apa
yang perlu diketahui oleh guru, siswa, pembuat
kebijakan, dan peserta pendidikan lainnya tentang
bahasa untuk mencapai hasil yang sukses, maka
fokus pada ide daripada model menawarkan solusi
yang bijaksana. Ide-ide, seperti yang ditunjukkan
Hudson, tidak mudah disimpulkan dari tulisan-
tulisan linguistik teoritis; ahli bahasa dapat
berkontribusi pada pendidikan dengan mengeja ide-
ide kunci secara jelas. Memang, kolaborasi antara
ahli bahasa teoritis dan pendidikan dapat terbukti
saling menguntungkan karena ide-ide yang relevan
dengan praktik pendidikan diidentifikasi, dan sebagai
data nyata dari siswa menantang ide-ide tersebut dan
menawarkan bukti di mana model linguistik yang
lebih komprehensif dapat dibangun.
Of course, many of the “big ideas” commonly assumed to be true in the
community of educational linguists need to be made more particular if they
are to influence educational practice. For example, the claim that L1 instruction has a positive effect on L2
literacy acquisition, or that advanced literacy
skill is related to oral language comprehension, are generally accepted as true,
but what do they actually mean for classroom practice?
Reaser and Adger (Chapter 12, this volume) review attempts to unravel
specific language-related factors that explain why the mismatch between vernacular and standard languages
constitutes such a challenge in school. Reaser
and Adger review studies carried out by Labov and his colleagues, showing
that there is a complex relationship between vernacular languages and reading. For example, some features of
African American English – introduced
when reading aloud standard English texts – are more likely than others to
constitute reading errors.
The more specific and practice-relevant research questions get, the more
they can generate other relevant questions and make significant contributions
to the improvement of students’ instruction and learning. An example of
such a question based on the research Reaser and Adger reviewed is: “Why
is it that knowledge of Standard English is so variable in the low SES
population . . . and what are the mechanisms by which increased knowledge
of Standard American English favors learning to read?” Answers to this type of question have great potential to
provide specifically targeted and useful
advice for educational practice.

Another level at which research needs to be made relevant to practitioners

is in the dissemination of findings. As Reaser and Adger (Chapter 12, this
volume) foreground, communication of linguists’ important insights to educational researchers requires different
approaches than communication to linguists.
Moreover, educational linguists should tailor their message to their various
audiences – educational researchers, teachers, policy makers, and other practitioners. The dimensions of
language in which each of these groups is interested,
and the terminology and illustrative examples that will appeal to each, differ
in important ways.
In a truly fruitful dialogue, then, linguists would articulate their big
ideas, practitioners would request specific implications for practice, and
linguists would track the effectiveness of those practical implications in order
to hone their big ideas. In a fruitful dialogue, both participants have much
to learn.
Another theme encountered across chapters is the value of research on first
language acquisition as a resource to educational linguists, and, in particular,
as a basis for thinking about both research and practice in second/foreign
language acquisition (Huhta, Chapter 33, this volume). As evidenced across
chapters in this book, there are some areas in which SLA has a longer trajectory of accumulated knowledge in
relation to research on L1, such as the
research–practice collaborations discussed above (Pica, Chapter 37, this
volume). Conversely, there are other fields in which research on L1 has deeper
resources and better articulated theories, such as early literacy assessment
(Huhta, Chapter 33, this volume). We celebrate the contributions of first language research to second language
instruction, but note that the vast literature
on first language acquisition is almost exclusively devoted to describing
natural, untutored acquisition, and emerges from a commitment to constructivist
views, in which the child is seen as spontaneously using input data to invent
language anew. Despite recently increasing efforts to improve students’
vocabulary skills via explicit instruction (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Carlo
et al., 2004; Biemiller & Boote, 2006), there is still scarce research on the role of
implicit or explicit instruction in first language acquisition, even though recent
findings have documented enormous differences among normally developing
children in language skills (e.g., Hart & Risley, 1995), and are beginning to
document the effects of language skills on content-area learning and assessment (Abedi, 2003; Butler et al.,
2004).

It is also striking that, while research on first language acquisition is a source

of inspiration to educational linguists, there is very little problematization
within educational linguistics of crucial questions of practice related to first language learning. Given huge
differences among children in the language
skills available to them at entry to schooling, and the demonstrated consequences of those differences for later
school success (Tabors, Roach, & Snow,
2001; Tabors, Snow, & Dickinson, 2001), it seems as if educational linguists
need to focus on questions about how to enrich language learning opportunities in early childhood. For example:
What practices should we recommend
to parents and preschool teachers to ensure optimal early language development? How does exposure to
different activities and activity structures (peer
play, book-reading discussions, pretend play, etc.) promote the development
of language, especially the foundation for academic language?

Ironically, then, educational linguistics draws deeply on research about

early language acquisition, but attends only minimally to the consequences of
variation in early acquired language skills for educational outcomes and has,
for the most part, not exploited advances in foreign/second language teaching
methods to inform instruction in vocabulary and academic language for
monolinguals. It would be unwise not to take advantage of insights from wellresearched areas, such as
vocabulary instruction for L2, to explore how to
bring them into the mainstream of education practices. Are components identified as crucial in second language
research, such as metalinguistic awareness
(Ellis, Chapter 31, this volume), or “languaging” (Swain & Suzuki, Chapter 39,
this volume), also factors positively associated with more broadly defined
school language and literacy skills? North (Chapter 16, this volume) even asks
if a common framework developed for the teaching of foreign or second languages could be applied in primary
school to the teaching of the mother
tongue. As he points out, we should not lose sight of the intrinsic differences
distinguishing these two learning processes and minimize the value of simple
extrapolations from one field to another. Still, well-replicated findings in SLA
or FL research generate hypotheses about language learning more broadly
defined that deserve attention. These findings might be of particular relevance
to issues that arise when classrooms serve children from multiple language
backgrounds, for example those that emerge in thinking about Walter’s (Chapter 10, this volume) question about
what happens when the child does not
speak the language of the classroom.

The global question about language acquisition that might be at the center
of a systematic research agenda for educational linguistics is the following:
What is the nature of the knowledge about language available to a proficient
speaker at different stages of development of oral and literate skills? A corollary of this global question is the
following one: How can we define and assess
the more advanced language skills typically developed during middle childhood and adolescence? If we had the
answers to these questions, then many
other troubling issues (e.g., What new language skills are needed to process
academic or disciplinary texts? What are the possibilities for transfer from a
first to a second language and/or literacy system? How should teachers respond to non-standard dialects? What
constitutes good classroom discussion?)
would become much more tractable.

Despite the enormous value of the basic work done on language acquisition
to educational linguists, it is important to emphasize that improvements in
domains such as language teaching and language assessment cannot wait for
more data and better theories about either first or second language acquisition.
The problems of practice are too large and too urgent, as emphasized by Jones
and Saville (Chapter 35, this volume), for solutions to be postponed until all
the data are collected. Indeed, one of the contributions of practitioners to
research is to provide candidates of excellent practice that can then be subjected to further study and evaluation,
and whose success or failure might
inform theory.

Language development researchers, as noted above, have focused primarily

on young children and the major advances in language skills achieved
between ages 1 and 3–4 years. Their work is directly relevant to the practice
of early childhood educators and has informed and improved the design of
preschool and parent-involvement programs. Most educators, though, take
those early accomplishments for granted, and concern themselves with later
language development – development of the capacity to engage in classroom
discussion, to produce extended discourse orally and in writing, to acquire
sophisticated vocabulary, and deploy complex grammar. Understanding these
later developmental challenges, for students operating in their first language
and for those acquiring a second language, is a task with which educational
linguistics could help. As Hull and Hernandez (Chapter 23, this volume) point
out, adolescent literacy has lately received more attention; however, there are
still numerous gaps to fill in to fully understand how to better serve older
students.

As both Jones and Saville (Chapter 35, this volume), and Davies (Chapter 34,
this volume) discuss, language proficiency becomes broader and more multidimensional at later ages/grades.
Therefore the challenge of assessing these
more sophisticated language skills also increases. Yet, in the accountabilitydriven world of education,
developing assessments for these more sophisticated language skills is key, because if they are not assessed,
they are
unlikely to be attended to in the classroom. Furthermore, decisions about
placement of second language learners in mainstream classrooms should
depend on valid assessments of their ability to comprehend and produce
the academic language needed for success in those classrooms; it is still the
case that second language proficiency tests often focus on basic rather
than academic language skills, and thus, exit students who are unprepared for
the tasks they will face in mainstream classrooms (Kieffer, Lesaux, & Snow,
2006).
Particularly when thinking about older learners, for whom language and
literacy skills are the gateway to all learning, the need to integrate instruction and assessment becomes urgent.
We agree with Huhta (Chapter 33, this
volume) on the need to develop diagnostic assessments that inform teacher
practice and allow for ongoing feedback between teacher and students. If,
as claimed by Reaser and Adger, it is true that linguists and educational
linguists are becoming interested in collaborating with educators to produce practical assessments and materials
for classroom use, then the gap
that currently exists in the availability of materials on language variation
could be filled productively. Indeed, recent collaborations among linguists,
educational linguists, and practitioners in the design and production of
instructional materials and assessment have started to produce successful
results (Labov and Baker, 2001, quoted by Reaser and Adger, Chapter 12, this
volume).
Questions that arise, then, include the following: What are the key characteristics of academic language needed
for success in the middle and secondary
grades? How can these language skills best be taught? Do students benefit
from instructional attention to these skills as oral language in the primary or
even preschool years? Do students who have acquired academic language
skills in a first language transfer useful knowledge of them to a second language, and if so, under what
circumstances and for what combinations of first
and second languages?
A recurrent issue in language teaching is the motivation of learners. Motivation is a complicated issue in foreign
language classes, in which the lack of
a positive reason to master the language might well be compounded by
all sorts of negative motivations, e.g., embarrassment, fear of making errors,
loss of self-esteem, or difficulty of an honorable self-presentation during the
early stages of language learning (see McKinney & Norton, Chapter 14, this
volume). Motivation can also play a role in learners’ willingness to shift from
a non-standard to a standard dialect (see Mesthrie, Chapter 6, this volume),
or to adopt the academic language features desired for classroom discussion
and for literacy.
There has been considerable research done showing the impact of motivation on second/foreign language
learning and exploring the interaction
between types of motivation and social setting in determining outcomes.
However, the extension of these ideas to issues of identity construction within
a first language has not yet happened. Within the various content areas, there
is growing attention to important questions of the form: What does it mean to
speak/write like a historian or a scientist? What language skills are involved,
and how distinctive are they for the different content areas? The motivationrelated question that accompanies
these is: How do we create classroom
conditions under which students are motivated to acquire academic identities
and the language skills associated with them?
Raising issues of identity and motivation also alerts us to the degree to
which research in educational linguistics has focused on some populations
and language varieties to the exclusion of others. The research agenda would
not be complete without an urgent call for the inclusion of those neglected
populations and language varieties, as highlighted by various authors in this
volume:
• Reaser and Adger (Chapter 12) for non-standard varieties beyond African
American English;
• Supalla and Cripps (Chapter 13) for deaf children;
• McCarty, Skutnabb-Kangas, and Magga (Chapter 21) for endangered
languages in different parts of the world;
• King and Benson (Chapter 24) for indigenous languages;
• Hull and Hernandez (Chapter 23) with a more general call to study diverse
cultures, ethnicities, social classes, and gender.
As evidenced by these various calls, there is still a long list of populations
awaiting researchers’ attention.
The richness and breadth of the work presented in this volume emphasize the
value of greater clarity about the definition of educational linguistics, its goals,
and the fundamental questions with which it should grapple. Educational
linguistics lies at the intersection of research on education and research on
applied linguistics (see LoBianco, Chapter 9, this volume). While Applied
Linguistics is the branch of linguistics that uses linguistic theory to address
real-world problems, Educational Linguistics is the branch of Applied Linguistics that addresses real-world
problems in education. By far the largest
subfield within educational linguistics has always been the study of second
language acquisition and second language teaching, and the rich accomplishments of that subfield are reflected
in the several chapters devoted to it in this
volume. However, educational linguistics is much broader in scope than just
second/foreign language teaching. In fact, as argued by van Lier (Chapter 42,
this volume), it should encompass all academic learning mediated by language in one form or another.

We have argued that educational linguistics needs on the one hand to

narrow its focus to pay particular attention to the most pressing real-world
educational problems, and on the other hand to expand its focus beyond
language teaching/learning to an understanding of how language mediates
all educational encounters. Furthermore, in studying the role of language in
all learning and teaching, it is extremely helpful to remember the continuum
proposed by Bailey, Burkett, and Freeman (Chapter 43, this volume): from
learning situations in which the language used is transparent to all concerned (teacher and students share a
language and students control the academic
language of the classroom) to situations were language use is opaque (students are still learning the basics of the
classroom language, even as learning
through that language is expected). Intermediate points on that continuum,
where most students and teachers probably find themselves, represent differing degrees of translucency – i.e.,
students and teacher share a language but
not necessarily all the specific linguistic features that characterize disciplinary,
metacognitive, or classroom language use. Identifying the situations where
lack of shared language knowledge interferes with learning, and characterizing helpful approaches to those
situations, in the form of pedagogical strategies, curricular adjustments, student commitments, or reorganization
of learning
settings, is the common and urgent challenge for educational linguists.

Still, well-replicated findings in SLA

or FL research generate hypotheses about language learning more broadly
defined that deserve attention. These findings might be of particular relevance
to issues that arise when classrooms serve children from multiple language
backgrounds, for example those that emerge in thinking about Walter’s (Chapter 10, this volume) question about
what happens when the child does not
speak the language of the classroom.