Conflicting views on language policy and planning at a Colombian university

Miranda, Norbella; Berdugo, Martha; Tejada, Harvey

doi:10.4324/9780203732106-13

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, it is these individuals who organize the implementation of policy, seek responses to local needs and in turn influence the trend in prospective policy making (Liddicoat & Taylor-Leech, 2014, p. 237). As the link between LPP at the national level and policy implementation in the classroom, mesolevel university administrators are key not only in negotiating and reinterpreting top-down policy, but also in making school-based LPP (Harklau & Yang, 2019;Soler & Vihman, 2017;Miranda et al, 2016;Pinto & Araújo, 2019). They are in fact the real local policy arbiters and policy makers with a disproportionate amount of impact on language policy and education programs (Johnson, 2013;Johnson & Johnson, 2015).…”

Section: Individual Agency In Foreign Language Education Policy In Chinamentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual agency and changing language education policy in China: reactions to the new ‘Guidelines on College English Teaching’

Jingyan

Wei

2019

Current Issues in Language Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooper's (1989) LPP framework focuses on "who" the policy planner is and "who" implements the policy to "whom". These are particularly significant factors in a highly centralized education system such as China's, where the effect of different individuals as actors in LPP remains largely unexplored. This article examines the controversy around the predominant status of College English and the resulting adjustments that have been made in a new English education policy -Guidelines on College English Teaching (GCET) -in 2017, and categorizes the relevant stakeholders into five groups from macro to micro levels and examines their agency roles through investigating their attitudes, interpretations and reactions towards the change in the status of College English in the GCET. The results show that multiple layers of individuals have been endowed with disproportionate powers in status planning. Compared with English teachers and people with expertise, people with influence in society and university administrators constitute the more powerful forces in effecting language policy making.

show abstract

Section: Individual Agency In Foreign Language Education Policy In Chinamentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual agency and changing language education policy in China: reactions to the new ‘Guidelines on College English Teaching’

Jingyan

Wei

2019

Current Issues in Language Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This means that while macrolevel actors are usually identified as governments and micro-level actors are understood as agents acting in local contexts (Liddicoat and Baldauf 2008), there is less clarity about who meso-level actors are. Miranda, Berdugo and Tejada (2016), studying university language policy, attempt to resolve this issue by understanding the meso-level as a fluid concept, with the macro being represented by actors outside the university, the micro-level by academics and students and the meso-level by all actors between the two. This more fluid conceptualisation is quite sensitive to context with the micro-level being the most local level of actors and the mesolevel those actors that intervene between the macro-and the micro-level.…”

Section: Lpp As a Field Of Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

17 Language policy and planning for language maintenance: The macro and meso levels

Liddicoat¹

2020

Handbook of Home Language Maintenance and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Revealing stakeholders’ perspectives on educational language policy in higher education through Q-methodology

Alkhateeb

Hamad

Mustafawi

2020

Current Issues in Language Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Qatar University is currently at a crossroads, having to respond to competing institutional, national, and international language policy issues. This paper aims to reveal how Qatar University's internal and external stakeholders perceive the future directions of the university's language in education policy. In particular, through Q-methodology, we attempt to uncover social perspectives on three educational language policy options, proposed to the university's higher administration, by the strategic planning team, to respond to pressing linguistic needs and priorities. The aim is to initiate and support a more-informed discussion about language in education policy at Qatar University. Results indicate strong agreement among the various perspectives taken by the university's stakeholders regarding the need for a language in education policy that seeks to manage the relationship between Arabic and English in a parallel way.

show abstract

Conflicting views on language policy and planning at a Colombian university

Cited by 4 publications

References 1 publication

Individual agency and changing language education policy in China: reactions to the new ‘Guidelines on College English Teaching’

Individual agency and changing language education policy in China: reactions to the new ‘Guidelines on College English Teaching’

17 Language policy and planning for language maintenance: The macro and meso levels

Revealing stakeholders’ perspectives on educational language policy in higher education through Q-methodology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About