Reconceptualizing the Nature of Goals and Outcomes in Language/s Education

Abstract

Transformations associated with the increasing speed, scale, and complexity of mobilities, together with the information technology revolution, have changed the demography of most countries of the world and brought about accompanying social, cultural, and economic shifts (Heugh, ). This complex diversity has changed the very nature of communication within and across languages, in society in general, and in education. These changes in turn require a reconceptualization of our approach to language/s education in ways that recognize a diversity of goals for people from different backgrounds, people who are learning a variety of languages in diverse settings and who may be interested in developing different capabilities and achieving different outcomes. In this article, we address the reconceptualization of the goals and outcomes of learning additional languages and processes for their formulation and realization. We will make explicit the educational values that underpin our position. Recognizing the immense diversity that the learning of additional languages in diverse contexts encompasses, our consideration is necessarily conceptual. The point of departure for our discussion is communicative language teaching, the dominant paradigm for language teaching for the past 40 years. We briefly trace its historical development and provide an account of some of the conceptual and theoretical expansions since its initial formulation. In light of this expansion we then discuss goals for learning additional languages by: (a) reaffirming the multilingual character of communication and learning to communicate, focusing on the exchange of meaning, (b) (re‐)inserting the importance of personal development and aesthetics, and (c) recognizing the centrality of reflectivity and reflexivity in communication and learning to communicate. We conclude with a set of principles that are intended to capture the expanded nature of goals and their rendering for the purposes of teaching and learning.

The ideal multilingual self: validity, influences on motivation, and role in a multilingual education

“…Changes in the nature of communication across and within languages brought about by globalization mean that language education needs to be reconceptualized in ways that take account of the diversity of reasons for learning (Duff, 2017;Leung & Scarino, 2016). Arguing that learning objectives are often too narrowly-defined, and generally mesh poorly with the needs and interests of individual learners, Leung and Scarino (2016) argue for a 'holistic and expansive consideration' of the goals of language learning (p. 82).…”

Translanguaging and the Transdisciplinary Framework for Language Teaching and Learning in a Multilingual World

“…There is much work to be done in designing and conducting studies that help us understand the ideal role of initial communicative resources as well as the function and the quantity of exposure to additional‐language communicative resources in the development of variously identified instructional goals. In moving forward, it will serve us well if researchers and practitioners carefully identify: (a) the specific context of their study and practice, (b) the particular goals of instruction, (c) the language resources that make up the repertoires of both teachers and students at the beginning of the particular instructional event/situation that is described, and (d) the designed end goal of the activities and pedagogies in which teachers and students are engaged, including life‐long learning frameworks and schemes that take account of developments and attritions (for a further discussion, see Leung & Scarino, ).…”

Multilingual communication under the radar: how multilingual children challenge the dominant monolingual discourse in a super-diverse, Early Years educational setting in England

“…Thus, in the domain of schools, we see a similar enforcement of particular 'regimes of truth' to that presented at a national level, where certain language practices and identities are privileged as social institutions which "hinge on the ideologization of language use" (Woolard and Schieffelin 1994, 56). Thus, in the Early Years Foundation Stage curriculum (birth to five years) (DfE 2017), children's competency in English is assessed through early learning goals which are indicative of the government's wider approach to ensuring that children are achieving the expected standardsan approach which reflects the neoliberal ideology that has dominated the education system since the 1990s (Leung and Scarino 2016).…”

“…A considerable body of literature identifies the growing presence of the monolingual "English is the language of England" ideology from a post-structural perspective (Pavlenko and Blackledge 2001) and analyses how this has filtered into the domain of schools (Leung and Scarino 2016). To date, however, there has been limited consideration of how children resist this dominant discourse by subverting the linguistic norms of a classroom and communicating "below the radar" in languages other than English.…”