Prescriptivism, linguicism and pedagogical coercion in primary school UK curriculum policy

IF 0.8 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH English Teaching-Practice and Critique Pub Date : 2019-11-18 DOI:10.1108/etpc-05-2019-0063
I. Cushing
{"title":"Prescriptivism, linguicism and pedagogical coercion in primary school UK curriculum policy","authors":"I. Cushing","doi":"10.1108/etpc-05-2019-0063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper is a critical reflection on the linguistic conservatism as found within current curriculum policies and assessment regimes in the UK, arguing that they represents a form of linguicism which serves to entrench linguistic social injustices. This paper aims to trace the “trajectory” of policy across different levels, discourses and settings, with a particular focus on how linguicism is conceptualised, defended and resisted by teachers. The author draws connections between language ideologies within policy discourse, language tests and teacher interviews.,This study adopts a critical approach to examining educational language policies and assessments. It begins with the assumption that policies and tests are powerful political and ideological tools, which can steer teachers into making certain decisions in the classroom, some of which they may not believe in or agree with. Data are drawn from policy documents, test questions and teacher interviews, with a focus on how teachers talk about language and pedagogies in their classrooms. In total, 22 teachers were interviewed, with this data being transcribed and thematically indexed.,The findings reveal how linguicism is embedded within UK education policy, and how this comes to be replicated within teachers’ discourse and practice. There are three main findings: that teachers can come to operate under a form of “pedagogical coercion”, whereby language policies and tests have a powerful hold on their practice; that teachers see current policy as championing standard English at the expense of non-standardised varieties, and that teachers often see and talk about language as a proxy for other social factors such as education and employability.,This study provides a critical perspective on language education policies in the UK, arguing for greater awareness about the nature and dangers of linguicism across all levels of policy. Data generated from classroom interaction would be a useful avenue for future work.,This paper offers an original, discursively critical examination of language education policy in the UK, with a particular focus on the current curriculum and using original data generated from teacher interviews and associated policy documents.","PeriodicalId":45885,"journal":{"name":"English Teaching-Practice and Critique","volume":"4 1","pages":"35-47"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"English Teaching-Practice and Critique","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/etpc-05-2019-0063","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This paper is a critical reflection on the linguistic conservatism as found within current curriculum policies and assessment regimes in the UK, arguing that they represents a form of linguicism which serves to entrench linguistic social injustices. This paper aims to trace the “trajectory” of policy across different levels, discourses and settings, with a particular focus on how linguicism is conceptualised, defended and resisted by teachers. The author draws connections between language ideologies within policy discourse, language tests and teacher interviews.,This study adopts a critical approach to examining educational language policies and assessments. It begins with the assumption that policies and tests are powerful political and ideological tools, which can steer teachers into making certain decisions in the classroom, some of which they may not believe in or agree with. Data are drawn from policy documents, test questions and teacher interviews, with a focus on how teachers talk about language and pedagogies in their classrooms. In total, 22 teachers were interviewed, with this data being transcribed and thematically indexed.,The findings reveal how linguicism is embedded within UK education policy, and how this comes to be replicated within teachers’ discourse and practice. There are three main findings: that teachers can come to operate under a form of “pedagogical coercion”, whereby language policies and tests have a powerful hold on their practice; that teachers see current policy as championing standard English at the expense of non-standardised varieties, and that teachers often see and talk about language as a proxy for other social factors such as education and employability.,This study provides a critical perspective on language education policies in the UK, arguing for greater awareness about the nature and dangers of linguicism across all levels of policy. Data generated from classroom interaction would be a useful avenue for future work.,This paper offers an original, discursively critical examination of language education policy in the UK, with a particular focus on the current curriculum and using original data generated from teacher interviews and associated policy documents.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国小学课程政策中的规定主义、语言主义和教学强制
本文是对英国当前课程政策和评估制度中发现的语言保守主义的批判性反思,认为它们代表了一种有助于巩固语言社会不公正的语言主义形式。本文旨在追踪不同层次、话语和环境下的政策“轨迹”,特别关注语言主义是如何被教师概念化、捍卫和抵制的。作者将政策话语、语言测试和教师访谈中的语言意识形态联系起来。本研究采用批判性的方法来审查教育语言政策和评估。它首先假设政策和考试是强大的政治和意识形态工具,可以引导教师在课堂上做出某些决定,其中一些他们可能不相信或不同意。数据来自政策文件、试题和教师访谈,重点关注教师如何在课堂上谈论语言和教学法。总共采访了22位教师,这些数据被转录并按主题索引。研究结果揭示了语言是如何嵌入英国教育政策的,以及这是如何在教师的话语和实践中得到复制的。有三个主要发现:教师可以在一种“教学强制”的形式下工作,因此语言政策和测试对他们的实践有强大的控制力;教师们认为当前的政策是以牺牲非标准化的变体为代价来支持标准英语,教师们经常把语言视为教育和就业能力等其他社会因素的代表。这项研究为英国的语言教育政策提供了一个批判性的视角,主张在各级政策中提高对语言主义的本质和危险的认识。课堂互动产生的数据将是未来工作的有用途径。本文对英国的语言教育政策进行了原创的、话语式的批判性考察,特别关注当前的课程,并使用了从教师访谈和相关政策文件中产生的原始数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
11.10%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: English Teaching: Practice and Critique seeks to promote research and theory related to English literacy that is grounded in a range of contexts: classrooms, schools and wider educational constituencies. The journal has as its main focus English teaching in L1 settings. Submissions focused on EFL will be considered only if they have clear pertinence to English literacy in L1 settings. It provides a place where authors from a range of backgrounds can identify matters of common concern and thereby foster broad professional communities and networks. Where possible, English Teaching: Practice and Critique encourages comparative approaches to topics and issues. The journal published three types of manuscripts: research articles, essays (theoretical papers, reviews, and responses), and teacher narratives. Often special issues of the journal focus on distinct topics; however, unthemed manuscript submissions are always welcome and published in most issues.
期刊最新文献
Experiencing the cycles of love in teaching: the praxis of an early career Asian American ELA teacher Reading with love: the potential of critical posthuman reading practices in preservice English education Claiming a space in the W/writerly community to increase English Language Arts teacher agency “I’m really just scared of the White parents”: a teacher navigates perceptions of barriers to discussing racial injustice Playful literacies and pedagogical priorities: digital games in the English classroom
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1