Affiliation:
1. Department of Applied Linguistics, Sparks 303, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802
Abstract
Abstract
This article re-examines the distinction between native and nonnative students that writing programs adopt in structuring their courses. It critiques the monolingual orientation based on ideologies of language ownership, homogeneity, and territoriality that this distinction is based on and develops a more expansive translingual orientation relevant to diversity in globalization and multilingualism. After articulating the changes involved in facilitating literacy acquisition, it examines the uptake of writing scholars to address their concerns. The article ends by illustrating how policy level changes can be made to accommodate the emerging orientations of translingualism by discussing how New York State secondary school teachers have implemented the Common Core State Standards.
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference66 articles.
1. Agha, Asif. 2003. The social life of cultural value. Language and Communication 23. 231–273.
2. Amicucci, Ann & Tracy Lassiter. 2014. Multimodal concept drawings: Engaging EAL learners in brainstorming about course terms. TESOL Journal 5(3). 523–531.
3. Application of Common Core State Standards for English Language Learners. http://corestandards.org/assets/application-for-english-learners.pdf (accessed 1 December 2014).
4. Atkinson, Dwight, Deborah Cruson, Paul Kei Matsuda, Christina Ortmeier-Hooper, Todd Ruecker, Steve Simpson & Christine Tardy. 2015. Clarifying the relationship between L2 writing and translingual writing: An open letter to writing studies editors and organization leaders. College English 77(4). 383–386.
5. Auerbach, Elsa. 1994. Participatory action research. TESOL Quarterly 28. 693–697.
Cited by
64 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献