ERLA’S DIRECTORY – Section 1.2
SPACE WHERE ERLA MEMBERS CAN SHARE KEY RELEVANT FACTS, IDEAS, CONCEPTS AND FINDINGS
TEXTUAL HIGHLIGHTS
| FACTS | ||
| ERL BOOK – publication co-edited by two ERLA members | In the Search of A Language Educational Paradigm. Part I: In the search of A Language Educational Paradigm. Part II. In the Serach of A Language Didactic Paradigm. |  |
| 1st ERL Online Session (5 May) | Learner and Teacher Language Identity
See the titles of contributions. |
 |
| 2nd ERL Online Session (5-6 Oct) | Linguistic Component of Pedagogical Identity
See the titles of contributions. |
 |
| Publication of ERL Journal Volume 2020-1(3) | Examining Learner and Teacher Language Identity. Sections: Identity on the level of critical awareness, Identity on the level of official documents, Identity on the level of educational texts, Identity on the level of didactic practics |  |
| Publication of ERL Journal Volume 2020-1(4) | (Re-)Shaping One’s Identity with Language. Sections: Interdisciplinary perspectives, Cross-cultural encounters, Pursuits of linguistic quality, Assimilative intersections |  |
| IDEAS | |
| ERL COST Action application | Educational Role of Language – Recognising Learners’ and Teachers’ Linguistic Identities
The overall goal of the Action is to study learners’ and teachers’ linguistic identities understood as a combination of what they THINK OF their language, what they DO WITH it, how they FEEL ABOUT it, and how they SEE the world THROUGH it. This fourfold – highly personalized – hybrid of language beliefs, activity, affect, and matrices (respectively) has a pivotal role: it determines one’s educational and professional success and shapes the entirety of learning and teaching environments. By recognizing teachers’ and learners’ identities, we come to understand their functioning across all subjects and disciplines. As anyone’s language identity is shaped by social and cultural influences, the Action involves studies across educational systems around the globe and so rests on international networking. As language identities constitute multi-dimensional constructs, the Action rests on interdisciplinary cooperation and (its novelty) consists in joint analyses of axiological, psychomotor, affective, and cognitive aspects. Practically, it focuses on how teachers and students define themselves language-wise, and addresses such questions as when & where they feel their language skills enhance or limit their education/job prospects, how they see better “versions” of themselves linguistically, etc. – with these issues being additionally related in the Action to migrant/refugee language experience and digital language educational practices. Theory- and methodology-wise, the Action draws on the interpretative paradigm and the concept of personal constructs. By unravelling how teachers and students identity themselves linguistically, the Action is meant to study (and boost) the position of language in education and bridge the gap between linguistic and educational studies. |
| Key questions on learners’ linguistic identity | 1. What views do learners hold with regard to their language(s)?
2. What activity do learners undertake with regard to their language? 3. What emotions do learners cherish with regard to their language(s)? 4. What conceptualizations do learners present with regard to their language(s)?
|
| Linguistic identity through the prism of language skills across educational domains |  |
VISUAL HIGHLIGHTS
|
CONCEPTS |
||
 |
ERLA online Sessions – meant to be “everything that ERL live Conferences are not | INFORMAL quarterly events
participation free-of-charge meant to discuss IDEAS shorter (10-15 mins) talks |
 |
4 questions to address during ERL online Sessions (covering 4 educational domains) | 4 questions need to be addressed, but different “routes” can be taken |
|
FINDINGS |
||
| Students’ individual encounters with and personal reflection on questions relating to four educational domains |  |
Language learners prove to have enountered far fewer questions relating to the axiological and affective side of linguistic experience, with the former being viewed by them as more significant than the latter. Hence, their reflection on their linguistic personality becomes limited and two (our of four) educational domains fall out their commonplace experiencing of language. To read more, go to Language personality as a four-dimensional construct falling outside university students’ reflection |
| Relationship between the focus on 4 characteristics of a foreign language and the complete mastery of a topic as perceived by students from different countries |  |
The structural orientation (within and across topics) proves to be approached least posiively as compared to the command of lexis, fluency, and – most interestingly – correctness. With regard to the 4 facets, there exist clear differences between how they are approached by students from Asia and Africa as opposed to Europeans (or, in other words, how a foreign language is “composed” by them). To find out more, go to ‘Do English learners from different countries approach (“compose”) topics differently. A study report |