Advertisement

Design Principles and The Future of Applied Linguistics

  • Albert Weideman
Chapter
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 28)

Abstract

A theory of applied linguistics is possible, and warranted in order to acknowledge the coherence of the discipline, as well as to provide an awareness of its orientation. One of the tasks of a theory of applied linguistics is to identify typical and general design principles. The latter include constitutive principles such as reliability, validity and differentiation, and regulative requirements like transparency, accessibility, accountability, fairness and reputability. Responsible design starts with the employment of one’s technical imagination, while allowing the design to be guided by these principles.

Keywords

Foundational framework Theory of applied linguistics Disciplinary coherence Design Imagination Reciprocal conditions Principles Artefacts Interventions 

References

  1. Alderson, J. C. (1992). Guidelines for the evaluation of language education. In J. C. Alderson & A. Baretta (Eds.), Evaluating second language education (pp. 274–304). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alderson, J. C., & Baretta, A. (Eds.). (1992). Evaluating second language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baretta, A. (1986). Program-fair for language teaching evaluation. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 431–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baretta, A. (1990). The program evaluator: The ESL researcher without portfolio. Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baretta, A., & Davies, A. (1985). Evaluation of the Bangalore project. English Language Teaching Journal, 39(2), 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carstens, A. (2009). The effectiveness of genre-based approaches in teaching academic writing: Subject-specific versus cross-disciplinary approaches. Ph.D thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.Google Scholar
  9. Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cumming, A. (2008). Theory in an applied field. Contribution to Symposium: Theory in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies, A. (2007). Introduction to applied linguistics: From practice to theory (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Davies, A., & Elder, C. (2004). General introduction – Applied linguistics: Subject to discipline. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 1–15). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Bot, K. (2015). A history of applied linguistics: From 1980 to the present. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Department of Basic Education. (2011a). Curriculum and assessment policy statement (CAPS) for English home language, further education and training phase, grades 10–12. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.Google Scholar
  15. Department of Basic Education. (2011b). Curriculum and assessment policy statement (CAPS) for English first additional language, further education and training phase, grades 10–12. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.Google Scholar
  16. Du Plessis, C., Steyn, S., & Weideman, A. (2013). Towards a construct for assessing high level language ability in grade 12. Report to the council for quality assurance in general and further education and training (Umalusi) on home language examinations. Bloemfontein: ICELDA.Google Scholar
  17. Hinkel, E. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. ICELDA (Inter-Institutional Centre for Language Development and Assessment). (2014). http://icelda.sun.ac.za/. Accessed 6 Aug 2014.
  19. Kaplan, R. B. (Ed.). (2002). The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kotze, H., & McKay, V. (1997). Molteno early literacy and language development project evaluation report. Pretoria: ABET Institute, UNISA.Google Scholar
  21. Kroes, H. (1991a). Evaluation of the Easing into English project. Bloemfontein: Urban Foundation.Google Scholar
  22. Kroes, H. (1991b). Die evaluering van taalonderrig: ’n Voorbeeld uit die praktyk. Journal for Language Teaching, 25(3), 30–40.Google Scholar
  23. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Applied linguistics in the age of globalization. Translated and published in Portuguese as “A linguistica aplicada na era da globalizacao.” In L. P. Moita Lopes (Ed.), New ways of doing applied linguistics/Por uma linguistica aplicada indisciplinar (pp. 129–148). Sao Paulo, Brazil: Parabola Editorial.Google Scholar
  24. Linn, R. L. (Ed.). (1989). Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New York: American Council on Education/Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Macdonald, C., & Burroughs, E. (1991). Eager to talk and learn and think: Bilingual primary education in South Africa. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.Google Scholar
  26. McNamara, T. (2008). Mapping the scope of theory in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 302–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meara, P. (2014). _lognostics: Tools for vocabulary research. Available: http://www.lognostics.co.uk/. Accessed 1 Dec 2014.
  28. Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35(11), 1012–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Messick, S. (1981). Evidence and ethics in the evaluation of tests. Educational Researcher, 10(9), 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Messick, S. (1988). The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In H. Wainer & I. H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 33–45). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: American Council on Education/Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Moita Lopes, L. P. (Ed.). (2006). New ways of doing applied linguistics/Por uma linguistica aplicada indisciplinar. Sao Paulo: Parabola Editorial.Google Scholar
  33. Patterson, R., & Weideman, A. (2013a). The typicality of academic discourse and its relevance for constructs of academic literacy. Journal for Language Teaching, 47(1), 107–123. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jlt.v47i1.5.
  34. Patterson, R., & Weideman, A. (2013b). The refinement of a construct for tests of academic literacy. Journal for Language Teaching, 47(1), 125–151. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jlt.v47i1.6.
  35. Purpura, J. E., Brown, J. D., & Schoonen, R. (2015). Improving the validity of quantitative measures in applied linguistics research. Language Learning, 65(Suppl. 1), 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rajagopalan, K. (2004). The philosophy of applied linguistics. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 397–420). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rambiritch, A. (2012). Accessibility, transparency and accountability as regulative conditions for a post-graduate test of academic literacy. Ph.D. thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein.Google Scholar
  38. Read, J. (Ed.). (2016). Post-admission language assessment in universities: International perspectives. Forthcoming from Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Rea-Dickens, P., & Germaine, K. P. (Eds.). (1998). Managing evaluation and innovation in language teaching: Building bridges. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  40. Schuurman, E. (1972). Techniek en toekomst: Confrontatie met wijsgerige beschouwingen. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  41. Street, B. (2000). Academic literacies and the “New communicative order”: Implications for research and practice in student writing in HE. Keynote address at the CALSSA Conference, University of Cape Town, 11 December 2000. [Several handouts and a summary].Google Scholar
  42. Van der Slik, F., & Weideman, A. (2005). The refinement of a test of academic literacy. Per Linguam, 21(1), 23–35.Google Scholar
  43. Van der Slik, F., & Weideman, A. (2008). Measures of improvement in academic literacy. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 26(3), 363–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van der Slik, F., & Weideman, A. (2009). Revisiting test stability: Further evidence relating to the measurement of difference in performance on a test of academic literacy. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 27(3), 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van der Slik, F., & Weideman, A. (2010). Examining bias in a test of academic literacy: Does the Test of Academic Literacy Levels (TALL) treat students from English and African language backgrounds differently? SAALT Journal for Language Teaching, 44(2), 106–118.Google Scholar
  46. Van der Walt, J. L., & Steyn, H. S., Jr. (2007). Pragmatic validation of a test of academic literacy at tertiary level. Ensovoort, 11(2), 138–153.Google Scholar
  47. Van Dyk, T. (2010). Konstitutiewe voorwaardes vir die ontwerp en ontwikkeling van ’n toets vir akademiese geletterdheid. Ph.D. thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein.Google Scholar
  48. Van Dyk, T., & Weideman, A. (2004). Finding the right measure: From blueprint to specification to item type. SAALT Journal for Language Teaching, 38(1), 15–24.Google Scholar
  49. Wainer, H., & Braun, I. H. (Eds.). (1988). Test validity. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Weideman, A. (2002). Designing language teaching: On becoming a reflective professional. Pretoria: BE at UP.Google Scholar
  51. Weideman, A. (2003). Assessing and developing academic literacy. Per Linguam, 19(1 & 2), 55–65.Google Scholar
  52. Weideman, A. (2006). A systematically significant episode in applied linguistics. In L. O. K. Lategan & J. H. Smit (Eds.), Time and context relevant philosophy (Special edition 1 of the Journal for Christian Scholarship, 42, pp. 231–244).Google Scholar
  53. Weideman, A. (2009a). Beyond expression: A systematic study of the foundations of linguistics. Grand Rapids: Paideia Press in association with the Reformational Publishing Project.Google Scholar
  54. Weideman, A. (2009b). Constitutive and regulative conditions for the assessment of academic literacy. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 27(3), 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weideman, A. (2011a). A framework for the study of linguistics. Pretoria: Van Schaik; Grand Rapids: Paideia Press.Google Scholar
  56. Weideman, A. (2011b). Academic literacy tests: Design, development, piloting and refinement. SAALT Journal for Language Teaching, 45(2), 100–113.Google Scholar
  57. Weideman, A. (2012). Validity and validation beyond Messick. Per Linguam, 28(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  58. Weideman, A. (2013a). The modal delimitation of the field of linguistics. Journal for Christian Scholarship, 49(4), 95–122.Google Scholar
  59. Weideman, A. (2013b). Innovation and reciprocity in applied linguistics. Literator, 35(1),1–10. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/lit.v35i1.1074.
  60. Weideman, A., Du Plessis C., & Steyn S. (2015, November). Diversity, variation and fairness: Equivalence in national level language assessments. Paper prepared for the 4th international conference on Language, Education and Diversity (LED 2015) (pp. 23–26) Auckland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Albert Weideman
    • 1
  1. 1.University of the Free StateBloemfonteinSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations