A conceptual framework for interpreting linguistic approaches to the study of educational events and processes is presented. This is followed by an examination of the methodological issues associated with these kinds of linguistic analyses. Finally, some representative findings from recent linguistic studies are presented. These three sections answer the question: What is meant by a linguistic perspective to teaching and learning processes? This relatively new and different perspective about classrooms and schools helps further our understanding of what is communicated to whom in educational settings—an enduring problem in social psychology and psycholinguistics.
The question of the relationship between ethnography, discourse and education has been an area of an ongoing development for the last four decades. This paper addresses a series of questions proposed by the editors of this special issue of Calestrocópio Journal. These questions led us to a reexamination of key arguments by Shirley B. Heath, Brian V. Street and Kathryn M. Anderson-Levitt, who have influenced how ethnography can inform epistemological approaches to studying language in use in everyday settings in and out of school. In addition, we revisited the distinction between ethnography in and of education, proposed by Green and Bloome (1997), in the light of a recent reformulation focused on Anthropology in Education, of Education and for Education. This article focuses on the logic of inquiry central to understanding ethnography as epistemology
Beverly Gage has written a richly detailed and superbly rendered history of one of the worst—and most neglected—terrorist bombings in American history: the dynamite explosion of September 16, 1920, that killed thirty-eight people on Wall Street. Although all but erased from public memory (and ignored by historians until now), the event was sensational news in 1920 and remained so for the next two years during a series of fruitless and often bizarre investigations that failed to solve the mystery of who planted the bomb. Gage's account of those investigative twists and turns reads like a great detective novel, but the story lacks a Sherlock Holmes character. We learn of the bungled efforts of chief investigator for the U.S. Department of Justice William J. Flynn, special assistant J. Edgar Hoover, the egoistic “great detective” William J. Burns, and outgoing U.S. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, who hoped to use the Wall Street case to rescue his tattered reputation.
'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(144 450 300)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(216 450 300)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(288 450 300)'/%3e%3c/svg%3e)