{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021497919556171984, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.140425531914894, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Language Education in English Education: Grammar instruction, grammar plus, or critical social analysis?

I consider the difficulty of deciding what to include in a one-semester course on language education in English education for preservice teachers. While it is imperative to prepare teachers to talk about language in written texts, other concerns of the English classroom, from classroom talk to reflections on self, can be illuminated by knowledge about language. I describe different representations of the language system: one proposed in a scope and sequence document prepared by a group of linguists and educators in the United States; and the other Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG), which, while relatively unknown and unsupported in the United States, has influenced education in Australia. While I admire the advances in language education being made in the United States, in my view, SFG offers a conceptual advantage to those who want to make the link between grammar and broader concerns. I believe it is possible to use SFG conceptually in the design of classroom activities, while also relying on non-SFG methods to make visible, for instance, the operations of talk in the classroom. In the end, I advocate linking language to issues that matter, focusing above the language system to meaning-making more broadly, and using knowledge about language in the service of social analysis as well as the interpretation of texts.