The authors trace the development of the concept of translanguaging, focusing on its relation to literacies. The authors describe its connection to literacy studies, with particular attention to bi/multilingual reading and writing. Then, the authors present the development of translanguaging as a sociolinguistic theory, discuss its formulations, and describe what is unique about translanguaging: its beginnings and grounding in educational practice and attention to the performances of multilinguals. The authors argue that multilingualism and bi/multiliteracies cannot be fully understood as simply the use of separate conventionally named languages or separate modes. Instead, translanguaging in literacies focuses on the actions of multilingual readers and writers, which go beyond traditional understandings of language, literacy, and other concepts, such as bi/multilingualism and bi/multilingual literacy. The authors show how multilinguals do language and literacy and how they do so in school. The authors review case studies that demonstrate how a translanguaging literacies framework is used to deepen multilingual students’ understandings of texts, generate students’ more diverse texts, develop students’ sense of confianza (confidence) in performing literacies, and foster critical metalinguistic awareness. The authors end by discussing implications for literacy pedagogy, as well as literacy research, that centers multilingual students.

No abstract

This study examined prekindergarten children's process of learning a commonly occurring classroom discourse structure, an instructional exchange consisting of three moves: teacher solicitation, student response, and teacher reaction. Six children were videotaped as they interacted with their teachers during the first 7 weeks of school. The children ranged in age from 2 to 4 years and spoke different languages (English, Chinese, and Korean). The 2-year-olds were unable to participate in the structure with their teachers. The 3-and 4-year-olds were observed to learn the structure quickly and to adjust to the following rules: (I) the teacher chooses the topic and initiates the interaction; (2) the pupil must respond, but only with permission; and (3) the teacher has the last word, reacting to the responses. Children's success in learning the structure was due to maturity and sociocultural factors rather than to native language ability. Nonnative-English-speaking 3-and 4-year-olds could participate successfully, in spite of the fact that they did not speak the language of their teacher.

This study reports on successful and unsuccessful efforts at communication between teachers and students who do not share a common language. A topdown processing model is proposed to account for the phenomena, with scripts the highest level and code the lowest. Significantly, commonalities in scripts allowed Interpretation of meaning with minimal understanding of linguistic forms. Conversely, communication was impeded by cultural differences in scripts for school, including setting, roles and responsibilities, activity organization, curriculum sequence and content, and rules/expectations for behavior. The structure of classroom interaction provided constraints on intentions and expectations which facilitated communication in this setting. l. IntroductionAnalytic differentiation of the elcments that enter into communication is perhaps most difffcult when all participants share the same language, background, and sociocultural norms for Interpretation, and when nothing Out of the ordinary' occurs in interaction which calls attention to itself. For this reason, we decided to study a Situation that involved communication among participants who did not share a common language or culture. In this way we hoped to set into relief those elements that entered into the successful negotiation or breakdown of communication.The setting which we chose for research was a public elementary school serving large numbers of students from other countries who are the children of faculty and graduate students at the University of Illinois. While all the 0165-4888/86/0006-0207 $2.00 Text 6(2) (1986), pp. 207-221 © Mouton de Gruyter, Amsterdam Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 6/1/15 4:48 AM Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 6/1/15 4:48 AM Cross-cultural communication in elementary classrooms 209aspect of communicative behavior. Paradoxically, however, perhaps because they are also generally obvious to other participants in a communicative event, we have found that they appear least likely to interfere with successful communication in any serious or prolonged way.As for the middle level, structure, successful interaction between teachers and their limited English-speaking students appeared to be heavily dependent on shared structures of communication, including mutual recognition of the tripartite Initiation-Response-Feedback cycle that is characteristic of 'teacher talk' (see Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975). Classroom discourse structure, however, was learned very quickly, and the only evidence we have found for failure to recognize and adhere to the constraints of this structure occurred early in the kindergarten year with children who had had no prior school experience.Before proceeding to our analysis of scripts, we will describe briefly the database from which our examples will be drawn.

No abstract

In a study of instructional interaction between classroom teachers and limitedEnglish proficient international children, student teachers were observed to be less successful communicators than their cooperating teachers. This was due largely to the student teachers' failure to draw on sociocultural and experiential elements necessary for the construction of meaning. The elements were the children's differing values, beli+, and attitudes about schooling and their prior knowledge and experiences, both in and out of school. This article describes the patterns of communicative failure, as well as the elements that can contribute to successful interactions, even without a common language. TION, CHlLDREN CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNlCATlON, CLASSROOM INTERAC-Concerns about the quality of teaching and the preparation of teachers have been emphasized anew with the Holmes Group (1986) report and in recent issues of educational journals, such as the Harvard Educational Review. Because teaching is preeminently a linguistic process (cf. Green 1983), teachers and teacher educators appropriately turn to the research in culture and language in education in order to better understand the processes contributing to success or failure in instructional communication. For example, research in the field of interactional sociolinguistics (cf. Gumperz 1982; ed., 1982) has examined cross-cultural communication among adults speaking varieties of the same language (e.g., Blom and Gumperz 1972; Erickson and Schultz 1982; Tannen 1984). Studies also have been carried out to analyze communicative failure between adults and children in and out of school (e.g., Dumont ). While teachers and teacher educators may learn much about linguistic processes from this work, they seldom find direction about ways to overcome the barriers to successful instructional communication. The present work attempts to suggest, through the analysis of communicative interaction in classrooms, a twofold strategy for preventing failure: increased awareness of the factors involved in communicative interaction and increased purposeful interactional practice.In a recent study examining the interactions between teachers and limited English proficient pupils in three classrooms (Kleifgen 1986), Jo Anne Kleifgen is currently on the faculty of Teachers College, Columbia University. 218 Kleifgen Student Teachers' Communicative Failures

No abstract

This chapter describes a technology-centered intervention project to demonstrate the benefits of a multimodal, Web-based platform, STEPS to Literacy, for teaching academic writing to Latina/o adolescent learners of English. After laying out a theoretical and empirical rationale, the authors provide details about the design features and instructional approach that support student writing. Next, an example is given of the use of STEPS in the classroom, in which eighth-grade students with the teacher's guidance analyze multimodal documents, take notes, and write an essay for a unit on the Civil Rights Movement. A summary of the benefits of such an online system for academic writing development is outlined, and a set of points for teachers to consider for planning and implementation in the classroom concludes the chapter.