“…Moreover, we see our work aligning with Fallas‐Escobar (2020) who cautioned:While instructors think positively of translanguaging, they may at times also feel compelled to go back to monoglossic ideologies of language separation within the classroom, given institutional and societal pressures to keep languages separate and compartmentalized. (p. 333)…”
Section: Conceptual Frameworksupporting
confidence: 61%
“…First, teachers’ writing provided an additional modality beyond class discussions to extend classroom conversations and support teachers’ learning about translanguaging. Importantly, teachers’ writing documented their developing understandings, such as viewing language as fixed, bilingualism as dual, and language learning as informed by input/output approaches (Fallas‐Escobar, 2020). Examination of teachers’ journals revealed the non‐linear process they followed to write through their ideas about how the theory should/could work.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As TESOL teacher educators, we draw upon Tian et al.’s (2020) edited volume of international scholars addressing issues of incompatibility between historical framings of language development in TESOL and translanguaging. For example, Fallas‐Escobar (2020), working with three MA teachers Costa Rica, found two participants with backgrounds in TESOL and TEFL were challenged to envision translanguaging in their classes, largely because of narratives and ideologies common in TESOL and TEFL programs: “strict language separation, linguistic purism, and bilingualism as double monolingualism” (p. 341). Conversely, he found Alex, a participant with a background outside of TESOL/TEFL, was more open to taking up translanguaging in her instruction.…”
This study highlights Masters-level TESOL students' meaning-making about translanguaging theory and pedagogy through writing in response to course readings and conversations. To gain deeper insight into shifting understandings of languaging that seek to move from monoglossic orientations to heteroglossic framing of language learning as connected to dynamic bilingualism, we drew on both translanguaging (Garc ıa & Li, 2014) and reflective writing as a mechanism for supporting teacher learning (Hoover, 1994; Kelley 2006;Zeichner, 1987). Our inductive and deductive approach to analyze 12 students' 132 journal entries during a TESOL methods class showed developing understandings of translanguaging theory and pedagogy influenced by (a) experience with theories of bilingualism grounded in language separation as historically understood in TESOL, (b) tensions regarding the application of translanguaging theory to praxis (Li, 2017), and (c) tensions between language and testing within the context of neoliberalism (Zeichner, 2014) guiding language teaching and learning in the K-16 context. We conclude by providing suggestions to help teacher educators who engage in teacher language education to better support teacher-learning about translanguaging.
“…Moreover, we see our work aligning with Fallas‐Escobar (2020) who cautioned:While instructors think positively of translanguaging, they may at times also feel compelled to go back to monoglossic ideologies of language separation within the classroom, given institutional and societal pressures to keep languages separate and compartmentalized. (p. 333)…”
Section: Conceptual Frameworksupporting
confidence: 61%
“…First, teachers’ writing provided an additional modality beyond class discussions to extend classroom conversations and support teachers’ learning about translanguaging. Importantly, teachers’ writing documented their developing understandings, such as viewing language as fixed, bilingualism as dual, and language learning as informed by input/output approaches (Fallas‐Escobar, 2020). Examination of teachers’ journals revealed the non‐linear process they followed to write through their ideas about how the theory should/could work.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As TESOL teacher educators, we draw upon Tian et al.’s (2020) edited volume of international scholars addressing issues of incompatibility between historical framings of language development in TESOL and translanguaging. For example, Fallas‐Escobar (2020), working with three MA teachers Costa Rica, found two participants with backgrounds in TESOL and TEFL were challenged to envision translanguaging in their classes, largely because of narratives and ideologies common in TESOL and TEFL programs: “strict language separation, linguistic purism, and bilingualism as double monolingualism” (p. 341). Conversely, he found Alex, a participant with a background outside of TESOL/TEFL, was more open to taking up translanguaging in her instruction.…”
This study highlights Masters-level TESOL students' meaning-making about translanguaging theory and pedagogy through writing in response to course readings and conversations. To gain deeper insight into shifting understandings of languaging that seek to move from monoglossic orientations to heteroglossic framing of language learning as connected to dynamic bilingualism, we drew on both translanguaging (Garc ıa & Li, 2014) and reflective writing as a mechanism for supporting teacher learning (Hoover, 1994; Kelley 2006;Zeichner, 1987). Our inductive and deductive approach to analyze 12 students' 132 journal entries during a TESOL methods class showed developing understandings of translanguaging theory and pedagogy influenced by (a) experience with theories of bilingualism grounded in language separation as historically understood in TESOL, (b) tensions regarding the application of translanguaging theory to praxis (Li, 2017), and (c) tensions between language and testing within the context of neoliberalism (Zeichner, 2014) guiding language teaching and learning in the K-16 context. We conclude by providing suggestions to help teacher educators who engage in teacher language education to better support teacher-learning about translanguaging.
“…On the other hand, although a few studies have explored teachers’ perceptions of or attitudes to adopting translanguaging as an effective pedagogy (Alharbi & Alqefari, 2023; Fallas‐Escobar, 2020), only a small number have offered an analysis of the potential factors which may impact teachers’ actual pedagogical translanguaging practices. The factors which have been identified include students’ reliance on their L1 preventing the engagement of their entire repertoire, students’ varying English language proficiencies, teachers’ lack of familiarity with pedagogical translanguaging, and restrictive curriculum standards in an exam‐driven culture (Galante, 2020; Lin & Lo, 2017).…”
Despite the rigorous efforts made to promote the use of English as a medium of instruction (EMI), EMI teachers still face linguistic and pedagogical challenges in effectively delivering subject content in English. Previous research has revealed that, faced with such challenges, teachers employ various strategies to make subject knowledge accessible to students, including pedagogical translanguaging. However, there is little empirical evidence of how EMI teachers deploy pedagogical translanguaging to facilitate content learning in secondary science classrooms, particularly in countries or regions where English is not widely used outside schools. Against this backdrop, the current study adopts a qualitative approach to examine the pedagogical translanguaging practices of two EMI science teachers, as well as the factors contributing to their practices at an international secondary school in Shanghai, China. The methods used were video‐assisted classroom observation and semi‐structured interviews. These were subjected to multimodal conversation analysis and thematic analysis, respectively. The findings reveal that teachers’ pedagogical translanguaging practices involve strategically incorporating and orchestrating all multilingual, multimodal, and multisemiotic resources available to facilitate meaning‐making and enhance students’ comprehension of subject knowledge. Meanwhile, personal, social, and contextual factors play an important role in shaping teachers’ pedagogical translanguaging practices. This study showcases pedagogical translanguaging as a strategic means to create space for teaching and learning in EMI contexts, and provides useful insights into potential improvements to EMI pedagogy.
“…Another similar finding across these studies is teacher skepticism about the practicality of enacting translanguaging pedagogical practices within existing educational institutions. For instance, Fallas-Escobar (2020) observed that EFL teachers were hesitant to adopt translanguaging in their teaching practice due to institutional and societal ideologies of language separation. In a similar vein, Deroo et al (2020) found that pre-service and in-service teachers expressed reluctance to implement translanguaging practices in their teaching, despite articulating a critical attitude toward supposed systemic barriers to enacting translanguaging pedagogies.…”
Translanguaging has been put forth as an asset-based perspective to language education that recognizes the diverse communicative repertoires of plurilingual students. In this thematic review, we highlight the potential of translanguaging as a pedagogical approach in fostering educational equity and generating critical dialogue among various stakeholders. We draw attention to recent theorization of translanguaging within a broader decolonial agenda, and we highlight challenges faced implementing translanguaging pedagogies in different contexts. Finally, we underscore the role of teacher educators in helping teachers develop a critical translingual stance focused on interrogating dominant ideologies about language and education.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
