While translanguaging is viewed as an antiracist pedagogical practice for emergent multilinguals learning English, it is less known in US world language (WL) classrooms, which are traditionally perceived as comprising monolingual English speakers. Yet US WL learners are increasingly multilingual and multicultural (Kubanyiova & Crookes, 2016). Moreover, research has shown benefits of translanguaging pedagogies for monolinguals, including increased multilingual, multicultural awareness (García & Baetens Beardsmore, 2009; Back et al., 2020). These findings suggest that translanguaging pedagogies could help scaffold acquisition of an additional language. However, concerns about maximizing target language use, particularly vis-à-vis ACTFL's policy of 90% target language use in the classroom, may conflict with encouraging the use of a student's entire linguistic repertoire. How can WL teachers explore the potentials of translanguaging while still fostering target language and culture acquisition and use?
In this study I explore how 15 WL teachers and teacher candidates were introduced to and negotiated the concept of translanguaging in an online, asynchronous Educational Linguistics class. Integrating Ruiz's (1984) language orientations, Peña-Pincheira and De Costa's (2020) ecological model of language teacher agency, and Seltzer's (2022) critical translingual stance, I describe how this stance evolved among participants in their discussion board and journal assignments. I used open and selective coding on these data to analyze the complexities surrounding participant conversations and reflections regarding translanguaging (Gibbs, 2018; Glaser, 2016).
Findings indicate that participants were open to the possibility of using translanguaging pedagogies, drawing parallels between these pedagogies and several well-established WL teaching practices. Meso- and macro- constraints of standards and school environments were explored through discussions with peers from WL and other content areas, and candidates used language paralleling Ruiz´s (1984) orientations, including (trans)languag(ing)-as-resource and (trans)languag(ing)-as-right. I discuss how a critical translingual stance can promote inclusivity and equity in WL teacher education.
References
Back, M., Han, M., & Weng, S. C. (2020). Emotional scaffolding for emergent multilingual
learners through translanguaging: Case stories. Language and Education, 34(5), 387–406.
García, O., & Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global
perspective. Wiley-Blackwell Pub.
Seltzer, K. (2022). Enacting a critical translingual approach in teacher preparation: Disrupting
oppressive language ideologies and fostering the personal, political, and pedagogical
stances of preservice teachers of English. TESOL Journal, 13(2), e649, 1–11. https://doi-org/10.1002/tesj.649
Kubanyiova, M., & Crookes, G. (2016). Re‐envisioning the roles, tasks, and contributions of
language teachers in the multilingual era of language education research and practice. The
Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12304
Peña-Pincheira, R. S., & De Costa, P. I. (2021). Language teacher agency for educational justice–
oriented work: An ecological model. TESOL Journal, 12(2), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.561
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE: The Journal for the National
Association for Bilingual Education, 8(2), 15–34.
