Translanguaging as an opportunity to expand and strengthen students’ trilingual repertoires Trilingual Education: National and International Experience Astana, Kazakhstan, 23-24 November 2016

Three views of bi-/trilingualism in education Conventional view – the vertical view of language/s as separated from one another There are clear differences between languages There are boundaries or borders between languages These are evident when we translate written text Translation between languages was a standard language pedagogy in many countries in the past Emphasis on translation for teaching & learning has declined in many European & North American bi- /trilingual programmes. ‘Unsystematic’ code-switching / code-mixing usually viewed as unacceptable In contemporary programmes, two / three languages taught separately e.g. in immersion programmes

Three views of bi-/trilingualism in education, continued 2. Challenge to this view – a horizontal view - borders between languages are porous There are similarities between languages There are no clear boundaries or borders between languages People mix their (spoken) languages in real life Two / three languages can be taught alongside or together Code-switching can be used deliberately in developing bi- /trilingualism In Wales, deliberate use of code-switching Part of the lesson in Welsh; switch to part of the lesson in English, and so on, has been called ‘translanguaging’ (Williams 1996; Lewis, Jones & Baker 2012) ‘Translanguaging’ is used differently in the USA & in some other countries (e.g. García & Li Wei 2014) Focus on the metalinguistic processes of learners using their linguistic repertoires, & bringing these into the classroom

Two of the three views: vertical or horizontal Co-operative, inclusive & bridging practices  Bilingualism or trilingualism understood as each person’s language repertoire informal spoken contexts Code-mixing, code-switching, texting, hybrid languages (Africa & India)  Translanguaging (USA, some European countries) May increase equality & social justice ‘ Vertical Separate Exclusive boundaries Focus on difference  Bilingualism or trilingualism understood as two or three parallel monolingual systems written contexts in Education, Government, Legal systems, Literary works Formal translation, interpreting Can result in inequality & marginalisation

Third View: Bringing horizontal & vertical views together 3. A Functional View It is normal to mix languages when speaking in informal contexts We also separate languages in academic, literary, legal, and policy documents especially for purposes of reading and writing We can use both vertical and horizontal dimension of language in teaching and learning Functional trilingualism & translanguaging (Heugh, 1995; Sierens & van Avermaet 2014)

A functional view of bi-/trilingualism in education Horizontal & Vertical dimensions     Horizontal Co-operative, inclusive & bridging practices Fluid moving back & forth between languages Code-mixing, code-switching, texting, hybrid languages (Translanguaging) Vertical Exclusive, bounded & practices of difference Multiple parallel monolingualisms: education, government, legal systems, literary works Formal translation & interpreting Horizontal and vertical Reduces inequalities, & maximises recognition & development of students’ linguistic resources

A Case-study: University of South Australia University Strategic Plan Enhanced student learning experience Increasing international student ‘mix’ Division Education, Arts & Social Sciences Strategic Plan Respect for diversity English language support framework English Additional Language (EAL) – BA major - considerations Learning & assessment experiences Well-being of EAL students Student diversity language, culture, faith, epistemologies Language education theory & pedagogy crisis (e.g. Lo Bianco 2010) Bi-/trilingual theory & pedagogy – ‘translanguaging’ Purposeful use of students’ linguistic repertoire to enhance language/s and learning

Developing academic proficiency in English Step 1 Developing academic proficiency in primary language Step 2 Developing enhanced language proficiency in English Step 3 Domestic students with English as the Primary Language International and domestic students with English as an Additional Language

A translanguaging approach to teaching & learning English at university Building academic proficiency in English and primary language Expanding whole linguistic repertoire Expanding principles: Value academic knowledge in English, other languages, & international contexts known to students Involving students, PhDs, tutors & co-ordinator in on-going research & reflexive processes Shifting the goal from: Building academic proficiency in English Principle: Value in academic knowledge available in English

Research findings & what they mean Developing academic proficiency in English takes longer than previously indicated bilingual research indicates 6-8 years Strong positive correlation between writing proficiency in L1 & English Strong positive correlation between translation and proficiency in L1 and in English At enrolment, most EAL students at UniSA have 8-10 years of learning English before entering university do not have the necessary academic proficiency in English Academic proficiency in L1 influences proficiency in English strong(er) proficiency in L1 & strong(er) proficiency in English Students who develop metacognitive & metalinguistic expertise in translation, demonstrate increased proficiency in L1 and English

What does this imply for teaching, learning & assessment Systematic translanguaging Formative tasks built into summative assessment 1 task in primary language built into each assignment Translation: L1 to English; &/or English to L1 Academic sources English + 25-30% in L1 Reflective / research dimension Students draw on full linguistic repertoires in tutorial group work Student awareness of: their own linguistic repertoires academic proficiency in L1 & English epistemological (knowledge) repertoires Student expertise In translanguaging translation interpreting code-switching As language-knowledge brokers in tutorials/peer learning

What does this imply for teaching, learning & assessment beyond English courses / programs? ‘Language is not everything in education, but without language, everything is nothing’ Ekkehard Wolff 2006. Staff awareness of: Interdependent relationship between each student’s primary language & academic proficiency in English Knowledge and expertise which students bring contribute to learning of all students Staff do not need to be multilingual to teach EAL students Small adjustments (exec. Summary of Case Study 1)

Implications beyond this case study Translanguaging: Can reduce student anxiety and increase confidence when used in spoken communication writing tasks for formative assessment drafting writing tasks for summative assessment But is unlikely to guarantee high level achievement in two or three languages unless it includes Systematic use of code-switching and opportunities for translation

A functional view of bi-/trilingualism in education Horizontal & Vertical dimensions     Horizontal Co-operative, inclusive & bridging practices Fluid moving back & forth between languages Code-mixing, code-switching, texting, hybrid languages (Translanguaging) Vertical Exclusive, bounded & practices of difference Multiple parallel monolingualisms: education, government, legal systems, literary works Formal translation & interpreting Horizontal and vertical Reduces inequalities, & maximises recognition & development of students’ linguistic resources