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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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 % 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

12. 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)

13. 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

14. 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