Challenging the monolingual paradigm in secondary dual-language instruction: Reducing language-as-problem with the 2–1-L2 model

Family Narratives of Biliteracy

“…While their local family context allowed for more permeable boundaries and natural ways of using language, Thomas and Jenny's school organised language with artificial boundaries that separated language use by alternating days for different language instruction. For Sophie, language learning became a curricularised subject (Valdés, ), and for Thomas and Jenny, it was the medium for instruction “informed by monolingual methods” (Przymus, , p. 280). Maria did not see this separation as an impediment to her children's bilingualism and biliteracy because she weighed the dual language instruction against other options, which would have included her children's community school: a monolingual school with low ratings.…”

“…Maria, however, unwittingly perpetuated a view of additive bilingualism through her beliefs about language separation as part of Thomas's and Jenny's dual language instruction. While dual language instruction is based on language as a resource orientation (Ruiz, ), researchers have argued that dual language instruction, wherein languages are separated by days, teachers or content, perpetuates a monolingual privileging (Przymus, ). Przymus () argued that dual language instruction does not fully embrace dynamic plurilingual practices, “Rigid separation by languages by classroom, etc.…”

“…While dual language instruction is based on language as a resource orientation (Ruiz, ), researchers have argued that dual language instruction, wherein languages are separated by days, teachers or content, perpetuates a monolingual privileging (Przymus, ). Przymus () argued that dual language instruction does not fully embrace dynamic plurilingual practices, “Rigid separation by languages by classroom, etc. send the contradictory message of bilingual education that monolingual instruction methods are superior to the use of two languages concurrently” (p. 283).…”

Bilingually traversing the US/Mexico "wall" via a classroom telecollaborative exchange: Translanguaging online with the Functional Approach to Code-switching Electronically (FACE)

“…I call for here a purposeful use of CS as a pedagogic strategy for promoting this discursive alignment. Some researchers, such as Arthur & Martin (2006), have recognized the "pedagogic validity" of CS and consider CS a "teachable" educational resource (p. 197; see also Przymus, 2016Przymus, , 2014Creese & Blackledge, 2010;Garcia & Sylvan, 2011). Creese & Blackledge (2010) propose that student bilingual practices in the classroom may be both seen as "a way to save face with regard to different levels and proficiencies in the two languages", and also as "a style resource (Androutsopoulos, 2007) for identity performance to peers" (p. 110).…”

“…Through teaching students how and why to share languages online in this manner, they may develop the symbolic competence needed to successfully negotiate language use online, receive the scaffolding needed to meaningfully practice both languages in ways that allow them to position themselves as multilingual subjects, and push back against deficit narratives of CS as broken or confused language use. This last point is especially true for recursive dynamic bilinguals, who are often situated in U.S. schools with identities as speakers of Spanglish and street Spanish; identities laden with guilt for not speaking Spanish well enough and/or sounding White (Przymus, 2016).…”