Facilitating learners’ participation through classroom translanguaging: comparing a translanguaging classroom and a monolingual classroom in Chinese language teaching

Abstract

Translanguaging practices in Chinese as a second language (CSL) classrooms have been a heated topic in recent years, despite the longstanding Chinese-monolingual ideology. Against this backdrop, we have explored the functions of translanguaging practices in CSL classroom and the interplay of translanguaging and learners’ participation, by comparing the language practices of a translanguaging-oriented classroom and a Chinese-monolingual classroom. We found the functions of classroom translanguaging include meaning-negotiation, peer-assisting, efficiency-increasing and communication encouraging. The findings also reveal that although multilingual practices can also be found in the Chinese-monolingual classroom, they are characterized by a norm-conforming pattern, in contrast to the norm-breaking pattern in the translanguaging-oriented classroom, and the latter can empower students and motivate them to become engaged in Chinese learning. Moreover, multilingual practices deliberately adopted by teachers can be regarded as pedagogical translanguaging and facilitate learner engagement only when there exists no discrepancy between their pedagogical ideology (i.e. advocating translanguaging) and practices. Based on our findings, we advocate a reflection and adjustments to the current monolingual policy in CSL classroom.

“I think I am bilingual, but…”: Teachers’ practices of and student’ attitudes toward translanguaging in a Chinese intercultural communication class

“…In this example, the teacher explained the concepts by not simply translating them into Chinese, but with the vivid illustrations on the slides, as well as the examples in the Chinese context. Translanguaging utilized by the teacher, in this case, seemed an effective tool to clarify the teaching materials and scaffold the teaching in the EMI classroom through the employment of the multisemiotic meaning‐making resources, including non‐linguistic resources like the pictures on the slides, which echoed the previous findings of translanguaging in the language classrooms (Nie et al., 2022). Furthermore, compared with other EMI classes like science and mathematics classes (Tai, 2022; Tai & Li, 2020), the teacher could also employ the students’ cultural background as bilinguals to explain the concepts more effectively through pedagogical translanguaging, because the challenging conceptions in the intercultural communication class, like the aforementioned examples of diverse categories of communication, were usually deeply related with the cultures.…”

“…Based on the findings from both the in-class observation and interviews, the present study highlighted two key ways in which pedagogical translanguaging can facilitate the development of students' ICC. First, pedagogical translanguaging served as an effective tool to unpack the knowledge and manage class instruction (Fang & Liu, 2020), thereby con- understanding of new concepts, make students more engaged in the teaching, and narrow the social distance between the teacher and students to build a closer learning atmosphere, which was also reported in the context of language classrooms (Nie et al, 2022;Rajendram, 2021). Furthermore, interview results demonstrated that students believed that teachers' leverage of pedagogical translanguaging could facilitate learning in concept explanation and rapport building, therefore assisting the development of their ICC.…”

“…Rajendram (2021) revealed that translanguaging applied in language classrooms could provide cognitive−conceptual, planning-organizational, affective-social, and linguistic-discursive affordances. Similarly, Nie et al (2022) investigated teachers' practices of translanguaging in a Chinese-as-a-second-language classroom and indicated that translanguaging could negotiate meanings, assist students, increase efficiency, encourage communication, and enhance students' participation in the class. Barring the abovementioned research contexts, EMI contexts also warranted attention due to the frequent leverage of translanguaging as a pedagogical tool by teachers regardless of the English-only policy in EMI programs (Galloway et al, 2017).…”

“…Pedagogical translanguaging has been discussed extensively over the past decade in bilingual and multilingual education (Ou et al., 2022) and gained momentum in language learning, especially for English as a foreign or second language education (Shi & Rolstad, 2022). It informs more flexible pedagogies and classroom language practices, allowing for a deeper understanding of learning content (Gu et al., 2022; Nie et al., 2022), effectively maneuvering the multilingual and multimodal repertories to facilitate learning (Fang et al., 2022; García & Li, 2014), enhancing students’ engagement in the classroom (García et al., 2017; Nie et al., 2022), integrating out‐of‐school knowledge into the class to facilitate teaching and learning (Li, 2014; Tai & Li, 2020), and supporting students’ bilingual identities (García et al., 2017).…”

“…Translanguaging was first conceptualized as an effective pedagogy in the late 20th century (Baker, 2011), and has been recognized by many scholars in the field of bilingual/multilingual education in recent decades (García & Li, 2014; Gu et al., 2022). Most of the previous research in China was conducted in second/foreign language learning classes (Li, 2022; Nie et al., 2022; Wang, 2019), and in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms (Zhou & Mann, 2021). However, most of the stakeholders, that is, teachers, students, and policy‐makers of Chinese higher education, hold a native‐oriented language ideology (Fang & Baker, 2018; Fang & Liu, 2020), advocating the immersive monolingual pedagogy and undervaluing the pedagogical potentials of translanguaging (Li & Shen, 2021).…”