Language beyond flags: teachers misunderstanding of translanguaging in preschools

Abstract

Based on an analysis of the video recording and transcript of one lesson chosen by preschool teachers in Luxembourg as an example of translanguaging pedagogy, this article shows the teachers' limited understandings of translanguaging. As a result of a new 2017 multilingual education policy for early childhood, the first author designed a professional development project in which the teachers in this preschool participated. During a lesson, the teachers insisted that these young children had a home language associated with a national affiliation depicted by a flag, despite the children themselves telling them repeatedly that their home language practices were complex and included Luxembourgish, which was part of their identity. The teachers' actions and discourse reveal raciolinguistic ideologies and misappropriation of the term translanguaging to simply implement what could be better described as a multilingual awareness activity. On the surface, the teachers have shifted from monolingual instruction to one that recognizes the children's multilingualism. Yet, teachers continue to associate the notion of language with flags and political states, instead of taking up an inside-view of the bilingual speaker, the kernel of translanguaging theory.

Translanguaging stance of preschool teachers working with multilingual children in Luxembourg

“…Finally, in Luxembourg, Kirsch and Seele (2020) cautioned that despite teachers' positive attitudes towards children's home languages and translanguaging, some teachers in their study, while translating and using home languages, were not aware of their students' real linguistic needs and did not reflect on how to include them in the classroom. This was corroborated by our recent study in which, during the home language activity where children were asked to choose the flags of their home countries, teachers insisted that Portuguese and Serbian children choose Portuguese and Serbian flags despite children's obvious refusal and desire to choose the Luxembourgish flag so that they feel included in the class (Aleksić & García, 2022).…”

“…Other children empathised with the teachers by saying that singing in Serbian was 'super hard'. However, in the flag activity, the same teachers, with the same class, denied three Portuguese children and one Serbian child the right to choose the flag of Luxembourg and identify Luxembourgish as their home language (Aleksić & García, 2022). In fact, if we focus on these two teachers, for example, we will see that the same teachers expressed strong positive attitudes in the questionnaires, a mild translanguaging stance in the focus groups, and they portrayed a positive stance in one videotaped activity but a negative stance in another.…”

“…However, for the sake of comparison for this paper, the same teachers with the same class, organised another activity in which they involved children's home languages. In this activity, the immigrant children were invited to choose the card with the flag of their own country and name their home languages (Aleksić & García, 2022). Four children, three Portuguese and one Serbian, chose cards with the Luxembourgish flag and, as arguments for their choice, they stated that they speak Luxembourgish at home and their siblings and parents did, too.…”

“…However, the teachers insisted that the children choose the 'correct' Portuguese and Serbian flags, convincing them that they do not speak Luxembourgish at home, and that even their siblings and parents only use Luxembourgish 'a little bit'. In the video, we observe the children's non-verbal withdrawal and the teachers' raciolinguistic ideologies (Aleksić & García, 2022).…”

“…They sent a very clear message to the children that only Luxembourgers can speak Luxembourgish. In the flag activity, these teachers showed that they did not understand translanguaging pedagogy and, despite their good intentions, they designed an activity in which the use of home languages was artificial and even harmful for the immigrant children (Aleksić & García, 2022). They also neglected the fact that a flag does not always indicate a language as, for example, is the case for the pluricentric language Portuguese.…”