Translanguaging in elementary science

ABSTRACT

In a phenomenon known as translanguaging, multilingual learners draw freely from their repertoires without regard for language boundaries. Although multilingual learners live their lives between languages in their communities, science education is just beginning to acknowledge the important role of their hybrid language practices for learning. This study investigated one translingual science event in a fourth grade multilingual classroom focused on electrical phenomena. Expanding our prior study of a soil sample lab (Lemmi et al., 2021) this paper documented eight talk types that took place during the translingual exchanges during a snap circuit activity: (1) making comparisons, (2) asking and answering questions, (3) explaining, (4) giving directions, (5) making observations, (6) agreeing, (7) exclaiming, and (8) affirming. Our findings suggest that students’ translingual participation serves valuable academic and social roles in the classroom and should be considered an important contribution to science learning. This work has implications for the ways in which teachers can support meaningful translingual learning spaces in science through the use of manipulatives and explicit invitation of hybrid languages practices. It also calls for expanding the field understanding of the purpose of translanguaging in science education to disrupt monolingual norms.

KEYWORDS:

• Translanguaging
• bilingualism
• science education

Introduction

Translanguaging is a linguistic phenomenon in which speakers draw freely from various aspects of their linguistic repertoires (García & Wei, 2013; Otheguy et al., 2015). Science education is just beginning to acknowledge the important role of translingual and hybrid language practices for learning (Charamba, 2020; Karlsson et al., 2019; Pierson et al., 2021; Pun & Tai, 2021; Suárez, 2020). In science classrooms, students are tasked with learning science content as well as scientific communication practices (Brown & Ryoo, 2008; NGSS Lead States, 2013). Until recently, little focus has been placed on the value of students’ full linguistic repertoires in science education. In traditional science education in the USA, English has been the dominant language of instruction. Little emphasis is placed on how using multiple languages might influence students’ understanding of content and engagement in scientific practices. Explicit or implicit English-only policies represent an inequitable learning environment for multilingual communities. Rather than providing identical educational experiences for all, equitable classes provide students with what they need in order to learn (Darling-Hammond, 2015). While monolingual, English-only students get to learn science in their dominant language, students from linguistically marginalised communities have not typically had access to science learning experiences that allow them to draw on their many linguistic assets and co-construct knowledge (Bang et al., 2013; Bang et al., 2017; Vossoughi et al., 2016). For bilingual and multilingual students, providing space for the use of multiple languages and hybrid language practices is an equity issue because these practices allow students to construct science content understanding and language development.

Students who are designated as English Learners (EL) as well as those who have the status of Redesignated Fluent English Proficiency (RFEP) possess a host of language abilities in two or more languages, which are often ignored in schools (García, 2009; García et al., 2021). Additionally, there are many students who are not identified under either of these two labels but have a wide range of skills in multiple languages. Recently, we are seeing a shift away from referring to such students as English Learners, a term with a deficit focus, towards phrases like bilingual, emergent bilingual, or multilingual which highlight students’ abilities rather than labelling them perpetually deficient (García, 2009; González-Howard & Suárez, 2021; Lemmi et al., 2019). In this study, we will refer to these students as multilingual learners in order to both foreground their assets as well as acknowledge that students may know more than two languages.

Literature review

Below, we will provide a brief overview of scholarship about language and discourse in science education research as well as the conversations about multilingualism specific to science education. In the theory section that follows the literature review, we give an introduction to translanguaging from the linguistics and language education literature followed by a summary of how translanguaging is being studied recently within science education.

Language and discourse in science education

Science classroom discourse has long been a topic of discussion in science education. In the 1990s and early 2000s, scholars were concerned with expanding the notion of scientific communication in classrooms. Lemke defined ‘talking science’ as not simply talking about science concepts, but ‘doing science through the medium of language’ (Lemke, 1990, p. ix) and encouraged teachers to make connections between scientific language and colloquial language. Moje (1995) found that teachers’ use of language may foster student identification with science via different talk types that teachers adopt when engaging students in scientific discourse. Roth (1994, 2001) described the ways that gestures and multimodal communication can play a role in science learning. Gee (2004) argued that not enough focus was given to the process of language acquisition in traditional schooling, with students expected to use disciplinary language for the purposes of learning without regard for the student’s own language background or understanding. These concerns represented a turn in science education towards looking at the language students use to engage in science, thus moving beyond simply looking for reproduction of desired scientific terminology or other features of language.

This movement continued as scholars continued to study the ways students engage in science via language (Phillips & Norris, 2009; Varelas et al., 2008) and began to discuss the relationship between language and identity in science education. Brown (2004) described the implications of adopting scientific language for students from marginalised groups, noting that the ways in which students talk during science class varies widely even within the same community (Brown, 2004; Brown et al., 2005). He also noted the importance of teacher talk in facilitating student understanding by moving back and forth between scientific registers and more colloquial language within the classroom (Brown & Spang, 2008). Drawing on Bakhtin’s (1975) notion of heteroglossia, or the presence or simultaneous use of multiple varieties or forms of language, Rosebery et al. (2010) studied the language practices of third and fourth graders as they investigated heat transfer. The authors argued that linguistic heterogeneity is fundamental to science learning and should be valued. This shift in interest represented a movement away from traditional science education approaches with the goal of adding so-called ‘scientific’ language to students’ repertoires without consideration of the value of students’ own language practices.

Recently, science education scholars have been investigating the ways that the Next Generation Science Standards have influenced language practice in STEM education. The standards require students to participate in scientific practices such as asking questions, constructing explanations, and interpreting data (NGSS Lead States, 2013). This turn towards science as practice has helped shift our understanding of science language beyond the notion of language as a list of vocabulary terms (Meier et al., 2020). Now that science-as-practice is the expectation in the field, scholars are investigating the best ways to analyse student performance via assessments that can accurately show what students know and can do, particularly for multilingual students, whose abilities and knowledge might be accurately measured by current testing methods (Cardozo-Gaibisso et al., 2020).

With these concerns in mind, there has been a sustained and growing interest in US K-12 science education about the language practices of students who are designated as English Learners, or students who do not have a formal designation but who speak multiple languages. Below we provide an overview of some key literature on multilingualism in science education, but first we would like to discuss our use of terminology here. In the cited literature, various terms are used to describe students’ language abilities including English Learner, emergent bilingual, bilingual, or bi/multilingual. In this paper, we will refer to such students as ‘multilingual learners’ because we feel that it is the most all-inclusive term we currently have that does not place a value judgment on the proficiency of students’ language levels or the number of languages students know. In the next section, we will describe some of the research on multilingual learners in science education that has influenced this study. At the end of the following section we include a short description of the current discussion about the terms ‘English Learner’ and ‘Multilingual’ within science education today.

Multilingualism in science education

In the 1990s, some science education scholars worked towards understanding the needs of multilingual learners by investigating the struggles and difficulties they faced in science classes. Scholarship investigating students’ science knowledge and vocabulary identified differences between multilingual students and monolingual English speaking students, noting ‘distinct patterns among ethnolinguistic groups’ (Lee et al., 1995) in which some groups gave lengthy explanations using nonscience vocabulary, and others gave shorter explanations using scientific language. The goal at the time was to support high academic achievement for multilingual learners (then known as English Learners or sometimes linguistically diverse students) by identifying and remedying their struggles (Lee & Fradd, 1998). While well-intentioned, this approach can be viewed as deficit-focused, as the work assumes that multilingual learners inherently struggle with science and that monolingual English speaking students are higher achievers in science with more science language in their repertoires. This was the mainstream, widespread thinking at the time, and this line of thinking continues today in much science education research and practice.

In the early 2000s, many science education scholars began investigating the experiences of multilingual students in science classes from several different angles. Stoddart and her colleagues urged integration of science and language learning, rather than the traditional separation of subject-area pedagogy from language instruction for multilingual students (Stoddart et al., 2002). Attention was placed on the language demands of science assessments and on the best ways of assessing science in multilingual classrooms (Lyon, 2013; Lyon et al., 2012) as well as meeting the needs of multilingual learners with regard to the Next Generation Science Standards and Common Core Standards (Lee et al., 2013). A turn toward looking at students’ own use of language and sensemaking brought attention to multilingual learners’ speech, writing, argumentation, and sensemaking (Buck Bracey, 2017; González-Howard & McNeill, 2016; Stevenson, 2013; Stevenson, 2015) This focus on language and science integration as well as interest in multilingual students’ experiences in science classes helped shift attention towards students strengths, but the prevailing assumption about multilingual learners at the time was still one of deficit.

Recently, science education scholarship has begun to critique deficit positioning with regard to multilingual students. When investigating the language ideologies of science educators, Lemmi et al. (2019) found that some teachers had inclusive views of language in science classes, while others had a more exclusive approach to how language should happen in a science class. Siry and Gorges (2020) described the multiple resources employed by a multilingual child in her descriptions of a science activity, underscoring the importance of valuing the various resources that students use to express meaning. Buxton and Caswell (2020) noted that science teachers may hold "residual deficit views" about multilingual learners (p. 575), while Okhee Lee urged an asset-oriented approach to multilingual learners in science education, with corresponding shifts in classroom teaching practice that allow and value the use of multiple languages and various means of communication (Lee, 2021). González-Howard and Suárez (2021) encouraged science educators to drop the label ‘English Learner’ in favour of terms like ‘emergent bilingual’ or ‘multilingual’, and Grapin (2021) encouraged collaboration between researchers and practitioners/policymakers to make such a shift in terminology possible across spheres.

In this climate of growing respect for students’ linguistic resources, we are interested in the use of hybrid language practices such as translanguaging in science teaching and learning. Below in the theoretical framework section we provide an overview of the translanguaging from a linguistic perspective and then review its recent role in science education scholarship.

Theoretical framework

Here we provide an introduction to translanguaging from the linguistics and language education literature. Additionally, we summarise the recent scholarship that investigates translanguaging and hybrid language practices specifically in science education.

Translanguaging

A traditional approach to language-learning emphasises immersion in the target language, often to the exclusion of other languages in the classroom (Palmer et al., 2014). However, in bilingual and dual-language education, two languages are used for the purposes of content learning (García & Wei, 2013; Otheguy et al., 2015). In these classrooms, as well as in classes where the instruction is English-only but the students are multilingual, hybrid language practices emerge as learners mix and move between languages (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Martínez, 2010). Translanguaging has been described as a hybrid language practice in which speakers draw freely from their language repertoires without regard for traditional boundaries between languages (García, 2009; García & Wei, 2013; Otheguy et al., 2015). Widespread, simplistic views of multilingualism may view movement between languages as an indication of deficiency in the learners, but many scholars now argue that, on the contrary, translanguaging is a reflection of bilingual skill used for a variety of social and academic purposes. In linguistics and language education scholarship, there is a long history of studying the value of hybrid language practices and translanguaging in the classroom (Creese & Blackledge, 2010; García, 2009; Grosjean, 2004; Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Martínez, 2018; Otheguy et al., 2019; Probyn, 2009). Language educators have emphasised the role of identity in translanguaging (Wei, 2011, 2018), the ways that teachers engage in translanguaging (Flores & García, 2013), and how students can serve as language brokers within families via hybrid language practices (Alvarez, 2014). Recently, several studies have investigated the value of providing opportunities for multilingual students to move between languages and draw on their full language repertoires including but not limited to the following (García et al., 2017; Gort & Sembiante, 2015; Pierson et al., 2021). We see a growing recognition that when students are freed from the boundaries of monolingual language norms, they are afforded better opportunities to develop content understanding via multilingual and multimodal communication. In our view, translanguaging is a valuable linguistic phenomenon that can play an important role in science learning in multilingual communities. Below we will give an overview of the role of translanguaging in science education scholarship.

Translanguaging in science education

Recently, science education has begun to acknowledge and investigate the role of translanguaging in science teaching and learning. In one group of studies, researchers described the potential benefits of translanguaging for students. Poza (2018) found that allowing elementary multilingual students to draw on their full repertoires in two languages helped to support their learning of new science content as well as new linguistic forms. Translanguaging even promoted students’ abilities to relate to the science content and contextualise it within relevant areas of knowledge (Karlsson et al., 2019). Ryu (2019) found that bilingual students in an after school science programme mixed languages to facilitate participation in diverse ways to support linguistic and scientific sense making. Charamba (2020) found that translanguaging was used as a resource in joint negotiations of scientific content and science language among multilingual students. Pun and Tai (2021) discovered that even in a school with an English-only policy, students engaged in translanguaging to bolster their own understanding of science in addition to facilitating peer work and fostering an enjoyable learning environment. Together these findings demonstrate that there are a variety of potential linguistic, cognitive and social benefits of translanguaging.

Another area of research has explored the ways in which teachers engage translanguaging. Mazak and Herbas-Donoso described translanguaging practices of one professor in a multilingual community, finding that the professor engaged in translanguaging strategically to apprentice multilingual students into English for scientific purposes (Mazak & Herbas-Donoso, 2014, 2015). Langman (2014) illustrated how bilingual science teachers modelled translanguaging as a resource to help develop the academic content knowledge of middle school students. Suárez (2020) found that instructors’ pedagogical moves and translanguaging practices can signal to students how to participate in translanguaging in an elementary group of bilingual students. Pierson et al. (2021) explored ways in which English-only teachers can encourage translanguaging in English-dominant middle school STEM classes. These studies demonstrate that teachers’ engagement in translanguaging can serve diverse purposes such as English-language support, conceptual understanding, or signalling norms for the use of multiple languages in a classroom.

Although the practice of translanguaging is gaining mainstream attention in linguistics circles, it has only recently entered science education conversations, and little is known about the role of translanguaging in elementary science, specifically. In this study, we present an analysis of a STEM classroom event in a bilingual elementary school. During this event, students were participating in a snap circuits activity in which they were engaging with a spinning toy connected to a circuit. We present our findings from this video and discuss them alongside findings that we published from an analysis of a similar event in the same classroom, but with a different teacher. In our previous paper, we found that three purposes were achieved through the use of translanguaging during a soil sample lab: making a comparison, asking and answering questions, and using scientific nomenclature (Lemmi et al., 2021). We build on the current literature by demonstrating the ways in which translanguaging served important roles in elementary science learning that would not be afforded by monolingual language norms.

Research questions

In this study, we answer the following research question:

1. How does translanguaging take place during science activities in a fourth grade multilingual classroom?

2. How do acts of translanguaging serve purposes for the teacher and students within this science learning space?’

Materials and methods

In this study, we analysed the ways two teachers and their fourth grade students in a bilingual classroom engage in translingual practices as they conducted two science activities: a soil sample identification laboratory and a snap circuits investigation. In addition to the video recordings of the activities, we also conducted retrospective interviews with the teachers to gain insight on their perspectives about the interactions and language use in the clips. The context of the study, science laboratory lessons, provides an interesting look at translingual practices, as it is rare for science education scholarship to centre this type of setting when researchers more often focus on classroom discourse around argumentation and claim-evidence-reasoning.

Context

We analysed transcripts of two videos that were recorded in a fourth grade classroom at a public Title I school inTexas. The school has a demographic of predominantly Latino/a/x and Black students, representing 87% of the student body. The teachers and students in the class were speakers of bothSpanish and English.

The videos were originally collected as part of a teacher’s reflective practice. The use of the video and transcript for research purposes was approved by our institutional review boards after the class year had ended and limited demographic information was available to the researchers. However, we know that all students identified as Latinx/o/a, Guatamex (both Mexican and Guatemalan), and/or Mexican/Mexican American and have been labelled as bilinguals at the time of the recording. Two teachers, Mrs. Sánchez and Ms. Espinal¹, worked together in the class using a co-teaching model. They worked with a teaching assistant, Mrs. Morales, who supported students in their classroom. Ms. Espinal used both Spanish and English in her interactions with students, while Mrs. Sánchez only drew on her English resources without mixing languages although she was bilingual. During the clip on soil identification, students are interacting with the teacher who did not mix languages, Mrs. Sánchez. She identified as Latina and had about 15 years of experience teaching in bilingual settings at the time. Although the teacher in the first video did not engage in hybrid language practices, translanguaging in this classroom was modelled and accepted as a common practice by the co-teacher, Ms. Espinal. In the second video about the snap circuits investigation, Ms. Espinal engaged in translanguaging. Both educators were intentional about drawing on the linguistic resources that felt most comfortable for them as speakers while also considering their audience. All students participated in a bilingual programme at the school with a focus on using students’ language resources for the advancement of English as indicated in the state of Texas bilingual dispositions, known as Transitional Bilingual Early Exit (Texas Education Agency, 2014).

Data collection

Data sources for this study included two video transcripts of the translingual interactions in a fourth grade class during science activities. The primary focus of this paper is on a snap circuit activity video. We also conducted some additional analysis on a video of a soil sample identification lab that was the focus of a previous paper (Lemmi et al., 2021) and in this paper we make comparisons between the findings for the two videos. The class was co-taught by two bilingual teachers, Mrs. Sánchez and Ms. Espinal, whose voices can be heard in the videos we analysed. We transcribed the videos using Jefferson transcription conventions (Hepburn & Bolden, 2013; Jefferson, 2004). Table S1 in the supplementary material provides a list of transcription symbols and their meanings.

We reviewed and edited the transcripts where necessary to match the audio files with the transcribed text and add details about tone of voice and gestures that accompanied the verbal utterances using Jefferson transcription conventions. Using the data from the cleaned transcripts, we translated the Spanish portions into English and included those translations in italics below the original text. We conducted retrospective interviews with Mrs. Sánchez, Ms. Espinal, and a teaching assistant (TA) who worked with them. In those interviews, we asked the teachers and TA to reflect on their interactions in the videos, use of language, and their interpretations of the ways in which translanguaging happened in the classroom.

Science class videos

In the first video, a group of four students were conducting a lab to identify a soil sample based on its properties, more specifically texture. This lesson was part of a bigger unit that spanned several weeks when students learned about Earth's surface and resources, including properties of soils as well as weathering and erosion.

Students followed a series of steps in the lab, such as increasing moisture and moldability of the sample by adding water, forming the soil into a hotdog shape with their hands, stretching it out, and making the sample into a bow shape. Then, using a flowchart for soil classification (United States Department of Agriculture, n.d.; Thien, 1979), students inferred the properties of the sample based on the way it responds to each of these manipulations. The transcript is 46 talk turns in length and takes place while the students were conducting the portion of the lab in which they were forming the sample into a hotdog shape. The group of four students were working together, and the teacher was standing alongside, supporting them to do their work. One of the students was holding the soil sample in her hands and the others were holding materials like a ruler, papers, and pencils.

In the second video, students were interacting with a snap circuits kit. The purpose of the activity was for students to complete a circuit to make a spinning toy move or a bulb light up. Students were not given explicit instructions on how to work the circuit, but rather they were allowed to ‘tinker’ with the materials: playing with them and trying to make the items work. The transcript is 24 talk turns in length and takes place during a moment when a group of students were trying to use a switch to turn a spinning fan on and off. All students in the group were touching different parts of the setup, and one student was taking the primary role of manipulating the items.

Teacher retrospective interviews

For both of the videos, we conducted interviews with the teachers who were seen in the recordings. These interviews allow us to gain insight into the teachers’ perspectives on the use of language as well as their overall interpretations of the learning happening in the clips, based on their knowledge of the students and context. We used a semi-structured interview format, asking teachers questions such as ‘How did you use language when teaching students? How did students use language?’ ‘What did you notice so far in the video?’ ‘What were you trying to do here with language?’ and ‘Do you notice anything about language use and what they were saying?’ Building on their responses, we used follow-up prompts to encourage teachers to elaborate. The retrospective interview for the first video was conducted by the first author, and the interview for the second video (which included a teacher, Mrs. Sánchez, and a teacher’s aide, Mrs. Morales) was conducted by the second author.

Data analysis

We analysed the data using conversation analysis (Hepburn & Bolden, 2013; Seedhouse, 2004). Conversation analysis affords us opportunities to investigate both the verbal and non-verbal interactions in connection with social practices within a given context (Mondada, 2013). Thus, it is an ideal methodological approach for examining instances of translanguaging, especially in the context of science education where practices and discourse play an important role. We transcribed the teaching videos using Jefferson transcription conventions to show changes in intonation, stress, volume, and speed of talk. To show how movements of the body were used along with accompanying talk, we included a description of actions and gestures in double parentheses in the video transcripts. Using these data, we identified and described purposes accomplished by each utterance from the teachers and students while providing insights on how speakers interact.

For each utterance, both researchers reviewed the transcripts and discussed together the meaning and social context of what was being said at each turn of the conversation. Using the contextual knowledge of one researcher, who had participated in the activities, as well as our own experience as educators, we identified the main purpose of each turn of talk. Although our lens on translanguaging challenges the notions of boundaries between languages, we also identified the named language(s) being used in each talk turn to clarify that aspect of the conversations to our readers. In order to check our own interpretations of the data, we used teacher retrospective interviews to compare our own perceptions of what happened in the videos to the teachers’ explanations of the language events in the recordings.

Researchers’ roles

Here we provide positionality statements to acknowledge our experiences that may influence our interpretations of the data we analysed in this study.

Second author positionality

As an Afro-Latina and bilingual person in the United States, I, Greses Pérez, find it necessary to recognise and share my personal position and subjectivities coming to this work. Throughout my educational pathway, few of my professors were from culturally and linguistically diverse communities and only two of them were Spanish-speaking Latina professors who made possible the idea of someone like myself in academic contexts.

These experiences have influenced my research and contributed to my understanding of how race and the power of dominant languages have shaped the educational opportunities of Black and Brown learners. I must also recognise my privileged position working as an academic at a private research institution and benefitting from doctoral training at a leading research university, making me an outsider to these communities and an insider at the same time. As a scholar with experiences as an elementary bilingual math and science teacher and an engineer (in a male-dominated field), I am committed to expanding the boundaries of who is heard and can contribute in science and engineering.

First author positionality

I, Catherine Lemmi, am a white/European American cisgender woman from a middle class/professional family background. My interest in multilingualism stems from family experiences. As someone who grew up in a mostly monolingual family with a multilingual grandfather who spoke Portuguese and English (along with many other languages), I was raised in a household that valued multilingualism but didn’t really practice it. The wider community where I grew up in the American South had very restrictive language norms in which languages other than English and regional varieties of English were not welcome in classrooms. In my current family, I am married to a multilingual spouse who grew up speaking English and Japanese at home, and we are raising our children with both languages as well as others.

I am also a former high school science teacher who worked in multilingual classes in a Title I public school in California. My classes were designated as ‘mainstream’ at our school, and I had many bilingual and multilingual learners who were saddled with acronyms that were used as stand-ins for students’ identities. As a teacher educator, I hope to expand notions of how language can happen in classrooms and how inclusive approaches to language have the potential to promote learning, humanisation, and wellbeing of students.

Results

This study includes data from two translingual events in a multilingual elementary classroom during science activities. The first event, in video one, showed students participating in a soil sample identification lab. The second event, in video two, showed students participating in a snap circuits activity. These activities were translingual learning events in which students drew on multiple language resources, including Spanish and English, and occasionally non-linguistic communication via gestures. For video one, we have previously published an analysis of the talk types included in that exchange, which we identified as (1), making a comparison, (2) asking and answering questions, and (3) using scientific nomenclature. In the present study, we conducted an analysis of both videos and modified our code book to include new talk types found in the second video. We coded both videos using the new code book, and coded transcripts of both events can be found in the supplementary material of this paper. Our new code book included eight codes: (1) making a comparison, (2) asking and answering questions, (3) explaining, (4) giving directions, (5) making an observation, (6) agreeing, (7) exclaiming, and (8) affirming (Table 1). Of these talk types, all were found in video one, and all talk types except making a comparison and affirming were found in video two. Using scientific nomenclature also was not found in video two, but we did not include that code in our current code book because we felt that the ‘asking and answering questions’ code was a better match for those utterances. The focus of the present study is on video two, but we do include data from video one for the purposes of comparison and discussion. In our findings section, we discuss findings from video two from the following four categories: asking and answering questions, giving an explanation, giving directions, and making an observation. We did not include an in-depth analysis of the talk that we coded ‘agree,’ ‘exclaim,’ and ‘affirm’ because those talk types were short, simple utterances such as ‘yeah’ or ‘ugh’. Fully coded transcripts using Jefferson transcription conventions can be found in the supplementary material of this paper. Below we provide descriptions and examples of how students engaged in hybrid language practices as they participated in four types of interactions during the snap circuits activity.

Table 1. Analysis of talk turns during a science laboratory activity identifying soil samples.

		Speech	Action	Category	Language
Turn	Speaker	What did they say?	What task is accomplished?	Translingual talk categories	SP/EN/ Both
1	Mrs. Sanchez	When it <almost falls do:wn> then you know that’s i:t.	Explains to students how they will know when they are done making their ‘worms’ out of a soil sample.	EXPLAIN	EN
2	Luis	Entonces, lo parto_ Then, I’ll break it	Explains what he is going to do to end the procedure.	EXPLAIN	SP
3	Valeria	Atrevete. I dare you	Challenges previous statement. Directs Luis to break the soil sample.	DIRECT	SP
4	Ángel	Se mira como una salchicha. It looks like a sausage.	Offers a comparison between the soil sample and a sausage.	COMPARE	SP
5	Mrs. Sanchez	Well, that’s kind of what you are trying to d:o	Responds to Ángel by affirming his comparison. This statement seems to inspire more comparisons from other students.	EXPLAIN	EN
6	Luis	Se mira como un rosario, It looks like a rosary (3.0)	Offers a comparison between the soil sample and a rosary. This statement results in laughter from Ángel. Potentially, the statement also accomplishes the purpose of providing humour.	COMPARE	SP
7	Ángel	Se mira como un bigote. It looks like a mustache (2.0)	Offers a comparison between the soil sample and a mustache.	COMPARE	SP
8	Valeria	O:h£, my goodness. (1.0) It sticks to my hand. ((Moves the soil sample to her left hand))	Makes an exclamation to communicate her feeling about holding the sticky sample in her hand. Describes what she is feeling as she holds the soil in her hands.	OBSERVE	EN
9	Ángel	I think you are doing a worm.	Offers a comparison between the soil sample and a worm.	COMPARE	EN
10	Rosa	That's kind of what she's [trying to do.]	Responds to Ángel by affirming the actions being taken by Valeria.	EXPLAIN	EN
11	Valeria	[Yeah]	Agrees with Rosa's statement that she is trying to make a worm out of the soil.	AGREE	EN
12	Mrs. Sanchez	Ok, [And?]	Asks for students to say the next steps or sequence of what they need to do next.	DIRECT	EN
13	Valeria	[Now] I need to put it there.	Explains the next step she will take.	EXPLAIN	EN
14		‘cause they need to measure [it].	Explains the purpose of the next step that she will take.	EXPLAIN	EN
15	Mrs. Sanchez	[Are] you sure that you cannot stretch it anymore_	Asks a question to imply that students need to try to stretch the soil sample some more.	Q&A	EN
16	Valeria	No.=	Answers the teacher’s question. She is not sure if she can stretch the soil sample anymore.	Q&A	EN
17	Ángel	=No, pues, tienes que hacer un moño. No, then, you have to make a bow	Offers a suggestion of what Valeria should do next with the soil sample.	DIRECT	SP
18	Ángel	[¿Puedes hacer un moño?] Can you make a bow?	Restates his previous suggestion in the form of a question.	Q&A	SP
19	Mrs. Sanchez	[Are you sure? Yes or no?]	Asks a question for the purpose of probing students about whether they are sure they can't stretch the soil sample out more.	Q&A	EN
20	Ángel	¿Puedes [hacer un moño?] Can you make a bow?	Repeats the same question he asked previously.	Q&A	SP
21	Mrs. Sanchez	[Um … you] are not sure?	Rephrase the previous question as a negative.	Q&A	EN
22	Mrs. Sanchez	If you are not sure what do you have to do?	Provides an alternative course of action for students if they are not sure.	Q&A	EN
23	Valeria	Say ‘I don’t know.’	Answers the teacher's question.	Q&A	EN
24	Mrs. Sanchez	You need to keep [try↑ing] then.	Encourages Valeria to keep trying to stretch the soil sample.	DIRECT	EN
25	Valeria	[Yeah.] (1.5)		AGREE
26	Valeria	I think that’s it.	Signals that she has done what the teacher is asking her to do. The student may be indicating that she has stretched the soil as much as possible and potentially provides evidence for that claim when stating, ‘It's breaking from there.’	Q&A	EN
27	Valeria	It’s breaking from there. (1.5)	Shows the teacher that the soil sample is breaking in a certain place.	OBSERVE	EN
28	Mrs. Sanchez	Ok. Next step.	Acknowledges that the student has completed the previous step and is ready to go onto the next step of the procedure.	DIRECT	EN
20	Valeria	So, I need to put it there.=	Explains that she needs to place the soil sample into the tray.	EXPLAIN	EN
30	Ángel	=So, no puedes hacer un moño? So, you can’t make a bow?	Repeats the same question for a fourth time.	Q&A	BOTH
31	Mrs. Sanchez	Now (0.2) do you think she can measure with the ruler_ (1.0)	Asks the rest of the group if they think Valeria can measure the soil sample with the ruler.	Q&A	EN
32	Ángel	°No:°	Answers the teacher’s previous question	Q&A	BOTH
33	Mrs. Sanchez	Why not?=	Responds to a student shaking their head to indicate ‘no’. The teacher is offering a follow up question to respond to the nonverbal ‘no’.	Q&A	EN
34	Ángel	=Si. En centime:ter:s Yes. In centimetres.	Responds to the teacher's question about whether Valeria can measure the soil sample with a ruler. The student's answer provides a unit of measurement for the soil sample.	ANSWER	BOTH
35	Mrs. Sanchez	Your hands are all [dirty]. ((Inaudible speech))	Implies that Valeria should not do the measurement because her hands are dirty. She is redirecting the students’ attention away from the units of measure towards the act of physically measuring the sample.	OBSERVE	EN
36	Ángel	[No!]So, someone else.=	Offers a suggestion that someone else in the group should measure the soil sample.	DIRECT	EN
37	Mrs. Sanchez	=Oh, tha:nk yo:u. Someone else.	Affirms the previous statement that someone else should measure the soil sample.	AFFIRM DIRECT	EN
38	Mrs. Sanchez	And it has to be in centi[meters. ]	States the unit of measure previously offered by Ángel.	DIRECT	EN
39	Valeria	[Pero hay quedo mucha tierra] But there is a lot of dirt.	Makes an observation that there is a lot of dirt left on her hands.	OBSERVE	SP
40	Mrs. Sanchez	Thank you for remembering that. (1.5)	Thanks Ángel for remembering the unit of measure.	AFFIRM	EN
41	Valeria	Ugh_ (3.0)	Expresses disgust.	EXCLAIM	N/A
42	Mrs. Sanchez	Do you have centimetres there?	Asks about the unit of analysis in the ruler.	Q&A	EN
43	Ángel	This is centimetres. [inaudible]	Offers an answer to the teacher and indicate where are the centimetres in the ruler.	ANSWER	EN
44	Valeria	[Yeah. That is] centimetres..	Reiterates previous response.	AGREE	EN
45	Ángel	°How do I do this?°	Asks about the procedure to measure the soil sample.	Q&A	EN
46	Valeria	>°One two three° <((Points to numbers on the ruler))	Makes an observation about the numbers on the ruler.	OBSERVE	EN

Video clip analysis findings overview

Below we will provide a description of two video clips. The first shows a group of students engaging in a soil sample identification lab (video one), and the second shows a snap circuits activity (video two). The focus of this study is the snap circuits lab, but we do include some information about the soil sample lab in the study for the purpose of discussing the similarities and differences between the translanguaging that occurred in each activity. We analysed the soil sample lab in more depth in a previous study (Lemmi et al., 2021).

Both video clips included hybrid language practices among teachers and students. The first video clip included 46 lines of translingual talk between one teacher (Mrs. Sánchez) and four students (Supplementary Table S2), while the second clip included 24 lines of translingual talk between the other teacher and three students (Supplementary Table S3).

We found that in the first video, the majority of the talk was in English and in the second the majority was in Spanish. Both clips also included utterances with Spanish and English within one utterance. Students also used gestures for communicative purposes, especially in video two. Our perspective on translanguaging is that the entire event captured on video was a translingual learning activity, and so we analysed the entire clip for the purposes accomplished within thatevent. We seek to show the cognitive and social value of supporting translanguaging in science education, and to highlight two examples of what is possible when students engage in multiple languages and draw on their full linguistic repertoires during science learning. Our analysis showed that participants in this classroom engaged in translanguaging for a variety of purposes (Table 1).

Our understanding of translanguaging encompasses the use of two or more languages for complex purposes. Translanguaging may sometimes occur as the use of multiple languages within a sentence, but it also includes mixing or combining languages within an utterance or social exchange. For these two videos, we analyse translanguaging between teachers and students to advance specific social and academic purposes. Figure 1 shows a screen capture image from video one, and Figure 2 shows a screen capture image from video two.

Figure 1. Students make a comparison between the soil sample and a sausage during the soil identification lab.

Figure 2. Kevin asks David for an explanation of one of the components in the snap circuits kit.

Asking or answering a question

Asking and answering questions was one of the categories of talk we identified in our previous analysis of the soil sample identification lab (Lemmi et al., 2021). During the snap circuits activity, we also saw students asking and answering questions via translanguaging. Below we provide an example and analysis of how students asked and answered questions during the translingual event. In this part of the clip, David is touching the snap circuit apparatus, and he is speaking with Kevin as he manipulates the materials.

Table

21	David:	[Done]
22	Kevin:	>[Ya está.] Ya está.<
		Ready. Ready.
23	Kevin:	>Uey qué estás haciendo?<
		Uey What are you doing?
24	David:	Corriendolo.
		Running it.

In the first part of this exchange, David and Kevin speak in overlapping talk. After manipulating the circuit, David says ‘done’ in English at the same time that Kevin says ‘ya esta’ in Spanish. Then, Kevin asks David the question, ‘>Uey qué estás haciendo?<’ in a sped-up pace of speech. David answers ‘Corriendolo’, indicating that he is running the circuit or making it work (i.e. the toy is spinning because David has connected the circuit completely). During the snap circuits video clip, students asked and answered questions of each other six times; three questions were asked and each question was then answered by another student. (See full transcript in the supplementary material). In these exchanges, students looked to each other as sources of knowledge and supported each others’ learning by answering questions. In each exchange, Kevin was asking the question and other students were answering him. Kevin used Spanish each time to ask his questions.

Giving an explanation

During the snap circuits activity, students occasionally gave explanations to other learners as they engaged with the materials. In the following exchange, Kevin and David are discussing the snap circuit apparatus on a desk in front of them. The first two utterances represent question and answer exchanges (Examples of the purposes described in the prior section), and the third is an explanation of the function of an object.

Table

1	Kevin:	°Qué es eso?°
		What is this?
		((points to the switch))
2	David:	°Un switch°
		A switch.
		(2.0)
3	David:	°Esto es lo que apaga éste.°
		This is what turns off this one.

In this conversation, Kevin is pointing to a switch on the circuit (see Figure 2), and asking what it is. David answers with the name of the item, ‘un switch’ and he pauses before continuing with an explanation of the function of the item, ‘esto es lo que apaga éste’. He offers an answer to Kevin’s question that clarifies the name as well as the purpose of the component in the circuit. Though he was not even asked what the function of the switch was, David offers a simple and effective explanation to support his peer’s understanding of the apparatus.

Table 2. Analysis of talk turns during a science laboratory activity using snap circuits.

		Speech	Action	Category	Language
Turn	Speaker	What did they say?	What task is accomplished?	Translingual talk categories	SP/EN/Both
1	Kevin	°Que es eso?° What is this?	Asks a question to clarify the meaning of the snap circuits apparatus on the desk.	Q&A	SP
2	David	°It’s mohhving° ((moves his hands in circles))	Makes an observation describing what part of the apparatus is doing.	OBSERVE	EN
3	Nelson:	°Las direcciones.° The directions. ((points to the metre))	Gives a name describing the voltage metre.	Q&A	SP
4	David	°Is here!° ((points with the index finger to the metre in the kit)) (8.0)	Shows the group the metre being discussed in the previous comment.	Q&A OBSERVE	EN
5	Kevin	°Que es eso?° What is this? ((points to the switch))	Asks a question to clarify the meaning of the switch in the snap circuits apparatus.	Q&A	SP
6	David	°Un switch° A switch. (2.0)	Answer’s Kevin’s question about the switch.	Q&A	BOTH
7	David	°Esto es lo que apaga este.° This is what turns off this one.	Explains what the switch does within the circuit.	EXPLAIN	SP
8	Kevin	°Yeah.°	Expresses agreement with what David said about the switch.	AGREE	EN
9	Ms. Espinal	Expliquen cómo lo hicie:ron. Explain how you did it.	Directs the group to explain how they did what they just did with the snap circuits.	DIRECT	SP
10	Kevin	.HHH ((gasp))	Expresses surprise about Ms. Espinal’s question.	EXCLAIM	N/A
11	Kevin	Uhhhh (2.0)	Expresses confusion.	EXCLAIM	N/A
12	Nelson	((unclear))	Unclear audio.	Unclear.	N/A
13	Kevin	SSSS ((tries to leave the table)) (2.0)	Unclear meaning	EXCLAIM	N/A
14	David	>Wait wait wait.< (3.0)	Encourages the group to wait (stay at the desk).	DIRECT	EN
15	Nelson	Apa:galo. Turn it off.	Tells David to turn off the switch.	DIRECT	SP
16	Kevin	<yeah>	Agrees with Nelson about turning off the switch.	AGREE	EN
17	David	>Este va aca.< This one goes here. ((He fixes the switch)) (9.0)	Explains that the switch goes onto a certain part of the circuit.	EXPLAIN	SP
18	David	Mira. Look.	Directs the group to look at what he is doing.	DIRECT	SP
19	Kevin	Push this. ((unclear))	Tells David to push part of the apparatus.	DIRECT	EN
20	Kevin	Cachila ((Multiple meanings. See results/discussion.))	Unclear meaning.	Unclear	SP
21	David	[Done]	States that the circuit is done.	EXPLAIN	EN
22	Kevin	>[Ya esta.] Ya esta.< Ready. Ready.	States that the circuit is ready.	EXPLAIN	SP
23	Kevin	>Uey que estas haciendo?< Uey What are you doing?	Asks David what he is doing.	Q&A	SP
24	David	Corriendolo. Running it.	Answers Kevin’s question above, saying that he is running the machine using the circuit..	Q&A	SP

In this instance, David’s utterance ‘un switch’ represents a shift from English to Spanish within the conversation (see Table 2). The clip begins with Kevin and Nelson speaking Spanish, saying ‘°Que es eso?°’ (What is this?) and ‘°Las direcciones°’ (the directions) while David says two comments in English: ‘°It’s mohhving°’ and ‘°Is here!°’. After Kevin asks ‘°Que es eso?°’ a second time, David then switches to Spanish, saying ‘°Un switch°’ (a switch). The word switch, here, is found in both Spanish and English, and we coded it as Spanish based on contextual knowledge of the students’ repertoires. David also follows up with anexplanation ‘°Esto es lo que apaga este.°’ (This is what turns this on) in Spanish. It is possible that David has switched to Spanish here to support his peers’ understanding of the activity, and because they were using Spanish to ask questions (Table 3).

Table 3. Use of translanguaging in a bilingual fourth grade class during science activities.

Category	Description	Example^a
Making a comparison (COMPARE)	Learners made content comprehensible to themselves and/or their peers by making a comparison.	‘Se mira como una salchicha’ It looks like a sausage (Ángel)
Asking or answering a question (Q&A)	Learners/teacher asked a question to the group or to their teacher(s).	‘Are you sure? Yes or no?’ (Mrs. Sánchez)
Explaining (EXPLAIN)	Learners explained something to each other.	‘Un switch. Esto es lo que apaga éste.’ A switch. This is what turns off this one. (David)
Suggesting/Directing (DIRECT)	Learners/teachers gave a suggestion or a direction to someone else about what to do next.	Apagalo. Turn it off. (Nelson)
Making an observation (OBSERVE)	Learners made an observation about the science materials being used.	Pero hay quedo mucha tierra. But there is a lot of dirt. (Valeria)
Expressing agreement (AGREE)	Learners agreed with a previous statement.	Yeah. (Kevin)
Making an exclamation (EXCLAIM)	Learners made exclamatory statements and sounds.	Ugh. (Valeria)
Thanking or affirming a student’s statement (AFFIRM)	Teacher thanked or affirmed a student for something that was previously said.	Thank you for remembering that. (Mrs. Sanchez)

^a Translations from Spanish to English are included in italics below the text.

Giving directions or suggestions

Several times in the video clip, students are seen giving directions or suggesting next steps to other students. In the following exchange from video two, provide guidance to others on four occasions.

Table

14	David:	>Wait wait wait.<
		(3.0)
15	Nelson:	Apa:galo.
		Turn it off.
16	Kevin:	<yeah>
17	David:	>Este va aca.<
		This one goes here.
		((He fixes the switch))
		(9.0)
18	David:	Mira.
		Look.
19	Kevin:	Push this.

Just before this exchange, some students had moved away from the table in response to a teacher’s question. Ms. Espinal had said to the group ‘Expliquen cómo lo hicieron,’ (Explain how you did it). In her retrospective interview, Ms. Espinal explained that in this clip the students all left the table right after she asked the question, but they returned very quickly and began working on the circuit again. So, at the start of this portion of the clip, David is telling his group members to ‘wait,’ repeating the command very quickly three times, essentially calling them back to the table, as if to say ‘don’t leave’. The students do return quickly, and while they don’t answer Ms. Espinals’ question, they do continue to discuss the circuit. Nelson directs David to ‘apagalo’ (turn it off) using an up to down intonation that lends a sense of urgency to his command, and then David explains where the switch goes as he places the device in a certain position. David then directs the group, ‘mira’ (look). Kevin directs David to ‘push this’ [referring to the switch]. In this exchange, giving directions allows the group to keep itself on track with the science activity while multiple students are involved in the manipulation of the items by directing another student, David, on what to do as he handles the circuit.

Making an observation

Occasionally, students in the class made observations during their conversations. In the following exchange from video two, one group has just begun interacting with a snap circuit kit. Kevin asks the question ‘qué es eso’ (what is this) and David replies with the observation ‘it’s moving’.

Table

1	Kevin:	°Qué es eso?°
		What is this?
2	David:	°It’s mohhving°
		((moves his hands in circles))

In this translingual exchange, David is responding to Kevin’s question, not with a complete answer, but with information that will move the groups’ thinking forward, ‘it’s moving’. He says this in a whisper voice with a breathy quality as shown by the ‘hhh’ letters indicating an outbreath in the Jefferson transcription system. Both utterances in this exchange are said in a whisper, giving a sense that the students are possibly fascinated, impressed, and somewhat timid about the moving apparatus in front of them. David provides his observation about a spinning fan on the circuit kit that invites the group to cognitively continue their engagement in exploring the items. The use of gestures often accompanied observations in both of the videos. For example, in video one, Valeria points to the numbers on the ruler to show her group the markers for the centimetres as she says ‘one, two, three’. Similarly, in video two, David says ‘it’s moving’ as he makes circles in the air with his hands, imitating the motion of the spinning fan attached to the circuit. These gestures enhance the observations students provide to their groups, and offer other learners an additional entry point into understanding the science concepts at hand. This is particularly useful in bilingual learning environments, as it adds additional modalities of communication to support comprehension for all learners.

Discussion

In this discussion, we will provide our interpretations and insights on the potential purposes served by the talk types described above for a video of students using snap circuits and a video of students identifying a soil sample. These activities were translingual learning spaces in that students drew on multiple language resources, including Spanish and English, and occasionally non-linguistic communication via gestures. By engaging in asking/answering questions, giving explanations, giving directions, and making observations, students contributed to the construction of knowledge in a social, translingual learning environment. At the end of this section we describe implications for teaching and learning of these findings as well as future research.

Seeking clarity

Students sought clarity from each other by asking questions. In this way, they placed the locus of knowledge and support in other students, rather than in the teacher, and they sought to engage in social learning (Vygotsky, 1986). In the snap circuits video, Kevin asked twice, ‘°Qué es eso?°’ (What is this?), referring to the moving toy connected to the snap circuit and battery. He spoke in a soft or quiet voice, suggesting that his question was directed to his peers and perhaps that he was feeling apprehensive about asking a question. Similarly, in the soil sample identification video, Ángel asked ‘Puedes hacer un moño?’ (Can you make a bow?) several times to his group (Lemmi et al., 2021). It is interesting to note that in each video, students asked the same question multiple times, and in both, the students asked in Spanish. In the snap circuits video, Kevin received answers to his question from two other students, while in the soil lab video Ángel did not appear to receive answers. This may have been because Kevin’s question was seeking a verbal answer while Ángel’s question was more of a directive to take a specific action, or asking whether his group members could take an action. In both cases, students were promoting social learning by asking questions of their peers, which could potentially prompt the group to answer the question and develop their understanding of the materials being investigated. Also in both, the students were asking questions fully in Spanish, suggesting that in these two instances, they were seeking to gain clarity on the activities via the use of the Spanish language with their peers. In the snap circuit video, the attempt to seek clarity and promote social learning seemed more successful than the attempt made during the soil activity.

Making content comprehensible

Students made content comprehensible for one another in two ways: by answering each others’ questions and by providing explanations. In the snap circuits video, as described above, questions were asked and answered in Spanish about the identity of the materials making up the circuit. Additionally in that video, students provided explanations to each other, including when David said ‘esto es lo que apaga este’ (this is what turns this off) and ‘Este va aca’ (this goes here). Kevin also said ‘ya esta’ (‘ready’) and David said ‘done’, explaining that the circuit was connected and ready to turn on. In these peer-to-peer explanations, students mostly used Spanish except in the case where David said ‘done’ in English. In the soil sample activity, students’ answers to questions were mostly directed toward the teacher, but they did make content comprehensible to one another via explanations and comparisons. Their explanations were mostly explaining what they were doing in certain steps, as when Valeria said ‘I need to put it there [be]cause they need to measure it’ using English in her comment that seemed to be directed towards the teacher as well as her peers. This activity had a set of instructions and was more directive than the snap circuits activity, which was more open ended and only had one goal, to make the circuit work. However, in the soil sample lab, students made content comprehensible by making comparisons between lab materials and well-known objects (Lemmi et al., 2021) which did not occur in the snap circuits video.

By participating in these exchanges that clarified the content for one another, students were participating in social learning (Vygotsky, 1986) and allowing a content-first exploration of science phenomena that has been shown to improve conceptual understanding (Brown & Ryoo, 2008). They participated in these clarifying exchanges mostly in Spanish, and sometimes in English, especially when a teacher was directly involved in the exchange.

Legitimate peripheral participation via directions

When students gave directions during both videos, it seemed that they were giving suggestions to specific students within the group who had taken on a leadership role in manipulating the materials. In the soil sample lab, Valeria was manipulating the soil, and in the circuits activity, David was touching the circuit parts Ángel, Nelson, and Kevin provided directions to these leaders, suggestions what they should do next, such as ‘=No, pues, tienes que hacer un moño.’ (No, then you have to make a bow’) from Ángel, or ‘Push this’ from Kevin. These students could be viewed as engaging in legitimate peripheral participation because they are ‘moving toward full participation in the sociocultural practices of a community’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 29). While they are not the group experts as socially determined by the actions of the group members, these students are directing those leaders and in doing so they are increasing their own participation in the actions of the group. This helps them practice for a time when they might then take on a leadership role in the future and begin manipulating the science materials themselves. It also allows the leaders of the group to learn from the students who might be seen by their peers as less academically or socially capable. These students may be pushing themselves and their group towards more engaged social learning by directing the actions of other group members.

Moving thinking forward

Occasionally in the videos, students made observations that served to move the group’s thinking forward in the absence of a clear answer to a question. At the end of the soil sample video, Ángel asks, ‘How do I do this’ after the group has determined that they need to measure the soil sample using centimetres. Valeria does not provide a complete explanation or demonstration of how to use the ruler, but she does make an observation about the numbers on the ruler. She points to each number on the centimetre side, saying ‘one, two, three’. Her observation is not a direct or complete answer to Ángel’s question, but it may serve to develop the group’s understanding of where to find centimetres on the ruler. Similarly, in the beginning of the snap circuits video, Kevin asks ‘Que es eso?’ (What is this?). David does not provide an answer, but he does observe, in a soft, breathy voice, ‘°It’s mohhving°,’ while gesturing by moving his hands in circles. His observation that the device is moving supports the group to continue discussing the apparatus and perhaps why it might be moving, in the absence of a clear answer to the question of what the materials are. Here, David is constructing his own knowledge and understanding of the apparatus (Piaget,) by making an observation and using a gesture to communicate his observation to the group in another way. This multimodal utterance supports his own conceptual development as well as that of the group. Similarly, Valeria used the gesture of pointing as she counted out the numbers on the ruler. Additionally, in both cases mentioned here, the students used English to move thinking forward for themselves and their peers. While these particular utterances were all in English, this is evidence that this was a translingual and multimodal event, and that students drew on various aspects of their repertoires as they communicated with each other. They used Spanish, English, and gestures in complex ways to learn and make meaning together.

Implications for teaching and learning

When students participate in translingual science learning, they may engage in several meaningful talk types that promote co-construction of understanding. Using a more open-ended activity like snap circuits, in which students are simply allowed to manipulate materials and try to make something work may encourage students to ask questions, make observations, and talk about the materials and how they work. In a more stepwise procedure like the soil sample lab, students may tend to discuss procedural steps and discuss what they are supposed to do next. Stepwise instructions may require more teacher involvement to push students towards completing next steps in the process, while having a less prescribed procedure may allow teachers to ask students to explain how they did something. In both types of activities, students can participate in various ways such as manipulating materials, directing others, asking questions, or simply observing all of which are legitimate ways of working with the group and learning together. By drawing on all of their language resources, students can serve as the locus of knowledge, co-constructors of knowledge, in a social learning space where translanguaging is supported, decentring the teacher, especially when procedures are less defined. Teachers can model translingual interactions to encourage students to draw on their full linguistic repertoires by being intentional about moving beyond English-only speech. Gestures can also support learning as another communication strategy to develop understanding of scientific phenomena. To support a meaningful translingual learning space, teachers can model translanguaging, give students materials to manipulate, and encourage students to talk freely and direct each other in their investigations.

Implications for future research

Future research is needed to understand the ways that teachers make decisions about what languages to use in a translingual environment and how they can open up space for students to draw on their multiple language resources. We also need a better understanding of how students experience these science learning environments and how they see the value of translanguaging for their own conceptual development and language development. Additionally, it would be useful to study translingual science learning events in different communities with different language norms and different mixes of named languages and language varieties.

We hope that these findings can help contribute to the understanding that translanguaging can serve a valuable purpose in science education, and we encourage science educators to move away from monolingual language norms in the classroom.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the students and teachers who participated in these learning events.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 All names are pseudonyms to protect the identity of participants.