Translingual practices in English classrooms in India: current perceptions and future possibilities

ABSTRACT

This paper reports on an exploratory survey investigating both translingual practices in English language classrooms in India and attitudes towards translanguaging and L1 use among teachers surveyed. 169 teachers from primary, secondary, tertiary and adult sectors responded to 33 quantitative and six qualitative items investigating nine research questions. The majority of respondents reported making only occasional use of other languages in English language classrooms, most often for comparing and contrasting language features, explaining concepts, managing the classroom and translating for learners. Only a minority of teachers reported actively facilitating translanguaging during language practice activities. English medium institutions were found to be less tolerant of L1-use practices than non-English medium institutions. More experienced teachers were more likely to express more pro-translanguaging beliefs and report more L1-inclusive practices. Important differences between urban, semi-urban and rural contexts were also found, indicative of a need for varied, context-sensitive approaches to multilingual practices in English classrooms across India. We argue that there is a need for an explicit focus on use of other languages in Indian English language teacher education and suggest more cohesive support for translingual practices across the education system. We also propose an additional ‘inclusive position’ to Macaro’s (2001) three ‘codeswitching’ positions.

KEYWORDS:

• Translanguaging
• L1
• mother tongue
• ELT
• English language teaching
• India
• multilingual education

1. Introduction

Translingual practices are, and have always been, fundamental to communication in India. As a linguistically diverse country, the flexible blending of features from different languages is common in interactions from the home to the marketplace and from street signs and adverts to cinema and high literature (see Meganathan 2017). While this blending has traditionally been referred to as code-switching, the terms translanguaging (to describe the act; García 2009) and translingualism (to refer to translingual practices in society at large; Canagarajah 2013) have recently been adopted to recognise that such practices do not so much involve ‘switching’ between separate systems, but instead involve drawing flexibly on resources from a single, unified languaging system, appropriate to context, interlocutor and interaction. The competence underlying such practices has been referred to as ‘performative competence’ by Canagarajah (2013) and ‘translingual competence’ by Anderson (2018). García (2009, 140) defines ‘translanguaging’ as ‘the act performed by bilinguals of accessing different linguistic features or various modes of what are described as autonomous languages, in order to maximise communicative potential’, the definition that will be used in this article.

For much of the twentieth century, approaches to language teaching disseminated from historically monolingual communities in Europe and North America tended to favour target-language only teaching (Hall and Cook 2012), what Cook (2010) calls ‘intralingual’ approaches. However, the recent multilingual turn (García and Li 2014; May 2014; Sembiante 2016) has questioned this monolingual assumption, instead arguing for approaches to education that are more inclusive of learners’ holistic languaging resources. While this reorientation is significant, as part of the predominantly western discourse on the history of language teaching, it neglects an important reality: approaches to teaching in many multilingual countries have often involved more pragmatic use of learners’ prior languaging resources throughout the twentieth century (Lin 1996; Sridhar 1994).

By default, classrooms across India are multilingual in nature. Decisions about language(s) of instruction are loosely governed by India’s national language in education policy: the Three Language Formula. This recommends children are taught in their home language at primary level, with a second Indian language taught as a subject along with (usually) English introduced later (Mohanty 2010). In practice, the ‘home language’ of primary schools generally defaults to the state language and the introduction of additional languages varies across the country. Meanwhile, the majority of state governments are struggling to make decisions to retain students whose parents are considering opting for low-cost private school education – often ‘English medium’, on paper, if not in practice (Erling, Adinolfi, and Hultgren 2017). Policy documentation, including the legally binding Constitution of India and its recent amendment, the Right to Education Act (Ministry of Law and Justice 2009), champions the multilingual nature of India and recognises the need for its preservation:

It shall be the endeavour of every State and of every local authority within the State to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother-tongue at the primary stage of education. (Government of India 2012, Part XVII Chapter IV, 177)

Medium of instructions shall, as far as practicable, be in child’s mother tongue [sic]. (Ministry of Law and Justice 2009, Chapter V section 29.1 (f))

The statement ‘as far as practicable’ is key and there is also clear evidence of support for a pragmatic approach to multilingual education in national level education documents including the National Council of Educational Research and Training’s (NCERT 2006, 12) position paper on English language teaching which notes that, ‘Linguistic purism, whether of English or the Indian languages, must yield to a tolerance of code-switching and code-mixing if necessary’, recognising the need for flexible, translingual practices in English subject classrooms in India.

While discussion of translingual practices in academic literature has focused extensively on how they can become incorporated into educational systems in multilingual communities in western countries, there have been relatively few peer-reviewed studies on translingual practices in multilingual communities in the east and the south (García and Li 2014; Kachru 1994; May 2011; Sridhar 1994). Thus, in light of India’s linguistic diversity, its naturally translingual practices and its forward-looking, L1-inclusive educational policy documentation, we aim firstly to explore recent research on translingual/multilingual approaches in English language classrooms in India and secondly to report on a survey conducted with English language teachers across India, investigating teachers’ self-reported practices and attitudes with regard to the use of other languages in the English classroom. We discuss the implications of these research findings and make a number of recommendations based on them.

Given the pervasiveness of linguistic terminology, and the need to describe holistic languaging practices simply in the survey itself, we use the traditional term ‘L1’, but reconceptualise it as a holistic, single resource: a ‘languaculture’ (Agar 1994) that may include features of a number of different languages (e.g. the L1 of a learner from a Bengali family living in New Delhi may include features of Bangla, Hindi, English and Urdu). We also use the term ‘other languages’ (OLs), especially in the survey questions to refer to codes, dialects and other resources that are not traditionally associated with English as the language under discussion.

2. Literature review

Aside from the recent arguments in favour of translingual practices in education discussed above, the revival of support for L1 use in language learning has been relatively cautious in the West. Macaro’s (2001, 535) three codeswitching positions summarise three predominant attitudes towards L1 use at the turn of the century in the UK:

1. The Virtual Position: The classroom is like the target country. Therefore we should aim at total exclusion of the L1. There is no pedagogical value in L1 use. The L1 can be excluded from the FL classroom as long as the teacher is skilled enough.

2. The Maximal Position: There is no pedagogical value in L1 use. However, perfect teaching and learning conditions do not exist and therefore teachers have to resort to the L1.

3. The Optimal Position: There is some pedagogical value in L1 use. Some aspects of learning may actually be enhanced by use of the L1. There should therefore be a constant exploration of pedagogical principles regarding whether and in what ways L1 use is justified.

It is notable that even Macaro’s ‘Optimal Position’ appears to be more tolerant (seeking justification), rather than inclusive (recognising it as part of the learner’s identity and resources) of other languages, despite his regular advocacy for L1 use (see Macaro 2005). This L1-tolerant position is reflected in several more recent publications on L1 use in the West where ‘judicious’ use of L1 is often recommended (see, e.g. the edited volume by Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain 2009, 5, 17, 34). However, the use of languages in classrooms in multilingual countries such as India is less explored – to what extent have approaches here been either tolerant or inclusive of learners’ other languages? For the remainder of this literature review we focus on studies from India, all of which attest to more widespread use of OLs in the classroom. Readers interested in the more general arguments and evidence for and against L1 use are advised to read Hall and Cook’s (2012) detailed overview.

Rahman’s study of English language teaching in Assam (2013) used classroom observation, interviews and questionnaires to collect data. He noted that 65% of 25 teachers surveyed use L1 (65% of this usage involved explaining concepts to learners), and 95% of 300 learners surveyed felt that they needed the help of Assamese in English classes. He concluded, ‘carefully used, Assamese (L1) can play a facilitative and supportive role in the English classroom’ (221). His recommendations include the flexible use of linguistic resources through encouraging students ‘to use Assamese vocabulary in English sentences’ (220), judicious use of L1 depending on variables such as cognitive level of learners and teaching objectives, and the recommendation that use of L1 should be ‘legalise(d)’ (221) to lead to more systematic use. Rahman calls for standardised guidelines to support this, and the need for active support for such policies at school level by head teachers and others in the teaching-learning community.

As part of a larger study on English as a medium of instruction (EMI) education, Erling, Adinolfi, and Hultgren (2017) observed 11 teachers working in both private low-cost English-medium schools and a Hindi-medium government school in Bihar, all at upper primary level. They report that 10 of the 11 observed teachers used a combination of languages (Hindi and English) for instruction, with just under half of the time spent speaking in Hindi. Hindi was mainly used for classroom management purposes or paraphrasing parts of a text: ‘In the [low cost English medium schools], there was an overwhelming sense that classroom codeswitching was a legitimate practice that was needed due to students’ developing competence in English’ (106). The students, when they spoke, mainly used English but this was predominantly in response to choral drilling or other repetition of what the teacher had said. Interestingly, the teachers and head teachers did not report any conflict with the use of ‘dual language’ instruction (the use of Hindi and English in the classroom) when interviewed. However, there were several instances of teachers reporting that the use of other more local languages is ‘not allowed’, for example by head teachers. One teacher reported, ‘I do not speak Bajjika here with children because it does not feel good. A complaint may go to the parents immediately’ (120).

Chimirala’s (2017) more extensive survey of teachers of all subjects in English-medium state schools in Andhra Pradesh analysed data from 276 questionnaires and 40 interviews. She found that 95% of teachers reported using languages other than English in the classroom (69% of this usage involves explaining concepts and difficult words), but that only 71% allow their students to use other languages. Chimirala uncovers ‘conflicting discourses’ in the extensive interview data, but notes that the majority of teachers recognise that ‘if learners have to connect to the lesson, they should be allowed to use their multilingual repertoires’ (165–166). She cautions that ideologies driven by both institutional norms and pre-service and in-service programmes are perpetuating a monolingual mindset inappropriate to the multilingual diversity of India, a mindset that, she suggests, may account for the behaviour of the 24% of teachers who reported using L1 in class but, paradoxically, did not allow their learners to do so.

Durairajan (2017) reviewed 19 studies of more L1-inclusive approaches and strategies implemented in Indian English language classrooms since 1981, mainly at secondary level. This included 16 studies since 2000 using L1 in a scaffolding role, and three earlier studies into bilingual learning. The most consistent finding across these studies was an increased sense of empowerment and self-confidence among learners through L1-mediated learning, but she also notes reports of improved fluency in storytelling, greater metalinguistic awareness, better recall and use of vocabulary in English. Of particular note are three studies into the use of L1 for planning and organising writing that ‘showed remarkable improvement’ (313). Durairajan recommends using L1 to tap existing capabilities, to plan for L2 use, to encourage greater use of bilingual texts, and, importantly, suggests curriculum designers need to reconceptualise linguistic competence as a holistic entity ‘to enable growth across languages’ (314), envisaging a translingual competence of sorts to replace the monolingual mindset that Chimirala (2017) alludes to. Durairajan concludes that ‘a course in multilingual education practices ought to be mandated in all teacher education programmes’ (314).

While this research reveals both extensive, principled use of OLs in some contexts, and an interest in understanding and using OLs in the English classroom especially within a social constructivist framework, it is clear that at least in some cases this is inhibited by the perpetuation of a more monolingual mindset through the practices of both institutions and practitioner culture, leading to a state of ‘guilty multilingualism’ (Coleman 2017, 31), in which L1-use practices are often stigmatised and drawn upon secretly. This mirrors findings from studies conducted in comparable contexts, which highlight teachers’ reticence to use languages other than the prescribed medium of instruction in the classroom for fear of retribution by their supervisors or due to a general belief that it is not beneficial for student learning (e.g. Clegg and Afitska 2011; Ferguson 2003; Probyn 2009).

3. Methodology

3.1. Aims and research questions

The aim of our survey was presented in the survey introduction: ‘to better understand how teachers of English in India do or don’t make use of other languages in the English language teaching and learning process’. Our intention was to investigate such practices from a more holistic, translingual perspective than traditional research on ‘L1 use’ in the classroom has tended to do (e.g. De la Campa and Nassaji 2009; Duff and Polio 1990; Hall and Cook 2013), as appropriate to the translingual heritage and practices of India. Our research questions were exploratory, as follows:

1. Use of languages other than English in relation to teaching contexts

   • (A1) To what extent do teachers of English in India feel free to make use of OLs in their classrooms?

   • (A2) Does this vary depending on contextual factors, such as medium of instruction (MOI), shared language availability and type of institution?

2. Translanguaging in the community and classroom

   • (B1) How extensively is translanguaging reported in communities around schools?

   • (B2) Do translanguaging practices extend into English language classrooms?

3. Teachers’ self-reported classroom practices

   • (C1) In what ways are OLs involved in English language learning (as reported by respondents), and to what extent is translanguaging part of this?

   • (C2) To what extent do teachers actively encourage, rather than simply allow, use of OLs in the classroom?

4. Teachers’ beliefs and opinions concerning OL use

   • (D1) What attitudes and beliefs exist among teachers of English in India towards OL use in the classroom?

   • (D2) What contextual factors correlate with more OL-inclusive opinions among these teachers?

   • (D3) Are teachers’ attitudes towards OL use consistent with their self-reported classroom practices?

3.2. The questionnaire

The questionnaire (see Appendix for wording of all items as presented to respondents) consisted of four sections, with 33 closed, quantitative items and six open-ended opportunities to add qualitative comments (mainly at the end of sections, as recommended by Dörnyei [2003, 48]). As well as asking questions commonly presented in surveys investigating L1 use (e.g. use of OLs for classroom management, explanation or translation activities; Chimirala 2017; Hall and Cook 2013), we also included one item on whether teachers actively encourage use of other languages (item 26), and several items to explore translanguaging practices (items 19, 21–24). Two items investigated whether teachers engaged in comparative analysis of languages (16 and 18). Six items were also included to elucidate teachers’ beliefs regarding OL use (28–33), including one (28) based on Macaro’s (2001) three codeswitching positions (see Literature Review above), but adding a fourth ‘inclusive’ position in anticipation of more OL-inclusive practices among Indian teachers (see Figure 8 below for wording: position names were not included in the questionnaire itself). Guidelines by Dörnyei (2003, 2007) were followed, with careful attention to ensure that the survey was appropriate in length and organisation, and that specialist terms (e.g. translanguage, comparative analysis) were avoided. Email addresses were requested (in case of the need to clarify or further investigate qualitative responses), but optional. The survey was piloted with 10 teachers working in, or with experience of, similar teaching contexts to those targeted. Based on this piloting, several minor changes were made to improve clarity, including rewording of survey items to simplify structure, and choice of lexis.

3.3. Administration

The survey was administered online using Google Forms. Respondents provided informed consent and also confirmed that they were teachers of English in India before proceeding to the survey itself. Invitations to participate were sent out via the British Council’s networks in India (project databases and social media sites for English language teachers). The survey link remained live for two weeks, with two reminders sent to potential respondents. The limitations of this non-probability volunteer sampling are discussed below.

Early analysis of demographic data indicated the presence of distinct contexts suspected to relate to a rural-urban divide. Those who had provided email addresses were contacted to ask whether they taught in urban, semi-urban or rural communities.¹ 76 replies were received (45% of total survey respondents), enabling cross-tabulation of this variable with others, although this variable was not included in contextual factor analyses in sections A-D due to smaller sample sizes.

3.4. Data analysis

Quantitative data was analysed using SPSS 24. Frequency counts and exploratory graphs were used to check for potential correlations. Several statistical tests were also performed to examine the significance of potential correlations with respondent characteristics and contextual variables. Fisher’s exact test was used in all cases as dependent variables were categorical and involved low frequencies for some values (Field 2009).

Qualitative data was analysed in two ways. As is typical in survey studies (Dörnyei 2003), it initially served to inform, support and expand upon the statistical data. As such, responses mentioning specific questions were categorised and codified, then selected to provide exemplification or clarification of points made. However, given the extent and ‘richness’ of the qualitative data (over 5000 words), it was also deemed appropriate to analyse it as a whole. This involved a second categorisation and codification stage, to enable key narratives to inform the Discussion section of the paper alongside, rather than subordinate to, the quantitative data. Quotes selected included those that were representative of common opinions, challenges or narratives and those that revealed specific, often innovative insights into the respondents’ worlds.

4. Findings

4.1. Respondents’ characteristics and contexts

169 teachers completed the 33 quantitative items in the survey. 70 of these also provided additional qualitative data (see Appendix for frequencies and percentages). Figure 1 summarises key demographic data reported, revealing that most had extensive teaching experience, almost half (47%) were secondary teachers, the majority were working in state-school education, and represented a balance of teachers working in both EMI and non-EMI institutions (Marathi [12%], Hindi [10%], and Kannada [9%] were the most common non-English mediums reported). Learner proficiency levels reported were mainly in the A1-B2 range and, reflecting what we know about multilingualism in India, 80% of the teachers reported speaking three or more languages.

Figure 1. Respondent characteristics (n = 169).

 Table 1 compares six contextual factors for urban, semi-urban and rural locations, suggesting a rural-urban continuum, with values for teachers working in semi-urban contexts typically lying part-way between those in urban and rural contexts.

Table 1. The rural-urban continuum (n = 76). *1 = beginner; 2 = elementary/pre-intermediate; 3 = intermediate/upper intermediate; 4 = advanced.

Context (n)	% of respondents in each context who work in private schools	% of respondents in each context who work in EMI schools	Mean reported learner English proficiency*	Mean no. of languages that respondents reported speaking	Mean no. of languages reported in community	% of respondents in each context who share languages other than English with students
rural (24)	12	17	1.67	3.17	2.67	88
semi-urban (23)	39	46	2.52	3.26	3.04	74
urban (29)	34	74	2.72	3.41	4.81	62

4.2. Use of languages other than English in relation to teaching contexts

• (A1) To what extent do Indian teachers feel free to make use of OLs in their classrooms?

Item 7 investigated this question. Figure 2 displays responses. Just over half felt they were either discouraged from using OLs or told to use only English.

Figure 2. Teachers’ perceptions of freedom to use other languages. Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding.

• (A2) Does freedom to use OLs vary depending on contextual factors?

Exploratory graphs indicated correlations with several contextual variables, which were tested for significance. Unsurprisingly, MOI was significant, with respondents in EMI schools much less likely to indicate freedom to use OLs (Fisher’s χ²(2, n = 169) = 32.813, p ≤ 0.001; see Figure 3). Likewise, teachers who shared OLs with their learners expressed more freedom to use them than those who did not (Fisher’s χ²(4, n = 169) = 25.182, p ≤ 0.001). Institution type was significant, with teachers in private schools less likely to indicate freedom to use OLs (Fisher’s χ²(4, n = 169) = 32.491, p ≤ 0.001), and, interestingly, teacher experience was also significant, with more experienced teachers being more likely to indicate freedom to use OLs (Fisher’s χ²(6, n = 169) = 18.114, p = .003; see Figure 4).

Figure 3. Freedom to use other languages by medium of instruction. Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding.

Figure 4. Freedom to use other languages by teacher experience. Notes: Only 7 respondents had 0–1 years’ experience. Percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding.

Of 28 qualitative responses offered at the end of Section A, 11 specifically mentioned item 7, and another five were evidently referring to this issue. Most chose to explain how or why they used OLs, several of whom were clearly well-informed in their choices:

In my English language class I do use code mixing or code switching so that my learners can also confidently respond in English using same technique. In this way I help them in their second language acquisition.

Among these, ‘guilty multilingualism’ (Coleman 2017) was detectable in six responses, as, for example, in the following:

Sometimes I have to use Mother tongue when the tribal students are unable to understand the concept. The basic knowledge of the students is very poor. They are not well prepared in their primary classes.

4.3. Translanguaging in the community and classroom

• (B1) How extensive is translanguaging reported in communities around schools?

Responses indicated that two (27%), three (36%) or four (15%) languages were present in the majority of local communities around respondents’ schools, with higher linguistic diversity found in urban contexts (a mean of 4.81 languages, compared to 2.67 in rural contexts; see Table 1). A number of the 74 qualitative responses following this question indicated extremely high linguistic diversity, for example by listing all the languages in question:

English, Marathi, Hindi, Gujarati, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Urdu

Several chose to add additional ‘dialects’, including the following respondent who selected ‘3 languages’ and added:

Besides there are regional dialects which overpower the atmosphere. The dialects are Bhilori, Pawari and Ahirani.

Items 9 and 10 investigated translanguaging in the community (see Figures 5 and 6). Almost all respondents indicated that translanguaging is present in interactions in the local community, and many reported that English played a prominent role in this, with 56% indicating either ‘regular use of words and expressions’ or ‘a lot’ of English.

• (B2) Do translanguaging practices extend into English language classrooms?

Responses to item 11 (see Figure 1) indicated that the majority of teachers share a language other than English with most/all (55%) or some (33%) of their learners, clear evidence of the potential to exploit this shared resource in the classroom, however, in many cases this lingua franca may be the official state language, rather than learners’ ‘mother tongue’, where this is different.

Figure 5. Translanguaging in the community. Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding.

Figure 6. English in community translanguaging. Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding.

The majority of respondents reported that the mixing of languages in English lessons by students was either very common (34%) or quite common (36%). Comments provided for section B (n = 29) shed some light on translanguaging in the classroom, most involving neutral or slightly negative attitudes towards such practices:

Hindi is used most of the time for inter-personal communication, both inside and outside the classroom.

Yes, it’s common with students to mix Gujarati with English when they don’t know English counterparts of some words.

My students mix English and Tamil. Telugu and English. Because when they don’t understand a concept they mix it up.

4.4. Teachers’ self-reported classroom practices

• (C1) In what ways are OLs involved in English language learning (as reported by respondents), and to what extent is translanguaging part of this?

Figure 7 summarises responses to 15 items designed to elicit teachers’ reported practices concerning OL use (see Appendix for exact wording). The majority reported using OLs ‘occasionally’ or ‘never’. Comparison of languages (both ‘how they express things’ and comparing sounds between languages) and teacher explanations in OLs were the most frequently reported uses of OLs, followed closely by use of OLs for translation and classroom management. Skills activities involving translanguaging were comparatively rare among responses, especially those involving writing and translingual texts. There was greater tolerance of OLs in speaking activities, with 34% indicating ‘occasionally’, and 18% ‘regularly’, allowing students to mix languages.

Figure 7. Respondents’ self-reported reasons for using other languages. Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding.

The majority of comments offered for Section C of the survey either described in more detail how they use OLs, or justified their use of OLs, with several feeling the need to make specific reference to students’ backgrounds (especially rurality):

Due to lack of knowledge of English in rural area we have to use their local language to give instructions, guidance, etc.

A small number of responses reported proactive use of OLs to support or scaffold learning in English:

If there is a text or poem which is available in their mother tongue, I recommend my learners to read it.

• (C2) To what extent do teachers actively encourage, rather than simply allow, use of OLs in the classroom?

Figure 7 also shows responses to item 26. 57% of respondents reported never actively encouraging use of OLs, and a further 34% only doing so occasionally. 7% selected ‘regularly’ and only four respondents stated that they ‘always’ encourage use of OLs. Only three qualitative responses to Section C indicated encouraging use of OLs, two of which, interestingly, were from teacher trainers:

I occasionally encourage teacher trainees to translate from other languages to English especially in my writing classes.

One respondent made a distinction between ‘encouraging’ and ‘allowing’ OLs:

I never [en]courage them to use other language. But I allow them to use other language as most of them can’t express themselves properly in English.

4.5. Teachers’ beliefs and opinions concerning OL use

• (D1) What attitudes and beliefs exist among Indian teachers towards OL use in the classroom?

The first item (28) in this section sought to investigate attitudes towards OL use among respondents, drawing on our adapted version of Macaro’s (2001, 535) codeswitching position statements. Figure 8 shows wording and responses. While just over half the respondents selected the optimal position, 33 respondents (20%) selected the inclusive position, justifying its inclusion.

Figure 8. The four OL-use positions. Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding.

A number of teachers chose to expand on the options they had chosen in the comments for section D, representing the four positions (virtual, maximal, ‘optimal’ and inclusive) well:

Virtual position:

I have a strong feeling that English lessons should be taught only in English and it should not be mixed with L1.

Maximal position:

Depends on the prerequisite I mean we may ask them to use other languages initially later we should not encourage the use of other languages. If they use any other language how will they learn English.

‘Optimal’ position:

I occasionally use Kannada in my explanation of lessons. But strictly allow only English for writing in English lessons. I never encourage using other languages during English class, but when it is entirely difficult for the child to express in English, I allow them to mix up Kannada (to open up).

Inclusive position:

In group work or pair work, the students are allowed to talk in their own language, so that they feel comfortable to share their views, then they report in English.

Item 29 investigated teachers’ opinions regarding when English should be introduced in Indian schools, the so-called ‘MOI debate’ (Simpson 2017, 13). The majority perceived that English should only be taught as a subject at primary level (53%), or not at all until secondary level (16%). See Figure 9.

Figure 9. English teachers’ opinions on MOI in India. Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding.

Items 30 and 31 investigated teachers’ attitudes to translanguaging in the classroom and in future careers. While almost all teachers recognised translanguaging as either natural (80%) or inevitable (15%) in the classroom, fewer seemed to recognise the likelihood of students needing to translanguage with English in their future careers (only 29% considered that they will need to mix languages frequently or all the time). Given recent findings reporting the likely translingual futures of adult learners of English from less multilingual countries than India (Anderson 2018²), this difference is of note.

Items 32 and 33 elicited teachers’ opinions on two Likert scale items. Responses to item 32 indicated that 46% of respondents believe languages should be treated separately to avoid confusion compared to 34% who disagree with this opinion, and responses to 33 indicated that there was majority agreement for the opinion that teaching should always build on students’ prior knowledge (82% chose either ‘agree strongly’ or ‘agree’).

• (D2) What contextual factors correlate with more OL-inclusive opinions among Indian teachers?

Exploratory graphs were used to examine relationships between items 28–30 and 32, and respondents’ characteristics and contextual variables, with Fisher’s exact test used to identify significant associations. For item 28 (respondents’ choices between the four OL-use positions) MOI was, unsurprisingly, found to be significant, with teachers working in EMI schools more likely to adopt virtual positions and teachers in government and government-aided schools more likely to adopt the other three positions (Fisher’s χ²(3, n = 169) = 15.780, p = .001). Whether teacher and learners shared OLs also proved significant for item 28. None of the teachers who did not share OLs with learners adopted the inclusive position, and those who did share OLs were found to be less likely to adopt virtual positions (Fisher’s χ²(6, n = 169) = 31.568, p ≤ 0.001).

For item 32 (whether languages should be treated separately to avoid confusion), two interesting correlations were found, with teacher experience and learner proficiency. Teachers who had more experience (Fisher’s χ²(12, n = 169) = 23.164, p = .010), and teachers who reported higher English proficiency levels among their learners (Fisher’s χ²(12, n = 169) = 22.390, p = .017) were less likely to believe that languages should be treated separately in teaching practices (see Figure 10).

Figure 10. Teachers’ beliefs on treating languages separately by experience.

• (D3) Are teachers’ attitudes towards OL use consistent with their self-reported classroom practices?

In order to assess how well respondents’ chosen OL-use positions from item 28 correlated to their self-reported classroom practices, frequency ratings for items 13-27 were converted to numeric scales (0 = never; 3 = always) and averaged to create multi-item scales (Dörnyei 2007, 103) indicative of each teacher’s willingness to include OLs in their practices, termed ‘OL-inclusivity scores’. These ranged from 0 (indicating an average of ‘never’) to a highest score of 2.5 (averaging half way between ‘regularly’ and ‘always’) with a sample mean of 0.86. Mean values for the four OL-use positions were found to correlate with respondents’ OL-inclusivity scores (see Figure 11), offering further validity for the addition of the ‘inclusive position’ to Macaro’s (2001) model.

Figure 11. Teachers’ other language inclusivity scores by other language use positions.

5. Discussion incorporating the voices of our respondents

The findings of this survey support those of previous studies revealing that other language use is common in English language classrooms in India (e.g. Chimirala 2017; Rahman 2013). The following discussion of the more complex questions as to who uses which languages, when, why, how and how much must remain tentative and cognisant of the limitations of the study (see below).

5.1. How much OL use was reported, and what for?

The vast majority of respondents reported using OLs at least occasionally, with only two respondents reporting that they never use or allow OLs. The sample mean OL-inclusivity score of 0.86 (0 = never; 1 = occasionally) indicates occasional use on average, but not for all purposes indicated. This is consistent with the ‘English-mainly’ belief expressed in several qualitative responses offered, with terms such as ‘practice’, ‘exposure’ and ‘use’ frequently used as justification:

I strongly agree that students who hesitate to speak in English in the class should be given lot of practise in conversations even though they make lot of grammatical mistakes. This builds up their confidence and they enjoy learning the subject as well.

Of those teachers who make more use of OLs, a number still convey a sense of ‘guilty multilingualism’ (Coleman 2017), as both Chimirala’s study (2017), and the following respondent, indicate:

I’m a teacher of spoken English for secondary level students who have had very little exposure to spoken English. Therefore, many concepts have to explained to them in L1 and sometimes they have to be allowed to express their views in L1 to help them say it in English.

This sense of guilt is hardly surprising, given that 36% of respondents reported that use of OLs is discouraged in their institutions, and a further 18% reported being told to teach using only English, despite national policy and constitutional directives recognising the need for teachers to make use of more flexible language use practices (Government of India 2012; NCERT 2006). These national-level policies may be at odds with state-level concerns regarding the need to retain students whose parents may be tempted to move them to low-cost private schools on the offer of EMI instruction (Simpson 2017, 10).

An important finding of this study is that the most commonly reported use of OLs among respondents is for comparative analysis of languages (see items 16 and 18 in Figure 7 above). This use is rarely asked about on questionnaires of OL use (e.g. Hall and Cook 2013; Levine 2003; Liu et al. 2004), although Hall and Cook (2013) found it was the most commonly added suggestion in qualitative responses. To our knowledge, the question on ‘comparing sounds’ has never been asked before, but clearly appeared to be an important way of building English language awareness upon L1 knowledge.

Among the least commonly reported OL uses, skills practice involving translanguaging (especially translingual writing) stands out, reflecting both the more conservative entrenched norms of writing (Canagarajah 2013), and the ‘negative attitudes’ towards translanguaging in academic contexts prevalent in many countries (Simpson 2017, 12), although the flexibility of a number of respondents, especially to allow more use of OLs to scaffold the emergence of English, should be noted:

At the primary and secondary stage I feel using another language as a scaffolding device to teach English is fine. The children can lean on to Hindi or mother-tongue to learn English. Using only English in the classroom, may induce a feeling of alienation which may discourage them from learning English or slow down the process of learning.

The association between teacher experience and use of OLs suggested by items 7 and 32 is notable, with more experienced teachers reporting freedom to use OLs and willingness to mix languages in class. Related to this, it is notable that several of the respondents who selected the inclusive position with regard to OL use were teacher educators, such as the following respondent:

In order to develop their listening skills, I’ve exposed them to Hindi songs before sharing English songs. For our Cultural evenings, we encourage them to present some typical song or dance from their country (for foreigners) or state (for Indians).

When combined, this evidence suggests that more experienced, more knowledgeable practitioners in India are more likely to be L1-inclusive in their beliefs, perceptions and self-reported practices.

5.2. MOI and EMI

While there were clear, obvious correlations between MOI and whether teachers reported being allowed to use OLs, another correlation is of note, that of a much higher percentage of respondents working in EMI schools in urban locations (74%) compared to semi-urban (46%) and rural (17%) schools (see Table 1). Further analysis of the data revealed that 25 of the 77 respondents who work in EMI schools reported above-average OL inclusivity scores, indicating that they have adopted more OL-inclusive practices, despite the official status of their institutions, as similarly found by Erling, Adinolfi, and Hultgren (2017). This appears to be evidence of what Simpson calls ‘the rise of low-fee private schools – frequently labelled ‘EMI’, though actual language practice may be unknown’ (2017, 7). Although most respondents who provided qualitative data had little difficulty expressing themselves in English, the errors in the following comment from a teacher working in an EMI school reveal that at least some of those asked to teach only in English may not have levels of English adequate to the task (also noted by Erling, Adinolfi, and Hultgren [2017]):

This on and off of proper use of Eng is because ,despite of having an English medium school ,students are from villages.

Interestingly, responses to item 29 (When should English be introduced?) indicate that most respondents agreed with the recently published British Council position statement (Simpson 2017) and other expert opinions on EMI in low- and middle-income countries (e.g. McIlwraith 2013), that English should be studied as subject only at primary level, evidence that many teachers in this linguistically diverse country recognise the importance of establishing a firm base in mother tongue(s) literacy before an exogenous language such as English is introduced.

5.3. The rural-urban continuum

Table 1 above provides evidence of something that most Indian teachers and teacher educators are very much aware of, that is, the existence of a rural-urban continuum in English language teaching in India. Important differences in a number of contextual factors shown in this table (e.g. mean number of languages in the community) likely influence detectable differences in pedagogic practices, such as higher mean scores for OL inclusivity in rural schools (1.00) when compared to semi-urban (0.87) and urban (0.72) schools, something that is also echoed in the qualitative data. Several references (12 respondents) to ‘rural’ contexts, including ‘tribal students’, ‘village background’ and ‘rural children’, are of note among the comments volunteered, with many respondents invoking rurality to explain either the challenges they face, or the ‘need’ to use OLs:

Most of the students come from semi-rural area. They are very poor in English and therefore prefer to talk in Gujarati mixing some common English words only.

Since i teach for rural children, sometimes it requires to explain it in other language to encourage them to respond, make the concept clear.

In colleges of rural or semi-rural areas, English teachers and students are not encouraged.

When other important differences are considered, such as the higher levels of linguistic proficiency and the lower likelihood of teachers sharing OLs with their learners in urban schools, it can reasonably be assumed that urban teachers require different approaches to OL use in the English language classroom. The following two comments from a teacher working in a government-aided secondary school in Mumbai hint towards both the challenges he faces and the innovative practices he has adopted to cope with these challenges:

As my school is in Mumbai but it is a slum, students use Hindi while they are with their friends, at their house they speak Marathi.

For other students I take the help of other students who use good English in the class. Peer help is very important in such situation.

It is in such super-diverse urban environments that much research on translingual practices in bilingual education has been conducted (e.g. García and Li 2014; Jørgensen et al. 2011), and for such contexts that related resources have been developed (see, e.g. Celic and Seltzer 2013), resources that may also be useful for such Indian teachers. In rural contexts where teachers are more likely to share OLs with learners it is likely that both current pragmatic uses of OLs, and greater acceptance and inclusion of the naturally translingual practices reported in local communities will help learners to develop their linguistic resources holistically and humanely, this latter factor being particularly important at primary level and in rural communities, where learners are likely to be most disadvantaged and vulnerable to dropping out of school.

6. Conclusion

6.1. Limitations

The limitations of the non-probability volunteer sampling used in this study are here acknowledged (Hewson et al. 2003) and caution should be used when attempting to generalise from our findings. While the fairly large sample size and diversity of respondent contexts suggests a reasonable balance of representation across major contextual factors in Indian ELT, it is likely that respondents to our survey have a greater than average interest in their professional development and in contributing to the wider body of knowledge relating to language teaching and learning. Primary and tertiary teachers are underrepresented in our data. Teachers without easy internet access are also likely to be underrepresented.

The danger of interpreting self-reported data as evidence of actual classroom practice is also acknowledged. As such, we have been careful in this paper not to assume such reports to be evidence of actual practice. Likewise, where we have asked respondents to report on linguistic diversity and translanguaging in the community, these reports have been interpreted as perceptions, rather than evidence of such phenomena.

6.2. Recommendations

Alongside ‘guilty multilingualism’ (Coleman 2017, 31), our data reveal that a feeling of ‘guilty translanguaging’ is also tangible in the voices and self-reported practices of our respondents. While translingual interactions involving English are a central feature of the performative competence of Indians in their daily lives (Anderson 2017), it seems that comparatively few of the Indian teachers we surveyed believe in encouraging the development of such competence in their classrooms, or purposefully make use of translanguaging practices to facilitate learning. This is likely due to a range of influences and beliefs among these teachers, including the pressure to (pretend to) teach only in English for some, disdain for hybrid languaging practices for others, and conservative curricula and assessment criteria that lead many Indian teachers to force their learners to use English in ways that contrast with their own behaviour, even in the classroom. We suggest that teachers of English in India could incorporate more flexible, natural processes to facilitate more learning and prepare their learners more appropriately for participation in society at large.

We echo Durairajan’s (2017) call for an explicit focus on OL use in teacher education in India, and also suggest that such support should recognise natural language-use practices present in society and reflect this in pedagogic guidance offered to teachers, so that ‘both the content and the processes of instruction for learners … might usefully be modified to prepare them for future translingual environments’ (Anderson 2018, 32), a belief that several of our respondents have exemplified when describing their own attitudes and classroom practices. Particularly at primary level, where the focus should ideally be on developing literacy in mother tongue or closest possible dialect first whenever possible, and OLs including English after this, translanguaging can be seen as a legitimate way to scaffold learning. It can help to build new knowledge on current understandings and to develop new ways of languaging from within current practices, thereby developing learners’ languaging resources holistically. In relation to this, we believe our fourth ‘inclusive position’ is an important addition to Macaro’s (2001) three codeswitching positions, and suggest that his so-called ‘optimal position’ might more accurately be labelled a ‘judicious position’ given that the normative question of which position is ‘optimal’ requires further research and is likely to vary depending on context. Considering the diversity of contexts found within India itself, the question of exactly how classroom practices should make use of learners’ languaging resources remains an area where much discussion and local innovation is required, based on practitioner experience at grass roots level. Bringing this discourse into the open makes it possible for teachers to share personal solutions and to reflect critically on their own language-use practices when teaching to identify more and less effective translingual practices.

Nonetheless, we also caution that the support for such practices needs to be provided at all levels of the educational system for real change to happen. While policy documentation has long recognised the need for what we advocate here, if the guidelines and edicts issued at state, division and district level contradict national guidelines, coherent change becomes more difficult, teachers receive mixed messages, and, perhaps most importantly, the materials that could support more translingual practices in the classroom do not get developed or promoted.

In this paper, we have endeavoured to shed light onto both current perceptions and future possibilities concerning translingual practices in Indian classrooms without, we hope, simplifying the undeniable complexities relating both to socio-political contexts and the tasks of awareness raising and skills development required in order to change mindsets and practices for the better. At the root of these complexities lie fundamental questions of rights and equity that remain as relevant today as they were a decade ago when A.K. Mohanty noted:

The exclusion and non-accommodation of languages in education denies equality of opportunity to learn, violates linguistic human rights, leads to the loss of linguistic diversity and triggers a vicious cycle of disadvantage perpetuating inequality, capacity deprivation and poverty. (Mohanty 2009, 121)

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to all participants in this study and would like to thank them for their time and for sharing their views. We also thank John Simpson for his comments on an earlier draft of this piece, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and critique.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jason Anderson

Jason Anderson is a teacher educator, educational consultant, and award-winning author of books for language teachers. He has taught languages, trained teachers, and developed materials to support teachers in primary, secondary, and tertiary contexts, both pre-service and in-service, in numerous countries across Africa, Asia, and Europe. He has worked for national ministries of education and development partners including UNICEF, the British Council, and VSO. His interests include pre-service and in-service teacher education, translingualism in language teaching, and issues of appropriacy of methodology and social context, especially in low-income countries.

Amy Lightfoot

Amy Lightfoot is the Regional Education and English Academic Lead for the British Council in South Asia. She leads on the academic strategy and quality assurance of education projects and related research programmes across the region. She has been working in the field of education for 20 years, with over a decade of specialising in South Asian contexts. She has special interests and expertise in multilingual education, the use of digital platforms and alternative models for professional development and the monitoring and evaluation of teacher competence and performance.

Notes

1 ‘Semi-urban’ in India denotes population centres of 10,000–99,999 citizens (Government of India 1961).

2 Anderson (2018) found that 76.7% of 116 English language learners studying in the UK “perceived a need for translingual practices in the future” (313).

Appendix. Survey items as presented to respondents with responses

Table

Item	Values	Freq.	%
(A) Your teaching context and you
1. How many years of experience do you have teaching English?	0–1	7	4.1
	2–3	19	11.2
	4–10	55	32.5
	Over 10	88	52.1
2. What level do you teach English at?	primary school	19	11.2
	secondary school	79	46.7
	tertiary school	19	11.2
	adults	52	30.8
3. What type of institution do you teach in?	government	62	36.7
	government-aided	44	26.0
	private	63	37.3
4. What is the medium of instruction in your institution?	English	77	45.6
	Other	92	54.4
If you chose other please name the language here: [highest 3 frequencies provided]	Marathi Hindi Kannada	21 17 15	12.4 10.0 8.9
5. What is the level of English language proficiency of your students?	beginner (A0–A1 on the Common European Framework)	36	21.3
	elementary / pre-intermediate (A1–A2 on the Common European Framework)	61	36.1
	intermediate (B1–B2 on the Common European Framework)	64	37.9
	advanced (C1+)	8	4.7
6. How many languages do you speak? [highest 4 frequencies provided]	3	91	53.8
	2	33	19.5
	4	31	18.3
	5	12	7.1
Please list these languages	169 responses received e.g. English, Hindi and Punjabi
7. Are you allowed to use other languages in English lessons?	No. I am told to teach using only English.	30	17.8
	There is no policy, but using other languages is discouraged.	60	35.5
	Yes. I’m allowed/free to use other languages in English lessons.	79	46.7
Comments for Section A	28 responses received
(B) Languages in your local community and school community
8. Approximately how many languages are present in the community where you school is located? [highest 4 frequencies provided]	3	60	35.5
	2	45	26.6
	4	25	14.8
	1	16	9.5
Any comments on question 8	74 responses received
9. How common is it for people in the community to mix languages or switch languages during conversations?	Very common	77	45.6
	Quite common	57	33.7
	Occasional	28	16.6
	It doesn’t happen	7	4.1
10. How much English is present in this language mixing?	A lot.	21	12.4
	Regular use of words and expressions.	74	43.8
	Only a little vocabulary.	72	42.6
	None.	2	1.2
11. Do you share any languages other than English with the students in your classes?	Yes. Most, or all, of the students speak another language that I know.	93	55.0
	With some of the students only.	55	32.5
	No. English is the only language I can use to communicate with them.	21	12.4
12. How often do your students mix languages in English lessons?	Very common	58	34.3
	Quite common	61	36.1
	Occasional	44	26.0
	It doesn’t happen.	6	3.6
Comments for Section B	29 responses received
(C) Your teaching practices regarding other languages For each statement below choose one of the four options from ‘never’ to ‘always’:
13. I use other languages for classroom management during English lessons.	Never	38	22.5
	Occasionally	89	52.7
	Regularly	31	18.3
	Always	11	6.5
14. I translate for my students during English lessons.	Never	36	21.3
	Occasionally	90	53.3
	Regularly	36	21.3
	Always	7	4.1
15. I use other languages to explain things.	Never	30	17.8
	Occasionally	95	56.2
	Regularly	34	20.1
	Always	10	5.9
16. I get my students to compare the way languages express things.	Never	20	11.8
	Occasionally	93	55.0
	Regularly	46	27.2
	Always	10	5.9
17. I get my students to do translation activities during English lessons, between English and another language.	Never	62	36.7
	Occasionally	76	45.0
	Regularly	27	16.0
	Always	4	2.4
18. I compare the sounds from my students’ first language(s) to English to help them with their pronunciation.	Never	35	20.7
	Occasionally	77	45.6
	Regularly	43	25.4
	Always	14	8.3
19. I allow my students to speak other languages during English lessons.	Never	46	27.2
	Occasionally	80	47.3
	Regularly	33	19.5
	Always	10	5.9
20. I allow my students to translate using resources such as bilingual dictionaries during English lessons.	Never	56	33.1
	Occasionally	65	38.5
	Regularly	36	21.3
	Always	12	7.1
21. I allow my students to make notes in other languages during English lessons.	Never	112	66.3
	Occasionally	40	23.7
	Regularly	15	8.9
	Always	2	1.2
22. I allow my students to mix English with other languages for speaking activities during English lessons.	Never	77	45.6
	Occasionally	58	34.3
	Regularly	31	18.3
	Always	3	1.8
23. I allow my students to mix English with other languages for writing activities during English lessons.	Never	139	82.2
	Occasionally	26	15.4
	Regularly	2	1.2
	Always	2	1.2
24. I use texts and audio that include other languages during English lessons.	Never	102	60.4
	Occasionally	53	31.4
	Regularly	11	6.5
	Always	3	1.8
25. I think about other languages my students may know when preparing and teaching my lessons.	Never	45	26.6
	Occasionally	73	43.2
	Regularly	43	25.4
	Always	8	4.7
26. I actively encourage the use of other languages during my lessons.	Never	96	56.8
	Occasionally	57	33.7
	Regularly	12	7.1
	Always	4	2.4
27. I use other languages to discipline my learners during English lessons.	Never	78	46.2
	Occasionally	67	39.6
	Regularly	19	11.2
	Always	5	3.0
Comments for Section C	27 responses received
D. Your opinions on the use of other languages
28. Which of the four statements do you agree with most?	A. Allowing other languages into English lessons does not help learning. The classroom should be like an English-speaking country. Skilled teachers can exclude these other languages.	13	7.7
	B. Allowing other languages into English lessons does not help learning. However, perfect conditions for teaching do not exist and so sometimes we have to make a little use of other languages.	35	20.7
	C. Allowing other languages into English lessons can improve learning. But we should keep it to a minimum, and maximise English language usage.	88	52.1
	D. Allowing other languages into English lessons can improve learning significantly. We should make use of these languages. Teaching English is about adding to their ability to communicate.	33	19.5
29. Which of the three statements is closest to your belief regarding the teaching and learning of English?	In India, students should get a solid understanding of their first language, with English introduced as a subject at secondary level.	27	16.0
	In India, students should learn English as a subject in primary school alongside developing skills in their first language.	89	52.7
	In India, students should be given the option to learn all subjects in English medium from primary school level.	52	30.8
30. How do you feel about students mixing languages in English lessons?	A. It’s natural and fine.	21	12.4
	B. It’s natural, but it should be minimised.	114	67.5
	C. It’s inevitable, but it’s not a good idea.	25	14.8
	D. It’s wrong.	9	5.3
31. How much do you think your students will need to mix English with other languages in their future careers?	A. They won’t need to mix English with other languages.	56	33.1
	B. They may need to a little.	64	37.9
	C. They may need to frequently.	31	18.3
	D. They will probably be mixing languages all the time.	18	10.7
Do you agree or disagree with the following two statements?
32. Languages should be treated separately to avoid confusion.	Agree strongly	25	14.8
	Agree	53	31.4
	Neither agree nor disagree	33	19.5
	Disagree	37	21.9
	Disagree strongly	21	12.4
33. Teaching should always build on students’ prior knowledge.	Agree strongly	77	45.6
	Agree	62	36.7
	Neither agree nor disagree	9	5.3
	Disagree	18	10.7
	Disagree strongly	2	1.2
Comments for Section D	15 responses received
E. Anything else?
The aim of this survey is to better understand how teachers of English in India do or don’t make use of other languages in the English language teaching and learning process. Before you finish the survey, is there anything else you would like to tell us about this issue?	56 responses received