Co-learning in the High School English Class through Translanguaging: Emergent Bilingual Newcomers and Monolingual Teachers

ABSTRACT

There is a growing chasm between the instruction of secondary emergent bilinguals (EBs) and research illustrating the benefits of adolescent EBs using translanguaging practices for academic engagement and gains. Specifically, this qualitative study purposes to understand how monolingual teachers enact a translanguaging pedagogy in a high school classroom where English language acquisition is the focus. Findings indicate the primary resource the teachers used in their translanguaging pedagogy were the students themselves, and suggest that teachers’ willingness to participate as co-learners with adolescent EBs is crucial. Co-learning has been found to be an appropriate pedagogical tool with teachers of multilinguals due to the rich experiences it can foster and this study supports such literature. Additional study findings revealed tensions students and teachers felt through these practices, specifically in regards to translating, technology use, and students’ desire to learn the L2.

KEYWORDS:

• Co-learning
• emergent bilinguals
• high school
• monolingual teachers
• translanguaging

Introduction

There is a growing chasm between the instruction of secondary emergent bilinguals (EBs) and research (Menken, 2013), particularly concerning their bilingualism. Late arrivals, or newcomers—students who enter a new country near the end of compulsory schooling (Salinas, Fránquiz, & Reidel, 2008)—are typically viewed myopically. That is, educators often narrowly focus on students’ compelling need to acquire English rapidly in order to pass standardized tests and complete course credits in order to graduate. In this race to acquire grade level skills in a second language (L2), students’ rich language practices are often overlooked. Yet, research suggests educators would be remiss to ignore EBs’ first language abilities in order for them to receive an equitable education (García, Johnson, & Seltzer, 2017).

Indeed, recent research illustrates the benefits of adolescent EBs drawing from all their languages to learn as they engage in translanguaging practices (e.g. Ebe & Chapman-Santiago, 2016; García et al., 2017; Martin-Beltrán, 2014). Translanguaging refers to the process of meaning making using all of one’s linguistic resources. According to this theory, bilingualism is not viewed as multiple systems, but rather of one interconnected system (García, 2014; Hornberger & Link, 2012). Although researchers advocate the need to incorporate students’ home languages into learning in school (Cummins, 2017), questions remain as to how teachers can facilitate this practice. This study purposes to understand how monolingual English-speaking teachers enact a translanguaging pedagogy (García et al., 2017) in a high school classroom where English language acquisition is the focus for newcomer EBs.

Theoretical framework

Identified as microecologies, classrooms are important places where a foundation can be laid for effective interactional practices that can be mutually beneficial for both students and teachers (Creese & Martin, 2008). All teachers must be able to design and implement pedagogical practices that are socially and culturally relevant to EBs (Howard, 2003). Notably, teachers need to understand their students’ language use and leverage it for academic gains (García, 2008). The authors (Stewart & Hansen-Thomas, 2016) claim that teachers need to “sanction a space” for students’ translanguaging practices in the secondary English classroom—that is, to purposefully invite students to use all of their languages to engage academically, express their identities, and develop advanced literacy skills. There is, therefore, a need to improve teacher training methods used to prepare current and future teachers to promote bilingualism in their classrooms (Palmer, Martínez, Mateus, & Henderson, 2014), including assisting them in implementing a translanguaging pedagogy. Research has shown that limiting EBs’ access to their home languages can be putting them at a disadvantage (López, Turkan, & Guzman-Orth, 2017), and in fact, shows that students who are allowed to utilize all of their linguistic resources for learning do better in school (Goldenberg, 2008).

Thus, more and more research expounds on the benefits of translanguaging and calls for a need for translanguaging pedagogy in multiple settings. Such work includes research in elementary grades (Rowe, 2018); secondary mainstream classrooms with plurilingual language minority students (Daniel & Pacheco, 2016; Duarte, 2016); superdiverse mainstream schools (Rosiers, Willaert, Van Avermaet, & Slembrouck, 2016); and even within content area assessments for newcomer English Learners (López et al., 2017). Translanguaging is fast becoming an integral concept in the field of multilingual education.

As mentioned, the current study draws from research that illustrates various ways EBs can leverage their languages in the secondary English-medium classroom, instructional environments where English is the only official language of instruction and assessment. We are particularly interested in classrooms where teachers do not speak their students’ home languages. Studies illustrate how these teachers engage in translanguaging pedagogy through facilitating class discussion in literature response groups (Early & Marshall, 2008; Ebe & Chapman-Santiago, 2016), incorporating multilingual texts (García, Flores, & Chu, 2011; García & Sylvan, 2011), and utilizing technology (Collins & Cioè-Peña, 2016; Lewis, Jones, & Baker, 2012). This research highlights ways in which teachers who do not speak their students’ L1s can adopt a student-first stance for EBs by integrating their linguistic resources into official classroom instruction (García & Kleyn, 2016).

According to García et al., a translanguaging stance is an important philosophical orientation informed by beliefs of joint collaboration that include students’ language practices and cultural understanding; students’ families and communities; and the classroom as a democratic space for challenging norms and promoting equity (2017, p. 50). The authors also maintain the importance of including translanguaging design in planning instruction, as well as a translanguaging shift, or specifically, the flexible moment by moment decisions teachers make in classrooms, when teaching EBs (García et al., 2017), and these notions are recognized in the current study. This work, however, is grounded in the stance strand of the translanguaging pedagogy for its utility in describing the orientation our teachers enacted in order to carry out their work with EBs.

Investigating translanguaging pedagogical opportunities with teachers and students who speak different languages is important due to the current teaching workforce. In U.S. public schools, the majority of teachers are monolingual and White (Williams, Garcia, Connally, Cook, & Dancy, 2016). According to recent educational data, 80% of teachers across the U.S. are White, and 77% are female with a majority of them coming from middle class backgrounds (Institution of Educational Sciences, 2018). Given such limited diversity, it is not surprising that some teachers may ignore students’ home languages, due to lack of knowledge of their students’ languaging practices or lived experiences. This happens in spite of evidence that use of family languages in school supports academic success for multilinguals (Goldenberg, 2008; Matthews & López, 2019; Moodley, 2007). Indeed, some teachers believe that allowing multiple languages in content classrooms can have negative consequences for learning (Dooly, 2007) and thus adopt English only policies in their classrooms. Nevertheless, research sheds light on multiple ways that monolingual teachers can incorporate students’ languages in class by using translanguaging practices (Daniel, Jiménez, Pray, & Pacheco, 2019; Daniel & Pacheco, 2016; Rowe, 2018). Such practices allow for teachers who do not speak their students’ home languages to draw upon the linguistic wealth these students have to be successful in school. Moreover, while teachers’ proficiency in students’ home languages is useful, it is not necessary. According to Flóres and García (2013), teachers do not need to be fully bilingual to engage in translanguaging with their multilingual students. Instead, teachers need to adopt a willingness to engage in learning with their students and become equal participants in the educational enterprise in order to equalize power relations between students and teacher. Rosiers et al. (2016) suggest that in doing so, “teachers must do more than enable interaction, they also need to engage in pupil interaction” (p. 269). That is, students cannot be left alone in the creation of learning opportunities. We maintain that this can be done through co-learning.

The concept of co-learning in multilingual classrooms has been addressed in the literature as both an analytical concept and a pedagogical strategy (Li, 2014). Li (2014) notes that while the classroom is a space for the negotiation for power relations (i.e., a transmission model where the teacher is the provider of knowledge and students receive input passively), advances in technology have challenged traditional educational interactions. That is, teachers are no longer the only source of knowledge; students can search online for what they need to learn and can even interact with learners throughout the global community. Brantmeier (n.d.) maintains that co-learning can effectively change the teacher and student roles from “dispensers and receptacles of knowledge” to “joint sojourners” on their knowledge quest (n.p.). Wei (2014) further maintains that “mutual adaptation of behavior is the key to co-learning … teacher and learner need to constantly monitor and adapt their actions and learn from each other” (p. 169). Through this view, both teacher and students are sharing, learning, and adapting to each other’s needs, learning styles, desires, and funds of knowledge. When such mutual adaptations occur and in the right contexts, co-learning can be a rich, valuable, and insightful experience for both teacher and learner. Moreover, the concept of co-learning is very relevant in today’s educational environments, and in particular, in multilingual classrooms with adolescent newcomers from varied backgrounds and experiences. As such, we hold that it is, and should be employed pedagogically to promote shared teacher student learning and interactions.

Acknowledging the need to explore what this might actually look like with monolingual teachers and EB students in the high school English-medium classroom, the following questions guided this study:

1. What resources do teachers use to invite EBs’ translanguaging practices into their English-medium classrooms?

2. How do the teachers and students respond to a sanctioned space for translanguaging in the classroom?

Methods

As we are interested in closing the gap between research and practice, we have chosen to use a design-based methodological frame known as a formative experiment (Bradley et al., 2012). Formative experiments are commonly used in literacy-based research to effectively investigate how a particular instructional intervention can be implemented to achieve a pedagogical goal in school (Reinking & Bradley, 2008). In our case, we used a formative experiment to investigate how two teachers who represent the majority of U.S. educators, White and monolingual, implemented a purposeful translanguaging with their newcomer EB students. Thus, the theoretical focus of the study was translanguaging. The prime goal during the intervention was to leverage EBs’ translanguaging practices through classroom literacy activities, while specifically adhering to the state’s English Language Arts content and language standards. (We illustrate one of the teacher’s lessons in the Appendix which shows how she planned for translanguaging during the lesson. The content standards are TEKS [Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills] and the language standards are ELPS [English Language Proficiency Standards].

The context

The context for the study is a high school in a mid-size town in Texas. As the community houses two state universities, the school serves the children of the college students and their faculty. It also serves the local families who work in a variety of fields including milling, retail, and others. The demographics in this community is reflective of those in many parts of the southwest: a marginal majority of Whites (approximately 60%) and a growing number of Latinx¹ citizens (approximately 23%), in addition to a stable but small number of African Americans (12%) and others (Data USA, n.d.). The high school is relatively diverse and also rather forward thinking, having adopted a number of innovative educational opportunities for its students, not the least of which is an International Baccalaureate (IB) designation. The English Language Learner population at the school mirrors that of the U.S. overall, to total close to 10 percent of the student body. The EBs that make up this group are primarily Spanish-speaking and comprise both Long-term ELLs (L-TELLs) (i.e. those who have lived in the U.S. for seven years or more) (Kim & García, 2014), as well as new immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries such as Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, and Venezuela, to name a few. There are also those from non-Spanish speaking backgrounds; some of whom are the children of university faculty and graduate students.

Prior to this study, we² administered a survey in the high school where the research takes place to understand faculty knowledge of teaching adolescent EBs. The survey was administered to all faculty, about 200 people, and half of them participated by completing the electronic survey. Overall, the results indicated that although the faculty of this school with 205 EBs (10.5% of the student population) possess knowledge of L2 teaching methods, they do not consider the L1 (first language) to be a learning asset, nor do they have knowledge of the term translanguaging.

In response to this need, and aware of the benefits of translanguaging as a catalyst for learning, the research team designed a summer institute for newcomer EBs who met for eight to 15 hours a week for six weeks. The institutes’ teachers’ only training on translanguaging was reading a professional book and discussing it with the research team: The Translanguaging Classroom: Leveraging Student Bilingualism for Learning (García et al., 2017). This book study was an independent task but the research team had informal meetings to discuss the content and how it could be applied. Because of the influence of this book, the teachers and their mentors decided to use the lesson plan format from the text, in their work with the newcomer EBs so they could develop a deep understanding of how to include translanguaging design in their lesson instruction.

Participants: Teachers and students

We used purposive sampling (Miles & Huberman, 1994) by determinedly selecting monolingual teachers with little previous training in bilingual theories, yet who had a student-centered focus. Indeed, we wanted to ensure the teachers mirrored the majority of high school teachers in the U.S. closely based on their language and racial identification, lived experiences, and amount of coursework related to linguistics. The institute teachers, Tricia and Tamra, authors 3 and 4, were not regular teachers at this high school and did not have any relationship with the students prior to the institute. At the time of the study, they were full-time graduate students who worked with Holly and Mandy, authors 1 and 2, on a grant-funded project investigating how to improve the educational outcomes for high school EBs. Both teachers were White, between the ages of 40–60, and monolingual English speakers (See Table 1 for specifics on the teachers).

Table 1. Teacher information

Teacher-Researcher	Certifications	Previous Teaching Experience	College Coursework Related to EBs	Professional Development Related to EBs	Number of Years as an Educator
Tricia	Early Childhood-12th grade, Principal, ESL	Kindergarten & 2nd Grade, Instructional Specialist, Response to Intervention Coordinator, Assistant Principal	None	Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) for Teachers SIOP for Curriculum Writers	14
Tamra	Early Childhood-12th grade, Principal, ESL, Reading Specialist, Special Education	Kindergarten, Middle School Language Arts and Sheltered Instruction, Reading Intervention Teacher, Literacy Coach	1 Master’s Level Course on Literacy and the Diverse Learner	Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) for Teachers Response to Intervention with English learners	13

The two teachers both adopted positions of learners during the institute. They began the institute acknowledging that they initially knew very little about teaching EB students through a translanguaging stance. They were cognizant of the various ways their own lived experiences differed greatly from their students. Nevertheless, as committed educators, they were determined to learn about their students, despite language barriers. Literacy learning was a tool they used to negotiate meaning using various modes of communication (Flint, Dollar, & Stewart, 2019). Through the institute, they explain that their knowledge of world events, immigration policies, and even their own privilege increased greatly.

We acknowledge, however, that they are two teachers who were pursuing doctorate degrees, already having obtained Master’s degrees in education, and had many years of successful teaching experience. Thus, in these ways, they differ from many high school teachers. Nevertheless, we submit that through studying them, the field may gain much knowledge on enacting a translanguaging pedagogy that is applicable to many teaching environments.

One of the school’s assistant principals invited students to voluntarily participate based on their status as an English learner and a newcomer. In total, she invited about 20 students who had attended U.S. schools for three years or less and were currently receiving language support services during the school year. The students who chose to participate received no course credit for attendance and had to provide their own transportation. There were 15 students who attended at least one class and 12 students who attended this voluntary institute for at least half of the classes. We include all of their participation and classwork in our analysis. They were all Spanish-speakers except for two French-speaking students who attended together for one week. Therefore, we acknowledge that all students had at least one home language partner each day of the institute.

The institute met for a total of six weeks during the summer, for three days a week. The first three weeks consisted of two-hour classes, while the final three weeks entailed three-hour classes. Thus, the total contact time the teachers had with the students was 45 hours. However, due to students’ work schedules, transportation challenges, and responsibilities at home, many of them were not able to attend each class even if they expressed an interest to attend.

Therefore, we selected five focal students who attended nearly 100% of the time over the six weeks to more deeply study for this research. This sample of students represents the range of language abilities of all the students who attended the institute, from beginning to advanced English skills. We collected additional information and reflections from them regarding their opinion of using their first language, Spanish, in the classroom. Mandy, a Spanish speaker, met with them the final week of the institute to allow them the opportunity to express their opinions in either of their languages. (See Table 2 for detailed focal student information).

Table 2. Focal student information

Focal Students (Names are pseudonyms)	Home Country	Age	Entering Grade in School	Time in U.S. Schools	English Proficiency Level (WIDA Consortium, 2007)	Years in Formal Schooling in Spanish in Home Country
Selena	Honduras	16	10th	1 month	1-Entering	10
Elena	Honduras	18	11th	1 year	1-Entering	12
Yanira	El Salvador	18	12th	3 years	3-Developing	11
Estela	Venezuela	16	11th	1 year	4-Expanding	13
Reyna	Venezuela	16	12th	3 years	4-Expanding	12

Researchers’ roles

The two institute teachers also participated on the research team as they iteratively analyzed data to inform daily curriculum and instruction for the institute. The other researchers, Holly and Mandy, are both bilingual English-Spanish speakers who teach and study issues related to bilingualism and second language acquisition. They designed the aim of the research and guided the teachers in their implementation of a translanguaging classroom. Mandy taught some lessons during the institute to model ways to invite students’ use of the L1 into instructional activities. However, because the focus of this study is specifically on how monolingual teachers engage EBs in translanguaging within the English-medium classroom, Tricia and Tamra are the focus of our analysis. Holly and Mandy also observed the teachers and students at various times and refrained from participating in order to collect research notes. This provided insight into what students were saying to one another in Spanish as they negotiated meaning within the lessons.

Data collection & analysis

We collected various forms of data during the intervention that we analyzed during the six-week period and beyond through an iterative process which continually informed the intervention (Reinking & Bradley, 2008). These included a number of examples of data:

1. Teachers’ daily field notes and reflections: Every day of the institute the two teachers wrote reflections in their journals guided by the research questions. They also recorded insights into students’ engagement during the day in the same journal.

2. Field notes from Mandy who participated and/or observed 40% of the time: This researcher is a Spanish-speaker and could understand what the students were saying to one another during times in the class when they were encouraged to use their first language. While she observed or after she actively participated, she wrote notes about how students used their L1s for meaning making in the English-medium classroom, how the teachers encouraged students’ use of their L1s, and how the students’ responded to these invitations.

3. Focal students’ reflections: Tricia asked the focal students about their response to using Spanish, their L1, in the classroom. They wrote these reflections in Spanish.

4. Teachers’ lesson plans: Following the translanguaging lesson template in The Translanguaging Classroom (García et al., 2017), each of the Institute’s teachers wrote two lesson plans that purposefully included opportunities for the students to draw from their Spanish knowledge and use Spanish to make meaning relevant to the content which was primarily presented in English. One of these lessons is located in the Appendix.

5. Student work samples: During the institute, students produced individual and collected products such as journal writing, presentations, graphic organizers, edited writing, and artistic responses to their learning. All of these were copied and included in the data analysis.

Our ongoing data analysis informed the direction of the content and instruction of the institute; however, we also conducted a summative analysis of the data once the institute was completed. Guided by constructivist grounded theory analysis (Charmaz, 2013) and using QSR International’s NVivo 12 Qualitative Data Analysis Software, we first coded the data with a specific term that denoted what resources the teachers utilized in order to leverage students’ translanguaging practices. Examples from this stage of coding include Google Translate, Internet Searches for L1 Texts, and Translation Applications. Then, we collapsed the data into the most salient categories that had emerged (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). For instance, we combined the examples above to form the larger category termed Technology. We did this to answer our first research question regarding how the teachers’ created a translanguaging classroom. Similarly, we engaged in the same process to code the data to answer our second research question about teachers’ and students’ responses to the use of translanguaging in the classroom.

Findings

The findings are separated by the two research questions. First, we explore how the teachers used available resources to enact a translanguaging classroom despite their limited knowledge of students’ L1s. Next, we analyze the teachers’ and students’ varied and complex response to these practices.

How monolingual teachers leverage translanguaging practices

The teachers already operated from the perspective that they were co-learners with their students who had a wealth of knowledge. They added their knowledge of translanguaging and bilingual theory to develop a translanguaging stance. We maintain that this stance led them to purposefully seek resources that would allow them to develop a translanguaging classroom, such as encouraging the students to discuss class content in their languages, using videos in students’ L1s (or with multilingual subtitles), and allowing access to technology. Findings suggest that it is this stance toward teaching as co-learning that guided them to make these instructional decisions despite not speaking the students’ L1s, or being bilingual themselves.

The students as resources

The most salient theme from the data is that the students themselves were the most beneficial resources for enacting a translanguaging classroom. The teachers were purposeful to position themselves as co-learners with their students, overtly indicating that they were not the sole possessors of knowledge. This facilitated the students to actively participate in clarifying content for one another and furthering the class discussions in their language.

This is evident in how the teachers regularly relied on students with more English ability to translate when needed for other students in order to explain and clarify concepts. They encouraged students to use any language they wanted to complete cooperative classroom activities such as planning a debate and discussing literature. Students with more English proficiency acted as language brokers (Tse, 1996) to involve less English proficient students in the classroom. When the teachers displayed multilingual instructions and other visuals, they began to rely more on the students to write them in Spanish or French rather than using technology to do it themselves. Tricia explains in her reflections that there was no amount of technology that was as helpful as the students.

Multilingual and multimodal resources

The teachers relied on other resources as well, although not to the extent as the students themselves. For example, the they used multilingual texts and Google Translate to plan their lessons. Sometimes the students used applications on their phones as well to translate, but more often they used each other to clarify meaning. Mandy’s field notes describe a moment in a lesson when the students were working together to determine the meaning of “invariably” they encountered in a poem. Even though one student quickly found the Spanish translation on her phone (“invariable”) and noted it was a cognate, they spoke for two full minutes in Spanish amongst themselves to determine what that word really meant in the context in which it was presented. Although technology and multilingual texts assisted in creating this translanguaging space, the students relied more heavily on each other.

One such project where the students were allowed to use their phones, laptops, and each other was the All About Me project. (See Flint et al., 2019, for more details on this project.) The students were given the instructions to create a digital presentation that shared the following information: their name, information about their home country, pet peeves, and personal motto. The digital presentation could be in English and/or the L1 but their oral presentation had to be in English (per the students’ request). The students were allowed to practice their oral presentations with each other in pairs in either their L1 or L2.

Yet, a perpetual safe space for technology, specifically phones, was sanctioned, and indeed promoted. Tricia explains in her reflections, “during one class a student showed me how she could take a picture using her phone and Google Translate would translate the passage from English to Spanish.” Although she was still concerned with off-task behavior and cell phone use, Tricia concluded that “if a lesson is relevant to my students and engaging, off-task behaviors will be minimized.” This and other similar occurrences led the teachers to become comfortable with students using phones throughout class as needed for translating purposes.

Teachers’ and students’ response to a translanguaging classroom

Teachers

The teachers were open to the idea of inviting students’ languages into the classroom, yet at first indicated uneasiness with it. Tamra writes that the first day was “bumpy” because there were so many students who “speak very limited or NO English.” Both teachers questioned using students as translators, feeling it placed a burden on students who came to learn and created an easy way out for others. Indeed, Tamra notes that she initially felt guilty for using students as translators since it was her job to teach.

However, throughout the six weeks, the teachers’ attitudes began to change. They recognized that students enjoyed translating and began to see how this act was helping them improve their English because they really had to think about the meaning of the English words. They needed to understand deeply and ask relevant questions before translating. Then, as the grouping regularly changed due to students’ work schedules, different students emerged as a translator when needed. Even students at the beginning levels of English acquisition sometimes stepped up to attempt to translate the teachers’ comments or instructions. They also began to notice that the students who most needed the translation were able to participate fully in the English-medium classroom once they understood the content or the directions for the activity.

Tricia’s field notes appropriately describe her response to translanguaging:

Translanguaging was like a key to help unlock meaning through negotiating with our students. Even the simplest of directions like “write in your journal” or “open your book to chapter 4” were incomprehensible to some students. Students who had a stronger grasp of English would help translate for students who knew little/no English. Interestingly, we noticed that when a student who typically translated for others was absent, the next student with the strongest English speaking skills would step up and become a translator for others.

The teachers also indicated that translanguaging allowed them greater access to students’ knowledge of the content and English. For example, in the poetry lesson, they encouraged students to underline unfamiliar words in English so they could write the Spanish equivalent underneath the word. This activity provided Tamra better insight into the students’ actual English knowledge since many of them underlined and translated words in English she had assumed they would know. This experience allowed her to reflect on future instructional practices to further the students’ English development and meet their specific needs.

Tamra specifically wrote in her final reflection about how her views of teaching these Ebs transformed as she created a translanguaging classroom: “I have found that traditional roles, such as teacher/student, did not best meet students’ needs. I had to overcome my past experiences when thinking about how best to get student buy-in, e.g. teacher as sole provider of knowledge.” In general, both teachers began to see themselves as facilitators of translanguaging despite their previous lack of knowledge on the subject and highly limited abilities in languages other than English.

Students

All students indicated that their expectation for the literacy institute was to improve their English language skills. That is why they voluntarily attended. During a classroom activity, they wrote their expectations were to “talk more English” while “not speaking too much Spanish” as well as “aprender a leer en inglés” [to learn to read in English]. Others said they wanted to generally “ser bueno en el inglés” [be good in English]. Overall, students shared that their goal was to improve their English and advanced students indicated translating helped them do that. Jessie wrote in his journal, “Translating helps us because as a translator helps you to know the exact words in the other language.”

Field observations from the researcher and teachers note that students “came alive” and “engaged more” when they were invited to use their first language along with English. Students wrote in their journals that they were able to participate more when they could use Spanish, yet still said they wanted to use more English in class. For example, Selena, the newest to the U.S. with the most emergent English abilities shared she was less frustrated when able to use Spanish: “Yo creo que en cierto punto es bueno que nos dejen hablar español porque si no fuera así pero que nosotras como alumnos no frustrarnos y no sentirían como atrapados” [I think that at a certain point it’s good that they let us use Spanish because if it wasn’t for this, we as students would become frustrated and we don’t feel trapped]. But, she also wrote “los maestros deberían no dejar traducir con celulares ni computadoras y ponernos a tratar de contestar en inglés … cómo podemos mejorar.” [The teachers shouldn’t let us use phones or computers and make us answer in English … how else can we get better?] There was indeed a mismatch between her observable actions in the classroom and desires written in her journal. Mandy noted that Selena was highly reluctant to participate in English. She engaged in the activities much more when she had access to her phone or other students to translate certain words or phrases. This highlights the tension of the adolescent newcomers stated desires to focus on English, yet their positive engagement when they had access to their L1s.

Discussion

The purpose of this paper aimed to address the continuing gap between the instruction of secondary EBs and the research highlighting the gains in adolescent EBs’ use of translanguaging to further classroom engagement and academic success in English-medium environments. Understanding most high school educators in the U.S. are not bilingual themselves, this study purposefully investigated the resources monolingual teachers used to create a translanguaging classroom and the student and teacher responses to this practice. The overarching finding that emerged in our work was that the resource the teachers relied on the most was the students themselves—their language abilities, cultural knowledge, and lived experiences. In the beginning, students were asked to translate activity directions and vocabulary meanings which quickly turned in to the students volunteering themselves as well as their peers to translate in order to practice their English and Spanish skills. Students also emerged as translators of writing that appeared on classroom visuals or handouts. A secondary means the monolingual teachers used to create a translanguaging classroom were the multimodal and multilingual resources such as videos, Google Translate, images, and texts in students’ languages.

Although this concurs with research that shows how technology (Ebe & Chapman-Santiago, 2016) as well as multilingual (Ross & Stewart, 2019) and illustrated texts (Dollar, Flint, & Hansen-Thomas, 2019) can be used to enact translanguaging classrooms, it is crucial to highlight these resources paled in comparison to the human resources within the classroom—the students. The newcomer EB students possessed skills useful to the classroom learning environment that the high-educated teachers did not possess. Students’ oral and written first language skills proved to be crucial to the teachers’ English language teaching. Indeed, the teachers approached their classroom as a community of co-learners, overtly acknowledging the linguistic strengths, among others, that the students brought into the classroom (Zentella, 2005).

Although both teachers were open to the idea of translanguaging in the classroom, they indicated that in the beginning, their knowledge was lacking and that the implementation of translanguaging seemed uneven and ambiguous to them. Even though both teachers were experienced educators, their experience with adolescent EBs, and in particular, with translanguaging pedagogy was limited. Like many high school teachers, they knew their students needed to learn English and their goal was to meet that immediate need. Not being bilingual themselves, it was not obvious how emergent bilingual students might draw from all of their languages in order to engage more in the classroom and therefore, make greater gains in English. It seemed counter-intuitive to use languages other than English, when the prime goal was English acquisition.

In the early stages of this summer institute, they had to pay very careful attention to their translanguaging lesson design (following the guide in García et al., 2017) in order to incorporate and implement facets of translanguaging. As the summer progressed they found that this practice become instinctive as they naturally allowed for the use of all languages in all aspects of the classroom activities to work toward greater English acquisition and literacy learning. Thus, they were able to more unconsciously incorporate those key translanguaging shifts (García et al., 2017) in their teaching in order to promote opportunity and success for their EBs. This indicates the potential for teacher professional development to explain bilingual theory, and translanguaging in particular, to all educators (Daniel et al., 2019). Through studies in dual language classrooms, researchers have stated the need for bilingual educators to receive more professional development on bilingual theories such as translanguaging in order to counter strict language separation policies (Babino & Stewart, 2018; Cervantes-Soon et al., 2017; Palmer & Martínez, 2013).We assert that these initiatives should especially include monolingual teachers in English-medium classrooms with students are on a race against time to acquire grade-level proficiency in English. Through the professional development provided, Tricia and Tamra were able to purposefully learn about their multilingual students’ language repertoires and systematically leverage them to accomplish both second language (English) gains as well as overall literacy development which relates to the English language arts content standards. Thus, we concur with others that all teachers, perhaps specifically monolingual teachers in English-medium classrooms, needs professional development that addresses translanguaging. As noted, “ … taking up a translanguaging stance cannot be limited to bilingual teachers. In reality, every teacher of bilingual youth can take up a translanguaging stance, no matter their language background or program type” (García et al., 2017, p. 51).

The students’ responses to the translanguaging classroom are also worthy of attention. A common misconception is that if EBs are “allowed” to use their first language in the English-medium classroom, they will not make attempts to learn English. Indeed, much second language acquisition research affirms that learners need large amounts of comprehensible input in the target language (Krashen, 1985; Ortega, 2009) as well as output, speaking, and writing in the target language (Long, 1996; Ortega, 2009; Swain, 2000). Yet throughout this study, these young adults showed awareness of their need to learn English through receptive language (hearing and reading) and productive language (speaking and writing). The students all indicated that they wanted to have more practice speaking English in the summer classroom because they did not feel comfortable using English during the school year when the stakes are higher and they are surrounded with native speakers. It was their suggestion to make the requirement that all their presentations should be in English even though they could use their L1s to prepare.

Consequently, the idea that students will revert to not using English when provided access to their L1s was not an issue in this study. These young adult EBs illustrate that they have the ability to take ownership of their own learning. They understand their need to become more proficient in English and demonstrate their learning in English. At the same time, using their first languages served as a bridge to greater access to the curriculum in English. Translanguaging became a natural means for them to discuss mature topics, fully explain their ideas, plan their writing or speaking in English, and negotiate meaning. This echoes the findings of Daniel (2018) in her ethnographic study of multilingual refugee youth. Like the student participants in that study, the youth with whom we worked strategically engaged in translanguaging practices to help them achieve success on their homework in the English language. The access to their home language/s did not diminish their English acquisition or content development, in fact, it furthered their learning.

Furthermore, serving in the needed role of translator or language broker positioned students as key contributors to their learning environment, making it visible that although they were still acquiring English, they possessed valuable skills that the teachers did not. As the summer progressed, all students had the opportunity to serve as a translator due to changes in attendance. This opportunity was indeed a valuable one for all involved and supports other research about the benefits of translating in the classroom (Goodwin & Jiménez, 2015; Jiménez et al., 2015; Pacheco, David, & Jiménez, 2015). This component, perhaps more than any other, illustrates the co-learning stance that the experienced teachers and consequently, the students adopted. Our assertion is that co-learning was the crux of these monolingual teachers’ translanguaging classroom.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge that this learning environment took place outside of the regular school context where teachers might not have as much autonomy in what and how they teach. Furthermore, the students voluntarily came and did so with varying degrees of consistency which differs from most classroom contexts. Despite these limitations to the study, we believe this research adds to the current work on translanguaging pedagogies and illustrates the possibilities and challenges that other educators might encounter in their classrooms.

Conclusion

As evidenced in the study, bilingual research such as translanguaging cannot only be a discussion for bilingual educators. We must attend to the growing linguistically diverse secondary English language arts classroom (Enright, 2011), even as accountability measures and standards regularly ignore students’ bilingual practices (Menken, 2013). This study suggests that the teachers’ stance is crucial—a stance that disrupts the traditional teacher/student roles, inviting the students to participate in the class as co-learners with the teachers. Through the formative experiment, teachers identified various resources they can use to create a translanguaging classroom, namely the students themselves as support with secondary resources such as technology and multilingual texts. Moreover, this study shone a bright light on ways in which monolingual English-speaking teachers can effectively serve their multilingual students by allowing and encouraging L1 use and interaction in the secondary content classroom.

However, this study also invites questions into the discussion of translanguaging in particular contexts. As noted throughout the intervention, there were multiple tensions that arose with regard to use of the L1. In particular, the focal students were concerned with allowing use of translation devices and using too much Spanish in the classroom (considering the students’ pressing need to learn English). The students’ beliefs regarding use of the L1 also appeared to be at cross-purposes with their seemingly mismatched responses indicating wanting more English in class, yet engaging enthusiastically in Spanish in comparison to when the interacted in English. This suggests that students’ voices need to be central as teachers continually reflect on how and when to invite students’ L1s into a sanctioned space in high school English-medium classrooms.

Despite tensions, one way in which we can work towards sanctioning these spaces is through teachers co-learning with their students. Like translanguaging, co-learning can be an equalizing pedagogy that can put the teacher and students on the same level in regards to holders of knowledge that is worthy of sharing. As we consider how to create more equitable learning spaces for adolescent emergent bilinguals, we must push all educators to adopt co-learning practices that privilege newcomers’ full linguistic repertoires.

Acknowledgments

This material is based on work supported by the Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition under Award No. T365Z160017. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of English Language Acquisition.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Education – Office of English Language Acquisition though a National Professional Development Grant [T365Z160017].

Notes

1. Although the census and school districts use the term “Hispanic” we have chosen to use the term “Latinx” as we feel it is more inclusive and less hegemonic and gender biased.

2. “We” refers the research team consisting of the teachers and university faculty members who directed the research.

Appendix.

Tricia’s Sample Lesson Using the Translanguaging Framework in García et al. (2017): Analyzing Poetry

Table

Activity	Procedure: What will you do? Include steps.	Content and Language Objective(s)	Translanguaging Objective(s)	Materials
Introductory Activity	Brainstorm as a group: What does love mean to you?’Think time (1–2) min Use a bubble map to document. -Love/Amor-in the center circle -As a whole group fill in the bubble map with individual ideas (may be in Spanish or English) about love	Content Objectives: 2 (A) Vocabulary – Use print or digital resources such as glossaries or technical dictionaries to clarify and validate understanding of the precise and appropriate meaning of technical or discipline based vocabulary (3) Reading/Comprehension of Literary Text/Poetry. Students understand, make inferences and draw conclusions about the structure and elements of poetry and provide evidence from text to support their understanding. Students are expected to analyze the effects of diction and imagery (e.g., controlling images, figurative language, understatement, overstatement, irony, paradox) in poetry. 4 (C) Make and correct, or confirm predictions using text features, characteristics of genre, and structures. Source http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/c Language Objectives: 2.(G) understand the general meaning, main points, and important details of spoken language ranging from situations in which topics, language, and contexts are familiar to unfamiliar; 3.G)express opinions, ideas, and feelings ranging from communicating single words and short phrases to participating in extended discussions on a variety of social and grade-appropriate academic topics; 4.G) demonstrate comprehension of increasingly complex English by participating in shared reading, retelling or summarizing material, responding to questions, and taking notes commensurate with content area and grade level needs; 5.(G) narrate, describe, and explain with increasing specificity and detail to fulfill content area writing needs as more English is acquired. Source, http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter074/ch074a.html	Students will use their digital resources in Spanish and English to clarify the meaning of discipline vocabulary words. Students will use their oral and written skills in Spanish and English to analyze and provide text evidence to support their understanding of the poem Amor/Love. Students will use their oral and written skills in Spanish and English to make predictions about the meaning of the poem Amor/Love by Gwylyn Cano.	In Home Languages Red Hot Salsa: Bilingual Poems on Being Young and Latino in the United States (Carlson & Hijuelos, 2005) 5 photocopies of the poem, Love, p. 51 (Spanish) In English Red Hot Salsa: Bilingual Poems on Being Young and Latino in the United States (Carlson & Hijuelos, 2005) 5 Copies of the poem, Love, p. 50 Typed on a word document with title removed (English) 5 photocopies of the poem, Love, p. 50 (English) Google translate on phone or ipad (For brainstorming activity) Chart paper and markers Blank paper for sketching
Read Aloud/ Interactive Reading	Give each student a copy of the English version of the double-spaced poem. Read the poem aloud as the students follow along. Students may use Google Translate for unknown words. Then have students circle any words they still need to have clarified. Group discussion to clarify unknown words (e.g. mystifies) and students will write annotated notes about the word meanings
Formative Assessment: Sketch to Stretch: Reader Based Response	Students & teacher each make a sketch (quick graphic/symbolic drawing) of what the poem meant to you/your connections to the poem Show your sketch, letting others comment on the meanings they see in the sketch before you share your meaning Give students the Spanish version of the poem to read Ask: “Has your interruption of the poem changed after reading the Spanish version? If so, how?” Students will draw another sketch (on the opposite side of the first sketch) what the poem now means to them or new connections they have made.