Storage.googleapis.com



The Language and Self-image Hypothesis;Translanguaging Dos and Don’tsElena SadaUniversity of ConnecticutAbstractThe use of students’ home language through translanguaging, or the mental access and connection of “known” languages, is a critical venue for learning; and yet, in many English-only classrooms, it is either an untapped asset or a misused one. This article proposes that the practice of translanguaging is essential not only because it is correlated to students’ gains in language development, but also because it can improve students’ self-image as learners. At the core of this framework, is a hypothesis the article calls The Language and Self-image Hypothesis. It proposes that one of the main conditions for (English) Language Learners to remain in a path of sustained learning and—consequently—of success in life, is the acquisition of a positive self-image as learners. It also proposes that language acquisition through translanguaging enhances self-image, thus, the centrality of translanguaging. After reviewing some of the main findings regarding the relation between 1) learning and self-image, and 2) translanguaging and learning, this article will complete the syllogism and focus on 3) language development and the improvement of students’ self-image through translanguaging. In addition, it will warn against some forms of code-switching, which fossilize bad habits and perpetuate students’ self-image as “guessers.” Real life scenarios and Infographics will serve as “visual” aids to better understand how translanguaging practices can change students’ self-image, paving the path towards ongoing successful learning. This new understanding will provide educators with a wider range of tools to effectively implement translanguaging principles and practices, even if they do not know students’ home language. Key words: translanguaging, bilingual, code-switching, home-language, self-imageThe Language and Self-image Hypothesis;Translanguaging Dos and Don’tsPedro was frozen and staring at the floor. He was standing by the blackboard in front of the class with a chalk on his hand. He had written The, but would not continue with the second word, Ecosystems. “Do you need help remembering the title, Pedro? It is ok if you do,” I said. “Ecosystems,” he replied, but would not write it. “Do you want to do a ‘call for help’?” I asked. He nodded and then addressed Sean, sitting at one of the tables near him. “Is it a small or capital ‘e’?” he mumbled. Once he learned it was capital ‘e’, he wrote the rest of the title making no mistakes. I had a conversation with Pedro after class. Students in middle school were supposed to know that titles were capitalized. What I discovered that day launched me on a quest for knowledge on multilingualism, and it changed my life as an educator.Affected for Life, for Good or for BadPedro’s parents spoke Spanish at home and lived in a bilingual community. He had been “an English Learner” at school from Kindergarten—the year he arrived to the country—until fourth grade. His parents had opted out of the bilingual program and, so, his academic life was entirely in English; nevertheless, there were Spanish newspapers and magazines at home, and some of the businesses in the community, as well as the local Church, had Spanish ads posted on their doors. During our conversation, Pedro explained that he “knew” the English rule but when it was time to write, “cables would switch” and he had to guess. That day, in class, he had chosen not to guess because he had too much at risk: showing that he was not as good. “Can you give me a ‘trick’ to remember, so next time I know how it should be?” he asked. English follows one rule, and Spanish, another. Somewhere in Pedro’s brain, there was an image of Spanish titles where only the first letter of the first word in a title was capitalized. It was 2002 and I was a young teacher in East Harlem, New York. That day marked the beginning of a path where one answer led to, yet, another question: What happens in students’ brains when they juggle more than one language, yet, they receive explicit instruction only in one? Can they be successful if they see themselves as constant guessers? What can English monolingual teachers do to help students clarify language confusions, and set them on a path towards language mastery and a positive self-image as learners?I ended up creating a “trick” or strategy with Pedro. He chose a color for English and one for Spanish—blue and green respectively—and said that those were easy colors to remember because of their association to the flags and the landscapes; it did not matter how much sense it made to me, as long as it did to him. We then reviewed that in English, the blue language, since it had two tall letters ‘b’ and ‘l’ for blue, first letters of all (long) words in titles would be capitalized. The strategy, though apparently unnecessary, worked for him.Pedro’s story is not unique. Through translanguaging, or by comparing the same element in both languages, students gain language proficient in both. The opportunity to explicitly compare and contrast languages helps them to stop guessing and master the concept, which—consequently—takes them to realize that they are as good. Pedro and I continued to use the color association for other dual-language or “translanguaging” moments. From that day onward, translanguaging became our approach: We removed the webs, and explored sealed ‘brain-caves’ where both languages had been left entangled; we organized our “blue” and “green” uses into structured linguistic maps. I was not surprised to hear that Pedro began to do better at school. I could see the change in my class. He began to see himself as a good learner, thus a good student, with the added value of a second language.At the time I was Pedro’s teacher, I did not know much about “translanguaging”. I had heard of code-switching, and it was supposed to be “bad”. Little did I know that during the following almost two decades, as a multilingual educator, I would find myself in the midst of a debate concerning the use of translanguaging and home language in “English monolingual” classrooms, and that research and experience would show that translanguaging could affect ELs “for life”, for good or for bad.The Language and Self-image HypothesisPedro’s story is an illustration of what the article refers as The Language and Self-image Hypothesis, which proposes that one of the main conditions for (English) Language Learners to remain in a path of sustained learning and—consequently—of success in life, is the acquisition of a positive self-image as learners. It also suggests that language acquisition through translanguaging enhances self-image, hence, the centrality of translanguaging. The Importance of Self-image in Learning and in SuccessAfter my breakthrough with Pedro, I learned that it is common for ELs to guess and that this is actually a key strategy for new language learning (Jamieson, 1993). Pedro, nevertheless, was “technically” a former EL and not a beginner; and knowing that Ecosystems should be capitalized did not imply guessing. The picture of him standing next to the board with his eyes fixed on the floor, reminds us of an empirical reality: When students guess, they know they are guessing, therefore, they will tend to think of their answers or knowledge as unreliable, and—if too much is at risk—they will not choose the forefront. As we know through valuable research in areas of behavioral and cognitive sciences, if students continue to think that they “don’t really know”, it can become a believe-system (Watkins, 2008). In fact, most cognitive models propose that believes are repetitive thoughts and emotions, and that when the emotion and repetitive thought change, believes shift, which then changes actions and results (Beck, 1970), hence, the danger of perennially guessing—it can foster the believe of not being as good, and act accordingly. One might argue that everyone—not only ELs—feels, to a certain extent, some of that uncertainty, and that guessing is an inherent part of our life. Science, after all, moves forward thanks to informed guesses we call hypothesis. ELs guessing to which I refer, nevertheless, is one that produces the opposite effect: a step away from risks and from being at the lead that can hinder ELs ability to see themselves, academically, at the same “level” with their peers. This increases in them the probability to settle for less. If this becomes a habit, the implications in ELs lives can grow exponentially.Stephen Krashen’s affective filter theory (Krashen, 2003) touches on this concept. It suggests that the students’ belief-system and emotions create filters that can impede input from reaching areas in the brain that produce language learning. Krashen attributes a number of variables to this process, among them self-confidence and anxiety—two accurate descriptors of Pedro on that day. Even thought Krashen takes a slightly different angle since it focuses on how the emotion affects the ability to learn, it supports the fact that a feeling of inferiority might prevent learning, bringing what it is being discussed—student’s risk to fail due to a poor self-image as learners—to a full cycle that can feed on itself: Students’ language-muddles can lead to a self-image as poor-learners, and the feeling of inadequacy thickens learning blockages. Translanguaging and Language LearningResearch clearly shows that translanguaging, described as cross-language transfer during instruction, supports biliteracy (Cummins, 2001). Additional research, which describes translanguaging as the use of home language, also states that it is advantageous (Garcia & Wei, 2016). Most discourses about home-language place “code-switching”—alternation between languages—at the heart of translanguaging (Cook, 2001), nevertheless, research warns against some forms of code-switching, such as direct translations (Reyes, 2004), since this positions ELs as “recipients” of the content instead of active participants. An example of this is when a proficient bilingual student translates the lesson for a beginner EL. In this case, the beginner student gets used to waiting to ‘comprehend’ in the dominant language and does not participate in language learning construct. We can say, then, that some “unplanned” or spontaneous forms of translanguaging in the classroom are not beneficial. This is the case when code-switching or translanguaging is used as a way to avoid exposure to the “more challenging” language. This not only omits opportunities to develop the less dominant language, but it can also fossilize habits of disengagement during the times when the “more challenging” language is being used in the classroom. This article proposes that a good indicator of meaningful academic translanguaging is the extent to which the translanguaging activity develops metalanguage skills. We know meta in Greek is “with”; and, thus, just like metacognition is the thought that describes thought, metalanguage is the language that describes language. Meaningful metalanguage leads to conceptualizing language and supporting ELs by promoting focus, consciousness and engagement about language (Schleppegrell, 2013). Almost twenty years of research has proven that metalanguage is a skill that should be explicitly taught to multilingual students since it enhances not only their language skills, but their concept-learning process as well (Jimenez, Garcia, and Pearson, 1996); and, contrary to common belief, these connections do not “just happen” in majority of bilingual students’ brains; they need to be explicitly taught (Dressler, et al., 2011), hence, the need to use translanguaging moments to develop metalanguage skills. In addition to using the development of metalanguage skills as an adequate “rational” for the use of classroom translanguaging, a second indicator or justification is the development or access to higher order thinking. This is the case because some times what students might not be able to communicate in in one language, they might, in the other. Teachers use students’ home language during instructional moments when students’ ability to explain the concept precedes the use of a specific language. Since this “second justification” for the use of translanguaging implies—in most cases—that teachers know the student’s home language, we do not expand on it during this article. Completing the SyllogismIf learning is positively associated to self-image, and translanguaging is positively related to learning, we can confidently connect translanguaging and self-image. When, in the brains of multilingual students, connections and distinctions about language are explicit, students’ choices—as they access languages—are positively informed and, thus, they become confident. The opposite is also true: ELs’ lack of opportunity to make language connections explicit hinders language learning. Consequently, this becomes a twofold setback—not only ELs might not get language ‘right”, but they also will not see themselves as having the same accessibility towards success—a negative view of self that often becomes a predictor later in life. Some educators have gone as far as connecting this “obstacle” many long-term ELs face, to a circumstantially triggered (special education) disability. For multi-linguals, translanguaging is one of the main venues for the development of metalanguage skills, hence, for the development of their brain language mapping, which gives them a sense of language “mastery”, and an improved self-image learners. The Hypothesis in PracticeEven though must existing translanguaging guides can assist in putting the hypothesis into practice, this section groups translanguaging practices into three tools that facilitate the use of translanguaging as a means to developing metalanguage skills and students’ self-image during instruction. They consist of actions (or segments) that can be included in lesson-plans until they become second nature, and can be used by teachers even when they cannot communicate in the students’ home-language. The tools are represented in an infographic (figure 1), which is meant to show their relation and interconnectedness: The well serves to “keep content”, the buckets “carry” the content out, and the pulley “gives access” to it all. In a similar way, each of our three tools has a role in the language and self-image development process—each at a different time and place during the lesson. In order to make the tools’ application universal, we use—in most examples—a made up language called Mino. All examples present best practices, or effective applications of the tools.Tool 1: The Well—Rich in cognition, and full of linguistic and literacy skills This tool highlights the fact that, though Mino students will have an additional and different set of knowledge (in relation to the Mino language and culture), they still share—along with the English monolingual students—a set of universal principles of cognition and language. Executive functions and thinking processes such as comparing and contrasting, defining and describing, synthesizing, reaching conclusions, determining main idea, and finding the inference or the cause and effect, are all universal mental processes (see figure 1). In the same way, many language and linguistic functions such as the word-sentence relation, literary tone, genre, etc., are common to most languages and cultures (Carlo et al., 2004). Teachers depart not from a deficit perspective—how much their Mino students need lo learn to “catch up”; but, rather, from a value added perspective—how much they already know that can help them understand the concepts covered at school, including the linguistic concepts of English. The following are some examples of this tool’s application (The Well’s application):1) In a high school class, teacher gives Mino students the option to write the outline of an essay in Mino, after all, they are asking students to handle the argument and get the structure down before they construct the essay. Argument and outline are universal concepts and once the Mino students are able to construct them, the rest will be a more manageable process in English. Mino students who arrived to the country in their early school years, chose to do the entire process in English, and the “newer” Mino student benefited from having the option. In either case, all Mino students felt happy about being bilingual.2) Middle school teachers incorporate the concept of cause and effect in the topic of “Early Civilizations”, in addition to using graphic organizers, they direct the Mino students towards a video explaining the concept of “cause and effect” in Mino. They do the same when they incorporate the concept of inference, or analogy, in the English literature class. Mino students approached the application of the thinking process (comparison, inference, etc.), with a sense of self-confidence.3) In an elementary school where teachers will be introducing the concept of “characters” and “setting”, they ask a Mino parent to bring a book in Mino (or reach out to the librarian or local library for help). Teachers then preview the book and—guided by the context—create a list of Mino character names with the title “Characters” above; this list is presented to the class on the board, “parallel” to the list of characters in the English book. The same is done with “Setting”. Some Mino students asked their parents at home if they could get the Mino book for them, or if they could read it together at home. Tool 2: The Buckets—Bring the background forward…or outward Of all three tools, this is the one Pedro would have benefited the most, and it is typically the one that benefits most “long-term ELs,” since it clears their fossilized confusions. On the other hand, it is a tool that gives better results when applied as early as possible in elementary school (even Pre-K). This tool refers to actions teachers can take to facilitate the receptive and productive modes of communication, hence, the analogy of the bucket, getting the content “out”. This tool implies, as well, a value added approach: the Mino students’ English language bucket is smaller that those of other students, but they have an additional bucket (along with a well of knowledge) to explore. Mino students might struggle with English terms and concepts; nevertheless, because of their additional language and culture they, most likely, know—all together—as much or more than what the English monolingual students know. This is typically a knowledge that the standardized or pre-unit tests will not capture. This tool suggests that when teachers bring students’ background “forward”, or outward, both buckets or languages, develop exponentially; meaning, as they access, review or learn a concept in either language, it is in the well for the other bucket to pick up and, hence, both buckets have the potential to grow (figure5). This is the reason why Dr. Kathy Escamilla, from the University of Colorado, calls bi-literacy literacy-squared (or literacy2). The following examples showcase this idea: 1) Teachers typically recognize the mistakes made by Mino speakers when they use English, and take a proactive approach: they browse the internet to look for what Mino-English professional bilinguals have already put together for other teachers in similar situations. They type: “Language differences: Mino and English,” or even “Typical mistakes Mino speakers make when they speak English”. With that information at hand, next time the student makes a mistake, together, they create “a trick” so students can remember “how it is in English”, as Pedro would say. This is still a value added approach since teachers are using what students already know to correct the mistake in English. 2) Teachers keep in mind that their Mino students have two buckets, so when they teach a concept with its corresponding term, they are aware of the Minos’ tendency to seek in the well for the term that must go in the adjacent bucket. Therefore, they give students the opportunity to create “anchor charts” to organize their mental linguistic maps. The complexity of these charts will depend on the grade level and the students’ ability since they are student-made. Teachers find it helpful to have an area in the classroom, where students can post their unit glossaries and/or charts in Mino (or Mino-English); this, not only allows them to model excitement for language learning (and metalanguage skills), it also validates the Mino’s background. Students charts contain language key differences (sentence formation or prefixes, etc.), or conceptual elements (cultural norms of both nations’ independence pathways, etc.) See figure 3. 3) Once students learn to use their “wall” space to represent their own Mino-English metalanguage development (and teacher gets to ‘witness’ how they metalanguage develops), they can be directed to continue the work in their notebook; once again, this depends on students’ age. Multilingual students benefit from having an interactive notebook or notebook-section where they keep unit glossaries and metalanguage or cultural annotations; this reinforces good metalanguage habits. For this, students benefit when teachers give clear indication of when a content section ends, and another one begins so thy can annotate using subtitles. Many times, the use of two color pens helps them access information on each of the languages more effectively—as well as the subtitles. Teachers let students grade their “metalanguage representation”, meaning, their charts or notebook section, and they count it towards their class grade. During parent-teacher conference, the work is presented to parents as ideas that can be carried-on at home. Many times, since they speak Mino, parents provide valuable feedback when they see what the students produced in writing.4) Students all have a card or an item that signifies that they are either working on metalanguage or need time to do it. When students place the card or item on the desk, teachers know that students are either having a metalanguage moment or need a metalanguage moment. This gives teachers the opportunity not only to praise the fact that the students “know” in two languages, but also to encourage students to continue making meaning and “constructing” language—not with one but with two buckets. Tool 3: The Pulley—Makes what’s heavy lightThis tool refers to ways in which teachers encourage students to access class content using an array of sources in their home language. It implies amplifying the content rather than simplifying it; making what is heavy (new language and concepts), light (after all, Mino students will pull two buckets and not one). It also implies gradual release of information and responsibility during instruction, so that when educators teach new concepts, they try to do it first with known elements (terms, situations, graphic organizers, etc.). A class on biochemistry, for example, might not begin with the Phenylketonuria disorder but, rather, explaining a parenting test. Using a pulley in this context refers to the possibility of using Internet and community resources that scaffold the new content effectively making it “lighter”, especially resources in the students’ home language. This tool is more or less effective depending on the students’ home-language proficiency. It is important to consider, nevertheless, that even when students cannot read or write in their home language, they might understand videos and relate to their content. This is what the teachers of Mino students do to make the new content lighter:1) In upper elementary through high school, teachers encourage students to research concepts in the language that they understand best, both through reading and/or videos. In doing this, teachers provide Mino students a checklist of specific questions they will answer to themselves or collaboratively, and will make sure students understand the questions. The teachers keep in mind that the first goal is to get the content inside the well. They know they will use other lesson moments to sharpen students’ “communications skills” on the topic. Many teachers provide this list of questions to Mino students a few days before the unit begins so they have time to research at home or in the library. Depending on the situation, they also give the list to parents so they can research together or talk about it in Mino. 2) Teachers break down the “general” expectation (unit or lesson’s performance indicators) into specific modes of communication “I can statements” (for listening, speaking, reading and writing). These statements specify what students can say and write about the concept being taught. Teacher knows that collaborative translation of a written piece from a “dominant” language to a “non-so-dominant” language, works as a metalanguage opportunity, since students need to talk and think about language to negotiate the best way to say something in the “non-so-dominant” language. The task of breaking down the expectations in I can statements encompassing the specific modes of communication, ensures that the knowledge does not stay inside the well, and that students have a clear way to assess and see for themselves that they are as good. Answers that Lead to More QuestionsTo review, the article proposes The Language and Self-image Hypothesis This hypothesis says that if meaningful translanguaging is positively associated to ELLs language learning, and learning and self-image are positively related as well, we can then say with confidence that meaningful translanguaging and students’ self-image as learners are connected. We have also sustained that students’ positive self-image as learners increases the likelihoods of life-long success, thus, the centrality of translanguaging. The research has demonstrated that meaningful translanguaging, or use of home-language, during instruction, is an effective way to help students develop language as long as its rational is one of “learning” (specifically, the development of metalanguage and/or higher order thinking skills). It has also demonstrated that when students see themselves as good learners, and thus successful, they act as successful individuals; hence, we have connected both: the meaningful use of translanguaging and success in life thanks to a positive self-image. Pedro, a bilingual middle school student from East Harlem, served as inspiration and provoked the article’s questions: What happens in students’ brains when they juggle more than one language, yet receive explicit instruction in only one? Can they be successful if they see themselves as guessers? What can English monolingual teachers do to help clarify their language confusions? The article stands with research in stating that bilingual students’ brains benefit from explicit metalanguage opportunities since this dissipates silent confusions; and that when, due to lack of explicit instruction, students confuse or misuse linguistic pathways they will tend to see themselves as “guessers” and, thus, not place themselves at the forefront of academic and, potentially, professional opportunities. For the application of The Language and Self-image Hypothesis, this article states that any guide for meaningful translanguaging use, will serve as “training” on translanguaging. Nevertheless, it proposes three tools that correspond to three different instructional times and places, for which it uses the analogy of the well, the buckets and the pulley (figure 1). Therefore the tools are 1) The Well—Rich in cognition, and full of linguistic and literacy skills; Tool 2) The Buckets—Bring the background forward (or outward); and, Tool 3: The Pulley—Makes what’s heavy light. These tools reflect the hypothesis’ framework since it mirrors teachers’ view of home-language as value added, and of students’ self-image—as good learners—as a target. It is clear that in an organic discipline, such as education, when research leads to answers, these answers lead to more questions. Some of the still unanswered questions have to do with the degree of correlation between the use of translanguaging and student positive self-image as learners, and the relation of this to their long-term success (as measured by specific indicators that yet need to be defined). On the other hand, considering that during the past twenty years research has shown the benefits of meaningful translanguaging among bilingual students, and that this population has doubled since then, an additional important question is: What programmatic, teacher-training and policy changes need to happen in order to implement meaningful translanguaging, in a more comprehensive and systematic way in our schools? In contrast to the unanswered question that addresses the exact correlation between translanguaging and students’ long-term success, the response to this question can be provided today by educators and policy makers. In that respect, we are all agents of change. ReferencesBeck, A.T. (1970). Cognitive therapy: Nature and relation to behavior therapy. Behavior Therapy, 1(2), 184-200.Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2009). Literacy Instruction for English Language Learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cook, V.J. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 402-423. Dressler, C., Carlo, M.S., Snow, C. E., August, D., & White, C. E. (2011). Spanish-speaking students’ use of cognate knowledge to infer meaning of English words. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(2), 243-255.Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21 Century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Garcia, O. & Wei, L. (2016). From Researching Translanguaging to Translanguaging Research. Research Methods in Language and Education, Part of series Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 1-14. Jamieson, J. (1992). The Cognitive Styles of Reflection/Impulsivity and Field Independence/Dependence and ESL Success. The Modern Language Journal, 76 (4), 491-501. Jimenez, R.T., Garcia, G.E., & Pearson, P.H. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latino/a students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 90-112.Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Reyes, I. (2004). Functions of code switching in schoolchildren’s conversations. Bilingual Research Journal, 28(1), 77-98.Schleppegrell, M.J. (2013). The Role of Metalanguage in Supporting Academic Language Development.Watkins, E. R. (2008). Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 163-206.Figure 1 - Buckets and the WellFigure 2 - One concept in well and two bucketsFigure 3 - Sample anchor chart ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download