Advertisement

Translanguaging and equity in groupwork in the science classroom: Adding linguistic and cultural diversity to the equation

  • Roberto Gómez FernándezEmail author
Forum
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Alexis Patterson’s paper researches equity in groupwork in the science classroom by looking at micro-interactions. She points to the key features of student voice, student visibility and student authority while addressing the teachers’ role in creating a more equitable and productive talk in science classrooms. This forum paper aims at continuing the conversation started by Patterson by examining the role that linguistic and cultural diversity plays in classroom interaction. Previous research points to the need for more equitable interactions in groupwork for improved science learning, especially for students who have been historically in the margins of science. In Europe, more concretely in Luxembourg, culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students find themselves often in this marginal position. By the time CLD students are 15 years old, they lag, on average, 2 years behind their peers in science. Many of them come from lower socioeconomic and/or immigrant backgrounds and speak other language(s) at home than the school languages. To address this issue, participatory approaches in the science classroom have been proven especially beneficial for CLD students, especially when working in small groups. Also, the recognition of home languages and cultures improves the sense of belonging of the CLD students, with a positive influence in their school performance. In the Luxembourgish context, which is culturally and linguistically very diverse, there is also a need to pay attention to groupwork interactions, as presented by Patterson. Groupwork in this context is characterized also by the diverse use of the linguistic and identity repertoires of the students, notably by translanguaging or the use of lexical and syntactical items from more than one language. Recent OECD reports recommend that teachers should be better prepared and supported to deal with diversity in their classrooms, with beneficial effects for not only CLD students, but also for all the students thanks to a teaching approach that caters for individual needs. The preparation to deal with translanguaging in groupwork in the science classroom under a wider framework on identity affirmation adds a needed feature to the current teacher training and continues the conversation started by Patterson’s work.

Keywords

Translanguaging Equity Linguistic repertoire Science Identity 

Notes

References

  1. Arreguín-Anderson, M. G. (2015). Bilingual Latino students learn science for fun while developing language and cognition: Biophilia at a La Clase Mágica Site. Global Education Review, 2(2), 43–58.Google Scholar
  2. Barrett, B. (2010). Is “Safety” dangerous? A critical examination of the classroom as safe space. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2010.1.9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beres, A. M. (2015). An overview of translanguaging: 20 years of ‘giving voice to those who do not speak’. Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts, 1(1), 103–118.  https://doi.org/10.1075/ttmc.1.1.05ber.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blommaert, J., & Varis, P. (2013). Enough is enough: The heuristics of authenticity in superdiversity. In J. Duarte & I. Gogolin (Eds.), Linguistic superdiversity in urban areas: Research approaches (pp. 143–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/hsld.2.10blo.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2(2), 1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110239331.1.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, K. S. (2013). Safe, affirming, and productive spaces: classroom engagement among Latina high school students. Urban Education, 48(4), 490–528.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912457164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 585–592.Google Scholar
  9. Cummins, J. (2014). Beyond language: Academic communication and student success. Linguistics and Education, 26, 145–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, K. A. (1994). Language planning in multilingual contexts. Policies, communities, and schools in Luxembourg. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Espinosa, C. M., & Herrera, L. Y. (2016). Reclaiming bilingualism: Translanguaging in a science class. In O. García & T. Kleyn (Eds.), Translanguaging in the science classroom (pp. 161–177). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Faulstich Orellana, M. (2016). Immigrant children in transcultural spaces: Language learning, and love. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Furman, M., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2006). Capturing urban student voices in the creation of a science mini-documentary. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 667–694.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. García, O. (2009). Emergent bilinguals and TESOL: What’s in a name? TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 322–326.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00172.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. García, O., & Kleyn, T. (Eds.). (2016). Translanguaging in the science classroom. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  18. Gómez Fernández, R. (2015). El trilingüismo idealizado y el uso de lenguas no oficiales en la escuela luxemburguesa. Lengua y Migración, 7(2), 75–108.Google Scholar
  19. Gómez Fernández, R. (2016). “Ils ne cherchent pas à apprendre le Français”: NAMS and multilingual primary schools in France and Luxembourg. Carnets d’Atelier de Sociolinguistique (11).Google Scholar
  20. Gómez Fernández, R., Siry, C. (2018a). The SciPol: Lux project and the teaching/learning of Science in primary schools in Luxembourg: The case of the culturally and linguistically diverse students. International Journal - Education and Teaching (PDVL), 1(1), 70–90.Google Scholar
  21. Gómez Fernández, R., & Siry, C. (2018b). ‘Opening up’ a science task: An exploration of shifting embodied participation of a plurilingual primary student. International Journal of Science Education, 40(7), 771–795.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1447709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gómez Fernández, R., Gorges, A. & Siry, C. (2018). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in primary and secondary science classrooms: The Luso-Luxembourguês in Luxembourg. Science Educators for Equity, Diversity and Social Justice (SEEDS) Annual Meeting. Davis, California.Google Scholar
  23. Gutiérrez, K., Asato, J., Santos, M., & Gotanda, N. (2002). Backlash pedagogy: Language and culture and the politics of reform. The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 24(4), 335–351.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10714410214744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286–303.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039909524733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamman, L. (2018). Translanguaging and positioning in two-way dual language classrooms: a case for criticality. Language and Education, 32(1), 21–42.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2017.1384006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holley, L., & Steiner, C. (2005). Safe space: Student perspectives on classroom environment. Journal of Social Work Education, 41(1), 49–64.  https://doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2005.200300343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Horner, K., & Weber, J. J. (2008). The language situation in Luxembourg. Current Issues in Language Planning, 9(1), 69–128.  https://doi.org/10.2167/cilp130.0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jørgensen J. N. (2010) Languaging: Nine years of poly-lingual development of young Turkish-Danish grade school students. Copenhagen Studies in Bilingualism. University of S. Copenhagen Faculty of Humanities, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  29. LISER. (2015). PISA 20032012: persistence, changes and challenges an overview of immigrant students and their performance. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  30. Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (Eds.). (2007). Disinventing and reconstituting languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  31. Manyak, P. C. (2004). Literacy instruction, disciplinary practice, and diverse learners: A case study. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 4(1), 129–149.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798404041459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martín Rojo, L. (2010). Constructing inequality in multilingual classrooms. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MENFP [Ministère de l’Éducation nationale et de la Formation professionnelle] (2011). Plan d'etudes: École fondamentale. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  34. MENJE [Ministère de l’Éducation nationale, de l'Enfance et de la Jeunesse], & University of Luxembourg. (2016). PISA 2015: Rapport National Luxembourg. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  35. MENJE. (2017). Statistiques globales et analyse des résultats scolairesEnseignement fondamental20152016. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  36. OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development]. (2016). PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. OECD. (2018). The resilience of students with an immigrant background. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264292093-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307.  https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Redmond, M. (2010). Safe space oddity: Revisiting critical pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 30(1), 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08841230903249729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sayer, P. (2013). Translanguaging, TexMex, and bilingual pedagogy: Emergent bilinguals learning through the vernacular. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect, 47(1), 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shannon, S. M. (1995). The hegemony of English: A case study of one bilingual classroom as a site of resistance. Linguistics and Education, 7(3), 175–200.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(95)90022-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024-1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wei, L. (2011). Multilinguality, multimodality, and Multicompetence: code- and modeswitching by minority ethnic children in complementary schools. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 370–384.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01209.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Unit ECCS (Education, Culture, Cognition, and Society), Institute of Applied Educational Sciences, Faculty of Language and Literature, Humanities, Arts and EducationUniversité du LuxembourgEsch-Sur-AlzetteLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations