Chapter 3: Bids for Linguistic Capital Through Translanguaging During Spanish and English Mathematics Instruction in Dual Language Classrooms

In light of the increasing numbers of emerging bilingual children in U.S. schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2019), research on teacher and student language use, and the effects of language use on students’ learning has become more urgent. One practice being promoted to support student learning is translanguaging (Garcia & Wei, 2015; Moschkovich, 2007; Palmer et al., 2014; Planas, 2018). Translanguaging generally refers to instances when bilingual speakers use their two languages in some combination to communicate. While previous researchers and educators may have used the term “code-switching” when describing this phenomenon, the term codeswitching tends to consider distinct languages as separate systems while translanguaging views a bilingual speakers’ full linguistic repertoire as an integrated system (Canagarajah, 2011). Some advocates of translanguaging consider distinct “languages” as merely socio-political constructions (Makoni & Pennycook, 2007). Nevertheless, translanguaging (and code switching) appears to serve social (Giles & Ogay, 2007; Lin, 2013; Martínez, 2009; Myers-Scotton, 1995; Sommerville & Faltis, 2019), linguistic (Cenoz, 2017; Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Gort & Sembiante, 2015; Lin, 2013), and academic (García, 2013; Gort & Pontier, 2013; Palmer et al., 2014) functions, but how these functions interact is largely unknown.

The disagreements regarding the differences between translanguaging and code-switching have been well documented (see MacSwan, 2017, for a review) and my purpose here is not to resolve those differences, but rather to better understand how two languages are being used in mathematics DLP classrooms and the factors influencing their use (see Lindholm-Leary, 2013 for a review).

I have chosen to study translanguaging in DLP programs primarily because the students in such programs are learning two languages by design, and all students are bilingual to some degree. Research and the promotion of translanguaging has taken place in contexts where not all participants are bi/multilingual in the same languages, which leads to certain pragmatic opposition (McCarthy, 2018) because not all interlocutors can engage with one another through translanguaging. One option to reduce the pragmatic opposition is to conduct research in DLP. Another advantage is that DLP programs have adopted various policies regarding translanguaging, making them a compelling context for study. Some DLP programs have maintained a strict separation of the two languages, announcing to the students, for instance, “It’s Spanish time now, so no speaking English” or “Goodbye Spanish, hello English!” Indeed, the formal policies regarding translanguaging in DLP seem to represent one of three positions. One holds that translanguaging should be prohibited (e.g., McCarthy, 2018; Wang & Kirkpatrick, 2013) as reflected in the example just mentioned; another that it should be permitted (e.g., Macaro, 2005; Setati et al., 2002; Weber, 2014); and third, that it should be promoted (e.g., García & Kleyn, 2016; Sommerville & Faltis, 2019). The latter position argues, among other points, that it is unfair to ask students to circumscribe their full linguistic repertoire by limiting the use of both languages when students may find it useful (García & Kleyn, 2016; Otheguy et al., 2015). However, elementary school students often ignore or circumvent school policies on a variety of issues; therefore, the actual use of translanguaging has been shown to be much less straightforward and that other factors (e.g., language status) influence language use (Planas & Setati, 2009). Previous research has found that some teachers prohibit translanguaging (e.g., Sommerville & Faltis, 2019), but it is unclear if students were permitted to translanguage, with what frequency, or in what contexts they might use translanguaging, and which of the functions it serves.

This study documents elementary school students’ use of two languages (Spanish and English) during mathematics instruction in 30 different DLP classrooms across two states (California and Texas) and several school districts, as well as interviewing 14 of the teachers in whose classrooms the data were collected. By documenting the language use of teachers and students across a range of settings, this approach will provide the reader an opportunity to consider language use and the implications on mathematics instruction. The teachers’ interpretations of how and why students make use of their languages offers implications for DLP programming and informs the debate on whether translanguaging is promoted, permitted, or prohibited in DLP.

Most studies of translanguaging in DLP classrooms (García & Sylvan, 2011; Gort & Pontier, 2013; Palmer et al., 2014) have been conducted during language arts instruction (King & Ridley, 2019; Martínez et al., 2015). The exploration of translanguaging in mathematics instruction provides an opportunity to explore translanguaging when instruction takes place in different languages in the same context. In addition, mathematics instruction in DLP is a linguistically and pedagogically complex environment where dilemmas surround the use of translanguaging and other language practices in the classroom. Teachers face dilemmas such as how to develop the language and the subject matter content, whether to foreground the language or the subject matter content, as well as considering the social and political implications surrounding students’ and teachers’ language choices and opportunities that exist in the classroom (Adler, 1998).

Furthermore, the study of translanguaging cannot be separated from social and cultural dimensions and exploring translanguaging in mathematics classrooms (Civil, 2010) may contribute to new insights into translanguaging, content learning, and the social implications of language use. Finally, by studying a wide range of classrooms and teachers (which is generally uncommon in the translanguaging research), I hope the study will offer more generalizable findings.

This study is guided by four questions:

1. How does the translanguaging rate vary as a function of teachers’ responses to translanguaging in Spanish-English DLP?

2. How does translanguaging rate vary as a function of school context in Spanish-English DLP?

3. How does translanguaging rate vary as a function of student Spanish and English language proficiency?

4. When teachers are shown the data showing their students’ language use, what factors do they believe account for their translanguaging?

The following sections explore the research on mathematics instruction in DLP and translanguaging in mathematics teaching and learning, followed by the study’s methods, results, and conclusions.