Second Language and Heritage Learners in Mixed Classrooms 9781800415027

Citation preview

Second Language and Heritage Learners in Mixed Classrooms

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION Founding Editor: Viv Edwards, University of Reading, UK Series Editors: Phan Le Ha, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA and Joel Windle, Monash University, Australia. Two decades of research and development in language and literacy education have yielded a broad, multidisciplinary focus. Yet education systems face constant economic and technological change, with attendant issues of identity and power, community and culture. What are the implications for language education of new ‘semiotic economies’ and communications technologies? Of complex blendings of cultural and linguistic diversity in communities and institutions? Of new cultural, regional and national identities and practices? The New Perspectives on Language and Education series will feature critical and interpretive, disciplinary and multidisciplinary perspectives on teaching and learning, language and literacy in new times. New proposals, particularly for edited volumes, are expected to acknowledge and include perspectives from the Global South. Contributions from scholars from the Global South will be particularly sought out and welcomed, as well as those from marginalized communities within the Global North.  All books in this series are externally peer-reviewed. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol, BS1 2AW, UK.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION: 112

Second Language and Heritage Learners in Mixed Classrooms Edited by Patricia Bayona and Elena García-Martín

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Jackson

DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/BAYONA5010 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Bayona, Patricia, editor. | García-Martín, Elena, editor. Title: Second Language and Heritage Learners in Mixed Classrooms/   Edited by Patricia Bayona and Elena García-Martín. Description: Bristol; Jackson: Multilingual Matters, [2022] |   Series: New Perspectives on Language and Education: 112 | Includes   bibliographical references and index. | Summary: ‘This book addresses the   complexity of mixed language classroom learning environments in which   heritage learners and second language learners are concurrently exposed   to language learning in the same physical space. It offers best practices   and reproducible pedagogical initiatives and methodologies for different   levels of instruction’ – Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2022030336 (print) | LCCN 2022030337 (ebook) |   ISBN 9781800415010 (hardback) | ISBN 9781800415003 (paperback) |   ISBN 9781800415034 (epub) | ISBN 9781800415027 (pdf) Subjects: LCSH: Language and languages – Study and teaching –   Bilingual method. | Heritage language speakers. | Second language   acquisition. | Translanguaging (Linguistics) Classification: LCC P53.25 S43 2022 (print) | LCC P53.25 (ebook) |   DDC 813/.6 – dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022030336 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022030337 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-80041-501-0 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-80041-500-3 (pbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol, BS1 2AW, UK. USA: Ingram, Jackson, TN, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2023 Patricia Bayona, Elena García-Martín and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Riverside Publishing Solutions. Printed and bound in the UK by the CPI Books Group Ltd.

Contents

Contributors

vii

Introduction: Addressing the Cognitive, Affective and Sociolinguistic Challenges in the Mixed Language Classroom Elena García-Martín

1

Part 1: Language Pedagogy: Promoting Student Engagement through Differentiation 1 Bi-Directional Scaffolding: Heritage Speakers and L2 Learners Complementing Each Other in the Mixed Classroom Patricia Bayona 2 Advanced and Heritage Learners of Italian in Mixed Language Classrooms: Methods and Strategies to Teach Derivational Morphology Ruben Benatti 3 Feedback in the Mixed Classroom: What are Students’ Preferences and Perceptions? Paola Guerrero-Rodríguez and Avizia Long

13

29

51

Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations: Language Identity in Mixed Classrooms 4 Bridging Gaps in Mixed-Class Settings Marta Ramirez Martinez

81

5 Dismantling Raciolinguistic Ideologies: Más Allá del Aula de Herencia Evelyn Gámez and Mirna Reyna

107

6 Countering Negative Attitudes toward Heritage Students’ Spanish in Mixed L2-H2 Classes Rosti Vana

129

v

vi  Second Language and Heritage Learners in Mixed Classrooms

7 Intercultural Education in Early Childhood Education or How to Enhance Language Learning and Social Cohesion in a Mixed Language Classroom Naraina de Melo Martins Kuyumjian

153

Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning: Metalinguistic Competency and Language Variation 8 Processing Instruction in Mixed Language Classrooms Justin P. White and Paul B. Mandell

179

9 Promoting Multilingual Metalinguistic Awareness within Young Foreign Language Learners Eftychia Damaskou

202

10 Incorporating Lessons on Language Contact for Grammar Instruction in HL and L2 Mixed Classrooms Emily Bernate

224



Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation: Enhancing Language Learning through Multilingualism

11 Translanguaging for Academic Success: A Strategy for Accessing Disciplinary Discourse in a Multilingual Undergraduate Classroom Sibhekinkosi Anna Nkomo and Erasmos Charamba 12 Implementing the Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE) as a Tool for Instructional Design in Mixed-Language Classrooms Anna Krulatz, MaryAnn Christison and Koeun Park

251

274

13 Developing Compound Awareness by Translanguaging: The Design of Learning Activities for Multilingual Classrooms293 Sandra Martini and Jacopo Torregrossa Index

319

Contributors

Patricia Bayona is Associate Professor of Spanish, Elementary Spanish Coordinator and Language Resource Center Director in North Central College. Her most recent publication, ‘Saber español sí sirve’ Academic Validation of Spanish as a Heritage Language (Open Linguistics, De Gruyter, 2018) summarizes the rationale and implications behind this new programmatic option for Spanish Heritage students. Ruben Benatti is Italian Language Lecturer at University of Szeged, Hungary. He specializes in Italian Linguistics, Sociolinguistics, Psycholinguistics and Intercultural Communication. His latest work appeared in Translation and Interpreting Studies and in Studia Anglica Posnaniensia. Emily Bernate is Associate Professor of Spanish at St. Edward’s University. Her research focuses on gender and sociopgragmatics. She has published articles on politeness in United States Spanish and the relationship between gender and phonological variation in Peruvian Spanish. She teaches grammar, linguistics and Spanish for Heritage Learners and advocates for home language instruction in public schools. Erasmos Charamba having taught at primary, secondary and university levels, is currently a lecturer in the Foundation Studies Division in the School of Education, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. He writes and presents widely on issues of language education, multilingualism, multiculturalism, science education, decolonisation and transformation of education. MaryAnn Christison is Professor of Linguistics in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Utah. Her research interests include second language teacher education, content-based instruction, neurolinguistics and online language teacher education. She is a past president of TESOL International and serves as a trustee for TIRF (The International Research Foundation for English Language Education). Eftychia Damaskou is a French teacher in the Greek public secondary education She is currently preparing her doctoral thesis on teaching material design for multilingual primary classes. Since 2015, she has been appointed vii

viii  Second Language and Heritage Learners in Mixed Classrooms

as external expert in matters of teaching material design at the Greek Institute of Educational Policy. Her published research work focuses on teaching material design, young foreign language learners’ language attitudes and multilingual competence development within young learners. Elena García-Martín is Associate Professor of Spanish and Coordinator of the Professional Spanish Minor in North Central College, where she specializes in Spanish Language and Cultural Studies, with interests in inclusion, cultural proficiency, social justice and Comparative Cultural Studies. Her latest work has appeared in Hispanic Research Journal and Romance Quarterly. Anna Krulatz is Professor of English in the Department of Teacher Education at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Her research interests include multilingualism with English, pragmatic development in adult language learners, content-based instruction, Englishmedium instruction and language teacher education. Avizia Long (PhD, Indiana University) is Assistant Professor of Spanish at San José State University. Her research focuses on the intersection of sociolinguistics and second language acquisition with attention given to nonEnglish-speaking learners of Spanish. She is co-author of Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition: Learning to Use Language in Context and The Acquisition of Spanish as a Second Language: Foundations and New Developments. Naraina de Melo Martins Kuyumjian (PhD, University Paul-Valéry/ Montpellier 3 in Language Sciences) is currently teacher at the Institut universitaire d’Enseignement du Français langue Étrangère (IEFE) and co-founder of Entre & Avec, an ONG which works on interculturality, multilingualism and linguistic hospitality through artistic and cultural approaches. Her work has appeared, among others, in Educação Crítica de Profissionais da Linguagem para Alémmar, in Letramento Oral: Velhas Rotas, Novos Rumos and in Le Langage et L’Homme, revue de didactique du françai, edited by Fred Dervin and Nathalie Auger. Evelyn Gámez is a PhD student in the Spanish and Portuguese Department at University of California, Davis. Her research interests are sociolinguistic justice, race and language, heritage speaker identity and Spanish as a Heritage Language pedagogy. She is currently working with scholars and peers to develop sociolinguistic justice workshops. Paola Guerrero-Rodríguez (MA, Texas Tech University) is a doctoral candidate in Hispanic Linguistics at the University of Florida. Her research interests include Spanish as a heritage language, heritage language education, language ideologies and language and discrimination. Her work has

Contributors ix

been published in peer-reviewed journals such as the Heritage Language Journal. Paul B. Mandell is Associate Professor of Spanish and Coordinator of the Spanish Program at the University of Houston-Downtown. His research interests include Spanish second language acquisition, psycholinguistics and Universal Grammar. He has published work in Spanish Applied Linguistics, Foreign Language Annals, Second Language Research and other volumes. Sandra Martini is a school teacher with experience in Brazil, where she taught Italian and English to young learners and adults. Currently, she teaches at Marco Polo primary school in Prato, Italy, and collaborates on the project ‘L’AltRoparlante’, looking at translanguaging pedagogy, and on the project ‘Fare Italiano L2’, designing materials for L2 speakers of Italian. Her interests focus on L2 acquisition and metalinguistic awareness. Sibhekinkosi Anna Nkomo is currently a lecturer in the Foundation Phase Division in the School of Education, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. Her research interests are in the development of literacy in the foundation phase in disadvantaged communities through implementing reading interventions. Her interests are also on issues of language education in higher education, multilingualism and multiculturalism. Koeun Park is a doctoral student in the Department of Education, Culture and Society at the University of Utah. She has teaching experience working with heritage and refugee background students. In her research, she uses justice grounded theories and pedagogies to examine educational experiences of linguistically minoritized students as well as educational (in)equality in bilingual education. Marta Ramírez Martínez is Assistant Professor of Spanish at Wartburg College. Her research interests concentrate on bilingualism, experimental sociophonetics, laboratory phonology as well as second and heritage language acquisition and pedagogy. Her latest work has appeared in Spanish in Context and the International Journal of Bilingualism. Mirna Reyna is a PhD Candidate in the French and Italian department at the University of California, Davis. Her dissertation focuses on the discursive construction of national identity and the racialization of Frenchborn descendants of postcolonial immigrants in French media newspaper op-eds. She also works on linguistic justice in Spanish departments as it pertains to heritage Spanish speakers. Jacopo Torregrossa is Professor of Multilingualism and Second Language Acquisition at the Romance Department of the Goethe University of Frankfurt (Germany). His research interests focus on monolingual and bilingual language acquisition, with particular reference to the interaction

x  Second Language and Heritage Learners in Mixed Classrooms

between linguistic development, cognitive skills (metalinguistic awareness, Theory of Mind) and literacy experience. Rosti Vana (PhD, Arizona State University) is currently an Assistant Professor of Spanish Linguistics at the Sam Houston State University. His research interests include representation and inclusion in language classrooms, language attitudes and ideologies, and Spanish mixed heritagesecond language classes. His works have been published in journals such as Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, Language Awareness, and Journal of Language, Identity, and Education. Justin P. White is Associate Professor of Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition and Spanish, Director of the Spanish Basic Language Program at Florida Atlantic University and is the Editor of the Southern Journal of Linguistics. His research interests include input processing, interactive tasks and the Heritage Learner/L2 learner interface. He has published in Hispania, SSLA, IRAL, among others.

Introduction: Addressing the Cognitive, Affective and Sociolinguistic Challenges in the Mixed Language Classroom Elena García-Martín

Heritage speakers are bilingual individuals who grow up in what is considered an ‘asymmetrical bilingual environment’, that is, a society where the language spoken at home is not the dominant one. That said, these speakers whose presence in almost every language classroom has now become the norm, frequently show different levels of exposure to and competence in the heritage language. While the pedagogical ideal may be to create a separate track for Heritage language learners, the practice often makes this unfeasible because of insufficient enrollment, dearth of qualified instructors or lack of institutional support. This volume addresses the complexity of ‘mixed language classroom’ learning environments in which heritage learners (HL) and second language learners (L2) are concurrently exposed to language learning in the same physical space. Although HL learning is currently a productive field of study, the goal here is to collect current developments, challenges, trends and solutions in the much less studied field of mixed learning pedagogy, which addresses the needs of HL and L2 students in a shared environment. Heritage speakers, defined widely as those exposed to the target language at home from an early age, tend to display higher oral proficiency and increased intercultural proficiency but lesser metalinguistic and grammatical awareness than L2 learners (Lynch, 2008). Thus, the combination of these two populations in a mixed classroom calls for a more systematic look at their needs. The common practice of applying L2 pedagogies to mixed language classrooms has reportedly resulted in the frequent alienation of HL learners, who tend to experience anxiety at the use of metalinguistic 1

2  Second Language and Heritage Learners in Mixed Classrooms

terminology and insecurity when they perceive their language varieties are being devalued or stigmatized. At the same time, the presence of HL in the classroom may inhibit L2 learners who feel insecure for lacking the oral fluidity and the cultural and lexical wealth of their HL classmates. Yet, despite how frequent these scenarios are, the difficulties of addressing both types of learners, of balancing affective and learning needs and of creating community while using differentiated instruction, seem to be taking language educators a long time to process. As a result, while the increased number of HL learners in the classroom has prompted abundant research on their needs, few of these studies address Mixed Language Classrooms, the most common context of instruction for Heritage speakers. The pronounced increase in migration movements worldwide, with international migrants growing 87% and refugees a startling 97% in the last 20 years (World Migration, 2020), has created profound changes in the demographics of educational settings. The diversity in the profile of the student body today has brought about new pedagogical challenges prompted by the combination of migrant and local students in the classroom, each with their own micro levels of linguistic and cultural diversity (UNESCO, 2018). In fact, one of the variables in these complex scenarios is linguistic diversity in both senses, multiplicity of languages within the classroom habitat and multiplicity of levels of proficiency of such languages. Proficient speakers of the dominant language are now sharing class time with L2 speakers, even if the former group has a primarily pragmatic knowledge of the language as opposed to the purely academic experience of the latter. The diversity in the profile of student body today has brought about new pedagogical challenges prompted by the frequent combination in the classroom of students with multiple linguistic and cultural backgrounds. The United States provides a telling example of this phenomenon: according to the 2019 American Community Survey, 22% of the population speaks a language other than English at home; of these, 16.2% are 18 years of age or older, and 13.5% speak Spanish (US Census Bureau, 2019). In parallel, in the European context the increasing presence of migrant students from Asia and Africa has motivated a sustained effort to adequately place these students and to support them in the acquisition of the school language while maintaining their home languages. There is a concerted effort in mixed language classrooms to support students, yet teacher training is reported to be lagging (European Commission, 2017). Additional strategies such as reducing class sizes and tracking students’ language levels periodically to modify their course assignments are also reported as measures to better address the pedagogical needs in such contexts (European Commission, 2017). On the other hand, multilingualism in Africa has moved teachers to embrace translanguaging as an essential element to maintain home languages while creating a

Introduction 3

common ground of communication within the mixed language classroom (Hooijer & Fourie, 2009). Similarly, the large immigration waves to the United States in the 1960s and 1970s have resulted in a prevalence of mixed language classrooms in high school and higher education settings today. According to the United States Census Bureau, from 1996 to 2016, the number of Hispanic students enrolled in schools, colleges and universities in the United States doubled from 8.8 million to 17.9 million. Hispanic students now make up 22.7% of all people enrolled in school (United States Census Bureau, 2017). The Latino community remains the fastest growing minority in the United States, accounting for about half (52%) of all its population growth between 2010 and 2019 (Pew Research Center, 2020), and this fact has prompted Spanish language programs to implement differentiating modes of instruction in order to adapt to the needs of HL students. The consequences of these developments are not negligible and, as the learning culture of the classroom changed from primarily monolingual students to the predominance of mixed classes that combine L2 and HL learners, so has the research of new pedagogies. This volume addresses the challenges and pedagogical shifts prompted by the new demographics in mixed language classrooms around the globe. The articles included propose best practices and offer reproducible pedagogical initiatives and methodologies for different levels of instruction, at the same time bringing mixed classrooms to the forefront of linguistic and sociopolitical discussions in language teaching. The uniqueness of the volume is further enhanced by being among the first to compile research-based and field-tested pedagogical practices in mixed language classrooms, thus opening the conversation about the basic implications of this common modality from different angles: sociolinguistic, cognitive, psychological and pedagogical. Although all approaches deal with the interrelated aspects of linguistic, pedagogic and sociopolitical issues of language learning, they have been grouped for the sake of convenience according to emphasis into: (a) sociolinguistic investigations; (b) psycholinguistic and cognitive approaches; and (c) pedagogy and best practices. Despite the multiplicity of approaches, key concepts such as Critical Language Awareness, Metalanguage, Translanguaging or Differentiation lend structure and cohesion to these related investigations. Critical Language Awareness is proposed by most as the principal strategy for promoting linguistic agency, recognizing the individuality of cultural identities and avoiding the sociolinguistic stigmatization of nonstandard varieties (Freire, Carreira, Holguín Mendoza). Another important line of argumentation in the volume traces the effects and implications of metalanguage in the classroom as a means to distinguish the cognitive processes of L2 and HL learners. A claim that also surfaces throughout the volume refers to the benefits of translanguaging as a way to promote engagement

4  Second Language and Heritage Learners in Mixed Classrooms

and language learning in multilingual classrooms. And, finally, there is a prevailing call for differentiation as the only pedagogical practice that can function effectively in mixed language classrooms. It is generally accepted that L2 pedagogy is not effective for the HL learner, yet it is still the one most frequently used in mixed classrooms. This is due, in part, to the difficulty of conceptualizing and generalizing the processes behind heritage language acquisition, a highly heterogeneous group of learners with varying degrees of literacy, proficiency, anxiety, motivation and identification with the target language. Precisely because of the difficulties of engaging simultaneously both types of learners, HL and L2, without polarizing the classroom, studies agree on the need for well-defined, differentiated modes of instruction without agreeing on how to implement it (Carreira, 2012; George, 2005; Parsons et al., 2018). However, in the mixed language classroom, the urgency of differentiation goes beyond pedagogical practice to address issues of linguistic discrimination. Disregarding the specific needs of HL learners contributes to their decreased motivation, lessened participation and, often, to student attrition. In light of this, our chief goals are both (1) to address the specific learning needs of HL in the classroom and (2) to foster linguistic empowerment by acknowledging the value of their often-stigmatized language varieties. First, in attention to the learning needs of students in mixed classes the volume suggests adjusting teaching methodologies to support both types of learners by controlling aspects of instruction such as input processing or feedback format. Second, in order to address the affective needs of students in mixed classes, the volume emphasizes the importance of Critical Language Awareness (CLA), an approach which focuses on the sociopolitical aspects of language in relation to social justice. In particular, CLA points to the ways in which language and, implicitly, language instruction, can inadvertently create hierarchies and enact power when it engages curriculum that imposes standard or eurocentric language varieties while stigmatizing the varieties of Heritage Language learners (Holguín Mendoza, 2017; Leeman & Serafini, 2016). Curricular adjustments need to be implemented in the mixed language classroom to recognize the HL learners’ cultural and linguistic proficiency as an asset and a resource. The chapters in this collection explore issues of linguistic agency and awareness in the classroom with a focus on interdisciplinarity as they bridge areas and approaches that are traditionally kept apart because of academic compartmentalizing practices. Thus, in this volume some authors address the specific needs of Mixed language classes while keeping in mind the CLA paradigm. Throughout the book, contributors propose methodologies that invite students to reflect on power and linguistic identity while they learn the skills necessary to manipulate and control language in different social contexts. Furthermore, the volume examines instructional practices and HL learners’ needs in an

Introduction 5

intercultural context, including studies of Spanish, Italian, Greek and Korean in classrooms throughout the globe in North America, Europe and South Africa. Aware of the interconnections between the linguistic and affective needs of learners, authors in this volume have found ways to consistently and productively link linguistics and pedagogy, language processing and acquisition and cognitive linguistics with sociolinguistics. All approaches coincide in cautioning about the ‘one size fits all’ approach that imposes form-based, metalinguistic-oriented L2 pedagogies on HL learners without allowing for Critical Language Awareness. Furthermore, they denounce disempowering monolingual methodologies that regard HL discourse and other nonstandard varieties of Spanish as ‘deficit based’ or in need of correction (Martínez & Schwartz, 2012). On the other hand, there is among all chapters a consistent attempt to combine linguistic theoretical paradigms with attention to best practices, successful methodologies and ideas for classroom implementation. The chapters that follow not only bring together the myriad of theoretical frameworks that have been put at the service of exploring the challenges of HL learners over the last two decades, but they also propose useful practices and practical implementations of CLA pedagogies in the context of the Mixed Language Classroom. Each chapter of the volume includes a section of reflective questions or exercises to help implement research-based pedagogical best practices at different levels of instruction in mixed learning environments. They explore and apply key concepts in this context, such as translanguaging, linguistic identity, metalinguistic awareness and intercultural competence. Beyond reclaiming prestige for all language varieties and linguistic agency for HL learners, this book details methodologies that can be used to tend to the cognitive needs of HL and L2 learners alike. In particular, the contributions address HL learning processes in terms of cognitive, affective and cultural needs while highlighting pressing issues of language identity, sociolinguistic variation and linguistic agency. The articles in this volume demonstrate that bilingualism in the mixed language classroom can be used as a learning resource to understand and promote Critical Language Awareness. Also, that the growing presence of HL learners in the classroom demands pedagogical adjustments and requires that instructors be trained in sociolinguistics, cultural competencies and differentiated instruction. An important corollary of the volume is the conviction that only through sociolinguistic training and Critical Language Awareness, can we build a classroom environment sensitive to the cognitive, linguistic, affective and cultural needs of HL learners. This volume offers a fairly comprehensive panoramic of mixed language classroom education, including some referring to early childhood education – see Martins Kuyumjian’s study in Southern France, Damaskou in Greece and Martini and Torregrossa’s in Italy. Yet, most of the chapters

6  Second Language and Heritage Learners in Mixed Classrooms

offer qualitative analysis and pedagogical suggestions for intermediate learners, the level at which heritage speakers tend to enter language instruction. For this reason, lessons and activities throughout are mostly designed for undergraduate students or high school learners in their final language classes. Of these, many of the chapters coincide on the need to require a sociolinguistic approach to teaching in language in mixed language classrooms. A number of the chapters part from the premise that metalanguage, and more specifically Critical Language Awareness pedagogies, are essential to promoting linguistic agency and cultural identity among Heritage Learners. Emily Bernate offers a perspective, based on the variationist approach, that highlights language awareness rather than normativity and where language is ‘presented as a variable system that contains different patterns based on social and geographical factors’. In her chapter, Bernate showcases strategies to create variationist forms of assessment and uses the preterit verb morphology in Spanish to distinguish uses among language varieties and reflect on the sociolinguistic practices that assign prestige to some while stigmatizing other nonstandard, heritage forms of the Spanish language. In doing so, she proposes activities that promote linguistic agency among language learners and question the ‘linguistic prestige’ often attached to dominant models of monolinguistic standardized language. In the same light, Rosti Vana applies Critical Language-based pedagogies in language learning in the advanced Spanish Mixed Language classroom to promote social justice and to create awareness of the sociopolitical dimensions of language. His explorations of the benefits of Critical Service Learning as a means to eradicate negative attitudes towards HL learners yield positive models of how to increase linguistic confidence and agency among the students in a context that goes beyond the classroom. Naraina de Melo Martins Kuyumjian examines two kindergarten classes in France and focuses on the effects of heteroglossia, multimodality and polycentricity in the bilingual and bicultural French–Arab classroom. The author employs Discourse Analysis, Computerized Language Analysis and Social Network Analysis software to arrive at the conclusion that intercultural activities decrease anxiety and promote learning in the mixed language classroom. On the other hand, Evelyn Gámez and Mirna Reyna, while insisting on the importance of sociolinguistics, shift the focus from classroom pedagogy to the importance of teacher education in ‘Dismantling Raciolinguistic Ideologies’. Their chapter applies the methodology of Critical Language Awareness to instructors. In this section the authors share the structure, the dynamics and results of a workshop designed to aid instructors in dismantling ideologies that affect the learning process by disregarding the specific needs of HL learners. By implementing Critical Language Awareness and Equitable Pedagogical Practices they

Introduction 7

promote social justice by challenging standard pedagogies and valorizing HL learners’ language varieties. Other approaches to social justice in language learning concentrate on how differentiated instruction is best conducted in mixed language classrooms by fostering equitable language learning conditions. In these chapters, authors try to attend to cognitive and affective differences between L2 and HL and to the frequent disregard for specific needs of the latter. Developing pedagogical practices that support both student profiles is essential for avoiding anxiety and tension caused by underlying sociolinguistic biases that discriminate against HL students. Marta Ramírez Martínez provides a series of content-based pedagogy initiatives containing activities related to Latino immigration to bridge the gap between learners. The author concludes that engaging HL learners in topics of interest resulted in affective and cognitive gains for all HL and L2 students by fostering a culture of collaboration and mutual appreciation between them. Articles referring to young students in multilingual classrooms concentrate on the benefits of translanguaging, understood here as the process by which multilingual speakers use their home languages as an integrated communication system that emphasizes collaboration and adaptability without creating linguistic hierarchies (Canagarajah, 2011). Anna Krulatz, MaryAnn Christison and Koeun Park assert the benefits of the Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE) while also presenting a series of research-based guidelines for implementation in the Korean mixed language classroom. When the authors conclude that the competencies of HL and L2 are complementary they also propose that the monolingual paradigm is no longer pedagogically tenable in language instruction and present ways to utilized both sets of skills as linguistic, metalinguistic and cultural resources for their mutual enrichment. In contrast, Eftychia Damaskou concentrates on the benefits of the sociolinguistic approach in mixed classes of Greek containing plurilingual learners. Specifically, the qualitative multilingual methodology presented here, which includes teacher interviews, curricular design and implementation, proposes the advantages of developing multilingual metalinguistic awareness in attaining student involvement. The author also claims that metalinguism proved valuable in aiding young students to appreciate the value of linguistic diversity in and out of the classroom. Similarly, Jacopo Torregrossa and Sandra Martini coincide in identifying multilingual pedagogies, and particularly translanguaging, as a powerful didactic tool in language learning. They employ an inductive approach in the exploring the processes by which children in a multilingual class that involves eight different home languages in an Italian mixed classroom understand the linguistic mechanisms underlaying the formation of complex words. They conclude that the metalinguistic activities presented contributed to increasing language awareness and facilitated translation. Anna Nkomo and

8  Second Language and Heritage Learners in Mixed Classrooms

Erasmus Charamba coincide in proposing translanguaging as the key to academic success in a multilingual classroom of undergraduate speakers of 12 different languages in South Africa. Focusing on literacy skills, the researchers propose tasks informed by Gee’s notion of Discourse. Ruben Benatti in his chapter explores the ways in which metalinguistic awareness of derivational morphology and compound words in Italian, may help advanced HL and L2 acquire agency and fluency, respectively. Other approaches note the pedagogical benefits of controlling aspects of instruction such as input processing, feedback format or modes of interaction in the mixed language classroom. Justin White and Paul Mandell champion the principles of Input Processing (IP) while offering concrete strategies to guarantee successful interaction and engagement of all students in mixed classrooms in upper levels, while Patricia Bayona proposes ‘Bi-directional Scaffolding’, a novel analysis of the Zone of Proximal Development in the mixed classroom focusing on balanced interactions between HL and L2 students. In particular, Bayona offers a methodology based on collaboration focused on students’ strength by which ‘the colloquial language knowledge of heritage learners may support fluency development in non-heritage students, while the latter would assist the HL in developing meta-linguistic and academic knowledge of the morphosyntactic aspects of Spanish’. White and Mandell’s chapter presents tasks that require structured input and structured output as effective pedagogical tools for all types of learners in the mixed language class. Paola Guerrero-Rodríguez and Avizia Long claim that understanding the way language students perceive forms of Corrective Feedback (CF) in the mixed classroom can prove key to increasing their participation, their motivation and their linguistic self-confidence. In sum, this volume addresses sociolinguistic issues such as language variation and the privilege of the standard to highlight the power of language to produce knowledge, culture, identity and create power dynamics. In general, all articles find productive ways of using assignments designed to identify registers and varieties while assessing language awareness, rather than normativity. In doing so, the proposed activities promote linguistic agency and highlight the difference between linguistic identity and the perceived ‘linguistic prestige’ often attached to dominant models of monolinguistic standardized language. In effect these chapters echo the idea that language education, beyond constituting an instrument of professional development and success, is indeed a means of effecting social change by transmitting values of inclusiveness and civic responsibility. If we acknowledge, as Émile Durkheim does in The Rules of Sociological Method (2013), that ‘[language] education transmits values and contributes to the shaping of the social being’ (2013: 55), we must be vigilant of practices that stigmatize and devalue the language variety of HL students and insist on the promotion of equitable and fair notions of language for all HL and L2 students sharing a mixed language classroom.

Introduction 9

References Canagarajah, S. (2011) Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal 95 (3), 401–417. Carreira, M.M. (2012) Formative assessment in HL teaching: Purposes, procedures, and practices. Heritage Language Journal 9 (1), 100−120. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/ 10.46538/hlj.9.1.6. Durkheim, E. (2013) Durkheim: The Rules of Sociological Method: And Selected Texts on Sociology and its Method. London: Macmillan International Higher Education. European Commission (2017) Higher education for migrants and refugees. See https:// education.ec.europa.eu/education-levels/higher-education/inclusive-and-connected-highereducation/higher-education-for-migrants-and-refugees (accessed July 2022). Freire, P. (1996) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (rev. edn). New York: Continuum. George, P.S. (2005) A rationale for differentiating instruction in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice 44 (3), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_2. Holguín Mendoza, C. (2017) Critical Language Awareness (CLA) for Spanish heritage language programs: Implementing a complete curriculum. International Multilingual Research Journal 12 (2), 65–79. Hooijer, E. and Fourie, J. (2009) Teacher’s perspective of multilingual classrooms in a South African school. Education as Change 13 (1), 135–151. Leeman, J. (2014) Critical approaches to the teaching of Spanish as a local-foreign language. In M. Lacorte (ed.) The Handbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics (pp. 275–292). New York: Routledge. Leeman, J. and Serafini, E.J. (2016) Sociolinguistics for heritage language educators and students. In M. Fairclough and S.M. Beaudrie (eds) Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching: A Practical Guide for the Classroom (pp. 56–79). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Lynch, A. (2008) The linguistic similarities of Spanish heritage and second language learners. Foreign Language Annals 41 (2), 252–381. Martínez, G. and Schwartz, A. (2012) Elevating “low” language for high stakes: A case for critical, community-based learning in a medical Spanish for heritage learners program. Heritage Language Journal 9 (2), 37–49. Parsons, S.A., Vaughn, M., Scales, R.Q., Gallagher, M.A., Parsons, A.W., Davis, S.G., Pierczynski, M. and Allen, M. (2018) Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research 88 (2), 205–242. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0034654317743198. Pew Research Center (2020) U.S. Hispanic population surpassed 60 million in 2019, but growth has slowed. See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/07/u-s-hispanicpopulation-surpassed-60-million-in-2019-but-growth-has-slowed/. Accessed July 2022. Potowski, K. (2003) Chicago’s Heritage Language Teacher Corps: A model for improving Spanish teacher development. Hispania 302−311. Unesco (2018) Global Education Monitoring Report, 2019: Migration, Displacement and Education: Building Bridges, not Walls. Paris: Unesco. United States Census Bureau (2017) Age, current population survey (CPS), Hispanic origin and school enrollment. See https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/randomsamplings/2017/08/school_enrollmentof.html (accessed July 2022). United States Census Bureau (2019) Language spoken at home. American community survey. See https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Spanish&tid=ACSST1Y2019.S1601 (accessed July 2022).

Part 1 Language Pedagogy: Promoting Student Engagement through Differentiation

1 Bi-Directional Scaffolding: Heritage Speakers and L2 Learners Complementing Each Other in the Mixed Classroom Patricia Bayona

Introduction

This chapter addresses the type of linguistic interaction that occurs between two sets of students with different types of language proficiency in Mixed Language Classrooms (MLC). In this settings, mutual collaboration takes place through the negotiation of language learning needs between the two groups, L2 learners and heritage learners (Carreira, 2011), the former having acquired the additional language in academic and controlled settings, while the latter exhibits empirical experience and naturalistic acquisition of the language inherited via family background. I have called this collaboration ‘Bi-Directional Scaffolding’ (Bayona, 2019), describing a process inherent to MLC, and where the competence of heritage language speakers (HL) supports language acquisition in L2 students, while in turn L2 students support HL in meta-linguistic and morphosyntactic aspects of their heritage language – which, for the sake of this article is Spanish. In particular, Bi-Directional Scaffolding considerations imply a new interpretation of the Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978) where the traditional reflections of the ‘expert’ and ‘novice’ roles are not fixed to specific individuals, but instead, constantly switch between the two groups depending on the linguistic task at stake. MLC is a denomination for language learning settings where heritage speakers of a language study the language concurrently with L2 learners of the same language (Beaudrie et al., 2014; Carreira, 2004; Lacorte & Suárez García, 2014; Lynch, 2003; Montrul, 2011). While there is extensive debate around the definition and scope of the term Heritage 13

14  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

Language Learner (HL), the expression is broadly used to denominate a group of language learners whose identity and linguistic features tend to follow those of their own family backgrounds (Carreira, 2004). These individuals have been exposed to their family language since birth, which qualifies them to be called ‘native speakers’, yet there is high variability in their proficiency levels (Montrul, 2011) due, in part, to the amount and quality of exposure to the language, and in part to internal family idiosyncrasies related to the value of preserving the heritage culture. During the last decade in the United States in particular, greater cohorts of Spanish HL have reached higher education levels, and their motivation to continue exploring their heritage language has generated unexpected pedagogical questions regarding the accuracy of their academic placement within traditional language programs, as well as the nature of their language learning needs within their sociocultural constructs (Holguín, 2017). MLC are found globally under three different circumstances. The first is in areas that receive large numbers of immigrant populations, like the European Union, in which immigration policies tend to place these increasing groups of school-age immigrants in existing language programs without due consideration of their actual native language skills nor of their language learning needs (European Commission, 2018). Often, these policies respond to an urge of easing sociocultural adjustment of the newly arrived populations into the new society, which moves administrators to place immigrant students in the same language classroom along with the local language learners. According to reports from UNESCO and the European Commission, not addressing the pedagogical nuances of the MLC that are created with this integration of students backfires in a deepened divide in the school settings and in the community at large, between the local and newly arrived populations (European Commission, 2018; UNESCO, 2018). Such seemingly rushed language education placements sometimes respond to lack of funding in educational institutions, where differentiated language instruction to incoming native (heritage) speakers is not supported. Other times, these rushed placements respond to lack of research-based language instruction that informs best practices in terms of proficiency assessments and linguistic competences of native speakers. The fact is that the practice of placing incoming native speakers of a foreign language in classrooms where such language is learned as an L2, without acknowledging the weight of the native speakers’ fluency and cultural knowledge, deeply impacts the classroom dynamics. A second circumstance where MLC is presented is in Study Abroad programs, where the incoming population of L2 speakers is placed in regular language classrooms along with native – local – speakers (Burgo, 2018; Shivley, 2016). It is a common practice that Study Abroad programs place their traveling students in settings where they have the

Bi-Directional Scaffolding  15

opportunity to improve their language skills by being placed in contentbased courses offered in the local language of the destination country. This sort of MLC is comparable to immersion settings, yet with a limited time frame that places some pressure in terms of the completion of academic and linguistic objectives of the L2 learner (Burgo, 2018). Language placements for traveling L2 learners are usually made in their own academic institution, away from the actual study abroad location, and usually intend to match catalog descriptions of the courses and programs, which often produces misplacements of the traveling students. For this reason, the pedagogical effectiveness in these MLC depends on numerous variables such as the accuracy in the course descriptions in the catalogues, the degree of cultural identification that the Study Abroad student is able to develop, the language proficiency that the incoming student brings with them and the mentoring relationships that the student may count on in their process of acculturation abroad (Burgo, 2018). In this particular scenario, and opposed to the first scenario described above, it is the L2 learner that plays the role of the ‘newly arrived’ in the mixed language classroom. The third circumstance where MLC are found is with first or second generations of speakers of a heritage language, who are not migrants themselves and who have grown up as bilingual speakers of the standard variety classrooms where their heritage language is taught as an L2 (Bayona, 2019; Carreira, 2015, 2016; Montrul, 2011; Potowski, 2002). This type of MLC has become increasingly common in the higher education context in the United States given the growing cohorts of Hispanic students accessing higher education1 Equally common is the fact that HL have received no – or very little – formal education in their heritage language, but, due to their oral fluency, language placements classify them along with high intermediate or advanced L2 speakers in language programs. Whether these first- or second-generation speakers can be considered ‘native speakers’ is currently under debate given that their language competency exhibits both features of native speakers – who have spoken the language since birth – and features commonly found in L2 speakers with incomplete acquisition. One side of the argument claims that the term ‘native’ carries in itself a series of sociocultural implications, including ‘locally adequate proficiency to accomplish tasks in their lives’ (Carreira & Hitchins Chik, 2018; Potowski, 2018), a feature that heritage speakers demonstrate (Montrul, 2010; Potowski, 2018; Silvina, 2013) with aptitude in their daily routines. The other side of the argument claims that HL exhibit incomplete acquisition in aspect, tense and gender agreement aggravated by issues of gradual attrition (Montrul 2013; Ionin & Montrul, 2010). Not being the theme of this article, I will focus on the fact that HL often find themselves in MLC where they share the language learning experience by negotiating pragmatic, semantic and meta-linguistic competences with

16  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

L2 learners. In fact, this chapter centers on the exchange of linguistic competencies between the two sets of students through Bi-Directional Scaffolding. Scaffolding vs Bi-Directional Scaffolding

The concept of scaffolding has long been addressed in the scholarship on pedagogy. Inspired in Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (SCT) framework, Wood (1976) utilized the name ‘scaffolding’ from the visual image of the construction tool, where a temporary structure is a crucial support in the completion of the final structure, extrapolating the image into the description of interactive educational processes between children and adults. According to Wood, the adult instructor would scaffold the child by offering their expertise and knowledge to aid them in their developmental processes. Given its interactive nature, scaffolding needs to take place in social contexts where both participants – the child and the adult – ‘build common understanding or intersubjectivity’ (Ellis, 2003; Stone, 1993) which allows the child to learn from the more knowledgeable subject, the adult. Scaffolding has also been addressed in broader instances of education, extending the metaphor to all interactions between teachers and students where problem solving is at stake. General prompting techniques (King, 1991), mathematics problem solving (Schoenfeld, 1985) and language development in terms of writing, reading comprehension and word-problem solving (King, 1989, 1991; Scardamalia, 1984) have been looked at determining ways in which the adult may better support the student from their position of expertise and knowledge. More recently, with the advent of e-learning, some researchers have focused on determining how technology-enhanced learning environments (TELE) could provide gaming and virtual simulations as examples of additional scaffolding mechanisms in dynamics that involve a teacher as the scaffolding provider and the student the scaffolding receptor with technology as the mediator (Kim, 2011). In language education, scaffolding strategies imply teacher or adult assistance to promote and solidify the language learner’s independent linguistic performance (Duke, 2002; Nystrand, 1991; Palincsar, 1984). In this field, Aljaafreh (1994) spoke of ‘the language of the expert’ or ‘more knowledgeable peers’ who would support more novice students as they are able to complete language tasks independently. Later, Chaiklin (2003) acknowledged the presence of a dynamic that would qualify to adopt my proposed term of ‘Bi-Directional Scaffolding’, as part of intersubjectivity. This researcher still identifies an ‘expert’ and a ‘novice’ who support each other in collaborative language problem-solving tasks. Ge and Land (2004) innovatively spoke of the need for a ‘fundamental balance’ between the effects of different scaffolding techniques in relation to the level of knowledge and experience in the students, also cautioning teachers against

Bi-Directional Scaffolding  17

‘oversimplification’ of questioning techniques into unnecessarily small steps. Further, these scholars acknowledge the need for students’ ‘prior knowledge’ in the discussion subject so that the teacher or more advanced peers may properly respond to the scaffolded student’s ‘deficiency of knowledge’ (Ge & Land, 2004: 6). A central element in the concept of scaffolding is the learner’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) defined by Vygotsky as ‘the distance between the actual developmental level determined by independent problem solving, and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers’ (Vygotsky, 1978). The ZPD has become one of the main tenets of the SCT and is understood as a metaphor representing the time and space that human cognition takes through mediation with others, which allows the co-construction of mental representations (Eun, 2018). In SCT, a ‘collaborative dialogue’, later called languaging, (Swain, 2000, 2006, 2010), occurs within the ZPD so that the learner collaborates with more skilled peers in a zone of potential development. Research has asserted that the ZPD in language acquisition as an interactive activity between the novice and the expert, that transforms each individual through problem-solving processes (Newman & Holtzman, 1993). Daniels (2001) acknowledged the bidirectionality of these social phenomena, where both participants influence each other within a single unity, yet still under the consideration of the ‘capable peer’ being a static role assigned to one of the collaborators. Kinginger (2002) noticed that, in the foreign language classroom’s ZPD, the teacher is the provider of assistance to students in order to co-construct discourse competence, pragmatics and cultural appropriateness. And Swain (2010) as well as Holguín Mendoza (2020), pointed out that this ‘collaborative dialogue’ that happened between language students helped them learn strategic processes and grammatical aspects of language. Such mutual collaborative effort became a ‘knowledge building dialogue’ that facilitated internal mental activity conducive to linguistic knowledge. In sum, given its nature rooted in the social interaction, the ZPD is understood as a dynamic construct ever changing its point of departure and final destination (Eun, 2018), yet even more so in MLC where the ‘more capable peer role’ switches constantly between the HL and L2 students. In fact, scaffolding and the collaborative dialogue implied in its ZPD have long been acknowledged as operational elements in cognitive development processes, including language acquisition. As described above, the analysis consistently focuses on the existence of a more knowledgeable individual in the role of supporter of a less knowledgeable individual. These roles are differently qualified, like in Vygotsky’s (1978) ‘more capable peers’ or as Newman and Holtzman (1993) mention ‘the novice and the expert’. Similarly, Stone (1993) refers to the teacher as ‘the knowledgeable subject’, and Kinginger (2002) and Palincsar (1984)

18  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

as ‘the provider of assistance’ (Duke, 2002; Kinginger, 2002; Nystrand, 1991; Palincsar, 1984). In a study that calls for more balanced pedagogical relationships, Ge and Land (2004) speak of ‘the teacher or more advanced peers’ as the subjects providing scaffolding. The concept of scaffolding has been used to characterize language learning processes experienced in MLC in the United States (Aljaafreh, 1994; Duke, 2002; Kinginger, 2002; Nystrand, 1991; Palincsar, 1984) yet it portrays a misinterpreted uni-directional exchange of linguistic expertise. Actually, in the particular case of MLC, the analysis of the dynamics between the two sets of students calls for a different angle, one that acknowledges the academic or pragmatical background that each set of students brings to the classroom (Bialystok & Hakuta, 1994), leveling up the conversation between the two participants and, therefore, questioning the traditional roles of ‘novice’ and ‘expert’ in interactions between them. In this volume, and in previous research (Carreira, 2004; Kagan, 2003; Lynch, 2003; Oikonomakou, 2018; Potowski, 2002), it is well evidenced that MLC encapsulates the combination of opposite language learning needs and multiple types of motivation for the study of language, along with many other sociolinguistic dynamics developing between HL and L2 students. More specifically, the MLC is composed, on one side, of a set of L2 students who have been exposed to the foreign language mainly in academic settings, and who have an ‘outsider’ perspective of the language and culture that they study academically, but that is not exhibited in their own family or social circles. Typically, these students do not identify themselves as native speakers of the language, and they have developed a more advanced meta-linguistic command of writing and reading skills as compared with their speaking and listening skills. Additionally, these students tend to demonstrate certain consistency in language proficiency levels since they have followed rather similar foreign language education programs and standards (Montrul, 2011). These students’ strengths are focused on the academic forms of the language and are used to displaying their proficiency in controlled environments provided in school settings. (Carreira, 2016). On the other side of the spectrum, HL bring to the MLC a more pragmatic and less formal command of the language. These students have acquired their linguistic skills from birth by family and cultural exposure, yet their degree of ‘nativeness’ and ‘completeness of acquisition’ is now object of study and debate (Holguín Mendoza, in press; Lipski, 1993; Montrul, 2011). These individuals have grown with varying degrees of competence – from native competence to only a receptive command of the language – and with none or very little formal education in such a heritage language. However, most of them have an ‘insider perspective’ of their cultural and linguistic heritage as it represents an important part of their bilingual identity (Carreira, 2016). In fact, the wide variety

Bi-Directional Scaffolding  19

of proficiency levels determined by age and amount of exposure to the heritage language (Montrul, 2011) is one of the two features that highly differentiates this set of heritage language students from L2 learners, who have developed their linguistic competence following rather similar academic parameters. An additional difference is the degree of affective relationship that HLs would have with their cultural and linguistic heritage, which seems to influence HL’s motivation to pursue further education in this field. (Bayona, 2019; Hornberger, 2008; Potowski & Carreira, 2004). Considering the complex layers of multiliteracies in the MLC – regarding the United States for the sake of this chapter, yet potentially applicable to MLC in general – a first step in providing successful language learning experiences for all students is the observation of accurate pedagogical considerations and strategies that address the actual dynamics in these settings. As mentioned, this article identifies specific tokens of a particular type of collaboration between the two seemingly opposite sets of students called Bi-Directional Scaffolding (Bayona, 2019). While the concept of mutual collaboration was initially explored by Swain (2000, 2006, 2010) who examined a collaborative dialogue or ‘languaging’ between language learners co-constructing linguistic knowledge, in the MLC this exchange is characterized by a constant negotiation of linguistic and metalinguistic information along with academic skills between the two sets of students who mutually support each other and alternate the roles of the ‘expert’ and the ‘novice’. We may expect this alternation in two possible circumstances: one where L2 students, who have ample experience in the academic maneuvering of studying a foreign language and are familiar linguistic performers in controlled classroom environments, support HL peers in the completion of academic and controlled tasks that call for metalinguistic knowledge of the language. In this instance, L2 students act as the ‘more capable peers’, the ‘knowledgeable subjects’ or the ‘providers of assistance’ (Duke, 2002; Kinginger, 2002; Nystrand, 1991; Palincsar, 1984; Stone, 1993; Vygotsky, 1978). The second circumstance is such where HL’s pragmatic knowledge of the language is used in the MLC to support L2 learners in the acquisition and usage of idiomatic and cultural expressions, pronunciation and prosodic patterns as acquired in naturalistic settings where HL grew up. In this case, it is now HLs who become the ‘more capable peers’, the ‘knowledgeable subjects’ or the ‘providers of assistance’ (Duke, 2002; Kinginger, 2002; Nystrand, 1991; Palincsar, 1984; Stone, 1993; Vygotsky, 1978). In short, the MLC linguistic dynamics bring to us a unique language acquisition setting where the expertise of both sets of students is equally needed by each other, thus generating the opportunity of turn taking in the bi-directionally scaffolded processes. Such turn taking may present itself organically through spontaneous interactions between the students, and/or it may be prompted by purposedly planned class

20  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

activities. By proposing the term Bi-Directional Scaffolding (Bayona, 2019) I intend to describe the successive switch of ‘language novice’ and ‘language expert’ roles between the L2 and HL in the MLC. These dynamics offer a levelled platform for all participants to contribute in the co-construction of linguistic and cultural competence. In order to illustrate Bi-Directional Scaffolding, evidence was collected from MLCs situated in a private higher-education institution of Illinois, USA, from intermediate–high courses of the Spanish program. In this college, these classes traditionally hold 10–15 students with an almost even combination of L2 learners with mid–high proficiency level according to ACTFL Descriptors, and heritage language students, who, on average, exhibited and advanced low proficiency level (ACTFL, 2012). The courses’ contents revolve around the combination of short grammatical points applied to multiple application exercises in an online textbook component and exposure to numerous literary and film pieces. Teaching is done via presentation, although online attendance accommodations were provided during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence of the ‘expert’ and ‘novice’ role shifting produced by Bi-Directional Scaffolding was collected from different cohorts via the following methods: a small-scale opinion survey, linguistic performance quotes captured from students’ skits and MLC’s teacher observations. The opinion survey included 20 questions divided in a set of open-ended questions, and a set of agreement rating questions. It was administered separately to L2 students and heritage language learners, yet both questionnaires were identical except for the wording in the questions, where L2 students were asked about their experience sharing a Spanish classroom with heritage students, and heritage students were asked about their experience sharing a Spanish classroom with non-heritage students. The questionnaire was administered online and 20 MLC students participated in it. Below are some of the opinions where Bi-Directional Scaffolding is evidenced: (1)  Bi-Directional Scaffolding at the lexical level

Some of the student opinions in the opinion survey specifically addressed how both HL and L2 students assist each other in vocabulary acquisition processes. These answers were provided to the question ‘What are some of the BENEFITS you experienced by studying Spanish in the same classroom along with non-heritage speakers?’: HL Student 1

‘We are able to teach and help non-heritage speakers which also helps ourselves remember the material. Also I feel like non-heritage speakers are better with understanding the vocab [sic.]’.

Bi-Directional Scaffolding  21

L2 Student 24

‘Learning Spanish with heritage speakers gives you the native speaker perspective and use of the language. You learn a lot more of how to talk ‘normally’ or casually with heritage speakers. It is not as formal or academic of Spanish which is very useful when learning to be fluent and use your second language for all areas in life’. L2 Student 25

[An advantage of studying Spanish with heritage speakers is] ‘Hearing more colloquial/varied words that are specific to the communities they grew up in/around’.

The second source of data comes from a semester long project where MLC students planned, researched and performed a creative skit based on current events. This project combined individual and group work in groups that were purposedly organized with a balance of L2 and HL students. This project involved several steps: (1) Students were asked to form groups and decide upon a common topic of interest based on current events in the Hispanic world. The topics ranged from politics to health care and terrorism. (2) Each student was expected to deliver an individual presentation in class about their individual research on the chosen topic of their group. (3) After all individual presentations were done, the groups reconvened and created a skit on the group topic. They combined the learned information of the individual presentations and re-created it all in a skit. The skits were videotaped outside of class, and later watched in class. To reinforce the opinions collected via the survey (reported above), actual evidence of vocabulary acquisition in L2 students was obtained from the group skit project videos. In the following skit transcriptions, the use of colloquial expressions, traditionally commanded only by HLs, is inserted in the dialogue of L2 students. L2 Student A: ‘La nueva seguridad social: terrible. Totalmente terrible’. The new social security: terrible. Totally terrible.

In this line, the use of ‘totalmente’ as a hyperbole is ‘far more common in ordinary language than might at first appear’ (Xosé, 2011) yet not as common in the academic language to which L2 students have been exposed for the most part of their language education. L2 Student B: ‘Bueno ... yo he oído algún chisme en la oficina’. Well ... I have heard some gossip in the office.

22  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

This line showcases an interactive discourse marker in the form of the adverb ‘bueno’, used to minimize conflict in the conversation due to the potential explosive content of the following sentence when ‘gossip’ would be mentioned. The insertion of this marker is a common colloquial strategy in Latin-American speakers (Travis, 1998) – yet not expected in L2 students – and it intends to create some common grounds of mutual acceptance in the conversation and thus mitigate upcoming potential differences of opinion. L2 student C: ‘Me choca que el extremismo exista’. It bothers me that there is extremism.

This last token includes the use of ‘me choca’ a commonly used Mexican expression to designate bother or refusal (Félix-Brasdefer, 2006). The expression has been documented as a conversational marker in native Mexican speakers, typically not employed as academic expressions formally learned by L2 learners. In all these cases, the pragmatic linguistic expertise of HL enriched L2 students’ command and production of colloquial expressions and lexica. This collaboration validated the naturalistic command of the language that HL have within a formal academic setting where their heritage knowledge positioned them as the experts, or the knowledgeable peers. (2) Bi-Directional Scaffolding at the morphophonetic level

Bi-Directional Scaffolding in morphophonetic acquisition is subtler and its tokens are more challenging to isolate as part of the evidence – as compared with lexical acquisition. Below, I document two specific examples of Bi-Directional Scaffolding that I have observed as a teacher in the classroom dynamics of MLC: • Morphological analysis of verb roots and lexemes: the expertise that L2 students have in memorizing conjugation patterns allows them to isolate with accuracy morphemes and lexemes through metalinguistic strategies. In this way, they contribute as ‘experts’ in terms spell-checking verb tenses and thematic vowels during script writing according to the variant employed in the textbook. On the other hand, HL who may exhibit a linguistic variant different from the one employed in the textbook, take on the ‘novice’ role while acquiring these additional forms that may be novel within their repertoire. • Phonetic analysis: In this unit HL act as the ‘experts’ when they model accurate stress on tonal syllables and are able to identify syllable boundaries, while L2 learners are ‘novice’ at detecting these patterns and acquiring prosodic features.

Bi-Directional Scaffolding  23

Discussion

The concrete examples of collaboration presented above where the ‘expert’ and ‘novice’ roles moved back and forth between the two sets of students suggest the need for a more accurate interpretation of the MLC dynamics; in fact, through the creative skit students’ collaboration necessarily implied a negotiation of meaning that questioned and analyzed each student’s contributions, thus strengthening the internalization of linguistic knowledge similarly to what has been reported previously in studies that looked at ZPD features (Blanck, 1990; Cheyne, 1999). Tokens from the opinion survey show that both sets of students are aware that the learning of lexical colloquialisms and morphological accuracy calls for Bi-Directional Scaffolding. It may be argued that Bi-Directional Scaffolding validates each group’s contribution to the co-construction of language knowledge which is evidenced through the acquisition of lexical, morphological, prosodic competence and metalinguistic competences. Furthermore, the ZPD as observed in the MLC ceases from being a zone of ‘distance’ between the scaffolder and the scaffolded, to transform itself into a balanced intersect to perform collaborative tasks through role switching (Chaiklin, 2003; Mirzaei, 2015). Lantolf (2000) spoke of the ‘novice perimeter’ and the ‘expert perimeter’ as operational areas for scaffolding roles in the ZPD. I propose considering MLC as settings with a particularly narrow ZPD, given the constant switches between novice and expert roles, which almost bring their respective perimeters to intersect. In these settings, soon after the ZPD surfaces in a given collaboration, it quickly morphs as the expertise roles switch thus reducing the traditional scaffolding distance observed in non-mixed language classrooms where the ‘expert’ and the ‘novice’ are static roles. Partially in agreement with Kinginger (2002), the ZPD in the MLC covers discourse competence, cultural appropriateness and grammatical structures. But, as argued above, Bi-Directional Scaffolding evidenced in the MCL enhances HL’s cultural heritage in a relevant way, by reducing the ZPD and placing HL in positions of validated contributors. This distinctive ZPD in MLC offsets generation-long racial discourses of divide and rejection to heritage cultures, and elevates the exchange in the MLC into a balanced platform of shared knowledge. MLC have become a ‘norm’ in the present state of most Spanish programs in the United States mostly due to insufficient funding to sustain differentiated education for L2 learners and HL, and against research-based recommendations that enhance the language learning needs of each group (Montrul, 2011; Potowski & Carreira, 2004). However, this ‘norm’ may also be taken as a chance for language programs to generate opportunities for Bi-Directional Scaffolding, and empower each set of students in the MLC by validating their unique linguistic expertise.

24  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

Conclusion

Tokens from a students’ group work in MLC illustrated how the design of collaborative activities opened spaces where individual voices contributed to the group and reinforced a sense of community. In this activity, through Bi-Directional Scaffolding each set of students’ expertise scaffolded the others’ language learning needs: the prosodic, and idiomatic contributions provided by HL who exhibited a more pragmatic knowledge of Spanish, reinforced the skits’ dialogue with colloquial features. On the other side, Spanish L2 students’ meta-linguistic skills developed throughout academic exposure to the language helped to edit grammar and spelling in the scripts of the skit and other classroom activities. In other words, Bi-Directional Scaffolding generated through collaboration between these two sets of students provided a successful language acquisition experience for all participants in the dialogue. Partially reiterating Swain’s (2000, 2006, 2010) proposal, instances of languaging between HL and L2 students aid in the co-creation of linguistic knowledge in the MLC. However, in this particular setting, such collaborative dialogue is better described by the new term Bi-Directional Scaffolding where the constant switch of ‘expert’ and ‘novice’ roles generates a uniquely narrow Zone of Proximal Development. Much is yet to be understood on Bi-directional scaffolding in the MLC: What triggers or inhibits it? Can it be measured? Does it have universal features in all language classrooms, or does it vary depending on language typology? What non-linguistic, sociocultural factors are in play? etc. are all aspects waiting for our methodical exploration of Bi-directional Scaffolding in the Mixed Language Classroom. A call for further research is made to continue documenting and measuring Bi-Directional Scaffolding in MLC, which will in turn inform best pedagogical practices to equally empower HL and L2 students in these settings. Beyond the Reading In this section, I suggest some steps for further exploration of Bi-directional Scaffolding in MLC. I encourage instructors and researchers to assertively observe for Bi-Directional Scaffolding in routine MLC student interactions. Step 1: Explore the following questions in order to become aware of Bi-Directional Scaffolding dynamics in your classroom: • • •

How does Bi-Directional Scaffolding look in your group(s)? What linguistic, meta-linguistic and cultural information is exchanged via Bi-Directional Scaffolding? Which members of each of the two MLC groups – HL and L2 learners – take the role of ‘expert’, and when? What factors determine these leadership roles in your MLC?

Bi-Directional Scaffolding  25

Step 2: Plan for Bi-Directional Scaffolding. Set up task-oriented pairs or small groups where members of both populations (HL and L2) work together, and where both, linguistic and cultural knowledge is to be developed. Planning for this mixed-group distribution will offer the conditions to organically trigger Bi-Directional Scaffolding. Step 3: Record, record, record. Following research ethic protocols, use observation diaries, opinion surveys or actual video/audio recordings to collect specific tokens of Bi-Directional Scaffolding observed in your group(s). Step 4: Let us know about your findings! This crucial step of sharing the product of your research is the only one that will allow us to advance the conversation, better comprehend and enhance language education in the MLC.

Note (1) According to United States Census Bureau (2022), between 1973 and 2021, Bachelor’s degree attainment has increased close to 15% among Hispanic population.

References ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) (2012) ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012. See https://www.actfl.org/resources/actfl-proficiencyguidelines-2012 (accessed December 2019). Aljaafreh, A. (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal 78, 465–483. Bayona, P. (2019) “Saber español sí sirve”: Academic validation of Spanish as a heritage language. Open Linguistics 5 (1), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2019-0004. Beaudrie, S.M., Ducar, C. and Potowski, K. (2014) Heritage Language Teaching: Research and Practice (pp. 32–53). New York: McGraw-Hill Education Create. Bialystok, E. and Hakuta, K. (1994) In Other Words: The Science and Psychology of Second Language Acquisition. New York: Basic Books. Blanck, G. (1990) Vygotsky: The man and his cause. In L. Moll (ed.) Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burgo, C. (2018) Clases mixtas: L2 y lengua de herencia. Madrid: Editorial Arco. Carreira, M. (2004) Seeking explanatory adequacy: A dual approach to understanding the term ‘Heritage language learner’. Heritage Language Journal 2 (1). https://doi.org/ 10.46538/hlj.2.1.1. Carreira, M. (2011) The results of the National Heritage Language Survey: Implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign Language Annals 44 (1), 40–64. Carreira, M. (2015) Attending to the Needs of Heritage Language Learners in Mixed Classrooms. See https://depts.washington.edu/mellwa/Events/docs/Carreira.Seattle. HLS2015_presentation.pdf (accessed January 2021). Carreira M. (2016) The National Heritage Language Resource Center: A locus of activity in the field of heritage languages in the USA. In A.T. Trifonas (ed.) Handbook of Research and Practice in Heritage Language Education. Cham: Springer.

26  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

Carreira, M. and Hitchins Chik, C. (2018) Differentiated teaching: A primer for heritage and mixed classes. In K. Potowski (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp. 359–374). Abingdon: Routledge. Chaiklin, S. (2003) The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V.S. Ageyev and S.M. Miller (eds) Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context (pp. 39–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cheyne, A. and Tarulli, D. (1999) Dialogue, difference and voice in the zone of proximal development. Theory & Psychology 9 (1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354399091001. Accessed on July 14 2022. Daniels, H. (2001) Vygotsky and Pedagogy. New York: Routledge/Falmer. Duke, N.K. (2002) Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In S.A.E. Farstrup (ed.) What Research has to Say about Reading Instruction (pp. 205–242). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association. Ellis, A.H. (2003) Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. Applied Psychology 88 (5), 821–835. Eun, B. (2018) The zone of proximal development as an overarching concept: A framework for synthesizing Vygotsky’s theories. Educational Philosophy and 51 (1), 18–30. European Commission (2018) Against the Odds – Academically Resillient Students with a Migrant Background and How They Succeed. Brussels: Publications Office of the EU. Félix-Brasdefer, C. (2006) Linguistic politeness in Mexico: Refusal strategies among male speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (12), 2158–2187. Ge, X. and Land, S.M. (2004) A conceptual framework for scaffolding Ill-structured problemsolving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. ETD&D 52 (2), 5–22. Holguín Mendoza, C. (2017) Critical Language Awareness (CLA) for Spanish Heritage Language Programs: Implementing a complete curriculum. International Multilingual Research Journal 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2017.1401445. Accessed 14 July 2022. Holguín Mendoza, C. (2020) Beyond registers of formality and other categories of stigmatization: Style, awareness and agency in SHL education. In M. Bowles (ed.) Outcomes of University Spanish Heritage Language Instruction in the United States. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Hornberger, N. (2008) Who are our heritage language learners? Identity and biliteracy in heritage language education in the United States. In O.K.D. Brinton (ed.) Heritage Language Education: A New Field Emerging. London: Routledge. Ionin, T. and Montrul, S. (2010) The role of L1 transfer in the interpretation of articles with definite plurals in L2 English. Language Learning Journal 60 (4), 877–925. Kagan, O. (2003) A new perspective on teaching Russian: Focus on the heritage learner. Slavic and East European Journal 45, 507–18. Kim, M.M. (2011) Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers and Education 56 (2), 403–417. King, A. (1989) Verbal interaction and problem solving within computer-assisted cooperative learning group. Journal of Educational Computing Research 5 (1), 1–15. King, A. (1991) Effects of training in strategic questioning on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 83 (3), 307–317. Kinginger, C. (2002) Defining the zone of proximal development in U.S. foreign language education. Applied Linguistics 23, 240–261. Lacorte, M. and Suárez García, J. (2014) La enseñanza del español en los Estados Unidos: panorama actual y perspectivas de futuro. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 1 (2), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/23247797.2014.970358. Lantolf, J. (2000) Introducing sociocultural theory. In J.P. Lantolf (ed.) Socioculturlal Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bi-Directional Scaffolding  27

Lipski, J. (1993) Creoloid phenomena in the Spanish of transitional bilinguals. In A. Roca and J. Lipski (eds) Spanish in the United States: Linguistic Contact and Diversity (pp. 155–182). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer. Lynch, A. (2003) The relationship between second and heritage language acquisition: Notes on research and theory building. The Heritage Language Journal 1 (1). Mirzaei, A.E. (2015) ZPD-activated languaging and collaborative L2 writing. Educational Psychology 35 (1), 5–25. Montrul, S. (2010) Transfer effects in the interpretation of definite articles by Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism Language and Cognition 13 (4), 449–473. Montrul, S. (2011) Introduction: Spanish heritage speakers: Bridging formal linguistics, psycholinguistics and pedagogy. Heritage Language Journal 8 (1). Montrul, S. (2013) Bilingualism and the Heritage Language Speaker in The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Newman, F. and Holtzman, L. (1993) Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary Scientist. New York: Routledge. Nystrand, M. (1991) Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English 25, 261–290. Oikonomakou, M. (2018) Heritage language learners in mixed university classes: Language skills, attitudes, and implications for curriculum development. In T.A.P.P. Trifonas (ed.) Handbook of Research and Practice in Heritage Language Education. Cham: Springer. Palincsar, A.S. (1984) Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehensionmonitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1 (2), 117–175. Potowski, K. (2002) Experiences of Spanish heritage speakers in university foreign language courses and implications for teacher training. ADFL Bulletin (33), 35–42. Potowski, K. (ed.) (2018) The Routledge Handbook of Spanish as a Heritage Language. New York: Routledge. Potowski, K. and Carreira, M. (2004) Towards teacher development and national standards for Spanish as a heritage language. Foreign Language Annals 3 (37), 421–431. Rosales Sequeiros, X. (2011) On metaphor, relevance, and pragmatic interpretation in Spanish. Modern Humanities Research Association 106 (4), 1028–1053. Scardamalia, M.B. (1984) Teachability of reflective processes in written composition. Cognitive Science 8 (2), 173–190. Schoenfeld, A.H. (1985) Mathematical Problem-Solving. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Shivley, R.L. (2016) Heritage language learning in study abroad: Motivations, identity work, and language development. In D. Pascual y Cabo (ed.) Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp. 259–280). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Silvina, M. (2013) El bilingüismo en el mundo hispanohablante. Singapore: WileyBlackwell. Stone, C.A. (1993) What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In N.M.E.A. Forman (ed.) Contexts for Learning. Sociocultural Dynamics in Children’s Development (pp. 169–183). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M.K. (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M.K. (2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (ed.) Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). New York: NY: Continuum. Swain, M., Kinnear, P. and Steinman, L. (2010) Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Education: An Introduction through Narratives (1st edn). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Travis, C. (1998) Bueno A Spanish interactive discourse marker. See https://journals. linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/BLS/article/viewFile/1222/1004 (accessed January 2021).

28  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

UNESCO (2018) Global Education Monitoring Report, 2019: Migration, Displacement and Education: Building Bridges, not Walls. Paris: Unesco. See https://unesdoc. unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265866/PDF/265866eng.pdf.multi (accessed July 2022). United States Census Bureau (2022) CPS historical time series visualizations. See https:// www.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/cps-historical-time-series. html (accessed on July 2022). Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wood, D.B. (1976) The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 17, 89–100.

2 Advanced and Heritage Learners of Italian in Mixed Language Classrooms: Methods and Strategies to Teach Derivational Morphology Ruben Benatti

Introduction

Italy has long been characterized by multilingualism thanks to its numerous minority languages and what are commonly called ‘dialects’, i.e. Romance languages that are quite distinct from standard Italian (D’Agostino, 2012). Based on the author’s experience, this chapter aims to present a series of methods and strategies to teach derivational morphology in Italian to advanced learners with a different L1; in mixed language classes, teachers must explain morphological regularity and irregularity often without relying on a contrastive approach. The chapter also deals with some issues affecting heritage learners of Italian. From a theoretical point of view, this chapter relies on Lewis’ (1993, 1997) work on the Lexical Approach and on Cardona (2004, 2005 2009), who has applied that approach to Italian as a second language. As Benatti (2020) and others have pointed out, according to Lewis’s lexical approach, lexicon includes grammar (he uses the term lexicogrammar). Vocabulary is essential in Lewis’s understanding. Willis (1990) shows the following sentences to clarify: … different ways of cooking fish A pushchair is a handy way to take a child shopping I don’t like the way he talks 29

30  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

According to the Lexical Approach, with examples like these, learners can learn three rules: the infinitive form of the verb in English is preceded by to; after the prepositions (of, for ...) the -ing form is used; the relative pronoun that can be omitted in certain contexts. Here, the three rules appear within natural and common sense sentences. They also appear in association with the word way, which occurs preferably in certain structures, somehow determining the context. The grammatical forms appear thus closely connected to the lexicon and sociopragmatic aspects of the language. Derivational morphology is very important, because it helps to learn both new words as well as grammar (Lewis, 1993, 1997). It is due to Lewis’s theories as well as those of other scholars that the teaching of chunks and set phrases has become common in second language teaching (Benatti, 2020). Lewis (1993, 1997) argues that instruction must focus on fixed expressions that occur frequently in dialogues. Heritage language learners vs L2 learners

Who are HLLs? Valdés’s (2000) definition is the most widely used one in the United States: HLLs are learners brought up in a family environment where a non-English language is spoken (in this chapter, a non-Italian language). They can speak or at least understand the language, so, to a certain degree, they can be considered bilinguals in that language and Italian. Differences with other learners concern mainly pronunciation, as Polinsky (2018) explains: Some heritage speakers ... sound more native than even the most proficient and advanced learners; often L2 learners take heritage Italian speakers for native speakers because of the target-like pronunciation of segmental material (especially if the relevant segments are missing from the dominant language, which makes it conspicuous). In fact, the phonetic advantage is among the most important properties that separate heritage speakers from L2 learners. (Polinsky, 2018: 116)

L2 learners and heritage language learners (HLLs) have certain features in common, but HLLs also have some special characteristics. For example, HLLs can rely easily on the L2 heard at home. In the case of Italian HLLs, sometimes they rely on dialect and/or old Italian words and structures.1 Having already developed listening and speaking skills, HLLs seem to focus more on writing and reading competences (more than other learners). An important point of contact between HLLs and L2 learners, who lack traditional L1 acquisition, is the reciprocal influence and interplay between the learner’s first (heritage) language and the second (dominant) language: language transfer is a typical and fundamental issue in L2

Advanced and Heritage Learners of Italian in Mixed Language Classrooms  31

acquisition research, but it is not always easy to predict where a transfer can occur. As Bonnet and Siemund (2018) underline: With respect to the situation of multilingual learners in the FL classroom, the following three problems can be identified. Heritage language speakers are often marginalized by perhaps unintentional but effective othering when they are addressed not as individuals but as members of cultural groups, they may not even consider themselves part of; their identity position is implicitly or sometimes even explicitly devalued by the factual exclusion of their heritage languages in the foreign language classroom. (Bonnet & Siemund, 2018: 18)

For recent overviews on heritage speakers/learners, see Polinsky (2018) and Kagan et al. (2017). Finally, Polinsky and Kagan (2007) covers issues in teaching heritage languages. Some words and phrases in HHLs are more like old forms than actual Italian. This stems from the fact that those second-, third- and fourth-generation speakers refer to the language spoken by their parents and grandparents: most of the Italian population had a local dialect as their first language from 1861 (with the creation of the State of Italy) to at least the 1960s (De Mauro, 2019 [1963], 2014). As a result, many HLLs are considered not only to speak a kind of ‘broken’ Italian, but sometimes use dialectal words or phrases. For all the reasons mentioned above, Italian HLLs and other Italian language learners share certain characteristics. There is a difference between the standard language taught at school and the regional varieties or dialects. As for second- and third-generation Italian speakers, as Benatti (2015a, 2015b) has shown, there could be differences in the learners’ feelings about the Italian heritage of the family: some of them feel extremely connected to their parents’ country of origin. This may generate further motivation for students in mixed classrooms if the teacher can foster a dialogue in the class on the cultural and language differences. Although this work is not primarily concerned with transfer, many of the Italian HLL are not only influenced by transfer from the dominant language (the language or languages spoken in the country where they live), but also by the dialect, for example, Italian/dialect code switching phenomena in vocabulary and even in grammar, such as the tendency to postpone the possessive more than in standard Italian (as in the case of some dialects in the south of Italy) and the use of tenere (‘to hold, to keep’) with the meaning of possession instead of avere (‘to have’), as happens in Naples and other parts of southern Italy. Dialectal influences are present in most HLLs, since their dialect is the language they heard the most at home. Sicilian and Tuscan HLLs, like the two Italian-Australian learners considered in this research, still use the passato remoto tense because it is still common in the regional variety of Sicily and Tuscany, while it is rarely used in

32  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

many other regions, especially in the north of the country. Explaining at least some important features of Italian dialects and differences among them is very useful. It is also stimulating for learners because of their bond with their cultural heritage. I often give my learners exercises on recognizing certain dialectal words and expressions and give them the opportunity to learn the corresponding standard Italian forms. In some cases, they need little focus on pronunciation, but they do need it on lexicon and morphology. This is useful in mixed classrooms because it can help all L2 students in the class to notice and recognize the variety of dialects and the different kinds of pronunciation in northern, central and southern Italy. To my knowledge, there is still no Italian language coursebook specifically designed for those learners. A step further in this research is to make one book specifically for HLLs but which can be widely used in classrooms where non-HLLs are present. The chapter consists of the following parts: • an introduction to the features of derivational morphology in Italian; these will be useful to the reader to understand better exercises and activities in the ‘Activities’ section; • a focus on the differences between HLLs and other learners (HLLs contributed to about 22% of the corpus considered); • a presentation of the corpus; • an analysis of the main mistakes made by learners, both HLL and non-HLL; • a presentation of methods, strategies and activities to teach derivational morphology; • summary and conclusions. Derivational Morphology and Words in Standard Italian Introduction

The choice of a lexical approach to morphology relies on studies from the last 30 years (Berretta, 1988, 1992; Bozzone Costa, 2002; Cardona, 2000, 2005; among others) and on an approach to the Italian language syllabus outlined in Lo Duca (2006). As already mentioned in the introduction, derivational morphology is very important because it helps in learning both new words and grammar (Lewis, 1993, 1997); moreover, in Italian, the suffixes and prefixes system is very complicated, with irregularities and allomorphs. In mixed language classes, teachers must explain morphological regularity and irregularity without relying on a contrastive approach. The best choice in language teaching is not to depend on the practice of memorizing lists of words, but to help the learner to develop a

Advanced and Heritage Learners of Italian in Mixed Language Classrooms  33

‘lexical sensitivity’: the learner should be able to analyze the relationship between form and function. Learners should also know the way this relationship can change. They should be able to notice, understand and develop regularity in the process of word formation. The aim is to let the learner develop their lexical competence in an autonomous way. This is particularly important in teaching/learning Italian, a language with a relatively complex morphology. The derivation process is generally concerned with lexicon more than grammar (Zagrebelsky, 1998). This is the reason why the Lexical Approach (Lewis, 1993, 1997) has been considered in this chapter. It has proved to be highly effective both for mixed and monolingual classes.2 The lexical approach was developed by Lewis (1993, 1997). Its fundamental tenets are that the lexicon is central to language learning and teaching and that grammar should be learned/taught together with the lexicon (this is known as lexicogrammar). The theoretical hypothesis behind the lexical approach relies on the psycholinguistic concept of mental lexicon: the sort of mental dictionary that contains all the information regarding a word: meaning, pronunciation, syntactic features and so on (Cacciari, 2001; Jackendoff, 2002). The mental lexicon consists of interconnected frames and nodes where grammatical and lexical information is decoded simultaneously. Thus, a word is a collection of meanings. A word brings various kinds of information about possible links to other words and/or parts of speech. This explains the importance that the lexical approach assigns to collocations (the statistical tendency of words to co-occur). In addition, words need to be approached differently: some words are polysemic, some words occur more easily with some other words and so on. Moreover, words should not be treated one by one. A large part of the lexicon is processed in units or chunks that, together with collocations, expressions and the processes of word formation (which are particularly important and productive in Italian) include institutionalized utterances (such as we’ll see, if I were you, would you like a cup of coffee: such utterances that you can learn as routines) sentence frames (sentence framing involves a specific sentence that can be used in multiple situations along with vocabulary words). As Lewis (1997: 204) maintains, ‘instead of words, we consciously try to think of collocations and to present these in expressions. Rather than trying to break things into ever smaller pieces, there is a conscious effort to see things in larger, more holistic, ways’. This is where we need derivational morphology, which is a fundamental process not only to improve learners’ vocabulary, but also to teach them chunks and even some grammar rules, such as certain irregular plurals. The meaning of chunks is often not attributable to the simple sum of their parts. For further information on the lexical approach and its implications, see Cardona (2000, 2004, 2005, 2009), Meara (1984), Serra Borneto (1998) and Willis (1990). See Sinclair (1987) for some examples of the importance of collocations in language teaching.

34  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

Focusing on teaching methodologies and activities on derivational morphology enriches the learner’s vocabulary and metalinguistic competence, such as the ability to analyze and decode the structure and meaning of unknown words. While derivational morphology is extraordinarily rich in Italian, it is also very complex, as in all Romance languages: there are many morphemes with a large number of allomorphs. In teaching L2 Italian, both in Italy and abroad, I have experienced errors in the derivation process even among intermediate and advanced learners. This chapter will present some theoretical aspects and some practical methodologies and activities that have proved to be useful in helping Italian language learners to understand, learn and use derivational rules correctly. The aim is to show parts of a teaching syllabus that can provide some suggestions and methodologies for the teaching of derivational morphology. In learning and teaching strategies in the Italian language mixed classrooms, studies such those of Whittle and Nuzzo (2015, 2016) and Velásquez and Nuzzo (2018) underline the importance of a ‘focus on form’ approach and the use of tasks (Ellis et al., 2019) in language teaching (these strategies are effective even for monolingual classes, but in particular for mixed classes). In a mixed classroom, those kinds of activities (and the ones shown in the section on Language Teaching Recommendations) are particularly useful because they help students compare their hypotheses on the target language. In a classroom where HLLs are present, both L2 learners and HLLs can also improve their metalinguistic competences. Derivational morphology in Italian

Word formation is a very important part of second language acquisition and teaching. Particularly important (and interesting from a language teacher’s perspective) is derivational morphology, which is extremely productive in Italian, in contrast to other languages. Derivation denotes a mechanism that allows the formation of new words starting from a lexical base (or root) with the addition of affixes. In Italian, like in other Romance languages, there are suffixes, that is, particles that are placed over a base, and prefixes, that is, particles that are placed before a base. For example, from a base such as orologio (‘watch’), the word orologiaio (‘watchmaker’) is formed by adding the suffix -aio and pagare (‘to pay’) with the addition of the prefix preforms prepagato (‘pre-pay’). The bases can be verbs, adjectives and nouns. Words formed out of a base plus an affix are called derivatives, that is, words formed through the process of derivation. If the base in this process is a noun, as in fioraio (‘florist’s’) from fiore (‘flower’), the words thus produced are called denominal derivatives; if it is a verb, as in mangiabile (‘eatable’) from mangiare (‘to eat’), they are called deverbal derivatives; and if it is an adjective, as in rosseggiare (‘reddish’) from rosso (‘red’), they are called deadjectival derivatives. In morphological

Advanced and Heritage Learners of Italian in Mixed Language Classrooms  35

studies, the morphemes that are used to form new words such as -ato, -abile, -izzare (computerizzare ‘computerize’), -ista (dentista ‘dentist’ from dente ‘tooth’) and others are called derivational morphemes. It is difficult to account for all the affixes, as they are very numerous. Monolingual dictionaries and grammar books can be very useful in this regard. Despite the great importance of derivation in Italian, many linguists and researchers since the 1980s have underlined that Italian language books and courses lack both a theoretical and practical section on word formation (this also holds for many recent books). Derivational morphology has often been ignored in Italian language courses and grammar books, especially in the early stages of learning. For example, Italiano: Pronti, Via! 1 (Gruppo Lingua, 2008) and Rete! 1 (Mezzadri & Balboni, 2001) (for beginners) does not cover derivational morphology at all. As for the intermediate and advanced levels, at intermediate level Italiano: Pronti, Via! 2 (Gruppo Lingua, 2008), only a small part in the last two chapters is dedicated to suffixes and prefixes. Linea Diretta 2 (Conforti & Cusimano, 1997) does not deal with derivational morphology at all. As for Rete!, derivational morphology is only covered in the third volume (advanced level). Some of the most used Italian language books are the series Contatto and Progetto Italiano. Strong emphasis is placed on prefixes and suffixes in Nuovissimo Progetto Italiano 3 (Marin, 2019, advanced level); while in the Nuovo Contatto series, derivational morphology is only really taken into account at the C1 level (Piantoni et al., 2017). For the reason explained above, Bozzone Costa decided to introduce some exercises, examples and explanations of the most common derivational rules in almost every unit of her L2 Italian book Viaggio nell’italiano (one of the most successful Italian language teaching books for intermediate and advanced learners). Despite that, many books still seem to lack such elements even today. Teachers often fail to pay much attention to these rules in their courses on the basis that advanced learners have already acquired the necessary lexical competence. This can affect the mixed classroom in particular, where the impossibility of relying on a common language can create problems in the group in finding a common strategy in learning these elements. This often leads learners to use a common language, such as English, to better understand Italian. Therefore, teachers show examples of these processes of word formation, without specific activities or theoretical explanations of the rules. Beginner courses, instead, often lack attention to derivational morphology. Many scholars involved in Italian L2 acquisition have written that beginner learners very seldom produce derivational words spontaneously, as confirmed by the author’s experience and more recent studies (Cardona, 2005; Lo Duca & Fratter, 2018). Moreover, it seems important to check how much learners rely on transfer from their L1 and other languages (usually English in my corpus).

36  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

The Corpus

This chapter aims to show a series of methods and strategies to teach derivational morphology used in Italian to advanced learners with different L1. Classes also included HLLs (18.75% of the corpus, see Table 2.1 below). The guiding hypothesis is that there are some differences between HL and L2 learners (see ‘Activities’ section). Some of the reasons may be related to cultural/language identity or to their perception of the target language (the concept that Kellerman [1978] calls psychotypology). Derivational morphology is a highly productive phenomenon in Italian, but it is also extremely complicated. It is thus often considered an aspect of the language that should be taught in intermediate and advanced classes. The chapter, based on the author’s teaching experience at the University of Eastern Piedmont, University of Padua, Polytechnic of Milan and Polytechnic of Turin, shows approaches and strategies useful for teaching L2 Italian (seven classes in total, between 2011 and 2018). The corpus mainly consists of Italian writing produced by learners (55% female, 45% male) from 18 different countries (see Table 2.1). The texts were elicited in examinations and homework assignments. They were given during the courses I held at the institutions listed above. All the Table 2.1  Countries of learners in this study Country

Non-heritage learners

Heritage learners

Total

Argentina

10

3

13

Belgium

10

2

12

Australia

8

3

11

Brazil

7

2

9

Canada

3

1

4

Colombia

5

1

6

Costa Rica

0

1

1

El Salvador

0

1

1

France

20

1

21

Germany

13

1

14

Great Britain

3

1

4

Honduras

1

1

2

Mexico

3

1

4

Netherlands

5

1

6

Peru

6

1

7

South Africa

3

1

4

United States

10

2

12

Venezuela

10

3

13

117 (81.25%)

27 (18.75%)

144

Total

Advanced and Heritage Learners of Italian in Mixed Language Classrooms  37

learners were university students (aged between 19 and 26). All took the same kind of courses and type of assessment. HLLs formed 21.9% of the total; it was determined they were heritage learners from communicating with them before, after and during classes (they identified themselves as HLL). They came from the United States, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Germany and South Africa (58% male, 42% female). I focused on learners whose competence ranges from B2 to C2 (intermediate to advanced learners).3 Error Analysis

This section will focus on some considerations of errors produced by Italian language learners in forming words. The concept of error, in this chapter, is the same as that of traditional acquisitional linguistics. The error is the discrepancy between the student’s transitional competence and the target language. An analysis of errors (Corder, 1981) is useful for identifying the strategies that students use in language learning and attempting to identify the causes of errors made and to obtain information on common difficulties encountered by learners to develop teaching and materials for teachers. Thus, conceiving of errors as an integral part of the learning process is indispensable.4 The errors were elicited in open activities: free written productions carried out in class as tests and in free written tests for the CILS (Certificazione di Italiano come Lingua Straniera) and CELI (Certificazione della Lingua Italiana) exams, two certifications of Italian officially recognized in the world. An analysis of the corpus showed some interesting features about learners’ errors. The main difference between HL and L2 learners seems to be the influence of the dialect (especially for Americans, Argentinians, Belgians and Australians: see immediately below for some examples). First, derivational morphology does not appear exclusively in the production of intermediate and advanced learners but is also used by A1 and A2 learners. Even if this study concerns advanced learners, I would like to emphasize that A1 and A2 students (non-HLL) produced derivational words on my class tests. I found 12.5% of errors on A1 tests and 28.7% on the A2 level The increase in errors may depend on the difficulties of the topics and in the fact that at A2 level considered there were no learners with a Romance language as L1. Some metalinguistic word analysis is already present in the early stages. Advanced learners produce some analogical errors, such as *confermazione (student from Honduras, ‘confirmation’ in English), *tortivendolo (for a shop where you can buy cakes, sweets etc., German student), analogous to fruttivendolo (‘fruit and vegetable shop’) and *scoprimento (‘discovery’, Dutch student, with the use of the suffix -mento, which transforms some verbs into nouns, such as alleggerire => alleggerimento ‘to make it less heavy’). Despite their advanced level of proficiency,

38  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

Spanish and Latin American students tend to produce forms like pesceria (‘the shop where you can buy fish’), where they work from the Spanish form pescaderia with an identical suffix. Derivational suffixes such as -tore are perceived as more productive, others as less, such as -aio (some learners wrote the form *macellatore instead of the correct macellaio ‘butcher’). In a conversation, a student asked me Dov’è la *stampatrice? (‘Where is the scanner/printer’), with the feminine suffix -trice used analogously to fotocopiatrice (‘photocopier’). It seems that errors due to influence from another L1 (mainly English, but also Spanish and French) are present. In the research on the acquisition of Italian as L2, we can identify two main stances. The first (Berretta, 1988) starting from a corpus of data elicited via language tests, considers transfer relatively unimportant, not even for learners whose L1 is very similar to Italian. The second opinion is that of Bozzone Costa (1994), who changed her initial statement. Based on the author’s teaching experience, the transfer phenomena are very important, both for learners with a L1 close to Italian, such as Spanish, and for learners with a typologically different L1 and who often rely on English or other languages they feel are closer to Italian. Moreover, both Berretta and Bozzone Costa underlined that transfer and simplification are not opposite strategies and that vocabulary is part of the interlanguage that is more likely affected by L1 transfer. From an error analysis point of view, there are also some differences between heritage and non-heritage Italian language learners. For example, according to the literature, heritage speakers often use a conservative, sometimes obsolete form of the language (e.g. Kagan et al., 2017; Polinsky, 2018). In the case of Italian HLLs, they often use dialectal words or expressions in the belief that they are speaking standard Italian (Benatti, 2015a, 2015b; Benatti & Tarantini, 2017). In contrast, the frequency of overusing a regular form is not significantly different from other learners of the same L1 and same proficiency (such as *bevere instead of bere, see some other examples below; it is of course present because language users are expert pattern recognizers). The more regular the pattern, the easier it is to recognize. The overuse of regular forms is well documented in child language and L2 acquisition and is attributed in both cases to the lack of target-like mastery of irregular forms, which become assimilated to the more regular ones by analogy. Given this known tendency, it is not surprising to find overregularization in heritage production as well (Polinsky, 2018: 177). HLLs very often display attrition phenomena, and this applies to practically every learner considered. Attrition could be temporary or permanent, and it is one of the main motivations for my heritage students to study Italian. According to Polinsky (2018: 185) ‘in many cases of heritage attrition, it is tempting to ascribe the loss of experiencer subjects to the direct influence of the dominant language’.

Advanced and Heritage Learners of Italian in Mixed Language Classrooms  39

Non-frequent irregular morphological forms are very difficult for these kinds of learners (Polinsky, 2018). On the contrary, heritage learners have fewer difficulties with regular morphology than others (notice that HLL sometimes drop the study because of the perceived lack of acceptance of their regional varieties among instructors; see Showstack [2012], among others). Polinsky’s conclusions are confirmed by my heritage learners: errors like *aprito, instead of the irregular past participle aperto (‘open[ed]’) are much less frequent. This happens both in classes involving only HLLs and in mixed classes with both L2 learners and HLLs. Heritage Italian students seem to use the subjunctive less than other learners. This could be due to the fact that the subjunctive is used less in spoken Italian nowadays. While this is now generalized, this phenomenon started earlier in the southern regions of Italy; the families of most third- and fourth-generation HLLs are from the south (Vedovelli, 2011). HLLs sometimes overuse the dative gli, which is masculine, in place of the feminine le. This is frequent in some sociolinguistics varieties of Italian considered as ‘low’, typical of speakers with poor cultural level. As said above, sometimes HLLs perceive a lack of consideration of acceptance because of their regional or social varieties of language. As pointed out, errors in agreement are more frequent in HLLs who are beginner and intermediate learners of standard Italian, so it is interesting to find it in B2 and C1 learners of Italian heritage as well; could it be the influence of the dialects they heard at home from older parents and grandparents? More research is needed to confirm this. Examples from the corpus

Even among the Spanish-speaking students considered in this study, it seems that some errors from L1 forms mixed with Italian forms, such as medagliero (‘medal table’, Spanish advanced student), are quite common. Transfer from Romance languages is also present: *suvenire instead of raccontare (‘to tell a story’) from a French student. Many transfer phenomena also come from English: *confirmazione instead of conferma or *esplanazione instead of spiegazione (‘confirmation’ and ‘explanation’, respectively). Learners also make some ‘creative’ mistakes, such as tortivendolo, (‘the person who sells cakes and cookies’), modelled on fruttivendolo (‘the person who sells fruit and vegetables’), as noted above. Learners from very different cultures and speaking typologically different languages very often use languages like English as a model, due to the fact that basically all the learners involved had learned English. One example might be the sentence Domani devo fare *examine (‘Tomorrow I must do an examination’), where *examine is a mixed form from English ‘examination’ and Italian ‘esame’. Many learners use the preposition a (‘to’) to express a destination, even in cases where other

40  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

prepositions are needed in Italian, for example, Io vado *a Italia, instead of the correct form in Italia. In the corpus, errors caused by transfer from other languages are made by 31% of B2 learners, 17.1% of C1 learners and 8.5% of C2 learners. The difference between HLLs and non-HLLs does not seem to be relevant. They are therefore still present even in the production of learners whose competence is almost the same as that of native speakers. Of course, while beginners tend to rely more on their L1, learners with intermediate and advance proficiency seem to understand the risks of ‘transferring’ L1 words and structures into L2. Attempting to avoid that, they sometimes produce examples of ‘countertransfer’ (Bozzone Costa, 1986), such as *spaventazione instead of spavento. Those kinds of errors are also present in HLLs; the difference is the presence of dialectal influences, (*io aiuto a te (I help you) instead of io ti aiuto, American learner with Napolitan heritage; contrary to standard Italian, in the dialect of Napoli the verb aiutare needs preposition a). In written texts, which allow learners to think before producing sentences, the transfer from L1 or another language is evident, while transfer is clearly much stronger in spoken production, which involves a much faster processing time. It is common to find transfer and transfer phenomena even among advanced learners: this is the case with forms such as *pronunciazione instead of pronuncia (‘pronunciation’). In analyzing exercises on derivational morphology, such as deriving a noun from a verb with the proper suffix and then writing if the noun is masculine or feminine, I endeavored to consider just common verbs, avoiding the risk that learners could answer randomly because they did not know the meaning. The criteria were also guided by frequency of occurrence. There were nouns ending in -zione (such as comunicazione ‘communication’) and -mento (rilassamento ‘relax’), nouns derived from past participles, like risposta and proposta (‘answer’ and ‘proposal’), nouns without suffixes (racconto ‘story’) and nouns with -tura (cottura ‘cooking’), -aggio (lavaggio ‘washing, cleaning’), -anza (testimonianza ‘testimony, deposition’) and -enza (conoscenza ‘knowing, knowledge’). The forms with -zione were the most frequent, while the suffixes -aggio and -tura (less frequent in Italian) were the least frequent. Language Teaching Recommendations

The analysis of errors suggests that rules of derivational morphology are present from the early stages, at least if learners have a L1 not very typologically different from Italian. These learners seem to notice some morphological regularity early. Of course, teachers should be aware of the morphological rules in Italian, of typological features of their learners’ L1 and of the morphology of the languages most commonly

Advanced and Heritage Learners of Italian in Mixed Language Classrooms  41

spoken by their learners (mainly English, French and Spanish): this is an important aspect of transfer, especially for L2 learners. The aim of teaching methodologies and activities should be directed towards: developing learners’ ability to analyze and understand derivational words; encouraging learners to produce derivational words by themselves, basing their strategies on analogical processes and/or the most productive rules. In order to achieve those two objectives, it is important to: (1) encourage learners to understand if a word is a noun, verb, adverb or adjective; this is not easy for learners; (2) use analogy and examples to encourage learners to understand and produce derivational words. For example, say things like ‘If a macellaio (‘butcher’) is the person who sells meat, what do you call the person who sells fiori (‘flowers’)?’ (fioraio); and (3) not present all exceptions and irregularities immediately; as explained before, Italian lexical derivation is productive but very complex. There are also rarely used suffixes, such as -aia and -eto that students are unlikely to encounter in their reading. Not only advanced learners, but also beginners and intermediate learners proved to be very interested in this aspect of the language; during the activities (sometimes in pairs, sometimes individually), they were very much involved in presenting their solutions and in discovering some uncommon suffixes, such as -vendolo or -aiolo (which transform verbs into nouns). Looking at some tests in itinere (tests carried out during the course, therefore not final exams), I believe those kinds of activities were effective. Importantly, Pavesi (1995) points out that it is better to start emphasizing analysis of words rather than focusing on production, which is less easy to manage. Especially in the early stages, it is better to let students practice their ability to deconstruct words and present meanings, while production activities should be limited to guided exercises. An important question about teaching morphology is ‘What and when should I teach?’ Not everything that is teachable should be taught. In Italian there are several derivational processes, but some suffixes are limited to a very few, uncommon words.5 Therefore, it is better to give priority to the most common and useful derivational processes. The least common should be taught later and in very special cases, such as specialized terms (economics, engineering etc.) that are relevant to a particular group of learners. Here are the most common derivational suffixes. Italian language teachers are recommended to prioritise them: (1) agent nouns: suffixes like -tore, -ista and -aio are the most common; later, as learners read and/or hear them, it is possible to introduce other suffixes like -iere/-iero, -one, -ano and -tore/trice (all of these

42  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

suffixes are for nouns for professions); another common suffix is -eria, which mainly refers to shops (panetteria ‘bakery’). Most of these words are part of the basic vocabulary and stimulate learners to notice and analyze the most common derivational suffixes; (2) adjectives: focus on the most common ones (-ese, -ano etc.), including very frequent adjectives ending in -oso (paura – pauroso ‘fear – afraid’, noia-noioso ‘boredom – boring’). As for prefixes, it is important to let learners understand the negative prefixes in Italian: in- and s- (fortunato vs sfortunato ‘lucky vs unlucky’, leale vs sleale ‘loyal vs disloyal’), introducing the general rules and letting learners notice words like intelligente (‘intelligent’), where the in- is not a prefix; another important and very frequent prefix is ri- (rileggere, riprovare ‘read again, try again’). It is better to present suffixes, such as -ezza (bellezza ‘beauty’, tristezza ‘sadness’), which usually form abstract nouns, to intermediate/advanced learners. It is useful to show the relationship between suffixes, such as -ismo/-ista (comunismo, comunista ‘communism, communist’). For advanced learners (C1 and C2 in the Common European Framework), a great many lessons should be dedicated to suffixes that form adjectives from verbs or nouns: -oso (nebbioso ‘foggy’), -ale (mortale ‘deadly’), -ario (universitario ‘academic’), -abile/-ibile (evitabile, adattabile ‘avoidable, adaptable’) and -evole (incantevole ‘enchanting, charming’). In addition, it is important to focus on polysemic suffixes: -ario, for example, can form both a nomen agentis, as with jobs, such as bibliotecario (‘librarian’), and nouns for instruments, e.g. vocabolario (‘dictionary; vocabulary’). HLLs often seem to use fewer derivational affixes and engage in a bit more overgeneralization compared withL2 learners (e.g. Montrul, 2016). This is thus an aspect of acquisition that is particularly difficult for HLLs, and the same seems to happen for inflectional morphology (Montrul, 2016). At this point, it is important to note the methodologies to be used to explain derivational morphology. A fundamental element is to present derivative words in their context, with input as rich and varied as possible. Once a derivational process seems to be acquired, other similar processes should be introduced, encouraging students to list, through ‘brainstorming’, the similar words they know that belong to the same or a similar semantic field. For example, nouns that relate to sports, jobs or feelings (paura – pauroso, gelosia – geloso ‘fear – afraid, jealousy – jealous’). This kind of brainstorming allows us to elicit even non-existent forms, so it is possible to analyze and discuss these words (such as *insegnatore, instead of insegnante ‘teacher’) with students. The student should be encouraged to reflect on impossible words and on words potentially possible, but not present in the language. This activity also improves metalinguistic competence.

Advanced and Heritage Learners of Italian in Mixed Language Classrooms  43

Dardano (1978) illustrates an effective way to show derivative words to learners. He presents words with the same root or semantic field: lavoro lavoratore lavorante lavorare ===> lavorazione lavorio lavorativo lavorabile Activities

As noted previously, derivational morphology is extremely complicated and linguistically very productive in Italian. The exercises in this paragraph can help both L2 and HL learners in mixed classrooms. Both can improve their awareness of suffixes and prefixes and increase their vocabulary, with essentially no differences between the two types of learners. Having the students do the activities presented in this paragraph in pairs or small groups can be even more useful because working in pairs allows them to strengthen communication skills and stimulate metalinguistic reflection. These exercises aim to improve and consolidate an understanding of the meaning of suffixes and prefixes and of how they are used in Italian.6 Detailed below are some useful activities designed to make learners aware of the mechanisms of derivational morphology: at every level of competence, discovering the use and the function of a suffix or a prefix is motivating in language learning, stimulating the ability to create derived words. Later, tasks and exercises that aim to consolidate the knowledge of a word or a suffix/prefix can be introduced. All the activities mentioned and discussed in this section are useful both for heritage learners and for L2 learners. These kinds of activities also help both L2 and heritage learners to improve their metalinguistic competence. In mixed classes, the teaching approach cannot be based on a contrastive analysis. According to Carreira (2016), the teacher could employ the contrastive analysis approach to deepen students’ understanding of the cultural features of the text and how they differ from students’ own. Ex. 1. Nouns concerning ‘actions’ or ‘jobs’

The suffixes -aio, -aiolo, -ario, -iere/-iero, -nte and -ista refer to ‘those who do a certain action or job’ (gelataio, bancario, pianista, dentista, verduriere, ingegnere, cantante, mercante, dentista and pianista). They can form new words from verbs or other nouns.

44  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

Look at the examples and fill in the gaps: (1) vinaio: la persona che vende vino (‘the person who sells wine’); (2) pizzaiolo: la persona che fa le pizze. Come si chiama la persona che guida la barca?: … and so on. Ex 2. Come si chiama?

-iere Chi vende salumi? Chi vende dolci e pasticcini? … -nte Chi canta: Chi naviga:

And so on with other suffixes. As was mentioned previously, before derivation is complex both for HLLs and for L2 speakers, so all these activities are useful for both. Another kind of activity is to let learners read an article and underline all nouns or adjectives with a suffix. For example, -zione (which in most cases forms a noun from the verbal root, such as preparare – preparazione ‘to prepare, preparation’). Then, ask learners to find verbs deriving that are derived from nouns; after that, the teacher asks learners to find the exceptions, for example, with some verbs, such as vedere (visione, not *vedezione), or verbs like and cedere (cessione). Many verbs with the infinitive form ending in -ere have are exceptions (they derive the noun from the old Latin past participle), while verbs with -are are mostly regular. The same activity is good effective with all frequently used suffixes. A variation of this activity is to work in pairs and try to guess derivative nouns found in a text from some verbs or adjectives; the use of a monolingual dictionary should be encouraged. The prefix -in

The prefix -in is commonly used in Italian to form the contrary and negative form of adjectives (utile – inutile ‘useful, useless’).7 The problem is that not every word starting in with in- is a negative form. Thus, a first exercise is to give a list like this: with words, such as inutile, inusuale, intelligente, instabile, innovazione .. ... and so on, and to ask learners to separate words in which in- is a derivative prefix from other words in which in- is simply the first syllable, but not a prefix (like such as intelligente ‘intelligent’ and innovazione ‘intelligent, innovation’). The second step is to give a list with words such as utile, frequente, mangiabile .. ... and so on and; ask learners to write the opposite forms

Advanced and Heritage Learners of Italian in Mixed Language Classrooms  45

(inutile, infrequente, immangiabile .. ...) and write a sentence with every derivative word. The suffix -ese

According to the Treccani Online Encyclopedia, the suffix -ese from Latin -ēnsis, is a ‘derivative adjectival suffix of adjectives that denotes a geographical connotations belonging to cities (milanese), regions (piemontese) and nations (francese, danese “French, Danish”). More rarely it is a question of social belonging (borghese, marchese “bourgeois, marquis”)’ (my translation).8 Sometimes -ese has an ironic meaning as in politichese, the language used by politicians, and burocratese, the language used by bureaucrats. Activity 1:

(a) Choose a text with many occurrences of the suffix -ese. Then ask learners to guess what kind of words end in -ese; for example, nouns referring to languages, political parties, a kind of jargon and so on. (b) Ask learners to try to ‘invent’ some words in with -ese.(c) Divide the class into two, three or more groups. Ask them to ‘invent’ a political party and the characteristics of the possible slogans and the language. Suffixes in a contrastive approach

Here are some useful contrastive exercises, especially, but not only, for Spanish or other Romance languages: (1) Ask learners to read an Italian text and then ask them to: (a) try to guess the meaning of some derivative nouns; (b) try to write the cognates of those derivative nouns in their L1. (2) Another exercise could be to create a table like the following: Spagnolo

Italiano

Verbo di base

conversador

conversare

trabajador

lavorare

director

dirigere

The same can be done with other HLLs with Romance languages as L1. This kind of exercise is useful both for HLLs and non-HLLs. The difference between the two relies mainly on orthography: HLLs make more errors in orthography because they speak their HL mainly in the family environment, where the focus is on oral communication. Below are some activities (Benatti, 2020) to raise learners’ awareness of the mechanisms of derivational morphology: at every level of competence, discovering the use and the function of a suffix or a prefix is often very highly motivating in language learning. Later, tasks and

46  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

exercises that aim to consolidate the knowledge of a word or a suffix/ prefix is recommended: (1) letting learners identify the basic form of a derivative; (2) providing a list of words and having learners guess which ones are derivatives; (3) providing a list of suffixes or prefixes and a list of nouns or verbs and then having learners find derivatives (as a noun can sometimes have more than one prefix or suffix); (4) having learners complete sentences with a word with the same root; (5) having learners complete sentences with a word with the same suffix or prefix; (6) for every verb on a list, having learners write a noun with the same root; (7) for every noun on a list, having learners write a verb with the same root; (8) given a list of words, guessing which are derivatives; (9) giving a list of suffixes or prefixes, and a list of nouns or verbs, and then finding derivative words (as sometimes a noun can have more than one prefix or suffix). Conclusions and Further Research

Mixed classrooms have certain particular dynamics. The first that comes to mind is that there is not a shared L1 (even if every university student has studied L2 English as L2). Thus, in a multilingual learning environment, students cannot use their L1 to ask for help, for example, to solve some morphological issues. It is easier that students use Italian as a language for communication in the classroom, which is both a stimulating challenge and good practice. Second, there is a wide variety of cultural experiences that can be stimulating in conversational activities and tasks. It is usually very helpful if teachers underline those differences, and if HLLs are in the classrooms, they can share their cultural background, which is not always the same as that of contemporary Italy (as they may be third- or fourth-generation emigrants). Third, students in a monolingual class often do make the same mistakes (for example, in a course involving only Chinese students, they share the difficulties in pronouncing the phoneme /r/). Fourth, different cultures can have different learning styles and different concepts concerning the teacher’s role. For example, Chinese learners tend to be more reluctant to express personal opinions than Americans. Pair work and small group activities can lead students to better intercultural comprehension, which is definitely an enrichment. Fifth, the main difference between HLL and non-HLL concerns motivation. Non-HLL has more personal interests in the target language

Advanced and Heritage Learners of Italian in Mixed Language Classrooms  47

than heritage learners, who may take the course due to family or parents’ influence. Benatti (2021) noticed this also among the children of immigrants in Italy, of different origins. In this study, HLLs intend to accept the content faster and seem to develop more interest in the target language than non-HLL. Regarding the distribution of errors, HLL learners produce significantly more orthographic, but less tense and conjugation errors. It is useful to reserve different strategies for HLL. One way to help HLs in a mixed class is to make activities in a flexible grouping. For example, HL learners can try reading the content before receiving instructions HL and L2 learners have different kinds of access to reading and form-focused instruction (Carreira, 2016). Finally, the communication and metacommunication dynamics in mixed language classrooms also have some peculiarities; the presence of HLL learners can also influence those dynamics. For example, in turn taking, mixed language classrooms sometimes follow different ‘rules’, because of the intercultural differences; while in monolingual classes interruptions or taking the turns in monolingual classes are sort of a ‘common ground’. The data analyzed has shown that learners often use derivational morphology spontaneously. They keep making mistakes even at an advanced level (C1/C2) and that is understandable, considering the relative complexity of morphological rules in Italian. The range of suffixes is not particularly wide: learners tend to use (and overuse) a few suffixes, especially those similar to other languages like such as English, Spanish or French (such as e.g. -zione, -mento, -tore and -ista, and the past participle ending in -o or -a for nomina actionis). Interference from other languages is less relevant common in writing than in spontaneous speech, but it is still present. Transfer proves shows that in a process of analysis and re-use of morphological elements, learners notice some rules in the target language and tend to adapt L1 lexical and morphological elements to the L2 system. Adapted borrowings are much more frequent than non-adapted borrowings. In writing or planned speech, analogical analogous re-use of more frequent suffixes is also common. Further research is needed on Italian HLLs, both to find what is unique to more peculiarity in their learning process and to design some syllabuses, activities and coursebooks specifically for those learners. Beyond the Reading (1) Are there any activities that may be specific to certain age groups of HL learners? (2) How useful can it be to put all HL learners in the same class? (3) Are there any activities that can be particularly useful for HL learners of Italian (or a specific language in general)?

48  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

Notes (1) The use of the terms ‘dialect’ and ‘standard’ can be problematic. See Lippi-Green (1997) among others. (2) See Benatti (2020) for an example of applications of the lexical approach in monolingual classes. (3) For the Common European Framework and a description of the levels of proficiency, see https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/leveldescriptions and https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/ 1680787989. (4) Corder (1981) and Selinker (1972). (5) For example, nouns ending in -aia, which refer to a place where materials are stored and processed, such as ceppaia (‘area cleared of trees; tree stump’) and legnaia (‘woodshed’) and nouns ending in -eto, which refer to places where certain kinds of fruits or trees are cultivated, such as uerceto (‘oak forest’) and agrumeto (‘citrus grove’). (6) For example, in the online grammar guide at ttp://www.grammaticaitaliana. eu/, books such as Dardano and Trifone (1997), and the English-language Italian grammar guide by Pellegrini and Albertini (2013). (7) When in- is followed by the letters p, b or m, it becomes im- (impossibile ‘impossible’); when it is followed by r, it becomes ir- (irrazionale ‘irrational’); before l, it becomes il- (illiberale ‘illiberal’); and before m, it becomes im- (immortale ‘immortal’). (8) https://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/ese/#:~:text=%2D%C3%A9se%20(o%20%2D %C3%A8nse),francese%2C %20norvegese%2C%20portoghese).

References Benatti, R. (2015a) Esigenze e motivazioni legate all’apprendimento dell’italiano come lingua seconda da parte di studenti australiani e italo-australiani. Paper presented at 8th ACIS Biennial Conference, Fertile Spaces, Dynamic Places: Mapping the Cultures of Italy, Sydney (Australia), 1-4/7/2015. Benatti, R. (2015b) Australians vs. Italian-Australians: Motivation in learning Italian as a second language. Paper presented at LCNAU 2015 National Colloquium Tertiary Language and Culture Programs: Directions in Research, Teaching and Policy. 25–27/11 2015. Benatti, R. (2020) CLIL courses: Teaching Italian language and culture in Turkmenistan. In N. Alagözlü and V. Kiymazarslan (eds) Current Perspectives on Vocabulary Learning and Teaching. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Benatti, R. (2021) Adolescenti nelle scuole secondarie di secondo grado: identità, lingue e lingue ereditarie. Il caso delle Provincie di Biella e Vercelli. Italianistica Debrecenienses 26, 87–109. Benatti, R. and Tarantini, A.T. (2017) Dialects among young Italian-Australians: ItaloRomance dialects as a bridge to a migrant’s heritage. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 52 (4), 467–48. Berretta, M. (1988) Sviluppo delle regole di formazione di parola in italiano L2: La derivazione zero. Parallela 3, 42–53. Berretta, M. (1992) Marcatezza in morfologia e apprendimento di lingue seconde. In Università di Bergamo’s Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica e Letterature Comparate (Vol. 8, pp. 129–156). Bergamo: Guerini Studio. Bonnet, A. and Siemund, P. (2018) Multilingualism and foreign language education: A synthesis of linguistic and educational findings. In A. Bonnet and P. Siemund (eds) Foreign Language Education in Multilingual Classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Advanced and Heritage Learners of Italian in Mixed Language Classrooms  49

Bozzone Costa, R. (1994) Nuovo Contatto A1. Corso di lingua e civiltà italiana per stranieri. Torino: Loescher Editore. Bozzone Costa, R. (2002) Rassegna degli errori lessicali in testi scritti da apprendenti elementari, intermedi ed avanzati di italiano L2 (ed implicazioni didattiche). Linguistica e filologia 14, 37–67. Cacciari, C. (2001) Psicologia del linguaggio. Bologna: Il Mulino. Cardona, M. (2000) Il lexical approach nell’insegnamento dell’italiano. InIT Online 14, 1–7. See https://www.guerraedizioni.com/initonline/pdf/init14.pdf. Cardona, M. (2004) Apprendere il lessico di una lingua straniera. Aspetti psicolinguistici e glottodidattici. Bari: Adriatica Editrice. Cardona, M. (2005) Applicazioni dell’approccio lessicale nell’insegnamento dell’italiano L2. Babylonia 3 (5), 19–23. Cardona, M. (2009) L’insegnamento e l’apprendimento del lessico in ambiente CLIL. Il CLIL e l’approccio lessicale. Alcune riflessioni. Studi di Glottodidattica 2, 1–19. Carreira, M. (2016) A general framework and supporting strategies for teaching mixed classes. In D. Pascual y Cabo (ed.) Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp. 159–176). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Conforti, C. and Cusimano, L. (1997) Linea Diretta 2. Perugia: Guerra Edizioni. Corder, P. (1981) Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. D’Agostino, M. (2012) Sociolinguistica dell’Italia contemporanea. Bologna: Il Mulino. Dardano, M. (1978) Sparliamo Italiano? Vetralla: Invito alla Lettura. Dardano, M. and Trifone, P. (1997) La nuova grammatica italiana. Roma: Zanichelli. De Mauro, T. (2014) Storia linguistica dell’Italia repubblicana: dal 1946 a oggi. Roma-Bari: Laterza. De Mauro, T. (2019 [1963]) Storia linguistica dell’Italia unita. Roma-Bari: Laterza. Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Shaofeng, L., Shintani, N. and Lambert, C. (eds) (2019) Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fratter, I. and Luisa Marigo (2018) Intergrated forms of self-assessment and placement testing for Italian L2 aimed at incoming foreign university exchange students at the University of Padua. Language Learning in Higher Education 8 (1), 91–114. https://doi. org/10.1515/cercles-2018-0005 (accessed 20 July 2022). Gruppo Lingua (2008) Italiano: Pronti, Via! 1. Perugia: Guerra Edizioni. Jackendoff, R. (2002) Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kagan, O., Carneira, M. and Chik, K. (eds) (2017) The Routledge Handbook of Heritage Language Education. London: Routledge. Kellerman, E. (1978) Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism 15, 59–92. Lewis, M. (1993) The Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. Lewis, M. (1997) Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting a Theory into Practice. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. Lippi-Green, R. (1997) The standard language myth. In R. Dal Vera (ed.) Language, Ideology and Discrimination in the United States (pp. 55–65). Winona, MN: Applause Publications. Lo Duca, M.G. (2006) Sillabo di italiano L2. Per studenti in scambio. Roma: Carocci. Marin, T. (2019) Nuovissimo Progetto Italiano 3. Roma: Edilingua. Meara, P. (1984) The study of lexis in interlanguage. In A. Davies, C. Criper and A.P.R. Howatt (eds) Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Mezzadri, M. and Balboni, P.E. (2001) Rete! 1. Perugia: Guerra Edizioni. Montrul, S. (2016) The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pavesi, M. (1995) Processi di formazione della parola in inglese L2: Acquisizione e applicazioni didattiche. In P. Desideri (ed.) L’universo delle lingue. Confrontare lingue e grammatiche nella scuola (pp. 263–276). Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

50  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

Pellegrini, F. and Albertini, N. (2013) Italiano per inglesi [Italian for English Speaking People]. Milano: Hoepli. Piantoni, M., Bozzone Costa, R. and Ghezzi, C. (2017) Nuovo Contatto C1. Torino: Loescher Editore. Polinsky, M. (2018) Heritage Languages and their Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Polinsky, M. and Kagan, O. (2007) Heritage languages: In the wild and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass 1 (5), 369–395. See https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749818X.2007.00022.x (accessed 20 July 2022). Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 209–231. Serra Borneto, C. (1998) L’approccio lessicale. In C. Serra Borneto (ed.) C’era una volta il metodo. Tendenze attuali nella didattica delle lingue straniere. Roma: Carocci. Showstack, R. (2012) Symbolic power in the heritage language classroom: How Spanish heritage speakers sustain and resist hegemonic discourses on language and cultural diversity. Spanish in Context 9 (1), 1–26. Sinclair, J.M. (ed.) (1987) Looking Up. An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing. London: Collins. Vedovelli, M. (ed.) (2011) Storia linguistica dell’emigrazione italiana nel mondo. Roma: Carocci. Velásquez, D.C. and Nuzzo, E. (eds) (2018) Il task nell’insegnamento delle lingue. Percorsi tra ricerca e didattica al CLA di Roma Tre. Roma: University of Roma Tre Press. Whittle, A. and Nuzzo, E. (2015) L’insegnamento della grammatica nella classe multilingue. Bologna: Pubblicazioni AITLA. Whittle, A. and Nuzzo, E. (2016) Che cosa rende una forma più facile da apprendere rispetto ad altre? Il caso della terza persona plurare dell’indicativo presente in un esperimento di Focus on Form rivolto a bambini sinofoni. In A. Valentini (ed.) L’input per l’acquisizione di L2: strutturazione, percezione, elaborazione (pp. 71–84). Firenze: Franco Cesati Editore. Zagrebelsky, M.T. (1998) Il lessico: descrizione, insegnamento, apprendimento. In M.T. Zagrebelsky (ed.) Lessico ed apprendimento linguistico. Nuove tendenze della ricerca e pratiche didattiche (pp. 3–80). Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

3 Feedback in the Mixed Classroom: What are Students’ Preferences and Perceptions? Paola Guerrero-Rodríguez and Avizia Long

Corrective feedback (CF), defined as ‘responses to learner utterances containing an error’ (Ellis, 2006: 28), has garnered extensive theoretical and empirical attention in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). Beyond documenting the types of CF that occurs during interactional episodes in the target language (e.g. Lyster & Ranta, 1997) and investigating the extent to which CF plays a facilitative role in second language (L2) learning (e.g. Brown, 2016; Li, 2010), research on CF has expanded to examine the role and perspectives of the key players involved in classroom-based, feedback-related interactions – that is, learners and instructors. These studies have shed invaluable light on how and why feedback is provided (e.g. Gurzynski-Weiss, 2016), as well as how learners react to instructor-provided feedback and why (e.g. Yoshida, 2008, 2010). Relatively little critical attention has been given to the role and effects of CF in mixed classrooms (e.g. Loza, 2019), which enroll second and heritage language (HL) learners. In addition to understanding the CF strategies employed by instructors (see Guerrero-Rodríguez & Long, 2022) and how these feedback strategies may differentially facilitate linguistic gains for L2 and HL learners, examining their preferences and perceptions is crucial for understanding how they make sense of opportunities for learning in a mixed classroom setting. This chapter details the findings of an exploratory study that sought to identify learners’ CF preferences in university-level mixed (HL and L2) Spanish language classrooms. We contribute to previous research on the CF preferences of language learners by comparing the stated preferences of HL and L2 learners enrolled in mixed Spanish language courses, and we seek to encourage the use of CF as a strategy that does not intend to replace HL learners’ Spanish knowledge, but rather to expand it. 51

52  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

Our findings guide the practical suggestions we offer for the consideration and provision of feedback in mixed classrooms, outlined in the discussion section of this chapter. Finally, we also offer a list of further readings to complement the present chapter. Background Feedback in the language classroom

Corrective feedback, whether provided orally or in writing, is a commonly encountered instructional practice in the language classroom. Theoretically, CF is believed to offer learners indirect or implicit evidence with respect to their erroneous utterances (Long, 1996). This evidence, in turn, has been argued to facilitate repair or modified output (Ellis, 2017; Li, 2014; Lyster et al., 2013; Sheen, 2010) and promote acquisition. In fact, Li’s (2010) meta-analysis on the effectiveness of CF in SLA supports a beneficial role for oral CF in L2 learning. Moreover, this positive role for CF in L2 learning extends to writing (Kang & Han, 2015). Although the focus of many CF studies has been on grammar or morphosyntax, CF has also been shown to facilitate pronunciation learning (e.g. Gooch et al., 2016; Lee & Lyster, 2016, 2017). This latter point supports the observation that CF is varied (Lyster & Ranta, 1997) and has been shown to target primarily grammatical errors (see Brown, 2016). Although fewer studies have investigated the role of CF in linguistic development by HL learners, findings collectively suggest that indirect evidence plays a facilitative role in HL acquisition. The bulk of this research has focused on aspects of morphosyntactic development by HL learners of Korean (e.g. Park et al., 2016; Song et al., 1997) or Spanish (e.g. DeRobles, 2019; Montrul & Bowles, 2008, 2010; Yoon, 2018). For example, Montrul and Bowles (2008) examined the combined effect of explicit instruction and metalinguistic feedback on HL learners’ sensitivity to differential object marking (or a-marking with animate direct objects). They found that learners’ sensitivity to this linguistic feature, measured using a grammaticality judgment test, improved after instruction and feedback. Montrul and Bowles (2010) also reported a facilitative effect of instruction and explicit feedback on a-marking by HL learners in production. Valentín-Rivera (2016), following the framework of Activity Theory (see Lantolf & Thorne, 2006), showed that mixed L2–HL dyads receiving indirect CF on written narratives demonstrated slightly higher rates of uptake than dyads who received direct CF (85% vs 80%, respectively). Uptake episodes focused primarily on grammar (as opposed to lexis) and were mostly led by the HL learners in each dyad. A recent mixed methods study by DeRobles

Feedback in the Mixed Classroom: What are Students’ Preferences and Perceptions?  53

(2019) lends additional support for the general finding that CF plays a facilitative role in HL development. Specifically, she found that written CF feedback, whether provided directly or indirectly, led to improvement on errors related to use of the subjunctive and orthography in descriptive writing tasks. For instance, when receiving direct or indirect feedback, participants in the DeRobles (2019) study sometimes relied on their intuition as a strategy to correct their errors: ‘Te aconsejo que duermes ... Oh duermas ... Yeah, that sounds a lot better’ (2019: 150). The qualitative data revealed that HL learners make use of both indirect and direct metalinguistic knowledge when revising their writing errors. Another type of feedback that is theoretically relevant to L2 and HL acquisition in the language classroom are explicit positive assessments (EPAs), which are considered to be a type of positive (or non-corrective) feedback (Ellis, 2009). Working within the framework of sociocultural theory (e.g. Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000) and conversation analysis (e.g. Kasper, 2006), Waring (2008) defines EPAs as ‘teacher utterances that contain positive assessment terms such as good, very good, excellent, perfect, and the like’ (2008: 578) and argues that they are a common form of instructional practice in the language classroom. Waring’s analysis of the use of EPAs during the homework-checking segments of seven sessions of adult English as a L2 classes showed that EPAs serve two functions in classroom discourse: to close initiation-responsefeedback sequences (sequence-closing) and to indirectly communicate that further discussion on the topic of interaction is unnecessary (insinuating case closed). This latter feature of EPAs is potentially problematic, according to Waring, because learners may be inhibited from initiating future questioning or discussion on the topic (see also Wong & Waring, 2009). Despite this potentially problematic feature of EPAs, scholars have generally argued that positive assessments may encourage learners to participate further in target language interaction (e.g. Hellerman, 2003; Reigel, 2008). This encouragement, in turn, may offer learners additional opportunities for language learning. In the English as a L2 classroom, Fagan’s (2014) conversation-analytic study showed that an instructor’s positive feedback responses served three functions in classroom discourse: to give a positive assessment, to invite assessment from a classroom peer and to imply a positive assessment. These practices appeared to be motivated by several aspects of the observed interactional sequences, including the instructor’s perception of students’ knowledge, students’ silence or hesitation in response to working on a difficult concept or topic and the instructor’s attempts to ensure that students understand concepts/topics. An additional finding of Fagan’s study is the documentation of both verbal and non-verbal (e.g. nodding the head, smiling) forms of positive assessment.

54  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

Perspectives on feedback in the language classroom

In recent decades, a growing number of studies on feedback practices in language classrooms have focused on learners’ preferences and perspectives as well as instructors’ intentions and motivations. With respect to learners, central questions underlying this research include: What are their preferences with respect to instructor-provided feedback? Additionally, to what extent do learners accurately perceive instructorprovided CF, and what factors influence learners’ perceptions? Regarding learners’ preferences, Yoshida (2008) found that L2 learners of Japanese preferred ‘being given time to think about correct answers over receiving them straight after their erroneous or inappropriate utterances’ and believed that ‘finding out correct answers on their own was more effective for their learning than being provided the answer by the teachers’ (2008: 89). Lee (2013) found that advanced L2 English learners preferred immediate and explicit CF during teacher-student interactions. Sung and Tsai (2014) found that beginning L2 Chinese learners preferred recasts while more advanced learners preferred a variety of oral CF types depending on the error type. The advanced learners in their study preferred recasts for pronunciation and grammar errors but explicit correction for vocabulary errors. Learners’ CF preferences were found to be related to aspects or features of the target language itself (e.g. based on the learner’s first language) and their individual learning styles (e.g. visual learners, whose first language was English, preferred written feedback over recasts). Yang (2016) found that L2 Chinese learners reported a preference for metalinguistic feedback on grammar and pragmatic errors and explicit correction on pronunciation and vocabulary errors. Learners preferred recasts on pronunciation errors rather than vocabulary errors. Qualitative analysis of interview data revealed five themes underlying learners’ feedback-related preferences: linguistic features, cognitive processing, affect, instructional limitation and cultural perceptions. Taken together, previous research on learners’ feedback preferences appears to point to a general preference for explicit CF types, although preferences may vary by error type and proficiency in the target language. Not only do learners prefer explicit CF, but they also report wanting more CF than instructors are inclined to give (see Roothooft & Breeze, 2016). Regarding learners’ perceptions of instructor-provided CF, Roberts (1995) found that L2 learners of Japanese noticed and understood fewer than half of the error corrections provided by their instructor. Yoshida (2010), in a second-year Japanese class at the college level, likewise reported that learners’ noticing of instructor-provided feedback did not necessarily mean that learners would understand it. Mackey et al. (2007) showed that L2 learners of English more accurately perceived negotiations and recasts on lexis and phonology than on morphosyntax. This same finding was reported by Gass and Lewis (2007), who compared the

Feedback in the Mixed Classroom: What are Students’ Preferences and Perceptions?  55

perceptions of heritage and non-heritage learners of Italian, and by Kim and Han (2007), who examined L2 learners of English. These studies suggest that corrections on phonology and lexis are more accurately perceived than morphosyntactic corrections by L2 learners and heritage speakers of different languages. Learners’ perceptions of CF have also been shown to be influenced by feedback type, where declarative recasts appear to be perceived more accurately than interrogative recasts (Kim & Han, 2007). Additionally, recasts that are shorter in length and involve few changes to the original utterance are more likely to be understood by learners (Egi, 2007). Generally speaking, direct CF is more likely to be noticed by learners than indirect CF (e.g. Rassaei, 2013; Yoshida, 2010). With respect to instructors, scholars have pointed out that teachers play a crucial role in the acquisition process given that they are often regarded as the primary providers of feedback in instructed learning settings (see Gurzynski-Weiss, 2014). As such, a growing number of studies have sought to understand the role of the instructor in the feedback provision process, particularly the types of feedback they choose to implement as well as their reasons behind feedback choices. In line with Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) seminal study on oral CF, many studies have reported a relatively higher use of recasts than any other corrective feedback type in language classrooms (e.g. Lee, 2013; Sung & Tsai, 2014; Yoshida, 2008). Recasts are a popular option due to time restrictions and instructors’ considerations of students’ affective states (Yoshida, 2008). Despite learners’ preferences for immediate CF, instructors appear to be mixed, citing the need to facilitate learning but also be sensitive to the affective needs of learners (Roothooft & Breeze, 2016). What reasons underlie instructors’ CF practices? This line of research has been spearheaded by Gurzynski-Weiss (2010, 2016), who proposed a taxonomy of instructor decision making with respect to CF based on individual characteristics of the instructor and their attention to specific learner and/or contextual factors. Specifically, previous language teaching experience, training in SLA and status as a (non-)native speaker have all been shown to influence instructors’ moment-by-moment CF-related decisions. In mixed and HL classrooms, Loza (2017, 2019) has shown how instructors’ CF practices are influenced by their language-related ideologies. His 2017 analysis of interview data revealed that instructors recognized HL learners’ varieties as valid and acceptable in the classroom, but their correction of nonstandard forms such as nadien, vuelvamos and dijieron suggested otherwise. In his 2019 study, which focused on one instructor of a mixed classroom, Loza found that the instructor expressed respect for her learners’ varieties of Spanish, but she perceived them as ‘corrupt’ versions of her own ‘standard’ variety (Colombian Spanish). The instructor explicitly corrected nonstandard forms such as nadien and dijistes, and there was a mismatch between her intention to provide clear and consistent feedback and her practice of recasting learner errors.

56  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

Guerrero-Rodríguez and Long (2022) recently explored instructors’ cited reasons for feedback provision in both mixed and HL Spanish classrooms. Their analysis of feedback episodes in classroom recordings revealed that feedback provision strategies varied notably across the four instructors, and all but one instructor produced EPAs as a form of feedback to students during instruction. Interview data revealed that instructors considered learners’ background (HL or L2) and their own beliefs of what learners needed or perceived when providing CF. These findings offer support for Gurzynski-Weiss’s (2016) taxonomy of in-the-moment decision making, which emphasizes instructors’ heavy consideration of learner factors when deciding what learner errors to correct and how. Previous research has also sought to determine the extent to which instructors’ and learners’ feedback-related perceptions and/or preferences overlap. For instance, Mackey et al. (2007) found that Arabic L2 learners’ perceptions and instructors’ intentions overlapped most when CF was delivered directly to the learner, and the linguistic target was morphology/ lexis. The least overlap was observed with phonological targets and when declarative recasts were employed by instructors. The authors suggest that, although their findings did not align with previous research, their results could be due to the coding system used: instructors’ comments were considered ‘gold standard’, and corrections on phonology (from the instructor’s perspective) may have been interpreted as lexis corrections by the learner. This could be the case, mostly, because of the phonological nature of the target language (e.g. minimal pairs). Saeb’s (2017) study on Iranian L2 English learners and instructors demonstrated overlap with respect to feedback on content, pronunciation, and stress/intonation errors but differences with respect to grammar and vocabulary: vocabularyrelated CF was perceived as more useful by instructors than by students, whereas the opposite was true for grammar. Beaudrie (2015) found more disagreement between students and instructors with respect to the importance of error correction in the Spanish HL classroom: while students tended to agree that all written and spoken errors be corrected, instructors somewhat agreed for written errors but somewhat disagreed for spoken errors. Survey comments further revealed a preference for immediate CF as well as more detailed feedback in writing. However, regardless of the vast research focused on corrective feedback, little is still known about learner’s perceptions of the CF and positive feedback they receive in class. The present study aims to shed light into this need in order to better satisfy learners’ needs and instructors’ training. The Present Study

The preceding review of literature shows that feedback is a common instructional practice that has garnered extensive attention in language acquisition research. The bulk of this research has focused

Feedback in the Mixed Classroom: What are Students’ Preferences and Perceptions?  57

on CF, although positive feedback should also be considered given its theoretical importance for language-based interaction. Findings related to the preferences and perspectives of both learners and instructors are generally mixed and point to the need to consider multiple factors related to characteristics of the learner and the learning context. In light of these considerations, the present study sought to identify learners’ preferences for instructor-provided feedback in mixed classrooms and to determine whether preferences differ by learner background (HL vs L2). This study additionally seeks to examine the extent to which learners’ perceptions of instructor-provided feedback align with their instructor’s intentions. The research questions that guided this study are as follows: (1) What are students’ preferences for instructor-provided feedback in mixed classrooms? (2) Do feedback preferences differ between HL and L2 learners? (3) Do students’ perceptions align with instructors’ intentions? Research setting and participants

The present study was carried out in a southwestern US university designated as a Hispanic-serving institution. At the time of data collection, 27.8% of the undergraduate students at this university were of Hispanic origin (Castro-Crist, 2017). Additionally, two distinct tracks of Spanish language study were offered by the Spanish program in the department: Spanish as a HL and Spanish as a L2. Both HL and L2 Spanish courses followed a student-centered approach, but course learning objectives were distinct. Heritage language courses were designed to promote an environment in which the socioaffective and linguistic needs of students were addressed and met (see Carreira, 2016). Second language courses, on the other hand, adopted a flipped teaching approach (e.g. Schmidt & Ralph, 2016) and were designed to promote students’ developing communicative competence in Spanish. This study involved two groups of participants1: learners enrolled in mixed Spanish language courses and the instructors who taught them. The learner participants included 28 students, 14 of whom were identified as HL learners (six female, eight male) and 14 of whom were identified as L2 learners (five female, nine male). Their ages ranged between 19 and 48 years (Media = 23.35 years). All learners were enrolled in one of two second semester (2000-level) Spanish language courses or a Spanish for health purposes (4000-level) course2. The lowerlevel language courses met the university language requirement, whereas the upper-level course met requirements for the Spanish major and minor. Nine of the 28 learner participants in the present study reported a major or minor in Spanish.

58  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

Table 3.1  Distribution of learner participants in recorded classroom meetings Class

Instructor

HL learner participants

L2 learner participants

Total

2000-level

Salvador

3

4

7

2000-level

Camila

5

6

11

4000-level

Daniela

6

3

9

Twenty-two students on average were enrolled in the Spanish courses from which learner participants were recruited. For the present study, only those students who were the target of instructor-provided feedback during the recorded class meetings (see next section) were included for participation. Table 3.1 presents the distribution of learner participants included from each class that was recorded for analysis in the present study, as well as the instructor (a pseudonym) for each class. Instructor participants included three graduate part-time instructors, Camila, Daniela and Salvador, all of whom were native or heritage speakers of Spanish. Their ages ranged from 35 to 39 years (M = 36.3 years), and each instructor had been teaching Spanish at the research site for at least two semesters. At the time of data collection, both Salvador and Camila were doctoral students who were still completing graduatelevel coursework, whereas Daniela was a doctoral candidate (i.e. had completed all degree requirements except the doctoral dissertation). A summary of several individual characteristics for each instructor participant is provided in Table 3.2. Table 3.2  Summary of instructor participants’ characteristics Individual characteristics

Daniela

Camila

Salvador

Sex

Female

Female

Male

Heritage speaker

Native speaker

Native speaker

35

39

35

Country of origin

US/Mexico

Mexico

Spain

Doctoral studies focus

Literature

Literature, Linguistics

Linguistics

Spanish teaching experience

4 years

8 years

8 years

Teaching experience at research site

3 years

2 years

8 months

Language background Age (years)

Materials and analysis

In order to address the aforementioned research questions, the present study adopted a mixed methods approach to data elicitation and analysis (see Creswell & Creswell, 2017). This approach is appropriate for the present study because we sought to not only identify students’ feedback preferences, but also explore their point of view and experiences with respect to their cited preferences. Further, inclusion of both qualitative and quantitative

Feedback in the Mixed Classroom: What are Students’ Preferences and Perceptions?  59

data are necessary to examine the extent to which learners’ backgrounds mediate their feedback preferences, as well as the extent to which feedback preferences match instructors’ intentions while providing feedback. Data for this study were collected using a combination of data elicitation materials, including recorded classroom meetings, semistructured interviews and questionnaires. Data collection commenced with a video recording of one classroom meeting for each of the classes listed in Table 3.1. Classes were recorded in order to identify feedback episodes as well as the learners who received feedback in each identified feedback episode. To identify feedback episodes, the authors separately watched each class recording and marked the time of every moment of interaction between the instructor and a learner during which feedback (both corrective and positive) was provided. The focus of this categorization was not on whether or not the learner repaired an utterance rather on the provision of feedback. The researchers were not present during any video-recorded class meetings. Each class meeting lasted for either 50 or 90 minutes and was recorded on a day that focused on review of grammar and vocabulary to facilitate the occurrence of CF episodes. In order to elicit learners’ feedback preferences (Research Question 1), semi-structured interviews were carried out by the first author with each individual learner participant. As mentioned previously, only those students who received feedback during the recorded class meeting were included as learner participants in the present study. During each interview, the researcher asked learners about their general feedback preferences as well as their preferences by error type (e.g. grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary) (see Appendix 3.1 for Interview Protocol). The researcher also played back for each learner a portion of the recorded lesson in which they received CF from their instructor. After watching the recorded CF episode, the researcher asked the learner why they thought they received feedback from the instructor (Research Question 3) and whether they thought the instructor’s feedback was useful or helpful. Semi-structured interviews with learners were conducted within a week after their class was recorded (and feedback episodes were identified by the first author). Each learner participant received feedback once on average during each recorded class meeting. Interviews were conducted in either Spanish or English based on the learner’s preference and lasted between 10 and 15 minutes. Learner participants also completed a background questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed to gather information related to learners’ demographics and prior experiences learning and using Spanish. This questionnaire also solicited in written form learners’ general opinions about receiving feedback in the classroom. Together with preference data gathered from semi-structured interviews, information from this questionnaire was used to determine whether learners’ feedback preferences differed by their status as HL or L2 learners (Research Question 2).

60  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

Lastly, during the individual semi-structured interviews with instructors, feedback episodes were played for them, and they were explicitly asked about their intentions for providing that specific type of feedback for that learner. Besides exploring their feedback intentions, instructors were also asked about their general feedback provision preferences, whether they provide their students with distinct types of feedback and their reasoning behind this distinction. After data from both the instructors and the learners were collected, instructors’ feedback intentions were examined alongside learners’ perceptions in order to identify whether they aligned (Research Question 3). Interviews were transcribed to facilitate data analysis, and a qualitative inductive analysis (Friedman, 2012; see also Creswell & Creswell, 2017) was followed to identify learner’s preferences and their perceptions of instructors’ intentions when providing feedback. In the next section, the results of this analysis will be presented. Results

In this section, results are divided into two main subsections. First, the quantitative and qualitative data describing learners’ feedback preferences will be presented. Second, qualitative data from selected portions of learner and instructor interviews are presented to examine the extent to which perspectives on recorded feedback episodes align. Learners’ feedback preferences

The feedback preferences of the 28 learners enrolled in mixed, university-level Spanish courses were elicited during individual semistructured interviews. Overall, there was a greater cited preference for indirect (n = 19) than direct (n = 7) CF. Two learners expressed a preference for both direct and indirect CF, and three learners expressed no specific feedback preferences. A preference for positive feedback was reported by nearly a quarter of all learner participants (n = 6). It is important to highlight that some learner participants cited a preference for more than one type of feedback, thus, a count for each feedback type cited was recorded. The findings for students’ oral feedback preferences by learner background (L2 or HL) are shown in Figure 3.1 (see Appendix 3.2 for counts). With respect to the general trend for cited feedback preferences (i.e. general preference for indirect CF), there were no major differences between HL and L2 learners. Both HL and L2 learners preferred indirect CF to direct CF, and a comparable proportion of HL and L2 learners reported a preference for positive feedback. Subtle differences were found with respect to the preference for direct CF: a greater proportion of L2 learners reported a preference for direct CF than HL learners.

Feedback in the Mixed Classroom: What are Students’ Preferences and Perceptions?  61

Figure 3.1  Feedback preferences by learner background (L2 or HL)

During interviews, learners were asked their reasons for their feedback preferences (both corrective and positive). It will be recalled that both HL and L2 learners generally preferred indirect CF in response to their errors, and, interestingly, each learner group cited the same reasons for this preference. Both HL and L2 learners reported a preference for indirect CF in order to have the opportunity to ‘figure out’ or come to the answer on their own, as illustrated in Examples (1) through (4). (1) I like indirect feedback because I can figure it out by myself and it gives you an idea of where you are at. (Ignacio, HL, 2000-level class) (2) Feedback indirecto porque me gusta think for myself. (Michelle, HL learner, 4000-level class) (3) I like to figure it out myself and the reason is because I feel like if I train my mind to figure it out by myself, my mind would get used that way to try harder. (Charles, L2 learner, 2000-level class) (4) I like the clues more because it helps me work through it, and I feel that if you actually work more for it, you’ll remember it more. (Valeria, L2 learner, 4000-level class) However, distinct themes were also apparent in the reasons cited by each learner group. For instance, HL learners desired feedback in order to (a) ‘correct their Spanish’ or know the ‘correct way of speaking Spanish’ and (b) avoid feeling embarrassed about their knowledge of the Spanish language given their Hispanic heritage. These reasons can be seen in Examples (5) through (8). (5) Me gusta que me corrijan porque quiero saber el español propio. No me hace tanta importancia el feedback positivo porque como ya

62  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

sé español, vale más que me corrijan que me digan algo bueno. No quiero escucharme como un maleducado. ‘I like them to correct me because I want to know proper Spanish. Positive feedback is not as important to me because since I already know Spanish, it matters more that they correct me than tell me something good’. (Norberto, HL learner, 4000-level class) (6) Me gusta que me corrijan porque sí quiero mejorar mi español, pero me da cosa decir algo mal enfrente de todos. ‘I like them to correct me because I do want to improve my Spanish, but it bothers me saying something wrong in front of everyone’. (Claudia, HL learner, 4000-level class) (7) Piensan que porque soy hispana sé todo y a veces sí me da vergüenza, pero prefiero que me de vergüenza aquí y que me corrijan a que esté en la calle y me miren y digan: ¿a dónde fuiste a la escuela? ‘They think because I’m Hispanic I know everything and sometimes yes I’m embarrassed, but I prefer to be embarrassed here and that they correct me than out there in the street and they look at me and tell me: where did you go to school?’. (Tatiana, HL learner, 2000-level class) (8) Sometimes I feel embarrassed, it depends on the day. I mixed tenses up. (Dulce, HL learner, 2000-level class) Second language learners likewise desired feedback in order to correct or ‘fix’ their language inaccuracies; however, unlike HL learners, L2 learners cited no affective reasons with respect to their feedback preferences (see Examples [9] and [10]). (9) I wanna do well until I know what I do wrong, so I can fix it. (Samantha, L2 learner, 2000-level class) (10) It allows me to know what is correct and what is not. (Janice, L2 learner, 4000-level class) With respect to positive feedback, few learners expressed a preference for this type of feedback alongside CF (three HL learners and three L2 learners). Learners who cited a preference for positive feedback reported that this kind of feedback serves to (a) help them confirm that their answers are correct (see Example [11]), (b) foster a positive classroom environment (see Examples [12] and [13]), or (c) make students feel more comfortable learning (see Example [14]). It is important to note that although some learners cited a preference for positive feedback, many of these learners indicated that CF was more useful than positive feedback (see Examples [11]–[13]). (11) I find feedback very useful. I enjoy the positive feedback because I am glad to know I am correct and that I am improving. Positive feedback is like getting a five star, like when you were little, [but]

Feedback in the Mixed Classroom: What are Students’ Preferences and Perceptions?  63

I prefer corrective feedback because when it is right, I know it’s right, but corrective feedback is more useful. (Marcela, HL learner, 2000-level class) (12) When I feel confident to give my answer, it’s a positive thing to have. Positive feedback helps with the environment. But I prefer the corrective feedback ’cause I want to know the correct way of speaking Spanish so that I am not learning the barrio Spanish. (Rodrigo, HL learner, 2000-level class) (13) I think the most important is the negative feedback, telling you where you messed up, so you can correct it, but I think establishing confidence in people learning how to speak is important as well. So, I think I will put more importance on the corrective rather than the positive feedback. (Cameron, L2 learner, 2000-level class) (14) Positive feedback makes me feel more comfortable, but I do appreciate a teacher who can give me corrective feedback because it means that they actually care what they are teaching about, and it helps me become better as L2 learning student because I am actually learning, as long as it done in a respectful manner. (Janice, L2 learner, 4000-level class) During individual interviews, learners were also asked to comment on the types of errors they preferred to have corrected. These findings are summarized in Table 3.3. Both HL and L2 learners cited a preference for feedback on grammar errors over other error types (i.e. word choice and pronunciation). However, notable differences between learner groups were observed with respect to pronunciation errors: a greater proportion of HL learners desired feedback on pronunciation errors than L2 learners. In fact, few L2 learners (n = 3) preferred feedback on their pronunciation errors and instead preferred feedback primarily on errors related to grammar and word choice. Cited reasons for feedback preferences by error type differed between HL learners and L2 learners. While the preferences of HL learners were primarily associated with more personal reasons (see Examples [15] and [16]), L2 learners’ preferences were primarily related to learning or academic reasons (see Examples [17] and [18]). However, one L2 learner (Janice, 4000-level class) reported a tendency to take feedback provision Table 3.3  Corrective feedback preferences by learner background (HL or L2) and error type (grammar, pronunciation and word choice) Learner

Grammar

Pronunciation

HL

11

7

Word Choice

L2

10

3

7

Total

21

10

14

7

Note. A preference for correction on two or more error types was cited by eight HL learners and five L2 learners. One student reported no error type feedback preference.

64  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

personally, citing that although her instructor (Daniela) ‘cares about her job’ and has never made her feel bad, she did not like ‘[...] getting feedback on pronunciation, because it is hard for [her] to fix. [She] takes it personally ’cause it is something [she] needs to fix personally’. (15) [...] gramática porque yo sé leer, escribir, pero a veces no recuerdo las reglas porque me gusta escribirle notas a mi abuelita y no quiero que ella no entienda. ‘[...] grammar because I know how to read, write but sometimes I don’t remember the rules because I like to write notes to my grandmother, and I don’t want her to not understand’. (Mario, HL learner, 2000-level class) (16) [...] I want to learn more for my dad. (Dulce, HL learner, 2000-level class) (17) [...] grammar because I am able to have a decent conversation in Spanish, but if I try to conjugate, that is pretty much a mess. (Hunter, L2 learner, 2000-level class) (18) [...] gramática, porque yo puedo escuchar y trabajar en eso por mí misma, pero gramática no. ‘[...] grammar, because I can listen and work on that myself, but not grammar’. (Nancy, L2 learner, 4000-level class) Learners’ perceptions and instructors’ intentions

In this section, we present a representative selection of the qualitative findings for learners’ perceptions of their instructors’ in-class feedback practices, as well as instructors’ reasons for providing feedback during specific feedback episodes. As a reminder, learners were shown specific feedback episodes during individual interviews and asked about their instructor’s reasoning behind feedback provision. Instructors were shown the same feedback episodes during separate, individual interviews and asked to explain their intentions behind feedback provision. In general, learners’ perceptions of their instructor’s reasons for providing feedback were accurate. This can be seen in Example (19), which presents a L2 learner’s cited perception of a feedback episode during which her instructor offered a metalinguistic explanation for an error in word choice (using maleta instead of maletero). The instructor’s reasoning behind offering this kind of feedback is shown in Example (20). In addition, Example (21) shows a HL learner’s perception of an elicitation episode for the word supe, and the instructor’s reasoning is presented in Example (22). (19) [...] I think like pointing out the difference there is important just because it’s easy to mistake and they’re the same, they’re almost the same word, and so, I think the way she did was a good way because a lot of us didn’t even connect the two. (Shannon, L2 learner, Camila’s 2000-level class)

Feedback in the Mixed Classroom: What are Students’ Preferences and Perceptions?  65

(20) [...] porque es una diferencia de significado enorme que puede afectar la comunicación. ‘Because there is a big difference in meaning that can affect communication’. (Camila, Instructor, 2000-level class) (21) [...] para que él [el estudiante] viera lo que hizo malo y le dio un clue para lo correcto y sí lo hizo [dar la respuesta correcta]. ‘So he [the student] could see what he did wrong and she gave him a clue for the right [answer] and he did give it [the correct answer]’. (Claudia, HL learner, Daniela’s 4000-level class) (22) [...] Acabamos de ver el subjuntivo… tu cerebro dice tú sepas, está conjugado correcto, pero no en el tiempo correcto. Entonces, les di la mitad de la respuesta para ayudarlos a llegar ahí y sí llegó. ‘We just saw the subjunctive ... your brain says tú sepas, it’s conjugated correct[ly], but not in the right tense. So, I gave them half of the answer to help them there and [they] did get it’. (Daniela, Instructor, 4000-level class) However, there were a few cases for which learners reported not having noticed their instructors’ correction, and this tended to be the case when instructors recasted the student’s error. For example, the feedback episode observed in (23) shows an instructor (Camila) recasting a student (Raul) error. (23) Camila: Son negras y llevan aire por dentro ‘They are black and have air inside’ Raul: Llanta ‘Tire’ Camila: Las llantas [emphasized] porque está preguntando en plural, son negras [emphasized] y tienen aire adentro ‘Tires because it’s asking in plural, they are black and have air inside’ When shown this feedback episode, the learner reported not noticing the instructor’s correction (pluralizing llanta), and further indicated that the instructor may have ‘repeated’ his answer for other classmates or to check grammar: ‘I didn’t even know I missed an s ... it was kind of hard for people to hear, or she repeated to check the grammar or ... that was good, everything’ (Raul, HL learner, Camila’s 2000-level class). The instructor, on the other hand, cited the learner’s status as a heritage speaker and indicated that she didn’t want to tell him he was wrong (see [24]). (24) Ah él es uno de los niños que se siente mal con su español, es de herencia … no le digo estás mal, pero vuelvo a repetir la oración correctamente y, si se puede, dar una breve explicación, porque en este caso la respuesta no era incorrecta, es la llanta, porque era vocabulario. Pero como a este punto se supone que ya conocen todos los tiempos verbales y no debe haber confusión, entonces tengo que enfatizar que si estoy preguntando, tú me tienes que responder en

66  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

plural. ‘Ah, he is one of the kids that feels bad about his Spanish, he’s a heritage [speaker] ... I don’t tell him “you’re wrong”, but I repeat the sentence correctly again and, if possible, give a brief explanation, because in this case the answer wasn’t incorrect, it’s the tire, because it was vocabulary. But like at this point it’s assumed that they already know all the verb tenses and there shouldn’t be confusion, so I have to emphasize that if I’m asking, you have to respond to me with the plural [form]’. (Camila, Instructor, 2000-level class) Additional feedback episodes in which the instructor provides a recast to correct student errors are shown in (25) and (26). (25) Carmen (Learner): Caperucita llego ‘Little Red Riding Hood arrivePRS-1SG’ Daniela: Llegó ‘arrived-PST-3SG’ (26) Joe (Learner): Todas las camareras son muy amables ‘All of the waitresses are very nice’ Salvador: Pero Gruñón dice… ‘But Grumpy says…’ Joe: No, ningún camarera es muy amable ‘No-M waitress is very nice’ Salvador: Ninguna camarera es muy amable ‘No-F waitress is very nice’ When played the feedback episode shown in (25), the learner stated ‘She does that a lot. So, sometimes you won’t think she is correcting you, but she is repeating you’ (Carmen, HL learner, Daniela’s 4000-level class). When shown the same feedback episode, the instructor indicated that she corrected the student in this way because there is a change of meaning involved and they had been learning or practicing the preterit: Cambia de significado y hasta de persona, entonces estamos viendo el pretérito y ese estaba en presente ... estábamos viendo el pretérito. Entonces, cambia de significado más que nada ‘It [the verb] changes meaning and even [grammatical] person, so we were seeing the preterit and that was in the present ... we were seeing the preterit. So, it changes in meaning more than anything’ (Daniela, Instructor, 4000-level class). Note that, generally, metalinguistic explanations were provided to both HL and L2 learners since the classes were mixed because of the types of learners enrolled and not because of the methodology they followed (see Carreira, 2016). In other words, since learners have been exposed to metalinguistic and explicit grammar explanations in class, their instructors may have expected that learners drew from these explanations when receiving metalinguistic feedback (e.g. Example [25]). With respect to the feedback episode shown in (26), the learner indicated ‘My accent is not strong or people probably wouldn’t understand what I was saying ... I was sitting at the front… so the camera could hear it’ (Joe, L2 learner, Salvador’s 2000-level class). His instructor stated the

Feedback in the Mixed Classroom: What are Students’ Preferences and Perceptions?  67

following when shown the same episode: Suelo repetir lo que ellos me dicen si está bien, sí lo repito y les digo perfecto… supongo que para que me escuchen el resto, para que me escuchen mi pronunciación quizá y para, bueno, para mantener también el contacto y para enfatizar más la respuesta. ‘I usually repeat what they tell me if it’s okay, yes I repeat it and I tell them “perfect” … I suppose so the rest will hear me, so they hear my pronunciation perhaps and for, well, to also maintain contact and to emphasize the answer more’ (Salvador, Instructor, 2000-level class). In sum, regardless of the type of learner, learners’ perceptions of instructors’ CF practices generally matched instructors’ cited intentions or reasoning. However, as presented in the aforementioned feedback episodes (see Examples [23]–[26]), learners’ perceptions were less likely to match their instructors’ intentions when instructors recasted learner errors. Also, as we will further discuss in the following section, although both types of learners expected to receive CF in order to improve their Spanish skills, their reasons to prefer this type of feedback differed. Discussion Summary and discussion of findings

This study sought to explore students’ preferences for instructorprovided CF in mixed classrooms (Research Question 1), whether these feedback preferences differed between HL and L2 learners (Research Question 2), and whether students’ perceptions aligned with their instructors’ intentions (Research Question 3). Results for the first and second research questions revealed that both HL and L2 learners preferred indirect CF in order to correct their linguistic ‘inaccuracies’ and to improve their knowledge of the language. Learners cited the opportunity to ‘think for themselves’ as the main reason for this preference. These findings align with Yoshida (2008), who uncovered the same reason for preferring indirect CF among L2 Japanese learners. However, HL learners in the present study cited socioaffective reasons alongside linguistic reasons when expressing their preference for indirect CF. Unlike L2 learners, the HL learners cited CF as a way to learn the ‘correct’ way of speaking Spanish and to avoid feeling embarrassed and being subject to corrections when speaking Spanish outside of the classroom. These findings lend additional support for what is known about the linguistic insecurities (also interpreted as linguistic inferiority derived from the low and/or lack of recognition of the skills in the HL) that HL learners experience (Carreira, 2000; Gonzalez, 2011), as well as perception of their own varieties as a non-prestigious variety of Spanish (e.g. Ducar, 2012; Leeman, 2012). It is worth noting that, in the present study, this was shown to be the case in a mixed classroom setting and

68  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

despite the lack of negative perceptions of HL learners’ varieties by instructors (cf. Loza, 2017, 2019). An additional finding regarding learners’ preferences was that positive feedback was not a preferred feedback type, and this was the case regardless of background (HL or L2). Moreover, none of the participants mentioned that they preferred positive feedback only. Although this kind of feedback may encourage a positive classroom environment and promote additional opportunities for interaction and learning in the target language (see Hellerman, 2003; Reigel, 2008), findings from the present study suggest that learners do not necessarily view positive feedback as a practice that facilitates learning. When learners were asked about the kinds of errors for which they preferred to receive feedback, grammar-related corrections were preferred over errors related to word choice and pronunciation for both HL and L2 learners. However, cited reasons for these preferences differed between learner groups, whereby HL learners expressed personal reasons and L2 learners tended to express learning- or academic-related reasons. These findings generally align with previous research that has shown that learners’ feedback preferences appear to vary by error type (Sung & Tsai, 2014; Yang, 2016), although learners’ specific preferences by error type were not examined in the present study. Interestingly, Guerrero-Rodríguez and Long (2022) found that the vast majority of instructor-provided feedback targeted L2 learners, who received primarily grammar corrections. HL learners, on the other hand, received feedback primarily related to word choice (i.e. different options for expressing the same idea). These findings point to a potential mismatch between learners’ feedback-related preferences and instructors’ feedbackprovision practices that is more pronounced for HL than L2 learners. It is commonly assumed that HL learners’ phonetic domain has benefitted from early exposure to the HL (Au et al., 2008), an advantage that L2 learners do not share. Additionally, due to this early exposure, the HL learner lexicon is typically restricted to the home environment (e.g. Blake & Zyzik, 2003) given that they do not usually receive formal instruction in the HL (e.g. Carreira, 2016). It is unclear the degree to which instructors in the present study are aware of these acquisitional circumstances, but this may have influenced instructors’ decisions and practices related to differential feedback provision for HL learners. Future research should explore this idea in greater depth in order to complement what is known about the influence of instructors’ previous experience, language ideologies, and pedagogical training in their feedback-related beliefs and practices (Gurzynski-Weiss, 2016; Loza, 2017, 2019). A final finding of note in the present study is that learners’ perceptions about instructor-provided feedback generally aligned with their instructors’ intentions. In the few instances where learners did not perceive their instructor’s correction or cited a reason that was distinct

Feedback in the Mixed Classroom: What are Students’ Preferences and Perceptions?  69

from the instructor’s intention, the instructor employed a recast to indirectly correct the learner’s error. This finding supports previous research that has shown that learners are more likely to notice direct CF than indirect CF (Rassaei, 2013; Yoshida, 2010), and learners’ perceptions and instructors’ intentions overlap most when CF is delivered directly (Mackey et al., 2007). Coupled with the attested effectiveness of direct CF (as opposed to indirect CF; Li, 2010), a key takeaway from this finding is that careful consideration of and reflection on feedbackrelated practices on the part of both learners and instructors may stand to enhance opportunities for learning in the classroom. Recommendations for practice

In what follows, we offer a concise set of practical recommendations for prospective and in-service language instructors in mixed classrooms. These recommendations are based on the findings of the present study as well as our experience with the learners and instructors who participated in our study. Get to know your students. Mixed classrooms are heterogeneous by nature, which means that there is a rich diversity of learner backgrounds in this particular instructional setting. Distribute a brief survey at the beginning of your course to get to know your students. In addition to inquiring about their experience with the target language (both inside and outside of the classroom), consider adding questions that will give you an idea of their personal relationship with the language, as well as their preferences and expectations for feedback. Reflect on your beliefs and practices. There is also a rich diversity of instructor backgrounds in language classrooms, therefore it is important for instructors to reflect on what they bring to the classroom and what this means for students and their language learning experiences. We have created an ‘Instructor Reflection Worksheet’ (see Appendix 3.3) that offers questions for guided self-reflection. Consider engaging in reflection regularly to examine how your beliefs and perceptions change over time. Additionally, consider having one or two class meetings recorded in order to observe your teaching practices and examine them alongside your stated beliefs. Check in with your students about your feedback practices. A consistent finding in research on learners’ perceptions of instructorprovided feedback is that recasts are misinterpreted or confusing for students, and the same was true in the present study. Maintain regular communication with your students to gauge whether your feedback practices are ‘reaching’ them as intended. This includes written as well as oral feedback, as certain conventions or practices may not be equally useful or helpful for all learners: A veces es difícil el código para corregir A Escribir porque no hay ORT a veces estoy confundido, pero yo lo hago

70  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

‘Sometimes the code is confusing to correct A Escribir because there is no ORT, sometimes I’m confused, but I do it’ (Mario, HL, Salvador’s 2000-level class). Explicitly state your intentions when providing corrections. Special attention should be given to lexical (and grammatical) corrections in order to explicitly state that CF does not intend to replace HL learners’ Spanish knowledge rather to expand it. HL learners should be aware that register and CF are not mutually exclusive. Without explicitly stating your intentions, HL learners may believe that corrections are due to their ‘incorrect’ way of speaking Spanish, as demonstrated in the following quote taken from an interview with a HL learner: Yo también solamente supe esa palabra de dentadura, yo no supe que era dentadura postiza. So, aprendiendo que esa es la palabra que se usa, es bueno, me gusta que nos corrija, me diga la palabra que es, en vez de la palabra que creo que es ‘I also just learned that word dentures, I didn’t know that it was dentures [with postiza]. So, learning that that is word that is used, is good, I like her to correct us, tell me what the word is, instead of the word I think it is’ (Michelle, HL learner, Daniela’s 4000-level class). Balance corrective feedback with positive feedback. Positive feedback was usually perceived as less useful than CF by the majority of learners in the present study. However, this observation does not intend to suggest that positive feedback should be disregarded. Maintain a balance between positive and CF to foster a positive learning environment where learners do not feel judged but supported (see Examples [11]–[14]). Reduce linguistic anxiety. Both HL and L2 learners preferred indirect CF, and HL learners preferred this feedback strategy to a greater degree than L2 learners (see Guerrero-Rodríguez & Long, 2022, for further reference). With respect to HL learners, consider employing more indirect feedback strategies in order to give them the opportunity to recall an answer or correct their output while avoiding feeling embarrassed and possibly ashamed for not speaking their language ‘correctly’. This is especially important in a mixed classroom, where HL learners may be ambivalent about their experience when comparing themselves with their L2 classmates (Blake & Zyzik, 2003). Providing indirect feedback for HL and L2 learners may help to reduce the stress that they may experience while being ‘on the spot’ as well as any anxieties related to speaking the language (e.g. Prada et al., 2020). Embrace linguistic diversity. Examine the following quotes taken from learner interviews in the present study. Each of these quotes illustrates and reinforces the idea that learners, particularly HL learners, bring a wealth of knowledge about the language to the classroom. • A veces Salvador dice palabras que los estudiantes no saben, entonces yo digo las palabras que saben para ayudarlos ‘Sometimes Salvador

Feedback in the Mixed Classroom: What are Students’ Preferences and Perceptions?  71

says words that students don’t know, so I say the words they know to help them’. (Mario, HL learner, Salvador’s 2000-level class) • Because I am not used to that word ‘parachoques’, so I had to ask my mom what it meant. I prefer more individualized feedback because I know a little bit more Spanish than my classmates do, and I know some words that are not the correct words he knows because he is from Spain, and I know Spanish from Mexico. Sometimes I get the answer wrong because I know other words, but I am perfectly fine with Salvador correcting me. (Marcela, HL learner, Salvador’s 2000-level class) • There are many things I don’t understand because he is from Spain and my family is mostly from Mexico. (Ignacio, HL learner, Salvador’s 2000-level class) Linguistic diversity is inherent to language, and exposing learners to multiple varieties is important for developing sociolinguistic competence (e.g. Canale & Swain, 1980). Have a discussion with your students that addresses the importance of embracing linguistic diversity. In doing so, students’ own varieties are validated, and feedback related to variation in the target language may be interpreted as expanding, rather than replacing, learners’ knowledge of the language. Conclusion

The present study sought to explore the feedback preferences of HL and L2 learners of Spanish in mixed classrooms, as well as the extent to which learners’ perceptions aligned with their instructors’ intentions for feedback provision. Results exhibited a consistent preference for indirect feedback by both groups of learners. These findings are in line with those of Yoshida (2008) who reported that L2 Japanese learners prefer indirect feedback due to mainly academic reasons; however, in the present study, HL learners’ reasons to also prefer this type of feedback were associated with socioaffective factors. In addition, although none of the learner participants mentioned positive feedback as their preferred type of feedback when compared to CF, some learners mentioned that positive feedback helped reassure them that their answer was correct and helped with the class environment (see Hellerman, 2003; Reigel, 2008). These findings support the pedagogical recommendations proposed in the present study about balancing positive and CF. In terms of feedback preferences, learners expressed that they expect to receive corrections mostly on grammar, although previous research has shown that HL learners are usually provided with positive feedback (Guerrero-Rodríguez & Long, 2022). Interestingly, HL learners expressed a desire to receive feedback because they wanted to learn the ‘correct’ way of speaking Spanish, therefore we encourage

72  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

educators to explicitly state their intentions when providing lexical and/or grammatical corrections in order to discourage learners’ beliefs that their own varieties are not valid. Feedback provision should also be a tool to validate students’ language as diversity is celebrated in the classroom. In addition, unsurprisingly, L2 learners stated their expectations to also receive CF in order to improve their skills in the target language, although their reasons were not tied to personal motivations. Overall, learners’ perceptions matched with their instructors’ intentions when providing feedback. The few instances where there was a mismatch occurred during recasts, a finding that is consistent with previous research (Rassaei, 2013; Yoshida, 2010). On the whole, as suggested in the previous section, educators should reflect on their feedback practices, constantly check with their students about these practices and, most importantly, get to know their students in order to help them reduce linguistic anxiety and embrace linguistic diversity. In what follows, we provide a list of further reading that complement this chapter. Further Reading Burgo, C. (2016) Perceptions of L2 Spanish learners in the mixed classroom. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de Lenguas 20, 60–67. Burgo, C. (2018) Meeting student needs: Integrating Spanish heritage language learners into the second language classroom. Hispania 100 (5), 45–50. Campanaro, T.G. (2013) Spanish heritage speakers and second language learners in mixed classrooms: Perceptions of students and instructors. Unpublished dissertation, University of Alberta, Canada. Campos, L.V. (2008) Corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Literatura y lingüística 19, 283–292. Loza, S. (2021) Oral corrective feedback in the Spanish heritage language context. In S.M. Beaudrie and S. Loza (eds) Heritage Language Teaching: Critical Language Awareness Perspectives for Research and Pedagogy. New York: Routledge. Lyster, R. (2001) Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language learning 51, 265–301. Sheen, Y. and Ellis, R. (2011) Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 593–610). New York: Routledge. Van der Kleij, F. (2021) Teacher and student perceptions of oral classroom feedback practices: a video-stimulated recall study. The Australian Educational Researcher, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00478-0. Van Ha, X. and Nguyen, L.T. (2021) Targets and sources of oral corrective feedback in English as a foreign language classrooms: Are students’ and teachers’ beliefs aligned? Frontiers in Psychology 12, 1–10. Weissheimer, J. and Caldas, V.O. (2020) The effects of implicit and explicit classroom feedback on bilingual speech production. Prolíngua 15 (2), 198–211. Wilson, D.V. and Pascual y Cabo, D. (2019) Linguistic diversity and student voice: The case of Spanish as a heritage language. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 6 (2), 170–181.

Feedback in the Mixed Classroom: What are Students’ Preferences and Perceptions?  73

Beyond the Reading (1) What is the role of corrective and positive feedback in the mixed classroom? (2) Based on the study’s findings, do the intentions of the instructor match the perceptions of the learners who receive feedback? Explain. (3) According to the study’s findings, do learners’ expectations differ based on their background (i.e. HL vs L2)? Explain. (4) Review the Recommendations for Practice. Which recommendation would be the easiest to implement in your classroom, and why? Which recommendation do you find most challenging, and what can you do to implement it?

Notes (1) Pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of participants. (2) The 4000-level class and one of the 2000-level classes were 50 minutes in length. The other 2000-level class was 90 minutes in length.

References Au, T.K.F., Oh, J.S., Knightly, L.M., Jun, S.A. and Romo, L.F. (2008) Salvaging a childhood language. Journal of Memory and Language 58 (4), 998–1011. Beaudrie, S.M. (2015) Instructional effectiveness in the SHL classroom: Comparing teacher and student perceptions. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 14 (3), 274–297. Blake, R.J. and Zyzik, E.C. (2003) Who’s helping whom?: Learner/heritage-speakers’ networked discussions in Spanish. Applied Linguistics 24 (4), 519–544. Brown, D. (2016) The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research 20 (4), 436–458. Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ applin/I.1.1 (accessed 23 July 2022). Carreira, M. (2000) Validating and promoting Spanish in the U.S.: Lessons from linguistic science. Bilingual Research Journal 24, 423–442. Carreira, M. (2016) A general framework and supporting strategies for teaching mixed classes. In D. Pascual y Cabo (ed.) Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp. 159–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Castro-Crist, A. (2017) Texas Tech meets enrollment criteria to qualify as Hispanic-Serving Institution. Texas Tech Today, 14 September. See https://today.ttu.edu/posts/2017/09/ hispanic-serving-institution#:~:text=With%20a%20record%20enrollment%20 of,the%20U.S.%20Department%20of%20Education.&text=Total%20enrollment%20 for%20the%20university%20is%2037%2C010%2C%20also%20a%20record. Creswell, J.W. and Creswell, J.D. (2017) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. DeRobles, G. (2019) The effects of type of written corrective feedback and level of proficiency on processing and accuracy in heritage language learners of Spanish. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. Ducar, C. (2012) SHL learners’ attitudes and motivations: Reconciling opposite forces. In S. Beaudrie and M. Fairclough (eds) Spanish as a Heritage Language in the US: State of the Field (pp. 161–178). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

74  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

Egi, T. (2007) Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29 (4), 511–537. Ellis, R. (2009) Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19, 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x (accessed 23 July 2022). Ellis, R. (2017) Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: What we know so far. In H. Nassaji and E. Kartchava (eds) Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory, Applications, Implications (pp. 3–18). New York: Routledge. Ellis, R., Loewen, S. and Erlam, R. (2006) Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 339–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141 (accessed 23 July 2022). Fagan, D.S. (2014) Beyond ‘Excellent!’: Uncovering the systematicity behind positive feedback turn construction in ESL classrooms. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language) 8 (1), 45–63. Friedman, D.A. (2012) How to collect and analyze qualitative data. In A. Mackey and S.M. Gass (eds) Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition: A Practical Guide (pp. 180–200). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Gass, S.M. and Lewis, K. (2007) Perceptions of interactional feedback: Differences between heritage language learners and non-heritage language learners. In A. Mackey (ed.) Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies (pp. 79–99). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gonzalez, G. (2011) Spanish heritage language maintenance: The relationship between language use, linguistic insecurity, and social networks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona. Gooch, R., Saito, K. and Lyster, R. (2016) Effects of recasts and prompts on L2 pronunciation development: Teaching English /ɹ/ to Korean adult EFL learners. System 60, 117–127. Guerrero-Rodríguez, P. and Long, A. (2022) Exploring instructor feedback provision in heritage language and mixed heritage-second language classrooms. Spanish as a Heritage Language 2 (1), 1–36. Gurzynski-Weiss, L.K. (2010) Factors influencing oral corrective feedback provision in the Spanish foreign language classroom: Investigating instructor native/nonnative speaker status, second language acquisition education, & teaching experience. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2014) Instructor characteristics and classroom-based SLA of Spanish. In K.L. Geeslin (ed.) The Handbook of Spanish Second Language Acquisition (pp. 530–546). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2016) Factors influencing Spanish instructors’ in-class feedback decisions. The Modern Language Journal 100 (1), 255–275. Hellermann, J. (2003) The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: Teacher repetition in feedback moves. Language in Society 32 (1), 79–104. Kang, E. and Han, Z. (2015) The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal 99 (1), 1–18. Kasper, G. (2006) Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA Review 19 (1), 83–99. Kim, J.H. and Han, Z. (2007) Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher intent and learner interpretation overlap. In A. Mackey (ed.) Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies (pp. 269–297). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J.P. and Thorne, S.L. (2006) The Sociogenesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lee, E.J.E. (2013) Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System 41 (2), 217–230.

Feedback in the Mixed Classroom: What are Students’ Preferences and Perceptions?  75

Lee, A.H. and Lyster, R. (2016) The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38 (1), 35–64. Lee, A.H. and Lyster, R. (2017) Can corrective feedback on second language speech perception errors affect production accuracy? Applied Psycholinguistics 38 (2), 371–393. Leeman, J. (2012) Investigating language ideologies in Spanish as a heritage language. Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States: The State of the Field (pp. 43–60). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Li, S. (2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60 (2), 309–365. Li, S. (2014) Oral corrective feedback. ELT Journal 68 (2), 196–198. Long, M.H. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press. Loza, S. (2017) Transgressing standard language ideologies in the Spanish heritage language (SHL) classroom. Chiricù Journal: Latina/o Literature, Art, and Culture 1 (2), 56–77. Loza, S. (2019) Exploring language ideologies in action: An analysis of Spanish heritage language oral corrective feedback in the mixed classroom setting. Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe. Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19 (1), 37–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034. Lyster, R., Saito, K. and Sato, M. (2013) Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching 46 (1), 1–40. Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A. and Nakatsukasa, K. (2007) Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1 (1), 129–152. Montrul, S. and Bowles, M. (2008) Negative evidence in instructed heritage language acquisition: A preliminary study of differential object marking. In M. Bowles, R. Foote, S. Perpiñán and R. Bhatt (eds) Proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 252–262). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Montrul, S. and Bowles, M. (2010) Is grammar instruction beneficial for heritage language learners? Dative case marking in Spanish. Heritage Language Journal 7 (1), 47–73. Park, E.S., Song, S. and Shin, Y.K. (2016) To what extent do learners benefit from indirect written corrective feedback? A study targeting learners of different proficiency and heritage language status. Language Teaching Research 20 (6), 678–699. Pavlenko, A. and Lantolf, J.P. (2000) Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J.P. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 155–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prada, J., Guerrero-Rodríguez, P. and Pascual y Cabo, D. (2020) Heritage language anxiety in two Spanish language classroom environments: A comparative mixed methods study. Heritage Language Journal 17 (1), 92–113. Rassaei, E. (2013) Corrective feedback, learners’ perceptions, and second language development. System 41 (2), 472–483. Roberts, A. and Perrins, R. (1995) Positive feedback as a general mechanism for sustaining rhythmic and non-rhythmic activity. Journal of Physiology-Paris 89 (4–6), 241–248. Reigel, D. (2008) Positive feedback in pairwork and its association with ESL course level promotion. TESOL Quarterly 42 (1), 79–98. Roothooft, H. and Breeze, R. (2016) A comparison of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral corrective feedback. Language Awareness 25 (4), 318–335.

76  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

Saeb, F. (2017) Students’ and teachers’ perceptions and preferences for oral corrective feedback: Do they match? International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature 6 (4), 32–44. Schmidt, S.M. and Ralph, D.L. (2016) The flipped classroom: A twist on teaching. Contemporary Issues in Education Research 9 (1), 1–6. Sheen, Y. (2010) Introduction: The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32 (2), 169–179. Song, M., O’Grady, W., Cho, S. and Lee, M. (1997) The learning and teaching of Korean in community schools. The Korean Language in America 2, 111–127. Sung, K.Y. and Tsai, H.M. (2014) Exploring student errors, teachers’ corrective feedback (CF), learner uptake and repair, and learners’ preferences of CF. The Journal of Language Learning and Teaching 4 (1), 37–54. Valentín-Rivera, L. (2016) Activity theory in Spanish mixed classrooms: Exploring corrective feedback as an artifact. Foreign Language Annals 49 (3), 615–634. Waring, H.Z. (2008) Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal 92 (4), 577–594. Wong, J. and Waring, H.Z. (2009) ‘Very good’ as a teacher response. ELT Journal 63 (3), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn042 (accessed 23 July 2022). Yang, J. (2016) Learners’ oral corrective feedback preferences in relation to their cultural background, proficiency level and types of error. System 61, 75–86. Yoon, H. (2018) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in Spanish heritage and second language learner interaction. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Yoshida, R. (2008) Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness 17 (1), 78–93. Yoshida, R. (2010) How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? The Modern Language Journal 94 (2), 293–314.

Feedback in the Mixed Classroom: What are Students’ Preferences and Perceptions?  77

Appendix 3.1: Interview Protocol

(1) Do you think that feedback is useful? Why or why not? (2) Why do you think your instructor provides you with feedback? (3) What kind of oral feedback do you prefer to receive: indirect or direct? Why? (4) What is your opinion about positive feedback? (5) What kind of mistakes do you prefer to receive feedback on, for example: word choice, pronunciation, grammar? (6) When you receive written feedback, do you prefer direct or indirect? Why?

Appendix 3.2: Learners’ Feedback Preferences by Background (HL or L2) Learner

Direct CF

Indirect CF

Positive Feedback

HL (n = 14)

2

10

3

L2 (n = 13)

5

9

3

Total

7

19

6

78  Part 1: Language Pedagogy

Appendix 3.3: Instructor Reflection Worksheet

(1) Describe your relationship with the language you teach. (2) How does your relationship with the language compare with your students’ relationship with the language? (3) What are your opinions about providing feedback in the classroom? (4) When and how do you provide feedback in the classroom? Would you say your feedback strategies are direct, indirect or a combination of the two? (5) Reflect on how you provide feedback to students who are HL learners and those who are L2 learners. Is it different? Explain. (6) Do you provide a combination of corrective and positive feedback? Have you noticed any tendency to provide more of one type to HL learners than L2 learners, or vice versa? (7) Do you consider learners’ own varieties of the language when you provide feedback? Explain. (8) How do your feedback practices compare with your students’ preferences? (9) How do you believe your students react or respond to your feedback? Do you consider their affective needs? Elaborate, noting any possible differences between HL and L2 learners. (10) Optional: Watch your recorded lesson to compare your answer to #4 with what you observe yourself doing in the classroom. Focus on general behaviors and practices rather than isolated or atypical behaviors. If possible, make note of how your students react or respond when you provide feedback.

Part 2 Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations: Language Identity in Mixed Classrooms

4 Bridging Gaps in Mixed-Class Settings Marta Ramirez Martinez

Even with the growth of the Spanish-speaking population in the United States and the creation of specific courses for HL learners in many institutions, mixed second language (L2) and heritage language (HL) classes still seem to be the norm (Bowles & Montrul, 2014; Henshaw & Bowles, 2015; Lynch, 2008). This has led to the proposal of mixed language pedagogies that both exploit the different students’ skills and challenge their individual needs to bridge the linguistic and cultural differences – or gaps – between the two student populations. This study provides a qualitative analysis of the perception that L2 and HL students have after taking a mixed language course. This course had a high component of content-based instruction (CBI) on the individual effects of Latino immigration to the United States, which provided an opportunity for L2 students to learn via authentic materials on a topic relatively unfamiliar to them, and an opportunity to engage HL learners via topics that were meaningful to them. Topic-related readings, documentaries, debates, compositions and other written activities were carefully selected to allow for differentiated instruction, that is, tasks were adapted to exploit and challenge the diverse linguistic and affective needs of the two groups. At the end of the course, students filled out a questionnaire, which was analyzed qualitatively. In line with previous studies (Campanaro, 2013; Edstrom, 2007; Henshaw, 2015; Potowski, 2002), the findings showed that L2 learners appreciated the linguistic gains obtained from HL learners’ target language (TL) input and knowledge but reported feelings of intimidation stemming from their perceived different proficiency levels. Therefore, whereas linguistic aspects of learning were reportedly successful, affective aspects could still be playing an important role in L2 students’ learning process: negative emotions (such as intimidation) can heighten the affective filter and hinder learning. HL learners, on their end, were appreciative and aware of mutual L2–HL learner contributions. Regarding content, L2 learners displayed positive attitudes towards immigrants in the United States, and an interest to serve that population in their future endeavors. 81

82  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

On the other hand, HL learners felt empowered by being able to contribute to the discussions on a topic that was relatable to their own experiences. Specific pedagogical examples on how to implement this in the mixed language classroom are discussed in this study. It is widely known that all classrooms present a diverse student body in terms of learning styles and needs, student backgrounds and levels. The language classroom presents an additional level of diversity: the type of contact students had with the TL. Second language learners, for one, generally experience their L2 only in a formal, instructional context in high school or college. Heritage language learners, on the other hand, grow up hearing and/or using the language in a natural environment (Beaudrie et al., 2014). Traditionally, language teaching has held the belief that ‘one size fits all’, that is, it has been motivated by a curriculumcentered teaching, without attending to individual learner differences (Carreira, 2015). However, a growing body of research has addressed how to face such diversity to better suit the needs of all students in the classroom (Colombi & Alarcón, 1997; Potowski, 2002; Valdés et al., 2006). In fact, some scholars have found benefits of and advocate for mixed learning situations. Burgo (2017) and Bowles (2011), for instance, suggest that, when maximizing the different skillsets that each group brings into the classroom, there can be some benefits to mixed groups. The use of collaborative group work, in which each type of student assists the other group with tasks that are more challenging to them, can prove beneficial for both L2 and HL learners. Specifically, Bowles (2011) suggests that, on written tasks, L2 learners could assist HL learners with spelling and accents, and HL learners could help increase L2 learners’ lexicon. At more advanced levels of language instruction, Lynch (2008) suggests that the linguistic similarities between the two groups (at the morphological, syntactic and lexical levels) could justify the use of the same principles and practices of communicative language teaching as put forth in Second Language Acquisition. In any case, most scholars agree that beginning and intermediate HL and L2 learners differ vastly in terms of linguistic, cultural and affective aspects, which makes separate courses or tracks the best option to address such differences (Colombi & Alarcón, 1997; Potowski, 2002; Valdés et al., 2006). This, however, is not always possible in most US institutions of higher education, where administrative, economic or other factors lead to placing both L2 and HL learners in mixed classes. In response to this situation, finding ways to accommodate a diverse student population is of special importance (Beaudrie, 2012; Beaudrie et al., 2014). In those scenarios, in which placing HL learners in a separate track or course is not possible, it is essential to provide a differentiated instruction that attends to both student populations. The present study provides specific pedagogical examples on how to address differentiated instruction for a mixed language classroom.

Bridging Gaps in Mixed-Class Settings   83

L2 and HL Learners: Profile and Needs

L2 and HL learners differ greatly in several aspects, namely age of exposure to the language, learning context, language variety, connection to the language and culture and type of proficiencies according to skill (writing/speaking/listening/reading) (Beaudrie et al., 2014). As mentioned above, whereas L2 learners are first exposed to the TL in high school or college, HL learners are exposed to it at a very young age. This entails certain strengths in HL learners, such as a native-like pronunciation, as well as a knowledge of syntactic structures and vocabulary. The advantages over L2 learners vary significantly depending on their exposure to the HL, but even a low-proficiency HL learner tends to perform better in phonology and oral comprehension than an L2 learner (Beaudrie et al., 2014). Apart from the age of acquisition, the learning context also entails relevant differences between both groups. L2 learners are first exposed to standard varieties at school via formal instruction. Differently, HL learners are exposed to – typically – nonstandard varieties in a natural environment at home or in the community. Given the context of exposure, the connection to the language and culture is normally academic for the L2 learner, who studies the L2 as an ‘object of study’ (Carreira & Kagan, 2011). Contrastingly, as mentioned in Carreira and Kagan’s survey, a large majority (80%) of HL learners reportedly hold a deep connection to the language as part of their bilingual identity, that is, their needs are related to a desire to reconnect to their cultural heritage, to communicate with family and members of their community and develop their sense of belonging. Finally, given that the L2 learner starts a language program and follows a set curriculum on linguistic aspects, it is highly predictable to know what an L2 student knows at the beginning, intermediate and advanced levels. Differently, the varying nature of language exposure in HL learners makes it very difficult to predict their proficiency in the HL once they reach college. They can be at any point within the bilingual spectrum: some have received some type of schooling in the HL and thus display receptive and productive skills in both a colloquial and a standard variety, some perform as Spanish monolinguals in daily-life non-academic contexts only but lack proficiency in academic contexts, some understand the HL well but present lower-level limited production skills and some only have receptive skills in their HL and no production skills (Bowles et al., 2014; García & Otheguy, 1997; Potowski, 2005; Roca, 2001; Valdés, 1997). The huge variation in terms of previous HL exposure and use makes it hard to categorize HL learners as a homogeneous group (Montrul, 2011). Despite having this varied profile there are some commonalities (Campbell & Rosenthal, 2000; Valdés, 1997, 2000). For instance, the variety of Spanish they bring to the

84  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

classroom presents features that are typical of languages in contact, such as codeswitching, loanwords, calques, semantic expressions, archaisms, etc. (Potowski, 2005). The lack of schooling in the HL has limited the development of alphabetization skills in the HL, especially in formal or academic registers (Acevedo, 2003; Colombi, 2003). Many HL learners sometimes display advanced comprehension or production skills but are many times limited to informal registers. Additionally, the varieties that HL learners bring into the classroom are usually nonstandard and might be stigmatized by prescriptive ideologies that glorify standard varieties, which have been imposed by Language Academies for centuries and which have traditionally been followed by institutions and language instructors. These ideologies may (and do) negatively affect the linguistic attitudes towards their variety and self-confidence in the HL (Alarcón, 2010; Beaudrie & Ducar, 2005). In light of these differences, it is commonly acknowledged that HL learners should be taught using different pedagogical strategies. For the last thirty years, the field of Foreign Language Teaching has been defined by the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project, 2006), a publication based on input by foreign language educators and by professional language associations. According to this document, students follow a curriculum that helps them develop different skills steadily. As Carreira (2015) explains, the L2 learner benefits from micro-approaches, which are characterized by providing students with a more controlled and selected vocabulary, smaller texts, sentence-level writings, restricted speaking and listening skills and isolated cultural aspects, all of which gradually increase in complexity throughout the course and language program. These microbased approaches work well with L2 learners because they need help accessing authentic materials and because they are used to focusing on form. In contrast, HL learners are better served when taught using macroapproaches: vocabulary dictated by function and context, complex texts with an integrated emphasis on content, stylistics, grammar and spelling, a full range of native input and integrated cultural topics. Macro-based teaching is useful with HL learners since they already hold some functional abilities in the HL and because their natural focus falls on content. Each group of students has a very unique set of abilities and needs. These differences are the justification for the creation of separate tracks or courses per group at US institutions of higher education. However, certain factors continue to hinder separation in many institutions and the result is that both L2 and HL learners are placed inside the same classrooms. These classes often follow L2 pedagogical practices, which teach to the L2 learners but neglect the specific needs of the HL learners in those classes. The next section summarizes the current situation in mixed classes, the challenges posed by having a mixed crowd and the solutions that have been proposed in previous studies.

Bridging Gaps in Mixed-Class Settings   85

Status Quo: Mixed Classes

The demographic changes that the United States has experienced in the last decades, such as the 20% growth of the Hispanic population between the years 2010 and 2019 (US Census Bureau, 2020), have created an interest in analyzing the educational needs of HL learners who enter the Spanish classroom. Since evidence suggests that HL learners are better assisted in separate courses (Colombi & Alarcón, 1997; Potowski, 2002; Valdés et al., 2006), many US institutions of higher education now place HL learners in separate courses or tracks taught by trained instructors in HL teaching methods (Bayona, 2019; Burgo, 2017). However, this is not the case in all institutions. In fact, around 60% of college-level programs do not offer specialized courses for HL learners (Beaudrie, 2012). Factors such as the low enrollment of HL learners, funding limitations, lack of qualified instructors or administrative difficulties hinder the creation of separate courses or tracks (Carreira, 2012; Fernández-Dobao, 2020). The result of this is the placement of both L2 and HL learners inside the same classes, which are commonly taught by instructors who have no or little training in HL teaching (Burgo, 2017). As Carreira (2012) explains, all Spanish programs that have HL learners offer mixed courses. That is, those institutions that do not have separate tracks have to mix the two different types of students; and even if institutions have separate tracks, some of their more advanced courses still mix them. Therefore, even those institutions that have separate tracks mix students in upperdivision courses (literature, linguistics or culture courses). Lack of training in approaches to mixed classes poses many challenges to instructors, HL and L2 learners. The following sections summarize challenges and potential solutions to accommodating diverse students in the same classroom. First, they overview ways to address the different skills they have. Second, it addresses the affective difficulties of placing both student populations together. Lastly, it summarizes CBI and its implications for the mixed language classroom. Skill differences

The consequences of placing two very different types of learners pose several challenges in mixed classrooms. The first problematic trend that has been recurrently observed in the mixed classroom is to only use teaching methods molded for an L2 profile, which do not necessarily benefit HL learners. Carreira (2015) mentions that if the instructor uses micro-approaches (common in L2 classes), these will confuse HL learners since, due to their naturalistic acquisition of the language, they lack the metalanguage of instruction, are unacquainted

86  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

with the routines of language learning and are used to focusing on content rather than on form. In fact, teaching methodologies that require metalinguistic knowledge has been widely discouraged in the field, since they could affect HL learners negatively in terms of self-confidence and performance in the language (Anderson, 2008; Beaudrie, 2009). Correa (2014) suggests that HL learners’ difficulties with metalanguage and grammatical explanations stem from the fact these students are often placed on intermediate or advanced courses, thus missing the initial language courses in which emphasis is given to the process of learning the language (rather than acquiring it), which involves being exposed to grammatical terminology and explanations. Then in upperdivision courses (such as advanced grammar or linguistics courses), such familiarity with grammatical terminology and metalanguage is assumed from all students, which is unfair to HL learners since they already start at a disadvantage. If teaching a mixed crowd strictly with micro-approaches is detrimental to HL learners, by using macro-approaches only, instructors will be doing a disservice to L2 learners, since they do not have the vocabulary and/or grammatical skills to access more elaborate real materials. Rather than using one single method to approach diverse classes, foreign language instructors with mixed populations should find ways to integrate both types of approaches in the same classroom. Carreira (2012) suggests that, to deal with learners’ diversity, mixed-class instructors should follow the principles of differentiated instruction. This entails that, instead of tailoring each course according to a rigid set of learning objectives, activities, pacing and assessment tools, teaching should be adapted to the differences in each student group (Tomlinson, 2003). This concept has been incorporated in L2 and HL classes separately since both present substantial diversity among students’ levels and needs. The diverse nature of mixed classes makes it relevant to apply it here too. For instance, going back to the micro- and macro-approaches mentioned in above, Carreira (2015) suggests separating L2 learners for a mini-lesson on language structures and vocabulary related to authentic materials; and HL learners for a mini-lesson on form; eventually bringing them all together for a joint activity. Going back to Correa’s (2014) proposal above, the instructor could also take advantage of these separate mini-lessons to teach HL learners a metalinguistic concept that is relevant to the unit (while L2 learners work on something else). The key in mixed classes is for the instructor to not take for granted that both student populations will display the same linguistic and metalinguistic knowledge, and then use various teaching approaches that benefit them all. Another way to differentiate instruction is to use tools such as agendas and centers (Carreira, 2012). Agendas provide students with a set of expectations or assignments to be fulfilled within a time period, allowing for each student to devote their time to developing the skills for that task.

Bridging Gaps in Mixed-Class Settings   87

Centers provide students with different resources (activities, reference tools, readings, practice tests, sample composition assignments) either in a physical location in the classroom or at an electronic folder accessible to all students. These centers present differences in difficulty or item focus so that each student can concentrate on their particular needs. For instance, on a lesson on haber, while HL learners work on spelling, L2 can work on conjugation. Instead of seeing both groups as being in opposition, it is best to exploit their complementary skills to enhance reciprocal learning opportunities (Carreira & Kagan, 2018). The instructor should propose tasks that are beneficial for both learner groups. For instance, L2 learners can benefit from HL learners’ intuitive knowledge of the TL, culture and pronunciation (depending on the HL learner’s proficiency) (Katz, 2003). Additionally, HL learners can benefit from L2 learners’ metalinguistic knowledge, orthographic rules, and grammatical rules (Edstrom, 2007; Potowski, 2002). Some activities that are used both in L2 and HL courses, such as individual writing and revising, peer editing, group research and writing projects can be useful in mixed classes (Valdés, 2008). Some specific activities that can be used are ethnographic interviews, Dictogloss tasks, two-way crossword puzzles, translations and phone tag activities (Henshaw & Bowles, 2015). One of the benefits of these activities is that they allow for the assignment of different roles to different students according to need. For instance, in Dictogloss tasks or two-way crossword puzzles, HL learners can be assigned roles that require their written participation, whereas L2 learners can complete the activity’s oral aspects. A different example comes from ethnographic interviews, in which HL learners can benefit from relevant opportunities to connect to their own culture by interviewing a member of their family or community, and L2 learners can also benefit from practicing their oral skills and having a first-hand account of their native Spanishspeaking interviewee’s cultural background. Additionally, instructors can also make accommodations to the materials used in class or add supplementary materials to meet all student needs, especially to develop HL learners’ literacy skills (Wilkinson, 2010). Some examples of these accommodations may include giving more challenging assignments to the different students depending on their needs; providing HL learners with writing or reading activities that are more culturally related to their profile; adding assignments in which literacy skills are developed in meaningful contexts and for authentic purposes; or validating and motivating by connecting class materials to activities outside of the classroom. Burgo (2017) suggests considering textbooks written for mixed classes: Palabra abierta (Colombi et al., 2000), Avanzando: Gramática española y lectura (Salazar et al., 2012) and ¡Dímelo tú! (Rodríguez et al., 2005).

88  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Several classroom studies have shed some light on techniques that benefit both groups in terms of their learning. Bowles (2011) presented two different experiments. First, all students completed two oral activities where they asked each other questions to find differences in complementary images containing kitchen and general vocabulary. Second, they collaborated on two written tasks (a crossword puzzle and a collaborative writing activity). These two experiments offered different results: whereas L2 learners were the only ones benefiting from the first oral activities, both groups benefited from the second set of written activities. The reason for this is that basic oral activities and general vocabulary activities can be helpful for L2 learners but pose very little challenge for HL learners. On the other hand, the two written activities helped both students in their differing needs and enhanced their differing skills: L2 learners could use their knowledge of grammar, orthography and accents; HL learners could contribute with their intuitive knowledge of Spanish. Blake and Zyzik (2003) displayed similar results in a chatbased study: L2 learners obtained linguistic gains from interactions with HL learners, and HL learners displayed affective benefits, such as an increased linguistic and cultural self-confidence. Similarly, Bowles et al. (2014) analyzed whether the different needs of L2 and HL learners were met in the mixed classroom. Interactive L2–HL activities allowed HL to help L2 learners navigate meaning with their previous knowledge of the language, which was an advantage for the L2 learners. HL learners also benefited by being able to use Spanish beyond their home or community, thus validating this language – and their variety – in an academic setting. To summarize, the mixed-classroom instructor can propose activities that exploit the different skills that HL and L2 learners bring to the classroom with the aim of providing learning benefits for all. For instance, HL learners can assist L2 learners with their linguistic and cultural knowledge, and L2 learners can help with their writing skills, their knowledge on metalanguage and orthography. Affective factors

The role of affective factors influencing students’ perceptions and experiences inside mixed classes has been addressed in several studies (Bowles et al., 2014; Burgo, 2017, 2019; Dones-Herrera, 2015; Edstrom, 2007; Fernández-Dobao, 2020; Henshaw, 2015). Despite a self-reported overall satisfaction, most studies highlight several recurrent challenges. For instance, L2 learners – apart from appreciating exposure to fluent speech, native vocabulary and first-hand cultural insights – have previously reported feeling intimidated by the presence of HL learners. In spite of being enrolled in the same level course, L2 learners perceive HL learners to have a higher proficiency than them. This perception of HL learners as the class experts sometimes trumps L2 learners’ desire to participate

Bridging Gaps in Mixed-Class Settings   89

in class in the TL. L2 learners sometimes seem to be hesitant, scared or embarrassed to participate and make mistakes in front of the HL learners (Bowles et al., 2014; Edstrom, 2007; Henshaw, 2015; Potowski, 2002). Additionally, some L2 learners report that the instructor’s expectations are higher (Edstrom, 2007), that the pace of the class is faster, and that the professors use the TL more in mixed classes (Abdi, 2011). To salvage these feelings of intimidation, Burgo (2017) and Edstrom (2007) suggest encouraging the establishment of meaningful relationships between the students through different activities: tutoring opportunities, group projects or group discussions. The key for success is to optimize the situation rather than make the gap larger between the two student populations. Some studies seem to have managed to integrate both student populations well in the classroom. Despite reporting students’ preference for non-mixed groups, some studies have not found feelings of intimidation in L2 learners (Burgo, 2019; DonesHerrera, 2015; Fernández-Dobao, 2020). Learners were therefore able to see beyond their differences and found ways to learn from them. Specifically, in Fernández-Dobao (2020), L2 learners were reported to have gained a self-confidence after interactions with HL learners. It seems that by being able to hold conversations with HL learners, who are perceived by L2 learners as having better language skills than them, gave them a sense of confidence in their speaking abilities. Regarding HL learners’ perceptions of mixed classes, they have reported enjoying mixed classes, helping their L2 classmates and learning from their insights and contributions (Burgo, 2017, 2019; Dones-Herrera, 2015; Edstrom, 2007). HL learners have also reported feeling frustrated due to a perceived slower class pace due to group proficiency differences (Edstrom, 2007). It is therefore urgent that the diverse classroom instructor carefully chooses methods and strategies to promote student engagement in both groups equally. Another common aspect highlighted by HL learners is that both classmates’ and instructors’ display high expectations of their knowledge of the TL based on their background (Potowski, 2002). Wilkinson (2010) studied the types of roles assigned to HL learners in the Spanish classroom and found that many instructors viewed HL learners as informants. This can be problematic: if HL learners are viewed and treated as experts in the classroom, there is little room for them to learn, which might cause frustration or too much pressure on them. Henshaw (2015) found that some HL learners were so uncomfortable in their role as experts that they masked their own abilities. The instructor must not neglect HL learners’ growth in the classroom (García & Blanco, 2000). Whereas their language and cultural skills must be recognized, their role in the classroom should not be relegated to tutoring; classroom activity needs to be planned to offer language learning opportunities for HL learners as well. If done carefully, having HL learners act as cultural

90  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

and linguistic experts in the mixed classroom can be positive (Blake & Zyzik, 2003; Fernández-Dobao, 2020). By giving HL learners a voice inside the classroom, their self-confidence can be boosted. It has been extensively documented that HL learners display lower self-esteem and negative attitudes and ideologies regarding their linguistic abilities in the HL both inside and outside of the classroom (Beaudrie et al., 2014; Ducar, 2012; Leeman, 2018). Creating a space in an academic setting in which HL learners are seen as cultural and linguistic experts somewhat reverses negative attitudes towards their variety of Spanish and towards themselves. To sum up, assigning the role of cultural and linguistic experts to the HL learners should be done with caution. Mixed classes should not just become tutoring sessions for L2 learners (Fernández-Dobao, 2020), but should provide balanced opportunities for each group to contribute and learn. Content-based instruction

Providing CBI rather than teaching a purely language-based course serves both student populations. In most L2 programs, lower-division courses tend to concentrate on language instruction (developing the four language skills and grammatical patterns), and it is only at the upperdivision level that courses start to concentrate on content (Byrnes, 2002; Kraemer, 2008; Lord, 2014; Maxim, 2005). This type of divide between lower- and upper-division courses is problematic for L2 learners, who reach upper-division courses without having been exposed to enough CBI to be able to follow all the learning that occurs at that level (Gleason, 2013). HL courses, on the other hand, tend to offer more CBI at all levels, answering to their tendency to focus on content rather than on form given their previous experience interacting with the TL. One way of having L2 and HL learners’ benefit from a mixedclass setting is by incorporating both form and content inside the classroom. CBI provides a curriculum that is based around a subject matter, rather than on language (Dupuy, 2000). A specific type of CBI includes theme-based (TB) courses. In TB courses, the foreign language curriculum is organized around a major theme with some subtopics, but students are evaluated on their linguistic skills, just as in any other language class (reading, writing, speaking, listening), an evaluation that can be differentiated for diverse skill levels. These courses (adapted to the students’ level for access and effectiveness) can trigger sharing perspectives on one’s own and others’ culture or heritage. Henshaw and Bowles (2015) highlight that CBI can provide L2 learners with access to authentic input, which can lead to a sociolinguistic understanding of linguistic variation. HL learners, on their hand, can benefit from a higher engagement with the course. Including topics that are typically suggested

Bridging Gaps in Mixed-Class Settings   91

for HL courses, such as stereotypes, bilingualism, social justice matters, dialectal variation and Spanish slang, among others, can provide a great learning experience to L2 learners and be an engagement tool for HL learners. As Dupuy (2000) mentions, studying a subject matter that is perceived as relevant and useful by students can dramatically increase motivation and therefore promote a more effective learning experience. Attending a fully language-based course can be overwhelming for HL learners. Having a course fully based on content can have the same effect on L2 learners, especially in lower-level courses. By providing a course that concentrates on adapted content, and that provides formbased instruction that is directly relevant to the content and related assignments, both HL and L2 learners’ needs can be addressed in a mixed class setting. The Present Study

Despite past and current efforts to address these issues, there is a continuing need to overcome the everyday challenges of teaching mixed classes. Current efforts will likely be useful in future classes since the Hispanic population in the United States is predicted to experience a growth of 20% by the year 2030 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). If the same linguistic patterns observed today among the Hispanic population are maintained, future generations of students will still display some functional skills in their HL (Carreira & Kagan, 2011). Further research that informs mixed-class pedagogical practices is needed (Carreira & Kagan, 2018). The present study aims to add to the literature on pedagogical applications in mixed classroom dynamics. Specifically, this study analyzes the benefits and challenges of teaching a Spanish language and composition CBI course in a mixed class. Regarding form, students learned about textual typology and writing conventions, as well as grammar relevant to the types of texts they were composing. All materials were related to the content of the course, which overviewed and analyzed sociohistorical and political aspects of Latino immigration in the United States. This comes from recent proposals to approach HL instruction with sociolinguistically informed content (Bernal-Enríquez & Hernández-Chávez, 2003; Wilson & Pascual y Cabo, 2019) in order to develop a critical language awareness (CLA) that leads HL students to analyze and question dominant language ideologies (Holguín Mendoza, 2018; Leeman & Serafini, 2016; Martínez, 2003). The aim of choosing this topic was twofold. On the one hand, it was aimed to empower HL learners by allowing them to contribute to class discussions with information on a topic that was relatable to them. On the other hand, it was aimed at developing an awareness of the realities of immigration as well as empathy towards Latinos in the United States. The L2 students, due to the demographic features of their places of origin

92  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

and study, had neither been in contact with many Latinos nor had been exposed to the challenges of migrating to another country. From a more general standpoint, providing students with a critical topic forced them to work on their critical thinking skills to defend their positions, and it also allowed them to hear different perspectives on various aspects of immigration, all while using the TL. Method Research questions

The research questions of this study were divided into two blocks. First, the study aimed to analyze students’ attitudes towards mixedclass settings. They were asked to explain what their perceived linguistic and affective benefits and challenges were regarding sharing a class with a different group of learners. Second, it analyzed the students’ attitudes towards the content of the course and towards Latinos in the United States in general. This project expected to not only build a bridge between the two types of students inside the mixed language classroom, but to also build a bridge between L2 learners and Latinos in the United States. Setting

This study was conducted in a second-year Spanish language and composition course that serves as a grammar and writing review needed to access upper-level courses of the Spanish program. It is mandatory for all Spanish minors and majors. This course met three times weekly in periods of 65 minutes for 14 weeks at a private college in the US Midwest. The student population at this institution comes mostly from rural and predominantly Anglo areas in the Midwest (79% of all Fall 2020–2021 enrollment came from Iowa, Minnesota and Illinois). The student population at this institution is predominantly white (87%), and Hispanic students are a minority (5%). The Spanish classrooms, which hold between six and 25 students approximately depending on course and semester, usually have around one to three HL learners mixed with L2 learners. HL learners are usually placed within regular L2 courses since the number of HL learners varies greatly by semester, but it is usually too small to justify the expenditure of teaching a HL course every semester. Participants

All students in the class were part of this study. The student population in this class was mixed: there were 17 L2 learners (15 females and two males, mean age 19 years) and three HL learners (three females, mean age 19 years). The reason for the imbalance between the

Bridging Gaps in Mixed-Class Settings   93

two groups of students is based on the student body that populates this institution. As mentioned above, the Latino student population conforms a small minority of students. The HL learners came from Spanish-speaking households of Mexican descent and grew up in urban areas of the United States that contain a large Latino population. Specifically, one student came from the US Midwest and the other two students came from the US Southwest. All of them reported using Spanish regularly with family and friends. The L2 learners were native English speakers, who were born and raised in rural areas of the Midwest. They had all been studying Spanish for an average of three years: two years in high school and one year in college. They were placed in this course by taking previous level courses (intermediate Spanish). Tasks

Instead of completing a purely language-centered course, this course was developed as a TB course, thus combining a languagecentered approach with CBI on the Latino immigration experience to the United States, which connected all assignments in the course. While using Spanish, students explored a content topic that was unknown for most L2 students. Examples of the materials are the journal article ‘El racista enmascarado’ by Fuentes (2004), the short story ‘Usted estuvo en San Diego’ by González Viaña (2001) and the documentary Living Undocumented (Chai & Saidman, 2019). The focus of all materials used in the course was to provide students with a more human view of the process of migrating to another country. Instead of focusing on the immigration laws, politics and processes, which students were exposed to on social media and TV, they were provided with a view of what it entails to migrate to another country at the most personal level. After being exposed to either readings or visual materials, they were asked to complete various assignments related to this topic; specifically, they completed class discussions, debates and written activities. At the end of the course, students had to develop an individual argumentative research paper on a specific aspect of immigration to the United States, such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), ‘Zero tolerance’ immigration policies, Trump’s wall, benefits of immigration, history of immigration to the United States, challenges of being undocumented, etc. To provide students with opportunities to learn from each other in different ways, they were sometimes placed in same-group dyads (HL–HL or L2–L2 dyads) and sometimes placed in diverse-student dyads (HL–L2). Note that mixed-class settings hardly ever provide balanced numbers of students in each group. The instructor needs to accommodate the specifics of each classroom on a case-to-case basis. For this course, for instance, after watching a documentary or reading

94  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

a text, same-group dyads (i.e. pairs of HL and pairs of L2 students; not mixed) were asked to complete a different set of opinion activities, each teaching to their own specific needs. Whereas HL learner pairs were asked to write a short opinion letter to a newspaper (thus forcing them to practice their formal written skills), L2 learners had to answer a set of opinion questions orally (thus working on their oral skills). By separating students into same-group dyads, they could work on the same content materials but reinforcing their specific linguistic needs. For other assignments, however, students were placed in differentgroup dyads (i.e. HL with L2 pairs; mixed), which changed often to allow different L2 learners to work with the three HL learners. Once paired in different-group dyads, they had to give a short formal oral presentation on a related topic. The instructions on the oral presentation required the presentation to be formal. This small twist was intended to make this a challenging task not only for L2 learners (who benefit from oral practice) but also for HL learners. Whereas these HL learners had solid oral skills at a more informal level, they had yet to develop proficiency in more formal registers. As observed, different assignments were accommodated to meet the specific needs of the different students in the classroom. Individual assignments also provided an opportunity for adaptation to the different student types. For instance, certain assignments were delivered orally by L2 learners but were delivered in written form by HL learners, thus giving students opportunities to work on their specific needs. Similarly, some other assignments were delivered in written form by L2 learners and as formal oral presentations by HL learners. Despite the accommodations to the specific needs of all students, there was a balance in the types of activities and delivery modes in all students. Questionnaire

At the end of the semester, students were asked to conduct an anonymous online survey. The survey was aimed at obtaining information about students’ thoughts and impressions on two different topics: (1) their experience in mixed L2 and HL classes; and (2) their opinions on class materials, and, specifically, on the topic proposed by such materials. The survey allowed for students to write as much as they wanted to contribute to each question. See Appendix 4.1 for survey questions. All answers were analyzed qualitatively. Results are presented qualitatively in prose form below. Findings

The findings from the survey are analyzed separately for each of the research questions. First, students’ answers to the perceived benefits and challenges of being in mixed classes are offered; then, we provide results

Bridging Gaps in Mixed-Class Settings   95

regarding the impact of the content of this course. We also separate L2 students’ opinions on their attitudinal change towards Latinos in the United States, from HL learners’ improved sense of empowerment. Mixed classes

The benefits of attending mixed classes were mostly linguistic. One of the benefits that several L2 students reported was the amount of exposure to real language they received (see Examples 1–4). Specifically, seven L2 students highlighted that the benefits of being in a mixed class outdid the challenges associated with it. (1) I have never been in a Spanish class with a native Spanish speaker, so it was interesting to hear how smoothly they transition from Spanish to English. (2) It is a good combination because it is beneficial that the L2 hear more Spanish sentences. (3) Having native speakers in class is helpful for hearing more fluid conversation. (4) It is interesting and it benefits L2 learners. Natives know how to speak and can help the other students. It seems that L2 learners only recognized how HL learners could help them in their learning process, but not their contributions to the HL learners. Contrastingly, HL learners seemed to be aware of the differences in the linguistic abilities between both groups of students, and they saw them as an opportunity to learn from the other group’s strengths (see Examples 5 and 6). (5) It is a good mixture. This way we can share our knowledge among all. (6) It’s beneficial. L2 learners help HL learners with grammar and HL learners help L2 learners with speaking. Regarding the challenges, some L2 students mentioned having low selfconfidence regarding their oral abilities in general (not due to HL learners’ presence), which affected their will to participate in class (see Examples 7–9). Some other students reported feeling challenged when listening to ‘native’ speech, but they reported overcoming such challenges throughout the course (10). Contrastingly, seven students related their insecurities to their perceived lower proficiency compared to HL learners (see Examples 11–13). Two students prefer to have both groups separated into different classes that address their specific needs (see Examples 12 and 13). (7) I do not think I participated in class as much as I should have because I believed I was wrong.

96  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

(8) I need more self-confidence in order to express my opinions and to speak correctly. (9) I am not comfortable saying answers out loud in front of everyone, especially in Spanish. (10) A lot of us tense up and get scared when someone is so good at speaking Spanish and it makes them scared to answer things. (11) I have taken a few classes with HL learners and there are usually a few stepping-stones to get over. Right away, I usually feel insecure speaking in front of native speakers and struggle putting my own opinions out. (12) As an L2 learner, it was kind of discouraging having native speakers be in the class. This upsets me sometimes because I felt like I wasn’t doing things right or quick enough. I don’t think they should be in the same class. (13) I personally feel intimidated to participate because I don’t want to be wrong especially around the natives. I feel like it would help to not have the L2 and natives in the same class. Content-based instruction

When asked about their opinions on class materials, both groups displayed an overall satisfaction. On the one hand, HL learners emphasized the connections with their community (see Example 14) and the relevance of the topics discussed in class (see Example 15). (14) I feel so much more in touch with my culture and wanting to defend the people within it. (15) All materials were very interesting and about topics one should talk about. On the other hand, L2 learners reported developing an increased empathy towards migrants. Analyzing a more human aspect of the migratory situation provided them with a view of the experiences people have (see Examples 16 and 17). (16) My interest has increased. We hear about topics like the border wall and immigration on the news, but especially after watching the documentary, these problems seemed more real and tangible. (17) Now that I know more about the problems of immigration, I have so much more compassion for them. I have more perspective about the problem, especially about aspects such as family separation and the violence that goes on. Without being asked about future applications of this heightened empathy, both HL learners (Example 14) and L2 learners (Examples 18–22)

Bridging Gaps in Mixed-Class Settings   97

highlighted an enhanced (or new) interest in revisiting these topics and serving the migrant community in their personal or professional careers. (18) If anything, it has increased my want to work with immigrants, seeing how they are treated and learning about how they struggle to have rights and freedom from oppression really pulls at my heart strings. It makes me want to work harder, so I have the education to help. (19) I think that these have made me more interested in these topics. I feel that I will think about these things more often in the future. (20) I am even more interested in these topics now than before. As a future Spanish teacher, I really want to learn as much as I can culturally and socially about Latinos. (21) I think what has helped me empathize with the Latinos in the United States was when we watched the documentary. It has changed my ideas and made me want to continue on the path with going into immigration law after college. (22) I already knew that I have a passion to work with immigrants on the southern border and that is what I want to do for a career, and I think the materials we used helped me understand from an informational view as well. Discussion

The present study has direct implications for the study of mixed classroom dynamics, specifically, for understanding the perceived benefits and challenges of teaching a mixed class. It analyzed the perceptions of both L2 and HL learners taking a Spanish language and composition course with a focus on CBI. By surveying all students at the end of the course, it aimed to enquire about their experience sharing a classroom with a different set of students, as well as their impressions on the contents of the course, which had a strong component on the Latino migratory experience to the United States. This section discusses the findings as well as their pedagogical implications for mixed language classroom dynamics. Perceptions on mixed-class settings

When comparing the present findings with previous studies on student perceptions of mixed classes, some commonalities are found. Regarding the benefits, in line with previous research (Blake & Zyzik, 2003; Bowles, 2011; Bowles et al., 2014; Fernández-Dobao, 2020), L2 learners appreciated the access to ‘native’ speech provided by HL learners. Coming from high schools in a mostly English-speaking area of the US Midwest, most L2 students in this course had not had many previous opportunities for exposure to native-like productions in the TL. It is probably due to this same reason that students’ feelings of anxiety, fear,

98  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

or embarrassment were high regarding oral class participation. Following Krashen’s (1982) Affective Filter Hypothesis, such negative feelings or emotions can rise a wall in the students’ minds (i.e. high affective filter), which hinders learning. These negative feelings can stem from internal factors, such as students not feeling very self-confident in their general oral skills; or from external factors, as seen in other students who related this lack of confidence and feelings of intimidation to the presence of HL learners. Despite some studies that have reported no such negative feelings (Fernández-Dobao, 2020; Lacorte & Canabal, 2003), this seems to be a recurrent affective challenge found in mixed classroom studies (Campanaro, 2013; Edstrom, 2007; Henshaw, 2015; Potowski, 2002), to the point that some students prefer separate tracks (Edstrom, 2007). Students perceive the proficiency gap between the two groups differently. L2 learners only mentioned the benefits they received from working with HL learners but did not mention their contributions to the other group. This seems to be related to the fact that L2 learners perceive HL learners as more advanced speakers, despite being placed in the same course level (Bowles et al., 2014; Burgo, 2017; Fernández-Dobao, 2020). It is this perception of being less prepared than their HL classmates, together with the lack of awareness of their strengths that, in turn, prompts the feelings of intimidation. This same effect was not visible in HL learners’ responses, who seemed to be aware of the strengths of each group, and their reported benefits mentioned mutual ways to help each other in their learning processes. Similarly, Fernández-Dobao (2020) reported that only HL learners were aware of the complementary abilities that both groups possessed and of how they had been aided by the other group. L2 learners were aware of their achievements but not of their contributions to HL learners. Simply presenting activities that challenge each group of students is not enough; for a better appreciation of the other group of students (and for an alleviation of the negative affective perceptions of mixed classes) it is best to inform students of the ways in which they can be of help to the other group of students. Perceptions on content-based instruction

L2 learners have traditionally been taught using form-based instruction in lower-division courses, in which they develop the four basic language skills (speaking, listening, reading and writing). It is not until more advanced courses that they start taking CBI courses (Byrnes, 2002; Kraemer, 2008). Contrastingly, HL learners typically benefit from taking courses based on content rather than on form. The present study exemplified the use of CBI in a language course. This was done to better address both student populations’ linguistic and affective needs within the mixed class. As Dupuy (2000) affirms, students in CBI courses display as much success in language learning as students in regular

Bridging Gaps in Mixed-Class Settings   99

foreign language classrooms. CBI serves as a tool to provide authentic input, motivate students and get them involved in the classroom (Henshaw & Bowles, 2015). Motivation and interest come from the recognition that one is learning something valuable. The general theme of this course was the migratory experience to the United States. HL learners, apart from benefitting from taking a course that concentrated on content rather than on form, were able to connect to such content. Being able to tackle a relevant topic as well as to act as cultural experts inside the classroom proved to have some affective benefits for them. For instance, HL learners mentioned the activation of their interest and motivation in the classroom. Introducing topics significant to HL learners in the classroom has proved to be a good tool to empower this student community, who has reportedly felt insecure inside the traditional language classroom (Potowski, 2002). Regarding L2 learners, including a component on the most humane side of the migratory experience into mixed classes triggered students’ interest in the topic, and – more importantly – it triggered an empathy towards Latinos in the United States. This provided a great opportunity for them to become acquainted with a population that is not available to them due to the demographics of the institution and its geographical location in the United States. Most students in this study displayed a high satisfaction with being able to learn about such a relevant topic through first-hand accounts, given that they were previously mostly exposed to this topic by – potentially biased – accounts in the media. Without being asked, many students reported their intention to continue a path to either analyze or serve the migrant population in the United States. This means that the empathy developed by the topics covered in this course may translate into future proactive endeavors with the migrant population. Future follow-up interviews with these same students will be able to confirm whether this interest really transfers into their futures. Limitations and Future Research

The purpose of the course topic choice was to develop an awareness of the specific situations that many Latino immigrants experience when coming to the United States. By providing students with a more personable view of the hardships encountered by the individuals themselves (rather than with an institutional or legal view of the situation), it was hoped to develop empathy in them. As observed from students’ comments, this aim was fulfilled: the course sparked most students’ interest in the topic, and it sparked some students’ determination to serve that population in the future. Taking one step further, ideally, it was expected that this empathy towards Latinos in the United States would translate into creating a bridge between L2 and HL learners inside the classroom. As those HL learners are indeed Latinos in the United States, it was anticipated to build

100  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

positive relationships between the two student groups in the classroom. Despite many L2 students’ positive opinions of sharing a classroom with HL learners, many L2 learners also reported feelings of intimidation. It seems, therefore, that the classroom learning dynamics between the two groups – especially, the perceived proficiency differences – weighs heavier than the effects of the course topic itself. The main reason for the partial – and not total – successful creation of a bridge between the two student populations was the high affective filter (Krashen, 1982) of the L2 learners. It is therefore detrimental that the instructor reinforces the idea that all students can serve each other. Instructors should make students aware of their differing abilities and needs, thus highlighting the nature of all students as language learners (Edstrom, 2007). Future mixed courses should concentrate on creating a stronger connection inside the classroom by helping students understand their strengths and how to contribute with them. Finally, the limited number of students that participated in this study restricts generalizations of current findings to all mixed classes. Many mixed classes are highly unbalanced in terms of L2 and HL learners, with either a large majority of L2 learners and a few HL learners or vice versa (Carreira & Kagan, 2018). Each instructor – apart from salvaging the differences in students’ needs, linguistic backgrounds and levels – must also juggle with the unbalanced number of students inside the classroom. Further studies with a larger mixed student population or replications of this study in other courses and social contexts may provide more reliable insights on mixed classes. The predictions on the upcoming growth of the Hispanic population in the United States (US Census Bureau, 2017, 2020) urge the development of further materials, methods and teaching training programs for best mixed class pedagogical practices. The present study is one of such attempts at better understanding and developing mixed classroom dynamics. Further Reading Beaudrie, S., Amezcua, A. and Loza, S. (2020) Critical language awareness in the heritage language classroom: Design, implementation, and evaluation of a curricular intervention. International Multilingual Research Journal 15 (3), 1–21. Carreira, M. and Hitchins Chik, C. (2018) Differentiated teaching: A primer for heritage and mixed classes. In K. Potowski (ed.) Routledge Handbook on Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp. 359–374). New York: Routledge. Gasca Jiménez, L. and Adrada-Rafael, S. (2021) Understanding heritage language learners’ critical language awareness (CLA) in mixed language programs. Languages 6 (37), 1–23. Leeman, J. and Serafini, E.J. (2020) “It’s not fair”: Discourses of deficit, equity, and effort in mixed heritage and second language Spanish classes. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 20 (6), 425–439. O’Rourke, P. and Zhou, Q. (2018) Heritage and second language learners: Different perspectives on language learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 21, 994–1003.

Bridging Gaps in Mixed-Class Settings   101

Torres, J. (2020) Heritage language learners’ written texts across pair types and interaction mode. Language Teaching Research. See https://www.academia.edu/43483056/ Heritage_language_learners_written_texts_across_pair_types_and_interaction_mode (accessed 20 January 2022).

Beyond the Reading (1) Diversity in a student group is almost unavoidable, be it in terms of learning style, learning background, competence level, etc. As an instructor, noticing, acknowledging and addressing such diversity is instrumental to enhancing learning in the classroom. What are some of the types of student diversity that you have encountered as an educator? What challenges stemmed from those differences? How did you address those challenges to ensure learning was accessible to all? (2)  Concentrating now on the mixed-language classroom specifically (which contains both L2 and HL learners), what are some of the practical challenges you have experienced as an educator in this type of setting? (3) What role can affective aspects play in the learning process of a student? Can you think of any affective challenges that the two different types of students might display in a mixed-language classroom? (4) When thinking of ways to address such challenges in the mixedlanguage setting, what aspects of L2 and HL acquisition could you incorporate in order to serve all students in the classroom? (5) Do a quick internet search on the Spanish programs at different institutions of higher education in the United States. Include a mixture of institutions: R1 (very high research activity universities), R2 (high research activity universities), liberal arts colleges, community colleges, etc. Take note of how many institutions provide separate HL classes, how many HL levels and sections are offered and which institutions do not offer any or many HL classes. This last type of institutions probably has to resort to mixed-language groups of students. After doing your research, what do you think is the relevance of developing better pedagogical practices in mixed-language classes and why?

References Abdi, K. (2011) ‘She really only speaks English’: Positioning, language ideology, and heritage language learners. Canadian Modern Language Review [La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes] 67 (2), 161–190. Acevedo, R. (2003) Navegando a través del registro formal. Curso para hispanohablantes bilingües. In A. Roca and C. Colombi (eds) Mi lengua. Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States (pp. 257–268). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Alarcón, I. (2010) Advanced heritage learners of Spanish: A sociolinguistic profile for pedagogical purposes. Foreign Language Annals 43 (2), 269–288.

102  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Anderson, J. (2008) Towards an integrated second-language pedagogy for foreign and community/heritage languages in multilingual Britain. Language Learning Journal 36 (1), 79–89. Bayona, P. (2019) “Saber español sí sirve” Academic validation of Spanish as a heritage language. Open Linguistics 5 (1), 69–88. Beaudrie, S. (2009) Receptive bilinguals’ language development in the classroom: The differential effects of heritage versus foreign language curriculum. In M. Lacorte and J. Leeman (eds) Español en Estados Unidos y otros contextos de contacto: Sociolingüística, ideología y pedagogía (pp. 325–346). Madrid, Spain: Iberoamericana Editorial Vervuert. Beaudrie, S. (2012) Research on university-based Spanish heritage language programs in the United States: The current state of affairs. In S. Beaudrie and M. Fairclough (eds) Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States: State of the Field (pp. 203–221). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Beaudrie, S. and Ducar, C. (2005) Beginning level university heritage programs: Creating a space for all heritage language learners. Heritage Language Journal 3 (1), 1–26. Beaudrie, S., Ducar, C. and Potowski, K. (2014) Heritage Language Teaching: Research and Practice. New York: McGraw Hill. Bernal-Enríquez, Y. and Hernándesz-Chávez, E. (2003) La enseñanza del español en Nuevo México: ¿Revitalización o erradicación de la variedad chicana? In A. Roca and M.C. Colombi (eds) Mi lengua: Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States (pp. 96–119). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Blake, R.J. and Zyzik, E.C. (2003) Who’s helping whom?: Learner/heritage-speakers’ networked discussions in Spanish. Applied Linguistics 24 (4), 519–544. Bowles, M. (2011) Exploring the role of modality: L2-heritage learner interactions in the Spanish language classroom. Heritage Language Journal 8 (1), 30–65. Bowles, M. and Montrul, S. (2014) Heritage Spanish speakers in university language courses: A decade of difference. ADFL Bulletin 43 (1), 112–122. Bowles, M.A., Adams, R.J. and Toth, P.D. (2014) A comparison of L2–L2 and L2–heritage learner interactions in Spanish language classrooms. Modern Language Journal 98 (2), 497–517. Burgo, C. (2017) Meeting student needs: Integrating Spanish heritage language learners into the second language classroom. Hispania 100 (5), 45–50. Burgo, C. (2019) Mixed classrooms: How do Spanish heritage speakers feel about the mix? In G. Thompson and S. Alvord (eds) Contact, Community, and Connections: Current Approaches to Spanish in Multilingual Populations (pp. 305–321). Wilmington, DE: Vernon Press. Byrnes, H. (2002) The role of task and task-based assessment in a content oriented collegiate foreign language curriculum. Language Testing 19 (4), 419–437. Campanaro, T.G. (2013) Spanish heritage speakers and second language learners in mixed classrooms: Perceptions of students and instructors. Doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta. Campbell, R. and Rosenthal, J. (2000) Heritage languages. In J.W. Rosenthal (ed.) Handbook of Undergraduate Second Language Education (pp. 165–184). New York: Routledge. Carreira, M. (2012) Meeting the needs of heritage language learners: Approaches, strategies, and research. In S. Beaurdrie and M. Fairclough (eds) Spanish as a Heritage Language in the U.S.: State of the Field (pp. 223–240). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Carreira, M. (2015) Attending to the needs of heritage language learners in mixed classrooms. Paper presented at the Heritage Language Symposium, February, Seattle, WA. Carreira, M. and Kagan, O. (2011) The results of the national heritage language survey: Implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign Language Annals 44 (1), 40–64.

Bridging Gaps in Mixed-Class Settings   103

Carreira, M. and Kagan, O. (2018) Heritage language education: A proposal for the next 50 years. Foreign Language Annals 51 (1), 152–168. Chai, A. and Saidman, A. (Directors) and Gómez, S. (Producer) (2019) Living Undocumented [Motion Picture]. United States: Netflix. Colombi, M.C. (2003) Un enfoque funcional para la enseñanza del lenguaje expositivo. In A. Roca and C. Colombi (eds) Mi Lengua: Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States (pp. 78–95). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Colombi, M.C. and Alarcón, F.X. (1997) La enseñanza del español a hispanohablantes: Praxis y teoría. Boston, MA: Houghton. Colombi, M.C., Pellettieri, J.L. and Rodríguez, M.I. (2000) Palabra abierta. Boston, MA: Houghton. Correa, M. (2014) Heritage language learners in linguistics courses: At a major (but fixable) disadvantage. Language, Culture and Curriculum 27 (2), 107–120. Dones-Herrera, V. (2015) Heritage vs. non-heritage language learner attitudes in a beginning-level mixed Spanish language class. Unpublished master’s thesis, Arizona State University. Ducar, C. (2012) SHL learners’ attitudes and motivations: Reconciling opposing forces. In S. Beaudrie and M. Fairclough (eds) Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States: The State of the Field (pp. 161–178). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Dupuy, B.C. (2000) Content-based instruction: Can it help ease the transition from beginning to advanced foreign language classes? Foreign Language Annals 33 (2), 205–223. Edstrom, A. (2007) The mixing of non-native, heritage, and native speakers in upper-level Spanish courses: A sampling of student opinion. Hispania 90 (4), 755–768. Fernández-Dobao, A. (2020) Collaborative writing in mixed classes: What do heritage and second language learners think? Foreign Language Annals 53, 48–68. Fuentes, C. (2004) El racista enmascarado. El País. See https://elpais.com/diario/2004/03/23/ opinion/1079996405_850215.html (accessed 13 September 2020). García, O. and Otheguy, R. (1997) No sólo de estándar vive el aula: Lo que nos enseñó la educación bilingüe sobre el español de Nueva York. In M. Cecilia Colombi and F. Alarcón (eds) La ensenanza del español a hispanohablantes: Praxis y teoría (pp. 156–174). Boston, MA: Houghton. García, I. and Blanco, G. (2000) Spanish for native speakers: K-12 considerations. In Spanish for Native Speakers: AATSP Professional Development Series Handbook (vol. 1, pp. 85–89). San Diego, CA: Harcourt. Gleason, J.S. (2013) Technology and tasks for bridging the language-content gap: Teacher-researcher collaboration in a third-year Spanish writing course. Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University. See http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/13487 (accessed 20 December 2020). González Viaña, E. (2001) Los sueños de América. Madrid: Alfaguara. Henshaw, F. (2015) Learning outcomes of L2-heritage learner interaction: The proof is in the posttests. Heritage Language Journal 12 (3), 245–270. Henshaw, F. and Bowles, M. (2015) Meeting the needs of L2 and HL learners in mixed classes without sending mixed messages. Workshop at the Spanish as a Heritage Language Symposium, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX. Holguín Mendoza, C. (2018) Critical language awareness (CLA) for Spanish heritage language programs: Implementing a complete curriculum. International Multilingual Research Journal 12, 65–79. Katz, S. (2003) Near-native speakers in the foreign-language classroom: The case of Haitian immigrant students. In C. Blyth (ed.) The Sociolinguistics of Foreign-Language Classroom: Contributions of the Native, the Near-Native, and the Non-Native Speaker (pp. 107–129). Boston, MA: Heinle. Kraemer, A.N. (2008) Using hybrid instruction to bridge the language-literature gap. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

104  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Lacorte, M. and Canabal, E. (2003) Interaction with heritage learners in foreign language classrooms. In C. Blyth (ed.) The Sociolinguistics of Foreign-Language Classrooms: Contributions of the Native, the Near-Native, and the Non-Native Speaker (pp. 107–129). Boston, MA: Heinle. Leeman, J. (2018) Critical language awareness and Spanish as a heritage language: Challenging the linguistic subordination of US Latinxs. In K. Potowski (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp. 345–358). New York: Routledge. Leeman, J. and Serafini, E.J. (2016) Sociolinguistics for heritage language educators and students. In M. Fairclough and S. Beaudrie (eds) Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching: A Practical Guide for the Classroom (pp. 56–79). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Lord, G. (2014) Language Program Direction: Theory and Practice. New York: Pearson. Lynch, A.E. (2008) The linguistic similarities of Spanish heritage and second language learners. Foreign Language Annals 41 (2), 252–281. Martínez, G. (2003) Classroom based dialect awareness in heritage language instruction: A critical applied linguistic approach. Heritage Language Journal 1, 1–14. Maxim, H.H. (2005) Enhancing graduate student teacher development through curricular reform. ADFL Bulletin 36 (3), 15–21. Montrul, S. (2011) Morphological errors in Spanish second language learners and heritage speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquition 33 (2), 155–161. National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project (2006) Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press. Potowski, K. (2002) Experiences of Spanish heritage speakers in university foreign language courses and implications for teacher training. ADFL Bulletin 33 (3), 35–42. Potowski, K. (2005) Fundamentos de la enseñanza del español a hispanohablantes en los EE.UU. Madrid: Arco Libros. Roca, A. (2001) Heritage language maintenance and development: An agenda for action. In J.K. Peyton, D.A. Ranard and S. McGinnis (eds) Heritage Languages in America (pp. 307–316). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. Rodríguez, F., Samaniego, F.A, Nogales, F.R. and Blommers, T.J. (2005) ¡Dímelo Tú! Boston, MA: Heinle. Salazar, C., Arias, R. and de la Vega, S.L. (2012) Avanzando: Gramática española y lectura. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Tomlinson, C.A. (2003) Fulfilling the Promise of the Differentiated Classroom. Strategies and Tools for Responsive Teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. U.S. Census Bureau (2017) 2017 National Population Projections Tables: Main Series. See https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/popproj/2017-summary-tables.html (accessed 20 November 2020). U.S. Census Bureau (2020) U.S. Census Bureau Releases 2019 Population Estimates by Demographic Characteristics. See https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/ 2020/65-older-population-grows.html (accessed 20 November 2020). Valdés, G. (1997) The teaching of Spanish to bilingual Spanish-speaking students: Outstanding issues and unanswered questions. In C. Colombi and F.X. Alarcón (eds) La enseñanza del español a hispano-hablantes: Praxis y teoría (pp. 8–44). Boston, MA: Houghton. Valdés, G. (2000) Bilingualism and language use among Mexican Americans. In S.L. McKay and S.L.C. Wong (eds) New Immigrants in the United States (pp. 99–136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bridging Gaps in Mixed-Class Settings   105

Valdés, G. (2008) Maintaining Spanish in the United States: Steps toward the effective practice of heritage language re-acquisition/development. Hispania 91 (1), 4–24. Valdés, G., Fishman, J.A., Chávez, R. and Pérez, W. (2006) Developing Minority Language Resources: The Case of Spanish in California. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Wilkinson, S.L. (2010) A survey of Utah Spanish teachers regarding the instruction of heritage language students of Spanish. Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University. Wilson, D. and Pascual y Cabo, D. (2019) The case of Spanish as a heritage language. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 6, 170–181.

106  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Appendix 4.1: Post-Course Questionnaire Part 1 – On mixed classes

What benefits and challenges did you experience from having L2 and HLL in the same classroom? Part 2 – On class materials

What do you think about the class materials (readings, documentaries, etc.)? Did they help you empathize with Latinos in the United States? Have they helped you modify your ideas, attitudes, or perspectives towards Latinos in the United States? In what aspects? Have they sparked your interest in the Latino migration experience to the United States?

5 Dismantling Raciolinguistic Ideologies: Más Allá del Aula de Herencia Evelyn Gámez and Mirna Reyna

In recent years, scholars have contributed immensely to the field of raciolinguistics, demonstrating how language and race have become conflated or inextricably related (Alim et al., 2016; Charity Hudley, 2017; Flores & Rosa, 2015; Rosa & Flores, 2017). While this approach is mainly employed in the field of education, it is fairly new to the field of linguistics and even more so to foreign language pedagogy. The political nature of foreign languages in the United States, specifically Spanish, urgently calls for the examination of language ideologies from a perspective that considers the co-naturalization of language and race (Rosa & Flores, 2017). Given the hegemonic nature of standard language ideologies in Spanish departments, this theoretical framework can reveal how these ideologies construct our ideas about race and vice versa (Alim et al., 2016). In our work we argue that a raciolinguistic perspective is crucial in investigating how standard language ideologies are culturally and socially constructed and the role race plays in their reification. The study of language ideologies in the field of Spanish as a Heritage Language (SHL) is widespread given that the SHL classroom has become a space in which students can develop or reinforce their identities as Spanish speakers through the discussion of these ideologies. By Heritage Language Learners (HLLs) we use Valdés’ (2000) definition to refer to a person who ‘is raised in a home where a non-English language is spoken. The student may speak or merely understand the heritage language and be, to some degree, bilingual in English and the heritage language’ (2000: 1). In this regard, current research has had a positive impact on HLLs because it prompted the implementation of critical pedagogies and methods such as Critical Language Awareness (Holguín Mendoza, 2018; Leeman, 2018). These pedagogies require instructors to be socially and culturally aware

107

108  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

of sociolinguistics in order to meet the unique needs of heritage speakers. As a result, heritage language instructors are, or have been, trained to be active agents in challenging preconceived notions of language hierarchies in the classroom. However, this training should be extended to all instructors, especially those who teach mixed classrooms composed of HLLs and Second Language Learners (L2s) of Spanish in an attempt to deconstruct raciolinguistic ideologies across language departments or programs. We argue for the implementation of critical pedagogies beyond the SHL classroom and into mixed ones. Accordingly, we dedicate this chapter to expanding on Carreira’s (2016) question: ‘what would it take to make mixed classes responsive to the needs of HLLs, along with those of L2Ls?’ (2016: 160). In this chapter, we propose the implementation of a departmentor program-wide workshop that uses a raciolinguistic perspective as its point of departure in order to deconstruct raciolinguistic ideologies in mixed classrooms. Mixed classrooms are composed of both HLLs and L2s, where the latter often feel intimidated by HLLs, leading to discouragement. Equally, HLLs also feel intimidated in respect to L2s (Burgo, 2019). In response to this, differentiated instruction is recommended, as highlighted by L2 textbooks that include suggestions for HLLs (Beaudrie et al., 2014). Fairclough (2014) advocates for professional training for instructors who work with HLLs. Here, we argue that professional trainings should not be limited to SHL instructors. Instead, these should be extended to mixed language classrooms instructors to better equip them with critical pedagogies that benefit both groups of students. In our proposed workshop, instructors play an important role in dismantling ideologies by practicing reflexivity and putting into practice Equitable Pedagogical Practices (EPPs). Drawing from Ladson-Billings (1995, 2014), Paris and Alim (2014) and Bucholtz et al. (2016), we define EPPs as pedagogical practices that effectuate sociolinguistic justice by challenging traditional, more established pedagogies and recognizing HLLs’ linguistic practices as legitimate. The first goal of the workshop is to interrogate instructors’ own biases when structuring their own courses. Through a Critical Raciolinguistic Autoethnography (CRA), participants can begin to engage in the process of deconstructing negative and racial attitudes towards speakers of stigmatized varieties. The goal of the CRA is for instructors to interrogate how their own biases hinder HLLs’ translingual competence (Leeman & Serafini, 2016) as well as promote ideologies that L2s internalize early on in their language studies. As such, we expect this chapter to be equally beneficial to all students in mixed classrooms as both L2s and HLLs will develop consciousness about language ideologies and will be challenged in ways that are advantageous to their specific needs.

Dismantling Raciolinguistic Ideologies: Más Allá del Aula de Herencia  109

Theoretical Framework

As noted in the introduction, the examination of the role of raciolinguistic ideologies in Spanish departments is a relatively recent one, at least in comparison to more long-standing areas of interest that focus on L2 acquisition and SHL curricula. More broadly, there is little to no research on language ideologies in mixed language classrooms (Leeman & Serafini, 2020). This gap has resulted in a lack of scholarship that addresses the ways in which language ideologies, specifically monoglossic standard language ideology and raciolinguistic ideologies, shape pedagogical practices in mixed classrooms. To foster EPPs in mixed classrooms, Spanish language programs have to address standard language ideologies and their role in framing HLLs’ Spanish as delegitimate, regardless of how approximate their language use is to the ‘standard’ variety. In this sense, a raciolinguistic perspective elucidates how language ideologies and language attitudes converge with processes of racialization as tools of exclusion, and how HLLs language is perceived as deficient. Leeman and Serafini (2020: 3) write: Although one might have imagined that prior knowledge of Spanish would be welcomed and celebrated in Spanish classes, this is not often the case; instead, raciolinguistic ideologies and the standard language ideology construct HL (heritage language) students as ... linguistically deficient.

Indeed, the standard language ideology’s hegemonic status in Spanish departments reinforces ‘symbolic violence’ (Bourdieu, 1991) and results in linguistic insecurity among racialized speakers. As Harklau (2009: 213) explains, HLLs have long been framed as entering Spanish classrooms using varieties that are considered non-prestige and nonstandard. When HLLs’ language use is deemed as exclusively appropriate in home and community settings through its stigmatization in non-heritage courses, HLLs become linguistically insecure, which cans lead to language attrition in younger generations of Spanish speakers (SánchezMuñoz, 2016). Language ideologies, and more specifically the standard language ideology, continue to shape Spanish curricula (Leeman & Serafini, 2020). More broadly, language ideologies are defined as ‘a set of beliefs about language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use’ (Silverstein, 1979: 193). Silverstein’s definition paired with Irvine’s (1989), who defines them as ‘the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests’, (1989: 225) demonstrates how ‘language structure and use’ and ‘moral and political interests’ can be analyzed together (Rosa & Burdick, 2017). These two definitions underscore how ideologies of language are not solely about

110  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

language but are socially situated and related to issues of identity and power (Blackledge, 2002). Examples of language ideologies include ideas about the worth of different languages, proper or correct use and how particular groups should speak in different situations (Leeman, 2012). Standard languages, such as Academic English and Spanish, are idealized in university settings, and are perceived as neutral and correct, implemented with the goal of uniformity or invariance so that every speaker uses the same grammatical form and vocabulary (Milroy, 2007). However, standardization requires one variant of the language as the sole, ideal variant of the language. As Milroy (2007) explains, ‘no language is ever completely invariant’ (2007: 155), especially spoken language. These standardized languages are upheld by standard language ideologies, materialized by social and political institutions such as an educational system, where the emphasis on the proper and correct grammar is characterized as a pathway to academic and socioeconomic success, ignoring the role ethno-racial discrimination plays (Leeman, 2012). Language ideologies in Spanish departments

Language ideologies in language departments are rooted in colonial practices that deemed indigenous languages as inferior as well as attempts to purify a language. The hegemonic nature of these ideologies, that is to say, their status as naturalized and taken for granted, allows for their unquestioned enactment. One way that these ideologies are upheld and enacted in Spanish departments is through instructors’ reliance on the Real Academia Española (RAE). The RAE’s principal goal is to regulate the linguistic practices of the Spanish speaking world in order to ‘contribute to its splendor’ (Real Academia Española, 2021), which alludes to their founding motto ‘clean, fix, and give splendor’. This attempt to standardize the language widens the gap between those who are perceived to adhere to these rules and those who are perceived as incompetent in the prestige variety, which oftentimes is not based on actual language use but race (Roth Gordon, 2016). Although the RAE recognizes lexical variety, Castilian Spanish has historically been associated with the most linguistic capital (Zentella, 2017), or ‘a professionally marketable trait’ that is converted into economic capital (Chávez, 2014: 31). Furthermore, Zentella (2017) argues that the enaction of the RAE’s motto represents a direct correlation with the negative language ideologies that go unquestioned in academic settings. In other words, the RAE is responsible, to a certain degree, for HLLs’ linguistic trauma, as it prescribes rules for how the Spanish language should be spoken. More importantly, this institution also ‘continues to pressure Spanish speakers to adopt a Euro-centered linguistic identity’ (Zentella, 2017: 27).

Dismantling Raciolinguistic Ideologies: Más Allá del Aula de Herencia  111

The reinforcement of eurocentric language ideologies is illustrated in Valdés et al.’s (2003) study of Spanish departments. The authors find that ‘in all five institutions ... the Spanish of ethnic minority speakers (i.e. second-, third- or even fourth-generation members of immigrant families) was the least valued’ in interviews conducted with faculty, graduate students, and lecturers (2003: 9). This reinforces what Leeman (2012) conceptualizes as the privileging of European Spanish as a form of cultural capital among Spaniards and mostly white L2s ‘at the expense of Latin Americans and US Latinos, both inside and outside the academy’ (2012: 45). Indeed, the emphasis on the standard results in the delegitimization of HLLs’ Spanish use and linguistic insecurity among these speakers (Sánchez Muñoz, 2016). This research has been crucial in the development of SHL curriculum, which in its beginning stages was approached from a subtractive method. Central to this subtractive approach is the idea that students’ repertoires are only appropriate in certain contexts, such as practicing their language at home or in their communities. Thus, the most prominent discourse surrounding SHL is the issue of ‘appropriateness’, which ultimately polices when and with whom it is ‘appropriate’ to speak stigmatized varieties of Spanish (Leeman, 2018; emphasis our own). The issue of appropriateness stems from standard language ideologies which, as Rosa (2016: 164) explains, originate from 18th-century enlightenment thought, specifically that of ‘one nation, one language’ that viewed colonized populations as lacking a language. Spanish dialects that diverge from the ‘standard’, are viewed as deficient and their speakers racialized as Others, which ultimately leads to societal marginalization (2016: 166). Appropriate-based or expansion-based approaches to SHL teaching, which prioritize the acquisition of the prestige, academic variety, implicitly position HLLs’ variety as hierarchically inferior, resulting in linguistic insecurity among this group of speakers because of their perceived lack of fluency (Sánchez-Muñoz, 2016; Showstack, 2012). Leeman (2005) writes, ‘The basic premise of appropriateness-based approaches is that all language varieties are legitimate, but that some are more appropriate in specific contexts’ (2005: 38). In doing so, students are told that their language is ‘appropriate’ in their communities, or in an informal setting, but not suited for formal, academic and professional contexts. In this way, framings of appropriateness do not consider the social, economic and ideological facets of language variation, perpetuating linguistic and social inequalities (Leeman & Serafini, 2016). Recently, scholars who advocate for linguistic justice for HLLs move away from approaching HLL from a subtractive approach towards curricula that incorporate critical pedagogies. As such, scholars continue to theorize a curriculum that encourages the praxis of social and linguistic justice in the classroom by developing methods such as

112  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Critical Language Awareness (CLA). While this method focuses on teaching students the standardized variety of Spanish, one of the central components is challenging linguistic hierarchies by analyzing stigmatized varieties and the root of their stigmatization (Fairclough, 1989; Leeman, 2005, 2014, 2018). Holguín Mendoza (2018) proposes the use of CLA in SHL courses as a way to empower students by giving them linguistic agency. As Leeman (2018) explains, ‘CLA seeks to include students’ home varieties within the classroom and pay greater attention to social and political aspects of language and language variety’ (2018: 349). These efforts are noticeable and promise a more just future for HLLs in the SHL classroom. These debates have led to the extensive study of language ideologies in SHL classrooms (Leeman, 2012; Lowther Pereira, 2010; Loza, 2017; Showstack, 2017). However, these ideologies remain to be examined in mixed classrooms. Most recently, Leeman and Serafini (2020) demonstrate that, while HLLs in mixed language classrooms assert their linguistic expertise and cultural authority, they continue to draw attention to their ‘bad habits’ and their alleged ‘need for remedial grammar instruction’, demonstrating how they internalize instructors’ negative attitudes toward their language use (2020: 11). One HLL participant says: I feel like… I’ll write something and they’ll say that’s wrong but that’s what I learned, like I am sorry it’s like this is what I grew up learning, it’s like I can’t help but use this word like I have to relearn Spanish and the formal way because that’s what they want. (2020: 8)

This vignette from a mixed language classroom illustrates why language ideologies are to be interrogated beyond the mere activity within SHL classroom. The expansive literature on the role of language ideologies in SHL classrooms seems incomplete without an extended examination of such ideologies in contexts that directly affect HLLs, such as in language programs more broadly. Raciolinguistics

To critically approach ideologies beyond the SHL classroom, we call for the use of a raciolinguistic perspective that critically examines how and why language and race have become co-naturalized through historical and structural processes. By focusing on these broader processes, we are able to see how the formation of institutionalized hierarchies of race and language are rooted in colonialism and continue to exist in modern institutions. As Rosa and Flores (2017) explain, raciolinguistic ideologies are rooted in colonial projects of modernity. In addition to the construction of race, Europeans situated their own languages as hierarchically superior to non-European ones, positioning

Dismantling Raciolinguistic Ideologies: Más Allá del Aula de Herencia  113

indigenous peoples’ as languageless and subhuman. Mastering the European language through its imposition, at the cost of indigenous languages, was one of the ways in which colonizers believed indigenous people would assimilate to European culture. However, as Rosa and Flores (2017), and others (Charity Hudley, 2017; Fanon, 1952) suggest, racialized speakers’ speech is perceived as deviant, not because of language use itself but because of the racialized bodies that speak it. This is the case for HLLs of Spanish in the United States whose language practices are deemed as inappropriate, unfit for academic and professional settings. This stigmatization is commonly referred to as ‘incomplete acquisition’ (Montrul, 2008, 2011) in the literature, demonstrating how language variation is viewed as deviating from the standard. This focus on HLLs’ Spanish instead of the hearing practices of listening subjects draws attention to speakers rather than to the ideologies that influence how their Spanish is perceived and in turn deemed inappropriate. Rather than focusing on racialized speakers, Flores and Rosa (2015), propose that scholars focus on the white listening subject, an ideological persona conceptualized vis-a-vis the racialized speaker who ‘hear[s] and interpret[s] the linguistic practices of language-minoritized populations as deviant based on their racial positions in society’ and enforce certain forms of language use as normative and others as inadequate and inappropriate (2015: 151). Drawing from Rosa and Flores (2017), our chapter calls for the interrogation of the perception practices of ‘racially hegemonic perceiving subjects’ (2017: 628). Focusing on the listener, we move away from reinforcing negative language ideologies by questioning heritage speakers’ language abilities and instead focusing on how institutions can change the way they perceive racialized communities’ language use. By centering the workshop on language ideologies, and more specifically, raciolinguistic ideologies that stigmatize and deem Spanish in the United States as inferior, the proposed workshop demonstrates the ways in which language programs can create more inclusive, equitable courses centered around EPPs that serve the distinct needs of both L2s and HLLs. The Context: L2 and Mixed Classrooms

As aforementioned, some HLLs auto-place in mixed classes because they lack confidence in their language skills or because they are unaware of SHL courses offered by language programs at their universities. Whereas SHL classrooms employ methods like CLA and communitybased approaches to language learning, L2 and mixed classrooms implement curricula that aim to foster the development of grammatical and communicative skills. Therefore, L2 and mixed classrooms are a space in which standard language ideologies, among others, are negotiated between L2s, HLLs and the instructor (Leeman & Serafini, 2020).

114  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Elementary language courses as well as mixed ones focus on learning form(s). As noted by Carreira (2016), ‘the term “mixed” refers only to learner type, not to methods or materials specifically designed for teaching HLLs and L2Ls together, which to-date are virtually non-existent’ (2016: 160). To this end, the mixed classroom often challenges HLLs in ways that do not meet their socioaffective needs, that is their needs to study language in ways that allow them to develop a connection between their identity and the language (Carreira, 2016: 165). As such, if instructors are using the same material to target both groups’ learning needs in the same classroom, it is crucial that the language ideologies enacted through the material be challenged. Although the main methods used in elementary language courses, such as task-based learning and communicative practice, encourage cultural awareness, in most cases there is a disassociation between the teaching of language variation and culture such that, ‘many of these texts explicitly seek to eradicate the “substandard” Spanish spoken by students and to replace it with a “superior” “standard” variety’ (Leeman & Martínez, 2007: 47). For this reason, Carreira and Hitchins Chik (2018) call for differentiated teaching and learner-centered instruction methods in mixed classrooms that cater to the needs of both groups. Reproduction of language ideologies in the classroom

Padilla and Vana (2019) argue that one of the most prevalent language ideologies in Spanish classrooms is the adoption of a ‘global Spanish’, which is a myth as ‘it is evident there is a privileging of Spain above Latin American countries’ (2019: 22). In other words, European or Peninsular Spanish has been established as the norm in Spanish textbooks although authors of such books advocate for the acquisition of a ‘globalized’ Spanish. Although a textbook like Nexos (Long et al., 2017), used in elementary courses, provides the instructor with linguistic notes for HLLs, it does not legitimize Spanish in the United States as a variety in its own right. In short, textbooks used in L2 and mixed classrooms reproduce negative language ideologies and stereotypes associated with the countries of origin of many HLLs. Since textbooks are an essential part of language courses, oftentimes instructors abide by the material provided by these, consulting them for ‘correctness’. Students’ reliance on their instructors’ judgement on what is ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ results in the reproduction of ideologies, which are in turn learned and reproduced by L2s. This is evident in Leeman and Serafini’s (2020: 7) study of mixed classrooms in which an L2 learner says: ... ...we’ve been in a situation where somebody from a small town of a Latin American country, the professor will say ‘I don’t think that’s right’ and we’ll look it up and there’s no one that uses the term and on occasion

Dismantling Raciolinguistic Ideologies: Más Allá del Aula de Herencia  115

that can be confusing especially when you don’t know what’s right and what’s wrong. The professors have a general idea, I’d even say that they have a specific idea of [inaudible] of Spanish is correct, uh, but if something is said incorrectly or improperly we as second language learners have this tendency to take it as a fact especially if it comes from a native speaker within integrated classes ... I think that in general non-native speakers use a lot more professional Spanish ... we don’t have the natural experience so there’s no reasonable way that we will be using slang.

Indeed, this L2 learner’s experience highlights the authority instructors have in the classroom and their ability to reproduce ideologies about what is considered ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ Spanish. The fact that the instructor responds with ‘I don’t think that’s right’ instead of posing the idea that this may be a lexical variation they are unaware of, informs the students’ ideology in the making, as noted by their comment on associating L2 Spanish as more ‘professional’. Moreover, it appears to be that the student’s takeaway here is that language that cannot be accounted for must be ‘slang’. Incidents like the one summarized above extend beyond conversations in class and manifest in instructors’ assessment of students’ oral and written coursework. Assessment is one of the most important tools by which instructors are able to encourage more positive and equitable learning environments for HLLs in mixed classes because it demonstrates that the instructor is not only aware of their language abilities compared to those of the L2s but is also aware of their socioaffective needs (Carreira & Hitchins Chik, 2018). Beaudrie (2016) reports that it is crucial that HLLs be evaluated using ‘performance-based measures of real-word tasks where language is used for authentic purposes’ (2016: 151) instead of focusing on correcting form(s) given that HLLs can use language in an innovative and different manner than L2 learners. Thus, assessment based on correcting grammatical form(s) allows for the reproduction and enactment of language ideologies. Graves (2000) argues that a central component missing in assessment training is how instructors’ positionality and own experiences with language inform these practices. Holguín Mendoza (2018) reports that in a workshop conducted in her department, instructors from different backgrounds and pedagogical experiences ‘became aware that many of [their] own pedagogical practices perpetuated hegemonic ideologies toward [their] students, most of them self-identified students of color and from vulnerable communities’ (2018: 68). Similarly, Carreira and Hitchins Chik (2018) argue that instructors must become aware of their ideologies and how these inform the way they prepare class materials. Our positionality as ‘listening subjects’ is important to consider in attempting to dismantle raciolinguistic ideologies in mixed classrooms because assessment and feedback are informed by our own racioethnic and linguistic identities.

116  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Thus, in an attempt to redefine course creation, corrective feedback and assessment practices in mixed classrooms, our workshop pays particular attention to how instructors’ own experiences are informed by current sociopolitical contexts as well as sociohistorical ones. Given that ideologies are socially situated, instructors should reflect on their own experiences with language and use this reflexivity to dismantle language hierarchies in the classroom. By focusing on instructors as the ‘listening subjects’ and their role in reproducing ideologies we shift our focus away from racialized speakers’ practices to how listening practices negatively impact HLLs linguistic identities. We argue that as instructors – whether they be teaching assistants, instructors or professors – we all embody the listening subject because our positions in educational institutions grant us power over minoritized language communities. Moreover, we are aware that language oppression is institutional as certain varieties are valued in literacy, however, we also firmly believe that our roles as instructors in educational institutions allow us to be agents of sociolinguistic justice. The Workshop

Our following proposal uses EPPs as a central tenant to create an equitable mixed classroom. As previously noted, we define EPPs as pedagogical practices that effectuate sociolinguistic justice by challenging traditional, more established pedagogies and recognizing HLLs’ linguistic practices as legitimate. These ‘subaltern practices’ (Beynon & Dossa, 2003: 262) are introduced in a four-session workshop that begins with reflexivity exercises so that instructors explore their own biases and ends with the implementation of EPPs in instructors’ respective courses. The idea for the implementation of a department-wide workshop surged from our own experience witnessing voiced negatives attitudes towards HLLs’ language practices by instructors (TAs and professors alike). After taking Mary Bucholtz, Anne H. Charity Hudley and Tracy Conner’s Race and Language course at the Linguistic Society of America in 2019, we decided to approach this issue from a raciolinguistic perspective that considers how racialized speakers are held to different standards than their white counterparts. Building on Holguín Mendoza’s (2018) proposal, what follows is a step-by-step workshop outline and materials for language departments to be able to implement EPPs. Equitable pedagogical practices

EPPs focus on the implementation instead of the theorization of sociolinguistic justice. Underlying this approach of implementation is ‘to acknowledge and incorporate students’ complex linguistic realities into

Dismantling Raciolinguistic Ideologies: Más Allá del Aula de Herencia  117

the program and to avoid taking an oversimplified approach to linguistic valorization that may unintentionally ignore or depreciate young people’s way of using language’ (Bucholtz et al., 2016: 33). In order to implement and enact sociolinguistic justice and the accompaniment of all students we draw from Beynon and Dossa (2003), as a way to create a space of ‘subaltern practices [that] broaden and challenge conventional pedagogy ... to benefit all students’ (2003: 262). These subaltern practices include the acceptance of students’ dialects within the classroom, rather than language use that is restricted to their respective communities. Beynon and Dossa (2003) explain, ‘Using one’s own language is not simply a once in a while opportunity to speak, but is a fundamental and pervasive right’ (2003: 260). In this way, EPPs that strive for sociolinguistic justice should create spaces that value instructors’ and students’ languages, dialects and ways of speaking. In addition to an emphasis on valuing students’ languages, dialects and ways of speaking, the act of accompaniment includes culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014) and culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris, 2012) that recognize students’ assets so that they become part of the instructional process. Drawing from Paris and Alim’s (2014) work on culturally sustaining pedagogy, we argue that EPPs should include a range of identities and cultures that more broadly reflect the fluidity of identities in the Spanish speaking communities in the United States. Logistics of the workshop Reflective practices

The workshop includes three main activities that should be accomplished in three different sessions and should be carried out throughout one academic year, quarter or semester. One of the main goals is to promote reflective practices or the ability to draw from one’s own experiences and how one’s positionality and ideologies affect one’s teaching and assessment practices. Drawing from Anderson’s (2006) Analytic Autoethnography, in which he calls for the ‘self-conscious introspection guided by a desire to better understand both self and others through examining one’s actions and perceptions in reference to and dialogue with those of others’ (2006: 382), we call for this type of auto reflexivity from workshop participants to collectively call into question the hegemonic nature of the standard language ideology. In each of these workshop sessions, participants will be asked to be critical of their biases. The role of the facilitator

Equally important will be the role of the facilitator. The facilitator will ideally be a culturally responsive facilitator that will be responsible for guiding the discussions, cultivating a safe(r) environment and, ideally,

118  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

this person will have some background knowledge about sociolinguistics or language variation. Timing and setting

Drawing from David (2018), we propose that each session is covered in one meeting that will take approximately 90 minutes to complete. These sessions are designed ‘as a series where knowledge and pedagogical practices build over time. It requires preplanning and should be held at a convenient location with enough space’ (2018: 21). It should take place in a multipurpose learning center where participants can move around freely in order to facilitate discussions. In our current situation in 2021, this workshop can be facilitated through Zoom and activities can take place in breakout rooms. Once the workshop logistics are established by the organizers, the facilitator(s) should inform the participants of the sessions, time and dates, and materials they will need to bring with them to the session (in this case we expect them to only bring a pen/pencil and paper or an electronic device to take notes). Session sequence

The sessions are as follows: Workshop Session 1: Autoethnographic reflection and bringing language ideologies to the forefront. Workshop Session 2: Creating awareness of variation and brainstorming material. Workshop Session 3: Final reflection and debriefing. Session 1: Autoethnographic reflection and bringing language ideologies to the forefront. The first session of the first workshop consists of two parts. In the first 30 minutes or so, participants will reflect on their own experiences with language(s) outside of academia, or how they use language in their everyday lives. In the last 60 minutes or so, participants will think critically about how ideologies are enacted in educational settings. Autoethnographic reflection

In reflecting about their experiences with language, participants will consider how their upbringing and participation in specific social groups inform their ideologies. This warm-up calls for vulnerability on the part of participants, hence the importance of a culturally aware facilitator. In order to facilitate this process, we include some questions they may use in creating their short Critical Raciolinguistic Autoethnography (CRA) (Bucholtz et al., 2019). Bucholtz et al. (2019) define a CRA as an autoethnography ‘that not only analyzes the connections between language and race in your life but also considers how these experiences

Dismantling Raciolinguistic Ideologies: Más Allá del Aula de Herencia  119

shed light on how power works (often in less than obvious ways) and, crucially, how it can be challenged’. Participants will read the following questions and take a few minutes to respond to these on paper. (1) Where are you from? Where have you lived? How do you identify racially and ethnically? (a) How may your identity be influenced by language, or your language be influenced by your identity? (2) Which languages do you speak? Are any of these a part of your heritage? And, to what extent do you identify with these? (a) Has your identity with these changed over time? (3) How do questions 1–3 influence the way you use any of the languages you currently speak? (4) Do you feel a sense of linguistic insecurity about your abilities in a particular language? If so, why do you feel insecure? If not, why do you think this is the case? (5) What comments have family and non-family members made about your abilities in a language? (6) Has anyone ever told you to talk in a certain way? Have you ever (even if very briefly) passed as a user of another language or variety? (7) Have you ever been a target of or benefited from linguistic prejudice? That is to say, people have made assumptions about your ‘intelligence, competence, motives, or morality’ based on your ‘spoken or written use of a particular language or dialect’ (Zuidema, 2005: 666). (8) Have you ever said or been told statements akin to the following? (a) ‘You speak (any given language) well for being (any given race/ ethnicity/nationality)’. (b) ‘Where’s your accent from?’ or ‘Your accent is (any given adjective)’. (c) ‘You don’t look like you speak (any given language)’. If you have experienced this, try reflecting the possible underlying ideologies behind these comments. For example, telling someone ‘Your English is good’ implies that there are ideologies that people of certain backgrounds are perceived as being incompetent speakers of the language under discussion, highlighting language ideologies. These questions help the participant think like an autoethnographer and critically consider the relationship between language, their upbringing and their ethnoracial identities. Upon completion, the facilitator will ask participants if they would like to share an aspect of their CRAs. From our participation in a graduate seminar that required us to create our own CRA, we expect participants who have never been a target of linguistic prejudice to critically think about how they benefit from hegemonic language ideologies. Also, these participants might see how marginalized people have suffered from these ideologies that they have benefited from. In doing so, the juxtaposition of these two groups will

120  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

reveal to participants the nature of power dynamics that language ideologies construct. Even if participants do not immediately see how they may benefit from such ideologies, the goal is to expose participants to them so that they are aware of the effect language ideologies have on marginalized speakers. Another way in which language ideologies can be addressed is through bringing awareness about the discourse on what it means to be a native speaker. Answers to question (4) may reveal how these speakers might feel insecure about an aspect of their language. For those who learned a second language, they might report that they have been a target of linguistic prejudice in that language. These discussions are fruitful in revealing the multiplicitous nature of language ideologies and how these ideologies are context specific. The goal of this warm-up section is for everyone to become aware of how language ideologies are based on one’s own positionality in society and how we learn and internalize these. Bringing language ideologies to the forefront

The second portion will require participants to reflect on the discussions generated by the warm-up activity and discuss how ideologies are materialized in educational settings. Given that the classroom is a place where instructors and students are expected to speak and write in what is commonly referred to as an ‘academic’ register, participants will reflect on how this variety is rooted in standard language ideologies that reinforce language hierarchies. As such, participants will reflect on the authority they have in reproducing standard (and other) language ideologies in the classroom. They will be asked to share how these ideologies are built into their courses’ syllabi and then subsequently enacted in the classroom through their assessment practices. In this group discussion, facilitators will ask the following questions: (1) What differences have you noticed between HLLs and L2s in the classroom? (a) What are their individual language learning needs, respectively? (2) Are your courses structured to promote differentiated teaching? If so, how? If not, why not? (a) How do your courses promote, or neglect, the strengths of L2s and HLLs? (b) How do your courses support their respective weaknesses? (3) How might your current curriculum enact language ideologies that value one variety over others? (4) Can you identify some of these ideologies? What tools are needed to challenge these? Answers to questions (1) and (2) will reveal how a one-size-fits-all model is not appropriate in mixed classes. While it may create an equal

Dismantling Raciolinguistic Ideologies: Más Allá del Aula de Herencia  121

learning environment, it does not foster EPPs, given that these different needs may not be accommodated in such a model. Answers to questions (3) and (4) will elucidate how language ideologies are taken for granted, and remain unquestioned, revealing their hegemonic nature, while also asking participants to think about how this issue can be addressed. We do not expect participants to have the tools they need to challenge these ideologies, but this final thought will serve as a segue for the second session, ‘Brainstorming material’. The facilitator should ask participants to leave this session thinking about how they can begin to address this in their own classrooms. Session 2: Brainstorming material. This second session will have two components: Assessment and Activities. Based on Session 1, participants will need materials to practice implementing EPPs, therefore this session will begin with a discussion of assessment and the major features of US Spanish. It is important to note that here we advocate for the normalization of translanguaging in the classroom, or ‘the deployment of a speaker’s full linguistic repertoire without regard for watchful adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named (and usually national and state) languages’ (Otheguy et al., 2015: 283). Establishing translanguaging as a norm in the classroom will help students feel more comfortable and confident in their abilities. Finally, the session will end with a list of possible activities from SHL that can be adapted to benefit HLLs and L2s in a mixed classroom. Assessment

In support of the pedagogical practices we propose above, the first step requires instructors to become familiar with the characteristics of US Spanish, presented in Table 5.1. These linguistic features have been accounted for by numerous scholars (Gutiérrez & Fairclough, 2006; Toribio & Bullock, 2016) and familiarization with them will allow instructors to identify them in their students’ work and establishing translanguaging as a norm. As noted in these features, ‘the Spanish spoken by these U.S. Spanish speakers is not homogenous ... Instructors should introduce students to sociolinguistic variation by familiarizing them with the full range of Spanish varieties’ (Gutiérrez & Fairclough, 2006: 182). Given that ser y estar, conditional and future verb conjugations are generally learned in these mixed classrooms, instructors should be aware that students use these forms in different, but not ‘incorrect’ manners. Activities adapted from SHL

In the second half of this session, participants will be given the tools necessary to start implementing EPPs in their own courses. We are aware that syllabi could have been planned in advance to the workshop, and

122  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Table 5.1  Features of translanguaging Feature

Example

Extension of estar where other varieties of Spanish would use ser:

(1)  ‘viene siendo Nuevo León… [en] en un pueblo chiquito, no está muy grande’ Gutiérrez and Fairclough (2006)

Single/multiple word transfers (switches, borrowings, calques):

(1)  Troca (‘truck’ + ‘camioneta’) (2)  Aplicación (ENG. application → solicitud) Gutiérrez and Fairclough (2006)

Replacing subjunctive & conditional with indicative:

(1)  Lo están arreglando ya por fin y ojalá puedo registrarlo Gutiérrez and Fairclough (2006)

Replacing compound tenses with simple tenses:

(1)  Sí, o sea es que no sé qué, que pasaría de nosotros, quizás yo, ya estaría trabajando Gutiérrez and Fairclough (2006)

Conditional replaced by imperfect subjunctive:

(1)  No le guardara rencor si viniera a pedirme perdón (2)  Si yo tuviese esas fotos, te las enseñara Gutiérrez and Fairclough (2006)

Conditional replaced by imperfect or present indicative:

(1)  No le guardara rencor si viniera a pedirme perdón (2)  Si lo supiera te lo decía Gutiérrez and Fairclough (2006)

Extension of ‘hacer’ + ENG. verb:

(1) ‘hice drop out’ (2)  ‘nos podían hacer discipline’ Toribio and Bullock (2016)

Semantic extension of ‘agarrar’ + Noun Phrase:

(1)  agarrar becas (2)  agarraron esa tradición (3)  agarraste el trabajo Toribio and Bullock (2016)

Variation in usage of:

(1)  haiga instead of haya (2)  ansina instead of así (3)  mistía instead missed Toribio and Bullock (2016)

Existential haber ‘to be’ which transfers from English existential ‘there + to be’:

(1)  habían muchos pájaros instead of había muchos pájaros (from English ‘there were a lot of birds’) Toribio and Bullock (2016)

there might not be much room for autonomy. However, there is room for adaptation in the actual classroom practice. To provide participants with examples of activities, we draw from material proposed by other scholars, namely, Carreira and Kagan (2011), Martínez and Schwartz (2012), Leeman and Serafini (2016) and Holguín Mendoza (2019) aiming to benefit both groups of learners in mixed classrooms (Table 5.2). For more activities, please refer to Holguín Mendoza (2017, 2019). Session 3: Final reflection and debriefing. This last session is intended for participants to reflect on the implementation of the activities covered in Session 2. Participants will share their experiences in response to the following questions: (1) What did you do when you encountered features of US Spanish in your class? (2) Which activities or approaches suggested on the workshop did you implement in your course(s)? (a) What were the outcomes of these activities?

Dismantling Raciolinguistic Ideologies: Más Allá del Aula de Herencia  123

Table 5.2  Activities for mixed language classrooms Students interview people in their communities or their Hispanic family members for a community-based learning activity. In these interviews they ask about people’s linguistic experiences and record oral histories. Once in the classroom, students can use these oral recordings to discuss language varieties. (Carreira & Kagan, 2011: 60) Students analyze historical texts and corpora in order to explore the naturalness of language change (e.g. the 100-million-word Spanish) and the linguistic consequences of language contact (the World Loanword Database). (Leeman & Serafini, 2016: 67) Students analyze and produce different types of texts beyond literary or academic work, including descriptions, narrations, poetry, essays, novels, debates, blogs, art, music and more (Martínez, 2005; Parra et al., 2017; Valdés & Parra, 2018) Students research the use of heritage language in advertising, popular media, and the built environment (such as billboards and public signage) and have small in-class discussions about their findings (Leeman & Serafini, 2016: 69) Students critically analyze ideologies and practices of literacy in colonial and post-colonial using Guaman Poma’s Nueva corónica y buen gobierno, 1615, a book used to promote the recognition of Quechua and Spanish bilingualism (Leeman & Serafini, 2016: 69; Leeman & Rabin, 2007) Students engage with language attitudes and ideologies by analyzing qualitative data from published studies to learn about the impact of language ideologies. Students do not have to read the entire study – the data can be used for in class discussions. This activity will foster students’ critical awareness of taken-for-granted notions of language, which is important for both groups of learners to develop (Leeman & Serafini, 2016). Students search ‘Where is the best Spanish spoken?’ on the internet and collaborate to identify the most commonly used words to describe the concept of ‘best language’ such as pure, correct, proper (Leeman & Serafini, 2016: 70–71). Students then create a word cloud of most common words and can begin to challenge the use of these terms using Leon Howarth et al. (2017) Alfabetos ilegales, alfabetos imaginados whereby students can ‘outline the process of codification of standard languages’ and ‘describe possible impacts of language codification on speakers of a language’. Instructor present a cultural lesson where they discuss Mexican popular music such as the corrido of ‘El Deportado’ where students ‘can identify the social meaning of cultural products (like the corrido)’ as well as analyze the lyrics to ‘make connections between cultural products and their historical context’ (Holguín Mendoza, 2019) Students and instructors challenge pre-established and taken-for-granted terms in Spanish that derived from colonial sentiment and use ‘Léxico decolonial’ to discuss why words like ‘clase trabajadora, variedad no privilegiadas, bilingüismo no balanceado’ have more positive connotations than ‘clase baja, español ‘malo’, ‘no sabe hablar bien’ (Leon Howarth et al., 2017)

(3) Were some of these activities not efficient? How would you change them? (4) If you haven’t already done so, how do you plan to implement EPPs in your classroom moving forward? By the end of this session, you should expect participants to feel encouraged to continue implementing EPPs and most importantly that they develop an identity as agents of sociolinguistic change. As previously mentioned, the goal of the workshop is to make known the role of language ideologies in language departments. However, we understand that not all contexts allow for the implementation or practice of sociolinguistic justice. As such, if participants refuse to or are unable to become agents of sociolinguistic justice, through participating in this workshop they will have become more aware of language ideologies,

124  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

how these are enacted in language classrooms, and the power that they represent in academic settings. Conclusion

Our Equitable Pedagogical Practices workshop attempts to dismantle raciolinguistic ideologies by shifting the focus from the racialized speaker to the instructor whose position in an institution grants them power. The mixed classroom is a site where language ideologies are negotiated between L2s, heritage learners, and instructors can create a space in which ideologies can be deconstructed. As pointed out by a participant in Leeman and Serafini’s (2020) study, who says, ‘ ... it’s definitely helped me to learn a lot, being with native speakers, because I hear the different dialects, slang, cultural viewpoints, which is very interesting’ (2020: 8), instructors can create an inclusive classroom from which all learners benefit. All learners can benefit from pedagogies adapted from the critical pedagogies used in the SHL classroom. As such, our workshop prepares instructors to implement EPPs in their classrooms without drastically changing the syllabus or deterring from established lesson plans. This workshop allows participants to practice reflexivity, with the end goal of questioning and challenging how ideologies about language are preconceived and also taken for granted. Beyond the Reading In this section we provide the reader with questions to facilitate your understanding of the text as well as questions to consider in your own classroom and with your students. Given that no two groups of students are the same the questions to consider beyond the reading guide readers to reflect on how sociolinguistic justice can be enacted in their own communities and classrooms. Reading comprehension (1) What are standard language ideologies and how do these manifest themselves in Spanish language classes? (2) What are raciolinguistic ideologies and how might these manifest in a mixed language classroom? (3) What is the relationship between standard language ideologies and raciolinguistic ideologies? (4) What are the advantages of differentiated and learner-centered instruction? (5) How can instructors challenge their own positionalities as ‘listening subjects’? (6) How can instructors implement Equitable Pedagogical Practices in mixed Spanish courses?

Dismantling Raciolinguistic Ideologies: Más Allá del Aula de Herencia  125

Beyond the reading (1) What are the ethnolinguistic backgrounds of your students and how might these influence their acquisition of the foreign language you teach? (2) How can you address language ideologies explicitly or implicitly in the classroom? (3) Beyond what the authors propose in the linguistic justice workshop, what other practices can educators carry out in their foreign language classroom to promote linguistic justice? (4) How can educators outside of foreign language classrooms (e.g. in English, writing or STEM courses) implement practices that promote linguistic justice?

References Alim, H.S., Rickford, J.R. and Ball, A.F. (2016) Raciolinguistics: How Language Shapes Our Ideas About Race. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Anderson, L. (2006) Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35 (4), 373–395. Beaudrie, S.M. (2016) Advances in Spanish heritage language assessment. In D. Pascual y Cabo (ed.) Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp. 143–158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Beaudrie, S.M., Ducar, C. and Potowski, K. (2014) Heritage Language Teaching: Research and Practice. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill Education. Beynon, J. and Dossa, P. (2003) Mapping inclusive and equitable pedagogy: Narratives of university educators. Teaching Education 14 (3), 249–264. Blackledge, A. (2002) The discursive construction of national identity in multilingual Britain. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 1 (1), 67–87. Bourdieu, P. (1991) The production and reproduction of legitimate language. In J.B. Thompson (ed.) Language and Symbolic Power (pp. 43–65). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bucholtz, M., Casillas, D.I. and Lee, J.S. (2016) Beyond empowerment: Accompaniment and sociolinguistic justice in a youth research program. In R. Lawson and D. Sayers (eds) Sociolinguistic Research: Application and Impact (pp. 25–44). London and New York: Routledge. Bucholtz, M., Charity Hudley, A.H. and Conner, T. (2019) Language and racialization assignment 1: Critical raciolinguistic autoethnography. Linguistic Society of America. See https://www.linguisticsociety.org/e-learning/language-and-racialization-assignment1-critical-raciolinguistic-autoethnography. Burgo, C. (2019) Mixed classrooms: How do Spanish heritage speakers feel about the mix? In G.L. Thompson and S.M. Alvord (eds) Contact, Community, and Connections. Current Approaches to Spanish in Multilingual Populations (pp. 305–321). Wilmington, DE: Vernon Press. Carreira, M. (2016) A general framework and supporting strategies for teaching mixed classes. In D. Pascual y Cabo (ed.) Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp. 159–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Carreira, M. and Kagan, O. (2011) The results of the National Heritage Language Survey: Implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign Language Annals 44 (1), 40–64.

126  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Carreira, M. and Hitchins Chik, C. (2018) Differentiated teaching: A primer for heritage and mixed classes. In K. Potowski (ed.) The Handbook of Spanish as a Heritage/ Minority Language (pp. 345–358). New York: Routledge. Charity Hudley, A.H. (2017) Language and racialization. In O. García, N. Flores and M. Spotti (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society (pp. 381–402). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chávez, C.A. (2014) Linguistic capital and the currency of Spanish in Hispanic advertising production. Journal of Communication Inquiry 38 (1), 25–43. David, V. (2018) A professional development workshop for mainstream classroom teachers to support English language learners (ELLS). Master’s thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada. See https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/bitstream/handle/1974/24941/David_ Voila_201809_MED.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 14 July 2022. Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (2014) Critical Language Awareness. New York: Routledge. Fanon, F. (1952) Peau noire, masques blancs. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Flores, N. and Rosa, J. (2015) Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review 85 (2), 149–171. Graves, K. (2000) Designing Language Courses: A Guide for Teachers. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Gutiérrez, M.J. and Fairclough, M. (2006) Incorporating linguistic variation into the classroom. In R. Salaberry and B. Lafford (eds) The Art of Teaching Spanish: Second Language Acquisition, from Research to Praxis (pp. 173–191). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Harklau, L. (2009) Heritage speakers’ experiences in new Latino diaspora Spanish classrooms. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 6 (4), 211–242. Holguín Mendoza, C. (2017) Empowering learners of Spanish. See https://sites.google. com/a/cas.uoregon.edu/els/. Accessed 14 July 2022. Holguín Mendoza, C. (2018) Critical language awareness (CLA) for Spanish heritage language programs: Implementing a complete curriculum. International Multilingual Research Journal 12 (2), 65–79. Holguín Mendoza, C. (2019) Pedagogias criticas para la ensenanza de lenguas. See https:// pedagogiascriticas.ucr.edu/. Accessed 14 July 2022. Irvine, J.T. (1989) “When talk isn’t cheap: Language and political economy.” American Ethnologist 16, 248–267. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995) Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal 32 (3), 465–491. Ladson-Billings, G. (2014) Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: Aka the remix. Harvard Educational Review 84 (1), 74–84. Leeman J. (2005) Engaging critical pedagogy: Spanish for native speakers. Foreign Language Annals 38 (1), 35–45. Leeman, J. (2012) Investigating language ideologies in Spanish as a heritage language. In S. Beaudrie and M. Fairclough (eds) Spanish as a Heritage Language in the US: State of the Science (pp. 43–59). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Leeman, J. (2014) Critical approaches to the teaching of Spanish as a local-foreign language. In M. Lacorte (ed.) The Handbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics (pp. 275–292). New York: Routledge. Leeman, J. (2018) Critical language awareness in SHL: Challenging the linguistic subordination of US Latinxs. In K. Potowski (ed.) Handbook of Spanish as a Minority/ Heritage Language (pp. 345–358). New York: Routledge. Leeman, J. and Martínez, G. (2007) From identity to commodity: Ideologies of Spanish in heritage language textbooks. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 4 (1), 35–65. Leeman, J. and Rabin, L. (2007) Reading language: Critical perspectives for the literature classroom. Hispania 90, 304–315.

Dismantling Raciolinguistic Ideologies: Más Allá del Aula de Herencia  127

Leeman, J. and Serafini, E. (2016) Sociolinguistics and heritage language education: A model for promoting critical translingual competence. In M. Fairclough and S. Beaudrie (eds) Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching (pp. 56–79). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Leeman, J. and Serafini, E. (2020) “It’s not fair”: Discourses of deficit, equity, and effort in mixed heritage and second language Spanish classes. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 20 (6), 1–15. León Howarth, K., Costales, A., Holguín Mendoza, C. and Davis, R.L. (2017) El léxico decolonial. See https://docs.google.com/document/d/117BN20-u9N254F3s6_IO38ToJ_ L_ETMPtB5M6Rd1Obw/edit?usp=sharing. Accessed 14 July 2022. Long, S., Carreira, M., Velasco, S. and Swanson, K. (2017) Nexos (4th edn). Boston, MA: Cengage. Lowther Pereira, K.A. (2010) Identity and language ideology in the intermediate Spanish heritage language classroom. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona. Loza, S. (2017) Transgressing standard language ideologies in the Spanish heritage language (SHL) classroom. Chiricù Journal: Latina/o Literature, Art, and Culture 1 (2), 56–77. Martínez, G.A. (2005) Genres and genre chains: Post-process perspectives on heritage language writing in a South Texas setting. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 24 (1–2), 79–91. Martínez, G. and Schwartz, A. (2012) Elevating “low” language for high stakes: A case for critical, community-based learning in a medical Spanish for heritage learners program. Heritage Language Journal 9 (2), 37–49. Milroy, J. (2007) The ideology of the standard language. In C. Llamas, L. Mullany and P. Stockwell (eds) Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics (pp. 133–139). London: Routledge. Montrul, S. (2008) Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism. Re-examining the Age Factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Montrul, S. (2011) Morphological errors in Spanish second language learners and heritage speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33, 155–161. Otheguy, R., García, O. and Reid, W. (2015) Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review 6 (3), 281–307. Padilla, L.V. and Vana, R. (2019) Ideologies in the foreign language curriculum: Insights from textbooks and instructor interviews. Language Awareness 28 (1), 15–30. Paris, D. (2012) Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher 41 (3), 93–97. Paris, D. and Alim, H.S. (2014) What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review 84 (1), 85–100. Parra, M.L., Otero, A., Flores, R. and Lavallée, M. (2017) Designing a comprehensive curriculum for advanced Spanish heritage learners: Contributions from the multiliteracies framework. In G. Zapata and M. Lacorte (eds) Multiliteracies Pedagogy and Language Learning: Teaching Spanish to Heritage Speakers (pp. 27–66). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Real Academia Española (2021) Estatutos y Reglamento de la Real Academia Española. Madrid: RAE. See https://www.rae.es/sites/default/files/2021-02/Estatutos%20y%20 reglamento_2014_19_2_2021.pdf. Rosa, J.D. (2016) Standardization, racialization, languagelessness: Raciolinguistic ideologies across communicative contexts. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 26 (2), 162–183. Rosa, J. and Burdick, C. (2017) Language Ideologies. In O. García, N. Flores and M. Spotti (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Language in Society (pp. 103–123). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rosa, J. and Flores, N. (2017) Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society 46 (5), 621–647.

128  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Roth Gordon, J. (2016) From upstanding citizen to North American rapper and back again: The racial malleability of poor male Brazilian youth. In H.S. Alim, J.R. Rickford and A.F. Ball (eds) Raciolinguistics: How Language Shapes Our Ideas About Race (pp. 51–64). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sánchez-Muñoz, A. (2016) Heritage language healing? Learners’ attitudes and damage control in a heritage language classroom. In D. Pascual y Cabo (ed.) Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp. 205–217). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Showstack, R.E. (2012) Symbolic power in the heritage language classroom: How Spanish heritage speakers sustain and resist hegemonic discourses on language and cultural diversity. Spanish in Context 9 (1), 1–26. Showstack, R.E. (2017) Stancetaking and language ideologies in heritage language learner classroom discourse. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 16 (5), 271–284. Silverstein, M. (1979) Language structure and linguistic ideology. In P. Cline, W. Hanks and C. Hofbauer (eds) The Elements (pp. 193–248). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Toribio, A.J. and Bullock, B.E. (2016) A new look at heritage Spanish and its speakers. In D. Pascual y Cabo (ed.) Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp. 27–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Valdés, G. (2000) Introduction. In Spanish for Native Speakers: AATSP Professional Development Series Handbook (vol. 1, pp. 1–20). San Diego, CA: Harcourt College Publishers. Valdés, G. and Parra, M.L. (2018) Towards the development of an analytical framework for examining goals and pedagogical approaches in teaching language to heritage speakers. In K. Potowski (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp. 301–330). New York: Routledge. Valdés, G., González, S.V., García, D.L. and Márquez, P. (2003) Language ideology: The case of Spanish in departments of foreign languages. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 34 (1), 3–26. Zentella, A.C. (2017) “Limpia, fija y da esplendor”: Challenging the symbolic violence of the Royal Spanish Academy. Chiricù Journal: Latina/o Literature, Art, and Culture 1 (2), 21–42. Zuidema, L.A. (2005) Myth education: Rationale and strategies for teaching against linguistic prejudice. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 48 (8), 666–675.

6 Countering Negative Attitudes toward Heritage Students’ Spanish in Mixed L2-H2 Classes Rosti Vana

Spanish is the largest minority language spoken in the United States, with 13.5% (41.8 million) of all US residents aged five and older speaking Spanish at home (US Census Bureau, 2019). Although immigrants have long been portrayed as threats to the United States, this rhetoric reached a fevered pitch under the Trump administration (McIntosh & Mendoza-Denton, 2020; Santa Ana et al., 2020). Consequently, people who speak Spanish in public frequently experience hostile reactions from proponents of English-only policies (SánchezMuñoz & Amezcua, 2019; Torres, 2019). Television and social media have regularly portrayed instances of discrimination against Spanish speakers, providing strong evidence that speaking a language other than English is a token for being un-American. Although this linguistic discrimination certainly has a racial component, it is also spurred by anti-Spanish, anti-bilingual and English-only discourses circulating in the United States (McIntosh & Mendoza-Denton, 2020; Torres, 2019). These discourses reverberate in US postsecondary educational institutions as well, sometimes resulting in linguistic discrimination against Spanish heritage language learners (HLLs). HLLs are speakers ‘raised in a home where a non-English language is spoken [who] may speak or merely understand the heritage language and be, to some degree, bilingual’ (Valdés, 2000: 1). Some HLLs may even have learned Spanish through community interactions (Fishman, 2001). Many language programs, language instructors, classmates and even linguists denigrate HLLs’ language varieties as inferior compared to standard, monolingual Spanish (Holguín-Mendoza, 2022; Leeman & Serafini, 2020; Loza, 2019; Valdés et al., 2003). These raciolinguistic ideologies define HLL students as deficient in Spanish regardless of their level of proficiency (Flores & Rosa, 2015). 129

130  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

In response to such attitudes, the field of Spanish as a heritage language (SHL) has grown tremendously and brought to light innovative research and best practices for postsecondary language classes and programs tailored to meet the personal, professional and academic needs of HLLs (see Beaudrie et al., 2014; Beaudrie & Fairclough, 2012; Bowles, 2022; Fairclough & Beaudrie, 2016; Pascual y Cabo, 2016). Beyond teaching grammar and syntax, these courses also cater to HLLs’ socioaffective and linguistic needs, which differ from those of students learning Spanish as a second language (Beaudrie et al., 2014). Although SHL programs are emerging nationwide, the stark reality is that many educational institutions across the country do not have a separate track for these learners. Hence, they are enrolled in mixed classes of heritage language and second language (L2) students (Beaudrie, 2012; Carreira 2016a; Carreira & Kagan, 2018). In this chapter, I offer suggestions for discussing language variation in a manner that fosters mutual understanding among learners and respect for heritage students’ linguistic diversity in the mixed classroom. I first define language attitudes. Next, I consider the profile of a Spanishspeaking HLL of Mexican descent in the US Southwest, focusing on their language variety. Next, I discuss the attitudes toward HLL language variation prevalent in the mixed class context and enter in conversation with current research. I conclude with pedagogical best practices and resources that acknowledge the various language varieties, contest negative attitudes toward HLLs and dispel the linguistic discrimination they face in the classroom. By incorporating these practices, pedagogues and educators can successfully contest negative attitudes toward SHL students in mixed classes. Students’ Attitudes about SHL Varieties

An attitude can be defined as ‘a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor’ (Albarracín et al., 2005: 1). Given that language is embedded within a social context and that people socialize through language (Labov, 1966), this socialization establishes ‘how we judge other individuals, how we position ourselves within social groups, how we relate to individuals and groups other than our own’ (Garrett et al., 2003: 12). Language attitudes rarely are driven by specific linguistic features per se, but rather reflect individuals’ social judgments of others who speak a given language. Such attitudes are learned through a variety of sources, including personal experiences and the general social environment (Garrett, 2010). In a mixed classroom, the Spanish language variety being taught typically aligns with a ‘standard’ variety that L2 students are accustomed to, but that often differs from the varieties HLLs speak as bilinguals (Lippi-Green, 2012).

Countering Negative Attitudes toward Heritage Students’ Spanish  131

In the United States, Spanish is in constant contact with English. This creates a linguistic crucible among bilinguals who have opportunities to choose when and how to use both languages (Taglimonte, 2012). Consequently, lexical borrowings from English are common in US Spanish (e.g. marqueta), as are linguistic processes such as ‘simplification’ and ‘transfer’ (Silva-Corvalán, 1994) and specific phenomena such as ‘false cognates’, code-switches, ‘calques’ and ‘anglicisms’ (Lipski, 2008; Otheguy, 2008). Features such as these set SHL varieties apart from the ostensibly ‘pure’ variety of the idealized monolingual Spanish speakers (Bessett & Carvalho, 2021), which is labeled as the normative, correct variety, continuously reinforced by dominant discourses and inside the classroom (Leeman & Serafini, 2020; Quan, 2021). Therefore, one of the benefits of an SHL-only classroom is that it is a place where diverse linguistic varieties are generally validated (Ducar, 2008; Leeman & Serafini, 2016), including HLLs’ home dialects (Fairclough, 2016). HLLs tend to feel less judgement from their peers in SHL courses as they feel more confident to express themselves (Parra, 2016; Vana, 2020). Ideally, HLLs are validated for the knowledge they bring to the classroom while simultaneously learning to expand their bilingual ranges (Beaudrie et al., 2014; Holguín Mendoza, 2018, 2021; Leeman & Serafini, 2016). However, as separate SHL language courses are not always feasible, due to a shortage of trained instructors, inadequate institutional resources, and low enrollments (Carreira & Kagan, 2018), most SHL students, then, find a mixed class to be their only option. The materials and assessments used in mixed classes are typically the same ones used in L2 classes, and sociocultural and linguistic topics tend to be more directed toward peninsular varieties, rather than Mexico and Latin America, the regions to which US SHL students have personal connections (Carreira, 2016b; Padilla & Vana, 2019). Although L2 students state they value the authentic language use and language variation their SHL peers bring to mixed classes (Bowles, 2011; Campanaro, 2013; Edstrom, 2007), L2s are frequently perceived to speak more formal Spanish than HLLs. Potowksi (2002) queried HLLs in a mixed classroom about their own Spanish, finding that they judged their skills as inadequate. They attributed their inferior skills to ‘their lack of formal schooling and literacy training in the language or the educational level and socioeconomic status of their families’ (Potowski, 2002: 37). Similarly, Vana (2020) found that HLLs viewed their own Spanish varieties negatively due not only to the hegemonic ideologies and anti-bilingual discourses present in their communities, but also to the US Spanish lexical items they used. For these reasons, it is important that instructors discuss the sociopolitical and sociolinguistic contexts in which different varieties of Spanish are learned, used and valued (Holguín Mendoza, 2018; Leeman, 2018; Loza, 2019).

132  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Furthermore, heritage speakers of Spanish in the United States are usually perceived as lower class and less educated, especially in comparison to their English-speaking colleagues (Fernández-Mallat & Carey, 2017). This occurs not only because English speakers are the dominant language group, the one with societal power, who dictate the social value of US Spanish (Suek, 2014), but also the socioeconomic status that most Latinx have due to language and education barriers (Marrero, 2016). Moreover, members of bilingual communities themselves absorb these hegemonic ideologies about their home varieties, leading them to feel insecure in educational contexts (Vana, 2020). In addition, language programs and the instructors in them need to acknowledge their part in propagating negative attitudes toward HLLs. L2 students, who have learned Spanish in the academic context, tend to be favored as the educated echelon because they are learning the hyperstandardized language that has been institutionalized in textbooks and educational institutions (Leeman, 2012; Train, 2000, 2003). Such attitudes can have dire consequences for the future vitality of US Spanish by promoting language shift from Spanish to English among SHL speakers. SHL instruction is one the factors helping to maintain US Spanish. As such, programs and courses with HLLs enrolled in them need to cater to the HLLs specific practical and professional goals and place focus on the HLLs bilingualism (Bayona, 2019). If SHL speakers are deterred from pursuing formal education in Spanish that is practical and professional, language shift will potentially accelerate. The next section discusses specific pedagogical recommendations for teaching effectiveness in mixed classes. Pedagogical approaches for critical explorations of language variation

Scholars have long advocated for challenging the dominant discourses in the United States directed toward speakers of minority languages, particularly Spanish (Beaudrie et al., 2019; Holguín-Mendoza, 2021; Leeman, 2018; Loza & Beaudrie, 2021). Critical language-based pedagogies in language learning context seek to ‘reject traditional pedagogy’s primary focus on individual students’ acquisition of “standard” Spanish and academic registers. Instead, they seek to promote students’ understanding of the social, political and ideological dimensions of language as a means to promote students’ agency in making linguistic choices with the broader goal of challenging linguistic subordination and promoting social justice both inside and outside the school setting’ (Leeman, 2018: 345–346). Scholarship in critical language awareness has focused on countering language ideologies that discredit language variation (Leeman, 2012), questioning power issues (Martínez, 2003), validating all language varieties through sociolinguistically informed teaching (Holguín Mendoza,

Countering Negative Attitudes toward Heritage Students’ Spanish  133

2018, 2021; Leeman & Serafini, 2016) and explicitly teaching students how language works to give them agency (Holguín Mendoza, 2022; Parra, 2016). In the mixed classroom, critical-language pedagogies that promote students’ exploration of language in society include critical service-learning (CSL) and the incorporation of sociolinguistically embedded teaching practices. Critical service learning. A prerequisite for CSL is contact with authentic language communities. A central goal of instruction should be creating opportunities for learners in mixed classes to increase their linguistic confidence and observe everyday language use in the community. LowtherPereira (2016) emphasizes that the CSL methodology ‘goes beyond the classroom and looks to the surrounding communities as cultural, social, and linguistic resources for academic and civic learning’ (2016: 238). Given that local and acquired varieties differ from the hyperstandardized language that is expected in the classroom, HLLs who participate in CSL can interact with individuals in the community who speak the target language authentically. They can develop critical language awareness and may develop more positive attitudes toward their home variety (Lowther-Pereira, 2015, 2016; Pascual y Cabo et al., 2017). For instance, Tocaimaza-Hatch and Walls (2016) established that incorporating CSL into the mixed classroom provides lexical gains while making students aware of their linguistic variation, register and orthography. In addition, Pascual y Cabo et al. (2017) showed that after completing a CSL-based course, HLLs developed their linguistic abilities and identities while comfortably using their language in authentic social contexts. In sum, CSL can serve to legitimatize US Spanish. In addition, it is important to prepare HLLs to enter the community and utilize the language they are strengthening (Leeman et al., 2011; Zapata, 2011). The curriculum should prepare them to recognize that all languages are constantly evolving and changing, and that any language has a multitude of variations and varieties. This type of familiarity helps prepare them to combat negative linguistic attitudes toward themselves and their varieties. The syllabus in Appendix 6.1 exemplifies how CSL can be fruitfully implemented into the curriculum of a conversational Spanish course. Note that this syllabus expects the student not only to complete a CSL project, but also prepare an oral presentation supported by digital media and submit written reflections on the experience. Thus, students gain critical awareness of language varieties while expanding their oral and written language abilities. Incorporating CSL in such a course immerses students in authentic contexts that require them to speak Spanish with community members who have limited English ability. The objectives of such a course would address not only strengthening students’ ability to use academic Spanish but also presenting ample opportunities for them to reflect on their own and others’ use of the language.

134  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

To meet these objectives, the course curriculum should introduce contentious topics related to issues that affect US speakers of Spanish, including myths and realities about multilingualism and the status of Spanish in the United States. Possible themes for structuring the course are dual immersion/bilingual education, English-only policies, bilingualism and linguistic discrimination.1 Having a CSL component, and a curriculum structured around topics such as these gives students ‘the tools to understand the structural underpinnings of the social problems [they] seek to address’ (Rabin & Leeman, 2015: 130). I recommend that during the first week of class the instructor lead a discussion about students’ experiences as Spanish speakers in the United States, to elicit the issues they face. Parra (2016) states that such a discussion can assist in identifying fruitful Spanish-language servicelearning opportunities that align with the students’ issues and the course curriculum (e.g. inequality, professional translation, language brokering, identity). Although this might seem to be a challenging task, many students are already involved with school or university organizations, or even employment, that involves Spanish-speaking communities (see Parra, 2016). In conjunction with CSL focused on using the Spanish language, in-class activities should encourage students to reflect upon their experiences and what they are learning. One such activity is a written reflection. These reflections focus on the connection between the topics discussed in class and what students learned and observed during community service. Throughout the semester, there should be ample opportunities for students to informally share and discuss their experiences with their classmates. Finally, at the end of the semester, students can give an oral presentation on what they learned as a type of formative assessment. The objective of such a presentation is for students to describe (1) their projects, (2) their experiences, (3) how the experience influenced their critical and social awareness, (4) whether and how it helped them both personally and academically and (5) how the topics discussed throughout the course did or did not help them during their CSL experience. In sum, incorporating CSL into a conversation course can offer students powerful opportunities to analyze core societal and linguistic issues pertaining to language and their own life experiences. For greatest effectiveness, however, it is imperative that community members also feel this powerful experience. There needs to be a reciprocal relationship among students, instructor and community that engages them ‘to achieve academic, civic, and personal learning objectives as well as to advance public purpose’ (Bringle & Clayton, 2012: 105). Embedding sociolinguistics into teaching practices. Learning grammar is a challenge for many SHL students (Beaudrie, 2009; Beaudrie et al., 2014). The primary reason stems from the fact that textbook grammar lessons present prescriptive rules for formal standard Spanish,

Countering Negative Attitudes toward Heritage Students’ Spanish  135

unlike the everyday Spanish HLLs are accustomed to using in actual community contexts (Charity Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). This in turn causes HLLs to experience linguistic insecurity and negative feelings about their language abilities (Potowski & Shin; 2019; Shin & Hudgens Henderson, 2017). Some are also less familiar than L2 students with grammatical terms such as concordancia, indicative and subjunctive, even though they have intuitive knowledge of Spanish syntax, such as verb conjugations and number agreement that their L2 peers lack. Where they struggle is with the metalinguistic analysis of their language. (Shin & Hudgens Henderson, 2017). Embedding sociolinguistics into instruction and assessments has potential benefits for HLLs through validating their language varieties and casting formal Spanish as simply a different register that is useful in certain social and academic contexts.2 Such teaching practices increase students’ awareness and understanding of the sociopolitical and ideological dimensions of language, so that they can make deliberate choices to match the style of language they use to the communicative context they are in. Leeman and Serafini (2016) present a myriad of ideas for incorporating sociolinguistic content, including the use of historical texts and corpora to demonstrate the variability of language forms (2016: 67). Similarly, the authors describe projects tailored towards linguistic landscapes (see Blommaert, 2013) or the use of social media, music and internet sites to show modern examples of language variation and to position variation as a natural phenomenon. Vana (2020) proposes that students investigate lexical differences relating to a particular topic, such as los medios de comunicación or comida. Students can interview each other about the words they learned to denote concepts specific to the theme (see Appendix 6.2). Not only does such an exercise help students expand their lexicon, but the discovery that their peers use different words to express the same meaning offers empirical evidence that language variation is natural and an inherent part of using language. This is also a preliminary step in empowering them to make their own linguistic choices while questioning the dominant notions of what constitutes correct and standard language. In addition, combating language attitudes requires students to recognize their own internalized attitudes toward language and to analyze those attitudes sociolinguistically in order ‘to question the status quo’ (Leeman & Serafini, 2016: 71). One way of exposing students to authentic and natural speech while revealing their unconscious attitudes toward language is a matched-guise task. A matched-guise task is a technique that circumvents conscious reflection by presenting listeners with recorded speech samples that express the same content but using different language styles or varieties. Although listeners are asked to make predictions about the speaker’s characteristics (e.g. level of education, socioeconomic status) based solely on linguistic cues,

136  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

it is necessary for post-task discussion to take place that speak on the importance of avoiding authenticating linguistic profiling of individuals (Garrett, 2010; Loureiro-Rodriguez et al., 2013; Mackey & Gass, 2016; Stefanowitsch, 2005). Appendix 6.3 presents a sample lesson in which students role play a hiring manager deciding which candidate to hire based on one of three different scripts. This exercise gives students direct experience with authentic language use, develops their oral skills in Spanish and uses the language variety they are accustomed to or have learned. After students submit the speech samples they have collected from their family, friends or members of their community, the instructor selects a few excerpts from the samples and presents them in a matched guise format during a class session. After listening to each sample, the students reflect upon what they heard, not in terms of the content of the message, but the speaker’s (extra)linguistic characteristics (e.g. lexical choices, gender, pronunciation/accent). This experience can help students identify their own internalized beliefs toward different language varieties, shed light on their subconscious linguistic profiling, present fruitful discussion about the dangers of such profiling, assist in creating a mutual, positive understanding of different spoken Spanish varieties and increase their options for adjusting their language to the public setting in which they find themselves. Making the classroom a safe space for honest discussion of language attitudes and judgments ‘can help students gain a deep understanding of language and how and why it varies and use their newfound understanding to more accurately assess the reasons underlying people’s negative attitudes toward certain ways of talking’ (Shin & Hudgens Henderson, 2017: 197). The goal is for bilingualism to be celebrated as a strength rather than deprecated as inferior language. For this to happen, instructors and L2 students must learn to value the language varieties HLLs bring to the class, rather than ostracizing them for their lexical and morphosyntactic choices. To that end, the final suggested activity focus on viewing language learners as one community, rather than as speakers of different varieties with different degrees of prestige. The lesson forges mutual beneficial partnerships in which HLLs are valued and respected for their knowledge and linguistic skills. Mutually beneficial interactions. L2 and SHL students come from very different language learning backgrounds, and neither has knowledge of the other’s linguistic journey in using or acquiring the language. Through their lived experiences and the dominant discourses regarding the ‘informality’ of their Spanish, HLLs tend to have internalized a belief that their language is stigmatized (Edstrom, 2007). A pedagogical practice to counter such negative self-perceptions involves mutually beneficial interactions between L2s and HLLs focused on their lived experiences with the Spanish language.

Countering Negative Attitudes toward Heritage Students’ Spanish  137

Carreira (2016a: 166) claims that it is imperative to employ reciprocal learning strategies that give both types of learners opportunities to interact and a sense of self and group empowerment. Reciprocal strategies have usually been used to help students acquire specific linguistic forms (Bowles, 2011; Bowles et al., 2014). I propose expanding their use to uncover individual students’ linguistic journeys in acquiring Spanish, with the goal of establishing solidarity in the classroom environment. Instructors can find many possible ways to present opportunities for interaction focusing on lived experiences speaking Spanish. For example, HLLs can present oral histories of what it was like for them to learn to speak Spanish, while the L2s narrate their personal experiences, with the end goal of establishing mutual respect for the two very different trajectories of language learning. Because language attitudes are rooted in the use of language in social situations, the goal of such an exercise is to build understanding that HLLs are not homogeneous. Instead, each followed their own language-learning journey. The challenges encountered along the way make each speaker unique and capable. For this practice to be effective, the instructor must cultivate a safe and inclusive environment in the classroom. As Goulette (2020: 65) alerts us, ‘teachers may meet resistance from students who do not wish to open up about their home language and cultural experiences’. Therefore, instructors must establish specific expectations for respectful interactions in the classroom. One strategy for increasing students’ sense of safety and competence in the languages is for the instructor to present their own experiences with learning Spanish. Open and honest discussions are important to highlight the sociopolitical realities of speaking Spanish in the United States. As Lado and Quijano (2020) assert, the mixed class needs to ‘provide learners with an environment in which their linguistic and cultural practices are respected contextualizing language learning with topics such as language and identity, variation, or bi/multilingualism’ (2020: 143). To accomplish this, I recommend presenting an open-ended survey about students’ perceptions of their own and their classmates’ language experiences and proficiency at the beginning and again at the end of the semester (see Appendix 6.4). Students’ responses to this survey give the instructor a sense of their preconceptions and attitudes about themselves and their classmates. Based on this information, the instructor can select topics for weekly critical language discussions between HLL and L2 students in pairs or small groups. Vana (2020: 231) offers possible topics for warm-up exercises leading into these discussions: • Stigmatization of the HL home/community variety. • Societal representations of Spanish speakers in the United States and how they effect SHL and L2 students.

138  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

• Reasons why students may be hesitant or embarrassed about speaking in the classroom. • Inadequate knowledge of colloquial (or formal) terminology. • Lack of practice using Spanish. • Unfamiliarity with US Spanish versus academic registers. The pairs/small groups can then describe their encounters to the class. It is necessary that enough time be allotted for comprehensive discussion and that the students be given a choice to use the language variety with which they are most comfortable to convey the instructor’s respect for all language varieties. As a final project, the pairs or small groups present what they have learned in oral presentations to the class (see Appendix 6.5). This project serves as a summative evaluation of students’ critical language learning (Beaudrie et al., 2014; Leeman & Serafini, 2020). It can also uncover some of the stigmatization that HLLs who learned Spanish in home and community contexts have faced as speakers and learners of Spanish. These final presentations allow L2s and HLLs to disengage from the normative ideologies of the ‘standard language’ and ‘native speaker’, and instead to demonstrate how fluid speaking a language can be. Future Directions and Conclusions

In this chapter, I have reviewed research concerning dominant language attitudes toward SHL students in university courses that enroll a mix of L2 and HLL students. Furthermore, I have presented suggestions for how pedagogues and researchers can apply this research in classroom activities aimed at creating mutual understanding among learners and respect for linguistic diversity. I emphasized the need for critical explorations of language variation through practices such as CSL and sociolinguistics that instill an appreciation for various dialects and registers. Without such awareness and appreciation, the cultural and linguistic realities of Spanish are ignored (Henshaw & Bowles, 2015). Similarly, given that both types of learners have not only different linguistic abilities and needs, but also different journeys in acquiring Spanish, cultivating mutually beneficial partnerships should be a central goal for instructors of mixed classes. Because L2s learned Spanish largely in an academic context by studying textbooks, they tend to have greater metalinguistic competency in terms of memorized rules and techniques about grammar and orthography. In contrast, HLLs have spent part of their prime language-learning years being immersed in a naturalistic setting where they learn both Spanish and English, but also come to recognize the subordination of their HL. Although some HLLs may be able to continue learning Spanish in dual immersion or bilingual schools, many others shift away from

Countering Negative Attitudes toward Heritage Students’ Spanish  139

their HL due to ideologies and prejudice from the dominant culture that discourage them from continuing to study the language (Beaudrie et al., 2014). That is why mutually beneficial partnerships are important for highlighting their learning differences and allowing them to question their presuppositions about their own and others’ identities and linguistic practices (Leeman & Serafini, 2020). An understanding among L2 and HL learners can potentially prevent negative repercussions and, instead, foster agency and understanding among the two groups of learners. There is still much work to be done in developing best practices for the mixed class. First, there is a lack of classroom-based research (Carreira & Kagan, 2018). Future research should move from examining how each group of learners acquires specific linguistic targets (Bowles, 2011; Bowles et al., 2014) toward documenting their classroom experiences. As Carreira and Kagan (2018) assert, surveys and laboratory ‘approaches are limited in terms of providing a comprehensive account of HL teaching and learning because they all necessarily involve simplifying assumptions. These simplifications mean that important real-world complexities are overlooked. To address those complexities, class-based studies are needed’ (2018: 157–158). One of the many complexities to be explored is the socioaffective consequences of enrolling HLLs in a course that caters to the L2 students in terms of curriculum and pedagogical approaches. For example, classroom observations can produce rich naturalistic data that may explain heightened criticism of and negative attitudes toward the HLL students. The linguistic interactions that occur spontaneously in the classroom are potentially free from the observer’s paradox found in laboratory-based studies. The interactions among L2s and HLLs reveal linguistic realities, unmanipulated, in a shared space. Research focused on the real-life complexities in the mixed class may encourage and motivate instructors and students to move away from dichotomies such as ‘formal’ versus ‘informal’ and ‘us’ versus ‘them’ toward a more nuanced view of Spanish as both a local and a global language. It can give both instructors and students the tools necessary to question dominant discourses about language varieties and to make their own decisions regarding the variety they choose (Leeman, 2018; Leeman & Serafini, 2020). Considering the highly polarized political climate when this text was written, combating linguistic discrimination needs to be at the forefront of teaching in this context. Resisting negative language attitudes toward heritage language varieties and their speakers not only enhances the experiences of SHL students, but also improves teaching and learning for all students in mixed courses through heightened social and critical language understanding. Such a course foregrounds advocacy and linguistic maintenance, while simultaneously highlighting and celebrating the beauty of linguistic diversity.

140  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Beyond the Reading (1) Heritage language maintenance is the central goal of heritage language pedagogy. Keeping this in mind, what are some of the negative consequences that arise when a HL student is negatively corrected and told their linguistic abilities are not adequate? What can we as educators do to prevent these negative internalized feelings and reach this important goal in a mixed language class? (2) Despite Spanish being viewed as a pluricentric language, there is a strong inclination for the privileged, or standardized variety in teaching and learning. As such, within the mixed class, preference is given to L2 pedagogy and L2 teaching material. How can we as educators prioritize the conversation on linguistic variation in the (mixed) classroom and emphasize the importance of heterogeneity of language? (3) A heritage speaker in the mixed class uses the following three items when discussing their weekend: manejastes, haiga rompido, and troca. How would you, as the educator, go about explaining these specific linguistic features to the heritage speaker? To the L2 speaker?

Notes (1) Speaking Spanish in the US: The Sociopolitics of Language (Fuller & Leeman, 2020) contains many topics related to the social and linguistic issues faced by Spanish speakers in the United States. I recommend this textbook as a resource for structuring a CSL-based conversation curriculum because it provides an interdisciplinary sociopolitical approach and sheds light on the reality of speaking Spanish in the United States. (2) Potowski and Shin (2019), Gramática española: Variación social is designed for intermediate to advanced Spanish students and presents Spanish grammar while at the same time examining sociopolitical and sociohistorical factors to understand the real-world use of Spanish in the United States. The textbook covers topics such as La lengua como significador social; sustantivos, pronombres, preposiciones; verbos y conjugaciones; características del español en contacto.

References Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. and Zanna, M. (2005) The Handbook of Attitudes. New York: Psychology Press. Bayona, P. (2019) ‘Saber español sí sirve’ Academic validation of Spanish as a heritage language. Open Linguistics 5, 69–80. Beaudrie, S. (2009) Spanish receptive bilinguals: Understanding the cultural and linguistic profile of learners from three different generations. Spanish in Context 6 (1), 85–104. Beaudrie, S. (2012) Research on university-based Spanish heritage language programs in the United States: The current state of affairs. In S. Beaudrie and M. Fairclough (eds) Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States: State of the Field (pp. 203–221). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Beaudrie, S. and Fairclough, M. (2012) Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States: State of the Field. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Countering Negative Attitudes toward Heritage Students’ Spanish  141

Beaudrie, S., Ducar, C. and Potowski, K. (2014) Heritage Language Teaching: Research and Practice. New York: McGraw Hill. Beaudrie, S., Amezcua, A. and Loza, S. (2019) Critical language awareness for the heritage context: Development and validation of a measurement questionnaire. Language Testing 36 (4), 573–594. Bessett, R. and Carvalho, A. (2021) The structure of US Spanish. In S. Loza and S. Beaudrie (eds) Heritage Language Teaching: Critical Language Awareness Perspectives for Research and Pedagogy (pp. 44–62). New York: Routledge. Blommaert, J. (2013) Ethnography, Superdiversity and Linguistic Landscapes: Chronicles of Complexity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783090419. Last accessed 23 July 2022. Bowles, M.A. (2011) Exploring the role of modality: L2-heritage learner interactions in the Spanish language classroom. Heritage Language Journal 8 (1), 30–65. Bowles, M.A. (ed.) (2022) Outcomes of University Spanish Heritage Language Instruction in the United States. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Bowles, M., Adams, R. and Toth, P. (2014) A comparison of L2-L2 and L2-heritage learner interactions in Spanish language classrooms. Modern Language Journal 98, 497–517. Bringle, R.G. and Clayton, P.H. (2012) Civic education through service learning: What, how, and why? In L. McIlraith, A. Lyons and R. Munck (eds) Higher Education and Civic Engagement: Comparative Perspective (pp. 101–124). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Campanaro, T. (2013) Spanish heritage speakers and second language learners in mixed classrooms: Perceptions of students and instructors. Master’s Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. See https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/7e6e5a35-d4354b78-b9f8-d6411cb7ccc4. Last accessed 23 July 2022. Carreira, M. (2016a) A general framework and supporting strategies for teaching mixed classes. In D. Pascual y Cabo (ed.) Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp. 159–176). Amsterdam, John Benjamins. Carreira, M. (2016b) Supporting heritage language learners through macrobased teaching: Foundational principles and implementation strategies for heritage language and mixed classes. In M. Fairclough and S.M. Beaudrie (eds) Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching: A Practical Guide for the Classroom (pp. 123–142). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Carreira, M. and Kagan, O. (2018) Heritage language education: A proposal for the next 50 years. Foreign Language Annals 51, 152–168. Charity Hudley, A. and Mallinson, C. (2011) Understanding English Language Variation in U.S. Schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Ducar, C. (2008) Student voices: The missing link in the Spanish heritage language debate. Foreign Language Annals 41, 415–429. Edstrom, A. (2007) The mixing of non-native, heritage, and native speakers in upper-level Spanish courses: A sampling of student opinion. Hispania 90 (4), 755–768. Fairclough, M. (2016) Incorporating additional varieties to the linguistic repertoire of heritage language learners: A multidialectal model. In M. Fairclough and S.M. Beaudrie (eds) Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching: A Practical Guide for the Classroom (pp. 215–250). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Fairclough, M. and Beaudrie, S.M. (2016) Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching: A Practical Guide for the Classroom. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Fernández-Mallat, V. and Carey, M. (2017) A matched-guise study on L2, heritage, and native Spanish speakers’ attitudes to Spanish in the state of Washington. Sociolinguistic Studies 11 (1), 175–196. Fishman, J. (2001) 300-plus years of heritage language education in the United States. In J. Peyton, D. Ranard and S. McGinnis (eds) Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National Resource (pp. 81–98). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.

142  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Flores, N. and Rosa, J. (2015) Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review 85 (2), 149–171. Fuller, J.M. and Leeman, J. (2020) Speaking Spanish in the US: The Sociopolitics of Language (2nd edn). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Garrett, P. (2010) Attitudes to Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garrett, P., Coupland, N. and Williams, A. (2003) Investigating Language Attitudes: Social Meanings of Dialect, Ethnicity and Performance. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Goulette, E. (2020) Heritage language learners in a mixed class: Educational affordances and constraints. Dimension 55, 64–81. Henshaw, F. and Bowles, M. (2015) Meeting the needs of second language and heritage learners in mixed classes without sending mixed messages. Second Annual Symposium on Spanish as a Heritage Language, February, University of Oregon, Eugene. Holguín Mendoza, C. (2018) Critical language awareness (CLA) for Spanish heritage language programs: Implementing a complete curriculum. International Journal of Multilingualism 12 (2), 65–79. Holguín Mendoza, C. (2021) Sociolinguistic justice and student agency in language education: Toward a model for critical sociocultural linguistics literacy. In S. Loza and S.M. Beaudrie (eds) Heritage Language Teaching: Critical Language Awareness Perspectives for Research and Pedagogy (pp. 138–156). New York: Routledge. DOI:10.4324/9781003148227-10. Last accessed 23 July 2022. Holguín Mendoza, C. (2022) Beyond registers of formality and other categories of stigmatization: Style, awareness and agency in SHL education. In M.A. Bowles (ed.) Outcomes of University Spanish Heritage Language Instruction in the United States (pp. 149–168). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Labov, W. (1966) The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lado, B. and Quijano, C. (2020) Ideologies, identity, capital, and investment in a critical multilingual Spanish classroom. Critical Multilingualism Studies 8 (1), 135–164. Leeman, J. (2012) Investigating language ideologies in Spanish as a heritage language. In S.M. Beaudrie and M. Fairclough (eds) Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States: The State of the Field (pp. 43–59). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Leeman, J. (2018) Critical language awareness and Spanish as a heritage language: Challenging the linguistic subordination of US Latinxs. In K. Potowski (ed.) Handbook of Spanish as a Minority/Heritage Language (pp. 345–358). New York: Routledge. Leeman, J. and Serafini, E. (2016) Sociolinguistics for heritage language educators and students: A model of critical translingual competence. In M. Fairclough and S.M. Beaudrie (eds) Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching: A Practical Guide for the Classroom (pp. 56–79). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Leeman, J. and Serafini, E. (2020) ‘It’s not fair’: Discourses of deficit, equity, and effort in mixed heritage and second language Spanish classes. Journal of Language, Identity & Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1777866. Last accessed 23 July 2022. Leeman, J., Rabin, L. and Román-Mendoza, E. (2011) Critical pedagogy beyond the classroom walls: Community service-learning and Spanish heritage language education. Heritage Language Journal 8 (3), 293–314. Lippi-Green, R. (2012) English with an Accent: Language, Ideology and Discrimination in the United States. New York: Routledge. Lipski, J. (2008) Varieties of Spanish in the United States. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Loureiro-Rodriguez, V., Boggess, M. and Goldsmith, A. (2012) Language attitudes in Galicia: Using the matched-guise test among high school students. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 34, 136–153. Lowther-Pereira, K. (2015) Developing critical language awareness via service-learning for Spanish heritage speakers. Heritage Language Journal 12 (2), 159–185.

Countering Negative Attitudes toward Heritage Students’ Spanish  143

Lowther-Pereira, K. (2016) New directions in heritage language pedagogy: Community service-learning for Spanish heritage speakers. In D. Pascual y Cabo (ed.) Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp. 237–258). Amsterdam, John Benjamins. Loza, S. (2019) Exploring language ideologies in action: An analysis of Spanish heritage language oral corrective feedback in the mixed classroom setting (UMI No. 22621728). Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University. Loza, S. and Beaudrie, S.M. (2021) Heritage Language Teaching: Critical Language Awareness Perspectives for Research and Pedagogy. New York: Routledge. Mackey, A. and Gass, S. (2016) Second Language Research: Methodology and Design (2nd edn). New York: Routledge. Martínez, G. (2003) Perceptions of dialect in a changing society: Folk linguistics along the Texas-Mexico border. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7 (1), 38–49. Marrero, F.A. (2016) Barriers to school success for Latino students. Journal of Education and Learning 5 (2), 180–186. McIntosh, J. and Mendoza-Denton, N. (2020) Language in the Trump Era: Scandals and Emergencies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Otheguy, R. (2008) El llamado espanglish. In H. López-Morales (ed.) Enciclopedia del español en los Estados Unidos (pp. 222–246). Madrid: Instituto Cervantes & Editorial Santillana. Padilla, L. and Vana, R. (2019) Ideologies in the foreign language curriculum: Insights from textbooks and instructor interviews. Language Awareness 28 (1), 15–30. Parra, M. (2016) Critical approaches to heritage language instruction: How to foster students’ critical consciousness. In M. Fairclough and S.M. Beaudrie (eds) Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching: A Practical Guide for the Classroom (pp. 166–190). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Pascual y Cabo, D. (2016) Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pascual y Cabo, D., Prada, J. and Lowther Pereira, K. (2017) Effects of community servicelearning on heritage language learners’ attitudes toward their language and culture. Foreign Language Annals 50 (1), 71–83. Potowski, K. (2002) Experiences of Spanish heritage speakers in university foreign language courses and implications for teacher training. ADFL Bulletin 33 (3), 35–42. Potowski, K. and Shin, N. (2019) Gramática española: Variación social. New York: Routledge. Quan, T. (2021) Critical approaches to Spanish language teacher education: Challenging raciolinguistic ideologies and fostering critical language awareness. Hispania 104 (3), 447–459. Rabin, L. and Leeman, J. (2015) Critical service-learning and literary study in Spanish. In L. Grobman and R. Rosenberg (eds) Service Learning and Literary Studies in English (pp. 128–137). New York: Modern Language Association. Sánchez-Muñoz, A. and Amezcua, A. (2019) Spanish as a tool of Latinx resistance against repression in a hostile political climate. Chiricú Journal: Latina/o Literatures, Arts, and Cultures 3 (2), 59–76. Santa Ana, O., Juárez, M.A., Reséndez, M., Hernández, J., Gaytán, O., Cerón, K., Gómez, C. and Solís, R. (2020) Making our nation fear the powerless. In J. McIntosh and N. Mendoza-Denton (eds) Language in the Trump Era: Scandals and Emergencies (pp. 237–249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shin, N. and Hudgens Henderson, M. (2017) A sociolinguistic approach to teaching Spanish grammatical structures. Foreign Language Annals 50 (1), 195–213. Silva-Corvalán, C. (1994) Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stefanowitsch, A.S. (2005) The function of metaphor: Developing a corpus-based perspective. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10 (2), 161–198. Suek, L. (2014) The influence of language use and language attitudes to community languages spoken by migrant students. Englisia 1 (2), 297–307.

144  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Tagliamonte, S.A. (2012) Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Tocaimaza-Hatch, C. and Walls, L. (2016) Service-learning as a means of vocabulary learning for second language and heritage language learners of Spanish. Hispania 99 (4), 650–665. Torres, L. (2019) Spanish is not spoken here! Latino Studies 17 (1), 1–4. Train, R. (2000) Getting past the ideology of ‘the language’: The standardization of French and Spanish, and its implications in foreign-language pedagogy (UMI No. 9979837). Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Train, R. (2003) The (non)native standard language in foreign language education: A critical perspective. In C. Blythe (ed.) The Sociolinguistics of Foreign-Language Classrooms (pp. 3–40). Boston: Heinle. US Census Bureau (2019) Language spoken at home. See https://data.census.gov/ cedsci/table?q=Language%20Spoken%20at%20Home&tid=ACSST1Y2019.S1601. Last accessed 23 July 2022. Valdés, G. (2000) Introduction. In Spanish for Native Speakers: AATSP Professional Development Series Handbook (vol. 1, pp. 1–20). San Diego, CA: Harcourt. Valdés, G., González, S., López García, D. and Márquez, P. (2003) Language ideology: The case of Spanish in departments of foreign languages. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 34, 3–26. Vana, R. (2020) Learning with an attitude?! Heritage and L2 students’ language attitudes toward Spanish language varieties in the advanced mixed class (UMI No. 27956249). Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University. Zapata, G. (2011) The effects of community service learning on L2 learners’ cultural understanding. Hispania 94 (1), 86–102.

Countering Negative Attitudes toward Heritage Students’ Spanish  145

Appendix 6.1 Advanced Conversation (CSL) Topic: Spanish in the United States Textbook:

Fuller, J.M. and Leeman, J. (2020) Speaking Spanish in the US: The Sociopolitics of Language (2nd edn). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Learning Objectives:

This course has the following objectives: (1) Develop your communicative skills in Spanish to carry out dialogues, conversations, and interviews. (2) Increase your awareness of Hispanics and the Spanish language in the United States through immersion in a critical service-learning project that connects you directly with the local Hispanic community. (3) Heighten your intention to use Spanish as the local language for communication, both in class and during the service-learning project, facilitating natural contexts for language use and maximizing exposure to authentic Spanish language. (4) Promote your understanding of the social, political, and ideological dimensions of Spanish to give you agency in making and understanding your own linguistic choices. (5) Reflect on your roles as an individual and as a community members by means of guided written reflections related to your service-learning project.

Evaluation criteria:

(1) Service-learning final project. (2) In-class participation. (3) Group chapter presentation. (4) Reflection.

1. Service-learning final project: You will participate in a community project with the objective of applying topics discussed in the classroom while using your Spanish language skills for the benefit of the local community and themselves. You will provide community service to an agency of your choice. You may either choose your own project or collaborate with the professor to find a suitable service-learning agency/ project. In choosing an agency or project, keep in mind that for the purposes of this course, the main objective is to develop your Spanishlanguage communication skills in the context where the service will be carried out. For this reason, you must return your proposal for a service-learning project to the instructor for approval on or before the third week of classes. The service-learning project must be carried out during the entire term, and you are required to submit reflections on your experiences biweekly. The last two days of this course will be devoted to oral presentations about the service-learning projects. You will create a digital product (Vlog, PPT, digital story, YouTube, TikTok, etc.) in which you reflect upon your service-learning experience. Possible topics and questions to keep in mind when creating your final presentation include how the experience gave you tools to advocate for the social, educational, linguistic, well-being of Spanish/ Latinx speakers in the United States. In addition, you must (1) explain your service project, (2) describe your experience, (3) reflect on your involvement and (4) discuss how the experience has (or has not) helped you on both personal and academic levels.

146  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

2. Reflections: Five individual written reflections (two full pages, in Spanish) will be required reflecting on the connection between the topics discussed in class and what you learn and observe during your community service. The topic for each narrative is as follows: (1) What are your experiences of being a Spanish speaker in the United States? (2) Now that you have started working with your organization, do you see any benefit of your participation in this service? Why or why not? (3) What has surprised you the most while participating in this service? Has anything discussed in class been made evident during your service with the organization? (4) How do you feel about using your Spanish? Do you feel more comfortable speaking? Why or why not? (5) How did this experience give you tools to advocate for the social, educational, linguistic, wellbeing of Spanish/Latinx speakers in the United States? 3. In-class participation and attendance: Participation: You are required to come prepared to class and to participate actively during the discussions and in-class activities. Just attending the class does not entail a good participation grade. Attendance: Attendance is mandatory for you to obtain a participation grade (i.e. if you are absent one day, your participation grade will be affected). Only two absences are permitted. 4. Group chapter presentation: Each group will prepare a 30-minute presentation and discussion of a chapter assigned from the Fuller and Leeman textbook. Each presentation must include a PowerPoint and must summarize the important points of the chapter, discussion questions and an applied activity.

Countering Negative Attitudes toward Heritage Students’ Spanish  147

Appendix 6.2 Language variation in Spanish Learning objectives:

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Understand that variation is an inherent part of any language. Foster your agency to use the lexical items you are comfortable using. Expand your lexicon. Question underlying negative assumptions toward certain lexical items and ways of speaking.

During the past few weeks of the course, we have covered a couple of topics that focused on the social meaning of language, variation in the Spanish language, and use of nouns, pronouns, and prepositions. For this first project, you will be tasked with uncovering Spanish lexical differences relating to a specific topic of your choosing. Please see example. Part 1: Due week 3 (50 pts)

First, think of a topic that is of interest to you (los medios de comunicación, comida, estudios, etc.) and create a list of 15 words in English relating to your chosen topic. Next, using a Spanish/English dictionary, write down a Spanish translation for each word. Next, consult in person with two peers from the course. Feel free to talk to them after class or email them to set up a time to talk. One peer should be someone who learned Spanish in an educational context (L2 student) and another should be someone who learned Spanish in the home or community (heritage learner). Feel free to go back and review the introductory videos your peers posted. Read each word in English to your classmate and record the Spanish translation they give you. Part 2: Due week 4 (50 pts)

Now that all the words have been translated and you have your complete list, please write a two-page reflection about what you uncovered in Part 1. Some questions to consider: (1) Did you learn anything new? Were you familiar with all the possible Spanish translations of the words you selected? Did any of the translations surprise you? Why? (2) What do you think about the differences between the translations you found in the dictionary versus the translations your peers gave you? (3) Would you feel comfortable using any of those words? Why or why not? (4) Do you think there is only one correct translation of a word, or are there a multitude of options? What is language variation in your opinion? Is this a positive or negative aspect of the language? Why?

148  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Part 3: Due finals week (50 pts)

Now that the course has finished, please review your list of words and your first reflection. Write another two-page paper, this time reflecting upon Part 2 of this project as well as the course content and what you learned. Some questions to consider: (1) Have your opinions changed about what you wrote in the first reflection? (2) What did you learn about the Spanish language in this course? (3) Is there only one correct translation of a word or are there a multitude of options? What does language variation mean to you after completing this project and this course? (4) Do you feel more confident in your abilities as a speaker of Spanish after completing this project and this course? Criteria

Ratings

Points

Content: All required information is present and is easy to follow and understand. The reflection is easy to understand and answers the guiding questions provided.

20–15 Excellent

14–9 Very good

8–5 Good

4–0 Average

Examples: The project includes all the lexical items pertaining to your chosen topic. The reflection includes examples from part 1 as well as course content to support your opinion.

10–8 Excellent

7–6 Very good

5–4 Good

3–0 Average

Grammar/Orthography: Correct grammar, orthography, and spelling are used throughout and do not impede readers’ understanding. Focuses on grammar topics covered in the textbook and lectures.

20–15 Excellent

14–9 Very good

8–5 Good

4–0 Average

Countering Negative Attitudes toward Heritage Students’ Spanish  149

Appendix 6.3 What do you think? (Adapted from Vana, 2020)

Imagine you are a hiring manager at a local gym in a Spanish-speaking community. For this activity, you will record a Spanish speaker in your community (someone who is bilingual) telling you why they should be hired at the gym. Using only one of the given scripts (see below), have your interviewee review it until they are comfortable and can authentically converse with you. The recording should be anywhere from two to four minutes long, be in Spanish, and be submitted in the corresponding folder. Due date: Week 5 *All errors are intended

(1) Hola. Espero que Ud. esté bien. He visto tu anuncio y las posiciones que hay libres para el nuevo gimnasio que será específicamente para la comunidad hispánica. Yo tengo una personalidad excelente. Me encanta hablar con personas y me siento confortable conociendo nuevas personas y hablando con ellos. También, seria capaz de ser la primera cara que personas ven cuando entren en el edificio. Sé que, si pudiera ser parte de este gimnasio, tendría tiempo para ayudar con todo. Yo estudie marketing a mi universidad y estoy listo para hacer una subespecialidad en la finanza si a ustedes les gustarían. Pués, también tengo mucha experiencia trabajando con computadoras y estoy comfortable trabajando con las muchas plataformas. Me gustaría hablar más con ustedes en el futuro. (2) Hola, buenos días. Espero que estás bien. He visto tu anuncio y las posiciones libres que tienes para el nuevo LA Fitness que se va a abrir en Guadalupe, que sería para la comunidad hispana. Tengo una personalidad ejemplar. Me gusta hablar con personas y me siento muy cómodo conociendo y hablando con ellos. También, podría ser la primera cara que las personas vean cuando entren al edificio. Espero que este les demuestre que yo puedo hacer cualquieras de las posiciones libres. Yo estaré libre para ayudar con todo. Yo estudié marketing en mi universidad y estoy disponible para hacer un certificado en finanza si ustedes quisieran. Pues, yo también tengo experiencia con computadoras y conozco con las tantas plataformas que requieren para el otro puesto libre. Yo se muy bien como ser deligente y trabajador. Me encantaría conocerlos a todos y decirles más. (3) Buenos días. Espero que estén muy bien. He visto su anuncio y los puestos abiertos que tienen para el nuevo gimnasio LA Fitness que va a abrir en Guadalupe y que servirá a la comunidad hispana. Tengo una personalidad excelente. Me gusta hablar con las personas y me siento

150  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

cómoda conociendo personas nuevas y hablando con ellas. También, yo estaría dispuesta a ser el primer rostro que las personas vean al entrar al edificio. Espero que esto demuestre todo lo que puedo hacer en todos los puestos disponibles. Yo estudie marketing en mi universidad y estoy dispuesta a hacer un certificado en finanza si fuese necesario. También tengo experiencia en computación y estoy familiarizada con muchas plataformas que ustedes requieren para las otras posiciones vacantes. Sé muy bien cómo ser una empleada diligente y trabajadora. Me encantaría agendar una cita para hablar con más detalle. In-class activity:

The instructor will play a series of short snippets of recordings of different Spanish speakers. Your task is to listen to them and think about what you hear. Questions to keep in mind: (1) Who is the speaker? (2) What does this recording tell you about the speaker? (3) Would you hire this person? Why or why not?

Countering Negative Attitudes toward Heritage Students’ Spanish  151

Appendix 6.4

(1) Name:____________ (2) Age: ________ (3) Where were you born? (a) US ___________________ (b) Other country _____________________ (4) What is your first language? _____________________ (a) How did you learn it? _____________________ (5) What is your second language? _____________________ (a) How did you learn it? _____________________ (6) How would you describe your Spanish skills? Give as much detail as possible. ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________. (7) In your opinion, who speaks the best Spanish? Do they come from a specific country? Did this individual learn Spanish in a specific way? Give as much detail as possible. ______________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________. (8) What Spanish varieties have you been exposed to? ________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________. (9) What can you say about your classmates’ Spanish skills? Why? _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ ________________________. (10) Do you feel intimidated using your Spanish in the classroom? Outside it? Give as much detail as possible. ___________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________.

152  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Appendix 6.5 Final Presentation (Adapted from Vana, 2020)

At the beginning of the course, you completed a short survey that asked you questions about your journey learning and using Spanish in the classroom and in society. In addition, you and your partner/group met frequently to discuss these experiences. You covered topics relating to: • Stigmatization of the HL home/community and L2 variety. • Societal representations of Spanish speakers in the United States and the effects on HLLs/L2s. • Embarrassment or hesitation about speaking/participating aloud in the classroom. • Lack of colloquial terminology. • Insufficient practice with the language. • Unfamiliarity with US Spanish/academic registers. • Personal opinions regarding language ability and proficiency. As a class, we created a comfortable, safe, and inclusive learning environment where we shared our feelings and experiences while continuing to acquire Spanish. For your final presentation, you will present what you have learned and reflect upon these fruitful discussions. Each pair/group will create a 10-minute presentation that highlights what you learned and your opinions regarding your Spanish-language abilities. Consider the topics above when preparing your presentation. You can present in Spanish, English, or a mix of both. Learning Objectives:

(1) Increase your self-confidence in your Spanish and interest in continuing to learn and use Spanish. (2) Reflect upon your role as a Spanish speaker in the context of a bi/ multilingual United States. (3) Increase your awareness of diverse spoken and written language. (4) Develop a mutual understanding about the various ways one learns Spanish. (5) Respect the lived language experiences of all Spanish speakers.

7 Intercultural Education in Early Childhood Education or How to Enhance Language Learning and Social Cohesion in a Mixed Language Classroom Naraina de Melo Martins Kuyumjian

Modern urbanized societies are characterized by increasing flows of people and information, thereby transforming cultural and linguistic landscapes. Languages and cultures are thus coming into contact as never before and the school classroom is the place par excellence where individuals can encounter social diversity, and for many children it is the first such place. In this shared space pupils and teachers can learn about human diversity which includes linguistic and cultural diversity. Introduction

The pragmatic vocation for his work is in line with the author’s trajectory. After 12 years’ experience as a multilingual classroom teacher, I had the opportunity to do doctoral research which brought about a perspective change. Having my ear to the ground allowed me to observe teachers’ day-to-day possibilities and constraints. During a school year, I listened to stakeholders, including children in two multilingual kindergarten classrooms. My changed position from teacher to researcher enabled a broader picture to emerge and problems were pinpointed to which I could find some solutions. These related to pupils’ multilingualism in school where stakeholders’ practices are dominantly monolingual. While language practice observation further enabled my understanding of dominant ideologies that underpin pedagogical choices, some didactic exploration was also possible. 153

154  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

The most interesting was when one of the teachers who participated in these research project set up some sequences belonging to a plural paradigm. This chapter consists of three parts all relying on the important issues that emerged during this research; how to create pedagogical occasions to experience and reflect upon individual uniqueness, social cohesion and diversity. Furthermore, how to do this from the first years of formal schooling. To address the inequality of individuals’ linguistics resources, changing a linguistic approach into classrooms from monolingual to plural is necessary, and it requires the important step of the trajectory legitimation of a plural approach. The first part of this chapter will present some documents issued from linguistic, sociolinguistic and educational research about plurilingualism in school context. The reader will find six references that propose, in each of them, several language awareness sequences which aim to help individuals in recognising their linguistic resources. Secondly, I present three pedagogical sequences that help children to recognize the solidarity bonds that link all human beings (Byram, 2008; Morin, 2000). The third part discusses tension in intercultural mediation and draws attention to the impact of a teacher’s positioning has in the classroom. Modern urbanized societies are characterized by increasing flows of people and information, thereby transforming cultural and linguistic landscapes. Languages and cultures are thus coming into contact as never before and the school classroom is the place par excellence where individuals can encounter social diversity, and for many children it is the first such place. In this shared space pupils and teachers can learn about human diversity which includes linguistic and cultural diversity. The persistence of monolingual practices in educational settings is related to the dominance of a broader paradigm, a monological one. In academic literature sociolinguistic, anthropological and psychological perspectives explore formal education settings and tell us about the importance of thinking about plurilingualism not as an isolated aspect of a school’s programme or an individual’s life, but as a transversal guideline that questions set beliefs. Cummins, for example, challenges those set beliefs in his well-known book Language, Power and Pedagogy (2000). He reports on 150 empirical studies to demonstrate, despite widespread assumptions, the advantages in learning additional languages and plurilingualism including for school language learning. Rogoff (2003) gives another pertinent example showing how in childhood, linguistic and social learning expectations are culturally and historically largely situated within school, and traditionally there is a top-down dominant structure of power. Understanding how dominant ideology is reinforced daily in school life is crucial. Many works show how practices and discourse impacts

Intercultural Education in Early Childhood Education  155

childrens schooling. Teachers’ feedback about discourse patterns of minority groups (Auger, 2021), the place given to the ideas expressed though a non-dominant pattern (Edwards, 1997) and stakeholders beliefs about plurilingualism (Cummins, 2000) are some of the aspects largely discussed in academic literature. The starting point for a new paradigm which includes plurality is the sharing of all stakeholders’ representations and assumptions. Without this, the inclusion of plurality is impossible. Sharing in multidirectional ways, that is between all stakeholders, is the surest way to facilitate understanding between stakeholders and it is this understanding that can counter the outdated dominant structure of power. Researchers and practitioners must change their way of looking at language and language events, moving away from a monological paradigm that sees human activity as linear. New forms of language use and language creation1 emerge exponentially, and with the pluralistic implications that mobility brings, become key concepts in understanding language practices. As Blommaert (2010) states, they need to dislocate their understanding from the fixed position in time and space to insert them in a spectrum of human action. The language practices of individuals are intrinsically connected to the temporal and spatial trajectories that characterize their lives. The imperative for such a change in perspective becomes clear when we examine the historical foundation of monolingualism, which then helps to explain wider resistance to a more plural paradigm. This begins with the biblical myth of the ‘Tower of Babel’, which promotes the notion that only people who speak the same language can understand each other. In 19th century Europe, the idea of the nation state became almost indissociable from notions of union through one single shared language, to the point where, as Blanchet (2017) says about France: This ‘sacred worship’ of French monolingualism, this exclusion of all other languages, and of all forms of linguistic plurality (including variations within the French language, considered as mistakes, even though they are an integral part of the ‘sacred’ language), is one of the key ideological foundations for the diffusion, linguistic practice and representations of the French language.2

Indeed, Ronjat, a linguist working in the early 20th century in France elaborated key principles for the French national education system: he maintained that the teacher should only use one language with their pupils in order to avoid confusion, fragmentation and misunderstanding. This perspective still endures today, and is evident in guidelines for French schools, promoting the idea that linguistic diversity is negative and a problem to be ‘solved’.

156  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

These aspects lie at the heart of the situation we are in today whereby we struggle between complex and plural realities and linear and monological mentalities and institutions (Seele, 2016). On the one hand, we have ever more access to different forms of human expression, but on the other hand, institutions and citizens are not equipped with tools which lead them towards a more plural paradigm. The problem is that if language education does not seek to work within the complexity of individual language practices (be they monolingual or plurilingual) and fails to legitimize those practices, educational institutions will always reinforce an ideology that supports a social and historically constructed idea of truth (Foucault, 1980) that ultimately increases educational and social inequity. By confining how we do and say things to one language and culture, education systems create the conditions whereby educational failure leads to predetermined outcomes for some specific groups (for example Piet van Avermaet, 2021, talks about socioethnic inequality in education). To address this inequality of individuals’ linguistics resources, changing a linguistic approach in classrooms from monolingual to plural is necessary and it requires the important step of the trajectory legitimation of a plural approach.3 I will here present three different and complementary pedagogical approaches for multilingual classrooms. These have been underpinned by critical pedagogical scaffolding outlined for each starting with some activities that help individuals to recognize their own plurilingualism, which is key in them formulating links between the various elements of their linguistic repertoire. Secondly, I present three pedagogical sequences that can help children to recognize the solidarity bonds that link all human beings (Byram, 2008; Morin, 2000) which is characterized by diversity. Finally, I present concrete examples to help understanding of the importance of teacher’s positioning in the classroom. A. Recognising Individual Linguistic Resources

Teachers have to make choices all the time, about materials, curriculum, physical environment of the classroom organization, etc. Solid principles, an example of good practices and varied pedagogical material help with decision making of things such as group sizes, set up classroom layouts and activities. Those choices depend on the uniqueness of each context and add to the inherent complexity of educational settings. The non-exhaustive list below of various initiatives developed, as we will show, by associations, or governmental or scientific projects, target mixed language classrooms and young plurilingual learners and can help teachers in their day-by-day practices. Teachers can find what is needed (for different natures, functioning and organizations) to support pupils learning from a wide range of pedagogical activities.

Intercultural Education in Early Childhood Education  157

Figure 7.1  Photo of a five-year-old child’s production following a language awareness workshop (Kuyumjian, 2020)

Language awareness

The five sources below propose a wide range of language awareness activities. The ‘Language Flower’ activity is but one example which helps to demonstrate the interest of a language awareness pedagogical approach. In this activity, in each petal of a paper flower the pupils write the languages in which they know how to say ‘good morning’. The children who know several languages will have more petals in their flower. This means that pupils can represent in a very concrete and visible way the multiple resources that make up their linguistic repertoire. Marked upon the sign of presence instead of the sign of confusion, pupils’ plurilingualism are then represented in a positive way. World languages in daily life4

Coordinated by Martine Kervran (2013), ‘Les langues du monde au quotidien’ is composed of three books and is aimed at each primary school cycle (children aged four to six, seven to nine and 10 to 12). The goal is to integrate the fundamental principles of the Common European Framework of References for Languages (2001) into the educational system. The first book is aimed at kindergarten level; it proposes several didactic sequences to facilitate awareness of language diversity to facilitate language appropriation. The activities support home and languages and aims to support the integration of newly arrived pupils.

158  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

EDiLiC (Education et Diversité Linguistique et Culturelle) https://www.edilic.org

EDiLiC is an international association set up in Switzerland whose aim is to promote language awareness in schools. It offers innovative pedagogical approaches such as integrated didactics, and intercultural approaches. On their website, there is a list of resources, a bibliography organized according to themes and topics. EDiLiC organizes regular conferences around Europe. Elodil (Eveil au Langage et Ouverture à la Diversité Linguistique) https://www.elodil.umontreal.ca/

Founded in 2002 (http://www.elodil1.com/index.html) by Françoize Armand, a professor at the University of Montreal, those activities are built on European developments in language awareness, in particular Janua Linguarum, developed by Michel Candelier. The website aims to give teachers, pedagogical guidance, tools, activities and resources for working in pluriethnic and plurilingual environments. Elodil aims to help teachers who want to develop their intercultural and language competence. EOLE (Education et ouverture aux langues à l’école) http://eole.irdp.ch/eole/

Developed by Jean François De Pietro in 2014, EOLE is a website that presents a series of activities for children between four and 12 years old. The main idea of the website is to make children aware of the different languages in France and around the world. Activities to support multilingualism at school https://www.skolapelican.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Activities-to-supportmultilingualism-at-school.pdf

This document is the result of an Erasmus+ project, Multilingual Families, which ended in 2015. It is a guide with activities designed to help teachers motivate the children to use their languages. It is recommended for children up to the age of 10. There are 26 activities designed to maximize the motivation of students living in families using more than one language and it aims to support parents who are trying to ensure their children learn and keep their family languages. ___ In his final report about the large-scale Evlang program,5 Candelier (2003: 379) noted that the tests did not produce scientific quantitative evidence that language awareness activities impact school language learning in primary school. According to this study and regarding the metalinguistic benefits, there is nonetheless considerable value in classroom activities which address questions of linguistic diversity for pupils at the end of the elementary school cycle.

Intercultural Education in Early Childhood Education  159

Quantitative studies such as this one concerning several social diverse contexts purport to have a universal value and, by doing so, they are less likely to be aware of the particularness of each context and to understand the specificity of their impacts and results. The growing number of projects financed by the European Council6 and research projects concerning plurilingual approach in educational settings are an indicator of the benefits that practitioners witness in classroom. However, those benefits are frequently the result of qualitative research which rely on subjective and contextual connections and researchers using traditional research methodology can have a hard time trying to prove those connections. For example, exploring the way different languages create different onomatopoeias to represent animal sounds potentially invites pupils to reflect on the arbitrary relationship between an object and its linguistic designation, as well as about language diversity around the world and the linguistic boundaries that underpin social groups. How can that kind of link be assessed? Even if a link takes place in the learner’s head, it does not mean that he/she will talk about it. The absence of externalization does not mean that nothing emerges, but noticing what emerges is difficult without external expression. This can create a difficulty in assessing language issues and addresses two aspects relating to didactics in a larger perspective: the importance of pedagogical processes production with concrete outcomes, and meaningful pedagogical choices. The sociolinguistic approach states that a language is codes and meanings shared by a community of practices. It considers language as behaviour within a situation, whether learning or social, this includes how learners relate to peers and teachers and contributes to the formation of identity. It is therefore important for a teacher, no matter the cultural or linguistic dimension and perspective intended, to be able to identify concrete consequences of pedagogical change. Changes in individual or group dynamics, desirable or not, are the starting point for teachers’ plans for further experience. Teachers’ ability to notice change affects the process of what comes next. According to Dewey (1997: 37) every experience both takes up something from those which have gone before and modifies in some way the quality of those which come after. This principle of continuity is a criterion to discriminate between experiences that are educative where people learn in and as a community, and those which are miseducative, such as holding on to bias. Regarding this perspective, teachers must be aware of the importance of pupils’ feedback about what they experienced and so asking direct questions after a pedagogical sequence can be a way for the teacher to encourage the externalization. Secondly, pedagogical resources must rely on the world around the learners making meaningful connections with the cultural and linguistic reality of the classroom and the pupils’ lives. As such, teachers must

160  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

recognize that pupils’ home cultures influence the way school experiences will be perceived. Research shows that pupils’ culture matters when we are thinking about human development (Rogoff, 2003) and learning processes (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Formal education must enable pupils to construct knowledge through concrete experiences that draw on meaningful sources and can generate realistic change. In this way a plurilingual approach in educational settings cannot be set up as a capsule that could be nested into a traditional education functioning. For individual empowerment and social change, a plurilingual approach must be part of a plural paradigm that affects several dimensions of school daily practices, in class, in the canteen and in the playground. Thinking about linguistic practices through the lens of diversity leads to the consideration not only of the different languages in an individual repertoire but also to different norms within the same language. In a plural paradigm the teacher does not assume linear connections between language and culture and they are aware of the numerous factors that can impact on language use, including, the local context, physical characteristics and behaviour, gender, ethnicity, family structure, social role and social expectation. A broader conceptualization of diversity which incorporates linguistic diversity, but is not limited to linguistic diversity, is key to changing the way stakeholders such as teachers and school administrations respond to the learning needs of multilingual children. This perspective results in teachers refocusing their gaze, away from the gaps that exist between individuals into the resources that they have and can share (Byram, 2008). No pupil represents then a desirable and unattainable model designated by teachers, among others, neither in a monolingual nor in a plurilingual logic. The paper Transforming power relations in mixed language classrooms: the impact of teachers social positioning in the classroom social network (Kuyumjian, in press)7 shows that the teacher’s assumptions about language and learning impact the possibilities that will be offered in the classroom. These assumptions which are often culturally and socially situated, will be used by the teachers during assessment, causing some pupils disadvantage. In this plural paradigm asymmetric knowledge across a group of peers is not seen as a problem to solve but is conceived as part of the engine of learning in the sense that language is one of the mechanisms of convergence that operates through interaction (Becker, 1988; Burdelski & Howard, 2020; Duranti et al., 2012; Nardy et al., 2014). Interacting individuals converge social rules, meanings, representations and language use. When we base education upon personal experience, we increase connections between people, rendering them more intimate and meaningful (Dewey, 1997). This more (inter)subjective educational approach can lead to an important insight for learners; each one of them participates in diversity (Dervin & Liddicoat, 2013). For Gunsteren (in Byram, 2008: 173) education should focus on the organization of

Intercultural Education in Early Childhood Education  161

difference and on learning how to interact with people, focusing on the dialogue that emerges from such exchanges. The goal is to make a move where ‘I prefer coffee, you prefer tea’ then prompts questions such as ‘Why do you like coffee?’ and ‘Why do you like tea?’(Byram, 2008). The didactic sequences below were designed to help teachers to create spaces where the starting point is the children, their characteristics and experiences. This allows them to engage in comparison that then establishes similarities and differences between them, thus generating a framework where dialogue facilitates a desirable and fruitful outcome. B. Language Biography First didactic sequence

Title: My name Target Group (age): 4–6 years old Organization (sessions and timing): 4 sessions of 30 minutes Experiences (Beacco et al., 2015): Education geared to promote respect for otherness • listening to others, but also respecting silence. Multimodal and multisensorial experiences • contact with a variety of semiotic and writing systems (use of signs, artistic forms, music from more than one cultural tradition), including multimedia communication. Reflexivity • reflection on languages, human communication and cultural identity, which are within children’s (affective and cognitive) capacities. Sequence overview: Use books that prompt reflection on something that all of the children have: a name. Start by reading ‘Why Things have Names?’ (Mongin, 2020), a picture book which has been translated into 20 languages. This book enables the children to become aware of two things: • we all have something in common; • this something is unique to each of us: our name. Session 1

Grouping: small group or whole class Timing: 30 minutes Material required: Book Why Things have Names? Starting point: In order to get the children’s attention, start by saying that all of the people who have a name must listen carefully. The teacher reads the book.

162  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Discussion time. •  When were you given your name? •  How do people choose a child’s name? •  Are there several ways to say your name? •  What does your mother call you? •  What does your father call you? •  Where does your name come from? •  Do you know what your name means? Synthesis All of the children say their names and the teacher writes them down on the board. Building bridges with the family: The teacher can send questions home for the parents or invite them to come into the classroom: (1) Ask the parents to tell their child about the name they have given him/her (2) Why were they given that name? (3) Do their names have a special meaning? (4) Ask them to write the child’s name in the home language if the alphabet is different to the school language. (5) To show them their ‘birth announcement card’, if there is one in their culture Session 2

Grouping: small group or whole class Timing: 30 minutes Material required: none Starter: Recall what has been done during the previous session. To go further: Take some time to explore the stories, photos and notes about their own names that the children have brought from home. The main goal is to let children speak and say what they have to say about things they know and have learned about their names. The teacher can write them down. What does a ‘birth announcement card’ look like in their family? Which information can we find on it? Which information is not on it? Who chose each child’s name? Are there different ways to pronounce your name? (The teacher could make some photocopies of their notebooks and put them on the classroom wall.) Synthesis After exploring all this information, draw attention to the points that are different from individual to individual.

Intercultural Education in Early Childhood Education  163

For example, there might be a child whose name was decided by someone else other than their mother or father. Even if two children have the same name they will not necessarily mean the same thing for the family and for the child. They might not have the same ‘(hi)story’ related to their name. Session 3

Grouping: whole class Timing: 30 minutes Material required: none Starting: Start by exploring the different ways to write the same name, possibly using the poster where all information was noted in the first unit. Discuss the poster with the children, focusing on the number of letters, scripts, the way the letters sound. To go further: Are you called the same name at school and at home? Why? Do you have any nicknames? Ask the children if their name can be pronounced in different ways. What do they prefer to be called at home? (e.g. Halima or Ralima)? The main goal of this part is to become aware that it can be quite destabilizing when others mispronounce your name. Session 4

Grouping: whole class Timing: 30 minutes Material required or competence required: An adult who knows how to write children’s names in a language with a writing system different from the one used in the classroom. Starting: The adult writes each name using a different alphabet. Ideally, they can verbalize their movements and pronounce each sound individually. To go further: The child writes their name using a different writing system and then presents it to the group. Synthesis Display the sheets in the classroom in a space where the children can read them. The idea is to create a geographical space where children can discuss what they have done and what they think about it.

164  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Second didactic sequence

Title: My portrait Target Group (age): 4–6 years old Organization (6 sessions and timing): Experiences (Beacco et al., 2015): Plurality, linguistic and cultural diversity and • plurality of modes of expression (languages, varieties, dialects and sociolects) of both teachers and children. Diversifying forms of expression • guided enrichment means of expression (linking incidents in a story, enlarging vocabulary, improving word choice, etc.). Overview of the sessions: This unit is about the children looking at themselves and others, and in particular about the kinds of diversity that can be identified when they compare what they all look like. Session 1

Grouping: whole class Timing: 20 minutes Material required: A puppet Starting: Introduce the puppet to the children, explaining its name, history and family. Tell the children that the puppet has travelled a lot and has seen a lot of different people in different countries. To go further: The puppet looks at the children and talks about the different kinds of hair that they have. The puppet talks about its own hair e.g. ‘I have beautiful curly red hair’. It asks them to describe and talk about the hair. Write down some of the words used to describe the puppet’s hair, but separate the adjectives that describe the hair (curly, red etc.) from the words that imply a judgement (beautiful, ugly etc.). To go even further: The puppet asks if it can touch the children’s hair. Invites all the children to discover each other’s hair and then talk about the experience afterwards. In how many ways the hair of the children in the class is different? (curly, straight, long, short, brown, blond, etc.). Write these words down in the two columns separating description from value judgements. Synthesis: Look at the list; on one side are the words used to describe and on the other side, words used to judge. Read the words in each column and identify the difference between them.

Intercultural Education in Early Childhood Education  165

The goal is to make children understand that some words describe something and some words express the way you feel about what you see. Be careful: the words expressing judgement can be used in a positive or a negative way. Session 2

Grouping: whole class Timing: 30 minutes Material required: blackboard and chalk, a big piece of paper. Starting: Start with the nursery rhyme ‘Head, shoulders, knees and toes’. Different versions could be used e.g. by replacing a word by a sound or the song can be sung in another language. Different versions can be found at: https://www.mamalisa.com (Yannucci, 2021). To go further: Draw attention to the fact that there are many other parts of the body than just those mentioned in the song. Draw up a list with the children, naming all the body parts that they know. Provide long mirrors so the children can look at themselves. Guide the children through an exploration of their body parts. Starting from one of the body extremities (head or toes), focus on all of the body parts that the children named. The idea is that the children will learn to name the parts of their body in a playful way. To go even further: One child says the name of a body part and all the other children touch this part in their own body. Synthesis: On a big sheet of paper, the adult (maybe the children?) draws the outline of a child. This drawing will be used in the next session. Session 3

Grouping: small groups Timing: 30 minutes Material required: painting Starting: The puppet is back! It asks what the children know about the human body. Some of the vocabulary learned before will emerge. After that, the puppet draws the children’s attention to skin, saying things like ‘look at my skin, it is all over my body. It is like an envelope that keeps all the parts together’. To go further: The puppet asks the children to describe the colour of its skin.

166  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

If some children answer that its skin is ‘white’, use this to explore whether anybody’s skin is actually ‘white’. Then invite the children to examine the colour of their own skin. To go even further: Discuss the different skin colour of the children in the class. In a circle, all of the children put one arm in the middle and together they explore the different colours and maybe conclude that no two children have the same coloured skin (see the DVD Toowey-toowey Playing, Drawing, Singing for Diversity, 2010). To go even further (2): Children try to reproduce the colour of their skin with paint. The goal is to recognize that it is necessary to mix several colours to obtain a skin colour. Ask the children to pay attention to the colours they use. They could record on a separate sheet their various attempts to get the right colour. Synthesis Talking time: How many colours did you use? Which ones? Session 4

Grouping: small groups Timing: 30 minutes Material required or competence required: mirror the outline of each child on a large piece of paper Starting: Remind the children about what was covered in the previous sessions (skin colour and body outline) To go further: Paint your body as you see it in the mirror. This is a creative moment. The goal is not constraint pupil’s choice for, for example, skin colour painting. The idea is to let children express themselves, using the mirror as the starting point of a creative process. Synthesis: Discuss the activity together. What was it like? Session 5

Grouping: whole class Timing: 30 minutes Material required or competence required: Starting: Remind the children of what has been discussed and done in the previous sessions.

Intercultural Education in Early Childhood Education  167

To go further: One child is blindfolded and tries to identify one of their classmates by only by touching their face. Synthesis After the end of the game, all children are invited to look at the painted outlines and try to guess who each one is. Session 6

Grouping: individual Timing: 30 minutes Material required or competence required: Starting: Individually each child will have a privileged moment with the adult to look at their silhouette and talk about it and all the activities that have been done. To go further The teacher will ask the children to describe themselves and will take notes. The description will be a sort of record and can be continued later. The teacher reads aloud what is written and asks the child to put their name on the paper that will be attached near to their silhouette. Synthesis All these multimodal supports (image in the mirror – or a photo, silhouette painting and written text that describes) refer to the same children. Teachers can start a discussion based on the fact that we can talk about ourselves in several manners and ask children in each manner they are more comfortable with. Third didactic sequence

Title: My family Target Group (age): 4–6 years Organization (sessions and timing): 2 sessions of 30 minutes Experiences (Beacco et al., 2015): Linguistic and cultural diversity and plurality • Acceptance by teachers (and other children) of their language(s) and language variety/ varieties, and way of speaking; Foreign languages • A first foreign language and culture, possibly based on counting rhymes in languages spoken by other pupils: depending on context, this may range from awareness through play to early immersion.

168  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Reflexivity • First forms of reflection on languages, human communication and cultural identity, which are within children’s (affective and cognitive) reach. Sequence overview: This sequence has a twofold objective. On the one hand, it is to create a space to talk about family during school time, which helps children to make some bridges between school and home. On the other hand, personal materials, as family photos, will assist children to think about their own family with some distance. Similarities and differences between families can emerge using the caring atmosphere from Todd Parr’s book. Session 1

Grouping: whole class Timing: 30 minutes Material required: ‘The Family Book’ by Todd Parr (2010) Starting: We start with the reading of the book. The family book celebrates many different types of families. This book encourages children to talk about their own families. Looking forward: Let’s listen to what children have to say about their family. Some questions can help the shy children or to relaunch the discussion. What do you like to do with your mother? With your father? Where do you like to go together? Which languages do you speak at home? It’s always interesting to write down some information that can be used later. Synthesis: The teacher will ask children to bring a family photo. A note for the parents can be distributed or put in the notebook. Session 2

Grouping: whole class Timing: 30 minutes Material required: The Family Book (2010) and children’s families’ photos Starting point: To start, the teacher or the children can tell the story (no reading here) of Todd Parr’s book. Children can describe each page by saying what they see in those families. To go further: Let’s look at the photo that the children brought with them. Each child will present their family and can eventually answer other children’s questions. The idea here is not to compare the families. If some comparison

Intercultural Education in Early Childhood Education  169

emerges it must not become a problem to be avoided. Instead, there will be different kinds of families and a comparative approach can emerge. In those cases, we must appeal to critical thinking, to good willing and good sense to distinguish between comparison in a competitive way or comparison to acknowledge diversity. Synthesis: The teacher chooses a space in the classroom where all pictures can be shown. Each child chooses the place of their family’s photo. Above we suggested for each didactic sequence some of the experiences and knowledge, attitudes and skills, presented in documents developed by the Council of Europe. Those documents can be easily downloaded from the internet (seen references in bibliography) and modified if necessary and according to the pedagogical situation. Tensions in situations where language and culture come into contact

Too often in France, school administrations and policymakers appeal to the founding principles of the French Republic, particularly that of equality, when considering their pupils’ home languages and practices. They maintain that all pupils should be treated in the same way, yet at the same time, this concern is somehow bypassed in terms of the ‘dominant’ languages and practices that are presented as universals. This contradiction is possible because, political questions aside, teachers’ pedagogical practices are infused with widely circulating representations and myths around language development, plurilingualism, oral language and social cohesion. The two examples below come from an ethnographic study in a kindergarten classroom in a French school and show how ideologies underlay pedagogical choices. Consider the following scenario. Two mice have been installed in the classroom as pets. After having looked after them for several weeks, the teacher suggested that the children give the mice a name. There were eleven pupils in the classroom, many of whom raised their hands to suggest names for the mice. Several names were given, but none of them were considered appropriate by the teacher. This whole process took around 35 minutes during which I8 slowly noticed that in fact the teacher had a name in mind: Mickey. She tried to induce this exact name, but with no success. The teacher started to get irritated and looked at me that was sitting at the opposite side of the classroom at that very moment and said: ‘You see, they have no culture at all!’ Finally, one child said the long-awaited name. After recording that the male mouse’s name was Mickey, the teacher told the children that they had taken a long time to say Mickey and asked if they had ever been to EuroDisney before. All of the children answered ‘no’.

170  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

This example shows how a benevolent teacher can at the same time, encourage children to give their views and to participate in decisionmaking, yet at the same time keep control over interactions and impose and validate one way of doing things. In the interaction described above, we can identify some of the mechanisms that link the dominant language and power relations in education contexts. For example, the fact that the teacher monopolizes the discourse, also assuming that an American cartoon character is a self-evident, universal cultural reference for all of the children (also inherently positioning the one Anglophone pupil in the classroom in a privileged position). Besides this macro perspective relating to wider cultural understandings, individual trajectories of learning are framed by the way in which the teacher controls interaction between peers and validates some forms of knowledge at the expense of others. By not legitimising the pupils’ knowledge acquired before and outside the school, educational institutions contribute to what Seele (2016) calls ‘the fragmentation of individual multilingual realities’. From the very early years of schooling, pupils with minority language backgrounds learn that broader society will expect them to be silent about their linguistic and cultural heritage and knowledge. Our second example comes from a literature project and shows how activities such as a visit to the school library to choose books can be constrained by practical questions of time and efficiency. The children had been asked to choose their favourite book at the school library with the intention of legitimizing and valuing the children’s choices. I was surprised to notice that when I asked them to tell me about the story they had chosen, a few children did not know the story or said that in fact, it wasn’t their favourite story. I was further intrigued when I saw the photos taken by a professional photographer at the end of the project. All of the children were posing in the same way and many of them were holding the same book.

Teachers have 30 minutes to go to the library and ensure that all of the 30 children choose a book, each of which has to be checked out. A variety of factors determine the outcome of this book choosing activity during library time: the number of children choosing books and the number of books they can take; the imposed collective moment (during which each child must choose now their favourite book), the time available. Considered cumulatively, this shows how a child-centred activity can still impose regulatory constraints, forcing children to make a potentially artificial choice. If they opt for a more ‘authentic’ choice, thus ignoring pressure and accepting criticism from the teacher. This kind of situation is very common in school settings and raises an ethical issue of the reproduction of dominant power relations. In French schools today, equity and equality are often confused and the

Intercultural Education in Early Childhood Education  171

strict school timetable and ‘group logic’ can lead to homogenising practices that do not leave space to cater for individual differences or needs. There are many examples of best practice in terms of improving pupils’ authentic engagement in schools. The most effective approaches are bottom-up, for examples, those elaborated by Williams and Norton (2008) and Vasquez (2017). Williams and Norton describe how a group of teachers overheard their pupils discussing the dirty clothes of the children they were delivering food to, as part of a school food drive. The pupils concluded that the children were dirty because their parents were lazy and did not work, and favourably compared their own parents, conceived as hard working. The topic of learning then arose as a consequence of pupil’s interaction. Listening to others and the observation of group dynamics. Vasquez uses another literature project to illustrate this point: Patricia: Are you sure you looked? Alexandro: Everywhere in there! Patricia: She [the librarian] even helped me. She said, ‘I guess we don’t have any’. Alexandro: Did you tell her that’s not fair? It was November. My kindergarten students and I had been together for three months and had got to know one another quite well. During this time, I had attempted to construct a critical literacy curriculum and make use of pedagogy to create opportunities for inquiry learning, culturally relevant teaching, and for us to engage in a dialogue about diversity using the varied linguistic and cultural experiences and resources that this ethnically diverse group of children brought to the classroom. The brief conversation between Patricia and Alexandro […] took place one day after returning from a visit to our school library. They had been looking for a book on the Philippines as one way to support Emma, a new student in the class, whose family had just moved to Canada from the Philippines. Their quest was met with frustration when they learned there were no books with characters that might be Filipino, nor were there any resource books on the Philippines. In a sense these children were learning about the notion of being ‘other’, of not having spaces, places and opportunities to belong. Patricia and Alexandro’s frustration led me to suggest a class project focusing on the question: Do we see ourselves in books that are in our school library? (Vasquez, 2017: 1)

The example above shows how the teacher’s choice of classroom literature can be guided by the pupils’ experiences and used in a way to reflect and explore their linguistic and cultural background in an authentic way. As such, buying multilingual books for school library can be the result of very different processes. On the one hand teachers might be aiming to enrich the school library with literature from other

172  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

cultures. On the other hand, the books chosen can empower pupils as their decisions render concrete consequences and reflect their specific needs. Those needs do not only emerge through collaborative dynamics between pupils, as outlined in the example above. For many children, the first years of formal schooling are their first experience of socialization outside of their home and community. Relaying on asymmetric knowledge, experiences and characteristics produces dialogue among pupils revealing bounds of solidarity but also tensions and conflicts. The emergence of such tensions in the classroom often reflect tensions present in the broader society. Rather than ignoring those undesirables’ consequences, teachers can take it as an opportunity to identify critical issues that will direct further experience in the classroom. Schools can seek to legitimize and include students’ home languages, cultures and practices both on an individual level and a social level. The active promotion of pupils’ first language is beneficial not only for the home language but also for school language development (Cummins, 2000). Furthermore, awareness of diversity is important for social cohesion (Coste, 2013) and it is only individual experiences and beliefs enter into dialogical relation with alterity that these beliefs can be critically put into perspective (Castellotti, 2017). Conclusion

Sharing experiences is a good way to engender change in daily pedagogical practices. Good practices can be borrowed, adapted and help to make some of the decisions that teachers constantly have to make. It is however important to consider that there is no magic recipe when we talk about human and social events. The uniqueness of each community, each school and each classroom and situation must be recognized in questioning pedagogical support reproducibility. What works in one setting may work differently in another. Teaching in diversity is about principles, more than about specific methods or tools. Paulo Freire (1977) maintained that ethics are linked with human life. An ethical posture considers learners in their humanity and as actors in their own learning process. Thinking of learners as empty boxes to be filled with information and knowledge is to dehumanize them. Learners arrive at school with experiences and resources and it is critical that we provide spaces to allow these to emerge and to be positioned as resources for learning. This means that we recognize them as individuals, a key step in the development of culturally relevant teaching9 (LadsonBillings, 1995). I call it a step because it is not enough and what the teacher does afterwards is crucial. Creating some talking spaces is important but what do we do with what emerges from those moments? Research shows that they may bring social tensions (Kuyumjian, 2020) to the surface.

Intercultural Education in Early Childhood Education  173

Tensions and conflict cannot be ignored and are essential for individual identity construction and negotiation. Individual identity is composed of multiple ‘selves’ that do not always converge in a harmonious way (Blommaert, 2010; Canagarajah & Liyanage, 2012; Dagenais, 2012). There can be a conflictual relationship between different components of individual’s identity such as certain morals instilled at home may conflict with a bias shown at school or vice versa. As soon as there is one person, there is a degree of diversity. Conversely, we know that an important part of self-perception and selfconstruction takes place in processes of opposition. Menezes de Souza (2011) notes that ‘for Freire, the self-perception of oneself as an “I” results from the simultaneous awareness of a “non-self” from which the individualized “I” arises, from which it distinguishes itself and to which it remains connected in order to become the individualized “I”’. School is a privileged space to negotiate identity construction. Teaching sequences that are adopted in an isolated manner, with no link with the reality of the pupils’ lives and no critical awareness run the risk of becoming what Kervran and Auger (2013) called ‘a cosmetic approach’. To be sure, language awareness activities are important and can be a tool to discuss alterity and to promote awareness of diversity. But, without careful framing, they can also be completely disconnected with the real people in the classroom and their real goals and problems. In a similar way, ‘philosophy workshops’ in schools might or might not be a real tool of empowerment. Potentially they may simply reproduce the dominant structures of power if they abstract themselves away from the realities of their participants’ lives. This chapter focuses on young children and encourages teachers to question themselves no matter the age of the pupils they teach. This is maybe the biggest shift that this kind of perspective embodies: critical pedagogy is not about changing learners but focuses on changing the teacher’s stance through which social transformation can be achieved. Beyond the Reading • • • • •

What is school for? School provides the opportunity, take it or leave it? How hard is it for a child to navigate between the norms of home practices and the very different expectations they face at school? With diversity being inherent to their social spaces, can children participate in their school community in a way that their uniqueness is actively nurtured? Can these two things truly co-exist? Do activities help create bonds between classroom actors where each individual feels attached to their learning community? Can we achieve a fresh perspective about doing things ‘the good way’ by creating dialogue?

174  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Notes (1) Language creation is one of the three categories of contact situations. According to Li Wei In language creation, the linguistic outcomes would be bilingual mixed languages, pidgins, or creoles (2013: 41). The two other categories are language maintenance and shift. Also see (DeGraff, 2001) (2) Cette sacralization du monolinguisme de langue française, cette exclusion de toute autre langue et de toute pluralité linguistique (y compris les variations dans la pratique du français considérées comme des « fautes » portant atteinte à la langue sacrée), est l’une des bases idéologiques clés de la diffusion, des pratiques et des représentations du français jusqu’à aujourd’hui. » Extrait de: Philippe Blanchet. « Discriminations : combattre la glottophobie (Petite encyclopédie critique) (French Edition). » iBooks. (3) I rely to Blommaert’s (2010) conception of language according to who « the dislocation of language and language events from the fixed position in time and space attributed to them by a more traditional linguistics and sociolinguistics (the Saussurean synchrony) that will cause the paradigm shift we are currently witnessing to achieve success. It is the insertion of language in a spectrum of human action which is not defined purely in relation to temporal and spatial location, but in terms of temporal and spatial trajectories that is the main objective here ». (Blommaert, 2010: 21) (4) The French title is ‘Les langues du monde au quotidien’. This pedagogical material is written in French. (5) The program took place between 1997 and 2001 in five European countries and 160 classrooms and aims to know the impact of the integration of educational activities that are linguistically and culturally diverse into the curriculum above three perspectives. The development of representations and motivations, the metalinguistic development and linguistic culture development for teachers and pupils from Kindergarten to secondary education (6) See for example the Erasmus report project Peer Learning Activity the Netherlands, 2001. (7) Kuyumjian to see further. (8) See Kuyumjian, 2020. (9) The author affirms that educators traditionally have attempted to insert culture into the education, instead of inserting education into the culture and propose three criteria for a Culturally relevant pedagogy: (a) Students must experience academic success; (b) students must develop and/or maintain cultural competence; and (c) students must develop a critical consciousness through which they challenge the status quo of the current social order.

References Activities to support multilingualism at school (2015) See https://www.skolapelican.com/ wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Activities-to-support-multilingualism-at-school.pdf (accessed December 2021). Auger, N. (2021) Enfants gitans à l’école et en famille. D’une analyse des dynamiques langagières en famille aux pratiques de classe. Lyon: ENS Editions. Avermaet, P.V. (2021) Beyond binaries. How to integrate multilingualism and language of schooling in education? Seminar, 3 December. Paris: INALCO. Beacco, J.-C., Byram, M., Cavalli, M., Coste, D., Egli Cuenat, M., Goullier, F. and Panthier, J. (2015) Guide pour le développement et la mise en œuvre de curriculums pour une éducation plurilingue et interculturelle. Online: Conseil de l’Europe. See www.coe.int/ lang/fr. Becker, A.L. (1988) Language in particular: A lecture. In D. Tannen (ed.) Linguistics in Context: Connecting Observation and Understanding. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.

Intercultural Education in Early Childhood Education  175

Blanchet, P. (2017) Discriminations: combattre la glottophobie. Paris: Textuel. Blommaert, J. (2010) The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burdelski, M. and Howard, K. (eds) (2020) Language Socialization in Classrooms: Culture, Interaction, and Language Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Byram, M. (2008) From Foreign Language Education to Education for Intercultural Citizenship: Essays and Reflections. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Canagarajah, S. and Liyanage, I. (2012) Lessons from pre-colonial multilingualism. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge and A. Creese (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. London: Routledge. Candelier, M. (2003) L’éveil aux langues à l’école primaire. Bruxelles: De Broeck Supérieur. Castellotti, V. (2017) Pour une didactique de l’appropriation. Diversité, compréhension, relation. Paris: Didier. Coste, D. (Dir)(2013) Les langues au coeur de l’éducation. Principes, pratiques, propositions. Online: E.M.E. & InterCommunications. See https://doi.org/10.13130/ 2037-3597/3133. Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (2000) Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dagenais, D. (2012) Identities and language teaching in classrooms. In C.A. Chapelle (ed.) Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1–5). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Dervin, F. and Liddicoat, A.J. (eds) (2013) Linguistics for Intercultural Education (Vol. 33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Dewey, J. (1997) Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone. Duranti, A., Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B.B. (eds) (2012) The Handbook of Language Socialization. Hoboken, NJ: Willey-Blackwell. EDiLiC, Education et Diversité Linguistique et Culturelle (2010) See https://www.edilic. org/copie-de-le-bureau (accessed December 2021). Edwards, V. (1997) Teacher-pupil talk in multi-ethnic classrooms. In B. Oavles and D. Carsan (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education (Vol. 3, pp. 95–104). New York: Springer. Elodil (2002) Eveil au langage et ouverture a la diversite linguistique. See https://www. elodil.umontreal.ca (accessed December 2021). EOLE (2014) Education et ouverture aux langues a l’ecole. See http://eole.irdp.ch/eole/ index.html (accessed December 2021). Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–77 (C. Gordon, ed.). New York: Pantheon Books. Freire, P. (1997) Educação ‘bancária’ e educação libertadora. In Introdução à psicologia escolar (3rd edn). São Paulo: Casa do psicólogo. Kervran, M. (2013) Les langues du monde au quotidien. Une approche interculturelle [World languages in daily life]. Dijon: CRDP de l’académie de Dijon. Kervran, M. and Auger, N. (2013) Répertoires langagiers, interactions didactiques et co-construction du langage à l’école primaire: l’exemple de la discussion. In V. Bigot, A. Bretegnier and M. Vasseur (eds) Vers le Plurilinguisme? Vingt ans après (pp. 265–274). Paris: Éditions des archives contemporaines. Kuyumjian, N. de M.M. (2020) Langue et socialization: l’impact des activités interculturelles en contexte scolaire multilingue. PhD thesis, University of Paul-Valéry, Montpellier 3. Kuyumjian, N. de M.M. (in press) Transforming power relations in mixed language classrooms: The impact of teachers social positioning in the classroom social network. In T. Austin and H. Celebi (eds) Ethical Deliberations in Multilingual Education: Power Relations in Learning Communities. Berlin: de Gruyter. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995) But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice 34 (3), 159–165.

176  Part 2: Sociolinguistic and Psychological Investigations

Menezes de Souza, L.M. (2011) Para uma redefinição de letramento crítico. In R.F. Maciel and V.A. Araújo (eds) Formação de professores de línguas: ampliando perspectivas (pp. 128–140). Jundiaí: Paco Editorial. Mongin, J.P. (2020) Why Do Things Have Names? Chicago: Diaphanes. Morin, E. (2000) Os sete saberes necessários à educação do futuro (2nd edn). São Paulo: Cortez. Nardy, A., Chevrot, J.-P. and Barbu, S. (2014) Sociolinguistic convergence and social interactions within a group of preschoolers: A longitudinal study. Language Variation and Change 26 (3), 273–301. Parr, T. (2010) The Family Book. London: Hachette Children’s Books. Rogoff, B. (2003) The Cultural Nature of Human Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seele, C. (2016) Doing Education Between Monolingual Norms and Multilingual Realities. An ethnography of multilingualism in Early Childhood Education and Care. Washington, DC: E&E Publishing. Toowey-toowey (2010) Playing, Drawing, Singing for Diversity (DVD) DECET. Diversity in Early Childhood Education and Training. Vasquez, V.M. (2017) Critical Literacy Across the K-6 Curriculum. New York: Routledge. Willims, L.R. and Norton, N.E.L. (2008) Thought-provoking moments in teaching young children: Reflections on social class, sexuality, and spirituality. In C. Genishi and A.L. Goodwin (eds) Diversities in Early Childhood Education Rethinking and Doing (pp. 103–120). New York: Routledge. Yannucci, L. (2021) Mama Lisa’s World. International Music e Culture. See https://www. mamalisa.com (accessed December 2021).

Part 3 Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning: Metalinguistic Competency and Language Variation

8 Processing Instruction in Mixed Language Classrooms Justin P. White and Paul B. Mandell

Introduction

Heritage Language (HL) learners, Native Speakers (NS) and Second Language (L2) learners often coexist in upper-level undergraduate courses at university-level institutions across the United States, however, the linguistic needs vary greatly among these learners as a result of their first language and/or their prior language-learning experience. This situation creates an environment known as the mixed language classroom, defined as a classroom population comprised of members of distinct language backgrounds and proficiency levels. As such, one of the common challenges for instructors of the mixed language classroom is to pedagogically attend to the wide range of linguistic needs of the aforementioned populations. Given that these learners represent unique backgrounds and proficiency levels, instructors face the challenge of getting learners to work together collaboratively while assuring that they are both linguistically prepared as well as focused on the communicative goals of a task themselves. A common situation in this setting is one in which some L2 learners lack the language proficiency to effectively complete a task and many of the HLs employ circumlocution strategies and/or linguistically expand beyond the scope of the task, which thereby may result in a mismatch in student execution of an activity and instructor outcome expectations. Furthermore, in some cases, depending upon language exposure and experience, there may be no recognizable difference between the mental representations of language in the HL and L2 learners. It is generally accepted in the HL learner research that their grammatical systems undergo one or more processes, including incomplete acquisition, attrition, and acquisition of a contact variety (Potowski et al., 2009). While most HL learners already possess some form of mental representation of their language(s), L2 learners, on the other hand, are tasked with making initial form-meaning connections in 179

180  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

order to begin to build their mental representation of language in the L2. In light of the wide variety of distinct types of language students to be found in the same classroom, both instructors and students can benefit by a pedagogical approach that levels the playing field, so to speak, such that they are equipped to effectively complete collaborative tasks together to the benefit of all. The present chapter explains how these heterogeneous populations (even within what are often misconceived as homogeneous groups themselves) may best be served by a pedagogical approach that moves from an input-to-output sequence of activities in order to prepare them for interactive collaborative tasks. The multi-step approach presented here guides learners through a progression of activities that provides L2 learners with the linguistic tools they need, HL learners with these same linguistic tools they may also need depending on their level of proficiency/type of HL learner, and also aids HL learners and L2 learners in maintaining the target linguistic items (i.e. grammatical forms) in focus during the interactive tasks. By following this process, all learners in the mixed language classroom are thereby prepared equally to collaborate with each other during the interactive tasks. The first step in the multi-step sequence is exposure to Processing Instruction (PI) or to one of its subcomponents, Structured Input (SI), in isolation (VanPatten, 1996). Both PI and SI are effective researchbased pedagogical interventions designed originally for L2 learners that when used in the mixed language classroom may serve the distinct populations in different ways discussed in detail throughout this chapter. These instructional interventions are derived from the Principles of Input Processing that push learners towards more optimal language processing. As such, the present chapter reviews the Principles of Input Processing (VanPatten, 1996, 2004, 2015) that explain learners’ cognitive processes during language processing, empirical research demonstrating the effectiveness on acquisition of the pedagogical intervention, PI, in its entirety, and of its particular subcomponents. Following the discussion of the theory and research in PI, we discuss how the input-based activity component of PI, known as Structured Input (SI), is incorporated into mixed language course designs and the corresponding implications for language processing and classroom pedagogy, and the role they play for members of mixed language classroom population. Based on this research (i.e. materials, findings, similarities), we present the pedagogical implications for language instruction with an eye towards how PI/SI benefits all group members in a mixed classroom. We posit that PI/SI helps L2 learners and HL learners in redirecting possible less-than-optimal processing strategies. Additionally, we posit that PI/SI establishes a common point of embarkation for all learners in mixed-level classes by preparing them to ultimately contribute effectively to the interactive tasks commonly used to accomplish communicative goals in the upper-level curriculum.

Processing Instruction in Mixed Language Classrooms  181

According to the aforementioned sequence of activities, we then discuss how the SI activities eventually lead to Structured Output (SO) activities (i.e. Wong, 2013). SO activities are meaning-based outputoriented activities that keep meaning in focus as well as the particular target grammar forms present in the preceding SI activities. Consequently, this sequence of input to output activities leads into interactive tasks designed for the mixed classroom in order to push learners to engage with meaning, content, and form. As such, we discuss the central difference between an activity and a task (i.e. Lee & VanPatten, 1995; Leeser & White, 2015) in order to demonstrate how interactive tasks articulate from the SI to SO input-to-output sequence in the mixed classroom. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that the longstanding research agenda in Input Processing/PI has been explored for pedagogical practice in the mixed classroom. A well-documented record of almost thirty years of research has explored the positive effects that PI has in language acquisition in the L2 population. Although little to no empirical research has been conducted with these materials with a focus solely in the HL setting, we would like to propose that the design of the materials themselves may have a positive impact for the HL learners as well but for purposes other than to establish a mental representation of the language of study. As the reader will discover, the role in acquisition of PI/SI is oftentimes different for advanced L2, HL, and NS learners. Nonetheless, as the size of the populations subsumed by the label of HL is steadily increasing in the United States, questions arise with respect how best to address the language-learning needs of these distinct learner populations in the same classroom. That said, the purpose of the present chapter is to discuss how the proposed sequence of pedagogical practices proves beneficial to all language learners serving the goal of building a robust mental representation of learners’ language as well as fostering an environment that prepares them to collaborate successfully through interactive tasks. A Question of Population Definition

Historically in studies focused on language learners, researchers have been quite cautious to articulate the specific shared characteristics of the populations being investigated. Whether a study addresses a question within one particular level (e.g. Beginning, Intermediate, Advanced or beyond) of language learners, or compares cross-sectionally more than one level of learners, great caution and detail are incorporated into the research design to explain the criteria according to which learner-level designations are made. Often such a distinction is established according to an external measure (e.g. a standardized test score, a study pre-test) to determine that all participants within each group in fact do share

182  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

common language-proficiency related characteristics. Identifying all participants within, say, an advanced-level language class to be at the same level of language ability solely because of their matriculation is not a guarantee that all the participants in said class are equivalent in their knowledge or expertise in the language. Moreover, once learners reach the advanced-level courses where HL learners, L2 learners, and at times native speakers, converge, there is an assumption that all learners in this mixedlevel class represent a homogeneous group, however, as any language teaching practitioner would agree, this is not necessarily the case. We raise this issue due to the fact that scholars have pointed out that a similar lack of homogeneity even exists within the population of Heritage speakers of a language (Potowski, 2005, 2014). Although it is customary to define Heritage learners as speakers of a language who are born and raised in a community in which that language is not the lingua franca or culturally dominant language but who only speak the home language from birth (Valdés, 2001), there are many different levels of fluency manifested in that community that may be influenced by generational, socioeconomic, or academic variables (Montrul, 2016). Truth be told, research has indicated that although HL learners may live in settings in which a heritage language is the primary means of communication, the speakers themselves may find themselves in processes of language attrition or language reacquisition due to characteristics of the community speech variety (Potowski et al., 2009). Thus, although the term Heritage speaker or learner may indeed serve as an overarching description of a common birth language and setting, it does not ensure homogeneity within the population in question of ability or competence. It is of particular interest to note that the demand for second language instruction in the United States has declined over the course of the last couple of decades and thus, the relative number of L2 nonnative language students has as well, in the case of Spanish in the United States for example. At the same time, the size and heterogeneity of the HL speaking population has exploded at an equivalent if not greater rate. That is to say that as the demand for instruction in languages other than English has been on the decline in post-secondary institutions, the presence of HL learners in those same classes has blossomed. In higher-education US institutions, by way of example, the population of Spanish-English bilinguals enrolled in university-level courses has demonstrated a dramatic increase within the past five years (Polinsky, 2020). Relatedly, in 2015 there were a registered 472 number of Hispanic Serving Institutions, compared with 539 in 2019. Given these two factors combined (less demand for language courses by L2 learners and higher HL learner enrollment), in many parts of the United States, there are many more HL learner students enrolled in languages other than English curricula than L2 learners whose L1 is not the HL (Hispanic Association

Processing Instruction in Mixed Language Classrooms  183

of Colleges and Universities, 2020). This observation is crucially relevant to the concerns of the present chapter as it contributes to forming the demographic of advanced-level language courses. Historical Perspectives

In order to begin to address how to best approach the mixed language classroom from both a psycholinguistic perspective and an instructional perspective, we must first come to a common understanding of how languages are acquired (i.e. what is necessary for successful language acquisition to take place and what is not necessary). From the publication of the now well-known and oft-cited Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1980), the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research has regarded the construct of comprehensible input (see Figure 8.1) to be essential for successful language acquisition for over 40 years. In the same work, Krashen made an important distinction between the following two (often-misconstrued) constructs: language learning and language acquisition. Language learning encompasses those processes by which learners increase their metaknowledge about the L2 arrived at through explicit grammatical explanations. Language acquisition, on the other hand, subsumes the processes by which learners come to successfully communicate in the L2 as they build their mental representation of language through repeated exposure to comprehensible input, a necessary component for successful language acquisition, either first or second. Furthermore, the process of language acquisition is impervious to that explicit instruction that underlies language learning (Krashen, 1980). This distinction asserts that language acquisition takes place through repeated exposure to meaning-bearing input and is not dependent upon neither metalinguistic terminology nor explicit grammar explanations. According to Krashen, explicit grammar knowledge does not contribute directly to building learners’ mental representation of language (language acquisition). Krashen’s acquisition and learning distinction sparked decades of research that still continues to this day, although now termed the implicit and explicit distinction (Lichtman & VanPatten, 2021). Although the distinction between these two initial constructs has been a source of debate in the literature, for the purposes of the present chapter, suffice to say that if the language learners’ goal is to be able to hear (or read), understand, and ultimately respond to language in aural or written forms, then abundant opportunities to process comprehensible input in a communicative Comprehensible input  →  Language acquisition

Figure 8.1  Krashen’s (1980) input hypothesis

184  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

context are a requirement. Concomitantly, HL do not need explicit grammar in order to continue learning their heritage language, given that the function of explicit grammar is to learn about language, and not to build the internal mental representation of language. That said, L1 and L2 acquisition research has brought to light that acquiring a language is, for all intents and purposes, the process of establishing a mental representation of that language in the minds of the learners (Brown, 1973; Lichtman & VanPatten, 2021; VanPatten, 2004). This time-consuming process requires abundant opportunities to hear and process input (i.e. message-bearing strings of speech to which the learners assign some meaning). Initially, learners process the input strings for meaning. Once the form-meaning (or sound-meaning) associations are established in the learners’ mental system, language learners begin to segment off the internal units of the input strings (e.g. morphemes and morphological combinations) to be stored within their mental lexical warehouse (i.e. lexicon). An example of this process is shown in Figure 8.2. In this case, the learners of Spanish hear and/ or see the lexical morpheme ‘llam-’ in a number of meaningful strings and eventually segments off the morpheme as an entry in their mental lexicon meaning ‘to call’. Learners segment off lexical morphemes and acquire them before they acquire grammatical morphemes the same way that they acquire lexical items (i.e. words) before they acquire grammatical morphemes. Again, these processes apply to any language learner, whether the language in question is their first, second, third or further language. For the last approximately 40 years, language acquisition scholars unanimously concur about the necessity of comprehensible input regardless of the theory, model or approach to language acquisition to which they subscribe (Lichtman & VanPatten, 2021). By way of examples, Lee and VanPatten (1995) posit that ‘successful language acquisition cannot happen without comprehensible input’ (1995: 29). Lee and VanPatten (2003) claim that, ‘Every scholar today believes that comprehensible input is a critical factor in language acquisition’ (2003:

¿Cómo te llamas?

Tienes una llamada.

¿Cómo se llamas?

Figure 8.2  Learner morpho-lexical segmenting example

Me llamo Elena.

Voy a llamarla hoy.

Processing Instruction in Mixed Language Classrooms  185

16) and, finally, VanPatten and Williams (2007) state that, ‘acquisition will not happen for learners of a second language unless they are exposed to input’ (2007: 9). That being said, all major theoretical frameworks in language acquisition posit a fundamental role for input (e.g. Ellis, 2006; Gass & Mackey, 2007; VanPatten, 2007; White, 2007). Regarding the role of input in language acquisition and language teaching, VanPatten and Leeser (2006) entertain the question, ‘But is comprehensible input enough? It might be in the long run, but the business of language teaching is to help acquisition in any way it can’ (2006: 59). As a result, one of the primary areas of study within instructed language acquisition research is to investigate ways in which instruction can enhance how language learners process input. In the following section of this chapter, we discuss how learners’ construction of their mental representation of language is often ill served by their own default processing strategies during input processing, which, in part, may cause delays in language development. Although the following section of the chapter focuses on research originally targeting L2 learners’ processing strategies, some HL learners also may employ these same erroneous strategies during language processing. Further sections of the chapter will directly link the outcomes of targeting these processing strategies with effective pedagogical interventions for the mixed language classroom such that they can all successfully move through an input-tooutput sequence. These distinct learner groups are robust such that they each merit attention specific to their cognitive and language acquisition needs. Critical Issues and Topics: Input Processing

Through the groundbreaking work stemming from VanPatten’s model of input processing, related principles, and instructional interventions (VanPatten, 1996, 2004, 2007, 2015), research in input processing established itself as a rigorous theoretical and empirical approach to L2 learners’ processing. The theoretical aim of the research efforts in input processing is to account for what learners attend to during language processing, what they do not attend to, and consequently explain why these phenomena occur. VanPatten’s (1996) model of input processing (see Figure 8.3) builds upon Krashen’s initial input hypothesis. The primary components of the model are the following: input, intake, the developing linguistic system and, ultimately output. In VanPatten’s model of input processing, input refers to all linguistic data that learners are exposed to that is meant to convey a message. It is well known, however, that not all comprehensible input is incorporated into learners’ developing mental linguistic system; a subset of input, referred to as intake, is composed of the data that learners process, to which they assign meaning and, subsequently

186  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

Input  → Intake →  Developing System  → Output

Figure 8.3  VanPatten’s (1996) input processing model

incorporate into their developing system. The developing system in VanPatten’s model is the acquired language in Krashen’s hypothesis. The process of language acquisition is, in essence, the development of the underlying mental representation of the language used to understand, parse, process and, eventually produce meaning-bearing expressions in the language in question. Moreover, the development of the learners’ internal linguistic system is dependent upon opportunities to process input, and although production practice may help with fluency and accuracy, production (output) is not responsible for creating their mental representation of language. Input processing theory addresses the ways in which language learners process actual messages in either aural or visual modes with a focus on their meaning in real time. Research has shown that input processing is one (of a number) of ways that learners’ mental representation of the language in question develops over time. The theory explains the processes by which learners convert input into intake, which are guided by principles that elucidate how L2 learners come to make those form-meaning associations as they process and parse elements in the language to which they are exposed. In other words, the principles of input processing intend to explain what learners attend to, what they do not attend to, and how they approach the input they are processing, during language exposure. Effectively, learners’ processing of input is guided by a set of processing-oriented principles which this chapter describes below along with types of related instructional interventions that have been shown to push learners away from incorrect processing and towards more optional language processing with emphasis on those relevant to both L2 and HL learners. The first principle, The Primacy of Meaning Principle, posits that learners process input for meaning before they process it for form. (VanPatten, 2015, 2020). What this principle propounds is that learners’ primary goal during input exposure is to understand the message (process for meaning) of language they are reading or hearing. Form processing, in essence, takes the proverbial backseat to meaning processing. The reader can imagine how processing for meaning happens in context with learners when they hear (or read) a long string of language, and although they might not have understood all of the grammatical forms or words in the input, they were able to get the ‘gist’ of the message (or text). A second related principle, is the Lexical Preference Principle (LPP). The LPP states that ‘If grammatical forms express a meaning that can

Processing Instruction in Mixed Language Classrooms  187

also be encoded lexically (i.e. that grammatical marker is redundant), then learners will not initially process those grammatical forms until they have lexical forms to which they can match them’ (VanPatten, 2020: 108). Learners, both HL and L2, to varying degrees, are affected by the LPP when processing a number of target grammatical forms crucial to language development and often targeted in upper-level university mixed language classes such as the past tense verb forms (e.g. preterit, imperfect, preterit and imperfect distinction), subjunctive moods, future tense, among others. In short, certain linguistic forms will be ‘overlooked’ seeing that learners will rely on lexical items when present in the input. For example, in the sentence in Spanish ‘Ayer hablé con Juan’ (Yesterday, I spoke with Juan), the lexical temporal marker equivalent of ‘yesterday’ (ayer), encodes the past tense aspect of the sentence, and as a consequence, learners do not make form-meaning connections between the verbal inflection and the sentences’ pastness. If the goal of instruction is target form processing and development, then learners’ own lexical preference processing strategy will direct them to rely on the lexical marker instead of the verbal inflection. These grammatical forms may be problematic to learners and without targeting processing itself, may result in delayed language development and erroneous interpretation. Given that Silva-Corvalán (1994) and Montrul (2002) have shown that Spanish HL learners, for example, demonstrate erosion of the tense-aspect system possibly attributable to language loss or incomplete acquisition; the pedagogical intervention described here would prove beneficial to this population during language instruction. The subjunctive mood has also been identified as a form that frequently is incompletely acquired or suffers from attrition in HL of Spanish (Lipski, 1993; Lynch, 1999; Martínez Mira, 2005; Montrul, 2007; Silva-Corvalán, 1994, 2003). These linguistic forms (e.g. preterit/imperfect distinction, subjunctive mood) have been targeted in input processing research given that L2 learners’ processing is predicted by the LPP (Farley, 2001). One other factor which contributes to the low-level of saliency of these aforementioned grammar forms (e.g. preterit tense, imperfect tense, future tense, subjunctive mood) is that they often appear in the middle of a sentence or utterance, thereby causing learners to attend to them less. Accounting for this low-level of saliency is the prediction made by the Sentence Location Principle (SLP), which is articulated as follows: ‘Learners tend to process items in sentence initial position before those in final position and those in medial position’ (VanPatten, 2020: 112). Given that grammatical items, such as verbs, are located in the middle of the sentence, their default processing mechanism of attending to the first, last, and finally the middle part of the sentence (or utterance) works against them for optimal processing. In other words, the middle of the sentence is typically ‘overlooked’ (processed last) and that is where these items are typically located. In the following example,

188  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

‘Juan y María quieren que sus hermanos les compren desayuno cuando están de vacaciones’ (Juan and Maria want their brothers to buy them breakfast when they are on vacation), the verb form in the subjunctive mood, ‘compren’, is located in the middle of the sentence and it would be the last to be attended to for processing. In the Recommendations for Practice section of this chapter, examples of an instructional intervention designed to encourage form-meaning mapping and to modify this processing strategy and others, are presented. One final principle of input processing is the First Noun Principle (FNP), which states that ‘Learners tend to process the first noun or pronoun they encounter in a sentence as the subject’ (VanPatten, 2020: 112). Effectively, this principle predicts that language learners, by default, tend to assign subject status to the first noun or pronoun they encounter in a sentence or utterance, when in fact it may not be the subject. In the case of languages such as Spanish, for example, that have flexible word order, sentences may be either Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) or ObjectVerb-Subject (OVS). Assuming the FNP in OVS-type sentences therefore results in erroneous processing by misassigning the role of subject to a sentence-initial object pronoun. By way of an example in Spanish, ‘Lo visita Yazmany’ (‘Yazmany visits him’), the FNP predicts that learners will assign subject status to ‘Lo’ and understand the sentence to mean ‘He visits Yazmany’, when in fact, it is the accusative clitic (direct object pronoun). This particular target form (i.e. accusative clitics) as well as the dative clitics are often challenging for learners even at the advanced stages of study. While at first glance, it may seem that grammatical constructions which do not include nouns or pronouns at the beginning of a sentence might be affected by the FNP, they are not given there is nothing to which to misassign as the role of subject. As in the following example, ‘Reciben regalos’ (‘They receive gifts’), any instance of incorrectly interpreting the verbal inflection (-en) is due to an issue of parsing, not processing. To be clear, in the mixed language classroom there exists a dynamic among learners of different types (i.e. HL and L2), all facing their own unique set of challenges. One of the goals of instructors is to understand what linguistic-processing challenges these learners may be facing and strive to provide an optimal learning environment suited for learners of all types. By understanding the principles by which learners may be processing language, we can better provide them with the linguistic tools necessary to arrive at our communicative goals or course objectives. Given that not all learners in the mixed language classroom may be facing all of the same processing challenges in the very same way, it is good practice to incorporate activities in multiple steps in order to ensure a level playing field for all learners. With that in mind, in the following section, we discuss how PI/SI are designed to mediate learners’ default processing strategies, along with the vast body of empirical

Processing Instruction in Mixed Language Classrooms  189

research demonstrating its effectiveness across learner levels, languages and target linguistic features. Critical Issues and Topics: Processing Instruction

PI is an instructional technique designed to alter learners’ default processing strategies as identified by the principles of input processing, such as those examples already presented. PI consists of the following three components: (a) explicit grammar information (EI), which includes (b) form-related explicit information and processing strategy information and (c) an input-based activity type known as Structured Input (SI). The first component, EI, includes metalinguistic information about the target form (e.g. the verb is conjugated as follows, the following are a particular type of pronoun, below are examples of a specific verbal mode) with a focus on the meaning of the form in question. The second component, processing strategy information, overtly informs learners about possible processing pitfalls and directs them to more optimal means to accurately process a particular linguistic feature. This is operationalized by simply telling learners something to the effect of the following: In reference to the Sentence Location Principle, ‘Pay special attention to the ending of the verb when completing the following set of activities because you might tend to skip over this middle part of the sentence’. And, in reference to the Lexical Preference Principle, ‘Notice that the verb endings tell you when the event takes place and so do the temporal adverbs’. Or, in relation to the First Noun Principle, ‘Be careful! The first word you hear/see in a sentence in Spanish is not necessarily the subject of the sentence, it might actually be the object’. Finally, the third component of PI, SI, is an input-based activity type designed to account for learners’ default processing strategies as predicted by one or more principles of input processing. SI activities themselves consist of task-essential formmeaning mapping practices, all of which push learners to process form for meaning in either spoken or written language. There are two types of SI activities: referential and affective. The former have one right answer and are based on an observable truth and the latter require learners to respond by selecting an answer that expresses a belief or opinion. For a detailed review of various design options of SI activity types, see Lee and VanPatten (2003) and Farley (2004). In input processing research, targeted linguistic features are chosen based on their relation to a processing problem identified by one or more of the principles of input processing and not solely based on the complexity of a linguistic feature itself. In other words, the linguistic forms targeted are chosen because learners have non-optimal default processing strategies that impede their successful efficient processing thereby leading the learners to misinterpret, misparse or in other ways

190  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

inefficiently process the input in which the forms in question appear. For now, we turn to empirical research investigating the effects of PI paired with other instructional interventions on learners’ processing preferences by first providing a brief historical perspective of empirical input processing research. Contributions and Research: Processing Instruction

The effects of PI and SI activities have been the subject of approximately thirty years of empirical research. In this section we review studies that have explored key questions, noting that although the research was initially conducted in the context of anglophone L2 learners of Spanish, the effects have been tested and found to hold true in a wide variety of L2s with diverse target linguistic features as well as emerging HL learner research. Furthermore, the research has revealed that of all the components of PI, the referential SI activities have been shown to be the instrumental feature to successfully modifying L2 learners’ developing linguistic system. In a seminal study published nearly three decades ago, VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), perhaps unbeknownst to them at the time, set into motion a long-standing research agenda in input processing by investigating the processing problem of the First Noun Principle (FNP). VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) examined the effectiveness of PI with L2 learners of Spanish. The study compared the effects of Traditional Instruction (TI) (operationalized as grammatical explanation + production practice) and the effects of PI with direct object pronouns being the grammatical focus. The results of the pretest/post-test study design revealed that L2 learners who received PI not only comprehended sentences containing the grammatical focus better than learners who received TI, the same learners, despite never having produced the target form during the study, also produced sentences containing the grammatical focus with similar accuracy as the learners whose instructional method had focused exclusively on explicit grammar exposure and production practices. Questions were raised about whether the findings were due to the explicit grammar component in both the PI and TI treatment materials, therefore a follow-up study isolating the variable of EI was conducted in VanPatten and Oikkenon (1996). By exposing learners to PI, SI or EI alone, their findings confirmed that the effects on acquisition in the original study were attributable to exposure to SI activities and not EI. The combined findings of both VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) and VanPatten and Oikkenon (1996) revolutionized conceptualizations of language acquisition along with language teaching and instantiated further investigations into learners’ processing mechanisms as a basis for acquisition efficiency and effectiveness that had not previously

Processing Instruction in Mixed Language Classrooms  191

attracted researchers’ attention. These two studies paved the way for input processing research to extend to other processing problems corresponding to additional target linguistic features, in a variety of languages. Over the course of the past few decades, input processing research investigating the effectiveness of PI has been demonstrated in languages such as English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, and Spanish with native speakers of English, German, Italian, Korean, Chinese, Greek and Polish. PI has been operationalized in its entirety in some studies, and in others, its components have been isolated with the goal of determining the effectiveness of the individual components (i.e. SI or EI) of PI (e.g. Benati, 2004; Benati & Lee, 2008; Farley, 2004; Henry et al., 2009; Leeser & DeMil, 2013; Marsden, 2006; Sanz & MorganShort, 2004; Wong, 2004), while others have compared PI with outputbased instructional techniques (e.g. Benati, 2001, 2005; Cadierno, 1995; Farley, 2001) or have incorporated provisions of feedback paired with a variety of instructional interventions (Dracos & Henry, 2018; Fernández, 2008). The general findings of all of these studies support that PI/SI are effective at pushing learners to alter their non-optimal processing strategies and consistently result in improved performance after treatment (or during treatment as in the case of Fernández, 2008). Recent research incorporating online processing measurement protocols such as eye-tracking technology has shed light on the fact that PI exposure results in L2 learners performing similarly to native speakers, thereby demonstrating its effect on learners’ underlying processing strategies and mental representation of language (VanPatten & Keating, 2007). Although input processing has become a central area for SLA research and its effects on non-native L2 language learners and emerging research demonstrating how it can cause native-like processing by using eye-tracking technology, relatively less work has focused explicitly on exploring its effects on HL language learners. That said, in the first and only study of its kind to date, Potowski et al. (2009) explored the effects of PI on HL learners of Spanish, comparing it to the effects of traditional output-focused instruction targeting the past Spanish subjunctive mood. The study found that PI had significant positive effects with L2 and HL language learners’ abilities on both comprehension and production tasks. The findings of this study, despite some underlying differences between HL and L2 learner language development, therefore contribute to the generalizability of the effects of PI and extend these same findings to HL learners. Taking into consideration the contributions of the research reviewed thus far, it allows for the following observations: (1) Regardless of the language being studied or the Processing Principle in question, PI consistently has been shown to be more effective at improving the ways in which the L2 learners successfully attend to messages in their L2 than

192  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

output-based (traditional) language instruction and equally effective at performance on production measures, (2) PI has guided L2 learners to process similarly to native speakers (Spanish) as measured via online eyetracking tools and (3) PI has been shown to be effective for pushing HL learners to more optimal processing and away from relying on their nonoptimal default processing strategies. The existing literature speaks to the observations that have been found to hold, regardless whether the focus of instruction is a particular verbal grammatical morpheme (regardless of tense, aspect or mood) or another grammatical feature (e.g. direct object pronouns). In addition, and as a consequence of the apparent modifications resulting in language learners’ developing linguistic systems, PI improves the ways in which learners produce language incorporating the grammatical focus in question even when the same learners are never prompted to do so during instruction. Furthermore, this production-related benefit brought about by PI has been shown to be consistent and comparably equivalent to the rate with which HL and L2 learners who have received output-based training perform. Application Activities

As established earlier in the present chapter, both language learners and language educators share a common goal: to improve students’ ability to communicate effectively in a range of environments related to a variety of topics. This goal-oriented purposeful learning (and training) holds true at all levels including those in the mixed classroom at the advanced stages where context-specific communication (defined as the interpretation, expression, and negotiation of meaning) lies at the forefront (Ballman et al., 2001). Many language learners, both HL and/ or L2 learners, either at various levels, substantially benefit by continued exposure to meaning-bearing input targeting their non-optimal default processing strategies in order for their developing linguistic system to strengthen form-meaning connections in the language of study. In the case of the more advanced-HL and L2 learners who might not need the processing-oriented input to alter their processing mechanisms, they benefit by the pedagogical purpose elucidated in the sections of the present chapter that follow. What is clear in the mixed classroom is the need for all learners to work collaboratively to achieve whatever communicative goals they might be tasked with on a given day, or in a given lesson. The question remains, which is explicitly addressed throughout this chapter, how can an environment such as this be designed to meet language-learner needs who comprise these diverse learner populations? This is precisely how PI can be of service in the mixed-population and mixed-level language classroom. Given that the learner populations in these courses (may) have varying linguistic needs, it is crucial to ensure they are all

Processing Instruction in Mixed Language Classrooms  193

working towards shared communicative goals while at the same time being prepared to work with the linguistic tools they have at their disposal. In order to consider how this can be accomplished, let’s first examine examples of typical activities that do not prepare them efficiently and then address how these activities can be modified to meet learners’ linguistic-processing needs to successfully prepare them for interactive communicative-goal oriented tasks by including SI as a first step in the activity. For the purposes of example, we will examine two commonly found activity types from an advanced-level conversation course typically offered at the third- or fourth-year levels, a common point of convergence in which both HL and L2 learners unite. Then, we will discuss how these same activities can be transitioned into tasks in order to ensure that (1) communication actually takes place and (2) learners have both the content-specific information and the linguistic tools necessary to complete the tasks. An important distinction to be made is that of the difference between an activity and a task: an activity can (and should be) meaningful; however, a task is both meaningful and has a communicative purpose1. That said, it is important to keep in mind that a task must (a) have an informational goal or purpose; (b) have a primary focus on the interpretation and expression of meaning; and (c) keep in mind the context for interpreting and expressing meaning, whereas an activity, does not. Let’s take a look at the following two examples, Activities A and B in order to evaluate their design as either activities or tasks. Activity A. Your ideal vacation! Imagine that you and three other classmates are family members, all of whom were recently left an inheritance with the stipulation that it must be spent on a family trip. You can choose any location in the world, but you all must agree on the destination in order for the funds to be disbursed. Step 1. Each person should select which country they believe to be an ideal destination location and write the reasons why you want to go there, using the appropriate subjunctive forms. Step 2. Take turns reading your opinions to the other members in your group with the goal of convincing your family members that the destination you chose is the best for the family. Finally, you will share your family’s destination decision with the rest of the class. Activity B. Presidential election. In groups of three, share your opinions with your classmates about the upcoming presidential/local government/ student government election that your professor provides. Determine who you support for this position and why. Share your opinions with the rest of the class. While it is clear that both Activity A and B require that students work together to complete the activity, there is no guarantee that (1) actual communication will actually take place and (2) students are at

194  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

all prepared to engage optimally with the topic-specific content or possess the linguistic tools necessary to complete the task. These typical activities must be redesigned in such a way that they require learners to engage in actual communication as proposed below. Additionally, one way to provide the linguistic support learners need is by providing them with SI activities given that they encourage form-meaning connections and thereby create a path towards successful completion of interactive tasks. Let’s consider how the inclusion of SI activities can serve as a point of departure for SO activities and onto interactive tasks completed in the mixed classroom with the purpose of unifying both the linguistic readiness and task readiness for the distinct types of learners whose membership comprises this diverse group. As with all SI activities, there must be a processing problem associated with the grammatical form targeted given that the goal of SI is to alter learners’ non-optimal default processing strategies. In the case of the present examples, the target form is the Subjunctive mood and the related processing strategies are the Sentence Location Principle and the Lexical Preference Principle (see the above section on Input Processing for a detailed account of these processing strategies). In the following examples, learners move through the input-to-output sequence by first completing a SI activity alone, then a SO activity, and finally onto output-oriented interactive tasks completed in groups. Activity A. Travel preferences Step 1. Select which of the following best describes your preferences when traveling by rating your responses to the following statements using the accompanying scale. I prefer to travel to a place that… Not important at all

Not very important

Fairly important

Very important

1.

has sun and warm weather.

1

2

3

4

2.

uses a neutral accent.

1

2

3

4

3.

serves authentic, local cuisine.

1

2

3

4

4.

includes economical accommodations.

1

2

3

4

5.

has an exciting nightlife.

1

2

3

4

...

(list continues)

1

2

3

4

The above SI activity provides learners opportunities to process the Subjunctive mood verb form thereby bestowing the linguistic support they need along with the element of task-essentialness, which requires learners to process these target forms for meaning in order to successfully complete the first step of the activity. In order to accommodate learners’ inefficient processing strategies which may still be in use by upper-level HL or L2 learners, the design of the activity

Processing Instruction in Mixed Language Classrooms  195

itself makes the verb in the dependent clause more salient by accounting for the LPP and the SLP, while at the same time facilitating formmeaning connections. Also, as an added bonus, learners are exposed to the vocabulary specific to the context related to the communicative goal of the task (i.e. determining a travel destination that suits their own criteria and those of their group members), which we will see executed in the subsequent steps of the activity. Once learners respond to the statements in the SI activity with their preferences for travel, they move to Step 2, to determine what preferences they have in common with their group members (which results in SO), and then to Step 3, when they share their criteria with the rest of the class and jot down useful details from the other groups, to Step 4, when they select a destination location, and finally Step 5, in which the learners synthesize the information they just gathered in the earlier steps of the activity and present their findings to the class using their own criteria for travel destination selection. Step 1 (shown above) and all subsequent steps in the activity (presented below) illustrate how the sequence of events for the learner keep both form and meaning in focus during their completion and lead learners to engage in the cognitive processes involved in communication. Step 2. In your assigned group, ask your group members about their travel preferences and share your own with your group members. Be sure to jot down their preferences by annotating Step 1 of the activity. Once everyone has shared their preferences, as a group, determine which are the most important characteristics of a travel destination. Create additional criteria as needed. Step 3. Using your groups’ established preferences, present your final criteria to the rest of the class and be sure to explain how you came to this determination. Listen to your classmates’ criteria they present and jot down any you would also choose to incorporate into your selection process. (i.e. We prefer a place that has an exciting nightlife. We want to go to a city where there are 14 bars within walking distance. We are looking for bars that have late-night happy hour) Step 4: Select a destination location from the set of countries and cities your professor provides. Do so by exploring the internet to determine which city most appropriately suits your needs and by discussing this information with your group. Step 5: Present your final destination to the class and determine if other groups also selected the same destination. Let’s look at one other sample activity that has undergone the appropriate modifications that requires learners to process form for meaning and engage in communication. The following activity presented in Activity B Presidential election presents a similar type of task-ready situation as that of Activity A Travel preferences designed for students in the mixed classroom. In this case, learners move through the input-to-output

196  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

sequence by first determining the criteria they might use for selecting an ideal candidate for president or government official. As an added bonus of the input in Step 1, cultural information is latent throughout the activity which affords learners with opportunities to expand their cultural knowledge by first providing them with distinct criteria they can use to select their preferred candidate and then the subsequent steps require learners to support their opinion by using factual information. Let’s take a look at this sequence by beginning with an SI activity also targeting the subjunctive mood as in the previous example. Activity B. Presidential Election Step 1. Select which of the following best describes how important the following characteristics are for you when considering a candidate for the upcoming election by rating your responses to the following statements using the accompanying scale. I want my candidate to… Not important at all

Not very important

Fairly important

Very important

1.

have a reputable educational background.

1

2

3

4

2.

speak informedly about important issues.

1

2

3

4

3.

better the economy.

1

2

3

4

4.

be inclusive of the LGBTQ community.

1

2

3

4

5.

support the community.

1

2

3

4

...

(list continues)

1

2

3

4

As with all SI activities, the purpose of the above example is to encourage learners to make form-meaning connections and to alter their default processing strategies. The follow up for this activity is similar to the earlier activity presented: in small groups, learners ask their group members that they look for in a candidate, share their own criteria, research the candidates provided by their instructor, and finally arrive at a determination of their selected candidate while being able to support their decision with factual information. If the reader will remember the initially presented commonly found activities first presented in this chapter, a number of key differences should become clear. First, in the input-to-output sequence beginning with SI and moving through the completion of a task, learners must first process linguistic data aimed at strengthening form-meaning connections and altering their incorrect processing strategies. Second, learners are charged with the task of exchanging information based on their own criteria in the form of structured output. Finally, learners work through a series of follow-up steps which continue to engage them in subsequent input-exposure opportunities for input processing as well as

Processing Instruction in Mixed Language Classrooms  197

opportunities to express and negotiate meaning while they work towards reaching the communicative goals of the information exchange tasks. Conclusions

The present chapter has shown how the incorporation of PI and an input-to-output lesson plan design effectively address the linguistic needs of all language learners – both L2 and HL – in the mixed classroom context. In short, all learners completing the input-to-output sequence still benefit by exposure to the SI and SO activities by aiding in their preparation to complete the information exchange tasks. By creating an environment in which all learners transition from SI to SO activities, all learners are now in a group with others who all possess the linguistic tools necessary to complete subsequent tasks. Additionally, these already-prepared learners also benefit by completing SI, not necessarily because of their effects on their processing mechanisms, but rather because these activities create realistic and precise expectations about what is required of them during the series of steps in the activity. This activity-to-task sequence ordered in such a way serves to highlight linguistic forms for use during task completion and pushes all participants to follow discourse practices of echoing/mirroring thereby using the same target linguistic structure. This particular sequence aids in raising awareness of discourse patterns without necessarily focusing on a particular grammatical structure explicitly. This is crucial to learners’ success given that oftentimes, more advanced learners are not engaging in the task as designed, however, with the inclusion of the multi-step process beginning with SI, learners are guided through to task completion. Effectively, once all learners complete the SI and SO steps of the sequence, they are fully prepared to engage in meaningful task-based communicative activities. In short, the SI and SO activities ensure that all learners comprising the groups are linguistically prepared to carry the task to fruition. In a similar vein, all learners benefit by using this activity sequence given that they are provided lesson architecture that keeps them on task. This is especially important for learners in the mixed-level class due to the linguistic diversity with which they arrive at the inception of an activity. The input-to-output sequences described above (Activity A and B) focused on a target form, the subjunctive mood, within a context of an advanced conversation course, addressing topics of characteristics of countries and political elections. These particular topics could also present themselves in specialty courses such as courses on economics or politics so long as communication and communicative tasks are incorporated for active student participation. The design of these activities is also applicable for inclusion in a wide range of courses such as those focusing on1 language for the professionals such as health care/medical practice, law practice and legal studies, commercial/business, law enforcement, among many others. The titles of these courses and their content vary from

198  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

institution to institution, however, so long as learners need opportunities to engage in the interpretation, expression, and negotiation of meaning (i.e. communication), they will benefit by extended opportunities to engage in carefully designed activities such as those presented in the current chapter. The target linguistic features can also vary so long as during the development of the SI component of the input-to-output sequence, there is an identified processing strategy involved. Some examples of target structures typically covered in these upper-level language courses in which advanced L2 learners, HL learners and Native speakers enrolled in the same courses include the indicative and imperfect subjunctive moods (Sentence Location Principle, Lexical Preference Principle [depending on the use]), the preterit and imperfect tenses for languages such as Spanish (Sentence Location Principle, Lexical Preference Principle), accusative and dative clitics (First Noun Principle), along with others depending on the curricula and articulation among courses. As we consider our curriculum for the mixed language classroom, it is imperative that practitioners pay particular attention to the scientific research findings in language acquisition in order to provide an infrastructure that optimally serves this mixed demographic. The influence of language processing principles and related pedagogical interventions therefore serve as a springboard for language learners on their path to successful interaction and engagement during these upperlevel mixed language courses. Further Reading Lee, J.F and Benati, A. (2007) Second Language Processing: An Analysis of Theory, Problems and Possible Solutions. London: Continuum Lee, J.F. and VanPatten, B. (2003) Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen (2nd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill. VanPatten, B. (2020) Input processing in adult L2 acquisition. In B. VanPatten, G. Keating and S. Wulff (eds) Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 105–127). New York: Routledge.

Beyond the Reading The following are questions for discussion for future teacher educators: (1) How are HL learners similar to non-native L2 language learners? Different? (2) Are all Heritage language learners the same? Why or why not? If you are already an L2 teacher, have you encountered HL learners with varied abilities in their HL? How did you address their linguistic needs? (3) What has research shown us regarding the role of explicit grammar instruction and language learners’ ability to communicate orally in the L2? How do those findings impact language classroom lesson planning?

Processing Instruction in Mixed Language Classrooms  199

(4) From what you have learned in this chapter, which would you expect explicit grammar instruction to affect more: the learners’ ability to read and write or their ability to hear, speak, and understand? (5) The chapter points out that the HL populations are not at all homogenous regarding language proficiency levels. What might be the cause(s) of this lack of homogeneity? How do those variables affect the choice of language classroom activities? In other words, what do some learners know that others do not? Why? (6) As you look through L2 instructional materials, do you encounter PI/SI activities like those described in this chapter? Using the activity examples here, could you modify an activity in your text to make it input-oriented? (7) You are a language area coordinator in a town or city in which there is a very sizable HL community, the students of which are enrolled in the area school(s). The area superintendent wants your recommendations about the language curriculum for the upcoming school year. Based on what you have read in this chapter, what are you going to tell that person?

Note (1) A meaningful activity keeps learners’ attention on the message expressed and/or shared in the activity. That is to say, the activity cannot be completed without understanding the meaning inherent in the activity. A communicative activity requires learner opportunities to express, interpret, and negotiate the meaning of a message (Sauvignon, 1991). In brief, all communicative activities are meaningful but not all meaningful activities are necessarily communicative (For additional explanation, see Spanish for Native Speakers: AATSP Professional Development Series Handbook (vol. 1, pp. 85–89); Lee & VanPatten, 2003).

References Ballman, T.L., Liskin-Gasparro, J.E. and Mandell, P.B. (2001) The Communicative Classroom: AATSP Professional Development Series Handbook for Teachers K-16 (vol. 3). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Benati, A. (2001) A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and outputbased instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research 5, 95–127. Benati, A. (2004) The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness 13, 67–80. Benati, A. (2005) The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction and meaningoutput instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research 9, 67–93. Benati, A.G. and Lee, J.F. (2008) Grammar Acquisition and Processing Instruction: Secondary and Cumulative Effects. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Brown, R. (1973) A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cadierno, T. (1995) Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal 79 (2), 179–193.

200  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

Dracos, M. and Henry, N. (2018) The effects of task-essential training on L2 processing strategies and the development of Spanish verbal morphology. Foreign Language Annals 51, 344–368. Ellis, N. (2007) Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative-cognitive CREED. AILA Review 19, 100-12 Farley, A. (2001) Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania 84, 289–299. Farley, A. (2004) Structured Input: Grammar Instruction for the Acquisition-Oriented Classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fernández, C. (2008) Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30 (3), 277–305. Gass, S. and Mackey, A. (2007) Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (eds) Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 175–200). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Henry, N., Culman, H. and VanPatten, B. (2009) More on the effects of explicit information in instructed SLA: A partial replication and response to Fernández (2008). Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31, 559–575. Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (2020) Hacu list of Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) 2020–2021. See https://www.hacu.net/hacu/HSIs.asp. Krashen, S. (1980) The Input Hypothesis. In J. Alatis (ed.) Current Issues in Bilingual Education. Georgetown University Roundtable on Language and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Lee, J.F. and VanPatten, B. (1995) Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lee, J.F. and VanPatten, B. (2003) Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen (2nd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill. Leeser, M.J. and DeMil, A. (2013) Investigating the secondary effects of processing instruction in Spanish: From instruction on accusative clitics to Transfer-of-Training effects on dative clitics. Hispania 96, 748–762. Leeser, M.J. and White, J.P. (2015) Interactive tasks. In Routledge E-Book Modules on Contemporary Language Teaching Series. New York: Routledge. Lichtman, K. and VanPatten, B. (2021) Was Krashen right? Forty years later. Foreign Language Annals 54, 283–305. Lipski, J. (1993) Creoloid phenomena in the Spanish of transitional bilinguals. In A. Roca and J. Lipski (eds) Spanish in the United States (pp. 155–173). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lynch, A. (1999) The subjunctive in Miami Cuban Spanish: Bilingualism, contact, and language variability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Marsden, E. (2006) Exploring input processing in the classroom: An experimental comparison of processing instruction and enriched input. Language Learning 56 (3), 507–566. Martínez Mira, M.I. (2005) Mood simplification: Adverbial clauses in heritage Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Montrul, S. (2002) Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5 (1), 39–68. Montrul, S. (2007) Interpreting mood distinctions in Spanish as a heritage language. In K. Potowski and R. Cameron (eds) Spanish in Contact: Educational, Linguistic and Social Perspectives (pp. 23–40). New York: Benjamins. Montrul, S. (2016) The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Polinsky, M. (2020) Building a strengths-based classroom: The power of heritage. Webinar organized by the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) on 17 September 2020. Potowski, K. (2005) Fundamentos de la enseñanza del español a los hablantes nativos en los Estados Unidos. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Potowski, K. (2014) Heritage learners of Spanish. In K.L. Geeslin (ed.) The Handbook of Spanish Second Language Acquisition (pp. 404–422). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

Processing Instruction in Mixed Language Classrooms  201

Potowski, K., Jegerski, J. and Morgan-Short, K. (2009) The effects of instruction on linguistic development in Spanish Heritage language speakers. Language Learning 59 (3), 537–579. Sanz, C. and Morgan-Short, K. (2004) Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning 54, 35–78. Sauvignon, S. (1991) Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly 25 (2), 261–277. Silva-Corvalán, C. (1994) Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Silva-Corvalán, C. (2003) Linguistic consequences of reduced input in bilingual first language acquisition. In S. Montrul and F. Ordóñez (eds) Linguistic Theory and Language Development in Hispanic Languages (pp. 375–397). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Valdés, G. (2001) Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. Peyton, J. Ranard and S. McGinnis (eds) Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National Resource (pp. 37–80). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. VanPatten, B. (1996) Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. VanPatten, B. (2004) Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, MJ: Erlbaum. VanPatten, B. (2007) Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (eds) Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (1st edn, pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. VanPatten, B. (2015) Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (eds) Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (2nd edn, pp. 113–134). New York: Routledge. VanPatten, B. (2020) Input processing in adult L2 acquisition. In B. VanPatten, G. Keating and S. Wulff (eds) Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (3rd edn, pp. 105–127). New York: Routledge. VanPatten, B. and Cadierno, T. (1993) Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 225–241. VanPatten, B. and Oikkenon, S. (1996) Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 495–510. VanPatten, B. and Leeser, M.J. (2006) Theoretical and research considerations underlying classroom practice: The fundamental role of input. In R. Salaberry and B.A. Lafford (eds) The Art of Teaching Spanish: Second Language Acquisition from Research to Praxis (pp. 55–77). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. VanPatten, B. and Williams, J. (eds) (2007) Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. VanPatten, B. and Keating, G.D. (2007) Getting tense: Lexical Preference, L1 Transfer, and Native and Non-native Processing [Paper]. Annual meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, April 21–24, Costa Mesa, CA. White, L. (2007) Linguistic theory, universal grammar, and second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (eds) Theories in Second Language Acquisition (1st edn, pp. 37–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wong, W. (2004) The nature of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (ed.) Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary (pp. 33–63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Wong, W. (2013) Input and output in SLA: Applying theories of mental representation and skill. In J. Schweiter (ed.) Innovative Research and Practices in Second Language Acquisition and Bilingualism (pp. 19–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

9 Promoting Multilingual Metalinguistic Awareness within Young Foreign Language Learners Eftychia Damaskou

Introduction

Culturally and linguistically changing landscapes form current educational settings. In Europe, valuing and developing learners’ language repertoires are two practices strongly encouraged by the Council of Europe (Beacco & Byram, 2007; Council of Europe, 2001). Nevertheless, most teachers, despite their positive will, are not empowered enough to implement such practices, since they have not been equipped with the appropriate knowledge and skills (Breidbach et al., 2011). In addition, most teachers do not speak or understand any of their students’ languages, which leads to the marginalization of the latter from the class (Elsner, 2011). Jessner (2006) argues that most language teachers treat each language taught as an isolated unit, as they probably ignore that their students have already developed a repertoire of language skills and learning strategies, and also an increased level of crosslinguistic awareness. Thus, teachers waste valuable resources for the creation of synergies and new cognitive features. Furthermore, according to Cummins (2001), home language not only fosters children’s knowledge and skills that may be transferred to school language, but also provides emotional security, which is very important for all students. Since the early 1990s, Greek schools have been receiving numerous students of different cultural and linguistic backgrounds due to unprecedented migration flows from the Balkans, the ex-Soviet Union and countries of the Middle East and Africa. The presence of these students has shaken Greek society’s deep-rooted beliefs about its homogeneity (Mattheoudakis et al., 2017), however, immigrant 202

Promoting Multilingual Metalinguistic Awareness within Young FLLs  203

and minority children’s bilingualism remains ‘invisible’ in class (Gkaintartzi & Tsokalidou, 2011). Nonetheless, Greek students who share the same desk, develop friendships and play with their nonnative peers during breaks, should learn to coexist and use language in order to communicate within mixed-language classroom contexts (Diakogeorgiou, 2016; Thürmann et al., 2010). Within this context, the present chapter discusses how teachers could acquaint their young students with linguistic diversity in a beneficial way, by promoting multilingual MA in mixed-language classroom contexts. The first part draws on the relevant literature about young learners’ characteristics and Metalinguistic Awareness (hereafter MA) in mixedlanguage classroom contexts and the Awakening to Languages (hereafter AtL) approach, while the second part presents a study concerning the implementation of a digitized tale conceived and created on the grounds of the AtL principles. Young Learners’ Characteristics

Children carry an incredible power of curiosity and elasticity of thought. From Brewster et al.’s perspective (2002), young students are known for their physical energy and wide range of emotional needs, which explains why they easily become excited. They learn slowly, forget quickly and get bored easily. However, they can concentrate for a surprisingly long time if they are interested, although they can be easily distracted. Slattery and Willis (2001) claim that children can learn through a variety of ways, such as seeing, hearing, imitating or doing things, are excellent mimics, have very little attention span and, thus, need variety in activities. As regards teachers, according to Berman (1998), they need to create a balance in their classrooms between providing support and providing a challenge. Metalinguistic Awareness in young learners

Ramirez et al. (2013) define MA as the ability to distance oneself from the content of speech, in order to reflect upon and manipulate the structure of language, whereas Pinto et al. (1999) and Lichtman (2013) raise the issue of age and maintain that metalinguistic development’s lower limit can be identified as between the ages of five and six. Yet, according to Tellier and Roehr-Brackin (2017), young students rely primarily on implicit learning, because they are not sufficiently cognitively mature, and therefore are less able to use explicit learning processes. Another important feature is that young learners can transfer many literacy skills from their mother tongue to L2 learning (Dlugosz, 2000). Nevertheless, what is the role of MA in a mixed-language classroom? MA could be a means for the teacher to welcome pupils’ multilingualism

204  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

in the class. Languages would, then, become the starting point for collaboration and playing with peers. Students observe languages, compare them, guess and express themselves about languages, which lead them to enrich both their linguistic and cognitive repertoire. However, this requires consideration of whether and how young students are able to work on and process linguistic materials in untaught and unfamiliar languages. Thus, it is important to refer to the need for an appropriate language approach, which frames the utilization and integration in the classroom of pupils’ languages. According to Candelier (2008), any type of one-dimensional language teaching is not sufficient for the development of multilingual skills. Candelier (2003) also supports the possibility that pluralistic approaches could be appropriate language approaches, as they involve students working in several languages at the same time, relying on skills in one language in order to develop skills in other languages. In addition, as Melo-Pfeifer (2018: 200) claims, ‘pluralistic approaches promote a dynamic individual multilingual repertoire, recognizing and exploiting students’ linguistic and cultural biographies with pedagogical goals’. The next section presents the AtL pluralistic approach, whose implementation seems to confirm the feasibility of simultaneous utilization of several languages in class. The pluralistic approach ‘Awakening to Languages’

The Council of Europe ‘initiated a series of language learning projects that valued learners’ previous linguistic repertoires, AtL being one of the approaches used’ (Coelho et al., 2018: 198). Specifically, the AtL approach concerns teaching practices which involve learning activities that encourage early contact with a variety of languages which the school does not intend to teach, and which could be the mother tongues of pupils (Candelier, 2003). Through the AtL, students are engaged in activities that involve a comparative approach of several languages simultaneously, through analysis, observation and hypothesis making. Therefore, students become aware of the diversity of languages and, thus, broaden their cognitive universe. Moreover, this approach could be considered as a vector of fuller recognition of the languages `brought’ by other-language speaking children, or even support language learning throughout schooling (Candelier et al., 2012). This is confirmed by some previous studies (Lory & Armand, 2016; Lourenço & Andrade, 2014), where AtL seems to be highly applicable to mixed-language classroom contexts. In fact, this approach can function as a kind of ‘propédeutique’ (Dabène, 1995), providing young learners with ‘well-nourished roots’ from the first school years onwards, preparing them for future language learning through the development of abilities of linguistic observation and reflection, the promotion of favorable attitudes and representations towards languages and a general predisposition to participate in intercultural encounters (Candelier, 2003).

Promoting Multilingual Metalinguistic Awareness within Young FLLs  205

The Current Study

In mixed-language classrooms, recognizing all pupils’ first languages is necessary for their wellbeing and could be an important resource for the development of linguistic and metalinguistic skills for all pupils. Within this context, we designed a study in order to explore what kind of teaching material could allow young pupils to develop multilingual MA and, therefore, become acquainted with unfamiliar languages. In the present study, our working definition of multilingual MA focuses on children’s knowledge of word’s phonetic and graphemic representation both in known and unknown languages. The method

The study was conducted with a qualitative focus and carried out in three phases. During the first phase, individual semi-guided interviews took place with a sample of 60 primary general teachers, teachers of specific teaching subjects such as music, arts, English and drama courses in the 1st grade. The sample included males and females, aged from 25 to 55 years old. The majority of them have been working in state schools in the Greek periphery (islands, peripheral cities and villages) and have had teaching experience in mixed-language classrooms. Interviews took place either in person or by phone. During interviews, teachers were encouraged to share their stories, opinions and views on how a 1st grade mixed-language classroom works. The interviews were carried out in Greek, tape recorded with the participants’ consent and transcribed by means of a speech-enabled online notepad. All transcripts were processed using the method of thematic analysis, in order to ‘identify, analyze and report patterns (themes) within data’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006: 6). The analysis of each transcription led to a coding framework, from which the themes of our research emerged, as presented in the following section. The second phase concerned the design of our tool. From the analysis of the answers it emerged that tales are considered one of the most preferred and appropriate materials for 1st graders. Given that our research aimed at exploring possible ways to develop multilingual MA in order to acquaint young students with the diversity of languages, a tale was created according to the principles of the AtL concerning all sorts of classrooms. The third phase consisted of the implementation of the tale in three 1st grade classes in an urban environment in Central Greece. Specifically, the implementation concerned a total of 60 students among which there were students who had been speaking Albanian, Bulgarian and Turkish at home. All implementations were filmed and recorded, in order to ensure vision and sound quality. The elicited data were transcribed

206  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

according to the thematic analysis technique. The emergent themes are presented in detail in the following section. The tale

There is abundant literature about the pedagogical assets of using tales in class. Tales constitute a great resource for a differentiated, alternative and attractive teaching method as they ensure a pleasant and constructive learning process (Malafantis & Ntoulia, 2011), including all three basic learning modalities: auditory, visual and tactile (Musengi, 2018), especially when they are narrated through a story box or puppets (see Hélot & Stevanato, 2020). Moreover, storytelling is claimed to be effective in language teaching, as it relies on its entertaining character, the learners’ involvement and also the fact that it stimulates learners’ interest (Lockett, 2011; Rezende-Lucarevshi, 2016). Finally, storytelling encourages friendly and collaborative interaction between classmates, making it easier to achieve learning (Krashen, 1981). In order to create the tale for the study, there were some basic axes to consider: theme, working mode, activities and auxiliary materials. According to the interviews with the teachers, animals appear to be a very popular theme among young students, while group work, short, diverse and feasible activities were provided to maintain young students’ motivation. The interviewed teachers also highlighted the focus on oral speech, underlining the importance of illustrations in association with the linguistic material. The tale was presented through a digitally illustrated and recorded narration. The linguistic content of the tale consisted of a list of nine animals (rooster, dog, cat, frog, turtle, hippo, lion, elephant and monkey), which participate in the tale, provided in Greek, English, French, Albanian, Turkish, Bulgarian, Farsi, Swedish, German, Chinese and Spanish. Each group received auxiliary material for the task solving, which contained word labels with the vocabulary of animals in all 11 languages, plasticine, fluffy wires and animal illustrations. The tale is about two children, a boy and his sister, who are on the way to visit their grandfather’s farmhouse. Once the children get there, they decide to explore his farm. Suddenly, the farm’s dog, Fidel, gets lost in the woods. The talking animals are willing to help them find it, on one condition: that they complete a sequence of tasks. These tasks engage the pupils in discovering animal vocabulary in eleven languages, through a crosslinguistic approach. Children finally find the lost dog and get it back home safe and happy. The theoretical framework of the AtL approach plays a major role in our tale’s plot, and the evolution of the story works as a chain that ties up all the activities harmoniously. Table 9.1 on the next page shows the sequence of activities that the students performed during the story. Their order and typology are not

Promoting Multilingual Metalinguistic Awareness within Young FLLs  207

Table 9.1  The structure of our tale 1. The anchorage situation. Activities serve as bridges with the previous knowledge, preparing pupils for the new content. First activity

So, what kind of animals can one see in a farm?

2. The research situation. Activities entail observation, comparison, hypothesis making, cooperation, justification, auditory discrimination and knowledge transfer. Students work in groups or individually. Second activity

You are about to listen to five short songs. Listen to them very carefully and tell if they are in the same language. Can anybody also tell what they are talking about?

Third activity

You are going to listen to another five songs. Which one was in French and which one in Chinese. Ready? Go!

Fourth activity

Now, you are going to listen to five groups of words. Each group entails words that mean the same animal in many languages. Can you guess the animal?

Fifth activity

Observe the words you have in front of you. Are they all written with the same alphabet? If not, group them according to their alphabet.

Sixth activity

There are images of some animals in front of you. Match all the words that mean this animal with the relevant image.

Seventh activity

How good are you at pantomime? For the next task, we are going to need a volunteer from each group, in order to imitate an animal choosing from those you see on the board. The rest of the group should guess the animal and raise one or more word-labels that mean this animal in other languages. Ready? Let’s start!

Eigth activity

Our friend the snail has many joined words drawn on its shell. Help it separate them in order to make it look prettier.

Ninth activity

Choose four words and rewrite them using four different materials: puzzle, cubes, clay, fluffy wires.

The final synthesis situation concerns a collective agreement [that] is reached on the possible solutions, based on the abilities and the attitudes towards language developed during the previous phases (Candelier et al., 2004). Tenth activity

In this final task, you are about to create a multilingual poster where you are supposed to put the images of all animals along with an adequate word in any language that indicates its natural life setting (lake, farm or jungle).

random, as they conform to the threefold structure of the teaching units according to the principles of the AtL approach (Candelier et al., 2004). All instructions of the tasks that pupils were supposed to complete were integrated into the narration and given simultaneously to all groups by each of the talking animals. The Findings

The elicited data from the interviews with the participant teachers are presented in this section per question. Based on your personal experience, do you think first graders are able to recognize or distinguish a language other than their mother tongue or the languages taught at school?

According to the majority of the teachers, young students are able to distinguish a foreign language from their mother tongue, however, apart from English, they cannot identify which language it is. ‘I think that they

208  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

can tell that it’s a different language’, claims E., 27, teacher. J., 27, teacher, adds that ‘They can tell the difference between Greek and their mother tongue’, whereas, according to R., 37, English teacher, ‘they can understand that it’s a different language from their mother tongue. Something that might impress them or seems weird or funny’. What learning content do first graders prefer the most?

According to the emergent themes from the thematic analysis of the answers, the environment, either in the sense of nature or in the sense of family, is one of the preferred learning contents of the 1st graders because it has to do with immediate experiences that they can talk about and that they feel comfortable with. For instance, the preferred learning contents ‘have to do with their experience. Any topic that invites them to share their own experiences, something they can talk about’ (K., 45, teacher), or even ‘tales including places to describe, animals, nature, depending on what experiences they have from their home’ (P., 45, teacher). What type of activities are suitable for first graders?

Most teachers cite a variety of conventional activities or sequence of activities, insisting on graded difficulty. For instance, according to C. (33, teacher), ‘Matching exercises, crosswords, puzzles, anything that has a playful form. Exercises that ask children to choose, find or put in a circle the right word. Make connections with images. Just avoid the “write, write, write” thing of the typical, let’s say, lesson. Not to mention when the computer teacher was knocking on the door, in order to get them to the computer lab, it was a mere hustle and bustle’. In addition, for E. (45, English teacher) ‘they like drawing, but you have to change the activity every 10 minutes. They also like singing, pantomime and role plays’. What do you think is the most appropriate method to teach the 1st graders?

Discussing the most appropriate way of teaching first graders, the majority of teachers referred to the interactive and mixed way. Some referred to frontal teaching, as children at this age are too young to collaborate, others referred to heuristic learning, as playful learning is more suited to specific students. D., a teacher with a large teaching experience in the 1st grade, argues that ‘the way of teaching in these classes must be studentcentered. Today, the children talk and the teacher listens and coordinates the lesson so that he can keep the children interested. Of course, it also depends on the subject being taught’ (D., 55, teacher). Nevertheless, another experienced teacher shares a different opinion: ‘Well, I think that at these ages frontal teaching helps a lot, so that they can have not only verbal but also visual communication between them. Of course, whenever the activities are appropriate, the work in groups should vary, forming smaller groups at the beginning and then larger ones’ (E., 40, teacher).

Promoting Multilingual Metalinguistic Awareness within Young FLLs  209

What do you think is the most appropriate way for the students at this age to work?

The majority of teachers state that the ideal way for young students to work is a mixed one. In fact, some argue that the method should be adapted according to the lesson and the students that the class consists of. Others argue that the method should be changed gradually throughout the year in order for students to adapt more easily. Another teacher raises the issue of culture in relation to the way of working in the classroom: It takes a lot of work to get the children to learn how to work in groups. Because we Greeks do not have a culture of cooperation. [...] They can work together in groups, but if I assign some work and say I want the first or the best who…. etc., then the child will not cooperate. (E., 42, teacher)

In regard to the elicited data from the video recordings of the tale implementation, the findings are presented according to the emergent categories from the thematic analysis of the transcriptions. The text in brackets corresponds to the researcher’s notes, but also to clarification remarks regarding the dialogues. First category: Students’ attitudes towards languages (code SAL)

The analysis of the recordings reveals students’ attitudes towards untaught languages. In particular, students appear to make comments on how some words are written (SAL1): Extract SAL1.1

[During the fifth activity] Student: Is this a foreign word? [showing the word ‘tupp’ (rooster in Swedish)] Researcher: Yes, this is a foreign word! Student, very excited: Ohhh, I know foreign languages!! Previous student, very excited: When did I learn foreign languages? I didn’t know any foreign languages, Miss!! When did I learn? Extract SAL1.2

Researcher: Now, let’s look for something a bit more difficult. I want you to find me a word in ... Arabic letters! Student, a bit terrified: Wow!!! [three other students raise words written in Arabic and shout with excitement] Arabic!!!

Some other students react by becoming excited about how unknown languages sound (SAL2).

210  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

Extract SAL2.1

[During the first activity] «¡ Hola, Alexandro! ¿Qué tal?» [some students seem to be surprised to hear a foreign language. The first song they hear is in Albanian. At first they are careful, some look at each other, and then they gradually begin to put themselves at ease. Some others stare at each other and laugh.]

Getting in touch with unfamiliar languages, such as Arabic or Spanish, seems to excite them. Most children are surprised and feel somewhat weird while listening to an unfamiliar language for the first time. Second category: The material adequacy (code MAD)

The data analysis revealed a great degree of adequacy of the material used for 1st graders’ multilingual MA. Drawing on the collected data, the following themes can be identified. The 1st theme is labeled ‘further explanations needed’ (MAD1). For instance, during the seventh activity, many students raised their hands in order to give the correct answer. The researcher explains to them that they must raise a word which means the animal that is being imitated. The second theme is labeled ‘students’ interest/excitement in what they do’ (MAD2). In particular, according to the second activity, the second song they hear is in Turkish. Half of the students are watching, the rest are dancing and smiling. Some students imitate that they sing along. The third song they hear in is Bulgarian, which has a strong rhythm, especially in relation to the two previous ones. Students who previously have been just watching start shaking to the beat, while some others imitate what they are hearing while the song is played. During the fourth song, which is in Farsi and is more melodic, there are few students who do not react and just pay attention, some seem to be daydreaming while many imitate dancing ballet. Most students seem to enjoy it. The following extract confirms the students’ eagerness to watch the tale. Extract MAD2.1

[During the second activity, there is a student who is looking forward to continuing the tale and tells the researcher] ‘Please, Miss! Let us listen to the rest of the tale!’ [another student] Miss, when are you going to give us these? [pointing at the plastic envelopes with the material].

Furthermore, during the fifth activity, all the teams have been given the transparent plastic envelope containing the material they will need and they are exploring it to see its contents. We notice that all the students work together, observe the words and some try to read what the labels containing words written in the Latin alphabet say. They observe, search, without the words in groups and put in each group the word that they

Promoting Multilingual Metalinguistic Awareness within Young FLLs  211

believe each belongs to each. In addition, during the seventh activity, almost all the students are very excited about the pantomime and ask the researcher to continue the game and get up in order to imitate an animal. The third emergent theme is labeled ‘students seem to be bored’ (MAD3). According to the analysis of the recordings, there seem to be a very few students who are not as happy as their classmates throughout the activities. As regards the fourth theme, it is labeled ‘problems in handling the auxiliary material’ (MAD4) and concerns students who appear to be facing problems in handling the auxiliary material they have at their disposal in order to complete the tasks. The following extracts confirm this difficulty: Extract MAD4.1

[During the fifth activity] Researcher: Let’s put those that are written in the same way into one separate group! [Student looks at the small bunch of word labels and addresses the researcher with a slightly complaining tone] But Miss, we can’t ...

However, as can be seen in Figure 9.1, there were other students who did not have any problem grouping words with the same writing system. Extract MAD4.3

[During the ninth activity, one student has some problems with the plasticine] Miss, I don’t know how to do that! Researcher: You should work it with your hands, like this .. ...

Nevertheless, as can be seen in Figure 9.2, there are also students who showed great skills in imitating the written form of a word in untaught languages, using other materials in order to imitate the written form of the words.

Figure 9.1  Grouping words

212  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

Figure 9.2  Writing words with wire

Extract MAD4.4

[During the eighth activity] Student: Miss, there isn’t enough space for all the words (on the snail shell) Researcher: That’s ok! Just put one word next to the other. Let me see the word ‘хипопотам’ .. ... that’s nice!

The fifth theme consists of the students’ attraction to the auxiliary material (MAD5). As the tale begins, the students seem to be impatient. Some are excited, some get up from their seats. Everyone pays attention to the board where the tale is projected. Some students dance and two smile at each other as if they find it funny. Even the students in the background, who had been constantly talking to each other, have stopped talking and are paying attention to the screen. In general, they seem absorbed in the tale and they are interested. The sixth theme concerns students’ tiredness as the tale progresses (MAD6). As can be noticed from the recordings, before going on with the 9th activity, some students start asking to go to the toilet or to drink some water. Finally, there is a seventh theme with regard to the students being confused by the simultaneous presence of many languages (MAD7). Here is a relevant extract from the video-recording transcription: Extract MAD7.1

[During the second activity] [A student pops up] Miss! The three first songs were in Albanian!

The suitability of the teaching material ensures the validity and effectiveness of the learning process. In fact, it constitutes the bridge

Promoting Multilingual Metalinguistic Awareness within Young FLLs  213

between knowledge of the home language and other languages, and paves the way for communication among all languages that are present in a mixed-language classroom. The analysis of the recordings allows us to confirm that choosing to implement a tale was very successful, given the excitement, interest and intense involvement of the vast majority of the students. In addition, despite some isolated incidents, children appear to be able to reflect on and manipulate the written and acoustic form of words in unknown languages, without being discouraged, giving up or trying less. In addition, it is obvious that pupils transfer skills from known languages in order to approach unknown languages. Third category: Students’ participation (code SP)

Students’ participation encompasses two themes: the first is labeled ‘students’ non-active participation during the activities’ (SP1). During the fifth activity, there seems to be one group whose members do not seem to share the excitement of the other groups. There is no information about their linguistic background, except for the fact that they all speak Greek. They also seem to have a discreet presence in the classroom and sit at the back. From their lazy movements in the video, they give the impression that they may be doing the activities because they have to. Specifically, some members appear to stare at each other, at the auxiliary material or at the other groups working, whereas some others appear to be too relaxed. The second theme concerns students’ excited participation (SP2). In particular, during the third activity, students look eager to do the next task. Some have stretched their ears to hear better, some are smiling and everyone is looking at the board. Most of them have risen from their chairs, standing up and raising their hand to speak. It can be also seen that, during the fifth activity, students read the words aloud, without knowing whether they read correctly or not, they place word labels in the correct word group and we can tell from the tone of their voice, which is intense, lively and fast, as well as the lively movements of their hands and body, that they are self-confident. Therefore, it can be noticed that the students’ participation is constant, endless, with some individual bursts of excitement, especially when it comes to obvious and easy answers. There are a few children who do not participate at all, but the data we have collected do not allow us to explain these minimal cases of reluctance. Fourth category: Groups’ working mode (code WM)

Drawing on the video-recording analysis, the following themes can be identified with regards to the groups’ working mode. The first theme

214  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

is labeled ‘students do not share the material with their peers’ (WM1). The following extracts uphold this problem during the group work. Extract WM1.1

[During the fifth activity, a student is complaining] Miss, they put all the material there, and we can’t reach it.] Extract WM1.2

[During the ninth activity, it seems that there is some difficulty in sharing the modeling clay, as most students want to keep it for themselves in order to form their favorite word] Researcher: The clay is for everybody. You should share it!

The second theme is labeled ‘isolated group members’ (WM2). As can be seen from the video recording, during the eighth activity, a student looks at what the other groups are doing and tells his classmate sitting opposite to him: Extract WM2.1

Researcher: Do not pick them up! [referring to the material] Student: Miss, A-M picks everything up! Researcher: Okay, just leave them there, we are not gonna use them in this activity. Former student addressing his classmate: You shouldn’t have picked them up! Another student from the group: Yeah, he is right! We had found so many words!! We were ahead of the other groups, didn’t you understand that? Researcher: Boys and girls, let’s move on! Student: Miss, A-M does not understand anything!

The third theme is labeled ‘groups rely on specific members’ (WM3). Indeed, as can be affirmed from the following extracts, there seem to be some ‘good’ students to whom the rest of the group turn in case of difficulty while carrying out the activity: Extract WM3.1

[During the 5th activity, a student is trying to read a word] Luan! What does it say here? [another student from the same group, a little upset] I do not know what it says ... [She takes the word in her hands and tries to read the word. She seems to have a hard time reading it, but from the sounds she manages to read we think it’s the word ‘sköldpadda’ (turtle in Swedish). It seems from the video that her classmate tells her something that upsets her and then she answers in a slightly critical tone] Yes, I learn English and I know! It’s in English!

Promoting Multilingual Metalinguistic Awareness within Young FLLs  215

Extract WM3.2

[During the same activity, the former student asks his classmate about another word, and seems to trust her] What does it say here?; Student: ‘Frosch’ (‘frog’ in German)

The fourth theme labeled ‘competitive behaviors’ (WM4) emerge from the following extracts: Extract WM4.1

[During the fourth activity, the researcher reminds them to work in groups] I do not see you talking to each other. [students chat with their group for a while and raise their hands impatiently again to answer] An upset student: Miss, the elephant was stolen from us ... Another unsatisfied student: Miss, we found the cat too!

Children seem to cooperate with their group mates. Some problems concern the sharing of material, however, as has already been mentioned, children at this age are characterized by egocentricity and excessive excitement. Also, as several teachers have already mentioned, in the first phase of the research, not all primary school students are able to work harmoniously in groups. This requires time and a lot of work from the teacher themself. However, in the case of our research, the teams work satisfactorily when the activities require searching or a game, there is a relative noise, but when it comes to individual construction, the children work very quietly. Fifth category: Students’ metalinguistic strategies (code MLS)

The most salient theme that emerges from the video-recording analysis concerns ‘students’ metalinguistic strategies’. Specifically, according to the following extract, students appear to understand relations between graphic and phonemic codes between known and untaught languages (MLS1). A student tries to read a word in Swedish, and relies on the similarity of Latin letters to Greek in order to read it. ExtractMLS1.1

[During the fifth activity] [A student, having found a word, tries to read it and says] ‘Teer’, ‘teer’… Miss, what does ‘teer’ mean? Researcher: What ‘teer’? Same student: This one [shows the word ‘tupp’ (rooster in Swedish)]

216  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

Student sitting opposite to him: It means rooster! [It is possible that she has found the word in the word list from the material that each group had in the plastic envelope] The previous student: ‘teer’, rooster? Researcher: This is called ‘tup’ not ‘teer’! Previous girl, a little critical of her classmate: Yeah, it’s ‘tup’.

The findings also suggest that the visual material helps students achieve the tasks (MLS2). Extract MLS2.1

[During the sixth activity] [one student holds the label with the word ‘maymun’ (‘monkey’ in Turkish) and places it on top of the photo of the monkey] I found it! Extract MLS2.2

[The same student has found two labels with the words ‘Cat’ and ‘Katze’ and read them] ‘Kat’, ‘Kats’! [Then places them on top of the cat image].

As can be seen in Figure 9.3, animal illustrations seem to be very guiding and, despite the large number of words, students complete the task of word grouping. Students appear to perceive similarities between languages (MLS3). In fact, a student had spotted the word ‘Löwe’ (lion in German), and then she heard the word ‘Luan’ (lion in Albanian) from another group, saying that it was in English. The first word to listen to is ‘monkey’. Some students look at each other sharply, as if the word reminds them of

Figure 9.3  Matching words with animal pictures (illustration credits by Apostolos Papakonstantinou)

Promoting Multilingual Metalinguistic Awareness within Young FLLs  217

something. The recording continues and the word ‘maymun’ in Turkish is heard, which is reminiscent of the word monkey in Greek. Then two other students raise their heads abruptly and start talking to the rest of the group. ‘Monkey’, ‘monkey’ whispers are heard. The recording progresses and other words similar to the Greek word are heard, such as ’ in Farsi and ‘маймуна’ in Bulgarian and the number ‘majmun’, ‘ of raised hands increases. Especially after the last word, almost all the students have raised their hand. Students, according to the extract below, also appear to perceive differences between languages (MLS4): Extract MLS4.1

[During the fifth activity] Researcher: Now, look at the words you have in front of you. Are they all written in the same alphabet? Do they contain the same kind of letters? Several students: No!!

Turning the attention to strategies used by the students, they seem to use their language repertoire in order to carry out the task (MLS5). The following extracts are very representative of the range of prior knowledge used during the tasks: Extract MLS5.1

(Activity 3) Researcher: Has anyone ever heard Chinese? [three students raise their hand] Yes, I’ve heard Chinese before [says a student full of excitement] Another student: I’ve heard Chinese before, too! Can I say a word? Researcher: Of course! Student: ‘nĭ hăo’, John knows it too [showing another classmate] [the latter intervenes] I taught him this word! He didn’t learn it by himself! Researcher: Do you know what this word means? [three students spring up together] It means Hello! Researcher: Who taught you that?; Researcher: I know Chinese, I take lessons! Another student: Miss, I know the word ‘si si’ (meaning the phrase ‘xiè xiè’ which means ‘thank you’in Chinese ). Researcher: What does that ‘si si’ mean? Student: It means ‘Thank you’, in Chinese! Extract MLS5.2

Some students: Miss, we already knew that the last one was the word ‘cat’ in Albanian!

218  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

Researcher: Yeah, that’s right! It was in Albanian! Student of the same group: Miss, we also knew the English word. [two students looking at each other] Luan !!! (having recognized the word ‘lion’ in Albanian) Extract MLS5.3

Researcher: And what about you, at the back, what do you think? Which animal was it? Student: the monkey! Researcher: The monkey! What is a monkey? Several students together: Μαϊμού (pronounced máimou which means monkey in Greek)!!!

Students, according to the following extracts, appear to be able to understand the morphology of words in unknown languages to them (MLS6). Extract MLS6.1

[The researcher, showing the word ‘青蛙 that a student was holding] Now tell me, what language is this? Student: Miss, it’s Chinese! Researcher pointing to the word in Chinese: Does it look like Arabic? Student: No!! These are Arabic [showing the word ‘ ’, which means ‘rooster’ in Persian] Researcher: This is written in Arabic. Good for you. Now, can you find me a word written in Russian letters? Student: Russian? Researcher: You know, these weird letters which look like the one we use in Greek… Student: That maybe? [showing the word ‘ιπποπόταμος’, in Greek] Researcher]: No, no, no .. [another student shows the word ‘Жаба’, which means ‘frog’ in Bulgarian] Researcher: Good job!! Extract MLS6.2

[A student picks up and shows the researcher two words in Chinese, ‘猫’ (cat) and ‘狗’ (dog)] What are these? Miss, they are the same language! Researcher: Which is this language? Are they in Greek? [the student looks carefully at the words she has in her arms] No ... Researcher: Could it be English? Student: Neither!

Promoting Multilingual Metalinguistic Awareness within Young FLLs  219

Researcher: Are they Arabic? Students: Yes! Researcher: Are they Chinese? Student with another member of the group with even greater confidence: Yes !! Researcher: Chinese or Arabic? Student: Arabic! Other student: No! Chinese! Researcher addressing the other members of the group: What do you think? Are they Chinese or Arabic? Another student with more confidence: Chinese! Researcher: Chinese! Find me a word in Arabic too. [student who previously recognized that the words were in Chinese immediately picks up a word written in the Arabic alphabet, smiling confidently.]

It can also be noticed from the video recording that students try to read or repeat words in untaught languages (MLS7). Students rely on their knowledge of other languages (mainly Greek as their mother tongue and English as their first foreign language), and especially similar graphemes (cyrillic) in order to spontaneously pronounce the new words. Extract MLS7.1

[Students find words, hold them in their hands and try to read them] [a student sitting in front, tries to read] ‘Gesl ...’ (probably the word ‘gjel’) ‘korek’ (‘Köpek’, dog in Turkish) [another student utters] ‘lion’ ‘bresh ...’ (‘breshkë’, turtle in Albanian)

Finally, there are students who appear to retain words (MLS8). Extract MLS8.1

[During the sixth activity] Researcher: ‘Perro’ in Spanish means… Student: Rooster?? Researcher: Dog…Another student: Where did we find ‘perro’? Another student: I have the word ‘perro’ [he takes the word and places it over the dog’s image] Student that previously said that ‘perro’ means ‘rooster’: ‘Perro’ in Spanish means ‘dog’!

In the present study, the students’ interest in dealing with linguistic elements unknown to them is particularly evident. According to the analysis of the plethora of excerpts, the students seem not to stop observing the words, trying to read them, despite the frequent

220  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

interference of their mother tongue or other known languages. Students seem to rely heavily on what they know, on what they have experienced and use it in their new learning environment, which is almost a real challenge for almost everyone, having to manage so many languages at the same time. Discussion and Conclusion

This chapter set out to examine which type of material and activities could promote the development of multilingual MA in first graders, within mixed-language classrooms. Specifically, the chapter explored whether a tale conceived according to the AtL approach principles could engage 1st graders in metalinguistic activities with regard to a set of 11 languages, in order to register their reactions and provide some indicative evidence for teachers who wish to prepare their classes in welcoming and embracing the other-than-dominant-language speaking students. One of the main conclusions is that interactive activities with the whole class seem to stimulate and boost the young students’ participation, and despite some occasional disagreements between classmates, there is no risk of spoiling the pleasant and playful atmosphere. Another important remark that emerges from the analysis of the recordings is that, even during demanding cognitive exercises, such as observing, comparing and grouping words in untaught and unfamiliar languages, young students appear to respond adequately. This remark converges with the view that in early education the quality of teaching, but also the positive and pleasant atmosphere in the classroom, are very important factors (Griva & Sivropoulou, 2009). Yet, the findings suggest that, in order to promote multilingual MA within first schoolers, a teacher could utilize any teaching material that could turn the lesson into a mission or challenge (in our case, helping the children of the story find their lost dog), give the students a role such as a decoder of untaught languages and one which entails movement, guessing and handcraft. In addition, reference must be also made to the development of fine kinesthetic skills, such as the ability to handle material such as plasticine, cooperative skills and self-expression improvement. According to the elicited data, while young students engage with crosslinguistic activities, their self-confidence seems to be boosted, as they are surprised at themselves when realizing, for example, that they can detect English words without even knowing English. Finally, another interesting point to report regarding the dynamics of the mixed language classroom is that, beyond social and kinesthetic skills are the motivations for learning, for opening up to linguistic diversity. In addition, the utilization of prior knowledge had a great part to play while students were dealing with multilingual content: similar known songs in taught languages, words known in one’s home languages, writing systems that are similar

Promoting Multilingual Metalinguistic Awareness within Young FLLs  221

to or remind students of a language, are some of the most important instances. Nevertheless, there are some limitations concerning the study that need to be mentioned. Firstly, the study was conducted only once in each of the participant classes, which means that one must be very cautious when interpreting the results. Secondly, the researcher was at the same time the animator of the lesson, which means that, despite the use of three different devices for the data recording (microphone, digital camera and mobile phone), the presence of at least one more researcher would offer much more information, in particular through the simultaneous recording of how more than one group works. However, it was decided not to involve any other researcher for fear that the presence of two people would risk the sense of security, comfort and intimacy created between the researcher and the students. Third, there was not enough time to perform the last activity. Despite the above-mentioned limitations, it can be concluded that the majority of students appear to be very excited and interested in participating in the tale’s tasks, while the material seemed to be so attractive that most of the groups had problems in sharing it. In addition, there are no particular remarks concerning pupils facing problems, neither in working on 11 languages nor handling material in diverse modes. Yet, as Gardner (1985) claims, students who are motivated for learning present the following characteristics: they are looking forward to learning the language, they are willing to make an effort in and maintain the learning activity. And if we take into consideration Baker’s (1992) statement that attitudes towards languages are indicative of people’s likely behavior towards their speakers, the AtL materials seem to offer a fertile ground for the proper functioning of mixed-language classrooms. Beyond the Reading More knowledge in the field of multilingual MA development is needed to better understand how young learners rely on their previous stimuli from other than the L1 languages, or even untaught languages, in order to raise their awareness of linguistic diversity. Moreover, since nowadays the presence of multilingualism around us is the norm and not the exception, it would be very important to identify the source of these stimuli. Is it, for example, the social environment of young students, their classmates, internet, television or something else? And what is the role of these sources in the development of a multilingual MA? By extension, another interesting question that emerges is if these stimuli could be utilized in a more targeted and methodical way in the early learning of foreign languages.

222  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

References Baker, C. (1992) Attitudes and Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Beacco, J.-C. and Byram, M. (2007) Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Berman, M. (1998) A Multiple Intelligences Road to an ELT Classroom. Bancyfelin: Crown House. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2), 77–101. Breidbach, S., Elsner, D. and Young, A. (2011) Language awareness in teacher education: Cultural-political and social-educational perspectives. In S. Breidbach, D. Elsner and A. Young (eds) Language Awareness in Teacher Education: Cultural-Political and Social-Educational Perspectives (pp. 11–20). Frankfurt/Main: PeterLang. Brewster, J., Ellis, G. and Girard, D. (2002) The Primary English Teacher’s Guide (2nd edn). Harlow: Penguin English. Candelier, M. (2003) L’éveil aux langues à l’école primaire. EvLang : bilan d’une innovation européenne. Bruxelles: De Boeck. Candelier M. (2008) Approches plurielles, didactiques du plurilinguisme: le même et l’autre. Recherches en didactique des langues 5 (1), 65–90. Candelier M., Andrade A.-I., Bernaus M., Kervran M., Martins F., Maurkowska A., Noguerol A., Oomen-Welke I., Perregaux C., Saudan V. and Zielinska J. (2004) Janua Linguarum: The Gateway to Languages. The Introduction of Language Awareness into the Curriculum: Awakening to Languages. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Candelier, M., Camilleri-Grima, A., Castellotti, V., de Pietro, J.-F., Lörincz, I., Meißner, F.-J., Schröder-Sura, A., Noguerol, A. and Molinié, M. (2012) FREPA – A Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures: Competences and Resources (rev. edn). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Coelho, D., Andrade, A. I. and Portugal, G. (2018) The ‘Awakening to Languages’ approach at preschool: developing children’s communicative competence. Language Awareness 27 (3), 197–221. Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (2001) Bilingual children’s mother tongue. Sprogforum NR 19, 15–20. Dabène, L. (1995) ‘L’éveil au langage, itinéraire et problématique’. In D. Moore (ed.) L’éveil au langage (Notions en questions no. 1). Paris: Didier Érudition. Diakogeorgiou, A. (2016) H ένταξη των αλλοδαπών και των παλιννοστούντων μαθητών στο Δημοτικό. Σχολείο [Foreign and expatriated pupils’ integration in primary school] In the Proceedings of the 8th Panhellenic Conference of the Greek Institute of Applied Pedagogy and Education titled ‘The ‘what’ and ‘how’ in education, teaching research and learning: listen and forget, see and remember, do and understand’], 18–19 November 2016, Athens. Dlugosz, D.W. (2000) Rethinking the role of reading in teaching a foreign language to young learners. ELT Journal 54, 284–291. Elsner, D. (2011) Developing multiliteracies, plurilingual awareness and critical thinking in the primary language classroom with multilingual virtual talking books. Encuentro 20, 27–38. Gardner, R.C. (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning. The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. Boston, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Gkaintartzi, A. and Tsokalidou P. (2011) She is a very good child but she doesn’t speak: The invisibility of children’s bilingualism and teacher ideology. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 588–601. Griva, E. and Sivropoulou, R. (2009) Implementation and evaluation of an early foreign language learning project in kindergarten. The Early Childhood Journal 37 (1), 79–87. Hélot, C. and Stevanato, A. (2020) Dulala : une association engagée pour une école multilingue [Dulala: An association committed to a multilingual school]. Enfances & Psy 86, 63–74.

Promoting Multilingual Metalinguistic Awareness within Young FLLs  223

Jessner, U. (2006) Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Krashen, S.D. (1981) Bilingual education and second language acquisition theory. In C. Leyba (ed.) Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework (pp. 47–75). Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University. Lichtman, K. (2013) Developmental comparisons of implicit and explicit language learnings. Language Acquisition 20 (2), 93–108. Lockett, M.L. (2011) Using storytelling to facilitate learning English as a foreign language. Selected papers from 2011 PAC/the twentieth international symposium on English teaching, 97–108. Lory, M.P. and Armand, F. (2016) Éveil aux langues et évolution des représentations sur le répertoire linguistique d’élèves plurilingues [Awakening to languages and evolution of representations on the linguistic repertoire of plurilingual pupils]. Revue Internationale de la Recherche Interculturelle 6 (1), 27–38. Lourenço, M. and Andrade, A.I. (2014) Do languages die? Promoting awareness of language and linguistic diversity in preschool. In M.B. Paradowski (ed.) Teaching Languages off the Beaten Track (pp. 169–187). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Malafantis, K. and Ntoulia, A. (2011) Rewriting fairy tales: New challenge in creativity in the classroom. Extravio. Revista electronica de literatura comparada. See https://www. uv.es/extravio/pdf6/malafantis_ntoulia.pdf. Mattheoudakis M., Chatzidaki, A. and Maligkoudi, C. (2017) Greek teachers’ views on linguistic and cultural diversity. Selected Papers on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics 22, 358–371. Melo-Pfeifer, S. (2018) The multilingual turn in foreign language education. Facts and fallacies. In A. Bonnet and P. Siemund (eds) Foreign Language Education in Multilingual Classrooms (pp. 191–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Musengi, M. (ed.) (2018) Learning to Teach in an Inclusive Era: Methods of Teaching. Vero Beach, FL: Strategic Book Publishing & Rights Agency. Pinto, M.A., Titone, R. and Trusso, F. (1999) Metalinguistic Awareness: Theory, Development and Measurement Instruments. Pisa and Rome: Instituti Editorali e Poligrafici Internazionali. Ramirez, G., Walton, P. and Roberts, W. (2013) Morphological awareness and vocabulary development among kindergarteners with different ability levels. Journal of Learning Disabilities 47 (1), 54–64. Rezende-Lucarevschi, C. (2016) The role of storytelling in language learning: A literature review. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 26 (1), 24–44. Slattery, M. and Willis, J. (2001) English for Primary Teachers. A Handbook of Activities and Classroom Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tellier, A. and Roehr-Brackin, K. (2017) Raising children’s metalinguistic awareness to enhance classroom second language. In M. del Pilar García Mayo (ed.) Learning Foreign Languages in Primary School: Research Insights (pp. 22–48). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Thürmann, E., Vollmer, H. and Pieper I. (2010) Language(s) of Schooling: Focusing on Vulnerable Learners. Document prepared for the Policy Forum: The right of learners to quality and equity in education – The role of linguistic and intercultural competences, Geneva, Switzerland, 2–4 November 2010. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Language Policy Division.

10 Incorporating Lessons on Language Contact for Grammar Instruction in HL and L2 Mixed Classrooms Emily Bernate

Introduction

The benefits of offering courses specifically designed for heritage language learners have been well documented. When students of a heritage language take classes designed for their pedagogical and psychosocial needs, coursework can be more efficient and effective at developing students’ language skills (Harklau, 2009; Valdés, 2001). Given that heritage language learners generally have a large repertoire of implicit knowledge at the phonological and lexical levels (Fairclough, 2011) these topics do not need to be addressed in detail. Secondly, while heritage learners may benefit from a more inductive approach to metalinguistic knowledge, second-language learners do not have as much prior input to take advantage of this approach. Furthermore, secondlanguage learners and heritage learners bring different motivations (Dos Santos, 2021) and anxieties (Prada et al., 2020) to the classroom based on their prior experiences with the language. For these reasons, researchers recommend developing separate courses or learning tracks for heritage and second-language learners. However, the creation of two separate learning tracks is often met with administrative challenges. A lack of understanding and support from administrators, low numbers of students, insufficient teaching personnel and unfamiliarity with pedagogical best practices for heritage language instruction are among the most common of these challenges (Beaudrie, 2011, 2015). When a language program is unable to offer courses specifically designed for heritage language learners, 224

Incorporating Lessons on Language Contact for Grammar Instruction  225

mixed classes must be thoughtfully designed to promote the language development of both heritage language (HL) and second-language (L2) learners in the same environment. Grammar instruction is one area of language teaching that requires thoughtful design in mixed L2 and HL classrooms. There are two main reasons why grammar instruction in mixed classrooms can be among the most difficult areas to teach. First, HL and L2 learners bring different frameworks of grammar knowledge to the classroom. In intermediate and advanced courses, L2 learners have already acquired metalinguistic vocabulary that can be used to discuss components of grammar. These students have learned the names of verb conjugations and are able to identify grammatical components at the lexical level (for example, object pronouns) and morphological level (for example, conjugation endings). For L2 learners, discrete focus-on-form tasks such as fill-in-the-blank questions can be used to measure some aspects of their progress in grammar instruction. In contrast, HL learners draw upon more implicit knowledge of grammar. Having acquired the language through natural communicative interactions, these students can effectively use a variety of grammatical structures in context; however, they are often unfamiliar with the metalinguistic terminology used to describe these structures. Given HL learners’ wholistic approach to communication in the target language, discrete focus-on-form activities are not usually accurate indicators of their progress in grammar instruction. In this sense, HL and L2 learners’ prior knowledge of grammar necessitate different approaches to developing their skills. The second challenge of teaching grammar in a mixed HL and L2 classroom involves the different types of language anxiety that students experience in the target language that can lead to strained classroom interactions. Speaking and listening anxiety are commonly associated with L2 learners; although these students may feel confident in their metalinguistic knowledge, sharing in spontaneous classroom interactions can prompt what is referred to as foreign language anxiety (Horwitz et al., 1986). L2 students’ anxiety can be exacerbated when they hear their HL peers produce sentences with native-like fluency and pronunciation patterns. On the other hand, HL anxiety has been less researched but is linked to the stigmatization of the home language variety and internalized pressures to perform as native speakers (Carreira, 2000). HL learners report higher levels of anxiety in mixed classrooms than in classes specifically created for HL students (Prada et al., 2020). In mixed classrooms, both groups of students report feelings of intimidation and perceive inadequacies in their own language production. L2 learners are reluctant to reveal their non-native-like oral production, and HL learners are apprehensive about using patterns associated with a stigmatized home dialect (Potowski, 2002). Although some nervousness is expected when performing in one’s non-dominant language, addressing the

226  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

mutual intimidation that HL and L2 students experience is necessary for creating a positive mixed classroom environment. One powerful strategy for promoting classroom interaction is the incorporation of sociolinguistic lessons on language contact situations. In this chapter, it is proposed that, when grammar instruction is contextualized within a sociolinguistic variationist approach, both HL and L2 students are able to frame their own nonstandard language production in a nonjudgmental way. This approach has been demonstrated in Potowski and Shin (2019) through grammar lessons that are particularly challenging for bilingual learners. Incorporating lessons on language variation addresses both challenges associated with grammar instruction in mixed classrooms – different systems of prior knowledge and different anxieties associated with interacting in the target language. A variationist approach to grammar instruction has been empirically shown to benefit both L2 and HL learners by validating their prior knowledge of the language and destigmatizing the nonstandard forms that characterize each of these populations (Shin & Hudgens Henderson, 2017). This article describes the variationist approach to language instruction and its merits for promoting positive interactions in an HL–L2 mixed classroom. After a general discussion of the use of sociolinguistic lessons on language variation, a sample lesson is used to illustrate these principles. Strategies for assessing the components of a variationist lesson on grammar are also included. The article concludes with suggestions of other grammar topics that can be taught from a variationist perspective, focusing on ways to help HL and L2 students develop critical language awareness and promote linguistic acceptance outside the classroom. Variationist Sociolinguistics

Sociolinguistics is the study of language in society with the aim of understanding the relationship between linguistic and social factors. From a variationist approach, linguists study how and why variation occurs in language. Within this approach, language variation may be studied either synchronically or diachronically (Hazen, 2017). Synchronic variation describes the variations in language within a particular moment in time while diachronic variation is used to describe how languages have changed over time. Both synchronic and diachronic variation can be incorporated in grammar instruction to help students understand how the target language evolves over time and space. From a synchronic perspective, within a given time period, such as present day, language variation can occur on the basis of region, social class, gender, age and other identity factors. To add to the vast array of language variation, stylistic and contextual reasons also result in differences within a given language. Languages are inherently variable and will inevitably exhibit differences at the phonological, lexical, morphological and syntactic

Incorporating Lessons on Language Contact for Grammar Instruction  227

levels. Phonological variation refers to differences in sounds while lexical variation describes differences in word usage. Morphological variation denotes the changes in the way parts of words, like verb endings and markers of gender and number, are used. Finally, syntactic variation describes the way words are combined to create sentences. The grammar of a language refers almost exclusively to the last two levels, morphological and syntactic. Presenting variations at all levels of the target language can help students view structural variations as analogous to other types of variation. For example, when students understand that the letter z may be pronounced in different ways (phonological variation) and that there are many different words for bus (lexical variation), these phenomena can be used as evidence that variations at the morphological and syntactic levels are also natural reflections of the variable nature of language. Variation in Spanish

Students are often aware of phonological and lexical variation in Spanish even before beginning an intermediate-level course. For example, students usually recognize regional differences in the pronunciation of ll and z and unproblematically accept that the words for car, bus and many food items will differ geographically. However, variations at the morphological and syntactic level are less noticeable and may be perceived as errors rather than options, leading students to adopt a negative opinion of varieties of Spanish that both HL and L2 learners bring to the classroom. For this reason, educators should be aware of the ways in which different varieties of Spanish exhibit variation at the morphological and syntactic levels and be ready to incorporate these differences into their teaching. Included below are several examples of structural variations in Spanish at the morphological and syntactic levels. One common source of variation can be found in the use of personal pronouns. Present-day variation in the use of these pronouns largely results from diachronic variation in the development of the Spanish pronoun system. Textbooks tend to present second-person singular pronouns as an oversimplified opposition between formal and informal styles or symmetrical and asymmetrical interactions. However, in many areas of the Spanish-speaking world, the system of second-person pronouns is based on a complex interaction of other social and contextual factors. In modern-day Colombia, the opposition between tú and usted is conditioned by gender ideologies combined with assumptions about social class (Bayona, 2007; Weyers, 2016). In other countries like Costa Rica, usted can be used in both symmetrical and asymmetrical relationships to express either respect or affection. Furthermore, while the use of vos is stigmatized as a marker of indigenous identity in some countries, in other regions, vos is associated with urban identities and standard language

228  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

practices (González Ponciano, 2006). In this sense, although the selection of second-person singular pronouns is often presented as a rigid system, the reality of language variation is incompatible with the notion of one correct way of using language (Potowski & Shin, 2019). If we are able to accept phonological variation as an inevitable consequence of language evolution, differences in pronoun usage should be viewed as an equally natural phenomenon motivated by the same realities. Another way in which the pronoun system exhibits variation is with respect to the inclusion or omission of subject pronouns. Spanish verb endings, or desinences, indicate information about the subject, eliminating the need to use subject pronouns. Because subject pronouns are optional, this is a grammatical feature that reflects the inherent variability of the language. Although the choice to include or omit a subject pronoun is based largely on contextual factors, variation also correlates to social and geographical variables. For example, speakers of Caribbean Spanish have higher rates of pronoun expression than speakers of Castilian Spanish (Cameron, 1993). Some studies have suggested that pronunciation plays a role in this difference, as the final -s in verb conjugations is aspirated in Caribbean Spanish, making the subject less apparent if a pronoun is not included (Poplack, 1981). These geographical differences continue to evolve as Spanish speakers increase their contact with English. Several studies have found that speakers in the United States use subject pronouns more frequently (Livert & Otheguy, 2010) and that women and affluent speakers in these communities incorporate this change more rapidly (Shin & Otheguy, 2013). Object pronouns also present an opportunity to observe the variable nature of Spanish morphology and syntax. For example, the positioning of object pronouns is a well-documented case of diachronic variation. Until the 1600s, object pronouns were more commonly placed before verbs. Over time, the post-verbal position has become the preference (as in puedo hacerlo instead of lo puedo hacer) (Davies, 1997). Both patterns are accepted as grammatical constructions. One final instance of pronoun variation that deserves mention is leísmo, the use of le to denote direct objects (as is le ayudo instead of lo ayudo). Unlike the aforementioned cases of variation, leísmo is not accepted as part of standard Spanish. However, as noted by Potowski & Shin (2019), the Real Academia Española recognizes some uses of leísmo as acceptable, likely due to the fact that the phenomenon is prevalent in Spain, even among educated speakers (RAE, 1979). In other words, when variations in grammar are adopted by speakers who enjoy some level of prestige, they are often viewed as acceptable, thus underscoring the arbitrariness of traditional notions of grammaticality. The fact that some instances of variation are acceptable, others are tolerated and others, as we will see in the following sections, are stigmatized, should guide educators’ approach to grammar instruction. As soon as students are able to recognize an instance of variation, instructors

Incorporating Lessons on Language Contact for Grammar Instruction  229

should introduce students to the fact that its degree of acceptability is a largely a consequence of social rather than linguistic factors. What grammar textbooks usually present as correct is simply one variety of the language that has enjoyed enough prestige for its features to be considered acceptable. The next section will discuss how incorporating an awareness of these instances of variation can encourage positive classroom interactions and increase metalinguistic knowledge for all learners in the mixed HL–L2 classroom. Teaching Language Variation

Carreira argues that lessons from linguistics can be used to promote US Spanish, improve HL learners’ engagement with the target language and create a better instructional environment (2000). The overarching theme from linguistics that can be used to guide grammar instruction is that all language varieties shared by a community of speakers are complex, rule-governed systems, even though the rules may differ from one dialect to another. In other words, all dialects impose certain restrictions on what patterns are possible, but each language variety has slightly different restrictions. Following linguistic science, we see that dialects deemed ungrammatical are simply following a different system of patterns.1 When dialects are deemed less worthy for academic instruction, the field of linguistics shows us that they are not stigmatized because of grammatical shortcomings but because of negative attitudes towards the race, class, or social status of its speakers (Silva-Corvalán, 1994). Although many textbooks and online learning platforms privilege a monoglossic, or uniform, standard language ideology (Lippi-Green, 1994), language instructors should remember that negative attitudes towards nonstandard dialects are not based on linguistic criteria but on notions of social prestige. Furthermore, the concept of standard language itself is rife with implicit bias. Definitions of standard language traditionally accept some variability, but only when this variability lies within non-minoritized, formally educated sectors of society. LippiGreen (2012) notes that the perception of standard language as linguistic fact rather than a social myth has systematically excluded minoritized populations. Thus, although the terms standard and nonstandard can serve to describe linguistic differences, instructors should ensure that using these terms in the classroom does not reflect a value judgement on students’ language usage. As seen in the previous section, variation is an inherent quality of language. The uninformed perspective leads people to believe that variations associated with stigmatized varieties of Spanish (usually represented by nonwhite or rural speakers or those with limited access to economic or educational resources) are incorrect. Although unsupported by linguistic evidence, these attitudes tend to direct the way educators, publishers and policy makers view speakers of nonstandard varieties.

230  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

These attitudes lead to the stigmatization of US Spanish, causing HL leaners to feel ashamed of their own dialect, underreport their language skills and lose confidence in their ability to improve. Language educators can address these misconceptions to help students understand that the source of stigmatization of nonstandard dialects like US Spanish is social prejudice rather than linguistic deficiencies. Educators may work towards this goal by first examining how they view and treat nonstandard features common in HL speech and how they approach these differences. Studies have found that high school Spanish teachers in mixed L2 and HL classes often adopted discriminatory attitudes towards the nonstandard language practices of HL learners in their class, presenting their language patterns as ‘substandard’, ‘not acceptable’ and ‘bad habits’ that needed to be corrected (Gainer & Larrotto, 2010; Randolph, 2017). Rather than recognizing HL learners’ language practices as a legitimate community practice (see Martínez, 2016), these teachers felt the need to replace students’ home language practices with academic varieties of Spanish. When the nonstandard features of HL production are treated differently than those in L2 production, the classroom becomes an environment that silences and invalidates the voices and experiences of some learners. Instructors can create a more equitable environment that encourages all students to share and apply their prior knowledge by incorporating sociolinguistic lessons on language variation (Burgo, 2017). By teaching grammar from a variationist perspective, nonstandard forms produced by HL and L2 students can be viewed as an asset rather than a hindrance for learning more about the language. By teaching grammar from a variationist perspective, as done in Potowski and Shin (2019) and empirically tested in Shin and Hudgens Henderson (2017), nonstandard forms produced by HL and L2 students can be viewed as an asset rather than a hindrance for learning more about the language. In addition to alleviating the stigma associated with US Spanish, incorporating lessons on language variation can help students acquire the metalinguistic knowledge necessary for developing an analytical understanding of the target language and the ways in which it differs from the dominant language. In the next section, a sample lesson is presented using a variationist approach. Although this method could be applied to any grammar topic, the one featured below represents a commonly taught concept that proves challenging for both L2 and HL learners – the use of preterite conjugations. A critical pedagogy approach has been adopted so that students learn about standard Spanish structures while also learning about the ways in which privilege and discrimination have shaped our notion of standard Spanish. This process integrates traditional focus-on-form knowledge with instruction in methods for identifying and responding to language discrimination. By adopting a critical pedagogy approach, students apply sociolinguistic principles to frame their own language production and exercise authority in deciding how they want to incorporate knowledge of standard Spanish into their own language practices.2

Incorporating Lessons on Language Contact for Grammar Instruction  231

Table 10.1  Variationist lesson steps Step 1

Presentation of input

Contextualized input

Step 2

Metalinguistic instruction

Focus on form

Step 3

Sociolinguistic knowledge

Connections to social factors

Step 4

Critical reflection

Engagement with ideologies and advocacy

First, the topic is presented with input that activates prior knowledge and emphasizes the communicative function of the grammar feature. Then, metalinguistic knowledge is developed through focus-on-form activities and instruction on using these forms. The third component introduces sociolinguistic concepts to illustrate the variability inherent in this grammar topic and its relationship to social factors such as race, class and geographical origin. The lesson concludes with critical reflection and the opportunity to engage with language ideologies of privilege and discrimination. Table 10.1 above summarizes the four main lesson components; although these components do not need to be taught as explicitly distinct lessons, each step builds upon the content presented in previous steps (see Potowski & Shin, 2019, for examples of applying this sequence to a variety of grammar topics). Sample Lesson: Preterite Conjugations

Spanish verb morphology is a complex system with desinences that indicate information about tense, mood, aspect, person and number. With a large amount of grammatical information densely packed into such small components within words, it is difficult for learners to notice all of the information conveyed in a conjugation. Preterite verb conjugations are a topic that requires substantial time in the course sequence so that students can gain exposure to the different kinds of verb endings and stem variations, practice these conjugations in context and develop automaticity in recognition and usage. For L2 students, learning the multitude of preterite forms presents an overwhelming task; they must learn regular, irregular and stem-changing verbs and recognize variations in these patterns that commonly occur throughout the Spanish-speaking world. For HL learners, these forms may already be recognizable, but students still need to gain metalinguistic knowledge to talk about these verbs analytically; relying solely on prior intuitions may lead them astray with low-frequency irregular verbs that deviate from the patterns they already know. Step 1: Presentation of input

The first step in teaching preterite verb conjugations in a mixed HL and L2 classroom is to start with examples so that students can begin to recognize preterite meaning and usage in context. Most grammar textbooks will offer useful examples, while ballads and current news

232  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

stories available online also include many preterite verbs in context. While these resources are helpful for presenting input, it is also important to incorporate varieties of Spanish less represented in standard texts but commonly featured in students’ own communities. Potowski and Shin (2019) have included some of these underrepresented voices in their grammar textbook in the section on preterite conjugations through the inclusion of interviews with bilingual US Spanish speakers. Another valuable resource is the Spanish in Texas website (Bullock & Toribio, 2013) which includes interviews with US-born Spanish speakers. One additional strategy for incorporating underrepresented populations who may have nonstandard preterite forms is to have students conduct brief one-minute interviews with each other to report on what they did over the weekend. It is helpful to have L2 and HL students work in pairs for this activity because, while L2 students may produce some regularized conjugations, they frequently appear in HL students’ repertoire. In this phase of the lesson, both standard and nonstandard forms should be highlighted as both types of conjugations apply predictable patterns that can be interpreted as markers of past tense. After students have received sufficient examples of preterite verbs in context, they are ready to acquire metalinguistic knowledge on the subject. Step 2: Metalinguistic instruction

One misconception of the variationist approach is that it does not incorporate focus-on-form instruction. However, if students will later be expected to justify the different usage patterns associated with preterite verb forms, they will need to have sufficient terminology and analytical skills to talk about variations in form. Instructors should explicitly introduce regular preterite verb endings so that students can identify the verb stem and ending as having different functions within a verb form (for example, in hablé, the verb stem habl carries the lexical meaning while the ending -é expresses the tense, aspect and mood of the verb). Instructors should also explicitly present irregular verbs as well as those with stem changes and spelling changes. Many traditional textbooks feature metalinguistic explanations and focus-on-form activities to help students identify and practice different kinds of standard preterite verb forms. Although not a textbook, Massey (2001) offers a comprehensive flowchart to help students identify and categorize regular, irregular, stem-changing and spelling change verbs. Once students have developed an inventory of all possible types of preterite verb forms, they can identify these different types of conjugations in both oral and written discourse. Using their metalinguistic vocabulary, students should be able to justify what kind of verb form is represented in a given conjugation. For example, students can say, ‘Trabajé is regular because the first-person ending for an -ar verb is -é,

Incorporating Lessons on Language Contact for Grammar Instruction  233

and this conjugation has that ending’. Or, ‘Fui is an irregular verb form because its root and ending don’t match the regular patterns’. Students should also be asked to explain how they identify a stem-changing or spelling change verb form, such as durmió or toqué. HL learners might already use stem-changing and spelling change verbs in context but will need to be taught to use terminology like ‘root’ and ‘ending’ to describe how verb conjugations unfold in predictable patterns. When applying metalinguistic knowledge to explain different types of conjugations, students can also benefit from working with nonstandard forms. Both L2 and HL learners frequently regularize preterite verbs, and learning to identify the components of these verbs will further reinforce their understanding of verb morphology. The aforementioned resources featuring US-born Spanish speakers all contain examples of nonstandard preterite. There are two common types of nonstandard forms that students usually encounter – those in which an irregular verb has adopted regular endings (such as conducí or andaron), and those in which a final -s has been added to secondperson singular forms (such as fuistes or hablastes). Students can use their knowledge of preterite pattens to say, ‘Conducí is nonstandard because verbs that end in -cir have a j in their standard conjugation’, or ‘Fuistes is nonstandard because standard preterite forms don’t add an -s to second-person singular conjugations’. In order to notice the difference between standard and nonstandard language features, students can translate between the two (Leeman, 2005). In the case of preterite forms, translating activities should feature exercises in both directions, standard to nonstandard and nonstandard to standard. Translating in both directions further enforces the acquisition of verb morphology and gives students the opportunity to work with the language variety they know best, even if their variety is not featured in a traditional textbook. Step 3: Sociolinguistic knowledge

Most approaches to grammar instruction conclude at the level of metalinguistic knowledge. However, heritage language research emphasizes the importance of validating students’ own language production and home language practices. In order for students to recognize the legitimacy of their own community practices, it is necessary to understand why their nonstandard language production occurs. This allows students to frame their own practices as logical patterns that may differ from standard language but are not random. In teaching preterite conjugations, sociolinguistic lessons on verb regularization can help explain why bilingual speakers frequently add a final -s to second-person singular conjugations and why irregular verbs are often regularized. Two general principles can guide sociolinguistic lessons on any grammar topic. First, bilingual learners are presented with infrequent input, and this gives

234  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

them fewer opportunities to incorporate lower frequency forms into their productive competency. Second, a bilingual learner has a greater cognitive load than a monolingual speaker because the brain must manage two language systems; this motivates bilinguals to simplify their lesser-used language by reducing the number of forms that are available to them (Silva-Corvalán, 1994). With respect to the final -s that frequently occurs in US Spanish (as in fuistes and hablastes), students should also learn how this feature is a logical pattern that occurs in many other dialects of Spanish, including Mexican, Peruvian and Guatemalan Spanish, particularly in rural areas. Potowski and Shin (2019: 78–9) present this topic using an inductive approach, drawing upon students’ abilities to formulate patterns based on other verb conjugations they already know. An understanding of verb morphology can explain why this is a widespread phenomenon. If students can produce standard forms in the present, imperfect or future, they can see how a final -s consistently denotes second-person singular in most Spanish verb tenses (for example, hablas, hablabas and hablarás). When speakers of nonstandard varieties extend the use of final -s to preterite conjugations, they are simply applying a rule that already exists in the Spanish verb system. What appears to be a lack of rules is in reality the application of a rule already associated with a given meaning in the language. The tendency to use existing rules to create new forms is a linguistic process known as analogy, a phenomenon responsible for many of the accepted preterite forms in modern Spanish. For example, the process of analogy produced vío and eventually vio from the old Spanish form vido as final-syllable accentuation became increasingly common in third-person preterite forms in Old Spanish (Rini, 2001). Analogy has also created many other preterite forms and past participles used in standard Spanish (Menéndez Pidal, 1980). Although students do not need to learn the complexities of diachronic variation with respect to the preterite, simply knowing that verbs have changed over time by applying pre-existing patterns will help them view newer nonstandard forms as part of a natural process of language change. Sociolinguistic lessons on variation can also be used to explain why speakers of US Spanish tend to regularize some irregular verbs (such as conducí instead of conduje and sabí instead of supe). As is the case with the extension of final -s, regularization can also be found in other dialects of Spanish (Zentella, 1997). The process of applying regular endings to irregular verbs is not unique to bilingual speakers and has produced forms that are becoming more accepted throughout the Spanish-speaking world. One notable example is the regularization of andar in the preterite. While anduvo is still the only accepted thirdperson singular form, the application of regular verb patterns has yielded andó. A cursory internet search will reveal that native speakers in many countries now find the irregular form antiquated and pedantic

Incorporating Lessons on Language Contact for Grammar Instruction  235

Figure 10.1  Tweeted response from RAE Note: From [@RAEinforma] (29 November 2017). No se preocupe: o cambia el verbo o cambia su hijo. Twitter.

and prefer the innovative regularized form. The Real Academia Española has acknowledged the possibility that the regularized conjugation andó will one day predominate, as suggested in Figure 10.1 (RAE Informa, 2017). Although critics of nonstandard language practices may dismiss regularized verbs as an adulteration of Spanish, it is also important to demonstrate to students that the same processes are evident in other languages. Regularization is a well-documented phenomenon in English and continues to shape the past tense verb system. Linguists and mathematicians have identified an increasing tendency towards regularized past tense -ed forms in English. For example, the irregular form burnt has now been overtaken in popularity by the regularized form burned in the past one hundred forty years (Gray et al., 2018). While dreamt, learnt and knelt are all considered viable past tense forms, younger generations now use dreamed, learned and kneeled, replacing the less frequent -t ending with the more common -ed marker of past tense (Potowski & Shin, 2019: 80). Regularization will continue to be a natural process in language change, and scientists predict more verbs will adopt regular -ed endings in the future, for example wedded instead of wed (Tiao, 2007). By connecting nonstandard patterns in Spanish to similar processes in English, language learners can connect the concept of regularization to a language they already know well. This helps to demystify and destigmatize features of US Spanish. For HL learners, learning about sociolinguistics offers a framework for understanding the logic behind their home language practices. For L2 learners, the same concepts will reinforce their understanding of morphological patterns used in Spanish

236  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

and give them the tools they need to communicate with speakers of local varieties of the language. For both groups of learners, incorporating sociolinguistics helps them identify the value of implicit and explicit knowledge, a key difference in prior experience between HL and L2 students.3 Step 4: Critical reflection

After learning about a given grammar topic, students will benefit from reflecting on ways in which they can incorporate this knowledge into their own practices (Shin & Hudgens Henderson, 2017). The variationist perspective teaches students to think about grammar structures as possibilities rather than absolutes as each dialect has its own series of patterns. After learning about the different ways dialects may incorporate these patterns, the class should consider why some patterns are accepted and others are not. In the case of preterite verbs, the same processes of variation that have led to standard forms are stigmatized when the variation is associated with bilingual or indigenous populations. As mentioned in the section on teaching language variation, a linguistic feature is stigmatized not because of linguistic or grammatical criteria but because of social characteristics related to the speakers that use this feature. This portion of the lesson invites students to consider how the stigmatization of some language varieties influences the way traditional grammar textbooks treat speakers of US Spanish and other minoritized varieties of the language. Critical reflection on language variation should prepare students to respond to discriminatory attitudes towards nonstandard language features. For example, when learning about preterite verbs, students can practice explaining the linguistic reasons for regularization and the addition of a final -s in second-person singular conjugations. This kind of critical thinking empowers students to decide how they plan to incorporate the grammar lesson into their own language practices. Some students may aim to consistently use standard forms while still acknowledging the reasons why other forms exist. Some students may decide to adopt the standard form in formal contexts while maintaining the use of a nonstandard form when in the company of family and friends. Alternatively, some students may choose to use this information to defend the linguistic features present in their own community. Martínez (2003: 146) explains that language instruction should not focus on replacing students’ language practices but should add to their understanding of the linguistic tools available to them: If our students walk into the class saying haiga (nonstandard form) and walk out saying haya (standard form), there has been, in my estimation, no value added. However, if they walk in saying haiga and walk out saying either haya or haiga and having the ability to defend their use of

Incorporating Lessons on Language Contact for Grammar Instruction  237

haiga if and when they see fit, then there has been value added. It is critical that we strive to allow our students to develop this type of sociolinguistic sophistication in our endeavors as SHL educators.

Critical reflection does not only serve HL learners. L2 students also use nonstandard forms and will encounter them outside the classroom. Sociolinguistic awareness will help both L2 and HL learners develop a more nuanced understanding of the Spanish language and their communicative options. Assessing Grammar from a Variationist Approach

An adjustment in the approach to grammar instruction also necessitates changes in assessment practices. Many assessment materials provided by textbook companies and online learning platforms focus almost exclusively on producing and recognizing forms with some attention given to metalinguistic knowledge. If students are to apply each of the lesson components, sociolinguistic knowledge and critical reflection should also be assessed. This allows learners with different prior experiences the opportunity to demonstrate the implicit and explicit knowledge they have gained through variationist grammar instruction. To demonstrate knowledge of forms, students can complete traditional activities such as fill-in-the-blank and sentence completion tasks. The use of the preterite can be assessed by asking students to identify preterite verbs in a paragraph, complete sentences using these forms or write the preterite ending missing on a verb stem. However, these activities do not always capture what students have learned during the course. An overreliance on these kinds of activities may motivate HL learners to use their intuitions without thinking about the content in new ways. Assessment activities can also feature questions on metalinguistic knowledge by asking students to classify different types of structures and explain how they were categorized. For example, students can demonstrate metalinguistic knowledge by distinguishing between regular and irregular preterite forms or standard and nonstandard conjugations and then explain how they knew the difference. Although students may need to complete this step in English, if metalinguistic knowledge was regularly incorporated in the lesson, most students are able to offer these answers in the target language. For an HL and L2 mixed classroom, it is just as important to assess sociolinguistic knowledge. The topic of preterite verbs offers many opportunities for students to demonstrate their understanding of the relationship between language variation and social factors. Students can describe the process of regularization and its effect on verbs in English and Spanish. Students can also explain why the final -s frequently appears in nonstandard preterite forms and use sociolinguistic principles to explain

238  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

why bilingual speakers are likely to adopt this pattern. These questions do not have to require extensive explanations; a simple statement about key concepts in language variation will give students the opportunity to demonstrate how the grammatical feature may vary in different dialects. Finally, if students were exposed to critical reflection on the topic, this element should also appear on any formal assessments intended to determine students’ understanding of the grammar topic. With respect to preterite forms, students can produce short answers to questions about the relationship between variation and language discrimination (Potowski & Shin, 2019; Shin & Hudgens Henderson, 2017). For example, instructors can ask students to describe how language varieties like US Spanish are criticized for variations in preterite forms. Another effective strategy is to have students explain how they would teach standard and nonstandard variations of the grammatical structure to their bilingual peers. Table 10.2 offers sample questions that could be used to assess different aspects of a variationist lesson. These questions could easily be adapted to different grammar topics and proficiency levels. One benefit of adopting a variationist approach to teaching and assessing grammar is that it works well with online assessment practices. As online language courses increase in popularity, test security can prove challenging if only form-focused knowledge is assessed. When students have access to online resources during their exams, most form-focused knowledge is readily available through an internet search. This makes form-focused questions such as fill-in-the blank and sentence completion activities less accurate as indicators of learning. It can be difficult to determine if students utilized additional resources to answer discrete test Table 10.2  Sample questions Focus-on-form

1. Write the endings to these regular (or irregular/stem-changing) verbs. 2. Complete these sentences using a preterite verb form.

Metalinguistic knowledge

1. Identify the verbs in this text that use preterite endings. 2. Which of these verbs apply standard (or nonstandard) preterite endings? How do know which ones are nonstandard? 3. Which of these verbs are regular (or irregular/stem-changing/spelling change) forms?

Sociolinguistic knowledge

1. What have you learned about Spanish language variation during this lesson? 2. Describe a common variation associated with US Spanish covered during this lesson. 3. In what ways do English and Spanish demonstrate similar processes of language change? 4. Give two examples of regularized verbs in Spanish and explain why they are commonly used in US Spanish.

Critical reflection

1. What structures from this lesson do you regularly use? How do these structures reflect your identity or experiences as a language learner? 2. How are speakers of US Spanish marginalized for their language practices? 3. If someone says that dijistes is incorrect because it is illogical, how would you respond?

Incorporating Lessons on Language Contact for Grammar Instruction  239

items. When a variationist approach is used, form-focused knowledge is only one component of the learning objectives. Questions focused on metalinguistic and sociolinguistic knowledge cannot be answered without applying material explicitly taught in class and require students to thoughtfully construct answers that draw on form-based knowledge to explain more complex processes. In this sense, when all components of the variationist approach are assessed, form-based knowledge is used to answer other kinds of questions that cannot be addressed without the application of sociolinguistic concepts. Finally, assessing critical reflection involves the synthesis of personal experiences and course content, eliminating the possibility that students can duplicate answers found on the internet. The variationist approach creates more opportunities for open-ended questions that can provide a more complete depiction of student learning. Beyond the classroom, Krashen (1988) notes that writers have access to grammar manuals and other resources they can consult during the writing process and should be tested in a way that allows them to effectively utilize resources available to them rather than imposing unrealistic expectations of memorization. Encouraging students to prioritize the application of sociolinguistic knowledge as opposed to memorization better reflects the way students will engage with grammar after the course is completed. If assessments are completed online and test security is a concern, it is recommended that focus-on-form questions be evaluated as low-stakes questions. The majority of points can come from questions featuring metalinguistic and sociolinguistic knowledge as well as critical reflection. Another suggestion is to have students complete one lower-stakes assessment on form-based knowledge and one higher-stakes assessment on open-ended questions that require the application of sociolinguistic concepts. One final option is to have students create their own outline of form-based knowledge that they can later use during their exam. This alleviates some of the anxiety and pressure that motivates students to seek out additional resources when completing online exams and encourages them to use their own student-created materials to help them answer open-ended questions. Figure 10.2 is a sample test question used as part of an exam for a college-level grammar course designed for HL and L2 learners. The exam featured questions on preterite verb conjugations and sociolinguistic processes. This portion of the exam consisted of twenty percent of the total score and was comparable in length to sections on other instances of variation in Spanish grammar. In the first and second portions of the question, students were asked to demonstrate metalinguistic knowledge by translating nonstandard to standard forms and explaining how they distinguished between the two. The third portion of the question assesses sociolinguistic knowledge

240  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

Figure 10.2  Sample exam section Note: from author’s own testing materials.

of the ways bilingualism affects the Spanish verb system. The fourth bullet point addresses critical reflection by asking students to develop an argument to respond to discriminatory comments about language variation that commonly affect preterite verb conjugations. The exam was given online after students submitted an outline of form-based knowledge that was worth fewer points. Students were encouraged to use their outlines in order to offer sufficient examples to support their answers. Students’ proficiency levels made it possible for everyone to answer the questions in the target language. If assessing intermediatelevel students, some of these answers could be provided in English. Figure 10.3 demonstrates that even brief responses can capture students’ understanding of these concepts. Although most students offered

Figure 10.3  Student responses

Incorporating Lessons on Language Contact for Grammar Instruction  241

multiple examples to support their answers, others adequately responded to the questions with brief statements. Figure 10.3 was chosen to illustrate the fact that even short student responses can effectively demonstrate their understanding of sociolinguistic variation. The student response was not edited for accuracy. Other Variationist Lesson Possibilities Personal a

Almost any grammar topic will offer opportunities to adopt a variationist approach to language teaching. When content is presented from a form-based, sociolinguistic, and critical perspective, both HL and L2 learners will be able to connect the material to their prior knowledge (either implicit or explicit) to better understand how components of the Spanish language are used in different geographical and social contexts. The topics described below can be presented with a variationist approach by incorporating the four steps outlined in the sample lesson on preterite verb morphology. One grammar topic that proves challenging for both HL and L2 learners is the use of the personal a. The personal a denotes animate direct objects, such as people and animals, but is not used when the direct object is treated as inanimate or is depersonified (King, 1992). Spanish is among the few languages that uses this feature. A lesson on diachronic variation can help students understand why the personal a is useful in modern Spanish but not in English. In Latin, nouns had different endings to indicate whether they were subjects or objects. As Spanish evolved from Latin, simplification occurred, and these endings disappeared. However, word order remained very flexible. Speakers of Spanish can choose to place subjects before or after verbs; in some dialects, direct objects are frequently placed before verbs. Because subjects and objects may be placed in different positions within a sentence, Spanish needed a way to differentiate between the two components. The personal a denotes animate direct objects so that they are not interpreted as subjects (for example, Llamó a María to indicate a direct object and Llamó María to indicate a subject). For this topic, students can first learn about diachronic variation that created a need for the personal a. Students can then learn about variation in modern Spanish. In the case of personified concepts, such as a powerful emotion or sentimental homeland, the personal a is optional but not required (Weissenrieder, 1991). Finally, students can learn about how bilingual speakers of US Spanish experience influence from English and apply the personal a less frequently than speakers who do not know English (Potowski & Shin, 2019). Because English differentiates between subjects and objects by word order, the personal a is not necessary. When bilingual speakers of US Spanish apply word order patterns from English, they may find the personal a less useful for expressing

242  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

information. Students can identify this phenomenon in interviews with bilingual speakers and practice translating sentences between a standard and nonstandard application of the personal a. Future conjugations

If instructors are interested in incorporating both synchronic and diachronic variation to explain tendencies in students’ home language variety, another topic that can be presented from a variationist approach is the use of verb conjugations to express future tense. Spanish offer two distinct structures for expressing future actions – the morphological ad periphrastic constructions. The morphological future is conjugated by adding verb endings to an infinitive (for example, hablaré). The periphrastic future is expressed with a verb phrase that includes the present form of to go (ir), the preposition a, and an infinitive (for example, voy a hablar). Both HL and L2 learners seem to prefer the periphrastic future for a variety of overlapping reasons. First, the periphrastic future eliminates the need to distinguish between regular and irregular verb forms. Second, the periphrastic form is considered more analytical, which means that each portion of the verb phrase indicates a separate meaning, while the morphological future packs lexical and tense information into a single word. Students can learn to use both constructions and translate phrases from morphological to periphrastic future and vice versa. After focus-on-form instruction, students can then learn about the sociolinguistic factors that favor the use of one variation more than the other. Diachronically, the periphrastic construction has increased in popularity over time (Schwegler, 1990). Synchronically, the morphological form is now preferred for formal and written communication while the periphrastic form is more common in oral and informal contexts (Sedano, 1994). The preference for the periphrastic constructions is even more pronounced in US Spanish (Gutiérrez, 1995; Zentella, 1997). To appreciate how this variation affects students’ community language practices, they can listen to interviews with US Spanish speakers. The Spanish in Texas website (Bullock & Toribio, 2013) offers the option to search video clips for both types of future constructions. The class can then discuss why the periphrastic form are preferred by bilingual speakers, considering that is form is structurally more similar to the way future is expressed in English. Presenting the future as a source of variation in Spanish helps students become more aware of the communicative options available to them. Conclusions

A variationist approach to grammar instruction allows students to frame knowledge about the language in a context of social consciousness and critical inquiry. By applying lessons from sociolinguistics, students can appreciate the variable nature of language as a reflection of multiple kinds of identities. This approach offers students multiple possibilities

Incorporating Lessons on Language Contact for Grammar Instruction  243

for connecting with the course material and applying it to their own life. The value of presenting grammar from a variationist approach supports a classroom environment that incorporates many different kinds of learners – heritage language learners who are either productive or receptive bilinguals and second-language learners who want to communicate in different registers and geographical contexts. Both L2 and HL students have been exposed to rigid notions of grammar that present some voices as invalid and less worthy of being shared. A variationist approach helps students deconstruct these harmful ideologies by considering linguistic evidence. When asked what they learned from this approach, students focused on the value of learning to accept different dialects and rationalize language variation as a natural phenomenon. Both L2 and HL learners found ways to connect this concept to their own experiences and identity. Below are comments from a HL (Comment 1) and L2 (Comment 2) learner about the knowledge they gained through a variationist grammar course. These responses were provided by undergraduate students in Fall 2020 at the completion of the semester as a question on their final exam. The comments have not been edited for accuracy or content in order to preserve student voices. Comment 1

Creo que lo mas importante que aprendí en esta clase fue como hay diferentes variaciones de gramática en español. Aunque allá una versión estándar/formal y una que no es formal, no se significa que es un español correcto o incorrecto. También algo mas que aprendí fue la regularización verbal. Ahora entiendo porque sin querer, a veces escribo o digo palabra frases que mucho familiares de México me quiere corregir. Comment 2

He aprendido que la gramática y la variación no son estáticos. En realidad, los conceptos cambian constantemente con la variación natural que ocurre cuando los idiomas se mezclan. Ahora, sé que, aunque hay reglas para los idiomas, no están escritas en piedra, y no existe una única forma ‘verdadera’ de hablar en el mundo. Hay muchos dialectos en el mundo y existen razones claras para estas variaciones como el efecto de ser bilingüe y el proceso de regularización y la influencia que la mezcla de idiomas puede tener en el dialecto de ciertos idiomas como el español. Sé que los diferentes dialectos del español no solo cambian con la locación del lugar, sino con las costumbres y preferencias de la cultura local. El español es un idioma muy diverso que permite mucha flexibilidad y individualidad.

Almost every student mentioned specific sociolinguistic concepts and their relationship to grammar and identity. As evidenced in the comments above, this approach helps students learn about standard

244  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

Spanish structures while recognizing other options as legitimate language practices as well. When assessing grammatical knowledge in a pre- and post-test, Shin and Hudgens Henderson (2017) also found that both HL and L2 students exposed to a sociolinguistic approach demonstrated a statistically significant increase in their knowledge of sociolinguistic concepts; their study utilizes student comments to highlight the value of implementing a sociolinguistic approach to grammar instruction. This approach encourages students to consider how the notion of standard Spanish has particularly impacted bilingual populations, including their own. In this sense, the variationist approach is considered a transformative pedagogical practice because it empowers students to use formal knowledge to better understand themselves and the world with the goal of creating more equitable communicative practices. Although fewer topics may be covered in a course that follows this approach, the depth with which each topic is presented ensures that students of multiple language and cultural backgrounds can find ways to apply them to their own lives. Beyond the Reading (1) How have you experienced language anxiety as a student or as someone guiding students through the learning process? In what ways is a focus on perceived ‘correctness’ related to language learning anxiety? (2) In addition to irregular preterite verbs, what are other grammar topics you find challenging for HL or L2 learners? What variations have you heard that are not usually included in the textbook? (3) How would you respond to a colleague who insists that there is only one correct variety of Spanish? Think about ways to incorporate facts from the chapter as well as experiences from your own linguistic experiences. (4) What might your tests or other assessments look like if you assessed both forms and metalinguistic knowledge? Notes (1) Patterns refer to linguistic norms within a speech community beyond the lexical and phonological levels. These patterns may differ from those of the standard language at the morphological and syntactic level (Chamoreau & Léglise, 2012). Furthermore, what is not represented as a morphological or syntactic distinction can also be expressed through prosody (Clements & Gooden, 2011) in nonstandard contact varieties. (2) For more information about critical pedagogy in the heritage or mixed language classroom, consult Leeman (2005) and Moreno-López (2004). (3) Implicit knowledge is usually acquired naturalistically while explicit knowledge is acquired through explicit metalinguistic instruction (Ellis, 2004). Comparative studies indicate HL learners outperform L2 learners on task-based assessments, reflecting prior implicit knowledge, while L2 learners performed higher on explicit knowledge-based tasks (Bowles, 2011; Correa, 2011).

Incorporating Lessons on Language Contact for Grammar Instruction  245

References Bayona, P. (2007) Sociolinguistic competences in the use of Colombian pronouns of address. Proceedings of the 2006 Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference, pp. 1–14. Beaudrie, S. (2011) Spanish heritage language programs: A snapshot of current programs in the southwestern United States. Foreign Language Annals 44 (2), 321–337. Beaudrie, S. (2015) Instructional effectiveness in the SHL classroom: Comparing teacher and student perceptions. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 14 (3), 274–297. Bowles, M. (2011) Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge: What can heritage learners contribute? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33 (2), 247–271. Bullock, B. and Toribio, J. (2013) The Spanish in Texas Corpus Project. COERLL, The University of Texas at Austin. See http://www.spanishintexas.org. Last accessed 17 July 2022. Burgo, C. (2017) Meeting student needs: Integrating Spanish heritage language learners into the second language classroom. Hispania 100 (5), 45–50. Cameron, R. (1993) Ambiguous agreement, functional compensation, and non-specific tú in the Spanish of San Juan, Puerto Rico and Madrid, Spain. Language Variation and Change 5, 305–334. Carreira, M. (2000) Validating and promoting Spanish in the United States: Lessons from linguistic science. Bilingual Research Journal 24, 423–442. Chamoreau, C. and Léglise, I. (2012) Dynamics of Contact-Induced Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Clements, C. and Gooden, S. (2011) Introduction. In C. Clements and G. Gooden (eds) Language Change in Contact Languages: Grammatical and Prosodic Considerations (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Correa, M. (2011) Heritage language learners of Spanish: What roles metalinguistic knowledge play in their acquisition of the subjunctive? In L. Ortiz-López (ed.) Selected Proceedings of the 13th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 128–138). Cascadilla: Somerville, MA. Davies, M. (1997) The evolution of Spanish clitic climbing: A corpus-based approach. Studia Neophilologica 69 (2), 251–263. Dos Santos, L. (2021) The relationship between social identity and foreign language learning motivation: The sustainability of heritage language learners. Sustainability 13 (23). https://cla-acl.artsci.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/actes-2006/Bayona.pdf. Ellis, R. (2004) The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning 54 (2), 227–225. Fairclough, M. (2011) Testing the lexical recognition task with Spanish/English bilinguals in the United States. Language Testing 28 (2), 273–297. FundéuRAE (2008) Anduve. Fundación del Español Urgente, 14 October. See https://www. fundeu.es/consulta/anduve-1015/. FundéuRAE (2018) Reducir, conducer, traducir, conjugación adecuada. Fundación del Español Urgente, 20 August. See https://www.fundeu.es/recomendacion/reducirconducir-conjugacion- adecuada/. Gainer, J. and Larrotta, C. (2010) Reproducing and interrupting subtractive schooling in teacher education. Multicultural Education 17 (3), 41–47. González Ponciano, J. (2006) No somos iguales: La cultura finquera y el lugar de cada quien en sociedad en Guatemala. Istor 24 (6), 43–66. Gray, T., Reagan, A., Dodds, P. and Danforth, C. (2018) English verb regularization in books and tweets. Plos One 13 (12), e0209651. See https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209651. Gutiérrez, M. (1995) On the future of the future tense in the Spanish of the Southwest. In C. Silva-Corvalán (ed.) Spanish in Four Continents: Studies in Language Contact and Bilingualism (pp. 214–226). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Harklau, L. (2009) Heritage speakers’ experiences in new Latino diaspora Spanish classrooms. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 6 (4), 211–242.

246  Part 3: Cognitive Approaches to Language Learning

Hazen, K. (2017) Language variation: Sociolinguistic variationist analysis. In M. Aronoff and J. Rees-Miller (eds) The Handbook of Linguistics (2nd edn, pp. 519–539). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M. and Cope, J. (1986) Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal 70, 125–132. King, L. (1992) The Semantic Structure of Spanish: Meaning and Grammatical Form. Washington, DC: John Benjamins. Krashen, S. (1988) Teaching grammar: Why bother? California English 3 (3), 8–10. Leeman, J. (2005) Engaging critical pedagogy: Spanish for native speakers. Foreign Language Annals 38 (1), 35–45. Lippi-Green, R. (1994) Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the courts. Language in Society 23 (2), 163–198. Lippi-Green, R. (2012) English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States. New York: Routledge. Livert, D. and Otheguy, R. (2010) A multilevel statistical analysis of changes in language use among first-generation immigrants in a bilingual setting. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 203, 83–99. Martínez, G. (2003) Classroom based dialect awareness: A critical applied linguistic approach. Heritage Language Journal 1, 44–57. Martínez, G. (2016) Goals and beyond in heritage language education: From competencies to abilities. In M. Fairclough and S. Beaudrie (eds) Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching: A Practical Guide for the Classroom (pp. 39–55). Washington, DC: Georgetown. Massey, A. (2001) In pursuit of preterite: A flow-chart of conjugations. Hispania 84 (3), 550–552. Menéndez Pidal, R. (1980) Manual de gramática histórica española (16th edn). Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Moreno-López, I. (2004) Critical pedagogy in the Spanish language classroom: A liberatory process. Taboo (Spr-Sum), 77–84. Poplack, S. (1981) Mortal phonemes as plural morphemes. In D. Sankoff and H. Cedergren (eds) Variation Omnibus (pp. 59–71). Edmonton: Linguistic Research. Potowski, K. (2002) Experiences of Spanish heritage speakers in university foreign language courses and implications for teacher training. Association of Departments of Foreign Languages Bulletin 33 (3), 35–42. Potowski, K. and Shin, N. (2019) Gramática española: Variación social. New York: Routledge. Prada, J., Guerrero-Rodríguez, P. and Pascual, D. (2020) Heritage language anxiety in two Spanish language classroom environments: A comparative mixed methods study. Heritage Language Journal 17, 92–113. RAE Informa [@RAEinforma] (2017) No se preocupe: o cambia el verbo o cambia su hijo. Twitter, 29 November. See https://twitter.com/el_gusanillo/status/935983313847816197? ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ct (last accessed 17 July 2022). Randolph, L. (2017) Heritage language learners in mixed Spanish classes: Subtractive practices and perceptions of high school Spanish teachers. Hispania 100 (2), 274–288. Real Academia Española (1979) Esbozo de una nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Rini, J. (2001) The extraordinary survival of Spanish veía: Another facet of analogy revealed. Hispanic Review 69 (4), 501–525. Schwegler, A. (1990) Analyticity and Syntheticity: A Diachronic Perspective with Special Reference to Romance Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Sedano, M. (1994) The variable expression of future tense in Peninsular Spanish: The present (and future) of inflectional forms in the Spanish spoken in a bilingual region. Verba 21, 225–240. Shin, N.L. and Otheguy, R. (2013) Social class and gender impacting change in bilingual settings: Spanish subject pronoun use in New York. Language in Society 42 (4), 429–452.

Incorporating Lessons on Language Contact for Grammar Instruction  247

Shin, N.L. and Hudgens Henderson, M. (2017) A sociolinguistic approach to teaching Spanish grammatical structures. Foreign Language Annals 50 (1), 195–213. Silva-Corvalán, C. (1994) Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon. Tiao, G. (2007) Harvard scientists predict the future of the past tense. The Harvard Gazette: Arts and Humanities. See https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/10/harvardscientists-predict-the-future-of-the-past-tense/. Last accessed 17 July 2022. Valdés, G. (2001) Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. Kreeft Peyton, D. Ranard and S. McGinnis (eds) Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National Resource (pp. 37–77). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Weissenrieder, M. (1991) A functional approach to the accusative a. Hispania 74, 146–155. Weyers, J. (2016) Medellín cuenta con vos: The changing role of voseo in written communication. Comunicación 35, 67–81. Zentella, A.C. (1997) Growing up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New York. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Part 4 Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation: Enhancing Language Learning through Multilingualism

11 Translanguaging for Academic Success: A Strategy for Accessing Disciplinary Discourse in a Multilingual Undergraduate Classroom Sibhekinkosi Anna Nkomo and Erasmos Charamba

Monolingual Pedagogy and the State of Literacy in South Africa

South Africa is a linguistically diverse country with mixed languages spoken in almost every community. However, English-only language in education practices continues to dominate in most of our mixed language classrooms, resulting in low reading literacy levels (Nkomo, 2021a; Zano & Phatudi, 2019). Research shows that there are still challenges with epistemological access when monolingual instructional strategies are used in mixed language classrooms (Buxton & Caswell, 2019; García, 2019; Nkomo, 2021a; Stroupe et al., 2019). This is demonstrated by poor learning outcomes in the many of South Africa’s mixed language public schools, which Spaull (2019) categorizes as dysfunctional. This trajectory begins at the very foundation of education (Foundation Phase) and grows wider as learners go up the academic ladder. For example, results from an international assessment, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), indicate that 78% of South African 4th-grade students who participated in the 2016 study could not read for comprehension (Mullis et al., 2017). PIRLS is an international study of reading comprehension achievement conducted 251

252  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). In national assessments, the 2019 matriculation pass rate for English language was 76% compared to 72% for the previous year, and according to authorities, the difference was attributed to intervention strategies in which the students’ home languages were used alongside the language of instruction (Zano & Phatudi, 2019). Matriculation examinations are taken by 12th-grade students. Since 12th grade is the last grade in the South African high school education, students in this grade sit for exit examinations at the end of the year (Charamba & Zano, 2019). Students can take English as a Home Language or English as a First Additional Language. According to the South African education assessment standards, for a student to obtain a pass in English, they must achieve a score of at least 40% (English as Home Language) or 30% (English as First Additional Language) in the exit examination (Department of Basic Education, 2012). In its analysis of the matriculation results, Umalusi, South Africa’s quality assurance body on education, repeatedly suggests that students taught in a language other than their home language continue to experience great difficulty in comprehending concepts, interpreting questions and drawing up responses (Stroupe et al., 2019). Umalusi suggests more should be done with regards to the language of instruction in mixed language classrooms (Charamba, 2019b; National Treasury Report on South African Education, 2018). Its recommendations are in line with findings of a body of recent research which suggests that the use of a language other than students’ home language in mixed language classrooms has several challenges and could lead to language becoming a barrier to learning (see for example Buxton & Caswell, 2019; García, 2019; Langman, 2014; Li, 2018; Lin, 2019; Probyn, 2019; Zano & Phatudi, 2019; Zhang et al., 2020). The researchers advocate for the use of more than one language in the classroom. Although the South African education system adopted a language in education policy which is in support of multilingual education in mixed language classrooms, it argues for the establishment of additive multilingualism as an approach to language in education. Additive bilingualism entails a situation in which a student’s home language continues to be developed while they are learning their additional or second language. However, the inherited language-in-education policy in South Africa has been fraught with tensions, contradictions and sensitivities, and underpinned by racial and linguistic discrimination (Nkomo, 2021b). A number of these discriminatory policies have affected either the access of the learners to the education system or their success within it. For example Heugh (1995), has highlighted the gap between policy and practice. The policy aims to recognise and develop all South African languages equally but in practice most black people

Translanguaging for Academic Success  253

still have to speak the language(s) of the dominant (white) culture. English is preferred as a lingua franca and language of teaching and learning in the mixed language classroom. The turn of the 21st century has, however, challenged monolingual bias in education due to increased mobility of people within and between nation states. In South Africa, immigration has grown exponentially in the past years coupled with high volumes of intra- and inter-city movements, resulting in a change of the linguistic landscape in classrooms. This has resulted in students bringing in more languages in the learning space in addition to the 12 official South African languages. Because of these demographics, educators find themselves with a challenge of how to engage a diverse mixed language classroom population whose home language does not match the medium of instruction (Charamba, 2019a; Nkomo, 2021a). This complicates the teaching and learning experience, especially for students in their first year at university until they have mastered the disciplinary discourses. It is with the diversity of countries and globalization in mind that multilingual education appears to be the solution for education when faced with mixed language classrooms. Hence, #FeesMustFall protests highlight ‘the fatalistic logic of the unassailable position of English’ (Alexander, 1989: 26), which has rendered meaningless the efforts of increasing physical access to higher education. This has prompted institutions of higher education to reconsider their language policies and try to accommodate all students in the mixed language classrooms. For example, the university where this study was conducted adopted a new Language Policy in 2015 aimed at promoting creativity, selfhood and cognition through recognition of linguistic diversity. Of importance in this policy, is the acknowledgement of ‘enhancing access to knowledge; producing multilingual graduates and professionals and demonstrating respect for language and cultural diversity’. The languages chosen by the university community are English, isiZulu, Sesotho and South African Sign Language (Wits Language Policy, 2015). Concerning language for education in institutions of higher learning such as colleges, and universities, South African legislative policy advocates dynamic pedagogical approaches that embrace and make use of multiple languages in the mixed language classroom. These commitments and recommendations for multilingualism in education are made in the South African Constitution (1996), the Language in Education Policy (2002), the Report on the Development of Indigenous African Languages for Use as Mediums of Instruction at University (2003), the Report of the Ministerial Committee on Transformation and Social Cohesion and the Elimination of Discrimination in Public Education Institutions (2008), the Charter for Humanities and Social Sciences (2011) and the White Paper on Post-Secondary School

254  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

Education and Training (Department of Higher Education and Training, 2015; Mkhize & Ndimande-Hlongwa, 2014). These statutes elevate the choice of language for educational purposes and the use of multiple languages to a fundamental right with a place in the Bill of Rights. In these contexts, García and Lin (2018) refer to these kinds of educational situations, where all multiple languages are used simultaneously in the same lesson in mixed language classrooms to enhance learning, such as translanguaging. A multilingual pedagogy such as translanguaging has been seen as a way of improving epistemic access for learners in these mixed language classrooms. Translanguaging is broadly defined as a pedagogical strategy where the languages of input and output are alternated in meaning making, can be a resource for learning and teaching in multilingual classrooms (Baker, 2011; García, 2019). Of relevance to this study, Cenoz and Gorter (2015) state that translanguaging is used as a resource in mixed language classrooms by both teachers and learners to ensure understanding. Similarly, Lyster and Izquierdo (2009) reported that translanguaging was effective in developing learner’s morphological awareness in French and English languages in observed mixed language classrooms. It goes beyond traditional notions of bilingualism, and its strong proposition of second-language teaching and learning as its driving force is built on a heteroglossic conception of bilingualism (Zhang et al., 2020), the term referring to the ability to flexibly operate between languages available to students (García, 2019; Li, 2018). In the current study, a translanguaging pedagogic was adopted to develop students’ phonological awareness, phonetic and morphological awareness in English language in a university mixed language classroom. Gee’s Sociocultural Construct of Discourse

Teaching and learning, especially in Higher Education, occur within the framework of disciplines, which deal with specific knowledge and use a certain language, also called discourse. Each academic discipline has its own values, beliefs and norms. The challenge for many university students is that disciplinary lecturers are so immersed in their discipline knowledge and practice to an extent that they also expect students to master these as if they were common sense and natural (Boughey &McKenna, 2017). Gee (2005) makes an important distinction between ‘little d’ discourse and ‘big D’ Discourse. According to Gee (2007) ‘little d’ is concerned with language, reading, speaking and writing, while ‘big D’ Discourse, pertains to broader values and worldviews. Discourse with a ‘big D’ encompasses the particular ways of ‘behaving, interacting, valuing, thinking, believing, speaking, and often reading and writing’ (Gee, 1996: viii) which characterise a particular community. The capital

Translanguaging for Academic Success  255

D for Discourse emphasises that this notion comprises far more than just reading and writing. In the context of this study, the Discourse of the Literacy for Primary School Teachers 1 course (LFPST 1) encompasses language, reading, writing, values, attitudes, beliefs and ways of interacting for primary preservice teachers in their mixed language classrooms (small d and big D). In institutions of higher education, the academic is viewed as the ‘insider’ to the discipline and the student is viewed as the ‘outsider’ (Gee, 1996). Therefore, the role of the academic is to induct the student into the Discourse of a discipline by acknowledging the knowledge which students bring into the classroom and then making disciplinary Discourse explicit for the students. However, ‘knowledge of disciplinary discourses has a tacit dimension, which makes it difficult for experts to articulate, and therefore difficult for students to learn’ (Jacobs 2007: 871). For example, in our LFPST 1 course, teaching students skills such as writing, speaking and reading in English is often taken for granted, yet, for most of our students English is their second or third language. Therefore, to make tacit and explicit knowledge accessible to all students, researchers such as Lin (2019) and García (2019) propose that adopting a translanguaging pedagogy in mixed language classrooms might be a productive way forward. Making the Discourse of a Literacy Course Explicit through Translanguaging

The LFPST 1 course is a compulsory course for all first-year students registered for the degree in Bachelor in Education (Foundation Phase) and Bachelor in Education (Intermediate Phase) at the university under study. The LFPST 1 course has a team which consists of three core teaching staff members who are multilingual, and two sessional teaching staff, one of whom is monolingual (English) and the other is bilingual (English and isiZulu). The class constitutes of 206 students who come from all the nine provinces of South Africa and three international students. This means that all the 12 official languages, including sign language, are represented in the classroom. Such a linguistically diverse context required inclusive methods of teaching, thus the translanguaging pedagogy became a viable option to improve epistemological access. The course aims at facilitating students’ understanding of language and literacy development, with a focus on how children learn language/s. These concepts form the basis of foundational knowledge for the teaching of early literacy and learning to read and write in challenging multilingual classrooms where most learners are learning in a language which is not their mother tongue. In addition, students are encouraged to apply their knowledge of the theories of language and literacy learning to a range of texts. The course-specific learning outcomes for LFPST 1

256  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

were articulated generally in terms of ‘students will have a foundational knowledge of what it means to learn a language, key aspects that need to be mastered in order to learn to read and some instructional strategies to support beginning and novice readers in mixed language classrooms’. Traditionally, programmes directed for pre-service teachers focus on content, explicit focus on the values and ways of thinking and doing. Students are exposed to a range of theories of language and literacy learning to support beginning and novice readers in mixed language classrooms. Teaching and learning in the LFPST 1 course is guided by Gee’s notion of ‘Discourse’ (Gee, 1996). This entails making explicit to students the ‘little d’ and ‘big D’ discourse features of LFPST 1 course. For example, the emphasis on ‘mastery of key aspects’ and ‘Foundational knowledge’ led to considerations of the ‘small d’ discourse features of LFPT 1. This means that, in this course, students are exposed to the oral or written language in use (small d). While the linguistic diversity of the classroom context of first year university students led to the lecturers considering ‘big D’. This entailed exposing preservice teachers (students) to distinctive ways of using the language in the classroom, that is, speaking/listening and/or reading/writing coupled with ways of acting, interacting, valuing, feeling, dressing (as professionals and role models), thinking and believing (Gee, 2011). This also meant embracing students’ backgrounds and making connections between students’ home, high school language experiences and university lives (Beauboeuf-Lafontant, 1999), thus, creating a learning environment that favours all the students in the classroom. In addition, the lecturers were able to examine their Discourses (ways of doing, speaking, thinking etc.) providing fair learning opportunities for all students in the classroom (Comber & Kamler, 2004; Hall et al., 2010). Hence, (Gee, 2011) theory is relevant for this study as it grounded in social and cultural views of literacy. Social and cultural views of literacy suggest that context, history, culture, discourse, power and beliefs influence teachers, literacy and instruction. The theory explains how language works in society, which is important for teacher educators and preservice teachers. Within the course, our role as lecturers and participant observers helped in equalising the power relations in our teaching and learning environment. For example, during our lectures and tutorial sessions, the role of the more knowledgeable other (MKO) was fluid. This means that there were opportunities of learning from each other (studentslecturer-lecturer). This resulted in the co-creation of knowledge and better understanding of new concepts that were introduced. Although, at the beginning of the year we often found ourselves taking for granted terminology or words such as syllables, rime and rhyme, yet we had a very diverse classroom. We, however, worked as a team to design responsive and inclusive tutorial tasks and lectures, thus reflecting on

Translanguaging for Academic Success  257

our own Discourses. We shared tips on how to scaffold learning. In some cases we found ourselves having to turn to our students as experts in order to make sense of the academic Discourse that would have emerged in our discussions in other languages. Valuing the knowledge which students bring into the classroom is important for academic access. Translanguaging as Instructional Pedagogy in Higher Education

Despite the fact that the natural use of multiple languages together by multilingual people has been in practice for a very long time, as a focus of research, it surfaced in the early 1980s, when Cen Williams and his associates were investigating efficacy pedagogies for bilingual students to use two languages in the same lesson for deeper understanding and effective education. Their students spoke English and Welsh languages. They came up with the term ‘trawsieithu’ (Li, 2018) to describe the process in which bilinguals would read or hear in one language (for example English) and then write or speak about what they would have read or heard in another (for example Welsh) or vice versa. Colin Baker then translated the term ‘trawsieithu’ into English as ‘translanguaging’ (see Lewis et al., 2012). The birth of translanguaging marked a paradigm shift, where researchers and educationists moved away from traditional linguistic terms such as codeswitching, and codemixing, calling into question the existence of ‘languages’ as identifiable, distinct systems (Makoni, 2018). García (2019) views translanguaging as an approach to the use of one’s language, bilingualism and the instruction of bilingual students. The theory sees language practices of bilinguals not as two autonomous language systems but as a unitary language repository. This therefore means language is no longer a bounded, self-contained entity, embedded in static communicative activities (Makoe, 2018) but rather a mobile resource working together with multimodal and multisensory signs to construct meaning (Lin, 2019). Translanguaging, therefore, is a unitary meaning-making system in which multiple discursive practices are used to understand the world and to create a space where multilinguals make use of their entire linguistic and semiotic repertoire (Licona & Kelly, 2019). In this perspective, translanguaging involves going between and beyond language systems and structures including divergent modalities such as speaking, writing, and signing in or outside the classroom (Lin, 2019). In other words, it is a mobile resource working together with multimodal and multisensory signs to construct meaning (Mazzaferro, 2018) by transcending artificial and ideological divides between named languages (Charamba, 2019b). Translanguaging goes past the linguistics of systems and speakers to linguistics of participation (Li, 2018). Translanguaging presupposes that rather than having various

258  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

autonomous language systems, as has been traditionally thought, multilinguals conveniently choose and use particular features from a single linguistic repertoire for meaning making and negotiating certain, respective communicative contexts (Iversen, 2020). The choice of the particular features depends on the context and audience. Translanguaging, therefore, enables multilingual university students to use their idiolect, that is, their full linguistic repertoire in the mixed language classroom without regard for socially and politically defined language labels or boundaries (García & Otheguy, 2020). Through translanguaging, the educator allows students to make use of their linguistic repertoire for meaning making in a mixed language classroom. For example, during collaborative group work students can be grouped according to the languages they speak. This will enable them to use those languages alongside the language of teaching and learning. The various languages can be used in discussing the academic task at hand, while writing their responses in the English language. The educator does not need to be able to speak the students’ languages, all they need to do is allow students to use their various languages. In cases where the educator and students share common languages, these can be used in developing bi/multilingual learning resources, responses, and assessments in the mixed language classroom. According to Sánchez et al. (2018), translanguaging regards language as an ongoing process that only exists as languaging which shapes and is shaped by people as they interact in respective contexts treating one’s linguistic repertoire as an integrated system. In defining translanguaging, Grosjean (2019) provides a sporting analogy on hurdles, where two athletic skills, high jump and sprinting, together with other physiological processes are involved. The athletes use the skills and processes as an integrated whole to excel in their sport just in the same way multilinguals use their linguistic skills for effective communication in a mixed language classroom. Notwithstanding the various definitions of translanguaging existing today, they are all in agreement that a multilingual’s languages are intertwined belonging to the same linguistic repertoire and supporting learning in one way or the other in a mixed language classroom (García & Kleyn, 2016). Several studies have been conducted to explore the efficacy of translanguaging in mixed language higher education classrooms worldwide across various learning areas. In Portugal at the University of Algarve, Caruso (2018) analysed linguistic practices in a Language and Communication policies course in which the course professor let students use their full linguistic repertoire in asking questions, giving responses, during discussions and when writing. The study reports on the academic benefits of translanguaging in a mixed language classroom which led to the co-construction of knowledge in a co-learning environment (García & Otheguy, 2020). At the end of the course,

Translanguaging for Academic Success  259

these university students were asked to take a structured multilingual final exam, in three languages. The lessons’ focus was on vocabulary acquisition, definition of terms and using given words in sentences. The results point to great improvement in the academic performance of the students due to spaces for translingual practices which were availed to them in the mixed language classrooms (Srhir, 2020). In China, Zhang and colleagues (2020) observed lectures in five universities in southern, central and northern parts of the country. They also interviewed the 43-course lecturers from the five institutions to gain an insight into their use of translanguaging pedagogy. The study suggests that translanguaging was commonly used by all lecturers in mixed language classrooms and they reported on satisfactory improvement in their students’ acquisition of the English language (especially vocabulary acquisition and word meanings) and course-specific knowledge (Zhang et al., 2020). This (language acquisition) was enhanced through the use of students’ idiolect, visuals, as well as videos with captions in students’ home language. As higher education becomes more widely available and more internationalised (Maringe, 2013), their study asserts that the everevolving linguistic landscape in institutions of higher education calls for the embracing of translanguaging in social contexts in which different cultural and linguistic groups coalesce for the betterment of society (Wolff, 2018). In his pedagogical model of Critical Pedagogy, Paulo Freire (2014) states that the most important academic resources to be brought into the classroom are linked to one’s cultural and linguistic experiences. Anything short of the recognition of a student’s language is a perpetuation of colonisation since the students won’t possess adequate literacy in the language of instruction (Freire, 2014) which is key as all higher education is supported through a range of texts and genres for reference works, lecture handouts, and research articles (Vogel & García, 2017). This is due to the fact that most schools in the country use colonial languages (either English or Afrikaans), as media of instruction, which are not students’ home languages. Now to enhance concept comprehension, some researchers advocate the use of students’ home languages alongside the language of instruction (see, for example, Charamba & Zano, 2019; Gilham & Fürstenau, 2020; Hedman & Magnusson, 2020; Iversen, 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). This notion is typified in Madiba’s study of the simultaneous use of three languages, isiXhosa, Tshivenda and English by science students of the University of Cape Town (Madiba, 2014). Madiba illustrates how scientific knowledge and English language acquisition is strengthened when university students discuss concepts through the simultaneous use of languages and are provided with study materials written in multiple languages. The scholar suggests translanguaging in mixed language higher education classrooms can be used as an effective teaching and learning strategy that supports a deeper understanding of concepts.

260  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

Translanguaging positions all languages in the mixed language classroom on the same pedestal through the disregard of artificial linguistic boundaries. While higher education has historically been considered a monolingual space, research cited herein and other studies show that institutions of higher learning are increasingly becoming plurilingual spaces that reflect the multilingual environments in which they exist (García & Otheguy, 2020). The studies posit that the practice facilitates student engagement through translanguaging and heteroglossia (Li & Lin, 2019), endorses the simultaneous use of literacies and languages to keep the academic tasks moving (Grosjean, 2019) and improves the academic performance of students in mixed language classrooms (Gilham & Fürstenau, 2020; Iversen, 2018). Methodology

This chapter draws on the results of the qualitative analysis of undergraduate students’ verbatim responses throughout the study period. The researchers analysed the students’ verbatim responses closely using Glᾰser and Laudel’s (2010) model, finding links and similarities in their responses beginning with the identification of small pieces of data that stood out, coming up with codes (Glᾰser & Laudel, 2010; Lemke, 2012). This model was suitable for the current study as it applies qualitative content analysis to transcripts of interviews in which the unit of analysis ranges from a sentence to a paragraph (Glᾰser & Laudel, 2010). In analysing the data, the researchers read the sentences and decided whether they (sentences) contained pertinent information, and if so, to which category it belonged. The researchers then extracted the relevant information by formulating short descriptive statements (themes) about the values in the dimensions. The themes emanating from the analysis are presented and discussed herein. Data collection and analysis methods

The course has a totally of 206 students enrolled for two phases: the Foundation phase and the Intermediate phase. The students speak various languages as they come from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Three lecturers and two tutors work as a collaborative team, meeting weekly to plan teaching and tutorial activities for this mixed language class. Each team member attends all the lectures and has a tutorial group of about 41 students. Tutorial sessions are used as a platform to scaffold formal or whole class lectures. During lectures, lecturers and tutors assume the role of participant observers, they assist in classroom management and can respond to questions from the students. Since this is a big class, lectures are delivered in the lecture hall, which allows students to work collaboratively and allows for free

Translanguaging for Academic Success  261

movement for lecturers and tutors to assist, observe and assess student engagement in class. Tutorial sessions are conducted in small classrooms which also allows for collaborative learning. During the study, all ethical considerations were observed and participants’ identities were protected through the use of pseudonyms. Data was collected in Term 1 which consisted of seven two-hour lectures and seven one-hour tutorial sessions. For the purposes of this article, we focused on the data collected during the first three lectures and three tutorial sessions in which students were introduced to new Discourse such as phonetics, phonological awareness, morphology in English and how they can teach young children. The two researchers (authors of this article) sat at different corners in the lecture hall and tutorial rooms, observing and video recording the lessons as they proceeded. To support the qualitative data collected through videos and observations, interviews were also conducted with students who showed high levels of translanguaging during classes. Their responses were used to triangulate our interpretations of the data collected through video recording and observations. To ensure the validity and trustworthiness of the research, direct quotes from some of the participants are used. The study made use of video recording to visualise and understand how these students’ authentic language use (use of their linguistic repertoire in a purposeful way in order to make the learning process meaningful and effective) may affect their participation and comprehension of concepts in the LFPST 1 course (Lemke, 2012). In analysing the data, we used a combination of both inductive and deductive analysis and drew deductive codes for all materials from the literature we reviewed. This included: disciplinary discourse, multilingualism, language development, translanguaging, meaning making and epistemological access (García & Otheguy, 2020; Gilham & Fürstenau, 2020). We derived inductive codes from an analysis of the field notes, interview transcripts, and videos of student interactions during class (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010) paying great attention to sections where students were actively translanguaging. These sections were identified, transcribed and analysed, with the goal of understanding how and why these particular students were drawing upon their broader linguistic repertoire in the course (Vogel & García, 2017). In the process, we identified recurring patterns to construct emergent conceptual categories and themes (Lemke, 2012). Site

The study was carried out at a university in Johannesburg, South Africa. Johannesburg is the largest city in the country and, according to Statistics South Africa (2019), it has a population of over 5 million

262  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

people from all continents of the world. By virtue of its populace, it is estimated that more than 100 languages are spoken in the city. Over the past years, the university has seen a massive increase in the enrolment of linguistically and culturally diverse students necessitating the need to end the English monolingualism by adopting multilingual pedagogy for purposes of effective learning. The change in student demographics has also contributed to a change in the size of mixed language classrooms found at the university. Results

The current study sought to explore if the use of students’ linguistic repertoire is effective in mediating deeper comprehension of the course content among undergraduate students. In this section, we highlight examples of how students engaged in translingual practices for meaning making during the course. In triangulating our analysis and interpretations of the data collected, we make use of verbatim (Karlsson et al., 2018). Translanguaging through several named languages

In this study, the classroom observations we made revealed that, besides being a strategic tool for teaching and learning in mixed language classrooms, translanguaging was the authentic way that some English Second Language Learners (ESLL) communicated with each other during class and collaborative work (Cenoz & Gorter, 2015; Hamman, 2018; Karlsson et al., 2018). They frequently used their linguistic repertoire as they negotiated meaning and shared ideas about the given educational tasks (Hamman, 2018; Vogel & García, 2017). At times the lecturer would give them an academic activity written in more than one language. For example, in one such activity given during the first week the lecturer used isiZulu and Setswana (two African languages) ‘because most of these firstyear students are ESLL and according to the student demographics they all speak isiZulu and Setswana as a home or additional language. You might remember isiZulu is the most widely spoken African language in the country and it comes across as a useful teaching/learning resource in such linguistically diverse situations’ (Dr Ruth, a native English speaker, Interview 28 January 2020). Corroborating Dr Ruth’s claim, the Statistics South Africa (2019) suggests that more than 80% of the country’s educational institutions use English as the language of instruction despite the fact that it is the home language of only 9.6% of the country’s population. African languages, on the other hand, are taught as subjects and not spoken outside of designated times and classrooms.

Translanguaging for Academic Success  263

Example1

Week 1: Introduction to reading: What is reading? What do effective readers do? (Literacy for Primary School Teachers 1 course outline, 2020). Question 1

Read the following extracts and decide which cueing system(s) you are using to read the text. Ugogo nam nomgane wam, Kolo, sibhaka amakhekhe. Woza uzobona! Ugogo ubasa uhhavini. Thina sigeza izandla. Sesiyaqala. (My grandmother, my friend Kolo and I are baking cakes. Come and see! My grandmother has lit the oven. We have already washed our hands. We are about to start). Katz, J. and Lawrence, M. (2012a) Siyabhaka no gogo. Johannesburg: Molteno Institute for Language and Literacy. Mme Kgabo o laletsa Rre Kgabo go tla go ja. O baka borotho gore babo kekatshisi. Mme Kgabo o bayaborotho fa thoko gore botsidifale. (Mrs Kgabo invites Mr. Kgabo to come and eat. She bakes bread for them. Mrs Kgabo puts the bread aside to cool down). Katz, J. and Lawrence, M. (2012b) Borotho jo bo monate. Johannesburg: Molteno Institute for Language and Literacy. In answering the question, one of the researchers picked an interesting conversation from a nearby collaborative group: Sipho: The first text is isiZulu, the second Setswana. Nkululeko: Ngoba zombili izilwimi zine opaque orthographies, which means there is a one-to-one correspondence phakathi kwezinhlamvu nemisindo. (Because both languages have opaque orthographies, which means there is a one-to-one correspondence between letters and sounds). Lungelo: Uma usazi ukuthi izinhlamvu zimelelani, ungakufunda lokhu, kodwa you may not have the semantic and syntactic knowledge to comprehend the texts. (If you know that respective letters mean, you may be able to read this, but you may not have the semantic and syntactic knowledge to comprehend the texts).

In this group, Sipho starts the discussion by pointing out that the two sentences are in isiZulu and Setswana respectively. Nkululeko, in line 2, states that ngoba zombili ilwimi zine opaque orthographies (both languages have opaque orthographies), which means there is a one-to-one correspondence phakathi kwezinhlamvu nemisindo (between the letters and sounds). In line 4 Lungelo joins the discussion informing the other two group mates that uma usazi ukuthi izinhlamvu zimelelani, ungakufunda lokhu (If you know what sounds the letters represent then you can read this), kodwa (but) you may not have the semantic and syntactic knowledge

264  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

to comprehend the texts. Translanguaging, therefore, encourages metalinguistic competence and the acquisition of contrastive grammar. Even though the students were simultaneously using different languages, this did not erase the correctness of their responses. The existence of a fluid language space in this mixed language group enabled the students to have a meaningful academic discussion where they used their linguistic repertoire as a scaffold in understanding English language structures during the lecture. Throughout the study, Lungelo would translanguage because he is a ‘product of the township schools and my command of the English language is not good at all. So when the lecturer uses several languages this helps me understand what she will be teaching us. Using English only won’t help most of us’ (Interview, 10 March 2020). This might be resultant of the fact that Lungelo, and many like him, possesses the language of everyday conversation which can be described as relatively simple and concrete and is often supported by non-verbal communication (Cummins, 2008) and lack the language of the classroom, the Cognitive Academic Linguistic Proficiency which tends to require more complex grammar and syntactic structures (García & Otheguy, 2020). Translanguaging through peer support in a mixed language classroom

The second translanguaging practice was the lecturers’ acceptance of students supporting each other by drawing upon a wide spectrum of their linguistic repertoires in the mixed language classroom. For example, a tutorial activity was designed which accommodated all the student’s home languages. The activity was designed to enable students access the discipline Discourse and it was also seen as a way of allowing students to support one another through languages they have in common (García et al., 2017; Ollerhead, 2018). The multilingual tutorial activity (Figure 11.1) was designed to encourage collaborative learning, participation and aid in the mastering of new concepts. For example, each tutorial group was required to have students who were proficient in English, Sotho and Nguni so that they could translate, codeswitch and translanguage during group discussions. Thus, students were enabled to work through the task in all the languages. In addition, the tutorial activity was informed by research which tells us that any skills and concepts gained in the learner’s home language do not need to be re-taught when they transfer to a second language. In a reflective session with the lecturers involved in teaching this course, Dr Stanley stated that he allowed students of the same home language to support one another in their common language but he did not report to have encouraged or facilitated such practices; rather, he merely allowed the practice to take place. He reported ‘During my observations, I noticed how two isiZulu-speaking students would talk

Translanguaging for Academic Success  265

Figure 11.1  Multilingual tutorial activity (Nkomo & Charamba, 2020)

together in isiZulu during the tutorial session. I think it’s completely okay as he was actually reaching out and he felt safe to ask him before reporting back to the whole class in English. And maybe that does something to the other student, too, to become confident that “wow, I managed to help him”. Because he might have been in the same position himself, and then it will make you feel good’. Other lecturers also agreed with Dr Stanley’s observations and expressed that they would let the students use their languages, while others expressed that they believed allowing students to do so was ‘right as long as it did not affect others’ or as long as it was ‘related to the task’. Others found this communication in a mixed language classroom ‘interesting’, as ‘nice support’ or ‘not a problem’. These answers suggest the lecturers allowed for a translanguaging space in

266  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

Figure 11.2  Tutorial activity on morphological awareness (Nkomo & Charamba, 2020)

their respective mixed language classrooms and saw the value in allowing students employ a wider spectrum of their linguistic repertoires while communicating in the classroom. They viewed all languages as equal and that all languages have a place in the mixed language classroom. Another multilingual example is given in Figure 11.2. Translanguaging with visual support

The third translanguaging practice that the lecturers applied in this course was the use of visual support to explain and reinforce new concepts. According to García and Li (2014) translanguaging encompasses all meaning-making modes, including gestures, objects and visual cues. In our course, visual support was mainly employed during whole class instruction. In trying to introduce discipline specific concepts such as the concept of print, the alphabet principle and knowledge, in her lecture, Prof Zed made use of You Tube videos. In our reflection session, Prof Zed reflected on how the use of these videos can potentially support students who possess limited English proficiency and first year students who are still grappling with the disciplinary Discourses in mixed language classrooms. Prof Zed: In my years of teaching this topic to first year students, I have learnt that it is important to consider the background of some of the students. Some students are not English first language speakers, some are being taught for the first time by an English speaker. They might find it difficult to understand what I am saying. So, it important to maybe have simple, exciting videos in addition to the PowerPoint. That way students can look at and understand from that and also engage with the content (Interview, 10 March 2020).

In the above extract, Prof Zed, perceived visual support with You Tube videos (which were edited to include subtitles in students’ home languages) in addition to PowerPoint as an effective method for supporting students whose proficiency was limited and to also access

Translanguaging for Academic Success  267

discipline specific concepts. Later in the reflection session, Prof Zed recounted that she had also used a popular song from a well-known artist which most of our Year 1 students were familiar with so that they could easily relate and understand the concepts she was introducing to them in her lesson. Furthermore, Dr Fay highlighted the importance of body language as alternative approaches that facilitate students’ comprehension. He indicated the use of nonverbal communication (e.g. body language) as an important strategy when teaching ESLL and students in their first year at the University. Dr Fay: I had a few students in my tutorial group who didn’t understand what a syllable is and how to count syllables in a word. And then, to make sure that they understood, I used the example of an African name …No/ mbu/le/lo and I was clapping my hands for each syllable sound. Then, I showed them an English example word Cat and we clapped together as a class. And then it was like, ‘Oh yes!’ You could sort of see it. It is a very practical exercise where it’s easy to learn our concepts. You can show, act out and demonstrate at the same time as you say. This practice can be transferrable in their Foundation Phase classrooms (Interview, 10 March 2020).

Dr Fay described how she experienced body language and gestures as effective support for her instruction. This approach illustrates how the lecturers were able to make pedagogical decisions in response to situations in which English and other languages in mixed language classrooms was not sufficient. Dr Fay and Prof Zed provided a pedagogical rationale for this practice, speaking from their experience that visual cues were useful for students to access the disciplinary Discourse. Based on their pedagogical rationale, these practices are more meaningful and align with the translanguaging pedagogy. In line with this, García and Otheguy (2019) postulate that translanguaging incorporates an understanding of how distinct modes, including one’s body and gestures, summate to the semiotic meaning-making repertoire that is involved in the act of communication by multilingual students sharing a mixed language classroom. Discussion

Although students were initially hesitant to speak in their mother tongue, the use of their linguistic repertoire in tutorial groups for example facilitated the acquisition of academic Discourse by creating a safe learning space. Students felt comfortable expressing themselves in their repertoire which in other situations makes them feel excluded from the learning process. This is evidence of the pivotal role language plays in the effective teaching/learning process. This calls for educators to consider that the aptness to use language dictates one’s capability to think, since much of human thought is conveyed through language. Students can refine their comprehension skills through speaking, reading, and writing using one’s

268  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

language repertoire (Zano, 2020) in a mixed language classroom. In cases where the language of instruction is concerned, one should accept, by and large, that the home language which developed within the context of social interaction and which is culture bound is foundational to the thinking, learning and identity of students. A body of recent research on possible causes of underachievement among students taught in a language different from their home language suggest that reading printed matter or writing a class activity makes quite different demands on a student compared to talking to a friend on the playground where they translanguage on an inter- and intra-sentential level (see, for example, Charamba & Zano, 2019; Gilham & Fürstenau, 2020; Hedman & Magnusson, 2020; Iversen, 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). To mitigate the effects of this misalignment, educators should acknowledge multilingualism and allow the use of multiple languages in the mixed language classroom. In the present study, translanguaging provided the multilingual students an opportunity to understand the concepts better resulting in improved academic performance during tutorial activities. Translanguaging enhances student motivation by bridging existing linguistic and cultural boundaries and increases reasoning power through integrated multilingual practices in the classroom (García, 2019). This validates the findings from several studies that the use of multiple languages in class provides a humanizing, emotionally safe environment which results in students gaining a positive schooling experience in the mixed language classroom (Li & Lin, 2019; Nkomo, 2021b). The ability to translanguage, that is, to use their linguistic repertoire in conjunction with the English language, allowed students to take agency of their learning. They engaged with complex academic Discourse such as phonemic awareness, morphology, while developing positive identities as multilingual students in a mixed language classroom. Recommendations

Sociolinguists are intrigued by how South African students communicate mainly in urban contexts, in what appears to be talking in two or more languages at the same time (Wolff, 2018). The academic terminology for this way of communicating is translanguaging (Li, 2018).Translanguaging is a metaprocess that connects linguistic practices, promotes sociolinguistic equity, allows multilinguals to express their true identities and leverages their true multilingualism so they may act as a whole people in their multilingual worlds (Srhir, 2020). The present study joins the body of research the world over in suggesting that to achieve sound learning and cognitive development among students in a mixed language classroom, foster creativity and critical thinking, the simultaneous use of students’ linguistic repertoire in the same lesson is inevitable (Hedman & Magnusson, 2020)

Translanguaging for Academic Success  269

and recommends the adoption of translanguaging for instructional purposes in mixed language classrooms. Conclusion

With the continuous change in the linguistic landscape of higher education institutions the advocacy for the use of translanguaging as pedagogy in mixed language classrooms is getting louder. Research suggests monolingual approaches are academically limiting and disadvantage multilingual students who can benefit through the use of their linguistic repertoire. As observed in the present and other studies, translanguaging promotes divergent thinking (Grosjean, 2019), creates a problem-solving mind (Licona & Kelly, 2019), fosters innovativeness (Charamba & Zano, 2019) and promotes and safeguards minority languages (Nkomo, 2021a) and cultures (Sánchez et al., 2018), leading to enhanced academic performance in mixed language classrooms (Hedman & Magnusson, 2020). The present study joins calls for institutions to move away from the existing monolingual trajectory which has contributed to students’ underachievement and view multilingualism for what it is: an asset in a mixed language classroom. Further Reading Blommaert, J., García, O., Kress, G. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (2019) Communicating beyond diversity: A bricolage of ideas. In A. Sherris and E. Adami (eds) Making Signs, Translanguaging Ethnographies: Exploring Urban, Rural and Educational Space (pp. 9–35). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. García, O. (2019) The Curvas of translanguaging. In T. Zhongfeng and H. Link (eds) Positive Synergies: Translanguaging and Critical Theories in Eduction. [Special Issue] Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 5 (1), 86–93. García, O. (2019) Decolonizing foreign, second, heritage and first languages: Implications for education. In D. Macedo (ed.) Decolonizing Foreign Language Education: The Misteaching of English and Other Colonial Languages (pp. 152–168). New York: Routledge. Johnson, S.I., García, O. and Seltzer, K. (2019) Biliteracy and translanguaging in dual language bilingual education. In D. DeMatthews and E. Izquierdo (eds) Dual Language Education: Teaching and Leading in Two Languages (pp. 119–132). New York: Springer. Kleyn, T. and García, O. (2019) Translanguaging as an act of transformation: Restructuring teaching and learning for emergent bilingual students. In L. de Oliveira (ed.) Handbook of TESOL in K-12 (pp. 69–82). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Seltzer, K. and García, O. (2019) Mantenimiento del bilingüismo en estudiantes latinos de las escuelasde Nueva York. El proyecto de CUNY-NYSIEB. Informes del Observatorio/ Observatorio Reports. Observatorio del español (pp. 1–30). Cambridge, MA: Instituto Cervantes at FAS, Harvard University. Seltzer, K. and García, O. (2019) Sustaining Latinx bilingualism in New York’s schools: The CUNY-NYSIEB Project. Informes del Observatorio/Observatorio Reports.Observatorio del español (pp. 1–30). Cambridge, MA: Instituto Cervantes at FAS, Harvard University. Vogel, S., Ascenzi-Moreno, L. and García, O. (2018) An expanded view of translanguaging: Leveraging the dynamic interactions between a young multilingual writer and machine translation software. In J. Choi and S. Ollerhead (eds) Plurilingualism in Teaching and Learning: Complexities Across Contexts (pp. 89–106). Abingdon: Routledge. Wright, W.E., Boun, S. and García, O. (eds) (2015) The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

270  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

Beyond the Reading (1) In her Academic Literacy course, Mrs Nkomo wants to use the strategy of translanguaging in teaching her first-year undergraduate students. What should she do? (a) Present the course material to her students in multiple languages so they can learn all of them. (b)  Present the course material in English, but have the students translate and discuss it in their home language. (c)  Present the course material in one language and hope that it transfers to students’ home language. (d) Present the course material to students in their home language and wait for it to transfer to their home language. (2) What is multilingual education and what are its possible benefits in the classroom? (3) What is bilingual assessment? (4) What is translanguaging and why is it important? (5) What are the challenges of using translanguaging in linguistically diverse classrooms?  References Alexander, N. (1989) Language Policy and National Unity in South Africa/Azania. Cape Town: Buchu Books. Baker, C. (2011) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (5th edn). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Beauboeuf-Lafontant, T. (1999) A movement against and beyond boundaries: Politically relevant teaching among African American teachers. Teachers College Record 100 (4), 702–723. Boughey, C. and McKenna, S. (2017) Analysing an audit cycle: A critical realist account. Studies in Higher Education 42 (6), 963–975. Buxton, C.A. and Caswell, L. (2019) Next generation sheltered instruction to support multilingual learners in secondary science classrooms. Science Education 104 (3), 555–580. Caruso, E. (2018) Translanguaging in higher education: Using several languages for the analysis of academic content in the teaching and learning process. Language Learning in Higher Education 8 (1), 65–90. Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2015) Towards a holistic approach in the study of multilingual education. In J. Cenoz and D. Gorter (eds) Multilingual Education: Between Language Learning and Translanguaging (pp. 1–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Charamba, E. (2019a) Translanguaging: Developing scientific scholarship in a multilingual classroom. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01434632.2019.1625907. Charamba, E. (2019b) Learning and language: Towards a reconceptualization of their mutual interdependences in a multilingual science class. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1707837. Charamba, E. and Zano, K. (2019) Effects of translanguaging as an intervention strategy in a South African chemistry classroom. Bilingual Research Journal 42 (3), 291–307. Comber, B. and Kamler, B. (2004) Getting out of deficit: Pedagogies of reconnection. Teaching Education 15 (3), 293–310.

Translanguaging for Academic Success  271

Constitution of South Africa (1996) Republic of South Africa. Cummins, J. (2008) Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual education. In N.H. Hornberger (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Vol. 5: Bilingual Education (2nd edn, pp. 65–75). Boston: Springer. Department of Basic Education (DBE) (2012) National Curriculum Statement (NCS): Curriculum and Assessment Policy Grades 1-3: English First Additional Language. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education. Department of Education (2011) Physical Sciences Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement. Pretoria: Department of Education. Department of Higher Education and Training (2015) Report on the Use of African Languages as Mediums of Instruction in Higher Education. Pretoria: DHET. See https://www.dhet.gov.za/Policy%20and%20Development%20Support/African%20 Langauges%20report_2015.pdf (accessed 26 February 2019). Freire, P. (2014) Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Bloomsbury Academic. García, O. (2019) Decolonizing foreign, second, heritage and first languages: Implications for education. In D. Macedo (ed.) Decolonizing Foreign Language Education (pp. 152–168). New York: Routledge. García, O. and Li, W. (2014) Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. London: Palgrave Pivot. García, O. and Kleyn, T. (eds) (2016) Translanguaging with Multilingual Students: Learning from Classroom Moments. New York: Routledge. García, O. and Lin, A. (2018) English and Multilingualism. In P. Seargeant, A. Hewings and S. Pihlaja (eds) Routledge Handbook of English Language Studies (pp. 77–92). New York: Routledge. García, O. and Otheguy, R. (2020) Plurilingualism and translanguaging: Commonalities and divergences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 23 (1), 17–35. García, O., Johnson, S. and Seltzer, K. (2017) The Translanguaging Classroom: Leveraging Student Bilingualism for Learning. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon. Gee, J.P. (1996) Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses (2nd edn). London: Taylor & Francis. Gee, J.P. (2005) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (2nd edn). London: Routledge. Gee, J.P. (2007) What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gee, J.P. (2011) How to Do Discourse Analysis: A Toolkit. New York: Routledge. Gilham, P. and Fürstenau, S. (2020) The relationship between teachers’ language experience and their inclusion of pupils’ home languages in school life. Language and Education 34 (1), 36–50. Glᾰser, J. and Laudel, G. (2010) Life with or without coding: Two methods for early stage data analysis in qualitative research aiming at casual explanations. Qualitative Social Research 14 (2), Art.5. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-14.2.1886. Grosjean, F. (2019) A Journey in Languages and Cultures: The Life of a Bicultural Bilingual. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hall, L.A., Johnson, A.S., Juzwik, M.M., Wortham, S.E.F. and Mosley, M. (2010) Teacher identity in the context of literacy teaching: Three explorations of classroom positioning and interaction in secondary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education 26, 234–243. Hamman, L. (2018) Translanguaging and positioning in two-way dual language classrooms: A case for criticality. Language and Education 32 (1), 21–42. Hedman, C. and Magnusson, U. (2020) Student ambivalence toward second language education in three Swedish upper secondary schools. Linguistics and Education 55 (1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2019.100767.

272  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

Heugh, K. (1995) Disabling and enabling: Implications of language policy trends in South Africa. In R. Mesthrie (ed.) Language and Social History: Studies in South African Sociolinguistics (pp. 329–350). Cape Town: David Philip. Iversen, J.Y. (2020) Pre-service teachers’ translanguaging during field placement inmultilingual, mainstream classrooms in Norway. Language and Education 34 (1), 51–65. Karlsson, A., Larsson, P.N. and Jakobsson, A. (2018) Multilingual students’ use of translanguaging in science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education 41 (15), 2049–2069. Katz, J. and Lawrence, M. (2012a) Siyabhaka no gogo. Johannesburg: Molteno Institute for Language and Literacy. Katz, J. and Lawrence, M. (2012b) Borotho jo bo monate. Johannesburg: Molteno Institute for Language and Literacy. Langman, J. (2014) Translanguaging, identity and learning: Science teachers as engaged language planners. Language Policy 13 (1), 183–200. Lemke, J. (2012) Analyzing verbal data: Principles, methods, and problems. In B. Fraser, K.Tobin and C. McRobbie (eds) Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 1471–1484). Dordrecht: Springer. Lewis, G., Jones, B. and Baker, C. (2012) Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice 18 (7), 641–654. Li, W. (2018) Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics 39 (1), 9–30. Li, W. and Lin, A.M. (2019) Translanguaging classroom discourse: pushing limits, breaking boundaries. Classroom Discourse 10 (3–4), 209–215. Licona, P. and Kelly, G.J. (2019) Translanguaging in a middle school science classroom: Constructing scientific arguments in English and Spanish. Cultural Studies of Science Education 15 (1), 485–510. Lin, A.M.Y. (2019) Theories of trans/languaging and trans-semiotizing: Implications forcontent-based education classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22, 5–16. Lyster, R. and Izquierdo, J. (2009) Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning 59 (2), 453–498 Madiba, M. (2014) Promoting concept literacy through multilingual glossaries: A translanguaging approach. In L. Hibbert and C. Van der Walt (eds) Multilingual Universities in South Africa: Reflecting Society in Higher Eduction (pp. 68–87). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Makoe, P. (2018) Translanguaging in a monoglot context: Children mobilising and (re)positioning their multilingual repertoires as resources for learning. In G. Mazzaferro (ed.) Translanguaging as Everyday Practice (pp. 13–30). Cham: Springer. Makoni, B. (2018) Beyond country of birth: Heritage language learning and the construction of identities of resistance. Heritage language Journal 15 (1), 79–94. Maringe, F. (2013) Globalization and Internationalization in Higher Education: Theoretical, Strategic and Management Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Mazzaferro, G. (ed.) (2018) Translanguaging as Everyday Practice. Cham: Springer. McMillan, J.H. and Schumacher, S. (2010) Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry (7th edn). New Jersey: Pearson Education. Mkhize, N. and Ndimande-Hlongwa, N. (2014) African languages, Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS), and the transformation of the humanities and social sciences in higher education. Alternation 21 (2), 10–37. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P. and Hooper, M. (2017) PIRLS 2016 International Results in Reading. Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. See http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/ (accessed 24 May 2020).

Translanguaging for Academic Success  273

National Treasury (2018) National Treasury Report on South African Education. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education. See https://www.gov.za/documents/national-treasuryannual-report-20182019-20-sep-2019-0000 (accessed 18 June 2019). Nkomo, S.A. (2021a) Implementing a bilingual extensive reading programme in the Foundation Phase: Theory and practice. Per Linguam 36 (2), 127–137. Nkomo, S.A. (2021b) The benefits of an extensive reading programme implemented in two Foundation Phase classrooms in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Reading & Writing 12 (1), 1–10. Nkomo, A. and E. Charamba (2020) Literacy for primary school teachers 1. Unpublished resource pack, University of the Witwatersrand. Ollerhead, O. (2018) Teaching across semiotic modes with multilingual learners: Translanguaging in an Australian classroom. Language and Education 33 (2), 106–122. Probyn, M. (2019) Pedagogical translanguaging and the construction of science knowledge in a multilingual South African classroom: Challenging monoglossic/post-colonial orthodoxies. Classroom Discourse 10 (3–4), 216–236. Sánchez, M.T., García, O. and Solorza, C. (2018) Reframing language allocation policy in dual language bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal 41 (1), 37–51. Spaull, N. (2019) Equity: A price too high to pay? In N. Spaull and J. Jansen (eds) South African Schooling: The Enigma of Inequality. Cham: Springer. Srhir, A.M. (2020) Making children multilingual: Language policy and parental agency in transnational and multilingual Moroccan families in Spain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 41 (1), 108–120. Statistics South Africa (2019) Education Series Volume V: Higher Education and Skills in South Africa, 2017. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa. Stroupe, D., Moon, J. and Michaels, S. (2019) Introduction to special issue: Epistemic tools in science education. Issues, and Trends, Science Education 1–4. https://doi. org/10.1002/sce.21512. Vogel, S. and García, O. (2017) Translanguaging. In G. Noblit and L. Moll (eds) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wolff, H.E (2018) How the continent’s languages can unlock the potential of young Africans. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/how-the-continents-languages-can-unlockthe-potential-of-young-africans-90322. Accessed 16 June 2018. Zano, K. (2020) From the teachers’ perspectives: Resources used in teaching reading comprehension to English First Additional Language (EFAL) learners in the FET phase. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116. 2020.1858979. Zano, K. and Phatudi, N.C. (2019) Vocabulary learning strategies of South African English First Additional Language learners. Journal for Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.4314/ jlt.v54i2.3. Zhang, Q., Osborne, C., Shao, L. and Lin, M. (2022) A translanguaging perspective on medium of instruction in the CFL classroom. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 43 (5), 359–372.

12 Implementing the Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE) as a Tool for Instructional Design in Mixed-Language Classrooms Anna Krulatz, MaryAnn Christison and Koeun Park

While mixed classrooms consisting of heritage-language learners (HLLs) and second-language learners (SLLs) are becoming increasingly commonplace, they constitute learning spaces that pose unique challenges for teachers (Carreira, 2004, 2016). The two groups of learners differ relative to their previous language learning experiences (e.g. formal classroom learning vs learning in informal contexts among friends and family), knowledge of the language systems (e.g. HLLs may have richer vocabularies), opportunities for language use, learning styles, affective needs and learning goals. However, recent research suggests that differences between HLLs and SLLs learners are complementary in nature and can be used as a resource when designing instruction for mixed-language classrooms (Carreira & Kagan, 2018). In this chapter, we present the Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE) (Christison et al., 2021) as an approach to education that is grounded in current research on language learning and provides clear how-to guidelines for teachers. We argue that MADE, which is based on the premise that monolingual bias in language education should be challenged (Cummins, 2005), can serve as a viable instructional design tool for mixed-language classrooms. We describe and provide a rationale 274

Implementing the Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE)  275

for each of the indicators of MADE: (a) classroom as a multilingual space, (b) developing and using teaching materials, (c) interaction and grouping configurations, (d) language and culture attitudes, (e) metacognition and metalinguistic awareness, (f) multiliteracy and (g) teacher and learner language use and illustrate how the model can be implemented in mixed-language contexts. Introduction

On many campuses, mixed-language classrooms are the only viable option for HLLs who seek to expand their knowledge of their home language in an academic context. Although the decision to group HLLs and SLLs in one classroom is often driven by administrative and financial considerations and although delivering instruction in mixedlanguage contexts poses unique challenges for both instructors and learners, evidence from research suggests that HLL-SLL interaction can be beneficial for both groups (e.g. Blake & Zyzik, 2003; Bowles, 2011; Bowles et al., 2014; Henshaw, 2015), and a quest for successful pedagogies in these contexts is underway. In order to attempt a discussion of pedagogical practices appropriate for HLLs in mixed-language contexts, it is important to consider the unique characteristics of these learners. Even among experts in heritage-language development, there are differing opinions and points of view relative to defining heritage language (HL) and HL speakers (Ortega, 2020). Fishman (2001) offered perhaps the broadest definition when he included indigenous groups who may have had only a distant affiliation to the HL through family ancestry but are not HL speakers themselves. Other scholars refer to individuals as HL speakers when they have historical and/or personal connections to a language regardless of their actual proficiency (Valdés, 2001). Benmamoun et al. (2013) provided perhaps the narrowest definition, stating that HL speakers are those who have had a close affiliation with speakers of the HL, most likely family members who speak the language, experienced early onset exposure to the HL, made a shift from the HL to the dominant societal language of schools and likely have low formal literacy skills in the HL. In defining HLs for the purposes of this chapter, we focused on the educational needs of HLLs who had acquired a majority language in early childhood after having acquired strong oral language skills in the HL. Because these HLLs used only the majority language in school, they had limited exposure to the HL outside the home environment. Although they possess quite strong oral skills in the HL, they have little or no facility with HL literacy (i.e. reading and writing skills; Carreira & Kagan, 2011). We use the term SLLs to refer to those who started learning the target language around or after puberty in a formal classroom setting

276  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

and usually have stronger literacy skills than oral language skills. This type of learner profile emerges because SLLs most often have extensive exposure to written materials but have limited opportunities to speak the language. In addition, they may not be connected to a community where the target language is spoken (Montrul, 2016). We consider both HLLs and SLLs to be (emergent) multilinguals. In primary schools in many countries (e.g. the United States, Australia, England, New Zealand and Canada), it has been common for HLLs and SLLs to be taught in the same classroom, thereby creating a mixed-ability language classroom. This practice exists despite the differences between these two groups of learners relative to language learning needs and affective factors (Carreira 2004, 2016; Carreira & Kagan, 2011; Correa, 2011). For instance, HLLs tend to have strong oral language skills and an implicit knowledge of grammar while SLLs frequently display advanced literacy skills and explicit grammar knowledge and use more extensive metalinguistic terminology. In addition, HLLs are often familiar with nonstandard varieties of languages. It is our position that nonstandard varieties are valuable linguistic resources that contribute to the richness of learners’ repertoires. SLLs typically develop knowledge of only standard varieties, so exposure to nonstandard varieties in a classroom setting with HLLs is beneficial. HLLs often feel a strong connection to the HL, want to build and maintain relationships with their family members and the community, and as a result, gain insights into the development of their identities as HL speakers. While some other studies suggest that this background of HLLs may be a source of anxiety (Jee, 2016; Prada & GuerreroRodríguez, 2020; Sevinç & Dewaele, 2018), these intrinsic motivational factors are pivotal in the development of HL speakers’ positive attitudes towards language learning. They also propel HL speakers to undertake the formal study of the HL when possible, often when they are young adults (Carreira & Kagan, 2011; Phinney et al., 2001). For SLLs, the language class tends to be just another subject they study, and they are often driven by instrumental motivational factors, such as graduation, getting a job, or qualifying for a promotion (Beaudrie et al., 2014). While the resolution to offer mixed-language classes tends to be based on economic considerations, the complementary strengths and weaknesses of HLLs and SLLs provide a strong rationale for supporting such a decision. Evidence from research suggests that HLLs and SLLs can benefit from opportunities to collaborate and learn from each other (e.g. Blake & Zyzik, 2003; Fernández-Dobao, 2020; Henshaw, 2015). In this chapter, we propose a specific approach to working with HLLs and SLLs in mixed-language classes, Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE). We provide a rationale for the approach and illustrate how it can be delivered in an intermediate mixed-language Korean class.

Implementing the Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE)  277

Learning and Teaching in Mixed-Language Classrooms

As a result of a combination of factors relative to educating HLLs, such as the fact that there may be only a few HLLs enrolled in a single school or classroom, administrative difficulties or limitations in funding, mixed-language classes are the most readily available language learning options for HLLs (Beaudrie, 2012; Carreira, 2014). Research has identified both challenges and benefits of grouping HLLs and SLLs in mixed-language classes. From the HLL perspective, one of the main challenges is that the majority of the mixed-language courses are delivered by instructors who are not specifically trained to teach HLLs and may, consequently, have unrealistic expectations about HLLs’ linguistic competence and fail to recognize the differences between SLLs’ and HLLs’ skills and the specific needs of HLLs (Burgo, 2017; George & Salgado-Robles, 2018; Potowski, 2002). As a result of their strong oral language skills, HLLs are often assigned tutoring roles and asked to serve as cultural or linguistic informants in the classroom (García & Blanco, 2000; Wilkinson, 2010). HLLs often face prejudice due to the assumptions made by their peers that they are trying to ‘get an easy A’ because they are inevitably embedded in second- or foreign-language courses that are designed for SLLs (Carreira, 2004: 15). The main reported drawback for SLLs in mixed-language classrooms is the feelings of intimidation they experience when interacting with HLLs because SLLs tend to perceive HLLs as more fluent speakers (Bowles et al., 2014). As a result, SLLs may be less willing to participate in class discussions when HLLs are present. In addition, SLLs may feel that the pace of learning in mixed-language courses is faster and designed to meet the needs of HLLs whom they perceive as more advanced than themselves (Edstrom, 2007). From the teacher perspective, the main difficulty is related to establishing objectives and selecting activities that address the linguistic needs of both groups of learners. However, several benefits of mixed-language classrooms have also been reported. For instance, group or pair work with SLLs gives HLLs opportunities to improve their writing and metalinguistic skills, thus increasing their ability to reflect on and evaluate language and to switch focus between form, function, and meaning (Bowles, 2011; Jessner, 2018; Thomas, 1988). HLLs are also able to extend their use of HL to an academic context (Bowles et al., 2014) and increase their cultural self-confidence (Blake & Zyzik, 2003). The main advantage for SLLs is the opportunity to interact with fluent speakers (Edstrom, 2007), which can lead to gains in lexicon, listening comprehension, and oral skills (Edstrom, 2007; Potowski, 2002). SLLs can also benefit from exposure to various native dialects and from HLLs insights into the target culture (Edstrom, 2007; Katz, 2003).

278  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

Although the benefits of mixed-language classrooms appear to outweigh the drawbacks, there is no doubt that teachers working in such contexts ‘should work on overcoming the challenges this learning environment raises so that all learners could benefit’ from instruction (Burgo, 2017: 49). Heritage Learners and Second Language Learners as Multilinguals

A multilingual speaker can be defined as ‘anyone who can communicate in more than one language, be it active (through speaking and writing) or passive (through listening and reading)’ (Li, 2008: 4). Multilingualism includes the ability to use ‘not only varieties such as national languages but also regional languages, sign languages, and, in the broadest sense, dialects’ (Franceschini, 2011: 344). As Kramsch (2012: 108) argued, ‘SLA nowadays should be seen as the acquisition of multilingual and multicultural competencies, even if the object of instruction is one standard linguistic system’. In this chapter, we take bilingualism to be an instance of multilingualism and use the terms multilingualism and multilingual to also denote bilingualism and bilingual (Aronin & Singleton, 2008; Cenoz, 2013), and we consider both HLLs and SLLs to be (emergent) multilinguals. It is now commonly accepted that multilingual individuals do not have equal and perfect knowledge of all the languages they use (Grosjean, 2010). This idea has been captured in Cook’s (1995) notion of multi-competence, defined as the knowledge of two (or more) languages in one mind. In other words, the sum of languages used by multilinguals is considered to constitute one linguistic system. SLLs are increasingly becoming recognized as legitimate, emergent multilinguals (Cenoz & Gorter, 2014; Cummins, 2017; Kramsch, 2012). The notion of the ideal native speaker as a norm and a goal for SLLs is being gradually discarded; instead of being assessed through the monolingual lens as imperfect speakers of a target language, SLLs are now seen holistically as language users with developing multilingual systems who ‘have the possibility of using elements from the different languages at their disposal’ (Cenoz, 2013: 12). HLLs constitute a heterogeneous population of learners who are multilingual to varying degrees (Valdés, 2001). Their proficiency levels in the HL and the majority language vary depending on generational status (i.e. foreign-born, first-generation, second-generation, third-generation), age of acquisition of the majority language and the languages used in the home environment (Carreira & Kagan, 2011). For instance, while first generation HLLs retain high proficiency in the HL, second and third generation speakers can be subject to incomplete HL acquisition, which most often results from long term participation educational models that promote subtractive multilingualism (i.e. gradual loss of a language)

Implementing the Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE)  279

and result in attrition. In other words, because of societal pressure to assimilate, there is a gradual shift in primary competences from HL to the new language (Valdés, 2001). Sequential learners, who acquire the HL and then add the majority language, develop grammatical systems in the HL that are superior to those of simultaneous learners, who acquire both languages from birth (Montrul, 2008). Similarly, HLLs who only speak the HL at home have been shown to attain higher levels of proficiency in the HL than those who use both the HL and the majority language (Mueller Gathercole, 2002; Silva-Corvalán, 2003). Thus, as is the case with multilingualism in general, HLLs rarely reach perfectly balanced multilingualism with native-like control in two languages. Rather, they have varying levels of proficiency in the two languages, which they use ‘either in isolation or mixed, according to their communicative needs and their interlocutors’ (Cenoz, 2013: 11). Adopting a multilingual view of HLLs and SSLs empowers teachers to see these two groups of learners as ‘savvy navigator[s] of communicative challenges’ (Kramsch, 2012: 108) rather than deficient native and nonnative speakers. While HLLs and SSLs differ in terms of their previous language learning experiences, understanding of language systems, language use, learning styles, affective needs, and learning goals, this diversity should be seen as a positive learning resource (Cummins, 2005). In the sections that follow, we present the Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE), which enables teachers to make a transition from the monolingual view of language education to a multilingual perspective that draws on students’ diverse linguistic knowledge as bridges to language development. Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE) in Mixed-Language Classrooms The seven indicators of MADE

Placing HLLs and SLLs in the same classroom poses challenges for many language teachers (Burgo, 2017). It is, therefore, crucial that teachers working with mixed learner ability groups are provided with instructional design support. Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE) is a holistic model that can enable teachers working in mixed-language classrooms to design and deliver optimal, high-quality education. It consists of seven research-based indicators: (a) classroom as a multilingual space, (b) developing and using teaching materials, (c) interaction and grouping configurations, (d) language and culture attitudes, (e) metacognition and metalinguistic awareness, (f) multiliteracy and (g) teacher and learner language use. Each indicator includes specific features that underpin how the indicators are conceptualized in practice. In the sections that follow, we describe

280  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

each of the indicators in detail and illustrate how MADE can support instructional design for classrooms consisting of HLLs and SLLs. Classroom as a multilingual space

The first indicator, Classroom as multilingual space, stresses the importance of visual spaces in the classroom as a way to validate and celebrate the linguistic and cultural diversity of learners (Coelho, 2012). A crucial feature of this indicator is the direct involvement of learners in the design and organization of classroom spaces. The displays can be multilingual, consisting of signs in the standard variety, nonstandard dialects spoken by HLLs and English. All learners should be allowed and encouraged to showcase their work, even if it contains language errors, and to bring, display and share cultural artifacts from their own backgrounds and experiences. In higher education settings, where physical classroom spaces are shared by students enrolled in different courses, and where instructors are assigned to teach in different classrooms based on availability, arranging physical displays may not be feasible. Instead, teachers might use virtual spaces, such as class blogs or wiki pages, as an arena where student work can be displayed. It is also possible to showcase student work and cultural artifacts within slide shows that are used to accompany lectures and support discussions, projects, and tasks. These practices help HLLs ‘embrace the cultural and linguistic identity that they bring with them to the learning context’ (Correa, 2011: 318), while SLLs find validation as emergent multilinguals. Developing and using teaching materials

The second indicator of MADE stresses the important role that teaching materials have in promoting multicompetence (i.e. more than one language in the same mind), translanguaging and all language skills. Teachers working in mixed-language contexts should identify or create culturally and linguistically appropriate materials that make learning meaningful, engaging, and accessible to both HLLs and SLLs (Burgo, 2017). This means that they should use materials that are differentiated for language proficiency, address issues of identity, culture, and multilingualism, and meet the learning objectives (Carreira, 2014; Winke & Stafford, 2002). For example, HLLs may need supplementary materials that focus on grammar and literacy development (Winke & Stafford, 2002), while both groups may benefit from materials related to topics that prompt discussion, such as stereotypes, multilingualism, social justice, language varieties/dialects, and study abroad opportunities (Burgo, 2017). Interaction and grouping configurations

The next indicator, Interaction and grouping configurations, stipulates that learners should be given frequent opportunities to

Implementing the Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE)  281

interact and clarify concepts with the teacher and classmates. The way groups are configured should support learning objectives and consider learners’ linguistic repertoires. Research suggests that HLLs and SLLs in mixed-language classrooms can benefit from collaborative tasks (Edstrom, 2007; Fernández-Dobao, 2020; Henshaw, 2015; Potowski, 2002). Pair and small group work, such as projects and discussions, that capitalize on learner strengths have been recommended for mixedlanguage classrooms (Burgo, 2017). As Fernández-Dobao (2020: 64) argues, ‘[t]o encourage reciprocal learning, teachers […] need to make sure that [second language] L2 as well as HL learners are cognizant of their complementary skills and aware of the different ways in which they can help each other’. For example, HLLs can provide support for SLLs on tasks requiring oral feedback (e.g. feedback on pronunciation and fluency) and may serve as informants about the target culture if they feel that they possess sufficient degrees of cultural proficiency. Conversely, SSLs can be valuable resources for HLLs in terms of grammar knowledge, literacy skills, and metacognitive terminology. Language and culture attitudes

The indicator Language and culture attitudes is based on the premise that the existence of linguistic and cultural diversity in the classroom should be normalized (Cummins, 2000). By affirming all learners’ linguistic resources as legitimate and valuable, teachers can empower students and support the development of their multilingual competencies and identities. In mixed-language contexts, this process entails validating nonstandard varieties spoken by HLLs and debunking the myth of native-like or standard pronunciation as a realistic goal for SLLs. As HLLs may have concerns about their academic language proficiency being below teacher expectations (Russell & Kuriscak, 2015), it is important for teachers to focus on the knowledge and skills that HLLs have developed and the ways in which they can contribute so that HLLs’ learning needs are not overlooked. In the words of Fernández-Dobao (2020: 65), ‘Positioning HL learners as experts, even if only for some activities, should help to reinforce a more positive perception of their linguistic and cultural knowledge’. HLLs can act as facilitators who provide information about different varieties of the target language and supply cultural knowledge that they acquired at home and in the community. On the other hand, to support SLLs, teachers must also stress the goal of intelligibility sounding like a native speaker. The inclusion of this learning goal raises awareness of the fact that multilinguals have unbalanced skills in their different languages. Metacognition and metalinguistic awareness

Metacognition can be defined as ‘an awareness of and reflection on one’s knowledge, experiences, emotions, and learning’ (Haukås, 2018: 15), while metalinguistic awareness refers to the ability to reflect on language

282  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

and language learning. The MADE indicator Metacognition and metalinguistic awareness stresses the importance of helping students prepare and plan for learning, use strategies to monitor learning, and improve metalinguistic awareness to reflect upon language and draw on existing language knowledge to support further language development. Metacognition and the ability to employ metacognitive strategies have been associated with success in second language learning (Oxford, 2011). While multilinguals generally exceed monolinguals in their ability to use metacognition and metalinguistic awareness (Jessner, 2018), HLLs, who have typically learned the language in naturalistic settings, have less developed metacognitive and metalinguistic skills compared with SLLs (Correa, 2011). It has been suggested that HLLs’ inability to follow metalinguistic discussions about language in mixed-language classrooms can negatively affect their motivation and even lead to an increase in dropout rates (Bayona, 2019). Thus, mixed-language classes should have a strong focus on metacognitive and metalinguistic skills, with SLLs serving as mentors for HLLs (Fernandez-Dobao, 2020). Multiliteracy

While the indicator Teaching materials underscores the role of multilingual resources, the indicator Multiliteracy focuses on learners and on how to promote literacy practices across languages. The term literacy has traditionally been associated with the cognitive skills related to reading and writing, but this conceptualization of literacy no longer seems sufficient in the multilingual and digital world of the 21st century. It has been claimed that multilinguals display complex literacy behaviors that are characterized by ‘variability, hybridity, and sensemaking processes’ (García et al., 2007: 208). HLLs tend to consider their literacy skills to be weaker than their oral language skills, and they often enroll in language classes with a goal to gain literacy (Carreira & Kagan, 2011). For both HLLs and SLLs, developing strong literacy skills in the target language may be a predictor of gaining employment in languagerelated professions (Lombart-Huesca, 2017). To foster multiliteracy development in mixed-language classrooms, teachers can draw on learners’ literacy practices in other languages or language varieties to enable transfer of literacy skills, use oral skills as a foundation for literacy development (Carreira, 2012), and provide literacy materials in different formats and media and at various proficiency levels (Anstey & Bull, 2011). Teachers should also encourage both HLLs and SLLs to extend their literacy practices to contexts outside of the classroom. Teacher and learner language use

The last MADE indicator is Teacher and learner language use. It focuses on how teachers can adjust teacher talk for the proficiency levels

Implementing the Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE)  283

of their learners, provide clear explanations of classroom activities, employ a variety of techniques to make concepts clear and act as model multilinguals. It also stresses the importance of engaging learners’ full linguistic repertoires in both oral and written communication and giving learners opportunities to clarify concepts in a language of their choice. Comprehensible input is unanimously recognized as a crucial factor for second language acquisition (Echevarría et al., 2008; Krashen & Terrell, 1983), but the challenge for teachers working in mixed-language classrooms is to differentiate for language based on students’ varied proficiency levels in terms of their oral language and literacy skills (Carreira & Kagan, 2011; Valdés, 2001). Increasingly, however, there has been a move in the field of second language acquisition away from target-language only approaches towards the use of multilingual pedagogies that validate the use of learners’ full linguistic resources in the process of language learning (Conteh & Meier, 2014; May, 2019). An important aspect of multilinguallyoriented approaches to language teaching, translanguaging, or a flexible use of linguistic resources by multilinguals, has been recognized as normal linguistic behavior of multilinguals and a valuable pedagogical practice. As both HLLs and SLLs may persist in monolingual views of language that dictate a strict separation of languages, it is important for teachers to model translingual practices to enhance crosslinguistic transfer and promote multilingual proficiency. This ties into creating a multilingual space in classrooms where different varieties of the target language and students’ home languages are supported and strategically incorporated in course content. For instance, students are encouraged to use their full linguistic repertoires when working on problems together and discussing ideas. Following these activities, they provide answers in the target language. In this way, students can have the opportunity to showcase their multilingualism and freely converse in languages that they are comfortable with while pushing themselves to attain learning outcomes. Implementing MADE: A spotlight on a Korean mixed-language classroom

The brief instructional overview in this section demonstrates how MADE can be used in planning for instruction in a mixed-language classroom with Korean HLLs and SLLs. It is based on the direct experiences of one of the authors who taught in a college-level mixedlanguage Korean classroom. Relevant MADE indicators are provided in square brackets. Level of language proficiency

The lesson is designed for Korean HLLs and SLLs between A2 and B1 using Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR; Council of Europe, n.d.) or between Intermediate Low to Intermediate Mid-levels

284  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

for listening, speaking, reading, and writing using the American Council on Teaching Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL, 2012). Course goal

[MADE indicator: language and culture attitudes]: To develop knowledge and skills for intercultural competence. Time frame

90-minutes Lesson topic

Cultural differences and misunderstandings between the United States and Korea. Performance objectives

(1) LWBAT1 identify three cultural differences between food and customs for dining with family members between the United States and Korea. (2) LWBAT retell a story that depicts a cultural misunderstanding between Americans and Koreans and that can be considered humorous. Prior knowledge

SLLs and HLLs are already familiar with the structure of narrative text. They have also been introduced to some cultural differences between Korea and the United States in a previous class. Instructional tasks

[MADE indicators: classroom as a multilingual space, developing and using teaching materials; interaction and grouping configurations, metacognition and metalinguistic awareness, multiliteracy, teacher and learner language use]: prior to participation in this activity, students are given access to digital materials online. The online materials are in the form of written texts that focus on culture and customs related to Korean family dining, particularly table manners. The written texts are available to learners in both Korean and English. The multi-media texts are only available in Korean. The lesson begins with a group brainstorming activity. Students work in small groups with varying combinations of HLLs and SLLs in each group. The teacher should make it clear to students that during group brainstorming activities, they can use other languages they have in common to clarify words and concepts or to ask questions, as depicted in Excerpt 1. Excerpt 1 depicts a brainstorming session as students are drafting the storyline for their humorous cultural misunderstanding. There are three students in this group, one HLL and two SLLs.

Implementing the Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE)  285

Excerpt 1

Teacher: 그럼여러분들이편한언어를사용해서함께스토리라인 (storyline) 을만들어보세요. (Collaborate with your team members to come up with a storyline using the language(s) that are comfortable for you.) HLL: Let’s come up with a situation where we have 저녁 (dinner) with 우리가족 (my family). 예를들어 (for example), 미국학생이 (an American student) starts eating 음식 (food) before the parents do, so everyone looks at the student awkwardly. SLL 1: 네, 좋아요! (Yes, that sounds good!) SLL 2: 재미있겠네요! (That would be fun!) We can also add 한국학생이 (the Korean student) trying to explain the 식사예절 (table manners) to indirectly let the parents know that he or she did not know about it.

After the brainstorming session, the small groups draft, in writing, a humorous story that illustrates a cultural misunderstanding between Americans and Koreans. The students approach the writing task in different ways. Some groups focus on writing a series of sentences in chronological order and add pictures while others create a written script or dialog that they could later use to present their work to the whole class. All groups use different language skills during the writing process. For example, in one group the HLL dictate ideas in Korean to SLLs, while SLLs write down the ideas. While HLLs act as experts on cultural knowledge, SLLs support their HLL peers by providing metalinguistic explanations (e.g. thinking aloud about what verb forms to choose to write their story) or by asking HLLs questions about how the Korean language works, which advance HLLs metacognitive skills. To answer a metalinguistic question from the SLL1, the HLL has to think about his knowledge of the HL and apply this knowledge in metalinguistics terms, for example, how register is interpreted and how specific conjugations of verb phrases affect one’s intended register. Excerpt 2 illustrates an interaction between students as they discuss table manners. Excerpt 2

SLL 1: I read that there are certain expressions that you need to use before and after you eat. HLL: Yes, you would say ‘잘먹겠습니다’. It literally means ‘I will eat well’. 밥먹은다음에는 (after eating), you would show appreciation by saying ‘잘먹었습니다 (I ate well)’. SLL 2: Do you know how to say these expressions in the polite style? HLL: We just say them in the deferential style as fixed expressions. SLL 2: But how would you conjugate them? HLL: I think it would be something like ‘잘먹…’ SLL 1: Would they be ‘잘먹을게요 (I will eat well)’ and ‘잘먹었어요 (I ate well)?’ HLL: That sounds right, but it sounds less polite.

286  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

Each group determines how to present their final products to the whole class, for example, as a comic strip, a picture book, a short story or a drama performance. Final products are displayed on an online learning platform (e.g. as pdfs, video recordings of students’ performances or online books using storyjumper, which is an online resource that enables learners to create books and video books individually or in collaboration with others [https://www.storyjumper.com]), and learners are given questions, such as opened-ended and opinion-type questions, which encourage interaction with the content of the multilingual space. Discussion

Mixed-language classrooms consisting of HLLs and SLLs posit both challenges and opportunities for language teachers (Carreira, 2004, 2016). Without a doubt, innovative approaches are needed for mixed-language contexts to enhance language learning for both groups of learners. In the Spotlight example above, we illustrated how MADE, which we see as an innovative approach to working with diverse learners in educational settings, can be successfully implemented in mixed-language classrooms. First, the teacher carefully planned the aspects of classwork related to the indicator Teacher and learner language use. While the teacher provided input in Korean, during group work, she encouraged learners to take advantage of their complete linguistic repertoires to participate in the small group instructional tasks. Research suggests that small group work can be effective for HLLs and SLLs because their varying knowledge and skills ‘are often complementary, that is, one group’s strengths are the other group’s weaknesses’ (Fernández-Dobao, 2020: 50). Interaction with online materials in advance of group work allowed both HLLs and SLLs to prepare for group tasks according to their individual needs, thereby addressing the MADE indicator, Developing and using teaching materials, as these materials met the proficiency levels of HLLs and SLLs relative to language skills. The online books created on storyjumper included multimodal texts using visual and linguistic semiotic systems (Anstey & Bull, 2011; Christison & Murray, 2020), which promoted the MADE indicator, Multiliteracy. The teacher considered MADE indicators, Interaction and grouping configurations, when assigning the students to mixed HLL and SLL groups, which in turn enabled her to include the indicator Metacognition and metalinguistic awareness. In Excerpt 2 in the Spotlight example, the HLL easily came up with examples of what a Korean speaker would say in a given situation. However, in order to answer a question from SLL1, the HLL had to think about his knowledge of the HL and apply this knowledge in metalinguistic terms, for example how register was interpreted and how specific conjugations of verb phrases would affect register. The different strengths among learners allowed them to work

Implementing the Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE)  287

successfully in small groups to create a written product and determine how to share it with their peers. These different processes directly addressed the MADE indicators, Interaction and grouping configurations and Teacher and learner language use. To address the MADE indicator, Classroomas a multilingual space, the instructor in the Spotlight example created an online space using Canvas or Google Classroom on which final products were displayed (e.g. as pdf documents or as video recordings of students’ performances). Learners were asked to visit the online space and complete several activities. In this way, the online multilingual space was used in much the same way as it would be in face-to-face classrooms. To assist the learners in achieving course goals and specifically Performance Objective 2, MADE indicator, Language and culture attitudes, the teacher decided to use small group work, configuring each group with one HLL and multiple SLLs, thereby giving learners opportunities to interact and addressing MADE indicator, Interaction and grouping configurations. HLLs and SLLs often have different levels of understanding regarding register and speech styles with HLLs having more experience with informal varieties (Carreira, 2004, 2016; Carreira & Kagan, 2011). The presence of each of the MADE indicators in the Spotlight example is not meant to imply that all of the MADE indicators must be included in each lesson. MADE indicators are meant to guide teachers in mixed-language classrooms during the design and delivery of instruction and to provide support to teachers as they move from a monolingual view of language education to a multilingual, and more transparent view. In some lessons, all seven of indicators may be present, while in others, there may be only two or three. Concluding Remarks

In this chapter, we proposed the Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE) (Christison et al., 2021) as a way to empower both teachers and learners in mixed-language classrooms to draw on HLLs and SLLs multilingual resources. We provided a summary of the model, supporting each of its seven indicators with relevant research in applied linguistics, second language acquisition, multilingualism and, for HLLs, we illustrated how the model can be implemented with an example from a mixed Korean HLL and SLL classroom. When creating materials and planning lessons for mixed-language learners, determining a language proficiency level is an important and necessary component in the design process. HLLs and SLLs typically have not achieved the same levels of proficiency nor have their language skills developed uniformly. Identifying language proficiency levels for instructional tasks is important for instructional purposes as it

288  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

reminds teachers to focus on the language needs of learners, provides consistency in terms of spoken and written input, and affords teachers opportunities to conduct formative assessments in situ to verify learner progress over time. High quality professional learning for teachers is made up of a combination of at least the following characteristics: (a) learning is contextual, (b) learning is available across time and (c) learning accesses external expertise (Buck & Francis, 2011; Husbands, 2011). Professional learning that is contextual means that it is grounded in the experience of teaching. MADE guides teachers in trying activities and approaches to learning in their classes and making changes based on reflection. Teachers need multiple opportunities for learning over an extended period of time because quality professional learning is not a one-off experience. Using MADE allows teachers to understand not only how an individual lesson contributes to enacting the multilingual turn (May, 2019) but also how multiple lessons can be considered and used as a basis for reflection on the degree to which one’s instruction is consistent with the multilingual approach, and, thereby, promotes a multilingual (rather than a monolingual) view of education in mixedlanguage classrooms with HLLs and SLLs. External expertise may come from several sources, including informal interactions with other teachers or a combination of facilitated experiences, such as in person or online workshops. It is also important to remember that external expertise may also originate from the frequent use of instructional tools, such as MADE, which introduce teachers to ideas that connect theory to practice, provide support, and stimulate thinking. MADE is an instructional design tool that is holistic and research-based and at the same time straightforward to implement. As such, it supports teaching practices that enhance language learning concurrently in all populations of mixed-language classrooms. Further Reading Carreira, M. (2016) A general framework and supporting strategies for teaching mixed classes. In D. Pascual y Cabo (ed.) Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp. 159–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Christison, M.A., Krulatz, A. and Sevinç, Y. (2021) Working with teachers and young learners in multilingual classrooms: Introducing the multilingual approach to diversity in education (MADE). In J. Rokita-Jaśkow and A. Wolanin (eds) Second Language Learning and Teaching: Facing Diversity in Child Foreign Language Education (pp. 271–289). Cham: Springer. Jo, H-Y. (2010) ‘Heritage’ language learning and ethnic identity: Korean Americans’ struggle with language authorities. Language, Culture and Curriculum 14 (1), 26–41. Joo Kim, E. (2004) Korean-English bilinguals and heritage language maintenance. The Korean Language in America 9, 244–258. Lee, H.S. and Shin, S.J. (eds) (2008) Korean as a heritage language (Special Issue). Heritage Language Journal 6 (2).

Implementing the Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE)  289

Beyond the Reading (1) In your view, what are the most urgent challenges and the most important opportunities when working with Korean HLLs? (2) Which of the MADE indicators do you think would be the most applicable in your context? How would you implement it?

Note (1) Learners will be able to = LWBAT.

References ACTFL (2012) ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012. See https://www.actfl.org/resources/ actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012. Anstey, M. and Bull, G. (2011) Helping teachers to explore multimodal texts. Curriculum and Leadership Journal 8 (16). See http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/helping_ teachers_to_explore_mul-%20timodal%20texts,31522.html?issuesID=12141. Aronin, L. and Singleton, D. (2008) Multilingualism as a new linguistic dispensation. International Journal of Multilingualism 5 (1), 1–16. Bayona, P. (2019) ‘Saber español sí sirve.’ Academic validation of Spanish as a heritage language. Open Linguistics 5, 69–80. Beaudrie, S. (2012) Research on university-based Spanish heritage language programs in the United States: The current state of affairs. In D. Beaudrie and M. Fairclough (eds) Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States: The State of the Field (pp. 203–221). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Beaudrie, S., Ducar, C. and Potowski, K. (2014) Heritage Language Teaching: Research and Practice. New York: McGraw Hill. Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S. and Polinksy, M. (2013) Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 39, 129–181. Blake, R.J. and Zyzik, E.C. (2003) Who’s helping whom?: Learner/heritage-speakers’ networked discussions in Spanish. Applied Linguistics 24 (4), 519–544. Bowles, M.A. (2011) Exploring the role of modality: L2-heritage learner interactions in the Spanish learner classroom. Heritage Language Journal 8 (1), 30–65. Bowles, M.A., Adams, R.J. and Toth, P.D. (2014) A comparison of L2-L2 and L2-heritage learner interactions in Spanish language classrooms. Modern Language Journal 98 (2), 497–517. Buck, A. and Francis, L. (2011) Teaching schools: Time for schools to take the lead. Professional Development Today 14 (2), 64–68. Burgo, C. (2017) Meeting student needs: Integrating Spanish heritage language learners into the second language classroom. Hispania 100 (5), 45–50. Carreira, M. (2004) Seeking explanatory adequacy: A dual approach to understanding the term ‘Heritage Language Learner’. Heritage Language Journal 2 (1), 1–25. Carreira, M. (2012) Meeting the instructional needs of heritage language learners: Approaches, strategies, and research. In S. Beaudrie and M. Fairclough (eds) Spanish as a Heritage Language in the US: State of the Science (pp. 223–240). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Carreira, M. (2014) Teaching heritage language learners: A study of program profiles, practices, and needs. In A. Themistoklis and P. Trifonas (eds) Rethinking Heritage Language Education (pp. 20–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

290  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

Carreira, M. (2016) A general framework and supporting strategies for teaching mixed classes. In D. Pascual y Cabo (ed.) Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp. 159–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Carreira, M. and Kagan, O. (2011) The results of the national heritage language survey: Implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign Language Annals 44 (1), 40–64. Carreira, M. and Kagan, O. (2018) Heritage language education. A proposal for the next 50 years. Foreign Language Annals 51 (1), 152–168. Cenoz, J. (2013) Defining multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 33, 3–18. Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2014) Focus on multilingualism as an approach in educational contexts. In A. Creese and A. Blackledge (eds) Heteroglossia as Practice and Pedagogy (pp. 239–254). New York: Springer. Christison, M.A. and Murray, D. (2020) An overview of multilingual learners’ literacy needs in the 21st century. In G. Neokleous, A. Krulatz and R. Farrelly (eds) The Handbook of Research on Cultivating Literacy in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms (pp. 1–21). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Christison, M.A., Krulatz, A. and Sevinç, Y. (2021) Working with teachers and young learners in multilingual classrooms: Introducing the multilingual approach to diversity in education (MADE). In J. Rokita-Jaśkow and A. Wolanin (eds) Second Language Learning and Teaching: Facing Diversity in Child Foreign Language Education (pp. 271–289). Cham: Springer. Coelho, E. (2012) Language and Learning in Multilingual Classrooms: A Practical Approach. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Conteh, J. and Meier, G. (eds) (2014) The Multilingual Turn in Languages Education: Opportunities and Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cook, V. (1995) Multi-competence and the learning of many languages. Language, Culture and Curriculum 8 (2), 93–98. Correa, M. (2011) Advocating for critical pedagogical approaches to teaching Spanish as a heritage language: Some considerations. Foreign Language Annals 44 (2), 308–320. Council of Europe (n.d) The common European framework of reference (CEFR). See https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/leveldescriptions. Cummins, J. (2000) Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 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. Cummins, J. (2017) Teaching for transfer in multilingual school contexts. In O. García, A. Lin and S. May (eds) Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 103–115). Cham: Springer. Echevarría, J., Vogt, M. and Short, D. (2008) Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners. The SIOP Model. New York: Pearson. Edstrom, A. (2007) The mixing of non-native, heritage, and native speakers in upper-level Spanish courses: A sampling of student opinion. Hispania 90 (4), 755–768. Fernández-Dobao, A. (2020) Collaborative writing in mixed classes: What do heritage and second language learners think? Foreign Language Annals 53 (1), 48–68. Fishman, J.A. (2001) 300-plus years of heritage language education in the United States. In J.K. Peyton, D.A. Ranard and S. McGinnis (eds) Heritage Language Education in America: Preserving a National Resource (pp. 81–99). Washington, DC: DeltaSystems/ Center for Applied Linguistics. Franceschini, R. (2011) Multilingualism and multicompetence: A conceptual view. The Modern Language Journal 95 (3), 344–355.

Implementing the Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE)  291

García, I. and Blanco, G. (2000) Spanish for native speakers: K-12 considerations. In Spanish for Native Speakers: AATSP Professional Development Series Handbook (vol. 1, pp. 85–89). San Diego, CA: Harcourt. García, O., Bartlett, L. and Kleifgen, J.A. (2007) From biliteracy to pluriliteracies. In P. Auer and L. Wei (eds) Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Education (pp. 207–228). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. George, A. and Salgado-Robles, F. (2018) Raising awareness about heritage language learners in the L2 Spanish classroom: Teacher beliefs and attitudes. Elia 18 (1), 157–181. Grosjean, F. (2010) Bilingual: Life and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Haukås, A. (2018) Metacognition in language learning and teaching. In A. Haukås, C. Bjørke and M. Dypedahl (eds) Metacognition in Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 11–30). New York: Routledge. Henshaw, F. (2015) Learning outcomes of L2-heritage learner interaction: The proof is in the posttest. Heritage Language Journal 12 (3), 245–270. Husbands, C. (2011) Towards a framework for professional learning. Professional Development Today 4 (2), 6–11. Jee, M.J. (2016) Exploring Korean heritage language learners’ anxiety: ‘We are not afraid of Korean!’ Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 37 (1), 56–74. Jessner, U. (2018) Metacognition in multilingual learning: A DMM perspective. In A. Haukås, C. Bjørke and M. Dypedahl (eds) Metacognition in Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 31–47). New York: Routledge. Katz, S. (2003) Near-native speakers in the foreign-language classroom: The case of Haitian immigrant students. In C. Blyth (ed.) The Sociolinguistics of Foreign-Language Classrooms: Contributions of the Native, the Near-native, and the Non-native Speaker (pp. 107–129). Boston, MA: Heinle. Kramsch, C. (2012) Authenticity and legitimacy in multilingual SLA. Critical Multilingualism Studies 1 (1), 107–128. Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. (1983) The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. New York: Pergamon Press. Li, W. (2008) Research perspectives on bilingualism and multilingualism. In Li Wei and M.G. Moyer (eds) The Blackwell Handbook of Research Methods on Bilingualism and Multilingualism (pp. 3–17). Oxford: Blackwell. Lombart-Huesca, A. (2017) Spanish heritage language learners: Let’s not avoid metalinguistic knowledge. Hispania 100 (5), 277–278. May, S. (2019) Negotiating the multilingual turn in SLA. The Modern Language Journal 103 (Supplement 2019), 122–129. Montrul, S. (2008) Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism. Re-examining the Age Factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Montrul, S. (2016) The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mueller Gathercole, V.C. (2002) Command of the mass/count distinction in bilingual and monolingual children. An English morphosyntactic distinction. In D.K. Oller and R. EIlers (eds) Language and Literacy in Bilingual Children (pp. 175–206). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ortega, L. (2020) Conceptual review article. The study of heritage language development from a bilingualism and social justice perspective. Language Learning 70 (1), 15–53. Oxford, R.L. (2011) Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Phinney, J.S., Romero, I., Nava, M. and Huang, D. (2001) The role of language, parents, and peers in ethnic identity among adolescents of immigrant families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 30 (2), 250–269. Potowski, K. (2002) Experiences of Spanish heritage speakers in university foreign language courses and implications for teacher training. ADFL Bulletin 33 (3), 35–42.

292  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

Prada, J. and Guerrero-Rodríguez, P. (2020) Heritage language anxiety in two Spanish language classroom environments: A comparative mixed methods study. Heritage Language Journal 17 (1), 92–133. https://doi.org/10.465381/hlj.17.1.4. Russell, B. and Kuriscak, L. (2015) High school Spanish teachers’ attitudes and practices toward Spanish heritage learners. Foreign Language Annals 48 (3), 413–433. Sevinç, Y. and Dewaele, J-M. (2018) Heritage language anxiety and majority language anxiety among Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingualism 22 (2), 159–179. https://doi.10.1177//1367006916661635. Silva-Corvalán, C. (2003) Linguistic consequences of reduced input in bilingual first language acquisition. In S. Montrul and F. Ordoñez (eds) Linguistic Theory and Language Development in Hispanic Languages (pp. 375–397). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. Thomas, J. (1988) The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third language learning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9 (3), 235–246. Valdés, G. (2001) Bilingualism, heritage language learners, and SLA research: Opportunities lost or seized? The Modern Language Journal 89 (3), 410–426. Wilkinson, S.L. (2010) A survey of Utah Spanish teachers regarding the instruction of heritage language students of Spanish. MA Thesis, Brigham Young University. Winke, P. and Stafford, C. (2002) Selecting materials to teach Spanish to Spanish speakers. ERIC Digest ED464516. ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics.

13 Developing Compound Awareness by Translanguaging: The Design of Learning Activities for Multilingual Classrooms Sandra Martini and Jacopo Torregrossa

Introduction

More than 20% of European school-age children have a migrant background, including children born in non-European countries or European countries different from the one of residence, or coming from families with one or both migrant parents (OECD, 2018). As a result, children bring into class a variety of languages as well as proficiencies in the home and school language. It is not uncommon for teachers to consider children’s home languages as an obstacle for learning (Agirdag et al., 2014; Duarte, 2019). The questionnaire study by De Angelis (2011) indicates a discrepancy between teachers’ beliefs and practices concerning multilingualism. On the one hand, teachers seem to be aware of the linguistic and cognitive advantages of being bi-/multilingual and encourage families to maintain the use of the home language with their children. On the other hand, the integration of the different home languages into classroom practices is met with some resistance. Some teachers think that the use of the home language at school interferes with the learning of the school language and is responsible for migrant children’s lower levels of literacy attainment (Agirdag et al., 2014; De Angelis, 2011). Some others wonder in how far children who speak the school language at home benefit from the integration of other children’s home languages into classroom activities. 293

294  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

By contrast, in recent years, there has been an increasing number of projects across Europe promoting the use of home languages in class. The aim of these projects is to leverage children’s full linguistic repertoire during classroom activities. For example, teachers may encourage children to compare words, sentences or texts in the language of school and their home languages. Groups of children may discuss ideas or take notes in the home language. In other words, children are able to participate in classroom activities using all their linguistic resources. This results in the development of multilingual pedagogies that empower children’s linguistic identities, support home language literacy and enhance children’s openness towards linguistic plurality in the class (see the detailed description of the projects in Candelier et al., 2012; Carbonara & Scibetta, 2020; Duarte, 2020). The present contribution is inspired by these projects. As we will argue below, the benefits of multilingual pedagogies go beyond the empowerment of migrant children’s linguistic identities. The involvement of the entire linguistic repertoire of the class in teaching and learning activities gives all children – including children who speak the school language at home – the unique opportunity to reflect upon language. This leads to the development of children’s metalinguistic awareness, which can be defined as the ability to focus one’s own attention to the formal aspects of certain linguistic expressions, independently of their meaning (Karmiloff-Smith, 1992). For example, metalinguistic awareness allows children to identify errors and correct them, understand grammatical patterns and rules and reflect on form-function mappings in a certain language (such as the mapping between the morpheme -s in English and the expression of plurality; see Jessner, 2010, and Torregrossa et al., 2022, for a review on metalinguistic awareness). A component of metalinguistic awareness is also the understanding of the arbitrariness of language signs (Bialystok, 2001). Several studies have indicated that metalinguistic awareness is one of the main indicators of children’s academic success (Bialystok, 2001, as a main reference). In this sense, translanguaging is a powerful didactic tool for the development of children’s metalinguistic representations. Translanguaging is intended here as a ‘pedagogical practice which deliberately switches the language mode of input and output in bilingual [multilingual, A/N] classrooms’ (Lewis et al., 2012). This pedagogical practice is rooted in a theoretical view of bilingual speakers as deploying their full linguistic repertoire ‘without regard for watchful adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named (and usually national and state) languages’ (Otheguy et al., 2015: 281). As we will explain below, the progressive formation of metalinguistic representations involves an inductive approach to learning and teaching. Children use the linguistic structures in the different home languages spoken in the class as a set of observations to be interpreted

Developing Compound Awareness by Translanguaging  295

and accounted for. Then, based on these observations, they draw inferences and generalizations, building their own theory of language (cf. Karmiloff-Smith, 1992). In this process, teachers play the role of facilitators of knowledge. Based on the idea that translanguaging has positive effects on children’s metalinguistic abilities, we will present some didactic activities fostering children’s understanding of the linguistic mechanisms underlying the formation of complex words. We will show that children are able to formulate generalizations on the structure of complex words, by reflecting on how the home languages of the class are similar (or different) to each other in the formation of complex words. As we will show, children’s ability to develop metalinguistic representations associated with the notions of ‘word’ and ‘compound’ is one of the main predictors of their literacy achievements, in terms of reading and writing skills. In this sense, multilingual pedagogies are useful to boost the development of metalinguistic representations, and literacy abilities more in general, by encouraging children to reflect on similarities and differences between the different languages spoken in the class. The Benefits of Multilingual Teaching Strategies for Children’s Metalinguistic Awareness

In the last two decades, several studies have shown that many language education programs are informed by a ‘monolithic’ approach to language teaching (e.g. Cummins, 2019). According to this approach, language teaching must involve the exclusive use of the target language. In the context of bilingual schools, this is tantamount to saying that the two languages should be kept separate from each other, each being assigned a dedicated ‘instructional route’ (Lambert, 1984). This corresponds to what Cummins (2007) calls the ‘two-solitudes’ approach. In educational programs that are not, strictly speaking, bilingual (such as monolingual state schools attended, among others, by emergent bilinguals), the two-solitudes approach results in discouraging (if not prohibiting) children from using their home language at school. The common underlying assumption is that in order to facilitate language learning, teachers should maximize exposure to the target language and avoid any (negative) inference from other language(s) which are part of children’s repertoire. In other words, children’s language repertoire is not allocated any significant role in the learning of the school language. The ‘two-solitudes’ approach has been questioned based on theoretical and empirical arguments. Since Cummins’ first formulation of the common underlying proficiency (CUP) hypothesis (cf. Cummins, 1979, 1981, 2000), it has become evident that certain components of language knowledge are shared across a bilingual’s two languages (especially ‘the cognitive/ academic proficiency that underlies performance in both languages’,

296  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

Cummins, 2000: 38; Bongartz & Torregrossa, 2020). Among these components, one might include metalinguistic awareness, intended as the ability to take language as an object of attention that can be analyzed, manipulated and reflected upon (e.g. Bialystok, 2001; KarmiloffSmith, 1992; Sharwood Smith, 2021; see also the Introduction to this chapter). The CUP-hypothesis implies that metalinguistic concepts developed through a language may contribute to the development of the corresponding concepts in the other language (Francis, 2012). For example, if children have developed the concept of compound word in a language, they can apply this knowledge to identify and reflect upon compound words in their other language (see below). This suggests that (at least some) metalinguistic concepts do not develop separately for each language. Rather, the two language systems interact dynamically with each other, while children are in the process of building their own theory concerning the linguistic phenomenon at stake (e.g. compound structure). In a recent study, Torregrossa et al. (2022) compared Greek– Italian bilingual children’s ability to note and explain grammatical errors in Italian across two different tasks. While one task was performed in a monolingual mode (being entirely in Italian), the other comprised correct and incorrect sentences in both languages (Italian and Greek), and thus involved the bilinguals’ other language. Crucially, the latter task – in which both languages were activated – enhanced children’s ability to detect, correct and explain errors in Italian. This suggests that children’s metalinguistic awareness in one language may benefit from a more or less explicit comparison between the target language (on which the metalinguistic reflection focuses) and the bilinguals’ other language. From a more applied perspective, the importance of recognizing children’s home language(s) in class has been highlighted by several scholars arguing in favor of a translanguaging approach to language teaching (see García & Li, 2014, for a review; see also Carbonara & Scibetta, 2020; Cummins, 2019; Duarte, 2019; García & Sanchez, 2015, for a description of different translanguaging projects). Within the field of education, translanguaging is an umbrella term for pedagogical practices that support and encourage the involvement of learners’ whole linguistic repertoire during classroom activities (see the Introduction). Up to now, the benefits of translanguaging pedagogies have been mostly analyzed from a sociolinguistic perspective. Monolithic approaches to language teaching often reflect a hierarchical view of languages: the school language – which often coincides with the language of society – is considered as superior compared to children’s home languages. Furthermore, some languages spoken by students in the class may be perceived as more important than others because of their supposed greater social prestige (Lewis et al., 2012). By including children’s home languages in classroom activities independently of their prestige, multilingual pedagogies balance these inequalities between

Developing Compound Awareness by Translanguaging  297

languages (e.g. Allard, 2017; Duarte, 2019). As we will show below, all languages in the class are relevant for the development of teaching activities in support of the learning process. As a result, competence in the school language is not considered as the only criterion for the evaluation of children’s school achievements. Children bring their own language expertise to the class – independently of any ‘objective’ assessment of their competence in the different languages – and are thus motivated to contribute to classroom activities to their fullest potential. In other words, children are empowered to learn through their full linguistic repertoire, which enhances their confidence and motivation (Carbonara & Scibetta, 2020; Cummins, 2019; García & Lin, 2017). Another relevant aspect of some translanguaging projects consists in getting the children’s families involved. For example, teachers may invite parents to school and ask them to use their languages in the class, e.g. by reading stories of their home country or community (Celic & Seltzer, 2011). In this way, educators promote the use of home languages in the school (Cenoz, 2017), ensure continuity between home and school language practices (Caloi & Torregrossa, 2021) and transform children’s beliefs and attitudes towards other languages in a positive way. To summarize, translanguaging pedagogies allow teachers and students to ‘develop new language practices and sustain old ones, communicate appropriate knowledge and give voice to new sociopolitical realities’ (García & Kano, 2014: 261; see also Cenoz & Gorter, 2015; García et al., 2017). In this chapter, we follow a slightly different approach, focusing on the positive effects of translanguaging on children’s metalinguistic abilities. Recent research on the relationship between translanguaging and metalinguistic awareness has developed in two main directions. On the one hand, teachers and researchers have collaborated in designing teaching activities involving comparisons between the school language and children’s home languages. For example, Celic and Seltzer (2011) introduce a didactic activity aiming to show how English and Spanish differ from each other in nominal modification (i.e. prenominal adjectives in English vs postnominal adjectives in Spanish). By means of these activities, children are encouraged to reflect upon differences and similarities between the languages in the class (Celic & Seltzer, 2011). On the other hand, very recent studies have demonstrated that exposure to translanguaging practices in school has a positive effect on the development of children’s metalinguistic/metacognitive abilities (Carbonara et al., 2021; Torregrossa et al., 2022). For example, Carbonara et al. (2021) compared two groups of children (ranging in age between 9 and 10 years) in their reasoning abilities. In particular, they analyzed children’s narrative production in terms of story grammar categories (i.e. information related to the sequence of events and to characters’ mental states) and advanced mentalizing abilities. Both groups attended a monolingual state school in Italy (i.e. the elementary school in Prato described below), but only

298  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

one group was exposed to a translanguaging pedagogy (see below for a description of the translanguaging-based activities implemented in this school, which involved more than five different home languages in most cases). The two groups were comparable in terms of socioeconomic status, class composition (intended as the proportion between children speaking Italian at home and children speaking another home language) and amount of exposure to Italian or a different language across different activities outside school. The results of the study showed that the children in translanguaging classes performed significantly better than their peers attending monolingual instructional programs both in terms of story grammar scores and advanced mentalizing abilities. Notably, the benefits of translanguaging were visible across the board, independently of whether children’s home language was Italian or another language. In the present chapter, we aim to contribute to the design of translanguaging-based teaching activities fostering children’s metalinguistic abilities as related to the formation of compound words in English and Italian. These didactic activities are meant to help children in the formation of metalinguistic representations in a progressive way, so that an activity at Stage 1 of the teaching sequence paves the way for the following activity at Stage 2. In this way, we aim to contribute to the identification of some teaching practices which may be useful for the development of children’s metalinguistic abilities. Before presenting our didactic materials, we will briefly introduce the inductive teaching and learning methods that inform the different stages of our didactic activities (see below). Then, we will show how the understanding of the processes of word formation across different languages may be helpful for the development of children’s metacognitive knowledge (see below). We would like to point out once again that the research on the metacognitive advantages of translanguaging is still at its initial stage. This may be one of the reasons why some teachers still regard translanguaging pedagogies with some resistance. For example, based on a questionnaire study conducted on 775 teachers in Flanders (Belgium), Pulinx et al. (2017) showed that most teachers (77.3%) believed that migrant children should not be allowed to speak their home language at school. Likewise, only few teachers (5%) were in favor of exposing migrant children to literacy in their home language at school. Among the principal areas of concern is the fear that the use of multiple languages in class may lead to confusion or even incomplete acquisition of the language of schooling (Ticheloven et al., 2021). Alternatively, teachers may recognize the positive effects of translanguaging on emergent bilinguals’ academic proficiency, but doubt that these positive effects extend to children who speak the language of school at home or master it fully. By contrast, some studies found that children’s metalinguistic abilities benefit from translanguaging at school, without leading to any confusion among children. For example, Ascenzi-Moreno and

Developing Compound Awareness by Translanguaging  299

Espinosa (2018) considered the written texts produced by students in an English public secondary school. Teachers allowed the students to write their texts in both English and their home language or take notes in their home language before writing in English. Notably, the English texts produced under these conditions were more complex in terms of structure and organization of ideas than when the writing activity involved only English (see also García & Kano, 2014, for similar evidence concerning Japanese second language learners of English). Furthermore, we would like to point out once again that the benefits of translanguaging for children’s metalinguistic abilities seem to involve all children in a class, independently of their home language (see reference to Carbonara et al., 2021). On conclusion, the debate on the role of translanguaging for the fostering of metalinguistic abilities is still open. This chapter intends to address this issue and contribute – along with the above-mentioned studies and the ones contained in this volume – to the promotion of multilingual pedagogies at school. Children as Active Constructors of Language Theories: The Role of Translanguaging

The didactic material that we will introduce in this contribution will be informed by an inductive approach to language learning and teaching (Prince & Felder, 2006). Deductive approaches consist in teaching children general rules and principles and then asking them to apply these principles in exercises and homework. As a result, teachers play a central role in the learning process. By contrast, inductive approaches place children at the center of the learning experience. This involves acknowledging that before starting the activities, children have a certain degree of knowledge concerning the content to be learnt. In the domain of language learning (as considered in this contribution), this knowledge may involve mastery of a linguistic phenomenon (i.e. the ability to use it in an unconscious way) or some sort of (more or less explicit) representation of its linguistic form or function (KarmiloffSmith, 1992; Torregrossa et al., 2022). Furthermore, one should consider whether children already possess the cognitive skills that are required for shuttling between the planned activities (e.g. translation skills, analogical thinking, etc.). Throughout the learning activities, children develop metalinguistic representations that become more and more explicit, based on the observation of new linguistic data and children’s ability to draw inferences from these observations. Thus, language is taken as an object of observation to be analyzed and interpreted, just like any other object of natural science. While learning, children are supposed to build their own theory concerning language and the linguistic phenomenon at stake in an active way.

300  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

Against this background, the use of translanguaging in class is supposed to enhance the process of metalinguistic questioning and exploration. In other words, it has the function of extending the empirical basis on which children will build their linguistic theories. The involvement of the entire linguistic repertoire of the class provides children with multiple access points to the same content. For example, the didactic materials presented below concern the mechanisms underlying the formation of complex words. If this activity were conducted only in Italian, children could have identified and produced new complex words in analogy with words that they already knew, without having necessarily understood how these words are internally structured. By contrast, the observation of other languages that behave differently from Italian (like English or Chinese) may help them to abstract the internal structure of complex words away from the different ways in which these words are realized across languages. For example, children may be able to understand that one element of a complex word is usually more ‘important’ than the other, independently of its syntactic position in the complex word (which differs between English and Italian). Likewise, the observation of how complex words are written in English (as single units) may reinforce children’s idea that complex words function as single units in many respects (see below for other relevant examples concerning the advantages of translanguaging pedagogies in terms of metalinguistic awareness). We would like to point out once again that the adoption of an inductive approach to language learning involves a transformation of teachers’ role as compared to ‘traditional’ deductive approaches. Throughout the learning process, teachers should function as facilitators of knowledge. In the domain of language teaching, they should guide children in the development of metalinguistic representations, by activating their previous knowledge and cognitive resources, providing them with adequate observations and mediating their drawing of inferences and generalizations (Olsen, 1999; Prince & Felder, 2006). For example, children may be able to build complex word in a productive way and have an intuition that several words belong together and one is more ‘important’ than the other. This is part of their previous knowledge. Teachers from their part should encourage children to reflect explicitly on why they think that certain words belong together. Additionally, they point children’s attention to the position of the ‘important’ words in Italian as compared to other languages. Multimodality is a relevant aspect of this teaching approach, too. Multimodality refers to ‘the coordination of input from multimodal resources...’ including ‘the spoken, the written, and the visual’ (Dressman, 2020). This has been shown to provide effective support for teaching in different educational contexts. For example, children’s learning may benefit from the visualization in space of the linguistic

Developing Compound Awareness by Translanguaging  301

units at stake. This may favor children’s observations related to how a word is positioned with respect to another one (as will be exemplified below). Therefore, multimodality and multilingualism are useful for teachers to create multiple access points (of linguistic and non-linguistic nature) from which the phenomenon at stake could be analyzed. Finally, teachers should be attentive to the process of learning, developing a sequence of activities that mirrors the progressive formation of children’s metalinguistic representations. In other words, children’s metalinguistic representations as emerging in a given learning stage should be anchored into their metalinguistic representations as developed in the immediately previous stage(s). The didactic materials presented in this contribution reflect the principles introduced in this section. More specifically, the design of the teaching activities complies with the following methodology: first, we will activate children’s cognitive resources that will be relevant for carrying out the sequence of learning tasks. In a second phase, children will be provided with relevant observations concerning complex words. Accordingly, they will use their analytic abilities for the identification of complex words in a text (skimming) and their constituting elements (scanning). The third phase targets children’s creative thinking, leading them to produce new complex words, first in a monolingual mode and then in a multilingual one. Finally, the assessment of children’s understanding of the content is meant as a further opportunity for children to reflect on their learning process (i.e. which achievements they have reached and how they have reached them). This design is inspired by existing contributions that are informed by the idea that children should be central in the learning and teaching process, as in the case of the present chapter. This includes contributions made in the framework of CLIL (e.g. Dale & Tanner, 2012) and translanguaging pedagogies (e.g. Carbonara & Martini, 2019; García et al., 2017).1 Before describing our teaching activities, we consider in the next section the linguistic phenomenon on which our teaching activities focus and its relevance for the development of children’s metacognitive abilities. Compound Awareness as an Indicator of Literacy Development

Compound awareness refers to the ability to reflect upon and manipulate the morpheme which are part of compound words, which is necessary to understand new compound forms and generate new meanings (Carlisle, 2000; Kuo & Anderson, 2007). Therefore, compound awareness is a component of metalinguistic awareness – intended as the ability to reflect upon the form and function of language (cf. e.g. Zhang et al., 2010, and references quoted above). For example, when reading the famous ‘Stone Soup’ fairytale (Stockham, 2007), readers encounter the compound word stone soup. Although it is unlikely that they have heard this word before, they will be able to interpret it as meaning

302  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

‘the soup made of stones’ by analogy with existing compounds (such as vegetable soup), provided that they understand the meaning of the constituent words stone and soup. Once children will have understood the mechanism underlying the formation of new compound words, they will be able to use it productively, creating new (unheard) forms, such as tree soup or shell soup. Thus, the ability to understand and produce compounds seems to be associated with higher-order linguistic and cognitive skills, such as the development of strategies for making inferences and predictions: the meaning of a compound word can vary depending on the discourse context. For example, we can imagine a context in which a stone soup is a soup which is served on a stone plate. Likewise, the use of compounds may lead speakers to reflect upon some core features of language, such as its creativity, flexibility and recursion. For example, compound words can be made more and more complex, as in beach stone soup (a soup made of beach stones) or hard stone soup (a soup made of hard stones), etc. Given the complexity involved in compound production and comprehension, it comes as no surprise that across many studies, compound awareness has often been indicated as one of the main predictors of children’s literacy skills, including reading abilities, above and beyond vocabulary knowledge (e.g. Nagy et al., 2003, for English and McBride-Chang et al., 2003, for Chinese). Children’s compound awareness can be promoted by means of specific didactic interventions (e.g. Fernández Fuertes et al., 2020). Furthermore, Zhang et al. (2010) showed that among bilingual children, compound awareness in one language can contribute to compound awareness in the other language. In particular, the authors assessed compound awareness in Chinese and English among Chinese children being exposed to English as a second language at school. They showed that after an intervention on Chinese compound structure, the children were able to use this knowledge for the understanding of compound structure in English. They also found that compound awareness in Chinese may benefit from an intervention on compound structure in English (i.e. their L2) among the children with higher proficiency in this language. Zhang et al. (2010) involve two languages that pattern similarly with respect to compound structure. On the contrary, the didactic activities presented in this chapter concern languages that have different compound formation rules, including English and Italian (see below for a complete overview of the languages in the class). The Italian translation of stone soup is zuppa di sassi (lit. ‘soup of stones’). Contrary to English, Italian compounds are left-headed (i.e. zuppa appears on the left of the compound) and the two nouns (zuppa and sassi) are linked by a preposition (i.e. di ‘of’) (cf. Torregrossa & Melloni, 2014). The more or less explicit comparison between English and Italian compounds during classroom activities may enhance students’ awareness of the processes involved in translating from one language

Developing Compound Awareness by Translanguaging  303

to the other. In particular, the translation of compounds from English to Italian is a good example of how word-by-word translations is not sufficient to account for the mapping between equivalent structures across languages. Shifting from one language to the other may involve syntactic restructuring, at different levels of complexity, i.e. from the word (as analyzed in this contribution) to the sentence level. By translating, children realize that a certain function (e.g. the head of a compound) may have different realizations across languages (e.g. being located on the left or on the right). Knowledge of the arbitrariness of linguistic forms is one of the main components of metalinguistic awareness (Friesen & Bialystok, 2012; Malakoff & Hakuta, 1991, on the relationship between translation and metalinguistic awareness). Multilingual classrooms offer the unique opportunity to extend the reflections on compound structure (and, more generally, on language form and use) to all the languages spoken in the class. This is crucial for the development of children’s language awareness and their understanding of the extent to which languages differ from each other. Even languages that are perceived to be typologically very distant from each other (like Chinese and English) may behave alike with respect to a certain morphosyntactic phenomenon (e.g. compound formation), as we will show below. The variety of languages spoken in the class allows children to get multiple access points into the same content. In our case, children will be able to understand that compounds have an abstract structure consisting of a head and its modifier, independently of their position within the compound word (which varies across languages). This strengthens the learning process, enhancing children’s metalinguistic awareness. The above observations suggest that reflection on compound structure using different languages is meant to activate children’s higherorder cognitive and linguistic skills (inference-making, reasoning skills, metalinguistic awareness, etc.). By presenting didactic activities related to this phenomenon in the next section, we aim to show the enormous potential of multilingual classes and approaches to teaching. Needless to say, the principles underlying the design of our didactic activities on compound structure can be applied to the learning of other (more or less demanding) literacy-related content. Using Translanguaging for the Development of Compound Awareness: Some Didactic Activities

The aim of this section is to present some multilingual didactic activities whose objective is to enhance children’s compound awareness. The sequence of activities is based on the principles of inductive learning and the corresponding structure of a work unit as introduced above. Before presenting the activities, we will refer to the school context in which these activities have been carried out.

304  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

The context

The activities presented in this section have been carried out in a second-grade class of an Italian state elementary school in Prato (in the region of Tuscany). The presence of migrants of more than 30 different nationalities makes Prato a multicultural city. This multiculturalism is reflected in the variety of home languages spoken by the children in the class, including Albanian, Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, English, French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian and Urdu. In terms of the children’s linguistic profile, the class is quite heterogeneous. For some children, Italian is the only language spoken at home. For others, the language spoken at home is different from the majority language (Italian). The latter group includes both children who attended an Italian kindergarten and emergent bilinguals, whose first exposure to Italian dated back to the beginning of first grade (mainly due to their recent arrival to Italy). The degree of proficiency in the home language differs from child to child too: some children had only a receptive knowledge, while others could read and write in the home language. Translanguaging has been used in this class since the beginning of first grade. Translanguaging-based activities involve comparing sounds, vocabulary words and writing systems across languages. Furthermore, the teachers constantly encourage the parents to tell their children stories in their home language and provide them with translations of textbook passages from Italian to the home language, while helping them with the homework. Also, some parents are sometimes invited to school to read stories and teach the children some words in their own languages. The class has two teachers, one being responsible for teaching Italian, English and social sciences and the other math and science. Italian is the main medium of instruction, since all subjects are taught in this language. English is taught as a second language. The activities presented in this contribution (as well as most of the class activities involving translanguaging throughout the school years) have been conducted by the former teacher (i.e. one of the authors of this contribution). The main motivation behind her use of translanguaging in the class is to enhance children’s metalinguistic awareness, which in turn facilitates their learning of the curricular languages and contents. In this sense, all the children in the class benefit from the use of translanguaging, independently of which language they speak at home. Sequence of activities

It should be mentioned that the following didactic activities have been conceived as part of a series of activities centered on the story ‘The Name Jar’ (Choi, 2001). This story can be used for didactic purposes at many different levels. From the point of view of its content, it aims at promoting children’s social and emotional empowerment. The story is a celebration

Developing Compound Awareness by Translanguaging  305

of linguistic and cultural diversity and addresses the process of identity formation in a multilingual and multicultural environment. In a nutshell, the story is about a Korean girl who emigrated to the United States with her family. On her first day of school in the new country, she wanted to change her name, choosing an American one from a glass jar, because her classmates were not able to pronounce her name ‘Unhei’ correctly. At the end of the story, Unhei realized that the best name she could choose was her own, also thanks to a classmate who showed interest towards the Korean culture and encouraged her to keep her name. From the linguistic point of view, the story contains many compound words, starting from the title itself, which renders it particularly suitable for our activities. Therefore, by the beginning of the activities described in this section (focusing on the linguistic component), the children had the chance to get familiar with the story: the teacher read them the whole story in its Italian translation, while showing the corresponding pictures. The pupils read simplified parts of the story in English and conducted activities related to the emotion vocabulary used in the story in English, Italian and their home languages. Activating compounds

This first activity was meant to activate children’s creativity in the use of new compound words. We gave each child a jar and we asked them to put a tag on it. We introduced the activity saying (in Italian) that Unhei (i.e. the main character of the story) would tag her jar as ‘name jar’, because she wanted a (new) name. The children had to tag their own jar, based on what they desired. In this way, we encouraged their analogical reasoning. Then, we asked the children to translate the English word that they had created into Italian or their home language. This was meant to activate their translation skills as well as the observation of possible mappings between one language and the other. Figure 13.1 shows the outcome of this activity and some of the names used by the children

Figure 13.1  The tags created by the children to name their own jar. The tags are written in English, Italian and, in some cases, in the home language

306  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

(e.g. the spring jar – which was translated in both French and Italian – the sun jar and the flowers jar2). Identifying compounds

While the previous activity targeted children’s use of new compound words in different languages, the present activity introduces some elements of reflection (see above). Before starting with the activities related to compound awareness, the children made a poster with drawings corresponding to the different episodes of the story ‘The Name Jar’. Then, for each picture, the teacher created captions in both Italian and English (Figure 13.2). In the current activity, children were asked to identify

Figure 13.2  A poster with drawings related to the different episodes of the story ‘The Name Jar’ and the corresponding captions

Developing Compound Awareness by Translanguaging  307

Figure 13.3  The captions in English (on the right) and Italian (on the left) contained in the poster (Figure 13.2) and reported on pieces of paper for each child. Children had to identify compound words (i.e. words that – they thought – belonged together)

compound words in the captions, in both languages. More specifically, they were asked to circle the words that they thought belonged together (Figure 13.3). In this phase, we did not give any instruction to the children, encouraging them to rely on their own intuitions. It should be noted that compound words are written as multiple words in Italian and single words in English. Therefore, the English writing system should facilitate the task, since it marks explicitly that two words of a compound belong together. We conducted this activity in both languages (since the captions were given in both Italian and English), in order to see whether the color identification of compound words in Italian benefits from the observation of how the corresponding words are written in English. After the children completed this activity, the teacher asked them to indicate which words they put together and motivate their answers. The children often explained that the words belonged together because ‘they are just one thing’. In other words, their explanations seemed to be motivated by semantic criteria: the compound word refers to only one object. In Italian, some children separated the head of the compound and the following prepositional phrase from each other (i.e. vasetto ‘jar’ from di nomi ‘of names’, respectively). However, we observed that this happened especially if the children carried out the task separately for each language (e.g. first only in Italian and then only in English). This observation suggests that compound awareness in Italian may benefit from the simultaneous consideration of English (in this task, at least). Finally, we showed that the complexity of the noun phrase corresponding to the compound word could vary freely. For example,

308  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

in a sentence like La nonna regala a Unhei un sacchetto di raso ‘The grandmother gives Unhei a satin pouch’, the constituent sacchetto di raso ‘pouch of satin’ could be reduced to only one word (i.e. sacchetto ‘pouch’) or could be made more complex (e.g. un sacchetto di raso colorato ‘a colorful satin pouch’ – lit. ‘a pouch of satin colorful’). In this way, we encouraged children to reflect upon the fact that certain words in a sentence belong together more than others do. In this way, the children observed that the same grammatical function (e.g. being an object, as ‘a satin pouch’) may be borne by constituents of different length and complexity (e.g. ‘a pouch’ or ‘a colorful satin pouch’). This observation underlies children’s later understanding of the grammatical function (e.g. subject, object, indirect object) of words in a sentence.3 Identifying compound heads

The second block of activities involves the identification of a compounds head and the observation that the head occupies a different position in English and Italian compounds, respectively. While the former are right-headed, the latter are left-headed. In the activity described in the previous section, children had to identify compound words. The present activity builds on the observation made by some children that words belong together because ‘they are just one thing’ (i.e. refer to only one object). For each group of words, we asked the children to draw a red circle around the word that indicates what the thing was. For example, a schoolbag is bag and not a school. Thus, bag is the most important word within the compound, (i.e. its head). Each child had to stand up and circle the target word in the poster represented in Figure 13.2, in which the English and Italian sentences were next to each other. Some children dealt with Italian sentences and others with their English counterparts. At the end of the activity, we pointed children’s attention to the position of the head within the compound in English and Italian, respectively. The children noticed that while in Italian the head is on the left, in English it is on the right. The next activity was meant to encourage children’s creativity in the production of new compounds and reinforce their observation that English and Italian compounds differ from each other in their structure. First, we asked children to create a card for each word constituting the compounds that appeared on the poster (i.e. one card for school and one card for bag) and to circle the word corresponding to the head. Then, they had to stand up one by one and choose one classmate with whom they could create a word. Some children reproduced some words that appeared on the poster. Other children found creative solutions. For example, the child with the word mates joined the child with the word school and created the word schoolmates, although the word on the poster was classmates. In other words, children were able to rely on their

Developing Compound Awareness by Translanguaging  309

understanding of compound structure in English and Italian for the creative production of new words. After creating a new compound word (in English or Italian), the children had to show it to their classmates. Then, we asked the children with the corresponding words in the other language to join them, create the corresponding compound word, place themselves in front of their peers and show the compound word in the other language to the class. In this way, the children in the class were offered an additional visualization of the different position of the head (i.e. the word circled in red) in English and Italian, respectively. Classifying compounds across languages

The aim of this activity is to reintroduce the children’s home languages (see above). For homework, the children had to translate the compound word classmate into their home languages, relying on their own knowledge or asking some family member. At school, they had to write each word of the compound on a different card and circle the head noun corresponding to the English word mate in red, just like they did in the previous activity with English and Italian words. Then, we asked the children to show and read their two words to the other children in the class, who had to guess whether the compound at stake behaved like English compounds (being right-headed) or Italian compounds (being left-headed). Finally, the child had to stick the compound word on one of two panels that the teacher had created previously, one with compound words of the English type and one with compound words of the Italian type. Figure 13.4 corresponds to the panel with the compounds of the English type.

Figure 13.4  The panel corresponding to the languages in the class that exhibit right-headed compounds (English, Bengali, Chinese and German – from top to bottom). The words on the left always correspond to the English word ‘school’, whereas the words on the right correspond to the English word ‘mate’

310  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

With this activity, children were provided multiple access points to the ‘abstract’ structure of compound words, as already mentioned above. Furthermore, they were encouraged to note differences and similarities between English, Italian and their home languages. Finally, children developed the awareness that languages may behave similarly in certain aspects of grammar, independently of their phonological and lexical differences. As a final task, we developed a multilingual version of the compoundformation activity presented in the previous section. We encouraged the children to create new compound words, by mixing different languages, using the cards created for the previous activity. It was interesting for us to observe that all the new compounds produced by the children contained both a head (i.e. a card with a word circled in red) and a nonhead constituent. In other words, the children showed to be aware that the head is a necessary component of a compound word. At a second stage, we told the children that in each compound, the sequence of words (headmodifier or modifier-head) had to be chosen based on the order required by the language of the head word. For example, if the head is an English word, it should appear on the right, and the other constituent on the left. In this way, we wanted to activate children’s analogical reasoning. For example, two children created the compound shokskula (Figure 13.5, top). Shok is the Albanian word for mate and skula the Bengali word for school. The order is determined by the fact that the head shok is in Albanian, which exhibits left-headed compounds. Other two children created the word de clasa mates (Figure 13.5, bottom), in which the English word mates appears on the right, while the Romanian prepositional phrase de clasa on the left. Assessment and reflection on the activity

In order to verify whether the children learnt the mechanisms for compound formation, we addressed some questions to the whole class. These questions were designed based on existing tests of compound

Figure 13.5  Two bilingual compound words created by the children. At the top of the picture, shok is the Albanian word for mates and is the head of the compound. Skula is the Bengali word for school and is the modifier. At the bottom of the picture, mates is an English head and appears on the right. De clasa (of class) is a Romanian prepositional phrase and appears on the left

Developing Compound Awareness by Translanguaging  311

awareness in English (cf. Nagy et al., 2003). We first asked a question in Italian as follows: ‘Quale parola inglese descrive meglio un vasetto di caramelle?’ (Which English word describes better a jar of candies?), giving two options, i.e. candy jar and jar candy. We observed that all children were able to provide the right answer, which speaks in favor of the success of our intervention. As a final step, we asked for feedback from the children, by using the ‘schoolbag vs bin’ activity, as proposed in Carbonara and Martini (2019). We gave the children a piece of paper with two pictures, of a schoolbag and a bin, respectively. Next to the school bag, the children had to indicate what they learnt and wanted to bring with them, among the activities done in class. Next to the bin, they had to indicate what they did not like and wanted to throw away. In this way, children were given the opportunity to reconsider the activities done in class retrospectively and reflect upon their own learning process (see above). Among the things that children liked the most were ‘mixing languages’, ‘putting languages together’, ‘learning new languages’, ‘coloring the head’, ‘playing with the cards’, ‘circling the words’. This last activity (i.e. circling the word) was indicated by one child as the most boring one (i.e. as something to be thrown away). We found it interesting that most of the positive comments (as reported above) referred to the development of ‘new linguistic practices’ (borrowing an expression from García & Kano, 2014; see the Introduction) and indicated a positive attitude towards the learning of new languages (beyond the curricular ones) and the learning outcome (i.e. the understanding of compound structure). Discussion and Conclusive Remarks

In this contribution, we presented some didactic activities aiming at enhancing children’s compound awareness, which has often been indicated as a necessary component of reading and writing development. The didactic activities are based on two main ingredients: an inductive approach to language learning and a translanguaging pedagogy. While presenting the sequence of teaching activities, we underlined the importance of guiding children’s reflections on compound structure. Each teaching stage presupposes the reflections reached in the previous stage. In other words, the sequence of teaching activities has been designed to mirror the progressive emergence of metalinguistic representations, differing from each other in their level of explicitness. The reflection on the structure of compound words becomes an opportunity for the development of other metacognitive skills that include inference-making and translation abilities. The second component of our didactic activities involves translanguaging. Here, translanguaging has a twofold function. First, it leads

312  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

to the incorporation of children’s home languages into classroom practices. As noted, the didactic activities described in this contribution do not presuppose any hierarchy of languages. Although some activities concerned English and Italian only (i.e. the school languages), the other language spoken in the class were naturally integrated into the different activities. For example, when we asked children to classify compound words in different languages based on the position of the head, we treated all languages of the class equally, as possible instantiations of different compound schemata (head on the left vs head on the right). As a result, children realize that each language provides a significant contribution to the understanding of the linguistic phenomenon at stake. Notably, the involvement of all languages of the class is useful not only for children who speak a language at home which is different from the school language, but also for children who speak the same language at home and school: as shown above, the comparison between different languages supports children’s generalizations related to the abstract structure of words. Furthermore, it should be mentioned that most teaching activities presented above involve some problem solving (see e.g. the creation of multilingual compound words based on the language of the head, as presented above). In this manner, the class becomes a workshop in which each child contributes to creating new words in a very productive way. Children experience that the contribution of each child is relevant to this workshop. For example, the creation of the compound word shok skula would not have been possible without the contribution of a child speaking Albanian and a child speaking Bengali. Finally, our activities promoted continuity between home and school language practices. For example, we encouraged children to involve their families, if they were not able to translate the word ‘classmate’ in their home language. In this sense, children act as a bridge between the school and the family and, hence, develop ‘the belief that education has to happen beyond the four walls of the school’ (García & Sylvan, 2011: 397). As a second advantage of translanguaging, we showed that translanguaging pedagogies are useful tools for language teaching, since they provide children with a set of observations (i.e. linguistic data), based on which they may draw inferences and generalizations on linguistic structures and, more in general, language. In other words, translanguaging allows children to get a variety of access points to the content to be learnt (e.g. compound structure, in the activities described in this contribution). The use of multimodality (e.g. visualization in space) multiplies these access points even further. In this way, we have encouraged children to build their own linguistic theory on the structure of compound words. To conclude, our didactic materials intended to create a virtual circle between inductive learning and translanguaging. Inductive learning requires translanguaging to enhance the process of metalinguistic representation. The use of translanguaging, in its turn, may be informed

Developing Compound Awareness by Translanguaging  313

by inductive approaches to language learning and teaching. In the design of teaching activities, translanguaging was introduced strategically, considering which metalinguistic representations children had developed thus far and which ones they were supposed to develop in later stages. Our didactic materials thus succeeded in both aims, namely triggering translanguaging and metalinguistic awareness, and collecting evidence of these processes in a multilingual classroom. Further Reading

Translanguaging has been implemented in different educational contexts across the world. The CUNY-NYSIEB (City University of New York – New York State Initiative on Emergent Bilinguals) is to be seen as the first pioneer project in this respect. We refer to the online resources related to the project (https://www.cuny-nysieb.org/) and the volume CUNY-NYSIEB (2020), which describes strategies, experiences, pedagogical practices and materials related to the use of translanguaging in schools. The volume by Celic and Selzer (2011) is a guide for the implementation of translanguaging in classrooms. The activities presented in this volume involve a multilingual transformation of the schoolscape, the use of translanguaging for language and content learning and the development of strategies for ‘scaffolding’ learning among emergent bilinguals. For a list of translanguaging projects implemented by Canadian educators, we refer to Cummins (2019). In recent years, translanguaging practices have spread across Europe. The project ‘L’AltRoparlante’ by Carbonara and Scibetta (2020) involves several schools across different regions in Italy and aims to integrate translanguaging in mainstream education, leveraging children’s entire linguistic repertoire and supporting the development of their multiliteracy abilities. Carbonara and Scibetta (2021) is a collection of didactic units for the implementation of translanguaging across several school grades in primary and secondary education. The activities involve reflections on similarities and differences between languages at the lexical, syntactic and discourse level. Also relevant is the didactic unit elaborated by Carbonara and Martini (2019), which promotes children’s awareness of environmental issues through multilingual activities. In Ireland, translanguaging has been implemented in a primary school by Little and Kirwan (2018), who discuss some teaching methods to integrate children’s home languages into the educational environment, alongside the languages of instruction (i.e. English, Irish and French). In Luxembourg, translanguaging practices have been integrated in day-care centers of éducation précoce: Kirsch and Seele (2000) describe how practitioners in these schools shuttle constantly and dynamically between Luxemburgish and children’s home languages. In the Netherlands, Duarte (2020) describes the use of translanguaging in

314  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

primary schools in Friesland, with the aim of promoting an integrated use of the three official languages of instruction (Dutch, Frisian and English) as well as the children’s home languages during classroom activities. Along the same lines, Cenoz and Santos (2020) describe some didactic activities based on the dynamic integration of Basque, English and Spanish as taught in primary and secondary schools in the Basque Country. The activities aim to activate children’s reflection on cognate words across languages (as related, for example, to scientific vocabulary), crosslinguistic differences between languages at the syntactic level and text structure in different languages and modalities (written and oral). Beyond the Reading The philosophy underlying the didactic activities described in this contribution has several implications for teachers’ practices. First, the teacher involved in the activities (who is also author of this chapter) acted as a co-learner in several parts of the didactic unit. Although she had a central role in guiding children’s reflections on the linguistic structures at issue and in structuring the teaching sequence, she had to rely on children’s knowledge and intuitions about their home language(s). The activities could be carried out even if she did not master all the languages spoken by the children in the class. In that respect, the main point is not to make sure that the children said something right in their home language(s), but rather to allow them to draw connections between the home and the school language, in order to enhance their metalinguistic reflections. For example, one of the children, who was a speaker of Arabic but could not write in this language, provided a Latin transliteration of an Arabic word and it was not possible for the teacher to reconstruct its meaning (even after using a translation software). Nevertheless, this did not forbid her to refer to this word throughout the didactic activities (e.g. when creating multilingual compounds). These considerations are related to another relevant issue. Teachers may wonder whether it is possible to assess children in a multilingual mode at the end of a didactic unit similar to the one presented in this contribution. Multilingual assessment can represent a challenge for teachers. First, it should be considered that activities based on multilingual pedagogies are compatible with monolingual forms of assessment. For example, the assessment presented in this contribution involved the use of English only (see above). The main point is that children are able to ‘solve problems’ in the target language by relying on their entire language repertoire. However, there have been some attempts to implement multilingual assessment tools in recent years. For example, tests may be designed in multiple languages (e.g. by means of translation) or children may be allowed to answer using their full language repertoire (i.e. code-mixing is allowed) – see Carbonara et al. (2021); Lopez et al. (2017); and Torregrossa et al. (2022). Otherwise,

Developing Compound Awareness by Translanguaging  315

the tests may involve types of knowledge that are not strictly dependent on knowledge of one or the other language. For example, children’s metalinguistic abilities may be assessed by asking them to reflect on an unknown language (e.g. a language outside the curriculum or an artificial language), along the lines of Candelier et al. (2012). Furthermore, children may be assessed in terms of their creativity in using the languages of their repertoire across the different didactic activities or their awareness related to the choice to use one or the other language (see García et al., 2017).

Notes (1) We believe that the sequence of activities presented above can be easily reformulated in terms of the translanguaging instructional design, as presented by García et al. (2017) – which involves the following stages: explorar, evaluar, imaginar, presentar and implementar. (2) In this first phase, children were not corrected in their use of plural morphology on the modifier noun – which is not required in English (i.e. flower jar rather than flowers jar) but allowed for in Italian (vasetto di fiori ‘jar of flowers’). (3) This last activity has been conducted to reinforce children’s intuitions concerning the argument role of a constituent in a ‘nuclear’ sentence. The activity is part of a larger didactic program (carried out throughout the whole school year) that aims at improving the teaching of sentence structure and relies on the use of ‘valential grammar’ (Colombo & Graffi, 2017). This approach involves the pictorial visualization of the relationship between a verb (i.e. a nucleus), its obligatory arguments and adjuncts.

References Agirdag, O., Jordens, K. and Van Houtte, M. (2014) Speaking Turkish in Belgian primary schools: Teacher beliefs versus effective consequences. Bilig 70, 7–28. https://doi. org/10.12995/bilig.2014.7001. Allard, E. (2017) Re-examining teacher translanguaging: An ecological perspective. Bilingual Research Journal 40 (2), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2017. 1306597. Ascenzi-Moreno L. and Espinosa, C.M. (2018) Opening up spaces for their whole selves: A case study group’s exploration of translanguaging practices in writing. NYS TESOL Journal 5 (1), 10–29. Bialystok, E. (2001) Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bongartz, C. and Torregrossa, J. (2020) The effects of balanced biliteracy on Greek-German bilingual children’s secondary discourse ability. Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 23 (8), 948–963. Caloi, I. and Torregrossa, J. (2021) Home and school language practices and their effects on heritage language acquisition. A view from heritage Italians in Germany. Languages 6, 50. Candelier, M., Camilleri-Grima, A., Castellotti, V., de Pietro, J.F., Lörincz, I., Meißner, F.J., Noguerol, A. and Schröder-Sura, A. (2012) Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures (FREPA/CARAP). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Carbonara, V. and Martini, S. (2019) Un modello operativo per l’approccio pedagogico del translanguaging? Esempi di applicazione in una Unità di Lavoro/Apprendimento (UdLA). LEND. Lingua e Nuova didattica 4, 18–36.

316  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

Carbonara, V. and Scibetta, A. (2020) Integrating translanguaging pedagogy into Italian primary schools: Implications for language practices and children’s empowerment. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 25 (3), 1049–1069. Carbonara, V. and Scibetta, A. (eds) (2021) Unu, dy, san. Proposte operative per la didattica plurilingue nella scuola del primo ciclo. Bologna: La Linea Edizioni. Carbonara, V., Scibetta, A and Torregrossa, J. (2021) Multilingual pedagogies and their impact on children’s narrative and mentalizing abilities. Paper presented at the Bilingualism Matters Research Symposium 2021, 25–26 October 2021, Edinburgh. Carlisle, J. (2000) Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 12, 169–190. Celic, C. and Seltzer, K. (2011) Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB Guide for Educators. New York: CUNY-NYSIEB. Cenoz, J. (2017) Translanguaging in school contexts: International perspectives. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 16 (4), 193–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458. 2017.1327816. Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (eds) (2015) Multilingual Education: Between Language Learning and Translanguaging. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cenoz, J. and Santos, A. (2020) Implementing pedagogical translanguaging in trilingual schools. System 92, 102273. Choi, Y. (2001) The Name Jar. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Colombo, A. and Graffi, G. (2017) Capire la grammatica. Il contributo della linguistica. Roma: Carocci. Cummins, J. (1979) Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research 49, 222–251. Cummins, J. (1981) The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (ed.) Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles: National Dissemination and Assessment Center. Cummins, J. (2000) Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2007) Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10 (2), 221–240. Cummins, J. (2019) The emergence of translanguaging pedagogy: A dialogue between theory and practice. Journal of Multilingual Education Research 9 (13), 17–36. CUNY-NYSIEB (eds) (2020)Translanguaging and Transformative Teaching for Emergent Bilingual Students: Lessons from the CUNY-NYSIEB Project. New York: Routledge. Dale, L. and Tanner, R. (2012) CLIL Activities – A Resource for Subject and Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Angelis, G. (2011) Teachers’ beliefs about the role of prior language knowledge in learning and how these influence teaching practices. International Journal of Multilingualism 8 (3), 216–234. Dressman, M. (2020) Multimodality and language learning. In M. Dressman and R.W. Sadler (eds) The Handbook of Informal Language Learning (pp. 39–55). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Duarte, J. (2019) Translanguaging in mainstream education: A sociocultural approach. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22 (2), 150–164. Duarte, J. (2020) Translanguaging in the context of mainstream multilingual education. International Journal of Multilingualism 17 (2), 232–247. Fernández Fuertes, R., Gómez Garzarán, E. and Mañas Navarrete, I. (2020) Noun-noun compounds in a game task: What child data can tell us about teaching practices. In M. Planelles, A. Foucart and J.M. Liceras (eds) Current Perspectives in Language Teaching and Learning in Multicultural Contexts (pp. 481–501). Cizur Menor: Thomson Reuters Aranzadi.

Developing Compound Awareness by Translanguaging  317

Francis, N. (2012) Bilingual Competence and Bilingual Proficiency in Child Development. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Friesen, D.C. and Bialystok, E. (2012) Metalinguistic ability in bilingual children: The role of executive control. Rivista di Psicolinguistica Applicata 12 (3), 47–56. García, O. and Sylvan, C. (2011) Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms: Singularities in pluralities. The Modern Language Journal 95 (3), 385–400. García, O. and Li, W. (2014) Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. García, O. and Kano, N. (2014) Translanguaging as process and pedagogy: Developing the English writing of Japanese students in the US. In J. Conteh and G. Meier (eds) The Multilingual Turn in Languages Education: Opportunities and Challenges (pp. 258–277). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. García, O. and Sánchez, M.T. (2015) Transforming schools with emergent bilinguals: The CUNY-NYSIEB Project. In I. Dirim, I. Gogolin, D. Knorr, M. Krüger-Potratz, D. Lengyel, H. Reich and W. Weiße (eds) Impulse für die Migrationsgesellschaft. Bildung, Politik, und Religion (pp. 80–94). Münster: Waxmann. García, O. and Lin, A.M.Y. (2017) Translanguaging in bilingual education. In O. García and A.M.Y. Lin (eds) Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (vol. 5, pp. 117–130). Dordrecht: Springer. García, O., Johnson, S. and Seltzer, K. (2017) The Translanguaging Classroom. Leveraging Student Bilingualism for Learning. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon. Jessner, U. (2010) Language awareness in multilinguals. In J. Cenoz and N. Hornberger (eds) Knowledge About Language (pp. 357–370). New York: Springer. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992) Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Kirsch, C. and Seele, C. (2000) Translanguaging in early childhood education in Luxembourg: From practice to pedagogy. In J.A. Panagiotopoulou, L. Rosen and J. Strzykala (eds) Inclusion, Education and Translanguaging: How to Promote Social Justice in (Teacher) Education? (pp. 63–81). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Kuo, L. and Andreson, R.C. (2007) Conceptual and methodological issues in comparing metalinguistic awareness across languages. In K. Koda and A. Zehler (eds) Learning to Read Across Languages (pp. 39–67). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lambert, W.E. (1984) An overview of issues in immersion education. In California State Department of Education (ed.) Studies on Immersion Education: A Collection for United States Educators (pp. 8–30). Sacramento: California State Department of Education. Lewis, G., Jones, B. and Baker, C. (2012) Translanguaging: Developing its conceptualisation and contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation 18 (7), 655–670. Little, D. and Kirwan, D. (2018) Translanguaging as a key to educational success: The experience of one Irish primary school. In P. Van Avermaet, S. Slembrouck, K. Van Gorp and K. Maryns (eds) The Multilingual Edge of Education (pp. 319–339). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Lopez, A., Turkan, S. and Guzman-Orth, D. (2017) Assessing multilingual competence. In E. Shohamy, I.G. Or and S. May (eds) Language Testing and Assessment. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Dordrecht: Springer. Malakoff, M. and Hakuta, K. (1991) Translation skill and metalinguistic awareness in bilinguals. In E. Bialystok (ed.) Language Processing in Bilingual Children (pp. 141–166). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McBride-Chang, C., Shu, H., Zhou, A.B., Wat, C.P. and Wagner, R.K. (2003) Morphological awareness uniquely predicts young children’s Chinese character recognition. Journal of Educational Psychology 95, 743–751. Nagy, W.E., Berninger, V.W., Abbott, R.C., Vaughan, K. and Vermeulen, K. (2003) Relationship of morphology and other language skills to literacy skills in at-risk second grade readers and at-risk fourth-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology 95, 730–742.

318  Part 4: Plurilingualism, Translanguaging and Translation

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2018) The Resilience of Students with an Immigrant Background: Factors That Shape Well-Being, OECD Reviews of Migrant Education. Paris: OECD. Olsen, D. (1999) Constructivist principles of learning and teaching methods. Education 120 (2), 347–356. Otheguy, R., García, O. and Reid, W. (2015) Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages. A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review 6 (3), 281–307. Prince, M.J. and Felder, R.M. (2006) Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. The Journal of Engineering Education 95 (2), 123–138. Pulinx, R., Van Avermaet, P. and Agirdag, O. (2017) Silencing linguistic diversity: The extent, the determinants and consequences of the monolingual beliefs of Flemish teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 20 (5), 542–556. Sharwood Smith, M. (2021) The cognitive status of metalinguistic knowledge in speakers of one or more languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 24 (1), 185–196. Stockham, J. (illustrator) (2007) Stone Soup (Flip-Up Fairy Tales). Swindon: Child’s Play Intl Ltd. Ticheloven, A., Blom, E., Leseman, P. and McMonagle, S. (2021) Translanguaging challenges in multilingual classrooms: scholar, teacher and student perspectives. International Journal of Multilingualism 18 (3), 491–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2019. 1686002. Torregrossa, J. and Melloni, C. (2014) English compounds in child Italian. In J. Costa, A. Fiéis, M.J. Freitas, M. Lobo and A.L. Santos (eds) New Directions in the Acquisition of Romance Languages, Selected Proceedings of the Romance Turn V (pp. 345–370). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Torregrossa, J., Eisenbeiß, S. and Bongartz, C. (2022) Boosting bilingual metalinguistic awareness under dual language activation. Evidence in favor of multilingual teaching strategies. Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/3e7wv. Zhang, J., Anderson, R.C., Li, H., Dong, Q., Wu, X. and Zhang, Y. (2010) Cross-language transfer of insight into the structure of compound words. Reading and Writing 23 (3), 311–336.

Index

Feedback 51–78, 115, 116, 155, 159, 191, 281, 311

Affective 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 29, 65, 67, 72, 77, 81, 88, 91, 92, 95, 98, 102, 108, 109, 110, 111, 124, 125, 140, 149, 171, 178, 199, 282, 284, 287 Affective needs 65, 88, 109, 125 Assessment 16, 24, 47, 63, 64, 96, 125, 126, 127, 130, 131, 141, 144, 145, 170, 247, 248, 249, 254, 260, 266, 278, 279, 296, 305, 309, 318, 322, 323 Attitudes 8, 10, 16, 92, 94, 100, 102, 113, 116, 118, 119, 122, 126, 133, 138, 139, 140–150, 155, 157, 159, 161, 179, 215, 217, 219, 231, 232, 233, 239, 240, 246, 263, 283, 284, 288, 289, 292, 295, 305 Awakening to languages (AtL) 213–217, 230, 231

Heritage culture 14 Home languages 2, 7, 169, 172, 220, 252, 264, 266, 283, 293–298, 304, 305, 309, 310, 312, 313, 314 Identity 4, 5, 6, 8, 14, 18, 31, 36, 73, 83, 110, 114, 119, 123, 134, 137, 169, 161, 168, 173, 226, 227, 238, 243, 268, 280, 305 Inclusive 114, 124, 137, 152, 196, 255, 256 Indirect Feedback 53, 61, 70, 71 Instructional design 274, 280, 288, 315 Instructor-provided feedback 51, 54, 57, 58, 68 Intuitive knowledge 87, 88, 135

Bi-directional Scaffolding 13, 16, 19, 20–24 Bilingual identity 18, 83

Language ideologies 68, 91, 107–125, 132, 231 Language variety 8, 83, 112, 130, 136, 138, 167, 225, 229, 233, 242 Linguistic diversity 2, 7, 70, 71, 72, 130, 138, 149, 155, 158, 160, 197, 203, 220, 221, 253, 256 Linguistic evidence 229, 243 Linguistic maintenance 139 Linguistic patterns 91

Common Underlaying Proficiency (CUP) hypothesis 295, 296 Compound awareness 293, 302 Content-based instruction (CBI) 81, 85, 90, 91, 93, 97, 98, 99 Corrective Feedback (CF) 8, 51, 52, 53, 57, 59, 60, 61, 67–72 Critical Language Awareness 3–6, 91, 106, 112, 132, 133, 226 Critical pedagogy 173, 244, 259 Critical Service-learning (CSL) 133, 135, 138, 140, 145 Crosslinguistic 206

MADE 7, 274–292 Meta-linguistic 1, 5, 7, 8, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22–24, 34, 37, 42, 43, 52–54, 64 66, 86, 87, 135, 138, 158, 183, 189, 202–225, 229–233, 237–239, 264, 275–286, 294–304, 311–315 Metacognition 275, 279, 281, 282, 286, 297, 298, 301, 211 Metalanguage of instruction 3, 6, 85–88 Metalinguistic Awareness 5, 7, 8, 202–223, 275, 279, 281, 282, 294–297, 300–304, 313

Differentiated 2, 4, 5, 7, 23, 81, 82, 86, 90 Discrimination 4, 110, 129, 130, 134, 139, 207, 230, 231, 238, 252, 253 Equitable Pedagogical Practices (EPP) 108, 109, 113, 116, 117, 121, 123, 124 Error analysis 37, 38 Explicit positive assessments (EPAs) 53, 56 319

320 Index

Metalinguistic representations 294–301, 311–313 Micro-approaches 84–86 Monolingual 3, 5–8, 33–35, 44–47, 83, 129, 131, 153–156, 160, 251–301 Monolithic approaches 295, 296 Morpho-syntactic 13 Morphology 6, 8, 29–50, 56, 228, 231, 233, 234, 241, 261, 268 Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE) 7, 274–292 Multilingualism 2, 4, 7, 8, 29, 31, 46, 134, 137, 153, 156, 158, 160, 170, 171, 202–223, 251–318 Multiliteracy 9, 275, 279–286, 313 Multimodality 6, 161, 167, 257, 286, 300, 301, 312

Race 107, 110, 112, 116, 118, 119, 229, 231, 253 raciolinguistics 6, 107–129 Recasts 54–56, 65–69, 72 Repertoire 22, 111, 121, 156, 160, 202, 204, 217, 224, 232, 257–269, 276, 281, 283, 286, 294–297, 300, 313–315

Norm 6, 8, 23, 81, 113, 114, 121, 131, 138, 160, 221, 254, 278, 281

Translanguaging ix, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 121, 122, 251–273, 280, 283, 293–318 Two-solitudes approach 295 Typology 91, 206

Perception 36, 51, 53–57, 60, 64, 67–72, 81, 88, 89, 97, 98 Plurilingual 7, 154–160, 169, 260 Policy vii, 169, 229, 252, 253 Prior Knowledge 17, 109, 217, 220, 225, 226, 230, 231, 241 Processing 4, 5, 8, 40, 54, 179–201

Socio-affective 114, 130 Sociolinguistics 3, 5–8, 18, 39, 71, 90, 91, 108, 116–118, 121, 123, 131–135, 138, 154, 159, 226, 230–244, 268, 296 Standard language 31, 107, 109–111, 113, 117, 120, 123, 124, 135, 138, 227, 229, 233 Structured Input 8, 181, 196–198 Structured Output 8, 181, 196–198

Variationist approach 6, 226, 230–232, 236–246 Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) 8, 13, 17, 23, 27