Keywords

5.1 Introduction

Working for equity in the classroom means teachers ensure that all students get what they need in order to be able to learn (Darling-Hammond, 2015). In science classrooms, this means learning both science content and scientific communication practices (Brown & Ryoo, 2008). For instance, students who are designated as English Learners (ELs) as well as those who have the status of Redesignated Fluent English Proficiency possess a host of language abilities in two or more languages, which are often ignored in schools (García et al., 2008). Recently, we are seeing a shift away from referring to such students as English Learners, a term with a deficit focus, toward phrases like emergent bilingual or simply bilingual, which highlights students’ abilities rather than labeling them perpetually deficient (García et al., 2008). Henceforth in this chapter, we will refer to these students as bi-/multilingual learners (Martínez, 2018). In traditional science classrooms, English is the dominant language of instruction. Little to no emphasis is placed on how using multiple language(s) might influence students’ understanding of content and engagement in science. Rather than ignoring these realities, effective teachers of multilingual classrooms can leverage student bi-/multilingualism for the purposes of both content learning and language development (García et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2013). While traditional language-immersion programs and learning philosophies dictate that speakers use only the target-language in all classroom interactions, bilingual education has made shifts in the ways that named languages are treated. Some bilingual education scholars promote a social justice agenda to deconstruct the notion of named languages through the theory and pedagogy of translanguaging. Translanguaging is when speakers draw freely from their language repertoires without regard for traditional boundaries between languages (García & Wei, 2014; Otheguy et al., 2015). Increasingly, we are seeing a greater understanding of creating opportunities for students to draw on their language varieties as they learn (García et al., 2017; Gort & Sembiante, 2015; Lemmi et al., 2019). As a linguistic and social practice, translanguaging offers many potential possibilities for bi-/multilingual science students.

Several recent studies demonstrate the role of translanguaging specifically in the science classroom. In a study of 5th grade science classes in a bilingual education program, Poza (2018) found that allowing students to draw on their full repertoires in two languages helped to support their learning of new science content as well as new linguistic forms. Langman (2014) and Palmer et al. (2014) illustrated how bilingual science teachers themselves modeled translanguaging as a resource to help develop the academic content knowledge of middle school students. Translanguaging even promoted students’ abilities to relate to the science content and contextualize it within relevant areas of knowledge (Karlsson et al., 2020). Martínez (2018) found evidence of varying ideological approaches to translanguaging among 6th grade bilingual students. Although the practice of translanguaging is gaining attention in linguistics circles, it has yet to become a part of mainstream science education conversations or professional development initiatives, and little is known about whether science teachers are aware of translanguaging or the presence of language ideologies in the classroom. In this chapter, we describe a few examples of how a 4th grade elementary teacher enables translanguaging in her science classroom.

5.2 Theoretical Framework

Humans communicate information through the means of language, whether spoken, signs, or in print form. When conveying meaning through language, individuals rarely stick to the conventions of named languages (e.g., Spanish and English) because in their heads their ways of speaking are not separate or bounded entities. In an effort to categorize the world, society constructs and reifies the boundaries between languages. Named languages such as Spanish and English are not naturally separate or bounded entities (Creese & Blackledge, 2010). For instance, dominant approaches to bilingual education view monolingualism as the norm, and bilingualism as divergent, which is measurably false on a global scale (García, 2009). Further, the traditional approach to bilingualism view the speakers as two monolinguals in one, a person who speaks both languages with native-like proficiency, no accent, and speaks each language separate from the other (García, 2009; Grosjean, 2004; Palmer et al., 2014). In contrast, heteroglossic approaches to language, drawing on the seminal work of Bakhtin, conceptualize languages and bi-/multilingualism as complex, fluid, and dynamic, most effective when speakers draw on their vast repertoire of linguistic abilities (García, 2017). When speakers draw freely from their language repertoires without regard for traditional boundaries between languages, scholars refer this practice as translanguaging (Otheguy et al., 2015). Distinct from code-switching, which is a more bounded temporal practice, translanguaging happens in complex ways within an exchange or utterance (García, 2009). In practical terms, some of the ways teachers use translanguaging include modeling the use of multiple languages, positioning students as bilingual even before they are, and celebrating hybrid language practices in the classroom (Palmer et al., 2014).

The education literature in translanguaging has recently provided new frameworks to center the language practices of bi-/multilingual speakers. The literature at the intersection of science education and translanguaging shows how language expectations in schools tend to limit and devalue the linguistic range of minoritized bi-/multilingual students and features attention to the range of interactions between teachers and students around literacy, relegating understanding of scientific ideas often to secondary importance. Some of these studies focus on the tensions in classroom language mixing that emerged from language policies (Probyn, 2009). Others argue in favor of translanguaging as a pedagogy or linguistically responsive approach for social meaning-making and critical awareness of scientific discourses (Infante & Licona, 2018; Poza, 2018). Most of this work has been conducted in K-12 settings, particularly in elementary and high school contexts with a focus on scientific epistemic games (e.g., argumentation, explanations) and rarely on laboratory settings. Limited attention has been given to interactions within science laboratories that highlight the role of translanguaging for both academic and social purposes in the elementary classrooms.

5.3 Research Questions

In this chapter, we answer the following research question:

  1. 1.

    How does translanguaging take place in one 4th grade bilingual science classroom?

  2. 2.

    How do acts of translanguaging serve purposes for the teacher and her students within this bilingual science classroom?

5.4 Methods

In this chapter, we analyze the ways a teacher and her 4th grade students in a bilingual classroom engage in translingual practices as they conduct a soil sample identification laboratory in a science class.

5.4.1 Context

Here, we analyze a transcript of a video that was recorded in a 4th grade classroom at a public Title I school in North Texas. The school has a demographic of predominantly Latino/a/x and Black students, representing 87% of the student body.

The transcript corresponds to a video of 1:19 min. One of the researchers, who also co-taught in the same classroom, had access to the video during the analysis process. Because the media was collected as part of a teacher’s reflective practice and not for research purposes, we do not have a detailed breakdown of demographic information on the specific students participating in the experiment. The use of the video and transcript for research purposes was approved by our institutional review board after the class year had ended and limited demographic information was available to the researchers. However, we know that all students identified as Latinx/o/a, Guatamex (both Mexican and Guatemalan), and/or Mexican/Mexican American and have been labeled as Bilingual and/or English Language Learners (ELLs) at the time of the recording. Two teachers, Mrs. Sanchez and Miss Espinal,Footnote 1 worked together in the class using a co-teaching model. One of the teachers, Miss Espinal, used both Spanish and English in her interactions with students, while the other teacher, Mrs. Sanchez, only draw on her English resources without mixing languages although she was bilingual. During the clip, students are interacting with the teacher who did not mix languages, Mrs. Sanchez. She identified as Latina and had about 15 years of experience teaching in bilingual settings. Although the teacher in the video did not engage in translingual practices, translanguaging in this classroom was modeled and accepted as a common practice by the co-teacher, Miss Espinal. Both educators were intentional about modeling for their students’ sense making through drawing on the linguistic resources that felt more comfortable for them as speakers while also considering their audience. Therefore, despite Mrs. Sanchez not engaging in translingual practices in the video, the teachers constructed a learning environment where messages of acceptance of different ways of speaking and knowing was verbally stated as well as modeled and encouraged.

The context of the study, a science laboratory lesson, provides an interesting look at translingual practices as rarely scholarship centers in this type of settings but on classroom discourse around argumentation and claim-evidence-reasoning. In the video, a group of four students were conducting a lab in which they were trying to identify a soil sample based on its properties, more specifically texture. This lesson is part of a bigger unit that spans for several weeks where students learned about Earth surface, including properties of soils as well as weathering and erosion. All students were randomly assigned to their groups without consideration of language. However, all students participated in a bilingual program at the school district with a focus on using students’ language resources for the advancement of English as indicated in the state bilingual dispositions. Although both teachers recognized the importance of learning both languages, none of them subscribe to the idea of using Spanish in advancement of English.

In the lab, students followed a series of steps, such as increasing moisture and moldability of the sample by adding water, forming the soil into a hotdog shape with their hands, stretching it out, and making the sample into a bow shape. Students inferred the properties of the sample based on the way it responds to each of these manipulations (NRCS, n.d.; Thien, 1979). The transcript is 44 talk turns in length and takes place while the students were conducting the portion of the lab in which they are forming the sample into a hotdog shape. The group of four students are working together, and the teacher is standing alongside, supporting them to do their work. One student in the group is holding the soil sample in her hands, and the others are holding materials like a ruler, papers, and pencils.

5.4.2 Data Collection

The data that we analyzed for this chapter consisted of a transcript of the interactions between a teacher, Mrs. Sanchez, and four of her students. The teacher who did not appear in the video transcribed the video and audio recordings. She also reviewed and edited the transcriptions where necessary to match the audio file with the transcribed text and add details about tone of voice and gestures that accompanied the verbal utterances. Using the data from the cleaned transcriptions, researchers translated the Spanish portions into English and included those translations in brackets next to the original text.

5.4.3 Data Analysis

We analyzed our data using conversation analysis (Seedhouse, 2004). We identified and described social purposes accomplished by each utterance from the teacher and her students while providing insights of how speakers interact with one another. At the methodological level, conversation analysis affords us opportunities to analyze both the verbal and non-verbal interactions in connection with social practices within a given contexts (Mondada, 2013). Thus, making it an ideal lens for analyzing instances of translanguaging, especially in the context of science education where practices and discourse play a crucial role.

The authors have background in education and science teaching. Two of them are former secondary science teachers while the third one an elementary bilingual math and science teacher. For each utterance, two researchers reviewed the transcripts and discussed together the meaning and social context of what was being said at each turn of the conversation. Using the contextual knowledge of one researcher, who had participated in the data collection, as well as our own experience, as former teachers, teaching the laboratory being shown in the clip, we identified the main purpose of each turn of talk. In addition, we identified the actions accomplished through language by documenting how the hearers respond to the speakers’ moves. Although our lens on translanguaging challenges the notions of boundaries between languages, we also identified the named language(s) being used in each talk turn.

5.5 Findings

Our analysis showed that participants in this classroom engaged in translanguaging for a variety of purposes (see Table 5.1). Out of 44 talk turns, most of the conversation was held in English (35 turns), and the students and teacher frequently used Spanish (9 turns) or a combination of English and Spanish within a talk turn (2 turns). Here, we characterize the ways in which participating students used translanguaging for both social and academic purposes. In the exchanges we studied, we found three main purposes that were accomplished (1) making comparisons between science and lived experiences, (2) asking and answering procedural questions, and (3) using a scientific nomenclature. In the sections, below we describe these exchanges in greater depth.

Table 5.1 Analysis of talk turns during a science laboratory activity identifying soil samples. There are differences in how the excerpt is designed in width
Full size table

Our understanding of translanguaging encompasses the use of two or more languages for complex purposes. We do not wish to suggest that translanguaging is only the use of multiple languages within a sentence, but rather, within an utterance or social exchange. Here, we analyze translanguaging between teachers and students to advance specific social and academic purposes. We compare the ways in which languages were used to elucidate the similarities and differences in the social purposes accomplished by the use of each in this particular event. Finally, we also analyze the ways in which translingual interactions were within utterances.

The exchange described in the next section spanned 44 talk turns, 9 of which were said entirely in Spanish and 35 were spoken entirely in English while two were spoken using a combination of both languages within talk turn. Of the talk turns spoken in Spanish, all were said by students. Of the talk turns spoken in English, 15 were said by the teacher and 20 by students. The teacher, Mrs. Sanchez, spoke only English in this discussion, and occasionally she responded to a student’s comment in Spanish with an English reply. Of the talk turns spoken in both languages, both were said by students. One of the students, Luis, only spoke Spanish in his interactions with the others, while the rest of the students interacted in both languages with different degrees of dominance between English and Spanish. For instance, Valeria mostly performed language in English with a few instances in Spanish, while Angel did the opposite.

5.5.1 Making a Comparison

One way in which students participated in translanguaging in the class was to make comparisons. Learners identified similarities between laboratory materials and commonly known objects. For example, at the beginning of the discussion, we see the following exchange.

Mrs. Sanchez::

When it almost breaks down, then you know that’s it.

Luis::

Entonces, lo parto

Valeria::

Atrevete!

Angel::

Se mira como una salchica

In the above exchange, the students are making a worm out of wet soil as part of a soil identification procedure. The teacher, Mrs. Sanchez, is explaining to the students how they will know when they are done making the worm, as her directive, “then you know that’s it” indicates completion of the task. The students then engage in an exchange in Spanish among themselves. First, Luis says “entonces lo parto” [Then, I’ll break it], indicating that he plans to break the worm after this part of the procedure is completed. Valeria, who is in charge of manipulating the soil sample, responds “Atrevete!” [I dare you!”] as an indication of her disapproval of this plan and as a challenge to Luis. Then, Angel offers a comparison “Se mira como una salchicha” [It looks like a sausage]. In this exchange, the students accomplish two main purposes; they discuss what they would like to do next in the procedure (breaking the soil sample) and they make a comparison between the soil sample and a commonly recognized object. Additionally, there is an element of humor added into their discussion when Luis and Valeria banter about potentially breaking the soil sample after the procedure is completed.

These quotes suggest that even a short exchange in Spanish achieved complex social and academic purposes for the students. The students potentially show to each other that they should wait until the procedure was complete before breaking or playing with the soil sample. Additionally, Angel was able to make a useful comparison between the appearance of the soil sample and an object that the class would likely recognize. The use of humor here advances the purposes of outlining the next steps to follow and making relevant comparisons between lived experiences and science while potentially provides social coherence among the students, which may further advance their ability to work productively together as a group.

5.5.2 Asking a Question

In the clip we studied, students also engaged in translingual interactions when asking questions both for academic and social purposes. However, these hybrid interactions were not centered in the classroom. There are multiple plausible explanations for this situation. In terms of the academic purpose, English may have served as a way to focus the conversation or a mechanism to limit the expression of ideas in non-dominant languages from the perspective of the teacher and/or Valeria. In terms of the social purpose, Angel may want to provide input in a way that it is meaningful for himself and as a result contribute to the intellectual community of his classroom. For example, we see the following exchange.

Mrs. Sanchez::

Are you sure you can’t stretch it anymore?

Valeria::

No

Angel::

¿Puedes hacer un moño?

Mrs. Sanchez::

Are you sure?

Angel::

Puedes hacer un moño?

Mrs. Sanchez::

You are not sure?

Mrs. Sanchez::

If you are not sure you can [inaudible].

Valeria::

I don’t know

Mrs. Sanchez::

You need to keep trying then

Valeria::

I think that’s it.

During these utterances, the teacher is asking the student group whether they are able to stretch the soil sample anymore. The instructions for the laboratory activity indicate that students should stretch the sample as much as possible to measure the length of the 25 grams of soil sample before breaking. The teacher, Mrs. Sanchez, is here implying that the sample can be stretched even more. In response to the teacher’s question, Valeria says “no”, but Angel asks the same question twice in what may be considered Spanish, “¿Puedes hacer un moño?” [Can you make a bow?]. He is asking the group if they should try to make a bow out of the sample without breaking it, which is the next step in the procedure. His contribution through the question seems to be ignored by both the teacher, who responds to the group only in English, as well as the rest of the students, who do not respond to the question posed by Angel. The exchange seems to take place mostly between the teacher and Valeria, who are speaking in what may be considered English. In this instance, the use of English between the teacher and Valeria seems to serve a dual purpose, both academic and social, of keeping the conversation centered on a specific task and content while also setting up the norms of interaction in the group. The social purpose of this interaction could also be viewed as serving to silence the question being posed by Angel, spoken in Spanish. It is important to note that Angel and all students in this study interacted throughout the school year with two teachers who co-taught the lessons, Mrs. Sanchez and Miss Espinal. The former spoke mostly in English in all classroom interactions while the latter model translingual speech frequently. Sanchez typically taught language arts and social studies. Espinal usually led the science and math courses. Although Mrs. Sanchez was leading the lesson included in this chapter, Angel understood the science lesson as opportunities to draw on his linguistic repertoire due to the affordances enable by Espinal in these settings.

5.5.3 Use of a Scientific Term

A third way students engaged in translanguaging was through the use of scientific nomenclature in English, as seen in the exchange transcribed below.

Mrs. Sanchez:

Ok, next step

Valeria:

So, I need to put it there

Angel:

So, ¿no puedes hacer un moño?

Mrs. Sanchez:

Now, do you think she can measure it with the ruler?

 

Why not?

Angel:

Si. En centimeters

During this exchange, the teacher is moving the students on to the next step in the procedure. Angel uses both Spanish and English together in one talk turn twice. In the first instance, the student asks for the fourth time about whether or not Valeria can make a bow with the soil sample. He inquires, “So, ¿no puedes hacer un mono?” [So, aren’t you able to make a bow?]. In this utterance, the only word that can be considered in English is “so”. Throughout the clip, he repeats four times the question that was formerly ignored by his classmates and teacher. At the end of the exchange, there is a conversation about how to measure the soil sample. When the teacher inquiries about the possibility to measure the sample with a ruler, Angel says “Si. En centimeters” [Yes. In centimeters]. The first two words of this statement may be considered as linguistic chunks in Spanish while the last in English. Throughout the moment capture in the video transcripts, we noticed that Angel engaged primarily in translingual practices to communicate his ideas. He draws on his Spanish resources to make connections with his lived experiences while drawing on his English repertoire to refer to science nomenclature.

Later on, on line 36–44 (see Table 5.1), Angel continues drawing on the scientific nomenclature, centimeters, potentially signaling to others his membership in this community of practice. He may have also attempt to communicate in a way that was valued and understood by his peers. In opposition to the other instances where Angel asked about making a bow with the sample, the moments where he draws on scientific terms engaged his interlocutors in his ideas. The nature of this interaction, the fact that Angel resource to the use of scientific terms, and only accomplished attention from his peers by doing so, may be problematic and complex. Because speakers like Angel, with great bilingual dexterity, have an understanding of who their audience is, they draw on different resources to communicate their message effectively. However, it is unclear to what extent meaning may be sacrifice over effectiveness of communication.

5.6 Discussion

In this chapter, we sought to answer the research questions (1) how translanguaging take place in a 4th grade bilingual science classroom? and (2) how do acts of translanguaging serve purposes for the teacher and her students within this bilingual science classroom? We found that in this one class, translanguaging took place when students were making comparisons, asking questions, and using scientific terms. When making comparisons, the students were able to describe similarities between objects in their science lab (a soil sample) and objects that were commonly known to their peers: a mustache, a rosary, and sausage. This served the social and academic purpose of making the course content more relatable to their peers and perhaps introducing a little humor into the class as well. When asking questions, one student in particular used translanguaging to ask the same question several times, which for him may have served the purpose of attempting to be noticed by his classmates and teacher. When engaging in translanguaging for the purposes of using a scientific term, “centimeters,” the student speaker may have accomplished the task of using a word that was commonly understood and used by their classmates in this course. Through the use of scientific nomenclature, the student may also want to signal membership to the practices commonly associated with this community. These varied ways of engaging in translanguaging in a short classroom segment provide a few examples of the purposes served by hybrid language practices in the classroom.

While this study demonstrates several ways that translanguaging can take place in a science classroom, there are several limitations that should be taken into account when considering our findings. Of course, as a small qualitative study our findings are not intended to be generalizable. We illustrate one example of a bi-/multilingual science class and analyze translanguaging events within it. There are many different ways translanguaging can happen that are not represented within our results. Also, we do not have extensive background information on our participants that we would like to have, which could provide additional depth to our analysis. However, our findings add to the field by providing examples of how translanguaging can happen and analysis of the value of such practices for science learning.

This chapter demonstrates the nuanced ways in which students use translanguaging for social and academic purposes in a science classroom. The data suggests that students are aware of the role context and speakers play in their interactions when they are drawing on their language resources. Often, it is assumed that science classes are English-only spaces or that English and scientific language should dominate. Educational scholars should take the responsibility to center traditionally marginalized communities’ wealth of knowledge and ways of speaking in our work. The usefulness and value of languages other than English and hybrid language practices has gone largely unexamined, especially within science education research. By demonstrating three purposes accomplished by students via their participation in translanguaging, we show that these linguistic turns serve valuable academic and social purposes in the classroom.