TRANSLANGUAGING IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PRE-SERVICE TEACHER’S PERCEPTIONS OF TRANSLANGUAGING IN REQUIRED UNIVERSITY COURSES

This multiple case study measures preservice teachers’ perceptions of a translanguaging pedagogy on content/language development and on student affect in required university courses. Perceptions were gathered from 75 students, across three different required content classes, on Texas Christian University, and over the span of three years. A modified version of the 2-1-L2 dual-language model (Przymus, 2016, 2010) called the 2-1-T was used to structure all content lessons into three instructional movements-a sustained immersion in one named language (Spanish or English), a subsequent sustained immersion in other named language (without repeating content), and a third instructional movement creating space in each lesson for purposeful translanguaging. Situated within the literature on language policy and planning, such as status and acquisition planning (Wiley 1996), and orientations in language planning, such as language-as-problem, language-asresource, and language-as-right (Ruiz, 1984), participant voices are analyzed specifically for impact on status and acquisition planning, and for a potential way forward for an ideological shift from l-as-problem to l-as-resource at the higher education setting. Perceptions remain consistent across case studies, with students self-reporting an increase in content, target language, and positive identity development as a result of participation in required university classes with this translanguaging approach. Results may inform the language status and acquisition planning of other higher education institutions who desire to implement translanguaging in teacher preparation programs. TRANSLANGUAGING IN HIGHER EDUCATION iv TRANSLANGUAGING IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PRE-SERVICE TEACHER’S PERCEPTIONS OF TRANSLANGUAGING IN REQUIRED UNIVERSITY COURSES Prevailing ideologies about language, language learners (henceforth emergent bilinguals and experienced bilinguals), bilingualism, and language teachers, drive contemporary educational discourses that can lead to inadequate teacher education programs and future teachers unprepared to serve culturally and linguistically diverse youth (Dupuy & Michelson, 2019; García, 2009; Üzüm & Petrón, 2016). The normalized, legitimized, unquestioned, de facto, default curriculum in U.S. schools is perpetuated upon the paradigm of one language-at-a-time; what many have called the monolingual paradigm or paradigms of marginality (Gilyard, 2016; Kachru, 1996; Przymus, 2016). This monolingual paradigm almost always privileges English-speakers and English as the default language of success in U.S. schools, even in bilingual education settings (Przymus, 2016), strengthening the orientations of language(bilingualism)-as-resource for first language (L1) English-speakers and language(bilingualism)-as-problem for emergent bilingual youth (Ruiz, 1984). These orientations influence the language planning and policy of both foreign language teaching and ESL/Bilingual/TESOL preservice teacher education programs at the higher education level. A traditional focus on language as code and the myth of L1 impeding L2 acquisition, has lead to historical methods of separating languages in instruction (Gomez, Freeman, & Freeman, 2005; Thomas & Collier, 1998). In recent years, however, many have begun to challenge the idea that languages should be separated in instruction and have put forth pedagogical ideas based on individuals using their whole linguistic repertoire simultaneously while learning (Cummins, 2014, 2008; Levine, 2014; Palmer, Mateus, Martínez, & Henderson, 2014; Przymus, 2016). This more TRANSLANGUAGING IN HIGHER EDUCATION v holistic approach to language learning and content learning through multiple languages derives from the understanding that there is no language switch in the brain (Grosjean & Li, 2012), thus instruction that separates languages may not allow students to use their integrated language abilities. Much of this newer understanding of language development and subsequent influence on language and content teaching can be classified as a translanguaging lens to instruction. Translanguaging is the language practice and ability of individuals to utilize their full linguistic repertoire, that includes features of multiple named languages, but are all part of an individual’s sole linguistic idiolect (Otheguy, García, & Reid, 2015, Przymus, 2018). This ideological shift from stark separation of languages to the breaking down of socially named language walls during instruction has been controversial, but undoubtedly has “filled a gap in our descriptions of language practices in educational settings” (Mazak & Carroll, 2016, p. 1). Currently, very little research exists on the impact of translanguaging in higher education (Mazack & Carroll, 2016), as almost all of the literature has described and analyzed translanguaging at the primary education setting, with even fewer studies conducted in middle and high schools (García, Flores, & Chu, 2011; Langman, 2014; Przymus, 2016). With our report on multiple case studies, we hope to contribute to the scant research on translanguaging in higher education and illustrate a way in which translanguaging practices might exist in university foreign language classrooms and in teacher education program courses. Our intent is to awaken higher education curriculum planners to the urgency of a multilingual ideology in teacher preparation courses, if indeed teachers are to be prepared for culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. Through using the voices of university students who have experienced learning through translanguaging in required content classes, their perspectives inform decisions moving forward regarding the acquisition planning (how well languages, content, and positive identities are TRANSLANGUAGING IN HIGHER EDUCATION vi developed through translanguaging) and the status planning (what importance or instrumentalism is given to multiple languages) in these multilingual higher education classrooms. Finally, in regard to both acquisition and status planning, we aim to learn from these students’ perspectives as to if a translanguaging pedagogy in higher education acts to shift the orientation of l-as-problem to l-as-resource in higher education. It is our hope, that if this ideological shift takes place with preservice teachers, that they will bring this l-as-resource orientation into their future classrooms and support the holistic language abilities, needs, and resources of emergent bilingual youth that they will teach. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING For this paper we looked at the implementation of the 2-1-T model in different courses at the university level. One of our settings was the Seminar in Bilingual Education offered at Texas Christian University for pre service teachers. We looked at reflections and one interview from this classroom over three years. The course was offered and attended by a set of different college level students: some of the students were early childhood educators looking to be certified as bilingual educators, there were also students that were middle secondary pre service teachers that were looking to teach Spanish as a foreign language, another group of students took the class as a requirement for an education or certification degree while two students took the class to develop their Spanish language knowledge. Over the course of a semester students learned about the history of bilingual education in the United States as well as methods they could use in their own classroom. During the second year of our study, students who took the course were able to interact with clients from Fort Worth Catholic Charities in order to help them develop their English and Spanish biliteracy while participating in the 2-1-T model and translanguaging practices. For these TRANSLANGUAGING IN HIGHER EDUCATION vii course’ students’ perceptions were collected through journals, interviews, paper reflections, and self-assessment forms The second setting were junior students in the Early Childhood Education (EC-6) track that were completing their TESOL methods course. These pre service teachers had various classes where they learned about the history of English instruction for emergent bilinguals and methods used. When discussing current methods in the ELL field, students were exposed to the 2-1-T model for one class meeting and then completed a participation self-assessment journal form. This form requests students to give feedback on the lesson to the professor. Students also must write what, if anything, was intriguing or interesting about the lesson and one or two main points from the class that will change how they teach. The third setting was the TESOL methods course for middle secondary pre-service teachers receiving information on linguistic development. Similar to the second setting with EC-6 majors, students received one class with the 2-1-T method and used the participation self-assessment journal to reflect on the classroom.