Search

It is well-established in both scholarship and policy documents that students’ home language practices can be leveraged as a key resource for their learning. However, it can be challenging for teachers to embed students’ language resources in class activities in ways that link to wider learning objectives. We report how the inclusion of home language literacy practices can both enhance English language learning and promote multiliteracies. Data are drawn from a design-based study on the incorporation of home languages in the teaching of English. In the article, we focus on the teaching and learning that occurred in the classroom of two English as an Additional Language (EAL) teachers. Data collected comprised lesson sequences, teacher reflection, student work samples and student reflection. It was found that teacher-initiated support for home language literacy practices led to positive student engagement. The support included giving an active role to bi/multilingual teaching assistants and Google Translate.

ROOTED IN STRENGTH: USING TRANSLANGUAGING TO GROW MULTILINGUAL READERS AND WRITERS Cecilia M. Espinosa & Laura Ascenzi-MorenoNew York: Scholastic, 2021

Recently, the incorporation of students’ home languages into monolingual classrooms has been reinvigorated by a scholarly focus on extended linguistic repertoire. In bilingual programs, ideas of language separation have traditionally influenced teaching and learning as a way to protect the minority language, but there is a growing call to engage with the complexity of students’ language practices. In this article, it is suggested that the English-medium (dominant language) classroom can be an effective site for exploring how to leverage and affirm students’ home language practices in bilingual education, and also to support the minority language in the program. Data are drawn from a design-based study that investigated the transition of a Japanese–English primary bilingual program from 30% of instruction in Japanese to a 50:50 program. As part of the study, a Foundation teacher and a Year 5/6 teacher worked towards English curriculum objectives by incorporating languages their students spoke at home, including Japanese, into the English-medium classes. Findings revealed that some Foundation students did not immediately draw on home language practices, instead choosing to use Japanese, whereas the Year 5/6 students demonstrated ambivalence towards Japanese but not towards other language practices.

The term ‘CLIL’ has been used in Australia for over a decade, and the approach has helped to invigorate languages education in both primary and secondary schools. In particular, the flexibility of ...

For many years now, knowledge production at universities and in countries like Vietnam has been framed by centre/periphery discourses. In this paper, we suggest that interpreting academics’ researc...

In Australia, content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is commonly implemented as a way to encourage innovation in language teaching. This paper explores how Japanese can also be used to innovate the teaching of content. Qualitative data are drawn from a Year 8 science Japanese CLIL classroom in a secondary school with an opt-in CLIL program. In the class, a monolingual (in English) science teacher was co-teaching with a Japanese language teacher. Findings from observations, after-class reflections, teacher and student interviews, a student survey and work samples revealed that students were highly engaged with the Japanese component of their science lessons. Kanji was further positioned as a way for students to deepen their understanding of scientific concepts. However, there also appeared to be a separation in the way both teachers and students spoke about Japanese language use and learning science. Implications of these findings are discussed in the paper.

Despite the recent emphasis on oral English language proficiency in the Iranian education system, the teaching of oral communication remains a challenge for secondary school English language teachers. In this article, we suggest that this, in part, relates to the continued emphasis on literacy practices. The article explores the approach taken by three Iranian junior high school English language teachers to teaching oracy during a summer school task-based intervention. Data were gathered through observations and interviews, and third generation activity theory from Engeström (1996; Engeström 2001) was used to analyse teachers’ practices. Findings revealed that, while trialling aspects of task-based pedagogies, the teachers’ attention to oracy increased. However, they retained a strong traditional focus on literacy teaching, which had an effect on their approach to oracy and also appeared to constrain their movement towards less-controlled spoken language. This small-scale study offers insights into approaches to oracy teaching while employing task-based pedagogies in foreign language contexts like Iran. In this context, English literacy has been the historical focus, the Roman alphabet is new for the students, and there is often limited exposure to oracy practices outside the classroom context (Sadeghi and Richards, 2015).

Leveraging students’ languages as a resource for learning has been advocated in TESOL literature for the past three decades. This focus has recently been catalysed by a translanguaging perspective which challenges deficit understandings of the ‘English language learner’ and promotes the idea of a holistic linguistic repertoire (Garcia, 2017). Confronting beliefs related to the institutional centrality of English in a country like Australia is an important step in leveraging students’ language resources at school. This chapter reports on research that aimed to encourage teachers in three linguistically diverse primary schools to draw on students’ repertoires in the classroom. Seven generalist teachers attended professional learning in which they worked to incorporate students’ language practices into their lessons. Data were collected from interviews, teachers’ group discussions, lesson plans, written reflections and students’ work samples. Thematic analysis evidenced a shift in teachers’ thinking of what it meant to be bi/multilingual. Further, the affirmation of linguistic identities was found to be less challenging for the teachers than the leveraging of students’ linguistic repertoire for specific learning objectives.

The teaching of language across the curriculum has become widespread in English-speaking countries where migrants and international students of varying levels of English language proficiency have been increasingly integrated into the mainstream curriculum. Over the last few decades, this focus on integration has been mirrored in the rise of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in Europe, where the target language is often English. In this chapter, I will explore the issues around teachers’ knowledge about language (KAL) across the curriculum in the contexts of English as an additional language (EAL) in English-speaking countries and CLIL in Europe. There are some similarities between the contexts, as well as important differences, and both will be discussed in relation to knowledge about language. The issues that will be covered are: 1) situated, functional language; 2) scaffolding as social interaction; 3) teacher collaboration; 4) linguistic repertoire and 5) teacher education. Throughout the chapter, the significance of each issue will be discussed in relation to EAL in mainstream settings and to CLIL models in Europe where CLIL classes are taught by content-area teachers and students also attend English language classes.

In this article, we address the epistemological conflict inherent in the relationship between named languages and translanguaging theory. Following with interest Turnbull’s (2016) reframing of fore...

Translanguaging pedagogy offers a way to differentiate between students’ varying linguistic repertoires when embedding an additional language across the curriculum. In this article I draw on positioning theory to show the relevance of teacher positioning to translanguaging pedagogy and differentiation. Differentiation is discussed in relation to qualitative data drawn from two Australian secondary schools. In one school a Japanese language teacher collaborated with a History teacher on a History unit, and in the other school three Japanese language teachers jointly taught a Geography unit. Findings revealed that the different ways teachers positioned their students influenced students’ use of the target language. Further, teacher positioning was found to lead to student differentiation in the first school but not in the second school.

The chapter focuses on the use of Japanese language and the incorporation of heritage languages in a government primary bilingual Japanese programme. The weekly language distribution of the programme was 30 per cent of instruction in Japanese and 70 per cent in English. Just over 80 per cent of students at the school were LBOTE and approximately half of this number comprised students with a Japanese heritage. The aim is to show ways in which languages were used across the curriculum in the school, and to discuss this use in relation to the multilingual practices framework. Data on pedagogical choices, teacher reflections, teacher and student interviews, work samples, a student survey and classroom observations inform the discussion. The study is explained first and the findings are then discussed according to the dimensions of the framework: multilingual stance, student engagement with languages, institutional structures and pedagogies, and opportunities to learn (through) languages.

Australia, an English-speaking country, offers teacher education courses in TESOL for both domestic and international students in contexts that include English as an Additional Language (EAL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) or International Language (EIL). Different courses have been designed according to whether or not students aim to become qualified to teach in Australian schools and/or in a government-funded Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP). A Master of Teaching and a Bachelor of Education both offer this teaching qualification. For students not seeking a formal Australian teaching qualification – international students, and domestic students who may want to teach international adult students in Australia, teach English overseas and/or upgrade their professional skills – a Master of TESOL is offered. In this chapter, we describe these two courses, and the practicum experience attached to them, at Monash University, against a backdrop of the issues pertaining to teacher education generally and to TESOL teacher education specifically. We also discuss the strengths and challenges, and suggest ways in which the challenges can be addressed.

This article explores the kinds of teacher knowledge promoted in TESOL-related curriculum standards in five jurisdictions (Australia and England at the national level, New York City and New York State in the United States, and Ontario, Canada, at the subnational level). Such documents are increasingly important in defining, and potentially undermining, the professional status of specialist TESOL knowledge and roles in schools. Part of the influence of teacher standards is through policy transfer, and the examples analysed here were selected for their status as models for the drafters of an emerging policy framework in Victoria, Australia. Building on an emerging theoretical tradition focused on pedagogical content knowledge, the analysis identifies contrasting paradigms of teacher expertise that vary in depth and relative importance attributed to knowledge of language. The authors argue that the differing constructions of pedagogical content knowledge across jurisdictions imply different kinds of teacher roles that are potentially in tension. The three kinds of positioning that the authors identify are generalist teacher of language and literacy, teacher as TESOL specialist, and teacher of emerging bi/multilinguals. The analysis suggests that greater attention should be given to how teacher knowledge is framed in educational policy, with regard for coherence, practicability, and broader professional expectations. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

The chapter explains the way in which language has traditionally been understood and how this understanding is increasingly being challenged by an emphasis on speakers—rather than discrete languages—and on the significance of hierarchies and power structures. Translanguaging as an emerging theory of language is highlighted in the chapter because it focuses on what speakers do with language(s). Theoretical considerations will be specifically grounded in stakeholders’ cross-curricular language practices. Language as a social construct and political tool, bi/multilingualism and its relationship to translanguaging will be discussed. The idea of learning language with only limited, school-based exposure, as well as the leveraging of students’ existing linguistic resources, will also be addressed.

The chapter takes as its focus the incorporation of heritage languages in generalist classes in three primary schools, all with more than 80 per cent LBOTE student population. Heritage languages were incorporated into English-medium classes in order to teach planned curriculum content. The aim is to show ways in which languages were incorporated into learning activities in the three schools, and to discuss language use in relation to the multilingual practices framework. Data on pedagogical choices, teachers’ oral and written reflections on lesson implementation, student and teacher interviews and student work samples inform the discussion. The study is explained first and then the findings are discussed according to the dimensions of the framework: multilingual stance, student engagement with languages, institutional structures and pedagogies and opportunities to learn (through) languages.

The chapter investigates cross-curricular use of Japanese in three government secondary schools, as initiated by language teachers. In one school, the use of French by the French language teacher was also included. In the school where both Japanese and French were investigated, cross-curricular use of the target language was confined to the language class. In the other two schools, the Japanese language teachers initiated the use of Japanese in subject-area classrooms. The aim is to show ways in which languages were used across the curriculum in the three schools, and to discuss this use in relation to the multilingual practices framework. Data on pedagogical choices, teacher reflections, interviews, student surveys and classroom observations inform the discussion. The study is explained first and the findings are then discussed according to the dimensions of the framework of cross-curricular language use: multilingual stance, student engagement with languages, institutional structures and pedagogies, and opportunities to learn (through) languages.

The chapter aims to show possible teaching and learning objectives for student participation in cross-curricular language learning and use in mainstream contexts of diversity. These objectives are discussed by drawing on the findings from the studies in Part Two. Students’ opportunities to learn (through) languages and how they might align with these objectives are highlighted. Objectives are divided into two sections: leveraging languages as a resource for general teaching and learning, and learning languages as a goal. The division between resource and goal is unlikely to be conspicuous during implementation: it is made to assist in planning and thinking through a rationale for the adoption of different kinds of practices.

The chapter will highlight the relationship between multilingual practices and opportunities to learn. It will first consider the importance of how we approach language use and then move to the multilingual practices framework. The framework will be discussed according to the three dimensions—multilingual stance, student engagement, and institutional structures and pedagogies—and their influence on learning opportunities. Spaces for multilingual practices in mainstream schools and how they afford learning for different student profiles will then be considered. Discussion of these spaces will include differentiation, innovation and language hierarchies, or inequities in the distribution of learning opportunities.

The chapter focuses on the cross-curricular use of Japanese and Italian in a Catholic secondary school, as initiated by the principal and content teachers. At this school, students had the opportunity to opt into a CLIL programme in which they studied four subject areas (Japanese) or two subject areas (Italian) in the target language. The aim is to show ways in which languages were used across the curriculum in the school, and to discuss this use in relation to the multilingual practices framework. Data on pedagogical choices, teacher reflections, teacher and student interviews, student and parent surveys, student work samples and classroom observations inform the discussion. The study is explained first and the findings are then discussed according to the dimensions of the framework: multilingual stance, student engagement with languages, institutional structures and pedagogies and opportunities to learn (through) languages.

In the chapter, a framework for considering how to expand and leverage students’ linguistic repertoire is discussed. The framework draws on sociocultural and sociopolitical perspectives and includes three dimensions: (1) multilingual stance, (2) student engagement and (3) institutional structures and pedagogies. The principal argument in the chapter is that these dimensions can have a substantial influence on stakeholder participation, and hence on the sustainability and effectiveness of any language learning and use across the curriculum. The framework is later applied to teachers’ and students’ participation in four different types of settings with varying levels of whole-school commitment to the use of different languages across the curriculum. The chapter is arranged according to a sociocultural view of opportunities to learn, followed by each of the three framework dimensions. The final section of the chapter addresses the framework as a whole, and this includes the language-based pedagogies discussed in Chap. 3.

The chapter considers ways in which languages have been structured into everyday teaching and learning across the curriculum. Use of languages is considered in different contexts and includes programmes that target the learning of a language at school and English-medium settings where students are able to leverage a language they speak at home to assist in their learning. My aim in the chapter is to provide some background on how bilingual education and the education of (emergent) bi/multilinguals has been conceptualised in relation to language use, and also to discuss language-related pedagogies. Cross-curricular distribution of languages is discussed first in relation to instructional language separation, language flexibility and incorporation of students’ languages into English-medium classes. Everyday language-related pedagogies then focus on both learning through a target language and cross linguistic learning.

Language teachers are positioned differently depending on whether they are L1 or L2 speakers of the target language. In this article I suggest that, in language teacher education, it can be useful to think explicitly about this positioning as it pertains to both languages rather than just one. I propose a relational two-language continuum based on the constructs of authenticity and legitimacy. The objective of the continuum is to help pre-service foreign language teachers gain legitimacy through two languages in Australian language classrooms. Given the prevalence of monolingual educational structures in Australia, the continuum is primarily viewed as a tool to help a diverse cohort of pre-service teachers think about how to increase communicative target language use in mainstream language classrooms.

Integrationist policies that promote the mainstreaming of English language learners are well established in many English-speaking countries. This has led to the embedding of English as an additional language (EAL) methodology in teacher education, and also to the notion of collaboration between English language teachers and content area teachers. Teacher positioning is integral to the processes of collaboration, and in this article it is argued that both sociocultural identity constructs and the notion of dilemmatic spaces can be used jointly to explore this positioning. A framework that draws upon these two theoretical perspectives is discussed. It was developed to investigate pre-service teachers’ (PSTs’) perceptions of collaboration with EAL teachers, and is applied to three secondary PSTs who were undertaking an EAL methodology course in an Australian university.

In this article we introduce the special issue: Language(s) across the curriculum in Australian schools. The special issue includes a focus on English as an additional language in mainstream classes, Indigenous education, heritage languages and foreign languages, and we give background to these different – though frequently overlapping – contexts. By considering context, we seek to demonstrate the timeliness and importance both of the special issue and of a focus on the experiences of students, teachers, parents and members of the community in bilingual and multilingual initiatives. Despite the empirical focus being Australian schools, we understand that the findings may resonate with other setting where monolingual ways of thinking are dominant. We conclude this introductory article by providing the structure and overview of the special issue.

In Australia, although content and language integrated learning (CLIL) has been introduced in some mainstream schools, monolingual structures prevail. In this article, I suggest that translanguaging pedagogy may be a useful way of thinking about the integration of language and content in the Australian mainstream context, but that attention initially needs to be paid to affordances, or institutional opportunities and constraints. The qualitative study under discussion in the article investigated affordances associated with teachers’ choices around embedding Japanese across the curriculum in three Government secondary schools. Five teachers were observed using Japanese to teach – or support the teaching of – a subject area and four were interviewed. Significant affordances were found to be curriculum-related school structures, collaboration and CLIL training. Although these affordances differed from school to school, collaborative practices were found in the school structures of all three schools, and CLIL...

Japanese Language Teaching (JLT) is well established in Australia but the number of students studying Japanese has been declining. This decline is due to various factors, among them the rise of Mandarin as a language taught in schools and a reduction in government support for JLT. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), a popular content-based teaching approach developed in Europe, is currently being trialled in Australian primary and secondary schools, and some of these schools have JLT programs. In Europe, CLIL has been particularly successful in improving learners’ conversational ability, and the embrace of Japanese CLIL programs in Australia is therefore positive. However, there are factors involved in teaching a particular language in a particular country or region which may influence the success of the approach. In this article I argue that issues related to JLT in Australia, such as the relationship between Australia and Japan, teaching resources, teacher bilingualism and linguistic distan...

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has been gaining in popularity and is influencing ways in which various non-European countries approach bilingual education. For example, some Australian bilingual programmes are now being officially referred to as CLIL programmes. Although CLIL methodology shows potential outside Europe, this article argues that certain aspects of CLIL should be subject to scrutiny before programmes are adopted in an Australian context. In the article, these aspects relate primarily to organisational and affective factors, which are considered to have a substantial influence on successful programmes. The article specifically addresses Australian primary and secondary public education because public bilingual education programmes may offer a way to address the high attrition rates and the decline in languages taught. The article will focus on ways in which CLIL arose and is defined through the European context for which it was designed. Then it will identify some of...