Translanguaging-as-Resource: University ESL Instructors’ Language Orientations and Attitudes Toward Translanguaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores university English as a Second Language (ESL) instructors’ attitudes toward translanguaging in the classroom and possible reasons for instructors’ resistance in moving translanguaging ideology into English language teaching pedagogy. Many researchers have forwarded translanguaging as a theoretical and pedagogical approach to language education because of its potential cognitive, social, and affective benefits. A translanguaging pedagogy calls for instructors to affirm the dynamic and diverse language practices that multilingual students utilize as part of their unitary language repertoire. However, because English-only pedagogies, policies, and practices still permeate the ESL classroom, it is critical to understand how ESL instructors’ language ideologies and orientations play a role in shaping their pedagogical practices and classroom language policies. Using Ruíz’s orientations in language planning and translanguaging theory, this study examined the language orientations of five ESL instructors at a major Canadian university based on qualitative data gathered through semistructured interviews. The findings provide insights into instructors’ attitudes toward translanguaging, the relationship between instructors’ language learning experiences and their classroom language policy, and institutional opportunities and constraints. Le présent article explore les attitudes des professeurs d’anglais langue seconde (ESL) au niveau universitaire face au translangagisme en salle de classe ainsi que les raisons possibles de leur résistance à l’introduction de l’idéologie translangagière dans la pédagogie de l’enseignement de l’anglais. De nombreux travaux de recherche renvoient au translangagisme comme démarche théorique et pédagogique d’enseignement des langues en raison de ses avantages cognitifs, sociaux et affectifs. La pédagogie translangagière invite les professeurs à soutenir le dynamisme et la diversité des pratiques langagières que les étudiantes et étudiants multilingues utilisent déjà dans le cadre de leur répertoire linguistique unitaire. Toutefois, puisque l’enseignement de l’anglais langue seconde en classe reste imprégné de pédagogies, de politiques, et de pratiques exclusivement anglophones, il est essentiel de comprendre le rôle que jouent les idéologies et les orientations des professeurs d’anglais langue seconde dans la formation de leurs pratiques pédagogiques et de leurs politiques d’enseignement en classe. S’inspirant des orientations de Ruíz en matière de planification langagière et de théorie translangagière, la présente étude examine les orientations linguistiques de cinq professeures et professeurs d’anglais langue seconde dans une grande université canadienne à l’aide de données qualitatives recueillies dans le cadre d’entrevues semi-structurées. Les conclusions de l’enquête aident à mieux comprendre les attitudes des professeurs face au translangagisme, la relation entre les expériences d’apprentissage langagier des professeurs, et leur politique langagière en classe ainsi que les possibilités et les contraintes institutionnelles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".