Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanz=
a de
Lenguas ISSN
1699-6569<=
o:p> Vol. 18 Núm.=
36
(2024) =
doi: 10.26378/rnlael1836571 Recibido:20/=
12/2024
/ Aprobado: 5/03/2024 Publi=
cado
bajo licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento Sin Obra Derivada 4.0
Internacional
“And then the English will come”
Envisioning a Critical Multilingual Education
for the ELT classroom
"Y entonces vendrá el inglés"
Imaginando una educación multilingüe crítica para el =
aula
de ELT
Eleni Louloudi
Bielefeld University
eleni.louloudi@uni-bielefeld.de
ABSTRACT
Critical
literacies describe the need to understand language education as naturally
grounded in deconstruction of social injustice and, ultimately, also as an
educational space where social transformation finds its place. This (radica=
lly)
deconstructive perspective inherently entails seeing language education as a
multilingual setting, where language hierarchies are dismantled and
translanguaging opportunities are embraced. For the ELT classroom, this also
means seeing the colonial truths of the English language as indispensable to
its instruction.
Although the intersection of critical literacies and multilingual
education is fundamental for a critical lens to be adopted in ELT, there is
little research that foregrounds their connection. Consequently, this artic=
le
explores theoretical and practice-oriented intersections of critical litera=
cies
and translanguaging from an ELT perspective, drawing from ethnographic insi=
ghts
collected in NYC. Emphasis is given in the development of a framework of a =
Critical Multilingual Education,
detailing on how this can inform school practice and help embrace emergent
multilinguals.
Keywords:
critical multilingual education, translanguaging, critical literacies, ELT,
language education
RESUMEN
Las
alfabetizaciones críticas describen la necesidad de entender la educación
lingüística como algo naturalmente basado en la deconstrucción de la injust=
icia
social y, en última instancia, también como un espacio educativo donde la
transformación social encuentra su lugar. Esta perspectiva (radicalmente)
deconstructiva implica intrínsecamente considerar la enseñanza de idiomas c=
omo
un entorno multilingüe en el que se desmantelan las jerarquías lingüísticas=
y
se aprovechan las oportunidades de aprendizaje de otros idiomas. Para el au=
la
de ELT, esto también significa ver las verdades coloniales de la lengua ing=
lesa
como indispensables para su enseñanza.
Aunque la intersección de las alfabetizaciones críticas y la educa=
ción
multilingüe es fundamental para adoptar una perspectiva crítica en la enseñ=
anza
del inglés como lengua extranjera, existen pocas investigaciones que destaq=
uen
su conexión. En consecuencia, este artículo explora las intersecciones teór=
icas
y prácticas de las alfabetizaciones críticas y el tran=
slenguaje
desde la perspectiva de la enseñanza del inglés como lengua extranjera, a
partir de datos etnográficos recogidos en Nueva York. Se hace hincapié en el
desarrollo de un marco de Educación Multilingüe Crítica, detallando cómo és=
te
puede informar la práctica escolar y ayudar a acoger a los multilingües
emergentes.
Palabras clave: educación multilingüe
crítica, translenguaje, alfabetización crítica,=
ELT,
enseñanza de idiomas
Language education
has long been moving from a field of language acquisition to an educational
environment that aims to understand language(s) holistically and educate bo=
th
teachers and students about the opportunities to understand language as
inherently connected to power and privilege as well as biases and oppressio=
n.
This – more theorized and less practiced – shift has certainly not come wit=
hout
several resistances: from book banning, to prohibiting languages in school
yards, to even denying students communication (cf. Panagiotopoulou &
Even in these challenging times, the field of critical education has
been progressing and more publications in various contexts (see Gerlach, 20=
20;
Pandya et al., 2022; Selvi & Kocaman, 2024) underline the importance of
criticality in the whole continuum of education: from kindergarten to
university and beyond. One of the concepts that has specifically addressed
criticality as a stance for language education is that of critical literacy
(Luke, 2014; Yoon, 2016). As Janks argues, even “in a peaceful world without
the threat of global warming or conflict or war, where everyone has access =
to
education, health care, food and a dignified life” (2014, p. 32) there would
still be a need for critical literacy, – even more so, in a world that
injustice is still daily business.
Even though critical literacies aim at the identification, analysis,=
and
ultimate transformation of all injustices, with an intersectional view towa=
rds
privilege and oppression, there is still little research that connects them=
to
the necessary “translanguaging turn” (García & Li, 2014): criticality
cannot take form in education if monolingual norms are still in position in
classrooms around the world. Targeting this need for linking these two
–naturally interconnected– directions, this article will focus on foregroun=
ding
a critical multilingual education, while detailing on the whats and hows
necessary for its application.
To do so, it will employ ethnographic insights collected in public
schools in New York City (NYC), which already work with forms of a critical
multilingual perspective. Because of the little research existing, the
collection and analysis of such insights is indispensable to the progressio=
n of
the field. Finally, it will also make some implications on a potential tran=
sfer
to other educational contexts and, in particular, this
of English Language Teaching (ELT) in Germany1.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Defining
“critical” =
and “multilingual“
Before taking upon
the task to propose a framework of elements for a critical multilingual
education, it is necessary to first look into th=
ese
concepts (critical and multilingual) separately, not only bec=
ause
they have long been studied independently in the academic discourse, but al=
so
so that their natural connection becomes apparent.
Already the intent to assign one definition to the Critical is a
paradox: criticality is one of these concepts tha=
t have
been used widely to mean different things, mainly because it is subject to
situated knowledge (Louloudi, 2023). Even t=
hough
sometimes vague, or even too specific (see Pandya et al., 2022), it seems to
take certain directions that are not necessarily equivalent not yet
antithetical. One of these, usually the most prominent among scholars from =
the
Anglosphere, refers to critical as questioning and analysis of power, drawi=
ng
from e.g. Freire, Marx, Horkheimer and Adorno (cf. Vasquez, 2017). This
definition is then connected to education in that it envisions all educatio=
nal
settings to be places where sociopolitical deconstruction finds its place,
biases and privileges are identified and students and teachers work together
towards societal transformation.
Another direction, usually still prominent in European settings, sees
criticality as high-order thinking and questioni=
ng
(Luke, 2014), however not automatically and inevitably connected neither to
power relations nor to society critique and change. This direction usually =
also
sees criticality as a project of self-growth and self-voicing,
focusing on giving students the tools to rather transform their own lives a=
nd
less society (Louloudi, 2023).
This contribution sees a critical (multilingual) perspective as grou=
nded
in questions of power and societal transformation, adopting a rather radical
lens. However, this perspective sh=
ould
in no way indicate that such approaches do not in fact also aim at individu=
al
growth. Nevertheless, the final goal of a critical education remains with <=
span
class=3DGramE>taking action towards collective justice (Luke, 2014; =
Louloudi, 2023).
In that sense, criticality becomes not only a question of what we te=
ach
in the classroom (i.e. the sociopolitical topics and themes, such as racism,
sexism, etc.) but also a question of how we do so: the methodological steps=
we
take to introduce, question, and dismantle the problematic behind these top=
ics.
A pedagogical concept that addresses criticality in this multifaceted way i=
s this
of critical literacy. As Luke has argued, critical literacy describes “the =
use
of the technologies of print and other media of communication to analyse, critique, and transform the norms, rule syst=
ems,
and practices governing the social fields of institutions and everyday life”
(2014, p. 21). This popular definition not only ascribes a sociopolitical
direction to critical literacy, but also already indicates its holistic
educational character: a critical deconstruction cannot (and should not) ha=
ppen
randomly and irregularly, but within a (classroom) system of collective, st=
able
change.
A holistic deconstruction is also connected to the rather new roles =
that
both teachers and students are called to take upon: it is not about the tea=
cher
instructing criticality, in one given, knowledge-oriented way, but it is mo=
re
about the teacher infusing criticality (Chang-Bacon et al., 2022), taking a
step back and becoming a learner themselves (Louloudi<=
/span>
& Schildhauer, forthcoming). This way, a critical perspective can be
applied within a non-critical system; even though critical literacies will
indeed work best within a systemic and systematic embracement of society
critique, this absoluteness of an “all or nothing” approach might scare
teachers away, making criticality unsustainable for the people who are the
primary operators in its application it (see Louloudi<=
/span>
& Panagiotopoulou, i.p.).
All these elements of criticality are by some manner also linked to =
the
way multilingualism is defined. Multilingualism is also a term that has been
widely used to mean different things at times, evolved over the years and h=
as
been discussed as connected to a variety of other concepts that are employe=
d to
describe the use of language(s) in and out of educational settings. In lang=
uage
education, multilingualism is usually linked to what Conteh and Meier (2014)
have described as a multilingual turn, which usually refers to the disrupti=
on
of monolingual ideologies, recognizing at the same time=
that
teaching of languages is an active process of becoming a multilingual (Garc=
ía
& Kleyn, 2016). Under this turn, a variety of other concepts, closely
related to multilingualism, have flourished, with the most prominent being
bilingualism (García, 2009), plurilingualism and metrolingualism (Otsuji &a=
mp;
Pennycook, 2010), surpassing other popular (linguistic) terms such as
code-switching, because they understand language learning in a more holistic
way. Interpretations of these concepts, however, have focused on languaging as an additive process: from one language =
to two
(bilingual), or to many (multi/ plurilingual), emphasizing this way the sys=
tem
of one named language that can be added to another. Even though scholars in=
the
field (García & Li, 2014, Lau & Van Viegen,
2020, Lin et al., 2020 etc.) further use the concepts in a critical, rather
dynamic way, they are still oftentimes used to mean the conjunction of n autonomous languages.
One of the concepts that aimed to deconstruct the notion of one given
named language is this of translanguaging (García & Li, 2014).
Translanguaging “refers to the deployment of a speaker’s full linguistic
repertoire, which does not in any way correspond to the socially and
politically defined boundaries of named languages” (García & Kleyn, 201=
6,
p. 14). This definition already indicates the fundamental difference in
perspective that translanguaging poses in comparison to other terms: it aim=
s to
dismantle societal norms and, in that, also reconstruct other, more inclusi=
ve
ones. This is what positions translanguaging within critical educational
theory: its open quest for social justice in the classroom (see García et a=
l.,
2017).
2.2 Reconstructing
the critical and the multilingual connection for English Language Teaching =
As mentioned befo=
re,
the elemental connection of critical and multilingual education lies in the=
ir
goal to dismantle problematic, normative structures and help students and
teachers take action towards social justice in a=
nd out
of the classroom. This connection is rather natural and apparent; however, =
for
them to coexist and work simultaneously in the language classroom, their li=
nk
needs to become intentional and be practiced as such: the critical cannot be
critical without the multilingual and the multilingual does not have the sa=
me
effect without being intentionally critical.
In more detail, critical education cannot really be critical without
considering the language hierarchies that uphold and perpetuate biases thro=
ugh
and about languaging. Specifically for ELT, this
starts with what Seltzer and de los Ríos have n=
oted
as “put[ing] English itself in quotation marks”=
(2018,
p. 50), or in other words, questioning not only the purposes of ELT but the
very foundation of the English language. Such questions include (but are not
limited to): which English, whose English, why English, or English by whom?=
All
these questions do not only apply in environments where ELT is taught as the
(main) language of the system (e.g. in the US, in Canada, or in Australia),=
but
expressly apply to settings where English is taught as an additional (somet=
imes
still foreign) language (e.g. in Germany or in Finland).
There are indeed specific particularities that arise when considerin=
g a
critical multilingual lens for the English instruction, because of the expl=
icit
status of the English language as a global language (Galloway & Rose,
2015), a world language (Kachru, 1992), or a Lingua Franca (Jenkins, 2006).=
In
their chapter, Tian et al. (2020) present three main arguments that finely
summarize the special case of English when considered from a (critical)
translanguaging perspective: 1) going from monolithic English to the act of
English-ing, by shifting the focus from =
the
acquisition of a named language to how people use it in “in real-life
communicative contexts” (ibid.), which not only includes the different
linguistic forms that arise, but also the social values, attitudes and beli=
efs
expressed when practicing languaging; 2) this is
directly connected to dismantling the myth of the native speaker: one of the
arguments that has been long deconstructed in theory (see from Coulmas, 1981 to Macedo, 2019 and Pennycook, 2021), y=
et
still creeps into policies, curricula and classroom practices, specifically=
in
additional language settings (see Davydova, 2020; Zehn=
e,
2022). Deconstructing native speakerism does not only refer to shifting away
from the native/non-native dichotomy, but requires making the realization of
how an English-speaking world was even constructed in the first place part =
of
our classroom practices (cf. García, 2019, p. 3) such questioning also dema=
nds
that we understand that English cannot be taught – cognitively and
metacognitively – in English-only settings that uphold these problematic,
normative linguistic narratives: the teaching of English should perceive all
learners as emergent multilinguals “who are aware of and sensitive to the
context and could perform fluid, dynamic, and complex language practices wi=
th
creativity and criticality to achieve their expressive and communicative ne=
eds”
(Tian et al., 2020, p. 10).
All these three elements position critical multilingual education wi=
thin
decolonial action: the teaching of English cannot be separated from the
language’s history and current status, while also
embracing the opportunity to be used as “a third space” (Bhabha, 1996) that
embraces linguistic and sociopolitical ambiguities. In other words, this wo=
uld
require students understanding “how language is used and, importantly, how
language can be used against them” (Alim, 2005, p. 28).
In ELT, there are already concepts that point to the interconnection=
of
critical literacies and multilingual practices, as defined above. Seltzer a=
nd de
los Ríos (2018, p. 50) propose a critical
translingual approach that concentrates on questioning English as a “teacha=
ble
subject”, while moving to centering students’ linguistic diversity in the
classroom, drawing from critical sociolinguistics and =
raciolinguistics
(Flores & Rosa, 2015). This shift necessitates seeing students as
racialized speakers and calls teachers to question their own privileges and
biases in regard to the ways they understand
Lau’s (2020) study on the intersections of translanguaging and criti=
cal
bi-literacies points to similar directions. When referring to translanguagi=
ng,
Lau speaks of a “resemiotization of critical
learning” (2020, p. 117), not only because it helps reground the specific
sociolinguistic context in which critical learning takes place, but also
because no deconstruction of power can occur without perceiving the very
language(s) we speak as the mediator of this deconstruction; as she argues,
“language is a mediator, rather than a mere conveyor, of thoughts through w=
hich
we form, transform, create, remember, talk and write about our thoughts and
ideas” (2020, p. 118). In other words, this would mean, for example, that
critical literacies cannot lead to society critique if practiced within
English-only environments, which reinforce the dominant linguistic ideologi=
es
in place.
Chang-Bacon et al. (2022) also expand on the role of translanguaging=
in
critical literacies and vice versa. Drawing from fundamental characteristic=
s of
critical learning, i.e. the right of students to learn in environments that
reflect their realities, they mention that accordingly, critical literacies
should help create holistic settings that center the experiences of
multilingual students, specifically with respect to discrimination, “involv=
ing
nationalism, racism, and other forms of intolerance” (2022, p. 44). In that,
they (as well as Seltzer & de los Ríos, 201=
8 and
Lau, 2020) emphasize the role of the teacher as one of the most important f=
igures
in adopting and applying such a perspective.
3. METHODOLOGY
To better underst=
and
how a critical multilingual perspective can work in the classroom, a deeper
exploration of settings that already work within the principles of critical
theory is needed. Because criticality is rarely a straightforward goal of
educational policies around the world (see Louloudi,
2023), it is rather the teachers’ choice and personal engagement that makes
these practices visible (König & Louloudi, =
forthcoming).
As Chang-Bacon et al. also argue, “it is most often teachers who create spa=
ce for
critical engagement in their classrooms” (2022, p. 45). Even though the stu=
dy
of such classrooms is of uttermost importance for the progression of the fi=
eld,
the access to these environments is very difficult, not only because of
practical issues (e.g. interest of the teacher), but also because it can le=
ad
to very normative conclusions of the researcher (i.e. is this successful, is
this right or wrong), if the situatedness of critical learning is not taken
into consideration (cf. Pennycook, 2021). However, across the globe, there =
do
exist specific schools whose work is dedicated to (interpretations of) crit=
ical
learning already through their school policies and curricula, usually refer=
red
to as inclusive, international, or multilingual schools. The study of these
schools can prove to be very fruitful not only as a means of good practice =
but
also because the setting of the school is usually more accessible.
This is the frame of this study project as well: the investigation a=
nd
understanding of settings that already work within some fabric of critical
learning. Because of the central point of the study being on a holistic
conception of the social phenomena that construct criticality, a focused
ethnography was selected as the method to look into
the “actions, interactions and social situations” (Knoblauch, 2005, online)
related to the ways selected inclusive or multilingual schools in New York =
City
understand and interpret critical multilingualism. More specifically, empha=
sis
was put on approaching the field with “an ethnographic sensibility” to help
“remain open to the idea that [the] object of study is not just a ‘case’ to
examine in relation to theories we hold independently, but something that t=
ells
us more than we knew to ask” (Longo & Zacka, 2019, p. 1067).
This ultimately meant that focused ethnography was approached as a f=
rame
of mind (Corbett, 2022) to help investigate critical multilingualism in the
specific (international, national, local and com=
munal)
context of every school (cf. Blommaert, 2013). In particular, the study is
based on short-term visits to three public schools (from primary to =
high
school level), during which field observations were done as well as in-situ
conversations with the teachers and collection of artifacts (materials,
photographs, student work). All selected schools follow, by curriculum, a
multilingual pedagogy, with focus on translanguaging (after García 2009), w=
hich
is further connected to a culturally responsive pedagogy.
More specifically, three NYC public schools with multilingual settin=
gs
were visited and the field was explored on the basis of=
four in-situ conversations with teachers and principals, five classroom
observations, collection of ethnographic artifacts (e.g. school materials or
students’ products) and an ethnographic researcher’s journal. The in-situ
conversations were 1,5-hour gatherings with multiple stakeholders within the
respective school: principals, head teachers, curriculum managers and
counselors. They were all in multiple stages in their educational paths: fr=
om
early career to final stages. These groups usually consisted of five to eig=
ht
facilitators and took place both before and after the observations. For
clarity, in the results section, they will be referred to as teachers,
even though each has several educational roles in their respective school. =
The classroom observations varied from 15 minutes to one hour. Empha=
sis
was put in observing multiple educational levels: from early primary school
classes to high school, to specifically target the continuum of poss=
ible
critical perspectives. Access was provided by a key person to the field, who
arranged for our research team to see everyday practice.
The ethnographic insights collected were then a=
nalysed
in line with a Grounded Theory lens (after Charmaz, 2014). In
particular, in an initial coding phase, first directions and connect=
ions
regarding criticality were identified. In the focused coding phase, these
formed more central categories, which will be presented in the following
sequence. These will focus not only on what a critical multilingual
perspective is as observed in the different environments (see Louloudi & Panagiotopoulou, =
i.
p.), but rather on the prerequisites – the hows=
,
the vital requirements needed for such a perspective to flourish, as descri=
bed
by the teachers and seen in their practices.
4. RESULTS - =
GROUNDING A CRITI=
CAL
MULTILINGUAL FRAMEWORK OF PRACTICE – THE WHATS AND HOWS FROM =
THE
FIELD
4.1 Seeing
Critical and multilingual as naturally connected
When addressing t= he intersections of critical and multilingual learning, teachers positioned themselves very clearly: “breaking societal norms starts with breaking linguistic ones” (in-situ conversation with teachers, public primary school= in NYC). Already from this short quote, the teacher here describes the foundat= ion of a critical multilingual perspective: one cannot identify, address, and deconstruct societal norms, if linguistic ones are still held in place. This already makes the multilingual a prerequisite of the critical: other sociopolitical power relations will not be dismantled in classrooms where linguistic barriers still exist. This reflects fundamental understandings of translanguaging as a pedagogy that invites a critical stance holistically (= cf. Tian & King, 2023) and not in bits and pieces: this requires teachers, = as described in the quote above, to see language – and literacy – as grounded = in power dynamics (Fairclough, 2001; Janks, 2010) and, consequently, also multilingual education as “tied to the political power of the state or to t= he people who speak the different languages” (García & Lin, 2016, p. 5). <= o:p>
When asked to elaborate on this, the teacher continued: “Translangua=
ging
helps us give space to the students to be their whole selves in the classro=
om.
If this is given, then the English will come”. This lens already takes a st=
ep
forward: it is not about starting with the linguistic norms, but it is also
about starting with the speakers themselves, while centering their
holistic self in the classroom. The same position is expressed by de los Ríos and Seltzer (2017), who explain that startin=
g with
speakers means seeing the “creative and critical enactment of [students‘] holistic repertoire” (2017, p. 57) and not separating between/among the
languages as first/second, or additional/native. The teacher here also adds=
the
dimension of acquiring English as an additional language being secondary, b=
ut
not necessarily of secondary importance; “the English will come” in this ca=
se
means that only when the students feel holistically represented in the
classroom, the cognitive acquisition of the language will follow. Here, aga=
in,
the starting point is different: the end goal is still “the coming of Engli=
sh”,
but it does require students to be represented first. This positions
translanguaging at the core of critical learning: understanding, questionin=
g,
and working towards representation of all students, specifically the
minoritized (Flores & Rosa, 2015; Lau et al., 2022). Such practices req=
uire
teachers to have a clear position towards their teaching, a critical
multilingual stance, and not see criticality as a quick fix, a single
learning incident, i.e. as a simple scaffolding technique (Vasquez, 2004). =
4.2. =
Focusing on the Sociopolitical
When addressing t=
heir
lessons as connected to criticality, teachers often talked about centering a
social justice perspective. This was either addressed methodologically, for
example, by creating student-centered settings, or it was considered from a=
content-related
point of view, i.e. by tackling social justice topics, such as race, gender,
and class. With regard to the latter, teaches
criticized (the system) themselves, arguing that this is also rather new to
them, and they did not “address it five years ago”. Even though a ‘new thin=
g’,
their lens was quite clear: sociopolitical topics should reflect the
biographies of the children in the classroom, which is an elemental
characteristic of critical learning (Lewison et al., 2002; Yoon, 2015; Garc=
ía
et al., 2017). Considering that all
schools observed have a focus on welcoming students with an immigration
background, the emphasis of centering biographies should also reflect these
experiences of immigration.
Having said that, social justice for the teachers meant having mater=
ials
that reflect the real-life stories of their students in an authentic way:
authenticity in this case was translated to having linguistically diverse b=
ooks
(e.g. in Spanish or in Chinese), but also a great variety of topics, such as
stories about border-crossing, or immigration stories in general, stories a=
bout
women as leaders, body diversity, Black Lives Matter, segregation, religion,
class and climate – mostly represented by picturebooks=
in the lower grades and by novels in the upper grades. This was also to be =
seen
through the observations: these materials were not only very prominently
presented in the classrooms, but the classrooms themselves were vehicles of
social justice topics. The two pictures below, from two different schools,
negotiate this link: social justice as a topic (racism, linguistic
representation), but also through translanguaging:
Figure 1. Students’ products
These two pictures
illustrate this connection between critical learning and translanguaging: t=
he
one seems to be a prerequisite of the other: one cannot critically discuss
matters such as racism without being allowed to do so in their holistic
linguistic repertoire, while translanguaging can only work when thought and
practiced as a pedagogy “for minoritized students to navigate the ‘codes of
power’” (Lau et al., 2022, p. 383) and not as a random incident (see also
Seltzer, 2023).
4.3. =
Understanding criticality as bound to the communit=
y
Part of understan=
ding
and embracing students’ biographies, is the involvement and fostering of the
local communities to which students belong. This point was made by the
teachers, but not as a one-way street: not only is the school classroom
supposed to reflect the particular sociocultural
matters of the local community, but, for critical learning to be made possi=
ble,
the school itself should “take care of the community too” (in-situ conversa=
tion
with teachers, public primary school in NYC). Taking care of the community
meant for the teachers (and in particular the
principal) that they make sure that, first and foremost, the basic needs of=
the
students are being met: if the basics are not covered, the possibilities to
engage in any type of critical learning are very low. Next to that, cari=
ng
also meant understanding the community as “a classroom every day” (Aitken &=
amp;
Robinson, 2020, p. 78). In that, teachers talked about parents being member=
s of
study groups and actively involved in their children’s learning. Parental a=
nd
community involvement is an essential part of both critical literacy and
translanguaging pedagogies. This negotiates criticality as a continuum
practice, where not only teachers, but all community members are “mediators of
language and culture, and agents of change and education reform” (Van Viegen & Lau, 2020, p. 327). However, the focus d=
oes
not only lie with community matters being reflecting in everyday learning, =
but
also with the necessity of school nurturing the well-being of the families,=
so
that the students can indeed receive the best chance to understand, analyse=
and
then transform their own communities. As Tupas and Martin argue, the most
successful ways to engage in a (critical) multilingual perspective “have be=
en
those which empower local people to decide on the social development needs =
of
their communities” (2017, p. 256).
4.4 &=
nbsp;
Developing a critical multilingual stance through
teacher collaboration
To be able to take
into consideration all the above-mentioned points, teachers talked about the
importance of a clear strategy for the school: a critical multilingual lens=
can
only function as a stance towards education; practically, this requires a c=
omprehensive
whole-school approach, which is only possible through a constant teacher
collaboration. During the visits, this point was one of the most obvious on=
es
to observe: teachers sat together and exchanged ideas as part of their ever=
yday
life. As the principals told us later, teacher collaboration is “the main f=
ocus
of the schools” (in-situ conversation with teachers, public primary school =
in
NYC). In that, emphasis is given to the teachers’ own identity and what they
bring to the classroom, a point that is fundamental in any type of critical
learning: this means not only disrupting traditional roles and allowing
teachers to be vulnerable in the ways they express their own (language)
identity together with their students (König & Lou=
loudi,
forthcoming), but also making sure that they “disrupt their own learning
experiences, often in immersion classrooms where only the target language is
said to be used” (García, 2023, p. xx). This critical disruption is only
possible when teachers feel to be “a part of the bigger puzzle” (in-situ
conversation with teachers, public primary school in NYC), and not as single
fighters in this battle against injustice.
Having a strong collaboration among all members of the school allows=
for
students to be taught in an environment of critical multilingual stability,=
where
norms are continually deconstructed. This is even extended when the coopera=
tion
is furthered by university researchers. Shepard-Carey and Tian make a strong
case for the importance of teacher-research collaboration in translanguaging
pedagogies, arguing that it “may advance theory and practice and build
classroom environments that sustain translanguaging pedagogies as everyday
practice and embrace the linguistic realities of multilingual students” (20=
23,
p. 3). This is mainly because such coexisting allows for a shared feeling of
discomfort to take over and intensify the learning experience (Louloudi, 2023): teachers and researchers juntos learn to let go of the preconceptions o=
f what
criticality should look like and embrace the situatedness of the
respective classroom.
4.5 &=
nbsp;
Advocating for policy reform
Teaching towards =
the
goals of social justice from a critical multilingual perspective can oftent=
imes
be overwhelming for schools that still need to meet their annual goals and
prepare the students for standardised tests. Within a system that only supp=
orts
traditional forms of assessment and success is defined by grades, teaching
social justice becomes an ‘extra thing’ that depends on the personal intere=
sts
and additional involvement of all parties. As García puts it, “teachers are
often constrained by school policies and curricula” (2023: p. xvii). This w=
as
one of the major points that the teachers we visited brought up as a
requirement for adopting a critical multilingual perspective – as one of the
principals put it “the important part is that teachers are not afraid” (in-situ conversat=
ion
with teachers, public primary school in NYC). For teachers not to be afraid,
there needs to be a system that reinforces and preserves the goals of social
justice. Even though studies show that teachers are indeed the primary acto=
rs
in embracing critical multilingual practices (Rosiers<=
/span>
et al., 2018; Louloudi, 2023), without advocati=
ng for
a policy reform, we run the risk of putting such a demanding task to the
shoulders of the individual teacher – and that, without even providing them
with the proper education to do so. The ultimate goal
of any critical endeavor should still be to “transform the norms, rule syst=
ems,
and practices governing the social fields of institutions and everyday life”
(Luke, 2014, p. 21) and with that, also the very policies that uphold unjust
narratives and deny students their right to full communication, participati=
on
and representation.
4.6 &=
nbsp;
Embracing hope and joy
While all of the above-mentioned elements of critical multil=
ingual
education rather focus on the disruption of well-established societal norms,
and the discomfort that this struggle can cause to all parties
involved, the teachers in this study focused on embracing criticality as a
product of joy. This was expressed in various ways: in the conversations, w=
here
we were told that “for the learning to stick, kids need to have fun while
breaking norms” (in-situ conversation with teachers, public primary school =
in
NYC), but also in the overall environment of the schools that transformed
important sociopolitical topics to creative projects through i.e. colorful
posters or students’ drawings (see Figure 2 and 3). The two images taken in=
two
different schools are examples of this joyful creativity:
Figure 2. Students’ products, Loving Earth
Figure 3. Students’ signs on the classroom door
In both pictures,
respect is the underlying topic of discussion – the one related to students
having agency in their own classroom and the other one in seeing love as
related to respecting the earth – both are translanguaging products (Englis=
h,
Spanish, Sign Language) that were created by the students and are displayed=
in
the classroom. These two elements – love and agency – are the underlying li=
nk
between joy and criticality: if students are not taught that there is joy at
the end of the tunnel, “the learning won’t stick” (in-situ conversation with teachers, public
primary school in NYC). This negotiates the concept of radical hope (Heller
& McElhinny, 2017), where joy is not employed to enforce “bland positiv=
ity
and admiration for the way things are” (Pennycook, 2021, p. 4), but to
underline that resistance is indeed resistance is as much “an action of
struggle, as one of joy and healing” (Louloudi =
&
Panagiotopoulou, i.p.).
5. DISCUSSION. AND NOW WHAT? DRAWING ON
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GERMAN CONTEXT
All these element=
s of
a critical multilingual education as described before result from a situate=
d,
context-specific understanding of criticality that applies to the environme=
nts
visited: three public schools in NYC with a great focus on these concepts. =
Even
though situated and not directly to be applied to any other context as such
(see Louloudi, 2023; Pennycook, 2021), one can
certainly draw points for potential transfer. The following paragraphs will=
try
to draw on the lessons learned for the German ELT context, keeping in mind =
the
particularities of the system in which we operate.
This is already the first point to be made: the system. The system
itself plays a very important role in the ways critical multilingual
perspectives can find space and flourish; educational policy and (English)
curricula in Germany do focus substantially in language skill acquisition a=
nd
any form of a critical endeavour (e.g. in the English curriculum, see Matz,
2020), still target the final goal of acquiring English, seeing criticality=
as
a short-term addition, or as some type of scaffolding (see Gerlach, 2020). =
For
a critical multilingual perspective to be adopted, the system needs to shift
the main focus of education –and not only ELT– to
developing engaged, democratic citizens. For ELT, this would mean moving fr=
om
the question are they learning English to questions such as why a=
re
they learning English, whose English are they learning, how is
this English contributing to a more just society, how are the students’
(sociolinguistic) identities a part of this English?
These questions already point to a direction that sees ELT not only =
as a
Lingua Franca (Jenkins, 2006), but as a medium of deconstruction and
decolonisation itself (Vaish, 2005), while also understanding its history a=
s a
language of colonisation (see Macedo, 2018). In that sense, English is inde=
ed
“a site of competing (and contradictory) ideologies” (=
Canagarajah,
2000, p. 130) that need to be honoured in the classroom in their entirety. =
To
be able to do so in the German ELT, it is not enough to move away from colo=
nial
perspectives in our materials (e.g. the textbooks) or in our literary canon,
but we need to disrupt monolingual ideologies (i.e. English-only policies) =
that
keep these colonial truths in place. This means embracing a multilingual po=
licy
that is “tied to [the] local and regional struggles” (Luke, 2005, p. xv) of o=
ur
students. Consequently, multilingualism for the German ELT context means
embracing the holistic linguistic repertoire that all speakers bring with t=
hem
to the classroom, including their family languages (see Panagiotopoulou &am=
p;
Uçan, 2023).
Even though publications in the field (Schmid & Schmidt, 2017;
Bonnet & Siemund, 2018) point to the direct=
ion of
multilingualism as a necessity for the English classroom, there is still ve=
ry
little being done in the actual classrooms. This goes beyond the instructio=
n of
English, to all the other languages that are taught within the “foreign
language” paradigm, i.e. also Spanish. García García
and Reiman, for instance, argue that multilingualism cannot be thought as a
‘networking goal’ among the different subjects, but needs to address the ne=
eds
of multilingual speakers (2020, p. 12). As they continue, this does not only
refer to the students, but also to the multilingual teachers and their
repertoire.
To be able to adopt such a holistic lens, and see change in the
classroom, a critical multilingual perspective needs to be fostered from the
very beginning of the school continuum. In that, teacher education plays an
indispensable role; as Hsieh and Cridland-Hughes
(2022) argue.
Using preservice teacher education to engage the question of access =
and
denial of marginalized identities in the official curriculum, and of
simultaneous welcoming and unwelcoming structures within a particular school
context, is central to preparing teachers to make decisions in real classro=
oms
that hold space for all. For our context, this means deconstructing the
English-only policies university departments like to adopt and embracing our
student teachers’ linguistic repertoire from the beginning of their studies=
–
however, not from a scaffolding point of view, but from a holistic critical
perspective towards the education we offer: crit=
ical
multilingual education means working towards the goals of social justice in=
and
outside of the classroom.
6. CONCLUSION
This article trie=
d to
detail on the elements of a critical multilingual education both from a
theoretical and an empirical perspective. In doing so, prominent academic w=
ork
in the field (e.g. Setlzer & de los Ríos, 2018; García, 2020; Lau, 2020; Lau et al., =
2022)
was taken into consideration and combined with an empirical lens through
insights collected in public NYC schools that already work with different f=
orms
of critical multilingual learning. The results describe that for such a len=
s to
work, a holistic interconnection of critical and multilingual is necessary,
which can find its place in the classroom in various ways: 1) by centering sociopolitical issues that reflect the stud=
ents’
biographies, while embracing students’ holistic linguistic repertoire; 2) by
identifying points of communication with the students’ communities and
including those into the everyday learning; 3) by supporting and intensifyi=
ng
teachers’ collaboration, but at the same time, also advocating for a policy
reform, when the system itself holds problematic structures (e.g. English-o=
nly
instruction) into position and 4) by nurturing joy and (radical) hope.
All these elements can show good potential to be adopted and adapted=
in
other educational contexts, such as the German ELT context, as
long as the situated particularities of these are being taken into
consideration. The main requirement for a systematic adoption of a critical
multilingual perspective is to disrupt the normative structures that the sy=
stem
itself keeps in place. However, this is a long-term, rigorous and
exhaustive task that, if seen and treated as an all-or-nothing approach, wi=
ll
result in overwhelm, hopelessness and, consequently, little action.
Criticality can, and should, still be thought as a stance we can ado=
pt
step-by-step: one little disruption at a time, one better material, one move
forward. The more we walk towards it, the easier it will get.
NOTAS / NOTES
1=
Germany’s ELT context is being discussed =
as
my own field of action. It is important to note that in the Ger-man context,
English is being taught as a “foreign” [sic] or additional language and is =
not
directly comparable to contexts where English is the primary language of
instruction or of the system. However, many implica-ti=
ons
can be drawn from these environments, as seen in this article. These
implications are not only relevant to the German context, but also to other
European settings that treat the instruction of English in a similar way, i=
.e.
Finland.
2=
Considering the abovementioned
definitions, the term that best describes the endeavor of this project is t=
his
of a critical translingual education, and not multilingual: even tho=
ugh
the focus in fact on translanguaging, I still feel the need to stay within =
the
term of multilingual education, because it still better describes the field=
in
which we operate. As García & Lin (2016) also argue: “by upholding the
terms “bilingual” and “multilingual” despite our own h=
eteroglossic
theoretical lens, we recognize the very real and material effect of named
languages on people“.
<= o:p>
REFERENCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS
Aitken, A., & Robinson, L. (2020). Walking in =
two
worlds in the plurilingual classroom: Learning from the case of an
intergenerational Project. In S.M.C. Lau & S. Van =
Viegen
(eds). Plurilingual pedagogies: Critical and creative endeavors for
equitable language in education (pp. 77-96). Springer.
Alim, H. S. (2005). Critical language awareness in=
the
United States: Revisiting issues and revising pedagogies in a resegregated
society. Educational Researcher, 34(7), 24–31.
Bhabha, H. K. (1996). Unpacking my library ... aga=
in.
In I. Chambers, & L. Curti (Eds.), The post-colonial question: common
skies, divided horizons (pp. 199-211). Routledge.
Blommaert, J. (2013). Ethnography, superdiversi=
ty
and linguistic landscapes: Chronicles of complexity. Multilingual Matte=
rs.
Bonnet, A., & Siemund,
P. (eds). (2018). Foreign Language Education in Multiling=
ual
Classrooms. John Benjamins.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2000). The fortunate traveler: Shuttling between communities
and literacies by economy class. In D. Belcher & U. Connor (Eds.), R=
eflections
on multiliterate lives (pp. 23–37). Multilingual Matters.
Chang-Bacon, C.K., Khote,
N., Schell, R., & Crookes, G.V. (2022). Critical literacy in English
language teaching, bi/multilingualism, and translanguaging. In J.Z.Pandya, R.A. Mora, J.H.
Alford, N.A. Golden, & R.S. De Roock (Eds.)=
, The
handbook of critical literacies (pp. 40-49). Routledge.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theor=
y
(2nded.). Sage
Conteh, J., & Meier, G. (Eds) (2014). The
multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges for
individuals and societies (pp. 258-277). Multilingual Matters.
Corbett, J. (2022). An intercultural approach to
English Language Teaching. Multilingual Matters.
Coulmas, F. (1998). Language rights – Interests of state, language groups a=
nd
the individual. Language Sciences, 20, 63-72.
Davydova, J. G. (2020). English in Germany: Eviden=
ce
from domains of use and attitudes. Russian Journal of Linguistics, <=
i>24(3),
687–702. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-3-687-7=
02
de los Ríos, C. V., &a=
mp;
Seltzer, K. (2017). Translanguaging, coloniality,=
and
English classrooms: An exploration of two bicoastal urban classrooms. Re=
search
in the Teaching of English, 52(1), 55–76.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language & power.
Longman.
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. D. (2015). Undoing
appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and
language diversity in education. Harvard Educational
Review, 85(2), 149–171.
García García, M., &
Reimann, D. (2020). Mehrsprachigkeit im Unterricht der romanischen Sprachen=
–
Forschungsstand und neue Konzepte zur Vernetzung von Schulsprachen und
Herkunftssprachen in der Migrationsgesellschaft. In M. García García, M. Prinz, & D. Reimann, Mehrsprachigke=
it im
Unterricht der romanischen Sprachen:
Neue Konzepte und Studien zu Schulsprachen und Herkunftssprachen in =
der
Migrationsgesellschaft (pp. 11-30). Narr Francke Attempto.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 2=
1st
century: A global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.
García, O. (2023). Foreword: Doing translanguaging
research/teaching/learning juntos. In L.
Shepard-Carey, & Z. Tian (eds), (Re)imagining translanguaging pedago=
gies
through teacher– researcher collaboration (pp. xxvi-xxiv). Multilingual
Matters.
García, O. & Kleyn, T. (2016). Translanguaging
theory in education. In O. García & T. Kleyn (eds), Translanguaging =
with
multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments (pp. 1-6).
Routledge.
García, O., & Lin, A. (2017). Translanguaging =
in
bilingual education . In O. García, A. Lin, &=
; S.
May (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education: E=
ncyclopedia
of language and education (pp. 117-130). Springer.
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguagi=
ng:
Language, bilingualism and education. Palgra=
ve
Macmillan.
García, O., Johnson, S.I., & Seltzer, K. (2017=
). The
translanguaging classroom. Leveraging student
bilingualism for
Gerlach, D. (2020). Einführung in die Kriti=
sche
Fremdsprachendidaktik. In D. Gerlach (Ed.) Kritische Fremdsprachendidakt=
ik
(pp. 7-32). Narr Francke Attempto.
Heller, M., & McElhinny, B. (2017). Languag=
e,
capitalism, colonialism: Toward a critical history. Toronto UP.
Hsieh, B., & Cridland-Hughes, S. (2022). Teach=
ers
Enacting Critical Literacy Critical Literacy Pedagogies in Teacher Education
and K–12 Practice. In J.
Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and power.
Routledge.
Janks, H. (2014). The Importance of critical liter=
acy.
In J. Pandya, & J. Ávila (Eds), Moving Critical Literacies Forward: A
New Look at Praxis Across Contexts (pp. 32-44). Routledge.
Jenkins, J. (2006). World =
Englishes:
A resource book for students. Routledge.
Kachru, B. (1992). The other tongue: English ac=
ross
cultures. University of Illinois Press.
Knoblauch, H. (2005). Focused Ethnography. Foru=
m:
Qualitative Sozialforschung 6 (3) Retrieved=
from:
https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs=
/article/view/20
König, L. & Louloudi, E.
(forthcoming). Critically important: Integrating the critical into English
language teacher education. In S. Braselmann, L=
. Eibensteiner & L. Volkmann (Eds), Teacher Educ=
ation
in (Post-)Pandemic Times: International Perspectives on Intercultural Learn=
ing,
Diversity and Equity. Peter Lang.
Lau, S. M.C. (2019). Convergences and alignments between translanguaging and critical
Literacies work in bilingual classrooms. Translation and translanguaging=
in
multilingual contexts, 5(1), 67-85.
Lau, S.M.C. (2020). Translanguaging as transmediation:
Embodied critical literacy engagements in a French-English bilingual classr=
oom.
Australian journal of applied linguistics, 3(1), 42-59.
Lau, S.M.C., & Van Viegen=
,
S. (2020). Plurilingual pedagogies: An introduction. In S.M.C. Lau & S.=
Van
Viegen (eds). Plurilingual pedagogies: Criti=
cal
and creative endeavors for equitable language in education (pp. 3-22).
Springer.
Lewison, M., Flint, A., & Van Sluys, K. (2002).
Taking on critical literacy: The journey of newcomers and novices. Langu=
age
arts, 17(5), 382-392.
Lin, A., Wu, Y. A., & Lemke, J.L. (2020). ‘It
takes a village to research a village’: Conversations between Angel Lin and=
Jay
Lemke on contemporary issues in translanguaging. In S.M.C. Lau & S. Van=
Viegen (eds). Plurilingual pedagogies: Critical and
creative endeavors for equitable language in education (pp. 47-76).
Springer.
Longo, M., & Zacka, B. (2019). Political theor=
y in
an ethnographic key. American Political Science Review, 113 (4),
1066-1070.
Louloudi, E. (2023). Investigating teachers’ perspectives of critical
literacies: A comparison of case studies in Canada and in Europe. J.B. Metz=
ler.
Louloudi, E., & Panagiotopoulou, J.A. (i.p.)=
. When
Schools Really Welcome Newcomers: Critical Multilingual Education in Action=
! In W. Baros, S. Jobst, & A. Kell-Delić., Europäische Bildung im Dialog. Wissenschaft – Politik – Praxis. Peter Lang.
Luke, A. (2005). Foreword: On the possibilities of=
a
post-postcolonial language education. In A. Lin, & P. Martin, Decolonisation, global=
isation:
Language-in-education policy and practice (pp. xiv-xix). Multilingual
Matters.
Luke, A. (2019). Regrounding<=
/span>
critical literacy: Representation, facts and rea=
lity.
In D. Alvermann, N.Unrau, M. Sailors, & R. Ruddell (Eds.), <=
i>Theoretical
models and processes of literacy (pp. 349–361). Routledge.
Macedo, D. (Ed.). (2019). Decolonizing foreign
language education: The misteaching of English and other colonial languages=
.
Routledge.
Matz, F. (2020). Taking a stance: The role of crit=
ical
literacies in learning with literature in a world at risk. In D. Gerlach (Ed.), Kritische Fremdsprachendidaktik (pp. 53-68)=
. Narr
Francke Attempto.
Otsuji, E., & Pennycook, A. (2010).
Panagiotopoulou, J. A. & Uçan, Y. (2023): Dyna=
mic
multilingualism of refugee families meets monolingual language policy in Ge=
rman
ECE institutions. International Journal of Multilingualism, 20:4,
1369-1385, DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2023.2239286.
Panagiotopoulou, J.A., Knappi=
k,
M. (2022). „Hast du gerade Englis=
ch geredet? “Zur Praxis der
Sprachgebote und -verbote in NRW-Vorbereitungsklassen. Leseräume, 8,=
Retrieved from: https://xn--leserume-4za.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/1=
2/lr-2022-1-Panagiotopoulou-Knappik.pdf
Pandya, J. Z., Mora, R.A., Alford, J. H., Golden,=
N.A.,
& de Roock, R.S. (Eds) (2022).
Pennycook, A. (2021). Critical applied linguist=
ics:
A critical re-introduction. Routledge.
Rosiers,K., Van Lancker, I.,=
& Delarue,
S. (2018). Beyond the traditional scope of translanguaging:
Comparing translanguaging practices in Belgian multilingual and monolingual
classroom contexts, Language & Communication, 61, 15-28.
Schmid, E.C., & Schmidt, T. (2017). Migration-based multilingualism in the English as a Foreign Language
classroom: Learners' and teachers' perspectives. Ze=
itschrift
für Fremdsprachenforschung, 28(1), 29-52
Seltzer, K. (2023). Afterword. In L. Shepard-Carey, & Z. Tian (eds), (Re)imagining translanguaging pedagogies through teacher– researcher collaboration (pp. 300-304). Multilingual Matters.<= o:p>
Seltzer, K., & de los
Ríos, C. (2018). Translating theory to practic=
e:
Exploring teachers’ raciolinguistic literacies =
in
secondary English classrooms. English Education, 51 (1), 49-79.
Selvi, A.F., & Kocaman, C. (Eds) (2024). In=
ternational
Perspectives on Critical English Language Teacher Education. Bloomsburry Academic.
Shepard-Carey, L. & Tian, Z. (eds). (2023).
Tian, Z., Aghai, L., S=
ayer,
P. & Schissel J.L. (2020). Envisioning TESOL through a translanguaging =
lens
in the era of Post-multilingualism. In Z. Tian, =
L. Aghai, P. Sayer & J.L. Schissel (eds), Envisio=
ning
TESOL through a translanguaging lens: Global perspectives (pp. 1-22).
Springer.
Tupas
R., Martin I.P. (2017) Bilingual and mother tongue-based multilingual educa=
tion
in the Philippines. In: García O., Lin A., May S. (eds) Bilingual and
multilingual education. Encyclopedia of language and education (pp.
247-258). Springer.
Vaish, V. (2005). A peripheri=
st
view of English as a language of decolonization in post-colonial India. Lang Policy, 4, 187–206, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-005-3523-7<=
span
lang=3DDE style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;mso-an=
si-language:
DE'>
Van Viegen, S., & =
Lau,
S.M.C. (2020). Philosophy, principle and practic=
e –
‘3Ps’ to implement plurilingual pedagogies. In S.M.C. Lau & S. Van Viegen (eds), Plurilingual pedagogies: Critical and
creative endeavors for equitable language in education (pp. 323-339).
Springer.
Vasquez, V. M. (2004). Negotiating critical
literacies with young children. Routledge.
Vasquez, V. M. (2017). Critical literacy. Oxford
Research Encyclopedias. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013=
.20
Yoon, B. (2016). Critical literacies: Global and
multicultural perspectives. Springer.
Zehne, C. (2023). Reconceiving the ‘E’ in English language teaching: An
investigation of teacher, student, and curricular concepts of English in the
light of its global use. Doctoral Dissertation,
Bielefeld University.