Translanguaging in EFL Contexts: A Call for Change 9781138343139, 9780429439346

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title
Copyright
Dedication
Contents
Introduction: from the beginning
The South Korean context
Teacher guilt
A call for change
A process of reflection and reflexivity
Overview of the book
References
1 Evolving understandings of language in the language classroom
Introduction to the chapter
English learning contexts
Theories of influence
Psycholinguistics theories
But are they applicable?
If not input, then output?
Hegemonic ideologies
The L1 prevails
The social turn
The influence of sociocultural theory
Multilingual realities
Teachers’ use of the L1
How the L1 functions in the classroom
Merits of L1 use
Positive and justified reasons for L1 use
The EFL context
Research on the language choices of NNESTs in EFL contexts
Attitudes to the L1
Student attitudes to L1 and TL use
Codeswitching
Translanguaging
Translanguaging pedagogies
Building positive identities
Participation
Criticisms of translanguaging
References
2 The framework
Developing a framework
Framework for classroom observations analysis
Language as a social semiotic system
Genre theory
Curriculum genres
Pedagogic discourse
Ideal pedagogic subject position
Power and control
Classification
Framing
Vertical and horizontal discourses
Socially constructing the classroom
A system of negotiation
Additional elements in the framework
Framework for interview analysis
The influence of reflexivity on interview data
Summary of theoretical framework
References
3 Beliefs, identity, and investment
The hidden side of teaching
Defining beliefs and knowledge
The impact of beliefs on practice
Relationships between beliefs and practices
Studies on language teachers
Studies on teacher beliefs about language use
Sources of beliefs of language use
Teacher identity
Imagined communities and investment
Bilingual/multilingual identity construction
In summary
References
4 Profiling the teachers
Emma
Jenny
Sue
Sarah
Michelle
In summary
References
5 Translanguaging strategies of inclusion
Introduction
Translanguaging strategies set 1
Translanguaging strategies set 2
Translanguaging strategies set 3
Translanguaging strategies set 4
In summary
The translanguaging pedagogic subject position
References
6 Translanguaging practices of exclusion
Introduction
Translanguaging strategy set 5
The total exclusion strategy
How an increase in English affects the classroom
The effects of maximizing English exposure
The learned need for control
The pedagogic subject position of exclusion
References
7 Linguistic repertoires: their origins and impact on pedagogic discourse
Introduction
Patterns of practice and their consequences
Tracking the origins of teachers’ beliefs about language use in their classes
Primary influences acting on the formation of initial assumptions
Past language teachers’ language use
Alternative language learning experiences
Enjoyment of classes
Teacher training programs
The importance of primary influences
Secondary influences acting in the formation of tentative attitudes
Teacher training programs
Teaching mentors
Role of language teacher identity
Students
School-related contextual factors
The role of secondary influences
Firmer beliefs
Beliefs about using their full linguistic repertoire
Factors affecting pedagogic discourse
How different aspects of the linguistic repertoires affected classification and framing
Recontextualization
Punctuating social spaces
Patterns of practice
Imagined communities
Positions of alienation, detachment, and estrangement
References
8 Translanguaging’s call for change
Introduction
Socio-historical influences
Translanguaging identity development
Effective translanguaging
Teacher awareness
The need for translanguaging in South Korea
Making critical praxis more available
Final comment
References
Index

Citation preview

Translanguaging in EFL Contexts

The purpose of this book is to promote the value of translanguaging in EFL teaching contexts. To date, translanguaging has been discussed mostly in regards to US and European contexts. This book will examine the teaching beliefs and practices of teachers within a South Korean elementary school context to evaluate the practices of current teachers who use translanguaging strategies when teaching. This examination utilizes sociological theories of pedagogic discourse to discuss the consequences of language exclusion policies on the peninsula. Using these theories, it presents an argument for why EFL contexts like South Korea need to reevaluate their current policies and understandings of language learning and teaching. By embracing translanguaging as an approach, the author argues, they will transform their traditional notions of language learning and teaching in order to view teachers as bilinguals, and learners as emerging bilinguals, rather than use terms of deficiency that have traditionally been in place for such contexts. This book’s unique use of sociological theories of pedagogic discourse supports a need to promote the translanguaging ideology of language teaching and learning. Michael Rabbidge is an associate professor in the English education department of Hankuk University of foreign studies, South Korea. He graduated from Macquarie University, in Sydney, Australia, with a PhD in Applied linguistics. His research interests include bilingualism, translanguaging, language identities as well as reflexivity in qualitative research methodology.

Routledge Research in Language Education

The Routledge Research in Language Education series provides a platform for established and emerging scholars to present their latest research and discuss key issues in Language Education. This series welcomes books on all areas of language teaching and learning, including but not limited to language education policy and politics, multilingualism, literacy, L1, L2 or foreign language acquisition, curriculum, classroom practice, pedagogy, teaching materials, and language teacher education and development. Books in the series are not limited to the discussion of the teaching and learning of English only. Books in the series include: Interdisciplinary Research Approaches to Multilingual Education Edited by Vasilia Kourtis-Kazoullis, Themistoklis Aravossitas, Eleni Skourtou and Peter Pericles Trifonas. From Language Skills to Literacy Broadening the Scope of English Language Education through Media Literacy Csilla Weninger Addressing Difficult Situations in Foreign-Language Learning Confusion, Impoliteness, and Hostility Gerrard Mugford Translanguaging in EFL Contexts A Call for Change Michael Rabbidge Quantitative Data Analysis for Language Assessment Volume I Fundamental Techniques Edited by Vahid Aryadoust and Michelle Raquel For more information about the series, please visit www.routledge.com/RoutledgeResearch-in-Language-Education/book-series/RRLE

Translanguaging in EFL Contexts A Call for Change

Michael Rabbidge Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, South Korea

First published 2019 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Michael Rabbidge The right of Michael Rabbidge to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Rabbidge, Michael, author. Title: Translanguaging in EFL contexts : a call for change / Michael Rabbidge. Description: London ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2019. | Series: Routledge research in language education | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018056360 | ISBN 9781138343139 (hardback) | ISBN 9780429439346 (e-book) Subjects: LCSH: English language—Study and teaching—Korea (South) | English language—Study and teaching—Korean speakers. | Translanguaging (Linguistics) Classification: LCC PE1068.K6 R33 2019 | DDC 428.0071/05195—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018056360 ISBN: 978-1-138-34313-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-43934-6 (ebk) Typeset in Galliard by Apex CoVantage, LLC

To my wife, my son, and my daughter.

Contents



Introduction: from the beginning

1

The South Korean context  2 Teacher guilt  6 A call for change  8 A process of reflection and reflexivity  8 Overview of the book  9 References 12 1 Evolving understandings of language in the language classroom Introduction to the chapter  16 English learning contexts  16 Theories of influence  17 Psycholinguistics theories  17 But are they applicable?  18 If not input, then output?  18 Hegemonic ideologies  19 The L1 prevails  20 The social turn  20 The influence of sociocultural theory  21 Multilingual realities  22 Teachers’ use of the L1  23 How the L1 functions in the classroom  23 Merits of L1 use  25 Positive and justified reasons for L1 use  25 The EFL context  26 Research on the language choices of NNESTs in EFL contexts 27 Attitudes to the L1  30 Student attitudes to L1 and TL use  30

16

viii Contents Codeswitching 31 Translanguaging 31 Translanguaging pedagogies  33 Building positive identities  34 Participation 36 Criticisms of translanguaging  36 References 37 2 The framework

46

Developing a framework  46 Framework for classroom observations analysis  47 Language as a social semiotic system  47 Genre theory  48 Curriculum genres  49 Pedagogic discourse  52 Ideal pedagogic subject position  53 Power and control  53 Classification 53 Framing 54 Vertical and horizontal discourses  54 Socially constructing the classroom  56 A system of negotiation  56 Additional elements in the framework  58 Framework for interview analysis  58 The influence of reflexivity on interview data  59 Summary of theoretical framework  61 References 62 3 Beliefs, identity, and investment The hidden side of teaching  65 Defining beliefs and knowledge  65 The impact of beliefs on practice  68 Relationships between beliefs and practices  69 Studies on language teachers  70 Studies on teacher beliefs about language use  71 Sources of beliefs of language use  71 Teacher identity  72 Imagined communities and investment  74 Bilingual/multilingual identity construction  75 In summary  76 References 77

65

Contents  ix 4 Profiling the teachers

82

Emma 82 Jenny 88 Sue 96 Sarah 101 Michelle 108 In summary  116 References 116 5 Translanguaging strategies of inclusion

119

Introduction 119 Translanguaging strategies set 1  121 Translanguaging strategies set 2  127 Translanguaging strategies set 3  136 Translanguaging strategies set 4  138 In summary  140 The translanguaging pedagogic subject position  141 References 142 6 Translanguaging practices of exclusion

143

Introduction 143 Translanguaging strategy set 5  143 The total exclusion strategy  149 How an increase in English affects the classroom  154 The effects of maximizing English exposure  154 The learned need for control  156 The pedagogic subject position of exclusion  157 References 158 7 Linguistic repertoires: their origins and impact on pedagogic discourse Introduction 159 Patterns of practice and their consequences  159 Tracking the origins of teachers’ beliefs about language use in their classes  160 Primary influences acting on the formation of initial assumptions 160 Past language teachers’ language use  161 Alternative language learning experiences  161 Enjoyment of classes  162

159

x Contents Teacher training programs  163 The importance of primary influences  163 Secondary influences acting in the formation of tentative attitudes 164 Teacher training programs  164 Teaching mentors  164 Role of language teacher identity  165 Students 167 School-related contextual factors  167 The role of secondary influences  168 Firmer beliefs  169 Beliefs about using their full linguistic repertoire  171 Factors affecting pedagogic discourse  172 How different aspects of the linguistic repertoires affected classification and framing  172 Recontextualization 175 Punctuating social spaces  175 Patterns of practice  176 Imagined communities  177 Positions of alienation, detachment, and estrangement  178 References 179 8 Translanguaging’s call for change

181

Introduction 181 Socio-historical influences  181 Translanguaging identity development  183 Effective translanguaging  184 Teacher awareness  185 The need for translanguaging in South Korea  186 Making critical praxis more available  187 Final comment  189 References 189 Index

191

Introduction From the beginning

The journey of understanding that this book represents for myself began in earnest in South Korea about nine years ago, when, spurred on by the birth of my first child, I decided to ‘get serious’ about English teaching. I decided to get an MA in TESOL while also working on a government-funded teacher training program. This program was an initiative established by the then current South Korean administration with the aim of improving the English language competency of South Korean English teachers so that they could successfully implement an English-only approach to English teaching in South Korea. During my early years teaching in that program, I was not as cognizant of the problems South Korean teachers faced when it came to Teaching English Through English (TETE). By the time I completed my MA, I was more aware of the myriad of issues that the trainees on our program faced, and even more aware of how deficient our program was in preparing them for this teaching initiative. One of the classes I taught was Classroom English, which had the aim of improving the trainees’ ability to use English exclusively in their classrooms. It was not long before I realized that, despite the trainees’ eagerness to learn a new language that they could use in their own teaching contexts, very few of them actually believed it possible to teach English without the use of their mother tongue. Often, they would cite students’ English language competency as the main reason for this, and a sense of futility started to encroach upon my teaching; there seemed to be nothing that I said or did that could convince them that an English-only approach was vital in improving their students’ language competency. My reaction to the trainees’ malaise in regards to an English-only approach was to focus on how the trainees used Korean and English in their actual classrooms. I wanted to discover more from their real-life experiences so that I could improve my own classes and in turn assist them in improving their own teaching. This became one of the most valuable learning experiences of my career to date. It opened my eyes to more than the accepted norms of language teaching and made me far more sympathetic to the plight of the trainee teachers. Readings revealed the complex nature of the initiative that the Korean government was implementing, including the wealth of research that had gone into supporting and opposing such an initiative. Upon reflection of this time, I now come to see

2 Introduction myself merely acting as a tool for a set of entrenched monolingual principles that had long devalued non-native speaker opinions of English teaching. This led me to become more critical of certain theories of language acquisition, which in turn led to reflection of my own role within the government-sponsored program on which I taught.

The South Korean context Korea as a country has a rich and colorful culture that was mostly ignored by the west until relatively recently (Seth, 2016). The people, culture, and language have survived imperialism at the hands of the Japanese and political and physical division of the peninsula itself, as well as modern political turmoil which more often than not casts the peninsula as one of the most dangerous places in the world. Since being separated from the north in 1945, South Korea has gone from being a war-torn state to a world leader, both economically and politically. The economic and social modernization of South Korea has been well-documented. At the core of this success is the fundamental belief in the transforming power of education. Respect for education and for teachers is based on the persistence of Confucian values that are seen as vital to the continued social development of the country. Confucianism advocates the inclusion of dialogue, thinking, reflection, and memorization as part of its educational philosophy. Rote-learning, competition, strict gender roles, filial piety, and generally rigid social structures are all influential within Korean society (Taie, 2015). These influences are at play within Korean educational settings as well. Now, well into the twenty-first century, South Korea is a major global player. Its corporations dominate technological industries, and its pop culture, via the ‘Korean-wave,’ continues to draw in new audiences. Once seen as a hermit state, since holding the 1988 Olympic Games in its capital city, South Korea has slowly but surely embraced the outside world. The impact of globalization on South Korea has been staggering and is felt at all levels of its society (Seth, 2002; Yim, 2007), but it has been especially important in terms of its effect on the education system in South Korea. Education in South Korea is ‘constructed as part of the economic and political structures of a society’ (Yim, 2007, p. 38). Changes in South Korea’s economic prowess, as well as changes to its political philosophies, have seen a constant stream of alterations to national curricula since 1945. In particular, the embracing of neoliberal tendencies has seen the corporatization of the country as well as a commodification of the individual (Byean, 2015). This has led to the marketization of education, which has led to intensified competition at all levels of the education system, and has placed the burden of self-development on individuals within the system. The most visible aspect of this is the use of standardized tests. This change first occurred in the 1990s and then was reintroduced during the Lee regime (2008–2012). His School Liberalization Plan, or Hakgyo Jayulhwa in Korean, and 300 Project for Diversified High Schools plan (Gogyodayanghwa 330 Project) (Byean, 2015) led to educational policies which privatized national

Introduction  3 universities, expanded the number of elite high schools, deregulated entrance into colleges and elite schools, and strengthened the ability to track the performances of students’ math and English scores. The increased importance of English in the curriculum was seen by many as a reaction to the middle classes’ distrust of public school systems. The rapid rise of English to its place of prominence in South Korea has a relatively short history in comparison to the general history of Korea. It was first taught in the public school system as a regular subject in 1945 (Jung & Norton, 2002) and recognized officially as the first foreign language in Korea in the second curriculum (1963–1974). Three reasons for this rise include government policies, social and economic changes, and the influence of teaching methods that espouse communicative approaches (Borg, 2003; J.-K. Park, 2009). The Asian financial crisis in 1997 spurred many to believe that English was necessary in the revitalization of South Korea’s global competitiveness. The belief in the power of English as a tool to lift not only the country but also the individual out of poverty served to empower neoliberal philosophies within Korean society. The fervent attitude towards embracing English has seen calls for English to be embraced as an official language, leading to much debate over the role English is actually playing. The role of neoliberalism and globalized economies cannot be underestimated when describing the prominence of English in South Korea. Neoliberalism views language as a commodity; as language-as-skill as well as language-as-identity (Heller, 2010). Neoliberal job markets position workers as bundles of skills who are under pressure to continuously improve their skill sets to remain relevant in the job market (Shin, 2016). English language competency is considered a significant soft skill within the Korean job market, where the expectation is that individuals undergo constant self-development in order to retain relevance within the market (Park, 2011). In South Korea, the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) was a major instrument that positioned employees as bundles of skills and was used by employers to measure English aptitude for white-collar employment. TOEIC scores were determiners of applicant success in the Korean job market, and to get what is considered a good job, workers had to continually demonstrate their skill sets via this test. However, the standard of what constitutes a suitable score in TOEIC augmented each year, meaning that people needed to continue to pay for the TOEIC test as part of any white-collar job application (Park, 2011). This was despite the fact that quantifiable benefits of having a suitable TOEIC test score did not always manifest themselves as work-related benefits, as the number of people who can succeed in such competitive systems is limited by the system itself (Bourdieu, 2003). This ensured economic benefit to the TOEIC industry while exploiting university graduates as well as the workforce. But by 2005, TOEIC had begun to lose its appeal as it became apparent that although a larger number of Korean people had achieved relatively high scores on the test, very few had developed oral communicative skills that could be used in the global marketplace (Park, 2011). This in itself is unfair to the Korean people, however, as the suggestion that studying for TOEIC

4 Introduction or English in general does not lead to any improvements in communicative skills seems improbable, unless of course there was already a belief that Korean people naturally lacked the ability to develop English language competency. It has therefore been argued that the continually shifting descriptions of what it means to be considered a ‘good’ English speaker are market ploys to strengthen the notion that Koreans are poor speakers of English and therefore need to continually study to attain perfect, or native-like, English language proficiency (Park, 2010). This highlights how market forces act upon individuals to shape identity. Individuals within such systems are compelled to become desirable identities as defined by market forces. In the case of English and the Korean worker, this is someone who has overcome adversity (in the form of endless hours of dedicated study) to position themselves as having the desired set of English communicative skills (Cho, 2015). But it is the same market forces that create the negative identities associated with certain traits, as these forces deliberately make themselves unattainable in order to justify their own existence. The hegemonic status of English in South Korea (J. S.-Y. Park, 2009) is said to be founded on three prevalent ideologies of English that dominate the role of English in South Korea. The first, the ideology of necessitation, insists that all Korean people must learn English to ensure that the country can remain competitive in the global community. The second, the ideology of externalization, ‘highlights the otherness of English, the concept antithetical to Korean’ (J. S.-Y. Park, 2009, p. 41), portraying English as an essentially foreign entity with no justification for official acceptance into Korean society. The third, the ideology of self-deprecation, generalizes all Koreans as incompetent speakers of English. This third ideology relates to the acceptance that Korean people have of themselves as poor speakers of English, as mentioned earlier. Park summarizes this self-deprecation, explaining how the image of the Korean as a poor speaker of English ‘is a staple of numerous tales, anecdotes, jokes, and media reports, and it is frequently invoked as a main cause for Korea’s weak economic influence in international relations’ (Park, 2011, p. 451). Market forces play a vital role in ensuring the conflicted nature between the Korean people and the English language, guaranteeing the love-hate relationship that exists in South Korea as its citizens strive towards the illusion of perfect English (Cho, 2017). These conflicting ideologies seemingly pervade all aspects of Korean society, as mothers seek to ensure that their children will be able to take advantage of the upward mobility afforded by acquiring English language competency. It has led to an ever-increasing emphasis on English education in the public school sector, and a slew of educational policies that seek to counter accusations that English is somehow available only to those with economic means. A succession of government policies has lowered the age at which children officially learn English in South Korea from the state to nine years. However, unofficially, it is normal for children from more affluent families to start learning English from the age of two or three. Despite government initiatives to improve the quality of English education within South Korean public schools, parents – more specifically, Korean ‘soccer moms’ (J.-K. Park, 2009, p. 51), middle-aged, well-educated suburban

Introduction  5 women with school-aged children – in increasing numbers are sending their children abroad or paying fees of more than 1000 dollars a month to ensure that their children receive any advantage they can in terms of English education. In fact, it is estimated that up to three quarters of students in South Korea are receiving some kind of private English education (S. W. Kim & Lee, 2010). Some see this as proof of a lack of confidence that most South Koreans have in the public English education system (Moodie & Nam, 2016). Notwithstanding this lack of faith in the system, education has always been seen as a means of achieving status and power in South Korea. Despite the breakdown of the official traditional class system in South Korea (J.-K. Park, 2009), unofficially, the hierarchical structure of power relations in South Korean society is still prevalent (Song, 2011). This unacknowledged hierarchical structure drives parents to pay more and more for English, because in modern South Korea, knowledge of English is ‘one of the mechanisms of maintaining and sustaining inequality as it is already structured in South Korea’ (Song, 2011, pp. 42–43). Upward mobility and economic prosperity is the end goal of learning a language such as English, and it is the goal of many South Korean parents who impose English education on their children (Seth, 2002). In an attempt to make the public education sector more competitive and relevant, the Korean government has embraced western ideologies about language teaching, most notably communicative language teaching approaches (CLT), viewing this as more effective at improving student English communicative proficiency (Li, 1998). CLT’s global popularity spurred the government to stress emphasis on students’ oral communicative skills, leading to changes at the national level of how students were assessed (J.-K. Park, 2009; Seth, 2002; Song, 2011). The implementation of CLT ensued despite growing resistance to the approach by teachers who felt that they were ill-prepared to conduct their lessons in English (Liu, Gil-Soon, Baek, & Han, 2004). In addition to this were concerns about the incompatibility between the principal ideologies and pedagogical practices of CLT, and those of the EFL context in South Korea (Hu & McKay, 2012). The Korean government nevertheless continued to build upon the ideals of the CLT approach to create the government policy titled TETE, or Teaching English Through English (also known as TEE-Teaching English in English). This occurred despite the documented resistance to the implementation of CLT. The introduction of English education to the elementary school curriculum in 1997 saw English being taught as a regular subject to third grade students and older. To help prepare for this, the Ministry of Education instigated a series of teacher development programs that aimed to ready teachers for delivering their classes in only English. The overall aim of these programs was to improve the English language proficiencies of current teachers. Additionally, the Teacher Employment Test provided a pathway for all graduates to become teachers (Yim, 2007). Universities reacted to this by allocating more resources to improving the English capabilities of all graduating students in order to remain competitive in the job market. Initiatives saw graduates having to write their theses in English no matter what subject they study, having to attain pre-specified levels of English before they could graduate, as

6 Introduction well as the employment of a veritable army of native English speakers throughout all levels of Korean education. Surveys of Korean teachers implementing the TETE policy (S. Y. Kim, 2002, 2008) revealed high levels of anxiety, especially among older teachers. Resistance to communicative teaching methods such as TETE was often related to such factors as exam washback, large class sizes, and socialization processes between experienced and less experienced teachers (Richards & Pennington, 1998; Urmston & Pennington, 2008). Nonetheless, these surveys also revealed that most teachers believed the TETE policy would benefit the majority of students, especially as most teachers were cognizant of how the Korean job market was being shaped by global forces. The push for English education continues to build in South Korea, where teachers continue to be trained to teach only in the target language. However, despite this training, studies still show that not all teachers abide by the TETE approach (Kang, 2008, 2013; Liu et al., 2004; Rabbidge & Chappell, 2014). There are still questions as to the most effective way to teach English in South Korea, as are there questions about the value of government policies which strive to have all citizens able to speak English, despite the fact that the country has done considerably well for itself without the need for speaking English (Song, 2011). South Korean society is seen to reward its citizens in relation to their educational achievement, embracing the ideology of merit (or meritocracy) (Song, 2011). However, the connect between quality of education and privilege, or lack thereof, means that those with the monetary means will always have access to better quality education than those without. Within the realms of English education, this has led some to decry the role of English as a means of maintaining traditional hierarchies in South Korea (Song, 2011). English is said to have been given a false sense of importance that ensures that all members of society strive to attain achievements in English proficiency despite the fact that the vast majority of Korean people will never need to actually use the language as part of their daily existence. It is common for South Korean employers to require their employees to attain documented levels of achievement in English despite the fact that most of these employees do not need it to complete their profession. University entrance depends on documented achievement in English, even though not all university subjects require proficiency in the language. In most regards, it is argued, the social capital that is said to be gained from achieving proficiency in English ‘is often more meretricious than material’ (Seargeant, 2009).

Teacher guilt Teachers in EFL contexts such as those in South Korea, where they are required to adhere to educational policies that ban or restrict the mother tongue, often find themselves feeling guilty when they teach (Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009; Copland & Neokleous, 2011; Littlewood & Yu, 2011; Macaro, 1997, 2006, 2009; M. Turnbull & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009). This is because while they are learning their trade, whether in pre-service or in-service training courses, they are

Introduction  7 repeatedly exposed to research from leaders in the SLA field that tell them that it is imperative to use the target language if not exclusively, then at least as much as possible. Adding to this is the fact that the educational policies that guide their curriculum are based on these same areas of research, so that politicians and experts who have studied abroad all support the same ideas. Early in their careers, teachers readily accept these dictates before, or upon, entering their teaching career. However, it does not take long for a vast majority to realize that not everything they have learned, or are required to do under policy, works in the reality of the classroom. In contexts such as South Korea, where there is a strong, and often unregulated, private education sector, students with the economic means have been learning English since they were in daycare. Conversely, those without the monetary means have not experienced English language learning as much. This creates classrooms within the public sector that have students with different proficiencies in English. Some teachers quickly realize that they need to use what is called their first language (L1) to ensure that students can participate in the learning process, while others continue to persevere with excluding the L1. Language education policies that ban or minimize the role of Korean in the class in order to maximize exposure to English largely treat languages as discrete items that operate separately from each other, and often assign limited values to different languages (García & Li, 2014; Hall & Cook, 2012; Mahboob & Lin, 2016). However, teachers in EFL contexts often use the L1 in spite of educational policies that restrict its use. Unfortunately, discrepancies between theory, policy, and practice can induce ‘a sense of guilt in teachers,’ and teachers are seen to confess to low levels of target language use, equating it to an ‘admission of unprofessional conduct’ (Mitchell, 1988, p. 28). Numerous studies have reported the sense of guilt teachers have when learners use their own language in the classroom (Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009; Copland & Neokleous, 2011; Littlewood & Yu, 2011; Macaro, 1997, 2006, 2009; M. Turnbull & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009). Teachers across a variety of learning contexts describe their language habits as recourses to L1 use (Macaro, 2001), while stating a preference for a predominant use of the target language. However, a majority of teachers are also not in favour of eliminating the use of the L1. The reason for this recourse to L1 use is a lack of the perceived ‘perfect conditions’ (Macaro, 2006, p. 68) for excluding the L1. Teachers often underreport their L1 use to avoid admissions of incompetence and challenges to their self-reported personal philosophies of language learning and teaching (Copland & Neokleous, 2011). Macaro (2009) has described three different theories teachers tend to hold about using the L1 in their classes. These theories come from teachers’ knowledge of, and experience with, language learning. The ‘virtual position’ theory is where teachers exclude the L1 to mirror perceived language usage in the target country. The ‘maximal position’ theory is where teachers believe L1 exclusion is not possible, and are therefore flexible with L1 use. Teachers who believe in this theory often report a sense of guilt when using the L1. ‘Optimal position’ theory involves teachers who believe that using the L1 enhances TL learning, but who are often in the minority. Teachers who hold to the optimal position are

8 Introduction found to be in the minority but are more likely to embrace alternative views of language and its uses (Macaro, 2014). I asked myself why teachers should feel guilty about doing something they love and felt that some serious injustices were occurring. This led to the current project, and the basis for this book. The scope of the project grew to include how teacher beliefs about using English or L1 affected the social reality of the classes they taught, based on the teachings of Basil Bernstein and discussed further in the theoretical framework chapter of this book. The combination of tracking teachers’ beliefs about language use with how these beliefs affected the social reality of their classrooms led to a deeper description of the effects of L1 exclusion policies than I could have foreseen. It has revealed implications about teaching that I previously failed to see through a lack both of imagination and of ability to reason critically. It has also made tangible the importance of reflecting upon teaching practice, and it has led to a greater appreciation and understanding of my own teaching practices and beliefs.

A call for change Although, traditionally, EFL contexts, and especially those in Asia, have not been viewed as a bilingual context, there are now calls for EFL contexts like South Korea to be reframed as bilingual contexts to provide space for more positive language and identity growth (B. Turnbull, 2016). This reframing labels learners as emerging bilinguals, and emphasis is on how languages are used rather than on proficiency (Grosjean, 2013). The term ‘emergent bilingual’ allows for discussions to move away from the terms of deficiency which have traditionally dominated research on such learners (Mahboob & Lin, 2016). Emergent bilinguals in EFL contexts are constantly developing new elements of their linguistic repertoires in contexts where the new language is considered a minority language (B. Turnbull, 2016). Emergent bilinguals acquire linguistic and social knowledge of named languages, which requires engaging with the social realities tied to named languages as well as the ‘internal psycholinguistic reality’ of emergent bilinguals (García, 2017). This reframing also sees teachers as bilingual rather than non-native speakers of English (NNESTs), where bilinguals are defined as people who use at least two languages as part of their daily life (Grosjean, 2013). Bilingual education is defined as an educational setting where two languages are used for the purpose of improving both languages (Abello-Contesse, 2013), and it has been argued that this should include EFL settings in order to allow for an embrace of the more positive connotations that are associated with current trends in bilingualism (B. Turnbull, 2016), such as translanguaging.

A process of reflection and reflexivity The teaching context in South Korea is one that is constantly being explored and described by researchers within South Korea, as well as far from the peninsula

Introduction  9 itself. This book is an attempt to further investigate the complexities of English language education in EFL contexts such as South Korea beyond those that have come before it. Additionally, it is a process of reflection that has allowed me to grow in understanding about the nature of language teaching as well as what it means to call myself an English language teacher. [I]f men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. (Thomas & Thomas, 1928, p. 572) The Thomas theorem implies that once a research project has been conceived of, researchers and participants are bound to actions that result in the fulfilment of said research project. If true, then it is important to address any inherent biases that will accompany the process of completing the project. In other words, if a research project is a self-fulfilling prophecy, then it is the duty of the researcher to ensure that all actions and contextual features influencing the project are articulated clearly to ensure the integrity of the project. Reflexivity is a response to the imperative of clearly articulating the subjectivities interlocking the interviewer, participants, methodologies, and research focus of any research project. Adding to this is the mutually shaping nature of articulating reflexivity (Mann, 2016). The constructivist position perceives that the research project, and all the methods, theories, or ideas involved, influence the articulation of the research project, and this articulation in turn acts to influence the very project that it is describing. This is important as it acknowledges and reveals the impact that the research project has on the researcher: their identity, understanding of phenomena, and beliefs related to the project. This serves to distinguish reflexivity from reflection, as reflection is often defined as thinking about a certain event, whereas reflexivity is a continuing self-awareness relating to the research project itself. Reflexivity, mutual shaping, and social constructivist theories are concepts that guide the writing of this book. The significance of this book is twofold. First, the framework described within the book offers new and innovative insights into the role that an L1 or a TL has in the EFL classroom. By identifying the influences that act in the development of beliefs about TL or L1 use, and then aligning these beliefs with a theory of pedagogic discourse that accounts for how these beliefs can influence socialization processes in the classroom, a new line of enquiry is developed into evaluating the role of these different languages in the classroom. This is the second significant aspect, because new lines of enquiry are essential in pushing the boundaries of understanding and challenging the status quo of any discipline. For any academic discipline to grow and stay relevant, it must embrace challenges that further the understandings of academics as well as people in the field.

Overview of the book The purpose of this book is to promote the value of translanguaging in EFL teaching contexts. To date, translanguaging has been discussed mostly in regards

10 Introduction to US and European contexts. This book will examine the teaching beliefs and practices of teachers within the South Korea elementary school context to evaluate their practices in regards to using the target language and the first language when teaching. This examination utilizes sociological theories of pedagogic discourse to discuss the consequences of first language exclusion policies on the peninsula. Using these theories, it presents an argument for why EFL contexts like South Korea need to reevaluate their current policies and understandings of language learning and teaching, and to embrace translanguaging as an approach. It outlines how transforming their traditional notions of language learning and teaching will benefit learners and remove the sense of guilt that teachers in such contexts have about using their L1. It will ask that teachers be seen as bilinguals, and learners as emerging bilinguals, rather than use terms of deficiency that have come to dominate such contexts. This book is unique in that it uses sociological theories of pedagogic discourse to support a translanguaging understanding of language teaching and learning. The first chapter provides an account of how EFL contexts have come to be governed by SLA theories that fail to realize the array of unique contextual factors within EFL contexts. This includes a discussion on the different ideologies behind theories of language use in foreign language classrooms, including why monolingual biases still dominate EFL contexts. It then explores how more recent studies have opened up a dialogue on how the first language can be a positive in language teaching. Whenever a new terminology comes along, there are always questions as to the need for it, and this chapter answers those questions by synthesizing notions of reality from Lemke (2016) and Thibault (2011) with discussions from Otheguy, Garcia, and Reid (2015). This then leads into what translanguaging is and how it is applied in classrooms in different contexts. Chapter 2 brings into focus the framework that is used to underpin the findings and discussions of the book. It explains: • • • • •

How classrooms were conceptualized using genre theory The different elements involved in analyzing the classroom talk Sociological theories for understanding the interactions in the classroom How to identify the stages of development that beliefs undergo How these beliefs are used to understand classroom actions and talk

The framework is covered early in the book, as an understanding of the theories involved in the coming analyses is vital for readers. The book presents an accessible account of Bernstein’s theories of pedagogic discourse, which allows the readers to follow the analyses that take place in the following chapters. Studying the pedagogic discourse of a class allows for a better understanding of the social practices involved. It also reveals how the beliefs teachers have operate when positioning students in their classrooms. Studying pedagogic discourses in these classes also uncovers how limiting students’ linguistic repertoires can be detrimental to their opportunities to engage with the TL.

Introduction  11 Chapter 3 starts reviewing current understandings of teacher beliefs within language learning. Beliefs and the different constructs associated with beliefs provide important background information into how beliefs are understood in the current literature. Additionally, the chapter discusses the role of identity and language identity, imagined communities, and learner investment. These constructs provide background information for the teacher profiles that follow. Chapter 4 presents the history-in-person profiles of teachers in the South Korean elementary school EFL context. These profiles look at how teacher beliefs about language use are formed over a lifetime, and discusses current beliefs about using different aspects of their linguistic repertoires in their classes. It highlights the different beliefs teachers can have about using the language in their classes. Presenting teachers’ beliefs is important at this stage of the book as their beliefs influence recontextualization processes in the classrooms, as described in the previous chapter’s account of Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse. This chapter acknowledges how the elicited beliefs formed during the co-construction processes of the interviews, and it includes reflexive accounts throughout. Reflexivity, as previously stated, is an important aspect of the study that forms the foundations of this book, and this chapter highlights that importance. Chapter 5 analyses how the teachers use their full linguistic repertoire to create more inclusive learning spaces. It uses the framework discussed in Chapter 2 to uncover a series of different translanguaging strategies that the teachers used. These strategies work in conjunction with each other at different stages of the observed curriculum genres, despite official policies that call for a monolingual approach to language teaching. It highlights effective teaching strategies for translanguaging and shows that not all teachers feel a sense of guilt about using the full linguistic repertoire of their classrooms, and that their actions are justifiable. The relevance of this chapter is in how, despite what some may believe, translanguaging is part of the bilingual teacher inventory in Asian EFL contexts. Chapter 6 provides an analysis of teachers’ use of their full linguistic repertoire to limit their students’ use of their own linguistic repertoire. It also looks at when teachers decide to exclude elements of their own linguistic repertoire in an effort to improve the amount of exposure they give to their students. Extracts from real classrooms show how beliefs about language exclusion can lead teachers to create learning situations that restrict student voice, and therefore participation. This chapter foreshadows the possible negative consequences of such learning situations. It highlights that translanguaging is not always positive for students, especially when it is used as a strategy to maintain control over the classroom. The penultimate chapter discusses the implications of language exclusion teaching practices. It starts within the language classroom, where different forms of classroom communication, or specialized patterns of practice, are instituted within the interactional and the locational principles of communication. It reveals how certain teaching practices place students into positions in which they give up participating in their language classes. These are contrasted with translanguaging positions to impress the need for inclusive teaching practices. It then moves

12 Introduction out of the classroom to look at the larger consequences of language exclusion policies, as revealed by previous discussions on power and control issues within the language classroom. It focuses on ideas of how language exclusion policies are acting to enforce practices that maintain social stratification found in South Korean society. The final chapter summarizes the discussions, making the case for a fundamental shift in understandings of how language can be taught and learned within EFL contexts. It connects the discussions in the previous chapters to current understandings of translanguaging. It then presents a series of implications for teachers, trainers, and policy makers in regards to embracing a translanguaging approach in EFL contexts such as South Korea.

References Abello-Contesse, C. (2013). Bilingual and multilingual education: An overview of the field. In C. Abello-Contesse, P. M. Chandler, M. D. López-Jiménez, & D. R. Chacón-Beltrán (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education in the 21st century: Building on experience (pp. 3–23). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109. ISSN 1475–3049. doi:10.1017/S0261444803001903 Bourdieu, P. (2003). Firing back: Against the tyranny of the market 2. New York, NY: The New Press. Butzkamm, W., & Caldwell, J. (2009). The bilingual reform: A paradigm shift in foreign language teaching. Tubingen, The Netherlands: Narr Studienbucher. Byean, H. (2015). English, tracking, and neoliberalization of education in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 867–882. doi:10.1002/tesq.257 Cho, J. H. (2015). Sleepless in Seoul: Neoliberalism, English fever, and linguistic insecurity among Korean interpreters. Multilingua, 34(5), 687–710. doi:10.1515/ multi-2013-0047 Cho, J. H. (2017). English language ideologies in Korea: Interpreting the past and present. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.aut.ac.nz/ login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsebk&AN= 1565297&site=eds-live Copland, F., & Neokleous, G. (2011). L1 to teach L2: Complexities and contradictions. ELT Journal, 65(3), 270–280. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq047 García, O. (2017). Reflections on Turnbull’s reframing of foreign language education: Bilingual epistemologies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–11. doi:10.1080/13670050.2016.1277512 García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Grosjean, F. (2013). Bilingualism: A short introduction. In F. Grosjean & P. Li (Eds.), The psycholinguistics of bilingualism. Chicester, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–308. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000067 Heller, M. (2010). The commodification of language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 101–114.

Introduction  13 Hu, G., & McKay, S. L. (2012). English language education in East Asia: Some recent developments. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(4), 345–362. doi:10.1080/01434632.2012.661434 Jung, S. K., & Norton, B. (2002). Language planning in Korea: The new elementary English program. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 245–265): Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kang, D.-M. (2008). The classroom language use of a Korean elementary school EFL teacher: Another look at TETE. System, 36(2), 214–226. doi:10.1016/j. system.2007.10.005 Kang, D.-M. (2013). EFL teachers’ language use for classroom discipline: A look at complex interplay of variables. System, 41(1), 149–163. doi:10.1016/j.system. 2013.01.002 Kim, S. W., & Lee, J. H. (2010). Private tutoring and demand for education in South Korea. Economic Development & Cultural Change, 58(2), 259–296. Kim, S. Y. (2002). Teachers’ perceptions about teaching English through English. English Teaching, 57(1), 131–148. Kim, S. Y. (2008). Five years of teaching English through English: Responses from teachers and prospects for learners. English Teaching, 63(1), 57–70. Lemke, J. (2016). Translanguaging and flows (unpublished manuscript). San Diego, CA: Department of Communications. Li, D. (1998). ‘It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine’: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677–703. doi:10.2307/3588000 Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44(1), 64–77. doi:10.1017/S026144480 9990310 Liu, D., Gil-Soon, A., Baek, K.-S., & Han, N.-O. (2004). South Korean high school English teachers’ code switching: Questions and challenges in the drive for maximal use of English in teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 605–638. doi:10.2307/ 3588282 Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. Modern Language Journal, 85(4), 531–548. Macaro, E. (2006). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession (pp. 63–84). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer. Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom: Exploring ‘optimal’ use. In M. Turnbull & J. D.-O. Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 35–49). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Macaro, E. (2014). Overview: Where should we be going with classroom codeswitching research? In R. Barnard & J. McLellan (Eds.), Codeswitching in university English-medium classes: Asian perspectives (pp. 10–23). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Mahboob, A., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Using local languages in English language classrooms. In H. Widodo & W. Renandya (Eds.), English language teaching

14 Introduction today: Building a closer link between theory and practice. New York, NY: Springer International. Mann, S. (2016). The research interview: Reflective practice and reflexivity in research processes. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Mitchell, R. (1988). Communicative language teaching in practice. London, UK: Centre for Information on Language Teaching. Moodie, I., & Nam, H.-J. (2016). English language teaching research in South Korea: A review of recent studies (2009–2014). Language Teaching, 49(1), 63–98. doi:10.1017/S026144481500035X Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6, 281–307. doi:10.1515/applirev-2015-0014 Park, J.-K. (2009). ‘English fever’ in South Korea: Its history and symptoms. English Today, 25(1), 50–57. doi:10.1017/S026607840900008X Park, J. S.-Y. (2009). The local construction of a global language: Ideologies of English in South Korea. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Park, J. S.-Y. (2010). Naturalization of competence and the neoliberal subject: Success stories of English language learning in the Korean conservative press. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 1, 22. Park, J. S.-Y. (2011). The promise of English: Linguistic capital and the neoliberal worker in the South Korean job market. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(4), 443–455. doi:10.1080/13670050.2011.573067 Rabbidge, M., & Chappell, P. (2014). Exploring non-native speaker teachers’ classroom language use in South Korean elementary schools. TESL-EJ, 17(4). Richards, J. C., & Pennington, M. C. (1998). The first year of teaching. In J. Richards (Ed.), Beyond training (pp. 173–190). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Seargeant, P. (2009). The idea of English in Japan: Ideology and the evolution of a global language. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Seth, M. J. (2002). English fever: Society, politics and the pursuit of schooling in South Korea. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Seth, M. J. (2016). Introduction. In Routledge handbook of modern Korean history (pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Routledge. Shin, H. (2016). Language ‘skills’ and the neoliberal English education industry. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(5), 509–522. doi:10.1 080/01434632.2015.1071828 Song, J. (2011). English as an official language in South Korea: Global English or social malady? Language Problems & Language Planning, 35(1), 35–55. doi:10.1075/ lplp.35.1.03son Taie, M. (2015). English language teaching in South Korea: A route to success. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(1), 139–146. Thibault, P. J. (2011). First-order languaging dynamics and second-order language: The distributed language view. Ecological Psychology, 23(3), 210–245. doi:10.1080/ 10407413.2011.591274 Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York, NY: Knopf. Turnbull, B. (2016). Reframing foreign language learning as bilingual education: Epistemological changes towards the emergent bilingual. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–8. doi:10.1080/13670050.2016.1238 866

Introduction  15 Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2009). First language use in second and foreign language learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Urmston, A., & Pennington, M. C. (2008). The beliefs and practices of novice teachers in Hong Kong: Change and resistance to change in an Asian teaching context. In T. S. C. Farrell (Ed.), Novice language teachers: Insights and perspectives for the first year (pp. 89–103). Oakville, CT: Equinox. Yim, S. (2007). Globalization and language policy in South Korea. In A. B. M. Tsui & J. W. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian context (pp. 37–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

1

Evolving understandings of language in the language classroom

Introduction to the chapter This chapter provides an overview of the traditional scholarship of different language use in language learning settings. The way languages are described during this review reflects traditional understandings of languages, namely, separate entities that exist within the user. These descriptions are seen in the use of terminology such as first language, or L1, and target language, or TL. These terms are initially used as acknowledgements of theories that have dominated language learning over the last century. By the end of the chapter, I will explain why such terminology needs to be replaced with theories of language that promote inclusiveness rather than division.

English learning contexts English as foreign language teaching (EFL) contexts are typically characterized as those in which English language learners study English almost exclusively in the classroom. They differ from English as second language (ESL) contexts in that learners in ESL contexts also have considerable interaction in English within the community. English learners in EFL contexts have significantly less exposure to, and interaction in, English, and therefore are said to need language lessons which optimize exposure to English. These generalizations of EFL and ESL contexts do nothing to account for the variations found in different cities and different countries around the world where English is learned or used. Different contexts vary in terms of teacher/student ratios, hours of class time per week, physical settings including available resources such as technology and teaching materials, not to mention the adopted teaching philosophies and practices that influence the actions of teachers in these contexts (Block, 2003). The overreliance on generalizations is a key failing of many policy makers. This failing is evident in the way many policy makers in countries where English is a foreign language have adopted second language acquisition theories that originated in ESL contexts. Policy decisions on the role a first language (L1) can play in second language learning are just one example of this failure to critically evaluate the appropriateness of a given teaching theory. Over the last decade or so, EFL countries, including but not

Evolving understandings of language  17 limited to South Korea, have established government-initiated policies that seek to ban or minimize the role of the L1 in the class in order to maximize exposure to English. These policies are reactions to trends in second language acquisition and learning theories established predominantly in English-speaking countries, or ESL contexts (Hall & Cook, 2012; Mahboob & Lin, 2016; McKay, 2009). The negative value given to the L1 within ESL contexts was assumed to apply to EFL contexts, and little consideration was put into examining the uniqueness of EFL contexts and how second languages might be learned effectively in these contexts.

Theories of influence What are these theories that are so influential in EFL contexts such as South Korea? The principal idea is that the exclusive use of the TL, primarily English, is necessary in order to provide a context for learners to communicate in a more meaningful and authentic manner in EFL environments. The more TL input available, the better. Conducting classroom management and organization in the TL is considered a must as it adds to the overall input of the TL (R. Ellis, 1988). The belief is centred on the idea that competence in the foreign language is best realized by creating a rich TL environment that uses the TL not only for instruction, but also for discipline and management (Chaudron, 1988). It is claimed that in ESL classrooms, TL used for these functions is inevitable (R. Ellis, 1988); however, in EFL environments, this does not always occur due to teacher beliefs about how the L1 facilitates language-related learning goals within lessons. Other claims focus on how L1 use devalues the input of the TL. Support for monolingual teaching methodologies suggest that a TL-only methodology allows for more interaction and negotiation of meaning in the TL (Long, 2000; Pica, 2002), which can allow learners to adopt the language for their own communicative and sociocultural needs (Lin, 2000). Central to most discussions on language teaching methods since the inception of the direct method has been the place of the L1 in the communicative classroom, and whether or not it should be included. This question of L1 use was one of the tensions central to the teaching approach known as communicative language teaching, or CLT. Although there is no theoretical support to exclude the L1 from a communicative classroom (Widdowson, 2003), the use of the L1 is seen to undermine one of CLT’s fundamental principles: that language can be learned and skills acquired via communicating in the TL (Macdonald, 1993).

Psycholinguistics theories Second language acquisition theories cited as support for L1 exclusion language teaching methods and policies include Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985), Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1983, 1996) and Swain’s Comprehensible Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985, 1995). Krashen’s Input Hypothesis

18  Evolving understandings of language distinguished between acquisition and learning, with the former being an implicit and unconscious act, and the latter an explicit and conscious act. It claimed that TL learning occurred via a natural order of acquisition based on understanding linguistic items a little bit beyond their current competence (i + 1). It also required learners to be affectively disposed to accepting the input they comprehend. The input was made comprehensible via simplification of language as well as contextual and extra linguistic clues. Additionally, it made the claim that learner speaking, or output, does not contribute directly to acquisition. The theory received a number of criticisms involving the nature of comprehension (Faerch & Kasper, 1986; Gass, 1988; Smith, 1986) and its necessity for acquisition (White, 1987). Krashen failed to define what type of comprehension processes were required for acquisition, something that Carroll (1999) pointed out as being necessary for any account of the role of input in acquisition. Long’s Interaction Hypothesis, influenced partly by Krashen’s hypothesis, claimed that incidental language acquisition was facilitated by engaging in interpersonal oral interactions, where communication problems arise and are then negotiated. Like Krashen, Long acknowledged that when simplified, input and context can facilitate language acquisition. Both theories have been used to explain the need to avoid L1 use in the classroom based on the idea that students require opportunities to interact and negotiate in the TL in order to facilitate TL acquisition.

But are they applicable? Rarely mentioned, however, is the fact that a lot of the research done on these theories took place in laboratory conditions, away from natural classroom contexts, let alone EFL contexts (Krashen, 1985; Long, 1981, 1983). Classroom contexts involve complex sociocultural influences that are not realized in laboratory-like research. In addition to this, most of the observed interactions were between adult native speakers and non-native speakers of English. Classroom interactions often involve a large variety of interactions that have not been accounted for in these studies, including but not limited to: interactions between students who share a common L1, students of differing second language aptitude, and the different age groups present in different classroom contexts. These are important considerations when attempting to explain how theories of language acquisition can be used in differing contexts.

If not input, then output? A third strand of research used to support L1 exclusion is derived from Swain’s Comprehensible Output Hypothesis (COH) (1985, 1995). Swain agreed that input was important during acquisition, and if the input was comprehensible, then more attention could be on linguistic forms. However, in contrast to Krashen’s earlier hypothesis, Swain placed a great deal of emphasis on the role of output in interaction. Swain’s study of French immersion students (1985) suggested that students did not demonstrate native-like productive competence because of

Evolving understandings of language  19 limited comprehensible output. In essence, students who were not given adequate time in class to use the target language did not learn to speak the language. Additionally, students needed to be ‘pushed’ (p. 249) to produce language that more accurately reflected their intended meaning. The being ‘pushed’ concept was considered the equivalent of the i + 1 concept of the comprehensible input. Output forces learners to pay attention to the bottom-up syntactic processing, as opposed to the more semantic top-down processing, of language. Output also allows learners to practice what they already know, helping to automatize discourse and linguistic knowledge (Skehan, 1998). However, criticisms of COH focused on how, or if, output or modified output actually plays a role in TL acquisition (R. Ellis, 2012).

Hegemonic ideologies The use of these theories to restrict or ban L1 use is prevalent in EFL contexts throughout Asia, even though the studies themselves were largely based in ESL contexts or in contexts where the target language was not English. The application of these theories was a result of a fundamental lack of comprehension of the variances existing within EFL contexts and was part of a larger understanding of how to best teach a second language. Unfortunately, underpinning this push were ‘hegemonic ideologies’ (Mahboob & Lin, 2016, p. 6) based on fallacies in English language teaching, of which monolingualism was a major component (Phillipson, 1992). Minimal efforts have been made to utilize knowledge gathered from bilingual/multilingual contexts (García & Wei, 2014; Kachru, 1994), and there has been an overreliance on research framed within ‘monolingual speaker norms’ (May, 2011, p. 1). This has led to descriptions of learners in terms of deficit, and a tendency to ignore sociolinguistic and cultural influences within EFL contexts (Kachru, 1994; May, 2011). These theories of second language learning and acquisition were imposed upon EFL contexts via the establishment of teacher training colleges which espoused these methodologies and theories as part of the modern aesthetic of the times (Belz, 2003). The psycholinguistic perspective of how SLA occurs dominated discussions on how to best teach in EFL contexts and reflected attitudes to SLA which held the power and control at the time (Kachru, 1994). The influence of the predominantly psycholinguistic perspectives on SLA have had profound influences on government policies in EFL contexts such as China, Japan, and South Korea. The rise of globalization and emerging ideological, sociocultural, and educational trends have impacted the decision-making processes in these countries (Hu & McKay, 2012), leading to an influx of native English speakers to teach English in both formal and informal teaching situations. This influx has coincided with policies which restrict or outright ban the first language in English classrooms. This situation still persists today in many countries despite the growing interest in sociolinguistic theories of SLA. The limited progress made by sociolinguistics in these countries is due in part to the disciplines of SLA that ‘construct, validate, contain and exclude particular forms

20  Evolving understandings of language of knowledge’ (May, 2011, p. 236) into academic and disciplinary hierarchies which inherently favoured some forms of knowledge over others.

The L1 prevails Despite the dominance of psycholinguistics in SLA, and the agreed-upon preference for monolingual approaches to language teaching from SLA textbooks (Jenkins, 2006) and English teaching textbook publishers, the use of the L1 in EFL environments prevails (Cook, 2008). Research into L1 use draws upon a range of different perspectives. This research includes theories of cognition and learning, concepts of power and classroom management, and the search for an optimal own language use, as well as the roles of teacher and student beliefs about L1 use in TL learning. In the last decade, re-conceptualizations of bilingual and multilingual competencies and cognitions have led to an increased belief of the positive role that the L1 can have in the second language classroom. While still acknowledging that learners require a significant amount of exposure to and practice of the TL, psycholinguistic and sociocultural theories brought together by a sociolinguistic view of a bilingual classroom began to acknowledge the value of a more principled approach to L1 inclusion (V. Cook, 2002; Edstrom, 2006; Turnbull & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009).

The social turn A social turn (Block, 2003; Hall & Cook, 2012) within applied linguistics acknowledges the complexity, diversity, difference, and uncertainty within language learning. Coupled with this social turn, globalization and the growing number of non-native speakers of English have led researchers to reevaluate the importance of bilingual and multilingual language use within the classroom. The acknowledgement of the identity of the learner and the role identity plays in language learning has led researchers to reexamine codeswitching practices of non-native speaker teachers of English (NNESTs). Language learners are now increasingly viewed as multiple language users (Belz, 2003). Sociolinguistically, the prohibition of L1 use in the language classroom is the equivalent of banning a learner’s particular identity. Sociolinguistics asserts that the language, dialect, or register that a learner uses represents unique features of a learner’s identity (Belz, 2003). The monolingual bias, based on ‘modernist aesthetics’ (Belz, 2003, p. 212), decries the learner as a ‘deficient communicator’ that needs the ‘idealized native speaker.’ This deficient communicator view was reflected in the previously mentioned SLA theories of Krashen, Long, and Swain. In these studies, interaction typically occurred between native speakers and non-native speakers, in which the native speaker was the idealized standard. Native speaker models led to the establishment of theoretical concepts such as interlanguage and fossilization (Selinker, 1992). These concepts were based on assumptions that language learners are unable to reach native-like status, which

Evolving understandings of language  21 was the assumed goal of language learning (Mahboob, 2010). The unquestioned status of the native speaker as the ideal within some of the fundamental concepts of SLA contributed to an investigative mindset that promoted the idealized native speaker to a position of authority over the stereotyped non-native, who was viewed as having limited communicative competence (Firth & Wagner, 1997). However, these theoretical mindsets and narratives on the relationship between native speakers and non-native speakers were merely historically situated constructs subject to the influence of sociocultural factors such as power relationships, institutional polices, and economic interests as well as individualized life histories and experiences (Thorne, 2000).

The influence of sociocultural theory Sociocultural theory (SCT) is grounded in the perspective that the individual is not separated from social context (Vygotsky, 1978). It argues that an individual’s knowledge is formed from the social context in which they live, making the individual a fundamentally social being (Lantolf, 2006). It states that cultural artefacts mediate human mental functioning. Language use is a primary means of mediation, as language is a cultural artefact. By communicating with another, the individual internalizes knowledge formed in the interaction. Language is an important part of interaction which leads to the formulation of internalized knowledge. In second language learning, sociocultural theory argues that a common L1 functions as a psychological tool (Vygotsky, 1978) for learning. The L1 regulates cognitive processes and is used by learners to mediate TL learning, especially new TL learners who have insufficient TL to mediate their cognitive activity. A number of studies have investigated how the L1 assists in driving linguistic development forward by discussing features of the TL in the L1 (Swain, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 2002). Building upon the concept of output to include its function as a socially constructed cognitive tool, it has been shown how dialogue in the L1 can promote second language learning by mediating their own construction and the construction of knowledge. The external speech, in both first and second languages, facilitated the internalization of process and knowledge. The use of such dialogues highlights how language learning occurs in collaborative dialogue and links to sociocultural theory by showing that internal mental activity originates in external dialogic activity (Swain, 2000). Other EFL and immersion learning contexts have also shown that the L1 provides learners with cognitive support. The L1 has been found to have a critical function in students’ attempts to mutually define a variety of elements within writing tasks by using the L1 to externalize inner speech in order to regulate mental activity (Anton & Dicamilla, 1999). Using the L1 while participating in classroom activities collaboratively influenced and built a shared social reality, as the L1 promoted verbal interaction about both tasks and the language needed for tasks, as well as provided the participants an opportunity to establish intersubjectivity with each other about the task they were doing (Brooks & Donato, 1994).

22  Evolving understandings of language Vygotskyan theory explains this metatalk as metacognition out loud. Metacognition is semiotically constructed through language; the L1 metatalk allowed the participants to establish control of the discourse and the task they were doing by explicitly discussing their linguistic tools used in its construction (Brooks & Donato, 1994). As Brooks and Donato wrote, although not condoning unnecessary L1 use, they did describe the use of the L1 as a normal psycholinguistic process that facilitated TL learning, and that verbal thinking mediated a learner’s relationship with the new language and the learner’s L1. L1 use assists TL learning, enlists and maintains interest in tasks, and assists in developing strategies for accessing higher-level tasks and activities (Anton & Dicamilla, 1999; Brooks & Donato, 1994; Swain & Lapkin, 2000). The L1 allows the creation of ‘a social and cognitive space’ (Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003), providing learners with assistance throughout language learning tasks. It also allows lower-level learners to maintain interaction with more proficient learners and possibly access their higher-level knowledge (Thoms, Jianling, & Szustak, 2005). These ideas parallel codeswitching findings (Macaro, 2006), which describe the L1 as alleviating the cognitive load of the learner and allowing communication to continue. However, the sociocultural perspective suggests that learners who are interacting with more expert users are in fact working within their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). The use of L1 in group work and class activities is deemed an important advantage within the sociocultural framework and stands in opposition to a TL-only approach to second and foreign language learning. Like previously mentioned psycholinguistic research into SLA, the findings from this body of research were based around experimental conditions which isolated learners from natural learning contexts. However, in contrast to the previously mentioned research limitations within psycholinguistics, sociocultural SLA research more openly embraces the role of context in second language acquisition by embracing the context of collaboration as well as the pre-existing cognitive tools of the participants. A multicompetent language learner approach ascertains that knowledge brought to the classroom by the learner in the form of prior language knowledge is a necessary part of the learner’s identity, which is to be exploited in the learning of the TL (Belz, 2003). Acknowledging multiple language use in the classroom not only mirrors multilingual realities in the world, but aids in the development of both intercultural competencies and critical awareness of others and of oneself. In turn, this allows for more authentic language use in the classroom, an often-stated goal of modern second language teaching approaches (Byram, 1997; Kramsch, 1993).

Multilingual realities There are now calls for the language classroom to be re-designated as a multilingual community in which native speaker norms are no longer imposed on multilingual users of language, and where teachers need to acknowledge learners as developing bilinguals or multilingual language users. Teachers need to allow

Evolving understandings of language  23 learners to use their extensive L1 knowledge to complement their TL knowledge in the classroom (V. Cook, 2005). Acknowledging a multicompetence view of second language acquisition, which is defined as two or more languages in one mind, allows learners to free themselves of the standards imposed upon them by native speakers as well as allowing them access to the cognitive tools of their L1 in order to better acquire the TL. There is a real need for language classrooms to more closely resemble speech communities (Blyth, 1995), where teachers need to move away from the psycholinguistic view of learners as individual speakers, and instead view learners as members of a social group. As multilingualism, not monolingualism, is the true norm throughout most of the world, foreign language teachers need to ‘make the multilingual speaker the unmarked form, the infinitive of language use, and the monolingual-monocultural speaker a slowly disappearing species or nationalistic myth’ (Kramsch, 1998, p. 30). Further support for re-designating the language classroom into a multilingual community is found in Edstrom’s (2006) action research study of her own use of the L1 while teaching a TL. Language is a functional entity where successful use of the language in context is the determinant of a speaker’s proficiency (Mahboob, 2010). The English language reflects and construes a variety of cultural perspectives and realities. These realities need to be mirrored in the classroom by NNESTs in order to establish new language learning and teaching methods (Mahboob, 2010).

Teachers’ use of the L1 Growing support for the use of the L1 in the classroom has led to an increase in the exploration of how the L1 is used by teachers in varying language teaching contexts. Suggestions that deliberately and systematically allow for the use of the student’s first language in the classroom include more effective L1 use: • • • •

To develop TL activities, such as codeswitching, for later real-life use To provide shortcuts for giving instructions and explanations where the cost of the TL is too great To create interlinked L1 and TL knowledge in the students’ minds To carry out learning tasks through collaborative dialogue with other students (V. Cook, 2001)

These suggestions mirror bilingual teaching strategies that seek to incorporate both the TL and the L1. They also seek to make the use of the L1 more positive for both teachers and students alike.

How the L1 functions in the classroom Studies on the quantity of L1 use in the classroom show large variations in how much is used (Copland & Neokleous, 2011; Duff & Polio, 1990), with descriptions of TL use being anywhere from 10% to 100% of language spoken. Copland and Neokleous (2011) described similar variations in the range of L1 use in the Cypriot English teaching context. Factors affecting the amount

24  Evolving understandings of language of L1 used in classrooms varied, including local policy, level of instruction as well as students’ proficiency in the TL, lesson contents, objectives of lessons, curriculum and materials used, teachers’ pedagogical beliefs based on training and teaching experiences, and experience with the target language culture (Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003). In fact, the only strong conclusion that can be made on functions and reasons for L1 use is that its use seems to be a very subjective and personal matter for most teachers. Teachers themselves often seem unaware of the scope and nature of their L1 use, with studies showing that teachers often underestimate their own use of L1 in the class (Edstrom, 2006; Levine, 2003). Studies that have investigated how L1 is used in foreign language classes have similar findings. A number of categories listed by Duff and Polio (1990) in a qualitative study that used questionnaires and interviews in different language courses offered at the University of California have also been identified in other studies (Macaro, 1997, 2001; Rolin-Ianziti & Brownlie, 2002). Although these studies labelled the functions of language differently, L1 usually had the following functions: administrative vocabulary for the classroom, the teaching of grammar, for classroom management, when demonstrating empathy or solidarity in the classroom, to assist in practicing English, for teaching/translating unknown language, in response to a lack of comprehension, and an interactive effect when teachers respond to the students’ L1 use (Polio & Duff, 1994). Üstünel and Seedhouse (2005) found via conversational analysis that teachers switch languages in response to student hesitations or in order to prompt a similar switch by the students. Atkinson (1993, pp. 25–38) focused on when it was necessary or not to use the L1 in class when presenting new language in classes of low-proficiency learners. Tables 1.1 and 1.2 present his ideas on necessary and unnecessary L1 use. Table 1.1  Necessary L1 Use Language function

Explanation

Lead-ins Eliciting language Giving instructions Checking comprehension

L1 used to check students have understood the situation Getting language from students Used when explaining written instructions To see if students understand a word or not

Table 1.2  Unnecessary L1 Use Language function

Explanation

At listening stage

When the assimilation of the meaning of the new language takes place Useful in practicing new language Teacher should encourage self-correction Activities to give intensive practice of TL

Drills Correction Personalization and games

Evolving understandings of language  25 Other reported reasons for L1 use included time efficiency (Atkinson, 1993; Chambers, 1992) and performing tasks more effectively (Brooks, Donato, & McGlone, 1997; Swain & Lapkin, 2000)

Merits of L1 use Research into the merits of L1 use covers a range of issues. The positive effects of L1 use on in-class relationships include how the L1 can be used for affective and personal functions in a monolingual content-based class (Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009; Nikula, 2007). Edstrom’s (2006) study of her own teaching practices helped to her to highlight how she used the L1 to connect with her students. Although often demonized, translation of languages is one of the most used learning strategies (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990), with a range of evidence showing the value of translation as an effective cognitive strategy for learners (Hummel, 2010). There is also growing evidence that codeswitching and own language use facilitate learning by alleviating the cognitive loads for learners during more challenging tasks (Carless, 2002; Scott & Fuente, 2008). Studies report on how private verbal thinking, or private speech, and mental translation assist in new language learning (Anton & Dicamilla, 1999; Blyth, 1995; Centeno-Cortés & Jiménez, 2004; de la Colina & del Pilar García Mayo, 2009). When considering the merits of L1 use, it is necessary to include how efficient L1 use is for language learning, whether or not TL learning is aided by L1 use, how comfortable students feel using the L1 when learning a TL which is related to codeswitching practices, and if L1 use will assist in mastering TL uses that may be required outside the classroom (V. Cook, 2001). All of these need to be set against the possible loss of experience when using the TL instead of the L1. The L1 should be ‘deliberately and systematically used’ rather than seen as something which is ‘a guilt-making necessity’ (V. Cook, 2001, p. 418), and is possibly the next revolution that could improve current teaching methods as well as reestablish the power imbalance that occurs in so many language learning classrooms.

Positive and justified reasons for L1 use The guilt language teachers often feel when using their L1 has been discussed previously. However, despite this reported guilt, there are positive and justified reasons for L1 use (Duff & Polio, 1990; Edstrom, 2006; Macaro, 1997, 2009a, 2009b; McMillan & Rivers, 2011; Van Der Meij & Zhao, 2010). Duff and Polio’s (1990) study of 13 different language teachers revealed that while there was a considerable difference between the amounts of L1 used by different teachers, the reasons for L1 use were similar. These included the use of the L1 for classroom management and administration issues, the teaching of grammar, and to demonstrate a sense of empathy with the learners. Several justifications were given for the use of L1 here. These included a perceived need to remedy

26  Evolving understandings of language an overreliance on more communicative approaches in previous courses which, while allowing students to use the language, never taught the students to construct language for themselves. In addition to this was the perception that the foreign language classroom differed from that of the second language classroom, leading to the belief that because students were deprived linguistically and culturally, they did not have enough TL to understand the teacher if the L1 is excluded. Other reasons included differences between certain languages that determined how easily a TL was picked up, and the need for teachers to prepare students for exams. Edstrom’s (2006) action research study revealed additional justifications for L1 use. The first was a moral obligation the teacher felt towards her students, especially those studying a TL in order to fulfil an academic obligation. This moral obligation led the teacher to use L1 when ‘communicating respect and creating a positive environment’ (p. 287). The other justification was based on the belief that the teacher needed to do more than equip students with language proficiency. Edstrom explained that her students’ L1 assisted them in • Recognizing the difficulties in learning a language • Understanding the relationship between a language and the realities it prescribes • Avoiding stereotypical ideas about the culture associated with a target language A significant number of the teachers believe that L1 use is a positive factor in TL teaching and learning (McMillan & Rivers, 2011). These positive factors include the use of L1 as ‘conversational lubricant’ (Butzkamm, 1998, p. 81), its role in learner-learner collaborations (McMillan & Turnbull, 2009; Swain & Lapkin, 2000), the use of L1 in the preparation and rehearsal stages of a lesson (McMillan & Rivers, 2011), and for the comparison of the TL and the L1 (Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009; Harbord, 1992). The literature presents an ‘overwhelming impression that bilingual teachers believe that the second language, i.e. L2, should be the predominant language of interaction in the classroom. On the other hand, . . . [we don’t find] a majority of teachers in favor of excluding the L1 altogether’ (Macaro, 2006, p. 68).

The EFL context The last two decades have seen a steady increase in the number of studies on non-native English speaker teachers (NNESTs). Studies often focused on the ‘characteristics of a diverse group . . . whose professional activity consists of teaching a second or foreign language’ (Moussu & Llurda, 2008, p. 332). A large part of the research done on NNESTs has come from non-empirical reflection pieces that emphasize the need to reconsider the role of NNESTs. The first empirical accounts of NNESTs came from a ‘saturation of surveys’ (Moussu & Llurda, 2008, p. 334) that verified facets of NNESTs that had previously only been brought to light by the self-reflective studies mentioned earlier.

Evolving understandings of language  27 Interviews have deepened the understanding of the issues at hand, but the uncontrolled nature of the interviews may have allowed unforeseen factors to shade some of the realities of these interviews (Moussu & Llurda, 2008). A defining characteristic of NNESTs is their English language learning experiences (E. Ellis, 2002). These experiences are drawn upon in four ways. The first is an affective factor that allows NNESTs to empathize with their students’ own learning experiences. The second is the teachers’ experiences with different teaching and learning styles which allows them to choose ‘good’ practices for their own classes. Third is the ability to view English from the non-native speaker perspective, which entails having learned grammar rather than simply having acquired it, leading to greater language awareness and sensitivity to the language. Finally, there is the ability to relate what they have learned through teacher training programs to their own language learning experiences. A more recent study conducted in South Korea discussed the influence of negative prior language learning experiences on teachers’ beliefs and practices (Moodie, 2016). This study described how Korean NNESTs reacted to negative experiences they had as students learning English. These teachers stated that they actively attempted to do the opposite in their own classes to what they had experienced as learners, mainly due to the associated negative feelings with those experiences. It also described how teachers of different ages, who experienced different policy innovations, reacted to implementing more recent teaching models in their classes. Younger teachers invariably had fewer issues when implementing more recent teaching innovations due to the similarity of the new innovations to their own learning experiences. The study concluded that older teachers struggled with newer approaches due to a lack of similar experiences when they were learners themselves. This highlights the influence that learner experiences can have on current teaching practices.

Research on the language choices of NNESTs in EFL contexts As of yet there has been limited investigation into the reality of what happens in NNEST-led foreign language classrooms, especially in terms of how the TL and L1 are used. A detailed account of how the L1 is used in an EFL context is found in Forman (2010). Here, the results of Forman’s case study list seven principles of L1 use in TL teaching which were identified by teachers in EFL contexts: • Cognitive principles that use the L1 to explain TL vocabulary, grammar, usage, and culture • Affective principles that use the L1 to facilitate solidarity amongst teachers and students • Affective principles that use the L1 to develop collaborative, teamwork abilities between students • Pedagogical principles of time effectiveness of using L1 over the TL • Pedagogical principles of using L1 to ensure comprehensibility of the content

28  Evolving understandings of language • Pedagogical principles of inclusivity that L1 ensures that all students participate • Contingency principles to respond to the immediate teaching and learning needs Liu et al. (2004), via a series of case studies, investigated the use of L1 in TL teaching in Korean secondary school settings. Although Liu et al. admitted that what they observed might not be truly reflective of what happens in the classroom due to the observer’s paradox, they were able to identify functions of L1 and TL use within the Korean context. L1 seemed to be used primarily for both cognitive and pedagogical reasons, similar in fashion to those described by Forman (2010); whereas the TL was used for affective and pedagogical reasons, which differed from the Forman study. The study stated that English was used on average only 32% of the time in the class, with students claiming to understand on average only 49% of the teachers’ English, and the authors wrote that there needs to be a reconsideration of pedagogical policies regarding the L1/TL use in the Korean EFL context. The forced shift by the newly implemented government educational policies into exclusive TL use was being met with resistance in the classroom, with a call for teacher training programs to reevaluate how they can teach more effective strategies for codeswitching practices that allow for optimal use of the L1 and TL in the classroom. Kang’s (2008) qualitative case study of the language choices of an elementary school teacher described four different combinations of L1 and TL being used by the teacher: • • • •

Exclusive use of the TL Exclusive use of the L1 Use of L1 followed by TL Use of TL followed by the L1

Via interviews, Kang discovered the reasons behind each type of language combination. Exclusive L1 use was deemed necessary by the teacher due to her students’ inability to comprehend TL input, and this belief was said to have arisen from the participating teacher’s personal teaching experiences in the classroom, a component of teacher beliefs also listed by Borg (2003). The teacher sometimes felt her own proficiency was inadequate to use the TL when explaining more complex tasks to her students. The teacher’s teaching experience also led her to believe that exclusive L1 was more effective for classroom management issues regarding discipline. An additional reason for the use of L1 in her class was to maintain student interest in the subject, where the teacher’s experience led her to believe that exclusive TL in the classroom acted as a demotivating factor when learning the TL. The clash of curricular aims, and consequently the choice of maintaining student motivation to learn English over exposure to English, has also been found elsewhere (Rabbidge & Chappell, 2014). The study also revealed combinations of TL and L1 use by the teacher. The combination of TL-L1, which was more prevalent than the L1-TL combination, was intersentential. The

Evolving understandings of language  29 teacher in Kang’s study explained that this was to make the more complex TL more salient and easier to process for her students, something also discussed in Turnbull and Arnett’s chapter on theoretical and empirical literature regarding teachers’ language choices (2002). In Kang’s (2008) study, the teacher described her teaching and learning experiences as motives for this TL-L1 combination use. The teacher in Kang’s study expressed agreement with the notion of using the TL exclusively based on her pedagogical beliefs. However, the teacher’s attention to students’ real-time needs and negative reactions to the TL caused her to abandon her pedagogical beliefs in favour of beliefs based on teaching and learning experiences in the EFL environment. As part of the study, Kang interviewed students who ‘stressed that they felt more enthusiastic about the EFL learning’ (Kang, 2008, p. 223) because of the teacher’s use of the L1. Although findings from Kang’s study are hard to generalize to a larger population of teachers due to the use of only a single teacher, the findings do suggest that there is more to be explored in terms of the different beliefs and the relationship between these beliefs affecting NNESTs language choices in the classroom. In a follow up study, Kang (2013) examined the use of TL and L1 use by NNESTs when disciplining their students. In this study, two teachers discussed their reasons for using either L1 or TL when disciplining their students. Teacher A was described as being more proficient in the TL than teacher B. Teacher A in this study stated that socioeconomic differences caused her to feel less irritation and use more TL with socioeconomically well-off students. Also, her TL teaching and learning experiences led her to believe that students benefitted more from her TL use while disciplining because of the input-poor EFL context (South Korea) in which they were situated. Another factor that influenced her language choices was parental intervention, often via the principal of her school. Parents insisted that she use TL exclusively in her class. This contextual factor (Borg, 2003), i.e. parents and principal, was said to have caused a shift in the power relationship between the students and the teacher, leading the teacher to use more English but also to shift the paradigm of relations in the class to a less learner-centred approach. The teacher felt her use of TL empowered her as the authority figure in the classroom. The second teacher was deemed to use more L1 in the class for disciplinary reasons than teacher A. Teacher B described teaching and learning experiences as the reasons for anxieties she had about teaching in the TL. These anxieties sensitized her to the possibility of students’ disobedience. Her view that classroom order was a fundamental requirement for facilitating TL learning in EFL contexts, coupled with an anxiety about using the TL for disciplinary reasons, led her to rely almost solely on the L1 when disciplining a student. The differences between these teachers highlight how TL proficiency can affect the beliefs a teacher may have about the TL or L1 use in the classroom. They also show how other contextual factors, and beliefs about control, may also affect the language choices of a teacher. A more recent study in South Korea examined via questionnaire and interviews the views of Korean NNESTs about monolingual and bilingual approaches to teaching English (Lee, 2016). Of 207 NNESTs surveyed, 80% disagreed with

30  Evolving understandings of language the idea of an English-only approach to teaching English. This finding adds more to the Korean context, especially in regards to previous findings which suggest the majority of students feel the same way about English-only approaches (Lee & Macaro, 2013). Additionally, in-service teachers appeared to be more negative towards an English-only approach than pre-service teachers, which was said to have been based largely on their experiences with real classrooms (Lee, 2016). These findings, however, reflect only the beliefs of secondary school teachers and not elementary school teachers.

Attitudes to the L1 Research aside, probably the most influential factors affecting the use of L1 in the classroom are the teachers and students. How teachers choose to use L1 in the classroom depends upon how effective teachers perceive L1 use to be in the class. This in turn is influenced by ‘perceptions of its legitimacy, value and appropriate classroom functions’ (Hall & Cook, 2012, p. 294).

Student attitudes to L1 and TL use Little research has gone into learner perceptions about L1 and TL use (G. Cook, 2008; Neokleous, 2016; Turnbull & Arnett, 2002). That being said, the limited research into student attitudes about L1 use generally suggested that learners feel positive or satisfied with the amount of L1 being used. In Duff and Polio’s (1990) study of 13 classes, the majority of learners reported satisfaction at the amount of L1 used by their teachers, despite the variety in amounts of L1 being used by the teachers in the study. Rolin-Ianziti and Varshney (2008) reported that beginner students actually preferred L1 use for classroom management functions, instructions for activities and assessment requirements. Similar findings are found in Macaro (1997) and Chavez (2003). Students indicated that they felt the L1 plays an important function in accessing explicit knowledge of the linguistic features of the TL, while at the same time admitting that exposure to the TL is important for language learning (Chavez, 2003; Macaro, 1997; Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008). Within the studies mentioned here, a small number of students, who were characterized as able students, indicated a preference for the TL to be used for classroom management functions as well as gaining TL knowledge. An additional point that students made is that they feel the L1 creates a more reassuring and humanistic learning environment (Harbord, 1992; Littlewood & Yu, 2011; Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008). A more recent study conducted by Macaro and Lee (2013) investigated the attitudes and perceptions of both adults and children from South Korea in regards to the use of codeswitching in the English class. The study revealed that both groups of learners did not favour total exclusion of the first language from classroom interaction. This study would indicate that age is not necessarily a factor when it comes to student preference for L1 exclusion.

Evolving understandings of language  31

Codeswitching Codeswitching is defined as the discourse between a speaker and interlocutor who share more than one language or dialect (V. Cook, 2005). It is said to represent a naturalistic use of language for multilingual users. Codeswitching (V. Cook, 2005) studies have shown how learners and teachers use different languages in the class (Belz, 2003; Hall & Cook, 2012; Macaro, 2014). Conversational analysis of codeswitching practices in the classroom suggests that language choices are embedded within the interactions of the language classroom (Üstünel & Seedhouse, 2005). Language choices are inextricably linked to the evolving sequence and pedagogical focus of the language class, and therefore need to be viewed as just one interactional resource among many used by both teachers and students while participating in the ‘institutionalized business of teaching and learning’ the TL (Üstünel & Seedhouse, 2005, p. 322).

Translanguaging The prevalence of codeswitching research has caused some to ponder the need for the term translanguaging, especially when codeswitching seems to effectively describe the actions of the speakers so well. Are they not the same thing? Isn’t translanguaging just a trend? The term codeswitching is said to be founded on the idea that languages are bounded entities that exist separately within the user, and that people move between these different entities while communicating (Otheguy, García, & Reid, 2015) and regard language as part of a pre-existing reality (Lin & He, 2017). One way to challenge existing realities is to problematize what a language is (Otheguy et al., 2015) so that people can move beyond the idea of switching between languages. Otheguy et al. (2015) remind us that languages are in fact social constructs that have social, political, and cultural implications. They offer two senses of what a language is; the first is named languages which act as socio-political constructs, such as ‘English’ or ‘Korean’ or ‘Spanish.’ The second is nameless language entities, or idiolects, with ‘sets of lexical and structural features that make up an individual’s repertoire’ used while communicating (p. 286). Named languages are used when generalizing groups of people’s communicative interactions (such as language teaching), whereas idiolects describe the grammatical eccentricities specific to the individual. No two idiolects are the same, even though there may be overlap between idiolects. Bilingual or multilingual’s idiolects have linguistic features with more ‘complex socio-cultural’ (Otheguy et al., 2015, p. 292) labels than those of monolinguals, and as such, they are often restricted in their use of the idiolect due to locational and sociocultural restraints, especially within the classroom. Translanguaging employs the idiolect perspective rather than try to fit an existing view of language with all of its associated socio-political or cultural baggage that has often resulted in division and bias.

32  Evolving understandings of language Translanguaging is offered as something completely different, and it requires a social semiotic theory that allows for a new understanding of language. Traditional views of language are challenged so that disruptive ideologies like the monolingual bias that prevails in most language education settings can be challenged. Lin and He (2017) offer Lemke’s (2016) work as a possible framework that can assist in the understanding of the need for a meta-language that embraces notions of inclusiveness and equality in the language learning process. Lemke states that prevailing views of languages as discrete systems are part of a larger set of pre-existing second order realities. These are codifications of first order realities used in everyday life to simplify our understandings of actual existence. First order realities are more dynamic and integrate ‘ecological, social, cultural, biological, material and bodily dimensions’ into any understanding of what language is (Thibault, 2011, p. 211). Lemke’s theoretical framework suggests that languaging involves the use of multiple linguistic and nonlinguistic resources that are bound not only to users but also to artefacts and contexts to which the users are connected (Lemke, 2016, as cited in Lin & He, 2017). Idiolects can be thought of as first order realities of individuals’ language use, whereas named languages are second order realities as they are the accumulation of sociohistorical conditions that have led to generalized descriptions used in everyday interactions. Translanguaging affords learners opportunities to utilize what is commonly referred to as their full language repertoires. These repertoires represent the multitude of ways people use the linguistic resources they have at their disposal in diverse social contexts, rather than a system of grammar (MacSwan, 2017). Translanguaging is said to allow learners to utilize their full linguistic repertoires without rules of separation in order to achieve greater overall academic success (Bartlett & García, 2011; García & Kleyn, 2016; García-Mateus & Palmer, 2017). Additionally, translanguaging develops weaker aspects in an individual’s idiolect in relation to stronger ones (García & Wei, 2014). Translanguaging also promotes a better understanding of class content, creates stronger home-school connections, and allows for better participation between weaker and stronger learners in mixed ability classes (Paulsrud, Rosen, Straszer, & Wedin, 2017). Translanguaging provides emerging bilinguals access to curriculum content (García & Kano, 2014), can be used to check linguistic comprehension via label questions (Creese & Blackledge, 2011), and can allow greater classroom participation (Allard, 2017). Accepting an answer no matter what language it is in also improves student agency compared to contexts which limit access to linguistic resources (Arthur & Martin, 2006). However, most of the benefits of translanguaging pedagogy can be tempered by an unsupportive educational ecology which continues to view languages as separate entities rather than as a singular, individual linguistic system (Allard, 2017). Translanguaging is said to be a ‘moral and political act that links the production of alternative meanings to transformative social action’ (García & Wei, 2014, p. 37). This is because translanguaging creates opportunities, or ‘spaces’ (Wei,

Evolving understandings of language  33 2011) for learners to develop and modify their ‘historical and present conditions critically and creatively’ (García & Wei, 2014, p. 67) by understanding, and then choosing to follow or not, social norms such as monolingual ideologies, that are imposed upon them from afar. Wei’s notion of translanguaging spaces, derived from the psycholinguistic concept of languaging (Swain, 2006), refers to how language is used as a sense-making tool. It creates opportunities for learners to go beyond traditional linguistic boundaries that have been imposed by monolingual ideologies. Learners’ personal experiences, histories, and ideologies are realized in the learning process via their language repertoires, and this is said to transform identities and other social realities (Wei, 2011). The boundaries of such spaces are created by the interactions between speakers, and it is within these boundaries that creativity and criticality are said to allow for challenges to established norms to take place. That being said, while a number of people chose to differentiate codeswitching from translanguaging based on perceptions of how languages exist within the learner, there are those who argue that codeswitching and translanguaging are in fact not that different (MacSwan, 2017). Rampton (2007) states that codeswitching research rallies against deficit models of bilingualism by reinforcing the integrity of language mixing by ‘examining it for its grammatical systematicity and pragmatic coherence’ (p. 306). MacSwan’s (2017) discussion of multilingualism compares and contrasts different perspectives of language systems within bilingual users. The first, named the unitary model and advocated by most translanguaging researchers, states that bilinguals are the same as monolinguals in that they both possess structural linguistic knowledge associated with socio-political entities (named languages) within an internally undifferentiated system. The second, named the dual competence model, is what most translanguage researchers associate with codeswitching, namely where bilinguals have two discrete linguistic systems between which they switch. The third, named the integrated multilingual model, describes bilinguals as possessing a single linguistic system that share grammatical resources while also having internal language-specific differentiation. It is this third model which, MacSwan argues, both codeswitching and translanguaging describe.

Translanguaging pedagogies Within bilingual studies, there has been a steady interest in how to better develop instructional strategies that account for practices being employed by bilinguals rather than strategies that are imposed from monolingual ideologies (Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Cummins, 2007; Palmer, Martínez, Mateus, & Henderson, 2014). Suggested strategies include translanguaging used as a way to improve academic literacy skills (Canagarajah, 2011; Creese & Blackledge, 2010) as well as incorporating a more dynamic view of bilingual languaging practices (Garcia & Sylvan, 2011) that interprets language learning as a constant adaptation of the individual’s existing linguistic repertoire that occurs during meaning-making interactions (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008).

34  Evolving understandings of language Translanguaging pedagogies are developing based on what is occurring within multilingual realities rather than traditional top-down methods. Translanguaging has been described in many different ways. Natural translanguaging refers to how students ensure comprehension of subject matter via their full linguistic repertoire, and this can happen either with teachers, in pairs, or in groups (Williams, 2012). Official translanguaging describes how teachers plan the use of different idiolects directly in their classes (Williams, 2012). Both terms originate in studies conducted in Wales, where translanguaging was first coined (Williams, 1996). Other terminology from this context include pupil-directed translanguaging, where students use linguistic resources not provided for in lessons to complete tasks, which differs from teacher-directed translanguaging, which is another term for official translanguaging (Lewis, Jones, & Baker, 2012). Pluriliteracy practices are where students use their linguistic repertoires during literacy activities (García, Bartlett, & Kleifgen, 2007). Dependent translanguaging is a strategy used early by emerging bilinguals to support the expansion of their linguistic knowledge, while independent translanguaging describes the strategies of more advanced learners who use their full linguistic repertoire to enhance what knowledge they already have (García & Kano, 2014). No matter the term used, the key tenet of all of these pedagogies is that they are transformative, allowing students to use their strengths to improve their weaknesses, while also moving beyond the constraints imposed upon them from ideologically driven dictates that do not serve all of society. Translanguaging is not just for those teachers who have more extensive and culturally complex linguistic repertoires, such as bilingual or multilingual teachers. Translanguaging creates a space for the learner to take control of their own learning, and any teacher can achieve this space in their own class by facilitating change and removing negative stereotypes about language in their classes. To date, most work on translanguaging pedagogies has been conducted within European or American contexts, and often in subject areas other than Asian EFL contexts. This book attempts to change this by presenting a case for teachers in such contexts to better understand and embrace translanguaging as a pedagogical tool.

Building positive identities Translanguaging studies show that granting students complete access to their language enables them to utilize all elements of their cognitive ability, including their knowledge and experiences (Wei, 2014). The ‘transformative effect’ of translanguaging on the information or facts that are learned by children can, in turn, positively influence their developing identities (Wei, 2014, p. 174), highlighting the relationship between identity formation and language learning (Norton, 2000; Pavlenko & Norton, 2007). As Norton discusses, people invest time and money into learning languages as they seek to attain cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1977), which is represented materially and symbolically, as well as in the discovery of new knowledge (Norton, 2000). The learning of new languages

Evolving understandings of language  35 is said to allow future entry into new, imagined communities (Pavlenko & Norton, 2007). Communities are described as imaginary, as the communities that students desire to join are derived from nation-states that are also constructs of the power elite, as those ‘in power oftentimes do the imagining for their fellow citizens, offering them certain identity options and leaving other options “unimaginable”’ (Anderson, 1991, p. 6). Imagination here is defined as being a process of both the individual as well as that of the social, and it is how people can situate themselves within both the world and its history; it opens up the opportunity for people to include other understandings and perspectives within themselves (Wenger, 1998). However, translanguaging studies suggest that the separation of languages of instruction can lead to the inhibition of positive identities for learners (GarcíaMateus & Palmer, 2017). If the linguistic repertoire of teachers or students is inhibited due to policy, and especially policy based on imperialistic notions of languages, then one must question if the resulting identities of the new speaker of a certain named language as a Non (as in Non-native speaker) is desirable. The practice of marking learners of a language within ‘a deficit framework that limits the kinds of identities and communities that can be imagined’ (Pavlenko & Norton, 2007, p. 676) by learners in EFL contexts has gone unchallenged, continuing to disadvantage such learners. Although traditionally, EFL contexts, especially those in Asia, have not been described as sites of bilingual education, such contexts need to be reimagined to provide space for more positive language and identity growth. Unfortunately, such contexts at times seem to limit access to the imagined communities that students are motivated to join. As language learners’ identity formation has been shown to be connected to their acquisition of languages (Norton, 2000; Potowski, 2004) as well as their overall academic success (Wortham, 2006), it is important to acknowledge the role of teachers in this process. Teachers are an important factor in contributing to the formation of positive identity formation (Reyes & Vallone, 2007), and need to provide spaces in their classes for students to use their full linguistic repertoires. Positioning theory is a construct that provides a method of analysis for revealing how teachers can assist in the formation of positive bilingual identities (Palmer et al., 2014). Positioning theory describes how the language practices of teachers position themselves and their students in relation to each other in the classroom during interactions (Davies & Harre, 1990). Teachers can marginalize students by limiting their access to their full linguistic repertoire as well as empower students to view themselves as successful learners (Palmer, 2008). The imagined communities of the classroom are spaces for the creation of positive bilingual or multilingual communities. Teachers have ideal imagined communities that they believe their students will become part of, just as the schools have visions of imagined communities for its students’ needs to be considered. These are intertwined with the policies and practices of the schools and the teachers, and they are instrumental in the formation of positive student identity (Kanno, 2003). Beyond the context of the school, parents have visions of

36  Evolving understandings of language desirable communities that they want their children to become part of, and the imagined communities that they envision are very much the product of society’s own policies and practices.

Participation Improved participation is a key assumption of translanguaging, with translanguaging studies equating improved participation to students using their full linguistic repertoires during learning tasks. This includes learners engaging with teachers and other learners to construct positive learning identities. Translanguaging occurs in both the ‘central goings-on at school’ such as curricular activities and knowledge transfer, as well as those at the margins of curricula, such as organizational and non-school related matters (Jaspers, 2015; Rosiers, Van Lancker, & Delarue, 2017). Translanguaging is described as a ‘moral and political act that links the production of alternative meanings to transformative social action’ (García & Wei, 2014, p. 37) because of the spaces it creates (Wei, 2011) for learners to foster and modify their understandings of ‘historical and present conditions critically and creatively’ (García & Wei, 2014, p. 67). The boundaries of these spaces are formed by the interactions between speakers, and these boundaries allow for the creativity and criticality that challenge conventional customs. Without the improvement of participation, it can be difficult to challenge accepted practices. Translanguaging’s heteroglossic position reframes language as doing rather than having (Blommaert, Collins, & Slembrouck, 2005; Garcia, Flores, & Woodley, 2015), which corresponds with Goodwin and Goodwin’s (2003) definition of participation as ‘actions demonstrating forms of involvement performed by parties within evolving structures of talk’ (p. 222).

Criticisms of translanguaging Unfortunately, most of the advantages of translanguaging pedagogy are tempered by unsupportive educational environments that view languages as separate entities (Allard, 2017). Ambiguous language policies can lead to teachers privileging one language over another, and unintentionally impeding translanguaging spaces, due to beliefs they may have as well as other socio-historical factors. Martínez-Roldán (2015) found lack of guidance resulted in teachers favouring one language over another, impacting students’ willingness to use the language favoured by the teachers. Jasper (2018) tempers any ‘causal effects that are presupposed’ (p. 7) of the transformative nature of translanguaging, reminding us that all languages have baggage and are difficult to separate from socioeconomic, political, or historical factors (May, 2000). Jaspers (2018) explains how negative attitudes towards home languages do not always result in student failure (Rampton, 2006), or how incorporating more of the home language into the learning process is not always welcomed by students (Sierens & Van Avermaet, 2014). There is also doubt as to whether educational reforms transform society in any noteworthy manner, with some highlighting how social inequality has remained

Evolving understandings of language  37 constant despite many attempts at educational reforms (Freeman-Moir & Scott, 2003; Moore, 2007). This highlights the need to be cautious when applying the translanguaging framework, as it is more than just employing FLRs. It is about accepting FLRs to improve language learning experiences that build positive identities (García & Wei, 2014). The transformative nature of translanguaging needs to be embraced within EFL circles if learning global languages such as English are to be opportunities for creating positive identities that can improve the upward mobility of all citizens within a society. Translanguaging creates opportunities for learners to develop and modify their ‘historical and present conditions critically and creatively’ (García & Wei, 2014, p. 67) by understanding, and then choosing to follow or not, social norms such as monolingual ideologies, that are imposed upon them from afar. One of the first acts of this book in proposing transformative action is to move away from terms of deficiency such as the label NNEST. From here on in, the term will be replaced by bilingual teacher, as that is what these teachers are. Additionally, the terms ‘first language’ and ‘target language’ will now be abandoned, as they encourage the belief that these languages exist separately within people learning languages, or who are now known as emerging bilinguals. Instead, references to languages will be made in terms of linguistic repertoires and the different aspects of these repertoires, such as those commonly associated with one or another named language. Named languages are understood as existing within a single linguistic repertoire, and bilingual speakers or emerging bilinguals will naturally have strengths and weaknesses in their linguistic repertoire according to their own socio-historical experiences.

References Allard, E. C. (2017). Re-examining teacher translanguaging: An ecological perspective. Bilingual Research Journal, 40(2), 116–130. doi:10.1080/15235882.2017. 1306597 Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism. London, UK: Verso. Anton, M., & Dicamilla, F. J. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 233–247. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00018 Arthur, J., & Martin, P. (2006). Accomplishing lessons in postcolonial classrooms: Comparative perspectives from Botswana and Brunei Darussalam. Comparative Education, 42(2), 177–202. doi:10.1080/03050060600628009 Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching monolingual classes. London, UK: Longman. Bartlett, L., & García, O. (2011). Additive schooling in subtractive times: Bilingual education and Dominican immigrant youth in the Heights. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Belz, J. A. (2003). Identity, deficiency, and first language use in foreign language education. In C. Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of foreign-language classrooms: Contributions of the native, near native, and the non-native speaker. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

38  Evolving understandings of language Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press. Blommaert, J., Collins, J., & Slembrouck, S. (2005). Spaces of multilingualism. Language and Communication, 25, 197–216. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2005.05.002 Blyth, C. (1995). Redefining the boundaries of language use: The foreign language classroom as a multilingual speech community. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Redefining the boundaries of language study (pp. 145–183). Boston, MA: Heinle. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109. ISSN 1475–3049. doi:10.1017/S0261444803001903 Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16(6), 645–668. doi:10.1177/053901847701600601 Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77(2), 262–274. doi:10.2307/344508 Brooks, F. B., Donato, R., & McGlone, J. V. (1997). When are they going to say ‘It’ right? Understanding learner talk during pair-work activity. Foreign Language Annals, 30(4), 524–541. Butzkamm, W. (1998). Code-switching in a bilingual history lesson: The mother tongue as a conversational lubricant. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1(2), 81–99. doi:10.1080/13670059808667676 Butzkamm, W., & Caldwell, J. (2009). The bilingual reform: A paradigm shift in foreign language teaching. Tubingen, The Netherlands: Narr Studienbucher. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417. Carless, D. R. (2002). Implementing task-based learning with young learners. ELT Journal, 56(4), 389–396. doi:10.1093/elt/56.4.389 Carroll, S. E. (1999). Input and SLA: Adults’ sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender. Language Learning, 49(1), 37–92. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00070 Centeno-Cortés, B., & Jiménez, A. F. J. (2004). Problem-solving tasks in a foreign language: The importance of the L1 in private verbal thinking. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 7–35. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2004.00052.x Chambers, G. (1992). Teaching in the target language. The Language Learning Journal, 6(1), 66–67. doi:10.1080/09571739285200491 Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Chavez, M. (2003). The diglossic foreign language classroom. In C. Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of foreign-language classrooms: Contributions of the native, the nearnative, and the non-native speaker (pp. 163–208). Boston, MA: Heinle. Cook, G. (2008). Plenary: An unmarked improvement: Using translation in ELT. Paper presented at the IATEFL 2007 Aberdeen Conference Selections, University of Kent, 18–22 April 2007. Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402–423. Cook, V. (2002). Language teaching methodology and the L2 user perspective. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 325–344). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Evolving understandings of language  39 Cook, V. (2005). Basing teaching on the L2 user. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers (Vol. 5, pp. 47–61). New York, NY: Springer US. Copland, F., & Neokleous, G. (2011). L1 to teach L2: Complexities and contradictions. ELT Journal, 65(3), 270–280. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq047 Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2011). Ideologies and interactions in multilingual education: What can an ecological approach tell us about bilingual education? In C. Helot & M. Laoire (Eds.), Language policy for the multilingual classroom: Pedagogy of the possible. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–240. Davies, B., & Harre, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990. tb00174.x de la Colina, A. A., & del Pilar García Mayo, M. (2009). Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: The use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3/4), 325–345. doi:10.1515/ iral.2009.014 Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 154–166. Edstrom, A. (2006). L1 use in the L2 classroom: One teacher’s self-evaluation. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(2), 275–292. Ellis, E. (2002). Teaching from experience: A new perspective on the non-native teacher in adult ESL. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 71–107. Ellis, R. (1988). Classroom second language development: A study of classroom interaction and language acquisition. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall International. Ellis, R. (2012). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1986). The role of comprehension in second-language learning. Applied Linguistics, 7(3), 257–274. doi:10.1093/applin/7.3.257 Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 757–772. Forman, R. (2010). Ten principles of bilingual pedagogy. In A. Mahboob (Ed.), The NNEST lens: Non-native English speakers in TESOL. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Freeman-Moir, D. J., & Scott, A. (2003). Yesterday’s dreams: International and critical perspectives on education and social class. Christchurch, NZ: Canterbury University Press . García, O., Bartlett, L., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2007). From biliteracy to pluriliteracies. In P. Auer & L. Wei (Eds.), Handbook of applied linguistics (Vol. 5, pp. 207–228). Berlin: Mouton/de Gruyter. García, O., Flores, B. B., & Woodley, H. (2015). Constructing in-between spaces to do bilingualism: A tale of two high schools in one city. In J. Cenoz & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual education (pp. 199–224). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. García, O., & Kano, N. (2014). Translanguaging as process and pedagogy: Developing the English writing of Japanese students in the US. In J. Conteh & G. Meier

40  Evolving understandings of language (Eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. García, O., & Kleyn, T. (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments. New York, NY and London: Routledge. García, O., & Sylvan, C. E. (2011). Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms: Singularities in pluralities. Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 385–400. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. García-Mateus, S., & Palmer, D. (2017). Translanguaging pedagogies for positive identities in two-way dual language bilingual education. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 245–255. doi:10.1080/15348458.2017.1329016 Gass, S. M. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 198–217. doi:10.1093/applin/9.2.198 Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (2003). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 222–244). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–308. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000067 Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal, 46(4), 350–355. doi:10.1093/elt/46.4.350 Hu, G., & McKay, S. L. (2012). English language education in East Asia: Some recent developments. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(4), 345–362. doi:10.1080/01434632.2012.661434 Hummel, K. M. (2010). Translation and short-term L2 vocabulary retention: Hindrance or help? Language Teaching Research, 14(1), 61–74. Jaspers, J. (2015). Modelling linguistic diversity at school: The excluding impact of inclusive multilingualism. Language Policy, 14(2), 109–129. doi:10.1007/s10993014-9332-0 Jaspers, J. (2018). The transformative limits of translanguaging. Language & Communication, 58, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2017.12.001 Jenkins, J. (2006). Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 137–162. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00111.x Kachru, Y. (1994). Monolingual bias in SLA research. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 795– 800. doi:10.2307/3587564 Kang, D.-M. (2008). The classroom language use of a Korean elementary school EFL teacher: Another look at TETE. System, 36(2), 214–226. doi:10.1016/j.system.2007. 10.005 Kang, D.-M. (2013). EFL teachers’ language use for classroom discipline: A look at complex interplay of variables. System, 41(1), 149–163. doi:10.1016/j.system. 2013.01.002 Kanno, Y. (2003). Imagined communities, school visions, and the education of bilingual students in Japan. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 2(4), 285–300. Kramsch, C. (1993). Language study as border study: Experiencing difference. European Journal of Education, 28(3), 349. Kramsch, C. (1998). The privilege of the intercultural speaker. In M. Byram & M. Fleming (Eds.), Language learning in intercultural perspective (pp. 16–31). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London, UK: Longman. Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(01), 67–109. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060037

Evolving understandings of language  41 Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lee, J. H. (2016). Exploring non-native English-speaking teachers’ beliefs about the monolingual approach: Differences between pre-service and in-service Korean teachers of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(8), 759–773. doi:10.1080/01434632.2015.1133629 Lee, J. H., & Macaro, E. (2013). Investigating age in the use of L1 or English-only instruction: Vocabulary acquisition by Korean EFL learners. The Modern Language Journal, 97(4), 887–901. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12044.x Lemke, J. (2016). Translanguaging and flows (unpublished manuscript).San Diego, CA: Department of Communications. Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 343–364. doi:10.1111/1540-4781.00194 Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Developing its conceptualisation and contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 655–670. Lin, A. M. Y. (2000). Lively children trapped in an island of disadvantage: Verbal play of Cantonese working-class schoolboys in Hong Kong. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 143, 63–84. doi:10.1515/ijsl.2000.143.63 Lin, A. M. Y., & He, P. (2017). Translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in CLIL classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 16(4), 228–244. doi:10. 1080/15348458.2017.1328283 Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44(1), 64–77. doi:10.1017/S02614 44809990310 Liu, D., Gil-Soon, A., Baek, K.-S., & Han, N.-O. (2004). South Korean high school english teachers’ code switching: Questions and challenges in the drive for maximal use of English in teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 605–638. doi:10.2307/ 3588282 Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 259–278. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981. tb42014.x Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141. doi:10.1093/ applin/4.2.126 Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bahtia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press. Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task based language learning. In R. L. L. E. Shohamy (Ed.), Language policy and pedagogy (pp. 179–192). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. Modern Language Journal, 85(4), 531–548. Macaro, E. (2006). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession (pp. 63–84). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.

42  Evolving understandings of language Macaro, E. (2009a). Teacher codeswitching in L2 classrooms: Exploring ‘optimal’ use. In T. Yoshida, H. Imai, Y. Nakata, A. Tajino, O. Takeuchi, & K. Tamai (Eds.), Researching language teaching and learning: An integration of practice and theory (pp. 293–304). Oxford, UK: Peter Lang. Macaro, E. (2009b). Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom: Exploring ‘optimal’ use. In M. Turnbull & J. D.-O. Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 35–49). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Macaro, E. (2014). Overview: Where should we be going with classroom codeswitching research? In R. Barnard & J. McLellan (Eds.), Codeswitching in university English-medium classes: Asian perspectives (pp. 10–23). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Macaro, E., & Lee, J. H. (2013). Teacher language background, codeswitching, and English-only instruction: Does age make a difference to learners’ attitudes? TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 717–742. doi:10.1002/tesq.74 Macdonald, C. (1993). Using the target language. Cheltenham, UK: Mary Glasgow. MacSwan, J. (2017). A multilingual perspective on translanguaging. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 167–201. Mahboob, A. (2010). The NNEST lens. In A. Mahboob (Ed.), The NNEST lens: Non native speakers in TESOL (pp. 1–18). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Mahboob, A., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Using local languages in English language classrooms. In H. Widodo & W. Renandya (Eds.), English language teaching today: Building a closer link between theory and practice. New York, NY: Springer International. Martínez-Roldán, C. M. (2015). Translanguaging practices as mobilization of linguistic resources in a Spanish/English bilingual after-school program: An analysis of contradictions. International Multilingual Research Journal, 9(1), 43–58. doi:1 0.1080/19313152.2014.982442 May, S. (2000). Uncommon languages: The challenges and possibilities of minority language rights. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(5), 366–385. May, S. (2011). The disciplinary constraints of SLA and TESOL: Additive bilingualism and second language acquisition, teaching and learning. Linguistics and Education, 22(3), 233–247. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2011.02.001 McKay, S. L. (2009). A critical examination of the teaching English through English movement in South Korea. CAPE Alumni Internet Connection: English Teacher Talk, 37. McMillan, B. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2011). The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward ‘English only.’ System, 39(2), 251–263. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.04.011 McMillan, B. A., & Turnbull, M. (2009). Teachers’ use of the first language in French immersion: Revisiting a core principle. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 15–34). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Moodie, I. (2016). The anti-apprenticeship of observation: How negative prior language learning experience influences English language teachers’ beliefs and practices. System, 60, 29–41. doi:10.1016/j.system.2016.05.011 Moore, R. (2007). Sociology of knowledge and education. London, UK, and New York, NY: Continuum. Moussu, L., & Llurda, E. (2008). Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching, 41(3), 315–348.

Evolving understandings of language  43 Neokleous, G. (2016). Closing the gap: Student attitudes toward first language use in monolingual EFL classrooms. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 314–341. doi:10.1002/ tesj.272 Nikula, T. (2007). Speaking English in Finnish content-based classrooms. World Englishes, 26(2), 206–223. Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Harlow, UK and New York, NY: Longman. O’Malley, J., & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(281–307). doi:10.1515/applirev-2015-0014 Palmer, D. K. (2008). Diversity up close: Building alternative discourses in the two-way immersion classroom. In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Palmer, D. K., Martínez, R. A., Mateus, S. G., & Henderson, K. (2014). Reframing the debate on language separation: Toward a vision for translanguaging pedagogies in the dual language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 757–772. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12121.x Paulsrud, B., Rosen, J., Straszer, B., & Wedin, A. (2017). Perspectives on translanguaging in education. In B. Paulsrud, J. Rosen, B. Straszer, & A. Wedin (Eds.), New perspectives on translanguaging in education (pp. 10–19). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pavlenko, A., & Norton, B. (2007). Imagined communities, identity, and English language learning. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 669–680). Boston, MA: Springer US. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 1–19. doi:10.2307/1192766 Polio, C. G., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 313–326. Potowski, K. (2004). Student Spanish use and investment in a dual immersion classroom: Implications for second language acquisition and heritage language maintenance. Modern Language Journal, 88, 75–101. Rabbidge, M., & Chappell, P. (2014). Exploring non-native speaker teachers’ classroom language use in South Korean elementary schools. TESL-EJ, 17(4). Rampton, B. (2006). Language in late modernity. Cambridge, UK: CUP. Rampton, B. (2007). Language crossing and defining reality. In P. Auer (Ed.), Codeswitching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity (pp. 290–317). New York, NY: Routledge. Reyes, S. A., & Vallone, T. L. (2007). Toward an expanded understanding of two-way bilingual immersion education: Constructing identity through a critical, additive bilingual/bicultural pedagogy. Multicultural Perspectives, 9, 3–11. Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Brownlie, S. (2002). Teacher use of learners’ native language in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(3), 402–426.

44  Evolving understandings of language Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Varshney, R. (2008). Students’ views regarding the use of the first language: An exploratory study in a tertiary context maximizing target language use. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(2), 249–273. doi:10.3138/ cmlr.65.2.249 Rosiers, K., Van Lancker, I., & Delarue, S. (2017). Beyond the traditional scope of translanguaging: Comparing translanguaging practices in Belgian multilingual and monolingual classroom contexts. Language & Communication. doi:10.1016/j. langcom.2017.11.003 Scott, V. M., & Fuente, M. J. D. L. (2008). What’s the problem? L2 learners’ use of the L1 during consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 100–113. doi:10.2307/25172995 Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. London, UK: Longman. Sierens, S., & Van Avermaet, P. (2014). Language diversity in education In D. Little, C. Leung, & P. V. Avermaet (Eds.), Managing diversity in education: Languages, policies, pedagogies (pp. 2014–2222). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268–286. doi:10.1017/S0267190500003585 Smith, M. S. (1986). Comprehension versus acquisition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics, 7(3), 239–256. doi:10.1093/applin/7.3.239 Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 760–770. doi:10.2307/3588224 Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural approaches to second language research (pp. 97–115). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London, UK: Continuum. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274. doi:10.1177/1362 16880000400304 Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ responses to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 285–304. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00006-5 Thibault, P. J. (2011). First-order languaging dynamics and second-order language: The distributed language view. Ecological Psychology, 23(3), 210–245. doi:10.1080/ 10407413.2011.591274 Thoms, J., Jianling, L., & Szustak, A. (2005). The use of L1 in an L2 on-line chat activity. Canadian Modern Language Review, 62(1), 161–182. doi:10.3138/cmlr.62.1.161 Thorne, S. L. (2000). Second language acquisition theory and some truth(s) about relativity. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 219–243). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Evolving understandings of language  45 Turnbull, M., & Arnett, K. (2002). Teachers’ uses of the target and first languages in second and foreign language classrooms. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 204–218. doi:10.1017/s0267190502000119 Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2009). First language use in second and foreign language learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Üstünel, E., & Seedhouse, P. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now? Codeswitching and pedagogical focus. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 302–325. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00093.x Van Der Meij, H., & Zhao, X. (2010). Codeswitching in English courses in Chinese universities. Modern Language Journal, 94(3), 396–411. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781. 2010.01090.x Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wei, L. (2011). Moment Analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1222–1235. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.035 Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging knowledge and identity in complementary classrooms for multilingual minority ethnic children. Classroom Discourse, 5(2), 158–175. doi:10.1080/19463014.2014.893896 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 95–110. doi:10.1093/applin/8.2.95 Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Williams, C. (1996). Secondary education: Teaching in the bilingual situation. In C. Williams, G. Lewis, & C. Baker (Eds.), The language policy: Taking stock (Vol. 12, pp. 193–211). Llangefni: CAI. Williams, C. (2012). The national immersion scheme guidance for teachers on subject language threshold: Accelerating the process of reaching the threshold. Bangor, Wales: The Welsh Language Board. Wortham, S. E. F. (2006). Learning identity: The joint emergence of social identification and academic learning. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

2

The framework

Developing a framework This chapter outlines the theoretical framework that underpins the book. Due to the nature of the phenomenon under study, the data collected is understood within the sociocultural perspective rather than positivist epistemological perspectives. Positivist perspectives are rooted in the belief that reality exists separately from the knower of the reality. Knowledge in this perspective is considered objective and identifiable, and with an ability to represent generalizable truths (Johnson, 2009). However, these ‘oversimplified, depersonalized, and decontextualized assumptions’ are considered inappropriate when attempting to discover the complexities of life within the classroom (Johnson, 2009, p. 8). Positivist perspectives on research into classroom realities have proven ineffective in improving classroom teaching and learning (Johnson, 2009). The approach adopted here embraces an interpretative epistemological approach and draws on research from both sociology and anthropology. This perspective grounds itself in the assumption that knowledge is socially constructed and emerges from the interactions and practices that people take part in every day. Here, social reality is created in, and resides within, the mind of the person. From this perspective of reality, the interpretative approach strives to uncover how teachers participate in and create their professional contexts. This view of knowledge allows for a shift from the traditional stance that focuses on what teachers do, to a focus on why teachers do what they do. Research on teacher beliefs acknowledges how teachers construct knowledge during social interaction with students, parents, colleagues, and administrators. Normative and lifelong learning experiences build upon experiences as learners in classrooms, as participants in professional educational programs, and in communities of practice while they work (Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Grossman, 1990). This book continues in a similar manner to the social turn (Hall & Cook, 2012) taken within applied linguistics by assuming that language is a cognitive tool that mediates mental processing (Swain & Lapkin, 2000), where this mediating role is derived from the social context in which users find themselves (Brooks, Donato, & McGlone, 1997). The framework also employs the theory of language as a social semiotic system, as discussed by Martin and Rose (2007), and Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse (2000), to provide new insights

The framework  47 into how the L1 is being used in EFL contexts. The main sources of data collection used to support the ideas put forward in this book came from classroom observations and interviews. Therefore, I will now discuss the framework used to analyze the classroom observational data.

Framework for classroom observations analysis The framework used to analyze the data collected from the classroom observations utilized elements from Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), Bernstein’s Pedagogic Discourse theory (1990), and Sinclair and Coulthard’s discourse analysis of Initiation Response Feedback (IRF) sequences (1975). This allowed for an analysis that went beyond the simple labeling of L1 and TL functions and explored both how the L1 was used at different stages of a lesson, and how both languages were used to socially construct the learning environment of the classroom.

Language as a social semiotic system The framework involves a model for language in social contexts that originates in the broader field of systemic functional linguistics (SFL) (Halliday, 1978). SFL treats language as a meaning-making system, viewing grammar as a meaningmaking resource, and text as a socially influenced set of semantic choices. Sociohistorical contextual influences experienced throughout a lifetime guide the choices of an individual. These choices are also guided by the immediate context, with the linguistic choices made influencing the immediate context itself. Viewing language as semiotic potential means any description of language is a description of choice. A text involves linguistic choices that are a condition of the context of situation. A text is also an instance of a particular genre, and this genre choice itself is a condition of the context of culture (Martin, 1985). Text can therefore be defined as: A passage of discourse which is coherent in these two regards: it is coherent with respect to the context of the situation, and therefore consistent in register; it is coherent with respect to itself, and therefore cohesive. Neither of these two conditions is sufficient without the other, nor does the one by necessity entail the other. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 23) For the purposes of this book, texts are the passages of discourse produced via the transcription of interviews and classroom observations. These texts are instances of how the participating teachers interacted through language in social contexts. It was from these texts that SFL was used to explore the meaning-making processes between teachers and students, and their surrounding contexts. In SFL, a series of levels describes the different possible meanings of language, with the higher-level meanings of language realized within the lower-level

48  The framework

Ideology Genre Register Semantics Grammar Phonology

Figure 2.1  Martin & Matthisessen’s stratified theory of context in SFL

meanings. The topmost levels represent the meanings as realized by ideology, genre, and register, whereas the lower three levels represent language via meanings in semantics, grammar, and phonology, as shown in Figure 2.1 from Martin and Matthisessen (1991). Different levels of meaning are nestled within each other, implying a relationship between social activity at the upper levels, and grammar at the lower levels. This allows for a discourse analysis which provides varying levels of perspective of the text being analyzed. The varying levels of abstraction throughout the figure are related via what Martin and Rose (2007) call realization, where genres, as texts, are realized by registers, which in turn are realized by discourse semantics and so on.

Genre theory Genre theory has grown out of this larger model of language as informed by SFL (Martin, 2009). It has been developed as a method to describe the fact that, despite the myriad of possibilities for employing language, cultures seem to limit the use of language by repeating the same texts of language over and over again, creating borders of the social world within language use (Martin, 2009). Genre has been defined as ‘a recurrent configuration of meanings’ (Martin, 2009, p. 13), which in itself creates culture. Within educational linguistics, genre is a staged, goal-oriented social process:

The framework  49 1 Staged, as it usually takes more than one phase of meaning to work through it 2 Goal-oriented, as the unfolding phases set out to accomplish a set task, and 3 Social, as the genre is carried out in interaction with others (Martin, 2009)

Curriculum genres The study of classroom pedagogy has seen the implementation of genre theory via the study of curriculum genres. A curriculum genre is a staged, patterned way in which the goals of the classroom and school are realized (Christie, 1995, 2000a). Curriculum genres have evolved to include differing temporal levels. Descriptions of temporal levels start at the smallest level of a stage, which is one of two or more steps in the larger phase. Multiple phases constitute a lesson, or curriculum genre, and a unit of study, from a textbook for example, is termed a curriculum macrogenre. The level of stage embeds within the level of phase, which embeds itself within the level of curriculum genre, which embeds within the level of curriculum macrogenre. This is shown in Figure 2.2. Each of the levels consists of a beginning, a middle, and an ending. They are also goal-oriented in that at each level, there is a pedagogic goal. An example of a stage’s pedagogic goal would be to indicate the beginning of a new phase. A phase may have the goal of introducing new target vocabulary; whereas the curriculum genre may have the goal of having students practice speaking certain target expressions, as decided by the larger goals of the curriculum macrogenre. The use of this approach for utilizing curriculum genres allows for an investigation into the use of language at different stages of the lessons, which in turn allows a more detailed account of how language is used by teachers. The following example, shown in Figure 2.3, highlights what such goals may look like. The pedagogic goal of this phase was to acclimatize the students to the Englishspeaking atmosphere expected of them, by the teacher, in this classroom. The phase

Curriculum Macrogenre Curriculum genre Phase Stage

Figure 2.2  Embedded stages of curriculum genres

50  The framework

Open class phase 1st Stage Teacher stands quietly waiting for students to sit down and be quiet T: Hello everyone Ss: hello teacher 2nd Stage T: how are you feeling today? Ss: I’m happy/ angry/ sleepy/ hungry (lots of responses at once) T: happy, angry, sleepy, hungry T: you had breakfast? OK, what day is it today? Ss: It’s Tuesday T: Tuesday T: and how’s the weather outside? Ss: it’s sunny and cold T: it’s sunny T: and..? Ss: cold T: cold T: are you feeling cold? Ss: no/ yes T: OK T: and what’s the date today? Ss: It’s October T: October..? Ss: 28th T: 28..? Ss: T H 2014 T: nods approval Open class phase ends

Figure 2.3  Example genre

itself consisted of smaller stages, each with their own pedagogic purpose. The pedagogic purpose of the first stage, which was to get the students’ attention, saw the teacher waiting patiently for the students to sit down and take out their textbooks. The teacher acknowledged the students were ready by greeting them, to which the students replied accordingly. The pedagogic purpose of the second stage was to get students speaking English by asking them simple questions that they should know the answers to. This was one of many stages in the lesson, or curriculum genre. Different stages had different goals, such as introducing new language features, or practicing speaking/listening to/writing/reading new language features. The fact that this phase occurred in all lessons observed and contained very similar stages within the phase that had similar, if not identical, pedagogic goals points to the structured nature of the classes observed. Christie (2002) describes the observed structure within such lessons as a classroom genre, where genre, according to the stratified theory of context, is operating at the level of culture. These curriculum genres are influenced by the culture they are part of, including the educational culture of the teacher and school as well as dominant cultures of

The framework  51 the society in which the schools operate. The teachers invariably construct the curriculum genres under the influence of their experiences as both teachers and learners, as well as the influences of the curriculum designers and policy makers. The syllabi for the observed classes used in this book were all based on the units of learning found within the state-issued textbooks. Each unit within a textbook focused on a different language item, and within each unit, different lessons focused on lexical items and language skills. Despite these differences, there was strong uniformity within each lesson of the textbooks. Teachers were generally free to teach the content as they wanted, and they exchanged activities as they saw fit as long as the linguistic elements were still covered within the 40-minute lessons. Each unit within the textbooks is considered a curriculum macrogenre, and the individual lessons are described as curriculum genres (Christie, 1995, 2000a). Figure 2.4 presents the general structure of the curriculum genres as discovered within the participants’ classes. Of the eight phases observed in the lessons,

Possible phases found within curriculum genre Opening phase Warm up students by practicing every day greetings and expressions

Previous lesson review phase-optional Review material covered in previous class

Vocabulary phase-optional Introduce new vocabulary for the current lesson

Class objectives phase-optional Introduce learning aims of lesson

Language learning activity phase Practice target language and skills

Culture phase-optional Discuss aspects of the world

Lesson review phase-optional Review current lesson

Closing phase End current lesson

Figure 2.4  Possible phases within observed curriculum genres

52  The framework three occurred in all observations – the opening phase, the language learning activity (LLA) phase, and the closing phase. The other five phases – the previous lesson review phase, the vocabulary phase, the class objectives phase, the culture phase, and the closing phase – seemed to be optional, depending on the curriculum genre. The LLA phase was by far the most prevalent, with each observed curriculum genre having multiple LLA phases in which the target language was practiced. The culture phase was observed only once. How did the teachers realize curriculum genres and their embedded phases in their classrooms? They did so by using language in the form of different registers. If curriculum genres operate at the level of culture, then the registers that realize them, or constitute them, are operating at the level of choices within that particular situation. These choices are about what will be done, the relationship between the speakers and listeners, and how the message will be given. This rather simplified explanation of register suffices for the purposes of this book, but a more detailed account of register choices can be found in books that focus solely of systemic functional linguistics. Instead, this book will now link register and the choices it represents to the theory of pedagogic discourse as created by Basil Bernstein.

Pedagogic discourse The sociological theory of pedagogic discourse allows for an analysis of the social relations that transpire between the teachers and their students within curriculum genres. Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse is defined as: A principle for appropriating other discourses and bringing them into a special relation with each other for the purposes of their selective transmission and acquisition. (Bernstein, 1990, p. 183) This refers to the way in which classroom discourses characteristically consist of discourses taken from settings outside of the school. In the EFL elementary school classroom, this could be as simple as taking a common exchange about what students did on the weekend and using the linguistic elements associated with this exchange in a lesson via activities such as role plays, listening practice, and so on. The recontextualization (Bernstein, 1990) of the discourse from its original context to that of the classroom context means that original social and power relations from the appropriated discourse are replaced by new virtual social and power relations of the classroom. This recontextualization then draws on two embedded discourses within the pedagogic discourse; regulative discourse, which is a discourse of social order, and instructional discourse, which is a discourse of the skills within the original discourse to be learned. Instructional discourse, which contains the recontextualized content to be learned such as the language behind everyday greetings, is always embedded within the regulative discourse.

The framework  53 Pedagogic discourse refers to the conventional ideas about classroom discourse, especially those of power and control, and portrays the social practices involved within the curriculum genres. Following Christie (1995), the term register is used in place of discourse due to its importance to SFL. As mentioned earlier, register is how language is used to represent the salient aspects or choices available within a context, and here it refers to the interactional choices made by the teachers and their students. Therefore, regulative register relates to choices about the control of behaviour in the classroom, and instructional register describes the choices made about subject knowledge.

Ideal pedagogic subject position The ideal pedagogic subject position (Bernstein, 1996) describes what teachers consider to be the best position for students to be in if they are to learn the content of the classroom. It is constructed via the pedagogic discourse of the classroom, specifically, via the regulative and instructional registers (Bernstein, 1996; Christie, 2000a, 2000b). The ‘ideal’ is related to the greater context of the classroom. In the Korean context, this includes influences such as the Korean education system as a whole, the English language curriculum, and the ideals of the teachers involved in the study. These ideals are shaped by the experiences that teachers have had over their learning and teaching lifetime, as outlined by Borg (2006). They are significant factors influencing the regulative and instructional registers that form the ideal pedagogic subject position of any classroom.

Power and control During the recontextualization of discourse into the classroom, original social and power relations are replaced with virtual social and power relations. This recontextualization allows the ‘ideologies, the beliefs, values and dominant practices of the teacher’ (Chappell, 2014, p. 34) to replace the original social and power relations, particularly those about teacher roles and student roles and methods for empowering teachers or students. This is significant, as recontextualization is where teachers reveal their beliefs on the role of the L1 or the TL when teaching.

Classification Bernstein (2000) translates the issues of power and control in the classroom into two distinct terms: classification and framing. Classification refers to the boundaries and insulation created between different categories, such as class subjects, or even between life at home and life in school. The boundaries between categories are socially constructed, and the stronger the insulation between the categories, the stronger the classification. Strong classification exists if there is little relation between the activity in the class and what occurs at home. Additionally, within educational settings, boundaries exist between subjects that contain little crossover of subject matter, so that there is generally strong classification between

54  The framework English classes and mathematics classes at the elementary school level. If there were similarities between what happens in the class activity and what happens at home, then there would be weak classification. Likewise, similarities between two classroom subjects lead to weak classification between the subjects. Uniqueness in a category is established in identity, in voice, and in the rules of internal relations (Bernstein, 2000), and this uniqueness is preserved by power. Within the traditional classroom, the teacher has the power to control the strength of classification of a classroom or subject. This book will show how teachers’ use of the L1 affects the classification at different points of curriculum genres in order to ascertain how it relates to the issue of power in the classroom.

Framing Framing refers to the issue of control in the classroom. It describes pedagogic practice in terms of ‘who controls what’ (Bernstein, 2000, p. 12) by representing the regulation of communication in the classroom. Framing is about who has control over: • • • • •

The selection of the communication Its sequencing (what comes first, what comes second) Its pacing (the rate of expected acquisition) The criteria, and The control over the social base which makes this transmission possible (Bernstein, 2000, pp. 12–13)

Strong framing indicates that the transmitter, traditionally the teacher, has explicit control over these elements, where weak framing indicates that the acquirers, traditionally the students, have an apparent control over classroom communication and its accompanying social base. Framing regulates two systems of rules via these elements: rules of social order, and rules of discursive order. Rules of social order, such as the hierarchical relationship between students and teacher, are revealed in the regulative register; and rules of discursive order (selection, sequence, pacing, and criteria of knowledge) are revealed in the instructional register (Chappell, 2014). As previously mentioned, the rules of instructional order (instructional register) are always embedded within the rules of the social order (regulative register). Both instructional and regulative registers are present throughout a curriculum genre, with one being foregrounded and prominent while the other is backgrounded and less prominent.

Vertical and horizontal discourses Pedagogic discourse is traditionally strongly framed and strongly classified in relation to non-pedagogic, more informal discourses. Bernstein uses the term vertical discourse to describe traditional pedagogic discourse, and horizontal discourse to describe the more informal non-pedagogic discourses found outside of

The framework  55 educational settings (Bernstein, 2000). These terms allow for a description of the consequences of changing strengths in framing and classification in the curriculum genre. They also relate social and power relations in the classroom to those outside the boundaries of educational facilities. Bernstein’s sociological theory of pedagogic discourse is a powerful tool for describing how the L1 or TL are related to issues of power and control in the classroom. It allows researchers to go beyond the rudimentary descriptions of language functions in the classroom that have been the norm for most studies into L1 and TL use. It provides the researcher with tangible accounts of how either language is being used during the social construction of the classroomlearning environment. Translanguaging is said to create greater equality in the classroom by employing individuals’ FLR in the language learning process (García & Li, 2014). Yet teacher authority is a ubiquitous characteristic of all classrooms (Buzzelli & Johnston, 2001) that can inhibit classroom equality. A prime example of this is an overreliance on Initiation Response Feedback (IRF) (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975) routines which can limit students to routinized, teacher-led interactions and create passive learning environments (Arthur & Martin, 2006). One way to examine teacher authority and the influence of IRF routines is to employ Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse (PD), which is defined as ‘a principle for appropriating other discourses and bringing them into a special relation with each other for the purposes of their selective transmission and acquisition’ (Bernstein, 1990, p. 183). PD reveals mechanisms that operate in the classroom to reproduce as well as disrupt social inequalities (McLean, Abbas, & Ashwin, 2013). It has revealed the influence of language choices via classification and framing, which deal with the location of power and control in the classroom, respectively (Bernstein, 1990; Buzzelli & Johnston, 2001; Chappell, 2014). Classification describes the extent to which the socially constructed boundaries in the classroom create hierarchical relations between students and teachers. Strong classification sees teachers create boundaries which limit the amount of outside knowledge students can use in the classroom, while weak classification does the opposite. Strong framing sees teachers control the selection, pacing, and sequencing of learning activities as well as what qualifies as knowledge to be learned. This limits student input in the learning process. Framing regulates the rules of social order and rules of discursive order. Rules of social order, such as teacher authority, are revealed in the regulative register. This register is how teachers control behaviour and represent moral orders of society. Rules of the discursive order (selection, sequence, pacing, and criteria of knowledge) are revealed in the instructional register and are how teachers control how an activity is taught (Chappell, 2014). Studies have shown that weaker framing and classification increase learners’ freedom to interact in class, ask questions, and share ideas (Bernstein, 2000; Chappell, 2014; Morais, 2002). Framing weakens when learners gain control over the timing of their learning, which is possible when teachers embrace pedagogic principles that provide such opportunities to change practices (Bernstein, 2000;

56  The framework Morais, 2002). Weakened framing is accompanied by weakened classification, which allows learners to use non-academic discourses in academic contexts to improve access to the target knowledge (Bernstein, 2000; Chappell, 2014; Morais, 2002). Public school teachers’ PD has been shown to move students into subject positions within a classroom (Singh, 2010), where a teacher’s ideal pedagogic subject position is when a student does what the teacher wants (Chappell, 2014; Christie, 1995, 2002). The ideal pedagogic subject position is contingent upon a number of socio-historical, cultural, and institutionally based experiences which act through teacher beliefs and actions. The regulative and instructional registers are responsible for moving the learner into the ideal pedagogic subject position and hence ready to learn (Bernstein, 1990). Singh’s study of Samoan students within the Australian public school system showed how ‘contradictory and conflicting subject positions’ can result from a teacher’s PD (2010, p. 255). Alienation occurred when learners did not understand and therefore rejected the regulative and instructional registers; detachment occurred when learners accepted the instructional registers but rejected the regulative registers; deferment was observed in students who put on hold their commitment to the registers of the classroom (Singh, 2010). Another position not observed but theorized included estrangement, which refers to learners who may struggle with the instructional register but still accept the regulative register. These learners can either move into the ideal position of the teacher or move into a position of alienation (Bernstein, 1975).

Socially constructing the classroom The beliefs that teachers have invariably influence their actions. Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse provides a tool for examining how these beliefs are involved in the social construction of classroom settings. Social and power relations are redefined by the teacher during the recontextualization of content into the classroom, as described earlier. These relations are the major socializing forces within the classroom. Therefore, social construction refers to how teacher beliefs and actions control how students can act within the classroom setting. When positioned into an ideal subject position, the teacher is telling the students what they can do, and what they should refrain from doing. This interaction between teacher and student is socially constructing the environment by defining acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. As the teacher holds the greater position of hierarchy in comparison to the student, the teacher has greater say over this social construction.

A system of negotiation Martin and Rose’s (2007) system of negotiation (used to track the movement of information and action during exchanges in classrooms) complements Bernstein’s theories to provide a more robust description of L1/TL use. The system of negotiation is part of the larger speech function system (Martin & Rose, 2007)

The framework  57 which allows a focus on the interaction as an exchange between speakers, providing access to how speakers adopt and assign different roles during dialogue. The basic parameters of negotiation are: • • •

What is being negotiated (information or goods and services) Whether it is being given or demanded (statement (information), offer (goods), or question) and Whether a move initiates or responds to the exchange

The four basic speech functions identified by Martin and Rose are statements, questions, commands, and offers. Within the speech functions, the grammatical moods declarative, interrogative and the imperative are identified in both congruent forms, and metaphorical, or unusual, forms. Metaphor in this sense refers to grammatical metaphor, which is where a grammatical mood choice is presented in an uncommon way. An example of congruent and metaphorical forms are seen in Table 2.1 for the imperative, where a congruent form of the imperative looks like ‘Open your textbooks,’ and its metaphorical form would be ‘Shall we open our textbooks now?’ This is considered metaphorical as it is an imperative (the students are expected to open the books) despite the different grammatical arrangement. Identifying the grammatical moods and speech functions within the negotiations of the classroom allows for a stronger description and identification of Bernstein’s concepts of classification and framing. By classifying the mood choices of the teacher and the students it is possible to recognize who is establishing the strength of classification and framing in the classroom exchanges. Speech functions and their accompanying grammatical mood choices are shown in Table 2.1. Remarkable uniformity amongst all the curriculum genres was observed. The grammatical mood choices point to a formal distance between

Table 2.1  Grammatical mood choices used in interaction Commodity exchange Speech role

Information

Goods and services

Demanding

Question Interrogative • How are you today?/Did you have PE class?/What day is it today? •  뭐 괜찮아? (What’s OK?)

Giving

Statement Declarative • Straight/곧은 (straight) yes that’s right/금발의(blond) right

Command Imperative • Open your textbooks Interpersonal metaphor of imperative • OK, one more time 다같이 말해볼까요? (Shall we say the names all together?)

58  The framework the teachers and students. Mood choices in the regulative register insulated curriculum genres from everyday social interactions, strengthening the classification of the curriculum genres and reinforcing the hierarchical relationship between teachers and students. This is indicative of the vertical discourse of school contexts. Mood choices strongly framed the curriculum genres, positioning teachers in control, removing control from students, and moving the students into ideal pedagogical subject positions. They allowed the teachers to maintain control over classroom communication and its accompanying social base. The regulative register established via the mood choices established the rules of social order, such as the hierarchical relationship between students and teacher. Once control was established, the instructional register was then foregrounded, and the mood choices continued to maintain the rules of the discursive order (selection, sequence, pacing, and criteria of knowledge).

Additional elements in the framework In addition to the work of Bernstein and Martin and Rose, two additional discourse analysis features help to create a more robust description of how language is used in classrooms. The first is the IRF sequence, or Initiation-ResponseFeedback (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975) sequence that is common to traditional classroom settings. The identification of IRF sequences portrays who is leading the exchanges and provides a better understanding of who is in a dominant position in the classroom. All classes observed revealed a high prevalence of IRF sequences in which the teacher would initiate an interaction, one or more students would respond, and then the teacher would either provide feedback to the response or move on to a new initiation. Such large ratios of teacher-dominated IRF moves to non-IRF moves indicates that students were not encouraged to initiate exchanges during the lessons. These IRF sequences also added to the classification of the phases and curriculum genres, as they were tightly controlled exchanges in which only one contributor initiated an exchange. This is common in traditional classroom environments, where the teacher is trying to guide the students through the lesson. In comparison, dialogues outside of the classroom are more likely to have initiations evenly distributed. IRF sequences also increased the strength of the framing of the phases and the lessons, as they allowed the teachers to establish and maintain the rules of the discursive order (selection, sequence, pacing, and criteria of knowledge) via the instructional register.

Framework for interview analysis Tracking the origins of teachers’ beliefs about the role different languages play in class requires a theory for tracking the evolution of beliefs. A lot of work has gone into researching teachers’ beliefs, and as a result, a lot of terminology has been employed to describe what are fundamentally the same concepts (Pajares, 1992). This book adopts ideas put forward in Barnard and Burns (2012), adding

The framework  59 a temporal element to the different stages of development that beliefs may undergo. In order to do this, different stages of belief development require different labels. The growth that beliefs undergo has been divided into three distinct periods: initial assumptions, tentative attitudes, and firmer beliefs. At each stage, the ideas within these periods are exposed to a myriad of external pressures that influence the path the ideas may take. Figure 2.5 combines the ideas from Borg (2006) and Barnard and Burns (2012) to create a visual description of how teachers’ beliefs are formed. Figure 2.5 identifies the influences acting at different periods of belief development. The three major groupings of influences are labelled as schooling, professional course work, and contextual factors. The use of braces around each grouping is meant only to serve as a guide to where these influences might usually be expected to occur. Schooling is most likely to influence initial assumptions about teaching, and is the period when teachers first experience language learning as a student. This can extend to when they are older and starting teacher trainee degrees. The professional course work period refers to when the teachers are transitioning from training to be a teacher, to actually teaching. During this period, attitudes evolve out of initial assumptions. This evolution can see ideas reinforced or rejected in favour of other ideas. Contextual factors refer to the influence of the classroom, and therefore these influences start upon a teacher’s first starting to teach and continues as classroom contexts change. There is no clear line between each period, and it is better to think of the evolution as a continuum rather than a set of discrete stages. Instead, what is important is that there is a distinction between the three periods temporally, where assumptions evolve into attitudes and not vice versa, and beliefs form after attitudes about teaching have been refined, rejected, or reformulated by experiences in the classroom. This description of the changes that beliefs undergo due to contextual influences allows for a better understanding of the influences acting on teachers at varying stages of their lives. This more refined description assists in developing interviews so that participants are able to articulate their experiences more concisely.

The influence of reflexivity on interview data Re-theorizing qualitative interviews has its origins in the social sciences (Mann, 2016), growing out of calls to conceptualize interviews as active meaning-making ventures rather than techniques for eliciting data for the presentation of objective or subjective truths. Kvale (1996) contrasts the reading of interview data as either veridical – where the data is seen as reliable participant accounts – or symptomatic – where accounts are viewed in terms of interviewees’ relationships to an interview context. Building on theories of social constructivism, interviews have been redesignated as sites of local accomplishment which involve the co-construction of content between both the interviewee and the interviewer (Mann, 2011, 2016). This has led to a greater focus on contextual factors related to the interviewer (as opposed to just focusing on the interviewee), which include the need to address interviewer identity and interactional context. As of yet, there has been

Figure 2.5  Development of beliefs

Initial assumptions: Axioms which enable pre-judgements about the surrounding world

Schooling: Personal history and experiences of classroom which define preconceptions of education

Tentative attitudes: Formed out of assumptions based on first initial experiences with teaching

Professional Coursework: Experiences, knowledge about teaching, teachers, learners, learning, subject matter, curricula materials, activities, self, colleagues, assessment, context

Firmer beliefs: attitudes refined, rejects or reformulated, more stable/ resistant to change

Contextual factors: Around and inside classrooms, context mediates beliefs and practice.

The framework  61 limited action within the field of applied linguistics (Richards, 2009) in terms of acknowledging the call for a more ‘critical and discursive approach’ as outlined by Block (2000) and Pavlenko (2007), although this might be influenced by the restrictive nature of academic journals which lack the physical space for greater elaboration on contextual factors surrounding interviews (Block, 2000). Mann’s (2011) review of articles that used interviews and were published in prominent applied linguistic journals highlighted ‘discursive dilemmas’ (p. 12), which saw a majority of articles present content as truth rather than as the result of reactions to interviews. The interviews presented in the next chapter reflect the broader interpretative epistemological approach taken by acknowledging the co-construction of knowledge that occurs within the interviews (Mann, 2016). A reflexive approach accounts for the co-construction of knowledge by presenting data not as quotable cutouts which represent objective reality, but as a localized accomplishment (Mann, 2011) where contextual elements such as interviewer identity, status, and thoughts on the phenomenon under study are written into the accounts rather than ignored, as in positivist views on interviewing which seek to render the interviewer as invisible. Contextually relevant factors are continuously included throughout the presentation of this data, covering the following elements of the interviews: • • • • •

Why – researcher’s purpose in setting up interview Where – physical, social, and institutional context Who – interviewees and interviewer How – genre of interview, recordings, question types, language used What – interactionally relevant artefacts (Mann, 2016)

In addition to these contextual elements, parameters of sensitivity (Mann, 2016) are acknowledged. These parameters, namely rapport, disclosure, and empathy, are considered vital elements that not only ensure the success of any interview, but also are involved in the co-construction of knowledge that occurs in any interview. These elements are all acknowledged to ensure greater integrity of the research project’s findings as a whole.

Summary of theoretical framework The frameworks behind the analysis of the observations and interviews build upon current trends in linguistics which are grounded in assumptions that knowledge is socially constructed. As stated earlier, there is growing concern that research based on positivist notions of reality fail to describe the realities of classrooms and therefore have not succeeded in improving the knowledge base of what occurs in language classrooms (Johnson, 2009). Classroom complexities are not easily captured in experimental designs. It is even more difficult to generalize findings that do emerge, as classroom contexts are often submerged

62  The framework in complex socio-historical, cultural, economic, and political settings (Johnson, 2009). The social turn (Block, 2003) and its epistemological perspectives allow for an uncovering of how people constitute their social realities, without a need to make larger generalizations, as per the positivist paradigm. As sociocultural approaches to language classrooms continue to grow in prominence, there is a need to continue to improvise and innovate new methods of analysis that can further understandings of the complexities of language classrooms in both EFL and ESL contexts. Adding to the knowledge base of a discipline ensures that it does not remain static and that the number of community members who work within the knowledge base continues to grow. The use of SFL coupled with Bernstein’s (2000) theory of pedagogic discourse provide new insights into how the L1 is used in the social construction of EFL classrooms. This book is firmly grounded in sociocultural perspectives and builds upon the current body of work that has investigated teacher beliefs as well as the language choices made in EFL contexts. In addition, it seeks to go beyond this research by incorporating sociological perspectives on the role education plays in a society by utilizing theories of pedagogic discourse in conjunction with SFL to allow for a broadening of the scope of the Hows, Whats, and Whys of second language teaching.

References Arthur, J., & Martin, P. (2006). Accomplishing lessons in postcolonial classrooms: Comparative perspectives from Botswana and Brunei Darussalam. Comparative Education, 42(2), 177–202. doi:10.1080/03050060600628009 Barnard, R., & Burns, A. (2012). Researching language teacher cognition and practice. International Case Studies. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes and control. Volume III: Towards a theory of educational transmission. London, UK: Routledge. Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control: The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London, UK: Routledge. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London, UK: Taylor & Francis. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Block, D. (2000). Problematizing interview data: Voices in the mind’s machine? TESOL Quarterly, 34(4), 757–763. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London, UK: Continuum. Brooks, F. B., Donato, R., & McGlone, J. V. (1997). When are they going to say ‘It’ right? Understanding learner talk during pair-work activity. Foreign Language Annals, 30(4), 524–541. Buzzelli, C., & Johnston, B. (2001). Authority, power, and morality in classroom discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(8), 873–884. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X (01)00037-3

The framework  63 Chappell, P. (2014). Group work in the English language curriculum: Sociocultural and ecological perspectives on second language classroom learning. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Christie, F. (1995). Pedagogic discourse in the primary school. Linguistics and Education, 7(3), 221–242. doi:10.1016/0898-5898(95)90024-1 Christie, F. (2000a). The language of classroom interaction and learning In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching languages in schools and communities (pp. 184–203). London, UK: Cassell. Christie, F. (2000b). Pedagogic discourse in the post-compulsory years: Pedagogic subject positioning. Linguistics and Education, 11(4), 313–331. doi:10.1016/ S0898-5898(00)00031-0 Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. London, UK: Continuum. Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397–417. doi:10.2307/ 3588114 García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–308. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000067 Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London, UK: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, UK: Longman. Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York, NY: Routledge. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mann, S. (2011). A critical review of qualitative interviews in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 6–24. Mann, S. (2016). The research interview: Reflective practice and reflexivity in research processes. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Martin, J. R. (1985). Process and text: Two aspects of human semiosis. In J. D. Benson & W. S. Greaves (Eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse. Volume 1: Advances in discourse processes, Vol. XV (pp. 248–274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 10–21. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003 Martin, J. R., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1991). Systemic typology and topology. In F. Christie (Ed.), Literacy in social processes (pp. 345–383). Darwin, Australia: Northern Territory University, Centre for Studies in Language Education. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London, UK: Continuum. McLean, M., Abbas, A., & Ashwin, P. (2013). The use and value of Bernstein’s work in studying (in)equalities in undergraduate social science education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(2), 262–280. doi:10.1080/01425692.2012.710007 Morais, A. (2002). Basil Bernstein at the micro level of the classroom. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 4, 559.

64  The framework Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. doi:10.2307/1170741 Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 163–188. doi:10.1093/applin/amm008 Richards, K. (2009). Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000. Language Teaching, 42(2), 147–180. doi:10.1017/S0261444808005612 Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London, UK: Oxford University Press. Singh, P. (2010). Pedagogic discourse and student resistance in Australian secondary schools. In A. Morais, B. Davies, H. Daniels, & I. Neves (Eds.), Towards a sociology of pedagogy: The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research (pp. 251–285). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274. doi:10.1177/ 136216880000400304

3

Beliefs, identity, and investment

The hidden side of teaching Often described as the hidden side of teaching (Freeman, 2002), the influence of teachers’ learning and knowledge had often been overlooked when it came to second language learning. However, the last 30 years have seen a steady evolution in the understanding of how teacher learning and knowledge are conceptualized (Freeman, 2002). This understanding includes how prior learning experiences, teacher education, and classroom practices shape and are shaped by teacher cognition. Language teacher cognition is now a well-established domain of enquiry (Borg, 2003) that needs to broaden its scope on different aspects of language teaching. The beliefs teachers have are intricately tied to their identity and are woven together with the agency a teacher develops in a given situation, as well as the emotions tied to the experiences they have experienced as part of their own life journey. This chapter will start with a review of these different yet intertwined concepts, before exploring them in regards to the participants of this book.

Defining beliefs and knowledge A look through the literature reveals several concepts associated with the definition of beliefs. These include personal knowledge, implicit assumptions (Kagan, 1992), preconceptions and implicit theories, eclectic aggregations of cause and effect propositions (Crawley & Salyer, 1995), convictions or opinions (Ford, 1994), attitudes and values (Pajares, 1992) which are derived from experience, rules of thumb, and the intervention of ideas during the learning process. As with beliefs, so too does a review of the literature reveal several congruent views on knowledge. Knowledge is based on factual information and organizing principles which are central to concepts of discipline, bound within explanatory frameworks that are used to guide enquiry (Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman, 1989). It includes knowledge of teaching craft (Zeichner, Tabachnick, & Densmore, 1987), of pedagogy as well as knowledge of learners (Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987). There has been considerable discussion on the array of terms used to define teacher beliefs and knowledge, and debate about how to distinguish beliefs from knowledge (Clandinin & Connelly, 1987). These debates have arisen from

66  Beliefs, identity, and investment different researchers with different agendas in different disciplines (Pajares, 1992), highlighting how teacher beliefs are very much ‘study bound, culture based and context specific’ (Zheng, 2015, p. 15). Generally, knowledge has been treated as inherently different from beliefs, or as a broad term that covers both what is known and what is believed. Epistemological arguments distinguish beliefs from knowledge, as knowledge relates to facts whereas beliefs are centred on personal values (Fenstermacher, 1994). Others have differentiated knowledge from beliefs based on existential presumptions, alternativity, affective and evaluative loading, and episodic nature (Nespor, 1987). The distinguishing of knowledge from beliefs has led to claims that beliefs are better predictors of practices than knowledge (Nespor, 1987). In general, beliefs have been distinguished from knowledge because beliefs are based on evaluation and judgement, whereas knowledge is based on objective fact (Pajares, 1992). Belief, according to Dewey (1993): covers all the matters of which we have no sure knowledge and yet which we are sufficiently confident of to act upon and also the matters that we now accept as certainly true, as knowledge, but which nevertheless may be questioned in the future. (p. 94) However, there are also claims that beliefs and knowledge cannot be separated so easily and should be treated more like synonymous terms rather than discrete items (Kagan, 1990; Murphy & Mason, 2006; Pajares, 1992), especially as some have claimed how difficult it is to identify exactly where knowledge ends and beliefs begin (Clandinin & Connelly, 1987). Nevertheless, beliefs have also been defined as a form of knowledge, referred to as personal knowledge (Kagan, 1992; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Rokeach, 1968). Kagan (1992) suggested that teacher beliefs are better described as a ‘provocative form of personal knowledge’ (p. 65), and that in fact it is more accurate to consider teachers’ actual professional knowledge as beliefs. This is because teachers comprehend their world by developing complex personal and professional knowledge systems that are kept as unconscious assumptions about the contexts in which they work. Alternatively, some have viewed knowledge as components of beliefs. Rokeach (1968) stated that beliefs are composed of cognitive components that embody knowledge as well as affective components and behavioural components. The major problem in the study of teacher beliefs is trying to distinguish if teachers are relying on their knowledge or their beliefs when they are teaching. This had led some researchers to integrate both knowledge and beliefs. Woods (1996; Woods & Çakır, 2011, p. 384) created the acronym BAK, which stands for Beliefs, Assumptions, and Knowledge. Woods argues that beliefs and knowledge are both involved in decision-making processes, and that the two should not be delineated, but rather viewed as part of a continuum ‘along which certain things we “know/believe” can be placed’ (Woods & Çakır, 2011, p. 384). In this definition, knowledge relates to conventionally accepted notions that are demonstrable,

Beliefs, identity, and investment  67 assumptions are temporarily accepted facts that have not yet been proven, and beliefs are ideas that have not been proven or that have no associated conventional knowledge, and which may also be open to disagreement. This BAK continuum is often revealed in data elicitation techniques which struggle to distinguish between beliefs and knowledge, which should not be surprising, as within the minds of teachers there is not often a clear distinction between the two constructs (Borg, 2006). While beliefs and knowledge may be distinguished on epistemological grounds, for studies into teacher cognitions the two can be seen to overlap, being ‘inextricably intertwined’ (Verloop, Van Driel, & Meijer, 2001, p. 446). Research into teachers’ beliefs is often centred on beliefs about education; educational beliefs are part of teachers’ broader and more general belief systems (Pajares, 1992). Educational beliefs are broad themselves and include beliefs about teacher efficacy, self-efficacy, epistemological beliefs, and teacher and student performance, as well as educational beliefs about educational disciplines (reading, writing, and grammar, to mention just a few). As Pajares (1992) stated, ‘clusters of beliefs around a particular object or situation form attitudes that become action agendas’ (p. 319). The connection between beliefs within attitudes is connected (Rokeach, 1968) to beliefs in other attitudes. The educational attitudes a teacher may have are intrinsically tied to beliefs about society, race, and even family. The results of such connections are values upon which a teacher may choose to live life. Beliefs that teachers have about teaching are socially constructed through their experiences over a lifetime. They are established early on in life through learner experiences. These beliefs can be particularly resistant to change, even when facing incongruous data (Nisbett & Ross, 1980), and are important when interpreting and making sense of the situations teachers find themselves in (Nespor, 1987). Called ‘the apprenticeship of observation’ (Lortie, 1975), experiences teachers have as learners shape their beliefs and images about what teaching should be, and are strongly related to teachers’ own experience as TL learners (Bailey et al., 1996; Johnson, 1994; Numrich, 1996). The beliefs based on these experiences assist teachers in their decision-making processes while at work. This highlights the need to better understand the context that teachers both presently find themselves in as well as experienced over their lifetime. The beliefs that teachers have should be viewed as being both interpretive and reflective in nature, as they are constructs that have emerged from experiences with teaching (Clandinin & Connelly, 1987). Studies on pre-service beliefs have attempted to describe a range of influences, including prior language learning experiences (Bailey et al., 1996), the roles of teachers (Borg, 2012), socialization processes (Farrell, 2001), and conceptions of TESOL (Warford & Reeves, 2003), to mention but a few. In a study of how theoretical orientations influence teacher trainees and trainers, Lo’s (2005) indepth case study documented how one trainee developed an understanding of SLA while in America. The study also followed her after she had resumed teaching in Taiwan. The study discussed how both teacher trainer and trainee differed in their approaches to the effectiveness of SLA, and how this led the trainee to

68  Beliefs, identity, and investment return to the workforce with the feeling that the more research-based approach of the trainer had been ineffective in terms of application to her own teaching environment. These differences in theoretical orientations had a profound influence on the behaviour of the trainee and her willingness to learn SLA. Salvatore and Brown (2005) looked into how the completion of a linguistics course affected the attitudes and beliefs of the students. By collecting data via a questionnaire over a two-year period, they managed to show that even limited exposure to linguistics and sociolinguistic information effected significant changes in the attitudes and beliefs about linguistics of the students, and that this change could be cumulative, depending on how long the students chose to continue in the course. A number of studies show the influence that beliefs have on a variety of aspects of teacher practices, such as how beliefs act as filters when interpreting new information and experiences (Pajares, 1992) and how they overshadow the effects of teacher education (Kagan, 1992; Richardson, 1996). These effects can be persistent, influencing teacher practices over long periods of time (Crawley & Salyer, 1995), but at the same time are not always evident in what happens in the classroom (Zeichner et al., 1987). Practices have also been shown to influence beliefs as much as beliefs influence practices, highlighting the mutually shaping relationship between the two (Richardson, 1996). Studies on language teachers in particular have highlighted the effects of beliefs on pedagogical decisions (Johnson, 1994) made in the class as well as what teachers may learn during language teacher education programs (Freeman, 1996). These beliefs have also been found to be deep rooted and defiant in the face of change (Almarza, 1996; Pickering, 2005). Beliefs have a dialogic relationship to the lived experiences of individuals. They are both formed by experiences, and in turn, they shape experiences and understandings of experiences. Therefore, acknowledging this dialogic relationship over the course of an individual’s life requires a description of beliefs which allows for opportunities to reveal these influences and their role in belief formation. In a collection of studies looking at teacher language cognitions, Barnard and Burns (2012) proposed differentiating beliefs into stages by creating a linear, chronological sequence. Assumptions, the first stage, are described as maxims that allow people to make judgements about the world in which they interact. These assumptions change with experience into tentative attitudes. These in turn are ‘refined, rejected or reformulated and then incorporated into a set of firmer beliefs’ (Barnard & Burns, 2012, p. 3).

The impact of beliefs on practice A number of studies point to the growing importance of understanding teacher beliefs and how they impact the practices of teachers (Basturkmen, 2012; Farrell & Bennis, 2013; Farrell & Ives, 2015). Beliefs have been observed to influence the interactions of the classroom via teacher practices (Breen, Hird, Milton, Oliver, & Thwaite, 2001). Although there is still some uncertainty as to how much influence these beliefs actually have (Farrell & Ives, 2015), research into

Beliefs, identity, and investment  69 relationships between beliefs and practices continues to draw interest, as well as different descriptions. The impact that teachers’ beliefs have on practice may be limited by certain contextual factors, and that certain contextual factors may influence beliefs (Borg, 2003, 2006).

Relationships between beliefs and practices Research into teacher beliefs and actual practices has produce a mixture of findings as to the actual congruence between the two (Basturkmen, 2012), and it was postulated that a possible reason for this incongruence is the fact that case study methods are most commonly used in this area of research. This is significant, as case study research involves focusing of particular contexts to discover in-depth explanations, rather than a broad range of contexts that potentially could be generalized. Basturkmen’s (2012) integrative review of case studies discussed the degree of consistency between beliefs and practice and revealed that case study methodology did not appear to influence findings in any way, with many different case studies reporting different levels of agreement between beliefs and practices across many different contexts. Comparing beliefs to actual practices is not often as straightforward as it would seem. For one, what type of beliefs are being compared? Those beliefs which have been explicitly stated, and of which teachers seem to be aware? Or beliefs of which teachers seem to be less aware? Additionally, how well do the beliefs that teachers have, and are aware of having, actually represent reality? At present, it would seem that teachers’ beliefs are the foundations of teacher practices (Borg, 2012), with the relationship between the two being interactive (Basturkmen, 2012). Adding to this is the growing acceptance that beliefs exist as parts of systems which interact with other beliefs, either working together or against each other (Basturkmen, 2012). Teacher beliefs have been represented at a core level, which are stable and exert greater influence on behaviour, and a peripheral level, which are less stable and influential (Pajares, 1992). The distinction between these two levels of beliefs allows for an enhanced investigation of the relationship between beliefs and practices (Phipps & Borg, 2009). These sub-systems of beliefs allow for a more definitive study of the tensions that can arise between what teachers say and what teachers do, facilitating researchers and teachers to understand the process of teaching in more detail (Phipps & Borg, 2009). The degree to which teachers act in accordance with their beliefs is mediated by the context in which they find themselves. Therefore, immediate contextual factors also need to be considered when researching the interaction between beliefs and practices. Situational constraints have been shown to limit the effect of teacher beliefs (Basturkmen, 2012; Borg, 2003); however, one study suggested that teachers may use situational constraints as excuses to justify their actual practices (Lee, 2009). Teacher beliefs need to be researched in relation to the lens of classroom interaction (Li & Walsh, 2011). By investigating teachers’ stated beliefs as well as what they do in the classroom and the interactions they

70  Beliefs, identity, and investment have with their students, a more complete understanding of teacher beliefs can be uncovered, as opposed to research which neglects to include actual teaching practices. The interactions teachers have in the classroom must be understood and included in order to understand teacher beliefs, as interaction ‘lies at the very heart of teaching, learning and professional development’ (Li & Walsh, 2011, p. 42). In addition to this, teachers need to be encouraged to articulate their beliefs (Farrell & Ives, 2015) in order to create opportunities for change to occur. Without this reflection, most teachers are likely to be unaware of the extent to which their beliefs influence (Farrell, 2008) their practice.

Studies on language teachers Studies on teacher beliefs fall into two broad categories: pre-service teachers and in-service teachers. Pre-service language teachers are those who have yet to have any formal training on how to teach languages, whereas in-service teachers are currently teaching after receiving formal training. Studies on language teachers focus on a range of themes, including but not limited to: • • • •

The influence of prior language learning experiences Beliefs about language teaching Beliefs about practicum experiences Beliefs about decision-making and practical knowledge

The importance of the influence of prior language learning experiences was initially exposed by studies that have not directly focused on this topic (Borg, 2003). Important influences acting during pre-service teachers’ ‘apprenticeship of observation’ (Lortie, 1975) include teacher personality and style, levels of respect teachers had, student motivation to learn, and positive classroom environments (Bailey et al., 1996). In addition to this, it was found that instructional decisions made during practicums were influenced by learning experiences (Farrell, 2006; Johnson, 1994; Numrich, 1996). The memories teachers had of their learning experiences were acting as guidelines for how prospective teachers would act in the classroom, and this could potentially cause problems for teacher trainers who try to teach more modern accounts of what language teaching should look like (Farrell, 2006). The beliefs teachers have about language teaching prior to education have been labelled as ‘inappropriate, unrealistic, or naïve’ (Borg, 2003, p. 88), which may be of concern if these beliefs are the foundation for which most new teachers base their decisions. Studies that have investigated the impact of teacher education on pre-service language teachers have shown that the courses do have an impact on trainees, but the impact was often various (Borg, 2003), indicating a need for more longitudinal studies on the matter. Studies on the impact of language education programs on in-service teachers provide similar inconsistencies as those on pre-service teachers. The focus of such studies more often than not follows those of pre-service teachers and

Beliefs, identity, and investment  71 reveals again the context-dependent nature of such studies. Case studies which do seem to reveal changes to in-service teachers often state that it is more likely that the teachers’ behaviour has changed to meet some course need, and that the observed behavioural changes are not often accompanied by changes in how teachers think about teaching (Borg, 2011). The variations found in studies into teacher beliefs should not be surprising, given the very personal nature of the beliefs that teachers have about their practices. The difficulties in being able to generalize findings to larger contexts should not be of concern to researchers, either. Research into language teachers’ beliefs is research into the world of an individual, and to better understand an individual, obtaining an understanding of their espoused beliefs is vital, as beliefs provide the foundations for their actions.

Studies on teacher beliefs about language use Calderhead (1996) wrote that there are five different areas of beliefs significant to teachers: • • • • •

Beliefs about learners and learning Beliefs about teaching Beliefs about subject Beliefs about learning to teach Beliefs about self and the teaching role

The different subject areas within a given school curriculum are interconnected to these different beliefs via epistemological concerns. Studies on the beliefs that language teachers have about the use of language are, however, relatively rare. Most often, beliefs are referred to as an afterthought of what the actual practices of the teachers were. The following reviews what studies have been done on this aspect of teacher beliefs.

Sources of beliefs of language use The previous sections have established that teacher beliefs are indeed influenced by an array of factors. The influences acting on belief formation about which language choices include teachers’ own experiences as language learners, their experiences in the classroom, and the perspectives of colleagues, teacher trainers and educators, managers and policy makers, and academic research and researchers (Hall & Cook, 2012). Crawford’s (2004) study of language teachers in Australia suggested that the aims of teacher training programs may be one factor influencing teachers’ language choices. If proficiency is a primary outcome of such programs, then teachers would be more likely to use the limit their linguistic repertoire according to the focus of the program. Other influences on language use are teachers’ and students’ language proficiencies.

72  Beliefs, identity, and investment These influences are found elsewhere in the literature. Emergent bilinguals’ ability to use the newer elements of their linguistic repertoire affect teachers’ language use (Copland & Neokleous, 2011; Giannikas, 2011; Liu et al., 2004; Macaro, 1997; Mitchell, 1988). Teachers’ own language proficiency with the newer elements is also cited as a factor influencing language choices in a number of different contexts, including EFL contexts (Carless, 2004; Liu et al., 2004; Nagy & Robertson, 2009; Pennington, 1997), student-teacher contexts (Bateman, 2008), and other foreign language contexts (Kim & Elder, 2008). Cultural and educational background can also influence teacher attitudes and beliefs about language use. An example of this is found in Van der Meij and Zhao (2010), who studied teachers of English working in China. Contrary to previous findings, the teachers in this study believed that learner or teacher proficiencies with their newer linguistic elements should not affect the use of more established linguistic elements. The teachers in this study disagreed with the idea of relying on elements of students’ linguistic repertoire that the students were more familiar with, and believed that the newer elements should be incorporated into their lessons as much as possible. Another example revealing the influence of cultural and educational backgrounds on teacher attitudes came from a study of teachers of Japanese origin and British origin teaching Japanese in UK secondary schools (McMillan & Rivers, 2011). Differences between the two sets of teachers were accounted for by experiences as language learners in specific cultural contexts. The Japanese-origin teachers had strong views on the delivery of content via the named language (in this case, Japanese) that was the focus of the class, as well as classroom language delivered using linguistic elements with which the students were more familiar to avoid unnecessary confusion and wasting time. The Japanese-origin teachers cited their own experiences of learning English, in which their teachers almost never spoke English. The teachers also believed in teacher-fronted lessons, in which the teachers would limit their linguistic repertoires to those elements with which students were more familiar, so that students were not bombarded with too many new linguistic elements at a time. In this study, the British-origin teacher’s use of the emergent bilingual students’ stronger linguistic repertoire ‘diametrically opposed’ (p. 55) that of the Japanese-origin teachers. Cited reasons for the differences were the teachers’ experiences as learners of Japanese and the educational background of the teachers. Other examples that highlight the influence of cultural background and educational background describe the sympathetic attitudes teachers in Canada had towards using their students’ full linguistic repertoire (Cummins, 2007; Duff & Polio, 1990; Rolin-Ianziti & Brownlie, 2002).

Teacher identity Norton (1997) defines identity as how people understand their relationships to the world around them, how these relationships are constructed across both time and space, and how people understand their possibilities for the future. It is therefore said that teacher identity construction ‘must be understood with

Beliefs, identity, and investment  73 respect to larger social processes’ as it is influenced by coercive and/or collaborative relations of power (Norton, 1997, p. 419). An example of this can be found in the coercive nature of the school environment and the students within that environment, especially in regards to how they affect the identities that teachers have within the school contexts as well as their agency to act in accordance with their beliefs. On top of this, prevailing societal ideologies also influence the ability of both teachers and learners to invest in language learning when contemplating the imagined communities that are connected to the language they are learning (Norton, 2013). People with language repertoires that include more than one named language (Makoni & Pennycook, 2006) often have access to multiple social groups as well as roles within social groups that are defined by how they choose to use their language repertoire (Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). This is because language and identity are said to traverse each other during language use and choice, giving interlocutors social information on a wide range of information including ethnic identity, class status, and educational background (Duff, 2013). Language choices can see speakers marked as insiders or outsiders of social groups via assumptions or impositions, providing speakers access to more positive roles if they have the inclination or ability to adapt (Gee, 2004). An example of this is seen in Vasilopoulos’s (2015) study of bilingual Koreans who had returned to South Korea after learning English abroad from an early age. These returning Koreans often had to choose to conceal or reveal aspects of their English expertise at different stages of their daily life. For instance, revealing their English language expertise was advantageous for employment-related issues, but detrimental during social interactions with Koreans who did not possess similar levels of English language proficiency. The bilinguals’ language decisions were said to be influenced by modern discursive constructs, in this case the idea that Korea is a monolingual and homogenous society that has dominated ethnic Korean identity descriptions over the last five decades (Park & Lo, 2012). The participants in this study stated that they often felt the need to modify their accents when speaking Korean to sound like their peers who had Korean-English accents (known as a Konglish accent) rather than native (American) speaker accents. This was done to avoid being marked as too proud or, worse, foreign. Language use and choice here were identity markers which influenced the social decisions of the participants. This study serves to further highlight South Korea’s tumultuous relationship with English: an almost supernatural enthusiasm towards learning the language that coexists alongside an equally feverish desire to maintain Korean national identity (Park & Lo, 2012). For these bilinguals, this conflict was part of their everyday existence and has resulted in their constantly making language choices to avoid being positioned as outsiders from the community in which they lived. Additionally, the experiences of these individuals beg the question of why native speaker norms are so often positioned as the ideal in the South Korean English education sector, particularly when it seems that the citizens themselves seem so reluctant to sound like native speakers of English. The plight of the

74  Beliefs, identity, and investment bilinguals in this study suggests that the traditional view of a monolingual South Korea needs to be revised to accommodate the more modern lifestyles that are changing the linguistic make-up of South Korea. Clearly, ‘Transnational Korea’ (Park & Lo, 2012) consists of more complex identity compositions now due to the influence of globalization and the neoliberalization of its education sector (Vasilopoulos, 2015).

Imagined communities and investment Several other constructs are often spoken of in accordance with identity. The sociological construct investment reveals the relationship between the identity of language learners and their commitment to learn languages. This is achieved by examining the variables involved with the desires learners have about engaging in social interaction and community practices (Norton, 2013). Learners will choose to invest in learning a language if they feel they will gain symbolic resources, such as language or education, as well as material resources, including wealth, which ultimately will increase their cultural capital and social power (Bourdieu, 1977). However, if learners feel they will not gain such advantages, then they will likely be less concerned with investing their time or effort in language learning. Imagined communities refer to groups of people that are thought to exist beyond the realms of actual physical communities, and that learners hope to join in the future (Anderson, 1991; Norton, 2013). Understanding language learners’ imagined communities allows teachers, teacher trainers, and researchers to comprehend how these communities affect learning. If there is a conflict between the imagined community of the learner and the teaching practices of the classroom, learners can lessen their investment in the classroom. This also extends to the imagined communities of educational policies that schools have for their students. Kanno (2003) argues that schools’ educational visions condition educational policies, teaching practices, and learner identity. Educational policies are said to reflect societal imaginations of the future. This has been seen in Singapore, where bilingual education was used to shape educational policy in order to improve economic development while also acknowledging its pluralistic linguistic population (Kanno, 2003). But how is learner investment affected when the imagined communities that the learners are said to be striving to attain are largely negative? When negative values such as Non-identities are assigned to learners and even teachers, how does this feed into constructs such as investment and imagined communities? Pavlenko’s (2003) study into how pre-service teachers imagined linguistic and professional memberships revealed how teacher trainees were negatively impacted by the popular SLA discourses which positioned native speakers as the ideal. Students, from both English and non-English speaking countries, suffered as a result and self-identified as Non-identities, which were not as valued as native speaker identities. Thankfully, however, these teacher trainees were exposed to more inclusive theories of multicompetence (Cook, 2012) as well as definitions of bilingualism (Baker, 2011; Grosjean, 1998, 2013). These theories gave the

Beliefs, identity, and investment  75 trainees a viable alternative to the dominant discourse of monolingualism, allowing the trainees to reimagine their identities to those of multicompetent language users and bilinguals. They also provided a path for the trainees to reinvent the imagined communities they were investing in so that they could be valued members of such communities rather than deficient non-entities (Pavlenko, 2003). As previously discussed, prevalent ideologies associated with English in South Korea position Koreans as incapable of learning English, affecting potential language learner identity as well as teacher identity, their desire to invest in language learning, as well as the imagined communities of learners. Indeed, one study of South Korean elementary school students reveals that their imagined communities are highly competitive English-learning communities which focus on test results (Yim, 2016) rather than communities which embrace bilingualism and the advantages of language knowledge. The students’ imagined communities were formed from their experiences outside the English classroom, such as their parents’ expectations, as well as larger societal ideals about globalization, which placed emphasis on acquiring cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1977) in the form of good grades, and later good jobs. They were also influenced by the idea of language as a commodity and people as bundles of skills that are required to constantly engage in the process of proving their worthiness for employment. This was said to differ drastically from the imagined community of the curriculum developers’ idea of competent oral communicators. However, the reality was that curriculum developers also shared the vision of language, in this case English, as a cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986) which would benefit the nation as a whole. This reminds me of Norton’s (2013) question, ‘To what extent is the learner motivated to learn the target language?’ (p. 6), discussing how language learners’ motivation to learn may be hampered by racist, sexist, elitist, or even homophobic practices within the classroom. In self-proclaimed monocultural and monolingual communities, it has been found that racial discourses embedded within educational policies can brand multilingual or more diverse cultures as inferior or less desirable (Blackledge, 2003). It could therefore be theorized that language exclusion practices may also result in motivated learners having less investment in language learning.

Bilingual/multilingual identity construction The development of positive bilingual or multilingual identities can improve the likelihood that learners will invest more into their language learning. It can also improve mobility and diversity within communities and classrooms, enhancing social cohesions throughout communities (Fisher, Evans, Forbes, Gayton, & Liu, 2018). Classroom education processes are essential to this development of positive bilingual/multilingual identities, as the classroom is where young learners are ‘confronted with the relationship between their language, their thoughts, and their bodies’ (Kramsch, 2006, p. 5). Although there is some doubt over the extent to which language identity can change within EFL contexts, due in large

76  Beliefs, identity, and investment part to the influence of the first language and its associated sociocultural influences, identity does continue to develop in terms of the communities of practice that emerge within language classrooms (Block, 2014). In order to foster classroom language identity growth, classrooms actively cultivate the language identities by being more explicit about such processes, and they have students actively engage with the concept of their own developing language identities to ensure positive transformation (Fisher et al., 2018). Thankfully, the very nature of identity – namely, its dynamic, emerging, and continuously changing nature – offer both learners and teachers the opportunity to distance themselves from the negative ideologies that exist, and to create more positive imagined communities. This can be done in the classroom with the help of the translanguaging ideology. Teachers’ experiences establish repertoires of practical solutions to problems they encounter in the classroom. These experiences can shape identity as much as a lack of experience can, by either reinforcing what teachers believe to be positive language learning identity, or even the opposite of what they believe (Johnson, 1994). The images or identity that teachers develop interact with their teaching practices, being confirmed, validated, or changed via ongoing teaching experiences, and the more experienced a teacher is said to be, the more robust their notions of identity will be (Duff & Uchida, 1997). Due to teacher positions within the classroom and relationships to their broader teaching context, teachers are necessarily seen as non-neutral entities. There backgrounds, beliefs, and intentions are all factors in what they do within the classroom (Varghese, Morgan, Johnston, & Johnson, 2005). Teacher agency is described as the capacity and intention to act according to the beliefs, values, and knowledge within the contexts that teachers find themselves (Hiver & Whitehead, 2018; Parsons et al., 2018). Teacher agency, or the ability or willingness to act, is enabled or constrained by educational policies and reforms as well as by factors located within schools themselves (Robinson, 2012). It is therefore not a fixed ability, but something very much subject to context as well as linked to the professional identity of the teacher.

In summary The growing interest in English teachers who do not speak English as their so-called ‘mother tongue’ is a sign of a growing acceptance of the need to reexamine the knowledge base of SLA and TESOL. English and the teaching of English do not belong to any one group. They are resources available to all. There needs to be a continued response to the acknowledgement that SLA in its current form may lack the sufficient knowledge base to advise teachers on how best to assist learners in their language studies. Findings from the interviews and the observations are discussed separately. Profiles of the participants provide a description of the accounts they gave of their lived experiences with language learning and teaching. These profiles are written here in order to ‘find and display coherence in the constitutive events’ of the

Beliefs, identity, and investment  77 teacher’s experiences (Siedman, 2006, p. 120). These accounts incorporated elements of reflexivity (Mann, 2016) in order to acknowledge the co-construction of the data, and they provide a more robust account of what the participants said as well as what I brought to the process.

References Almarza, G. (1996). Student foreign language teachers’ growth. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 50–78). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism. London, UK: Verso. Bailey, K., Bergthold, B., Braunstein, B., Fleischman, N., Holbrook, M., Tuman, J., & Waissbluth, X. (1996). The language learner’s autobiography: Examining the apprenticeship of observation. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Barnard, R., & Burns, A. (2012). Researching language teacher cognition and practice. International Case Studies. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System, 40(2), 282–295. Bateman, B. E. (2008). Student teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about using the target l anguage in the classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 41(1), 11–28. doi:10.1111/ j.1944-9720.2008.tb03277.x Blackledge, A. (2003). Imagining a monocultural community: Racialization of cultural practice in educational discourse. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 2(4), 331–347. Block, D. (2014). Second language identities. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109. ISSN 1475–3049. doi:10.1017/S0261444803001903 Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London, UK: Continuum. Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs. System, 39, 370–380. Borg, S. (2012). Current approaches to language teacher cognition research: A methodological analysis. In R. Barnard & A. Burns (Eds.), Researching language teacher cognition and practice: International case studies (pp. 11–29). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16(6), 645–668. doi:10.1177/053901847701600601 Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 96–111). New York, NY: Greenwood Press. Breen, M. P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2001). Making sense of language teaching: Teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 470–501.

78  Beliefs, identity, and investment Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs, and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York, NY: Macmillan. Carless, D. R. (2004). A contextualised examination of target language use in the primary school foreign language classroom. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 104–119. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1987). Teachers’ personal knowledge: What counts as ‘personal’ in studies of the personal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(6), 487–500. Cook, V. (2012). Multicompetence. In C. C. Chapelle. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Copland, F., & Neokleous, G. (2011). L1 to teach L2: Complexities and contradictions. ELT Journal, 65(3), 270–280. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq047 Crawford, J. (2004). Language choices in the foreign language classroom: Target language or the learners’ first language? RELC Journal, 35(1), 5–20. Crawley, F. E., & Salyer, B. A. (1995). Origins of life science teachers’ beliefs underlying curriculum reform in Texas. Science Education, 79(6), 611–635. doi:10.1002/ sce.3730790604 Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–240. Dewey, J. (1993). How we think. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath. Duff, P. A. (2013). Identity, agency and second language acquisition. In S. Gass & A. Mackay (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 410–426). London, UK: Routledge. Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 154–166. Duff, P. A., & Uchida, Y. (1997). The negotiation of teachers’ sociocultural identities and practices in postsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 3, 451. doi:10.2307/3587834 Farrell, T. S. C. (2001). English language teacher socialisation during the practicum. Prospect, 16(1), 49–62. Farrell, T. S. C. (2006). ‘The teacher is an octopus’: Uncovering preservice English language teachers’ prior beliefs through metaphor analysis. RELC Journal, 37(2), 236–248. Farrell, T. S. C. (2008). Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. London, UK: Continuum Press. Farrell, T. S. C., & Bennis, K. (2013). Reflecting on ESL teacher beliefs and classroom practices: A case study. RELC Journal, 44(2), 163–176. doi:10.1177/ 0033688213488463 Farrell, T. S. C., & Ives, J. (2015). Exploring teacher beliefs and classroom practices through reflective practice: A case study. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 594–610. doi:10.1177/1362168814541722 Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20(1), 1–54. Fisher, L., Evans, M., Forbes, K., Gayton, A., & Liu, Y. (In press). Participative multilingual identity construction in the languages classroom: A multi-theoretical conceptualisation. International Journal of Multilingualism. Retrieved from https:// doi-org.ezproxy.aut.ac.nz/10.1080/14790718.2018.1524896

Beliefs, identity, and investment  79 Ford, M. I. (1994). Teachers’ beliefs about mathematical problem solving in the elementary school. School Science and Mathematics, 94(6), 314–322. doi:10.1111/ j.1949-8594.1994.tb15683.x Freeman, D. (1996). The “unstudied problem”: Research on teacher learning in language teaching. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 355–378). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. A perspective from north American educational research on teacher education in English language teaching. Language Teaching, 35(1), 1–13. Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning. A critique of traditional schooling. New York, NY: Routledge. Giannikas, C. N. (2011). L1 in English language learning: A research study in a Greek regional context. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 319–339. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2011.00282.x Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilingualism: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 131–149. Grosjean, F. (2013). Bilingualism: A short introduction. In F. Grosjean & P. Li (Eds.), The psycholinguistics of bilingualism. Chicester, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 22–36). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–308. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000067 Hiver, P., & Whitehead, G. (2018). Sites of struggle: Classroom practice and the complex dynamic entanglement of language teacher agency and identity. System. doi:10.1016/j.system.2018.04.015 Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of preservice English as a second language teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 439–452. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(94)90024-8 Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks Principle. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 419–469. doi:10.2307/1170760 Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129–169. Kanno, Y. (2003). Imagined communities, school visions, and the education of bilingual students in Japan. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 2(4), 285–300. Kim, S. H., & Elder, C. (2008). Target language use in foreign language classrooms: Practices and perceptions of two native speaker teachers in New Zealand. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 21(2), 167–185. doi:10.1080/07908310802287574 Kramsch, C. (2006). The multilingual subject. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13–22. doi:10.1093/elt/ccn010 Li, L., & Walsh, S. (2011). ‘Seeing is believing’: Looking at EFL teachers’ beliefs through classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse, 2(1), 39–57. doi:10.1080/19 463014.2011.562657 Liu, D., Gil-Soon, A., Baek, K.-S., & Han, N.-O. (2004). South Korean high school english teachers’ code switching: Questions and challenges in the drive

80  Beliefs, identity, and investment for maximal use of English in teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 605–638. doi:10.2307/3588282 Lo, Y.-H. G. (2005). Relevance of knowledge of second language acquisition: An in-depth case study of a non-native EFL teacher. In N. Bartels (Ed.), Applied linguistics and language teacher education (pp. 135–157). New York, NY: Springer. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Makoni, S. B., & Pennycook, A. (2006). Disinventing and reconstituting languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Mann, S. (2016). The research interview: Reflective practice and reflexivity in research processes. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. McMillan, B. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2011). The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward “English only”. System, 39(2), 251–263. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.04.011 Mitchell, R. (1988). Communicative language teaching in practice. London, England: Centre for Information on Language Teaching. Murphy, K. P., & Mason, L. (2006). Changing knowledge and beliefs. In Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 305–326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Nagy, K., & Robertson, D. (2009). Target language use in English classes in Hungarian language schools. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second language learning. Bristol, England: MultiLingual Matters. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328. doi:10.1080/0022027870190403 Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409–429. doi:10.2307/3587831 Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Numrich, C. (1996). On becoming a language teacher: Insights from diary studies. TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 131–153. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. doi:10.2307/1170741 Park, J. S.-Y., & Lo, A. (2012). Transnational South Korea as a site for a sociolinguistics of globalization: Markets, timescales, neoliberalism. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(2), 147–164. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00524.x Parsons, S. A., Vaughn, M., Scales, R. Q., Gallagher, M. A., Parsons, A. W., Davis, S. G., . . . & Allen, M. (2018). Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 205–242. doi:10.3102/0034654317743198 Pavlenko, A. (2003). ‘I never knew I was a bilingual’: Reimagining teacher identities in TESOL. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 2(4), 251–268. doi:10.1207/S15327701JLIE0204_2 Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (Eds.) (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pennington, M. C. (1997). Projecting classroom language use in a group of bilingual graduates of a BATESL course. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 10(3), 222–235.

Beliefs, identity, and investment  81 Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37(3), 380–390. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.03.002 Pickering, A. (2005). Harnessing influences for change: Some implications from research for teacher educators. In L. Clandfield (Ed.), Affect and self-esteem in teacher education. Whitstable, UK: IATEFL. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102–119). New York, NY: Macmillan. Robinson, S. (2012). Constructing teacher agency in response to the constraints of education policy: Adoption and adaptation. The Curriculum Journal, 23(2), 231–245. doi:10.1080/09585176.2012.678702 Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Brownlie, S. (2002). Teacher use of learners’ native language in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(3), 402–426. Salvatore, A., & Brown, S. (2005). What’s the use of linguistics? Pre-service English teachers’ beliefs towards language use and variation. In N. Bartels (Ed.), Applied linguistics and language teacher education (pp. 91–102). New York, NY: Springer. Siedman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Van Der Meij, H., & Zhao, X. (2010). Codeswitching in English courses in Chinese universities. Modern Language Journal, 94(3), 396–411. doi:10.1111/ j.1540-4781.2010.01090.x Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B., & Johnson, K. A. (2005). Theorizing language teacher identity: Three perspectives and beyond. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 4(1), 21–44. doi:10.1207/s15327701jlie0401_2 Vasilopoulos, G. (2015). Language learner investment and identity negotiation in the Korean EFL context. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 14(2), 61–79. doi:10.1080/15348458.2015.1019783 Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 441–461. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00003-4 Warford, M., & Reeves, J. (2003). Falling into it: Novice TESOL teacher thinking. Teachers and Teaching, 9(1), 47–65. doi:10.1080/1354060032000049904 Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). 150 different ways of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104–124). London, UK: Cassell. Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision making and classroom practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Woods, D., & Çakır, H. (2011). Two dimensions of teacher knowledge: The case of communicative language teaching. System, 39(3), 381–390. doi:10.1016/j. system.2011.07.010 Yim, S. Y. (2016). EFL young learners: Their imagined communities and language learning. ELT Journal, 70(1), 57–66. doi:10.1093/elt/ccv037 Zeichner, K. M., Tabachnick, B. R., & Densmore, K. (1987). Individual, institutional, and cultural differences on the development of teachers’ craft knowledge. London, UK: Cassell. Zheng, H. (2015). Teacher beliefs as complex systems: English language teachers in China. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

4

Profiling the teachers

This chapter introduces the teacher participants. Each profile is based on extracts taken from a series of in-depth, semi-structured interviews that delved into their past experiences as language learners as well as their current beliefs about teaching. The experiences and beliefs allow for an understanding of who the teachers have been, who they see themselves as, and how they believe they are perceived in regards to their current identity as a language teacher. The various influences that these beliefs and experiences embody allow for an improved understanding of the agency teachers had in their classrooms.

Emma • Female, 30–35 years • Years teaching English: 5 as subject teacher, 7 as homeroom teacher • BEd, TESOL, MEd • Current position: English subject teacher • Grade observed teaching: Fifth grade I knew Emma as an in-service teacher trainee who excelled in our programs. She has a very proficient English repertoire and is very engaged with her desire to achieve her future ideal teacher-self. Proof of this is found in the personal time she had spent in teacher training programs that focused on enhancing teachers’ language teaching abilities. Emma started her English education experience at the age of ten. The Korean elementary school system did not include English as part of the national curriculum at this time. However, she received private tutoring in English at the behest of her mother, who also worked at a private English language school. At an early age, her parents invested money and time to ensure Emma was prepared for what they believed to be a potential future identity – namely, someone who would need to have a proficient English repertoire. Her parents are responsible for beginning her socialization (Duff, 2012) into a new bilingual identity. This private tutoring involved a Korean English tutor who taught her phonics and read story books. Emma explained that her tutor conducted the tutorials

Profiling the teachers  83 mostly in Korean, limiting her English repertoire to simple expressions such as ‘Good morning, how are you?’ This first experience was accompanied by a lot of positive emotional reinforcement: Emma: Yeah, I liked it, I liked the way I learned English because the story was

really fun and I also was interested in the learning how to pronounce each sound. Researcher:  And so, your parents were happy you were learning English? Emma: Yeah, they also liked it because I looked like I liked learning English like that. Researcher:  How do you think your parents felt? Emma:  They were proud of me. Emma’s first public school English educational experiences in middle school continued her socialization. These classes focused on reading texts, memorizing language items, and translation. There was no focus on speaking or listening, and the teachers did not speak English unless reading from a text. Researcher:  Can you remember how much English they used when teaching

English? Just roughly guess. Emma:  They were old and they didn’t use English in the English class. Researcher: Not at all? Emma:  Just when they read the texts because the text itself was in English so that

was just in English but nothing else . . . Her emphasis on ‘old’ suggested a vivid memory for her. My time in Korea has led to the realization that there were a lot of similarities between middle school and high school learning environments. English teachers in secondary school are routinely identified as relying heavily on their Korean repertoires during their classes (Liu, Gil-Soon, Baek, & Han, 2004), as they are charged with preparing students for the Korean SATs. These tests are significant, as they decide what universities students can attend. And, as discussed previously, attending certain universities decides into where in society a student will be socialized. Once again, though, for Emma her experiences in secondary school English classes were generally enjoyable: Researcher:  How did you feel about that? Emma:  I also liked it too. Researcher:  Because it was English? Emma: Yeah just because it was English.

There was a lot of positive emotion coupled with her recollections of these early learning experiences, and when the interview turned to the teaching techniques, she stated that even though she did not think the methods her teachers used were

84  Profiling the teachers effective for language learning, she still enjoyed the classes because she received a lot or praise due to her ability to do what her teachers wanted, which was memorize and recite. This positivity also extended to a private English academy she regularly attended after school, where she described her time with native speakers of English who taught in the school: Emma:  I liked it because I could . . . in that class I experienced various things

like cooking, singing the pop songs, doing the role plays, yeah so, I liked it. Researcher:  And how about with the native speakers teaching English all the

time, I assume, how did that feel? Were . . . did it . . . did you like the fact that the native speakers spoke English all the time or did it annoy you sometimes, or did you find it frustrating because sometimes it was hard to understand what they were saying? Emma:  Sometimes yeah . . . it was, ah, actually I attended that kind of native teacher’s class from when I was elementary school student so at first I can remember I was afraid of going there because I couldn’t understand all of what they were saying, but just gradually I could understand what was going on, using their gestures or something else, and also I could understand what they were saying, so in the middle school I just enjoyed it. Researcher: OK, so yeah, I guess after a lot of exposure. Ah . . . which classes did you enjoy more at the academies? The native speaker or the Korean teachers? Emma:  The native speakers . . . the atmosphere was totally different because [in] Korean teachers class you just [did] memorization and gave some feedback the feedback was really, how can I say, it was not about the content error itself but the result, how many I got wrong, but in the native teacher’s class the atmosphere was really free and open. This experience was an important part of Emma’s development, as it exposed her to teachers who had linguistic repertoires that differed from her own. These early experiences influenced initial assumptions she was forming about language learning, namely that there were different approaches and different ways to incorporate a teacher’s linguistic repertoire. More importantly, the consistently positive emotions associated with these experiences influenced her identity as an emerging bilingual. Her experiences within these two contexts socialized her into the different practices and ideologies of how language could be taught. Within her public school experiences, she was being socialized (Duff, 2012) into the traditionally conservative Korean methods and ideologies of language learning and their accompanying practices. In her private school experiences, she was being socialized into more communicative teaching methods and ideologies which originated from outside of Korean society. Upon entering university, Emma continued to attend English language classes, and although she felt the content was relatively easy for her, she still felt they were enjoyable experiences. She attended the local education university, where she trained specifically to become an English teacher at the elementary school level.

Profiling the teachers  85 This choice was made in relation to her positive experiences as a language learner, which translated into her forming an imagined future identity as an English teacher. Her experiences, positively associated emotions, and assumptions were important constituents of this desire to join this new, imagined community of English teachers (Pavlenko & Norton, 2007). At the time of the interviews, Emma was an English subject teacher, which meant her job was to teach English to a number of different classes. Initially, she had started as a homeroom teacher who taught English as one of a number of subjects she taught her home class. When asked to think about how she employed her linguistic repertoire as a homeroom teacher who taught English, she said that she relied heavily on her Korean repertoire: Emma:  Because to them they are really familiar to me as a Korean so when they

see me using English they thought it was a little bit strange, yeah, and also, I thought like that so I didn’t use English that much like now. The role that students’ expectations play is important, and beginner students are said to expect teachers to use their first language for classroom management, instructions, activities, and assessment requirements (Lee & Macaro, 2013; Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008). This was compounded by the feeling that her English repertoire was not proficient enough at that early stage of her career. Prior to actually becoming a teacher of English, the courses she had attended provided little guidance on using linguistic repertoires, as the English exclusion policy had yet to be introduced to South Korea. However, her experiences as a learner and the positive attitude she had developed towards using her English remained an important element of how she identified as being an English teacher, which contrasted with her identity as a Korean teacher: Emma:  It’s a kind of personal idea but when I use English, students feel more

comfortable, so when I speak in Korean they just look at me as a real teacher or an adult. How can I say kind of dominated? This led me to ask where she felt these ideas originated from, to which she replied: Emma:  From my past experience so when I learned English and when I went

to the academy and there was a teacher who only used English a foreign teacher – maybe it’s because he was a foreigner, I’m not sure – but yeah, using English itself makes the atmosphere better. Student expectations and a lack of perceived proficiency acted as socializing forces which inhibited her agency, and in turn her beliefs about language teaching. However, her learner experiences also gave her agency to pursue what she imagined was the ideal teacher. She decided to attend a series of in-service teacher programs that had recently been commissioned by the government. These were designed to prepare language teachers to teach according to the first language exclusion policy named Teaching English Through English, or TETE.

86  Profiling the teachers She stated that she had enjoyed her experiences on the training courses. These positive experiences reinforced the belief that she could use her English linguistic repertoire more effectively, as well as more pervasively, in her own classes. This reflects what Ellis (2002) refers to as one of the defining characteristics of teachers such as Emma; the ability to reflect upon and use within their own classes the different learning and teaching styles that they themselves have experienced. These exchanges also highlighted the possible effect of having the interviews in an institutional setting, as her answers were very critical of methods she had experienced throughout these early years. When she became an English subject teacher (someone who teaches only the English subject and moves from class to class), she found she could distance herself from the stereotypical Korean teacher-led identity that she had formed as a homeroom teacher. This new subject teacher identity was supported by students who perceived her as kinder and less strict, especially when she relied more on her English repertoire. She stated how feedback from students via official student and parent feedback avenues about how strict and unkind she seemed when she relied on her Korean linguistic repertoire in the class reinforced this belief. She pointed out that all the positive comments students made about her class were at times in the class when she used English to teach various activities. The positive emotions associated with her English use, and the negative emotions associated with her Korean use, strengthened her notion of the identity she had envisioned of an effective English teacher. Despite not being pressured to teach a certain way by her principle, when asked if she felt pressure from other areas of life, Emma stated: Emma:  Sometimes I feel that kind of pressure from students because many of

them are attending English academy and they usually compare what teachers in schools do and what teachers in academies do. Researcher:  Have you heard your students say anything like that? Emma: Oh yes, it was a kind of writing lesson and the students aren’t . . . one student was writing a sentence, and it was just about how pretty she is, that kind of sentence, so every time I emphasize to put period or question marks like that, and one student asked me ‘what is 느낌표 in English?’ and I just said it’s an exclamation mark, and one said even my academy teacher didn’t know that and I felt not that good because she was . . . OK . . . when I think of her words at the bottom of her heart she thought her academy teacher was better than me, but she didn’t know but I knew that so she was surprised about that. This recount is significant, as she had not revealed similar negative experiences during the interviews. The lack of trust she perceived from her student at this time connects with the cultural assumption in Korea that teachers should have a mastery of all knowledge they teach (Song, 2016). This mastery is how they earn the respect of students as well as parents. This cultural assumption is referred to as a sacred story (Clandinin & Connelly, 1995), which is said to be a widespread,

Profiling the teachers  87 shared belief about the desired identity of teachers in Korea that is linked to their cultural heritage. Such sacred stories, however, are a source of anxiety for teachers, as they can cause students to question a teacher’s identity (Aoki, 2010). This proved the case here, as she was angered to learn that her students did not appreciate her knowledge, and therefore identity, as an English teacher. Her relationship with her students reveals congruency with her own experiences as a learner at times. Her use of her English and how she perceives students react to it highlights this: Researcher:  How do you think your students feel about you using English? Emma: At first many of the students didn’t look like they understood the

instructions in English and didn’t try to listen to my instructions because it is English and they just asked to the other students ‘what is the teacher saying?’ in Korean, but now it is second semester and almost the end of the semester now, they look like they now understand, many of them understand instructions in English, but still three or four in a classroom don’t look like they understand the instructions. This connects to her experiences as a learner in classes where the teachers were limited to an English repertoire because they were monolingual speakers of English, as discussed earlier. The empathy she has for her students is derived directly from her own experiences, but these experiences also serve to reinforce her belief that her practices are effective, despite the struggles she sees her students having. This builds into her identity as a teacher and enhances her agency with her classrooms. Then her use of Korean was discussed: Researcher:  And how do you think they feel about your Korean use in the

classroom? Emma:  Well, sometimes they look like they expect me to say to speak in Korean

after I give them English instructions and maybe that means they feel more comfortable because they can understand easily, easier than when I speak in English. Researcher:  What do you do when you think they are waiting for the Korean instructions? Emma:  When I explain about complicated rules, game rules, they expect it. I don’t directly translate in Korean, yeah, I just review the picture again. I try to speak English words more slowly and try to emphasize the key words, often instructions, and then I just show them how to do the activity. Researcher:  What if that doesn’t work? Emma:  Then I just use Korean – no no no, before that I ask questions because there are some students who already understood my instructions so I could . . . I just ask them some checkup questions like ‘what will we do first?’ and students can answer, but I told students ‘you can answer in Korean if you want’ the students who already [understood] my instructions and then the others understand.

88  Profiling the teachers Emma’s initial response to the final question revealed more than she intended, and this response as a whole might serve to prove that she felt there was some expectation from me on what right or wrong use of Korean in the classroom was. As established previously, students of differing ages in Korea are not in favour of excluding the Korean language in the learning process (Lee & Macaro, 2013). However, according to these interviews, this contextual factor did not dissuade her from using as much English as possible. Throughout the interview, she gave the impression that using as much English as possible was the most effective way to teach her students, and the observations only reinforced this. Emma began her development as an emergent bilingual as a result of her parents investing time and money into her education. The positive emotional experiences throughout her time as a learner, then teacher trainee, reinforced her beliefs about the roles a linguistic repertoire has in language teaching. These beliefs started off as initial assumptions, then developed into attitudes about teaching, before finally firming into her stated beliefs on the role of her linguistic repertoire in her teaching. These beliefs impact her identity as a teacher as well as her agency. However, her students also impact upon her identity as a teacher and agency to act, as she admits that it is not always possible to rely solely upon her English repertoire due to the developing nature of her students’ English repertoires.

Jenny • Female, 30–35 years • Years teaching English: 6 as subject teacher, 1.5 as homeroom teacher • BEd, TESOL, MEd • Current position: English subject teacher • Grade observed teaching: Fifth grade Jenny was another teacher trainee who had been involved in a number of training courses on which I had taught. Jenny had a very good command of English, and I believed that there was no issue regarding her ability to express her true opinions during both interviews. Also, the participants were given the questions prior to the interviews to allow them time to prepare, but Jenny actually took the time to note down her thoughts prior to the interviews, whereas most others had not. Jenny’s mother was responsible for starting her on her journey as an emergent bilingual, as she acquired the services of an English tutor while in fifth grade of elementary school. At the time, English was not part of the national curriculum at the elementary school level. When I sought to confirm this, the following exchange occurred: Jenny: Yep, but when I was a sixth grader (in elementary school) my homeroom

teacher, she showed us . . . do you know EBS? Researcher: Yep.

Profiling the teachers  89 Jenny: Yeah, she showed us program EBS so I just watched some programs, but

it was not regular class. Researcher:  Why did she show you those? Jenny:  Because at that time the office of education, well, they didn’t start to

teaching English, not officially but they . . . Researcher:  The teacher was pushing . . . Jenny:  because of the president, the policy, sometimes the policy. Researcher:  So your teacher was doing that because she felt the school wanted

her to do that unofficially? Jenny:  I think so, yeah.

Despite a lack of clear government policy, it was becoming apparent to both parents and teachers alike that students would need English as part of what they imagined their future selves. The investment that these parents and teachers made in their children’s and students’ lives was how they were interpreting larger societal concerns about South Korea’s place within the world. They reflect South Korea’s growing concern with the need to become part of the global community. This was around the time that Seoul was to host the Olympic Games, which was considered at the time a turning point for South Korea’s integration into the larger global community. These larger societal concerns impacted upon Jenny’s classroom and home experiences and were considered generally positive by Jenny and, in all likelihood, by her teachers, parents, and society. Her discussions on how she began her bilingual journey revealed how the interview process was allowing her to reflect upon her experiences and make judgements from a more informed position as a teacher. This reflexivity was never articulated as a goal of the interviews to the participants, but it was something that I considered might be beneficial to all the participants within the research project. The potential for participant reflexivity was why the interview series was designed in a less rigid form to allow for digressions that could potentially reveal more about the participants’ past experiences. Jenny’s middle school English-learning experiences consisted of reading and memorizing articles as well as studying grammar. These experiences tended to be less enjoyable, and she stated that she did not enjoy these learning methods of learning English: Jenny:  Well at that time we just had a book, and there was a tape, also audio

tape, no videos, just simple dialogues, readings. Researcher:  Did you enjoy that? Jenny: I think I didn’t because no games, no activities, just reading, reading

articles from the book, it’s not related to my real life or my friends. She reflected that she did not understand the need to be learning English when she was in school, and this negatively impacted upon her at the time, even though

90  Profiling the teachers she also contradicted this with being happy at being able to complete tasks her teachers set: Jenny: My teacher was an old guy and his pronunciation was not that good

and he used to listen to a tape and we had to memorize the dialogues or the reading paragraphs, well, I had to memorize the reading paragraphs, I don’t know why I had to do that so maybe he or she thought while I’m memorizing the paragraphs I can get more knowledge about grammar. Researcher:  What did you enjoy about those middle school classes? Is there anything you enjoyed about those middle school classes? Jenny:  I (laughing) enjoyed memorizing, but sometimes I hated it and sometimes I enjoyed memorizing because the teacher said right now to memorize and who can stand up and who can read aloud, and if I didn’t make any mistakes I felt proud, happy. Jenny’s reflexivity was informed by her current knowledge as a teacher, which saw her focus on methodological issues she either enjoyed or did not enjoy. Her reference to a lack of games and activities, which was seen through the lens of her current beliefs about what constitutes effective teaching, was linked to the feelings at the time of those experiences, with her current knowledge allowing her to articulate these feelings more effectively than if she were still a student. Furthermore, her current beliefs influenced her to be more critical of a time and teaching methodology which did not benefit from pedagogical knowledge of the current times, allowing her to position herself as an expert in her own eyes, or in those of the researcher. Later, the interview focused on the amount of English that her teachers used in class, where she stated that her teachers used little or no English when teaching. Jenny enjoyed the classes when she could complete the memorizing tasks, but not the classes themselves. The classes were focused towards tests, not communicative ability; therefore, her teachers did not use English when teaching English. The learning experience was the same in high school, although a few younger teachers on occasion used pop songs in their classes, which she enjoyed. Researcher:  How do you think your experiences from middle school and high

school, as a student, how do think that influenced you as a teacher now? Can you see any direct relationships from what happened then to what you are doing now? Jenny:  Because I didn’t enjoy . . . well, I have a belief that language is communication so I have to communicate with my students and students they have to communicate, not have to . . . any way they communicate with each other but when I was young that time I learned always teacher talks, and then we wrote down, then we memorized and then test, so no activities or no communications, so because of that experience, I think in language class doing something with each other is important.

Profiling the teachers  91 Researcher:  When you think back to those days and those classes and your

experiences there, you are trying to do what your teachers didn’t do? Jenny: Yeah.

This summarized her feelings towards the importance of language being a tool for communication more than an object of teaching, which was a common theme throughout her interviews. Jenny did not experience language education with teachers who had monolingual English repertoires when she was younger. Her public school experiences influenced how she was socialized into the traditional Korean ideologies of language teaching, and this was an important part of her experience, as she formed assumptions early on about the way in which a language was taught. Her references about her beliefs about language being a form of communication were a reference to her current situation and were the result of further experiences with language learning. At this stage, these comments were proof of how she continued to reflect upon her own experiences due to the focus of the questions in this first interview. When she went to university, she took English classes and experienced her first form of language education with a teacher who had a monolingual English repertoire. This led to an important period in her language learning experience: Jenny:  When I was a freshman I was frustrated because the foreign professor,

well actually it was my first time to meet a foreign teacher in class, I didn’t meet I didn’t have any foreign teacher’s class when I was young so at first, she . . . there was a title of theme, and she asked about what pictures do you see? Then we freshman, we said I see . . . like we do in elementary school class . . . I see a lion but I couldn’t answer, I don’t know why, I know what it is in my head but I didn’t have experience saying a lot, so at that time I was frustrated, so I decided to go to a conversation class institute. Researcher:  So, because of that frustration at not being able to express yourself with the foreign teacher, you went to the institute, the institute classes. Who were the teachers at the academy? Were they foreigners? Jenny:  All of them were foreigners. Researcher:  And how were their teaching styles different? Jenny:  I think that affected me a lot, that system, the institute has a drill system so, so if there is a sentence ‘I am a student’ and the teacher says a verb like ‘was’ then I say ‘I was a student,’ then the teacher says again, she changes the verbs or nouns so she said ‘teacher’ so I should say ‘I was a teacher’ so I changed the sentences a lot and with my classmates, maybe twenty, we did it together, so it helped me to speak. Researcher:  Practice speaking? Jenny: Yeah practice speaking and then we had conversation time, two or three students we were talking about a theme from a book and then the foreign teacher joined the conversation together, and if I made mistake she ‘oh you mean um um um’ like that, so sometimes she corrected what I was saying.

92  Profiling the teachers These comments continued the theme of methodological focus that she had when interpreting her past experiences. Her initial shock at not being able to communicate in English in her university English classes resulted in her signing up for extra classes which, on reflection, seemed to supply a link between the less communicative classes of her high school, and the more communicative classes of university. Deciphering the evolution of her beliefs on the roles of English and Korean over time needed to factor in the reflective lens with which she is viewing these experiences. Her response to this first experience in an English-only class exposed her to how ineffective her previous experiences had been at providing her with verbal communicative competency in English. This led her to reevaluate what was important in language learning, as proven by her decision to attend classes that promoted verbal skills, if not exactly communicative skills. Her actions revealed her feelings at the time more than the evaluative statements on the methodology, which were formed from her current beliefs about language learning. After graduating from university, and getting a job as an English teacher at the elementary school level, Jenny attended several teacher training programs. These programs gave her knowledge of language and techniques for using English while teaching, and she generally found them beneficial. Her informal learning experiences while travelling also reinforced the attitude that language is for communication, influencing her beliefs about the role of English as a form of communication. Jenny:  Well I enjoy travelling and when you travel you meet a lot of people and

sometimes we want to . . . you want to say something, but English is the easiest language to communicate in, and after travelling I want to learn English more and more because I can more people and listen to their stories, I can tell my stories more and more. Jenny had relatively little to say about her experiences with teacher training programs, considering her focus on teaching methodology throughout the interview. This could be because of several reasons, including but not limited to: a reluctance to talk negatively about the programs that the researcher had taught on, the fact that there was little impact from these programs on her teaching, or that the interview was thirty minutes in and she was starting to feel fatigue. On reflection it is thought that she was starting to tire a little, which was impacting upon her answers. Jenny’s classroom experiences as an English teacher can be divided into three parts: a homeroom teacher who taught her students English, an English subject teacher, and an English teacher at an English centre. The second interview started by looking at how much English she thought she used when teaching English. The identities she formed within these different teaching contexts significantly influenced her agency to use her linguistic repertoire. Much like Jenny, student expectations about her identity as a homeroom teacher or a subject affected her agency in regards to using her linguistic repertoire when teaching. Within the English centre, there were different contextual factors acting upon her.

Profiling the teachers  93 Researcher:  Why do you think there are such differences between the differ-

ent roles? Jenny: Well at the English centre, as you know other schools’ students visit

here for English experience class, and we have native teachers and Korean teachers, they expect something they will do something more in English, it’s kind of pressure, yeah, a kind of pressure a little bit because I have to use more English because they come here because of only English so I use 90% English and because they have other classes in English and I think have to use English too. And as a subject teacher, students, they also regard me as an English teacher and yeah, I always teach English as a subject teacher so I use more English, but as a homeroom teacher as I said before, I have to teach many subjects in Korean, I teach math, history, Korean, but suddenly when English class starts I have to say something in English, but it feels awkward and they also feel awkward. Researcher:  Because they are used to you speaking Korean? Jenny: Yeah. The different contexts she has taught in socialized her in accordance with the expectations of the schools she was working in, affecting her agency to use either aspect of her linguistic repertoire. Jenny:  For me in the past it was a burden, it felt like a burden because I’m here

with other native speakers and Korean teachers who teach English so we always talk about things in English. I communicate with them in English so English comes out naturally here, but in normal classes like subject teachers or homeroom teachers we always talk about things in Korean and then suddenly English class starts and I have to say something in English that’s the first . . . on that day that’s the first sentence or word I’m saying in English, that’s a burden, it doesn’t come out naturally. In the English language centre, a specialized centre where students from around the district came twice a semester to experience total English immersion classes, she was expected to employ her English linguistic repertoire exclusively. This was reinforced by the other Korean teachers working there, who told her they spoke English exclusively because of the expectations of the centre, the students, and the parents. Her previous English teacher identities had always incorporated aspects of her Korean linguistic repertoire. Her experiences as a learner herself had led her to the assumption that Korean had an important role to play in her classes. Her move to this new context could have socialized her into a new identity which would exclude her Korean linguistic repertoire from the classroom. However, due to her previous experiences, she resisted, and she found justifications to employ aspects of her Korean repertoire. One justification included the socioeconomic status of her students, as she explained that the English centre saw all students in the district, but some areas were economically better off than others; and generally students with what she considered better English proficiency came from more

94  Profiling the teachers economically well-off districts, which affected how she employed her full linguistic repertoire more than the other teachers within the centre. This was despite the fact that these teachers also taught exactly the same students. Jenny:  Just based on where they live, so if there are expensive apartments, then

their parents send their kids to English academies or they have more private education so they have usually had more exposure to English so they know a lot of English, this year we have those kinds of students, but next year? This unique contextual pressure that the English centre presented to teachers led to comparisons between Jenny’s different experiences as an English teacher. Researcher: How about if you compare this to your previous classes when

you used Korean or English, because this is a special school, but if you think about your previous students, how do you think they felt then about using English or Korean? Jenny:  I think it was exactly opposite because in the previous class in the past, if I speak in English students don’t think it’s . . . not natural, they think ‘why is the teacher using English?’ because she knows how to speak Korean, but that was because to teach English in English but they thought it was awkward, but here in the English centre if I speak Korean, they just look at me, ‘why is the teacher using Korean?’ so it’s opposite. This contextual factor was not unique to the centre, but as a teacher in such a centre, she was clearly exposed more often to different socioeconomic groups on a daily basis compared to teachers who worked in regular schools. The interview then turned to her current beliefs in an attempt to allow her to articulate her beliefs in respect to her experiences: Researcher:  How much English do think you should use, what do you think

is the ideal percentage for an effective class? Jenny:  Well it depends on teachers and students but normally I think 70 or 80%. Researcher:  So, 70 or 80% is ideal, so you feel your teaching here at 90% is a

little . . . unideal? Jenny: No, I mean more than 70 or 80 but it should not be well some people

think we should only use English for English class, but I don’t agree. Researcher:  Why not? Jenny:  Because we have to . . . you . . . there are some students who can under-

stand me and sometimes they want to say something in Korean but I don’t have to prohibit their Korean speaking even though it’s in English class, sometime we need to so it [is] not 100%. Researcher:  How about yourself? Jenny:  About myself, teachers English, . . . well I thought that teachers and students everything so only about teacher’s maybe the more the better, but even I want to speak in English all the time I cannot because it’s not my mother tongue.

Profiling the teachers  95 Researcher:  What does that mean then? Jenny: Korean is my mother tongue and English is my second language, so

even if I want to speak a lot and I know more is better but I cannot express something English, I don’t know all the expressions. This exchange highlighted a point where she had not had time to think about her answers in advance, unlike some of the other questions, due to the misinterpretation of the question. Despite this, it was still felt that her answer was based on strong beliefs about the role of English and Korean in the classroom, with a clearly stated preference for Korean to have some role in the classroom for both teachers and students. This may contradict her previous statements about the importance for English to be used communicatively in the classroom; however, the belief about the need to use Korean to allow students access to the target language works in tandem with the belief about the need for English to be taught communicatively. It also highlights her perception about English being her other language rather than part of a single linguistic repertoire. This view of languages as discrete items was a view held by all teachers in the study and is representative of how they were socialized into understanding languages when they were at university or training programs. The interview then focused on how she thought her current practices related to her own experiences as a student. Researcher:  Where do you think these ideas come from for using Korean in

these situations? Jenny: From my teaching experiences, for example, I told you usually when

I control students’ behaviour I use Korean because before I tried to speak something in English, but they don’t listen to me or they do something else. I tried to speak in English but they don’t listen to me, and if suddenly I say in Korean then they listen to me. For example, in English centre, the whole class is in English and suddenly if speak Korean, all the students listen they focus on me so it works. Researcher:  Do you think you have any experiences from when you were a student that you think maybe have influence your Korean use in the classroom? Jenny:  When I was a student? My teachers used more than 50% because it’s in the past, the good points of their Korean I could know the meaning of sentences or phrase or grammar clearly, but because they used too much Korean that means I didn’t have enough chances to listen to native, not native, to listen to English so for my listening or speaking ability that didn’t help in a good way. This exchange revealed a level of cognizance she had about her own language learning and teaching experiences, and her current beliefs about the roles of English and Korean in her own classes. She stated a strong belief in the need to expose students to as much English as possible, and while this belief was supported by a number of contextual factors at her current place of employment in the English centre, it still allowed for the use of Korean to maintain lower-level

96  Profiling the teachers students’ interest in English learning. Jenny openly discussed the need to use Korean and did not reveal in these interviews a sense of guilt about speaking Korean, which has been reported elsewhere (Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009; Copland & Neokleous, 2011; Littlewood & Yu, 2011; Macaro, 1997, 2006, 2009; Turnbull & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009). Jenny’s journey as an emergent bilingual began due to the actions of her parents and her teachers, who, despite a lack of official educational policy, could see the writing on the wall and understood the role it would most likely have in her life. These actions influenced her to become an English teacher despite the generally positive and negative experiences she had along the way. It is these experiences that informed her initial assumptions about using her Korean repertoire within her own classes. Her assumptions hardened into attitudes and then firmer beliefs that allowed her to circumnavigate contextual elements and gave her agency to use her linguistic repertoire as she saw fit within different teaching contexts.

Sue • Female, 30–35 years • Years teaching English: 5 as subject teacher, 1.5 as homeroom teacher • BA, TESOL • Current position: English subject teacher • Grade observed teaching: Sixth grade I had known Sue for approximately three years prior to the study, through a training course that she attended and on which I had taught. A good rapport had developed between us which saw her agree to join in the study after further enquiry about what would be required. Sue by nature was a quiet person and quite thoughtful in her approach to life. After reassurances that schedules would be designed to accommodate her needs, she readily agreed to participate in the study. Sue had a good level of English competency; however, she often underestimated her own ability and sometimes suffered from a lack of confidence in regards to her own English ability. This may have somewhat affected the answers she provided during the interviews, but I feel that she was able to articulate her ideas and experiences well enough throughout both interviews. Unlike the previous two teachers, Sue’s parents did not pay for an English tutor when she was younger, so her bilingual journey began in the first year of middle school. She stated that she did not enjoy her English classes, and that the teachers left little impression on her. They all taught towards the final test and used little to no English while teaching English. Because of her experiences in middle school, she explained that she also did not enjoy English during her time at high school. The high school English classes were similar to her middle school classes, but as she explained: Sue:  I learned English for three years in middle school I had some bad impressions

about English class so I didn’t like it much but I tried to do my best because I

Profiling the teachers  97 studied a lot at that time. I wanted to be a good student, a high-level student, so I tried to just look at some textbooks like grammar books, so . . . Her motivation to learn English came from wanting to be a good student more than to be a proficient English speaker. The model of teaching she experienced best related to the grammar-translation method, with teachers generally not interested in enhancing the communicative competency of their students. During the interview, I felt that I was not gathering enough data about her language learning experiences, which led me to wonder if she had learned any other languages while at school. Researcher:  Did you learn any other languages when you were in school? Sue:  Japanese, a little bit. Researcher:  Did you like learning it? Sue: Yes, because I had motivation at the time. I like the Japanese idol group,

so I wanted to understand what they are saying and the lyrics, so I tried to find the video clips on the internet and tried to understand it, so learning Japanese was good to me. Researcher:  Did you enjoy it more than learning English? Sue: Yes, because I really liked it and I was motivated so I had mostly perfect score, so I like it and the structure of the sentence are similar to Korean and Chinese characters as well so easy to learn. This experience contrasted with her English class experiences. With English, the only motivation to learn was to pass the tests; however, with Japanese, she appreciated the communicative aspect of it and was motivated to do well because of it. This provided a valuable experience for her, even though she might not have been aware of it at the time, as it let her experience an alternative form of language learning that she would also experience in her future both as a student and as a teacher. During her time at the education college, she stated that she started to enjoy learning English more. Initially, her goal was to become a mathematics teacher, as this was the subject she had enjoyed most throughout her school years. However, her enjoyment for this subject waned, while at the same time she found herself interested in English. Sue: Yes, of course I think I started to like English from that time, I don’t know

why but I found some interest to study English in the communication so I took some courses at other universities and the academy, so it was a struggle for me but a little bit difficult tasks was helpful for me to make me interested. Researcher:  What kind of tasks? Sue: I took many courses like conversation, writing paragraphs and essays, I didn’t, I never learned about writing essays or paragraphs at school, so that was interesting because in Korean, even Korean class, we didn’t learn writing something, just reading and learning some vocabulary and understand, that’s all so I think I found interest in that course.

98  Profiling the teachers Her experiences at this time led Sue to believe that she could be an English teacher. However, as she explained, when she first started working as a teacher, she was relieved not to be teaching English, as she felt that she was not yet prepared for that situation. This was mainly due to the fact that she herself had not studied language teaching methodology or had any experience teaching English. Later in her career, Sue attended a number of teacher training courses which aimed at preparing teachers to teach English without the use of their Korean repertoire, and these had a real impact upon her belief in her ability to teach English. Sue:  At first I learned a lot from the TESOL class and I didn’t know the . . .

how . . . as a student I was just studying the reading and grammar parts and I didn’t know how to accept English in Korea, Korean students as a second language, that kind of concept. I didn’t imagine about it, and I think I was like this and that the concept, like we have to get students exposure to English environment and something, and we have to try to help when they enter English, at first that kind of concept was helpful to me. When teaching English in the class, management, students’ management and so activities, so I learned details about those kinds of things. Researcher:  Was there anything from the TESOL course that you disagreed with? Sue:  But I when I took that course I felt a big gap between the theory they say and the real situation, a big difference, and I thought, how can I use these things in my class? Such as because there are a lot of students in the class and every student has a different level, that kind of thing. This reflexive comment is an example of Sue critically understanding her past participation in the course through her more current and experienced teacher lens. Her experiences as both a language learner and then as a teacher led her to speculate if the training course may be incongruent with certain contextual features of the language teaching context she was to enter. This is an example of how monolingual dictates often ignore contextual specificities in order to promote their ideologies. Nevertheless, another training course further increased her belief that she could be an English teacher who could speak English while teaching English. Sue:  Before ITT course I was not sure about myself as an English teacher and

sometimes I spoke Korean a lot and I didn’t have confidence in my English level, and after this course I think I can do this and trying to use English a lot. The teacher training courses she attended before and during her time as an English teacher espoused language exclusion teaching methodology. Her positive experiences in these courses helped socialize her into the dominant language teaching ideology of the time. This ideology originated from inner circle countries (Kachru, 1994) that promoted monolingual bias and upheld tenets

Profiling the teachers  99 of linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992, 2009). They challenged her initial assumptions that language teaching could utilize all aspects of a linguistic repertoire which had formed during her school years and led her to an attitude that in fact countered her initial beliefs. This was a deliberate ploy of the government policy and was geared towards increasing the number of elementary school teachers ready to teach English. Sue was obliged to conform to the ideology, as without this backing, she would have had a more difficult path to becoming an English teacher. Upon becoming an English language teacher, she said that her identity as a homeroom teacher who taught English and her identity as an English subject teacher were important determinants in how she used languages in the classroom. Sue:  Because when I teach English as a homeroom teacher I . . . to maintain the

class I used Korean always because I teach every all the subjects including English so I teach Korean in Korean and other subjects as well so in English in the English class I think I can’t speak the other language and to me it was not natural and . . . Researcher:  When you were a homeroom teacher? Sue: Yeah, and my students, I thought my students thought if I use English, they think my homeroom teacher doesn’t speak English well. Researcher:  How about when you started teaching as a subject teacher? Do you think you use more or less English now? Sue:  I use more English because I don’t need to speak Korean a lot and from the beginning I use English so they think I’m their English teacher, and I encourage them to speak English more, so I think I have to use English more and I made the students just say hello, not ‘annyounghasayo’ (Hello), not ‘seonsaengnim,’ just teacher English, and that small part can make them use English so I use English more. These different identities were shaped by the context of the class she was teaching at the time, and more specifically the students’ perceptions of her as a teacher. She believed that as a homeroom teacher of English, her students wanted her to use Korean, while her students were more comfortable with her using English as an English subject teacher. Upon reflection, it appeared that the longer she had been an English teacher, the more her confidence grew, which could explain her increased use of English in class. This experience was similar to that of other participants in the study. Comparing when she first started as a subject teacher to her current situation, she thought that she relied more on her English repertoire when she first started out teaching, mainly due to her lack of experience as an English teacher, and possibly a reliance on the teaching ideology she had acquired in the training programs. Sue:  At the very first year or second year when I was a brand new teacher, I

believed I had to use English all the time, and when I made a plan I used

100  Profiling the teachers the difficult terms or expressions students won’t understand and I thought it’s right. Researcher: Why? Sue:  I don’t know, because I was an English teacher so I have to show them a lot, and I thought it was natural. I didn’t I think didn’t need to make my English easier. Researcher: Why? Sue:  Because I think whether they understand or not, I have to say the correct expressions and the right English, and I don’t care about the level. Researcher:  So, has your thinking about that changed now? Sue: Yes, when I start the class, we start the class with small talk all the time and so students already know what they have to say or what the teacher will say, so at that time I make, I say I make my English more difficult – no no no, I just say more natural expressions, but during the class I try to say short and easy and clear sentences. Researcher:  Why do you do that at the beginning of the class? Sue:  Because they just . . . their homeroom teacher just speaks Korean and they speak Korean, and when they meet me they think it’s English class and she speaks English, and I want to make it natural to motivate them. This showed she had a lot of confidence in the theories she learned from these courses. However, when faced with the reality of the classroom, this confidence was tested and challenged her agency to be able to employ the ideas learned from the courses. This change allowed her to try to use as much English as she thought was possible, but to also make the language more accessible to her students. Within the school she was working, she met more experienced English teachers who would speak English outside of the classroom with their students in an attempt to highlight to the students that English was for communication rather than just a subject to be learned. They encouraged her to do the same, and it is an example of the influence that experienced teachers can have in the socialization processes of new language teachers who are still establishing their identities within their institution of employment. Sue’s experiences as teacher has led to her to utilize her Korean more. Throughout the interview, issues of motivation and exposure continued to come to the fore, with Sue stating that she needed to use her English to expose her students to the language, but that also she needed to make sure that she motivated them to want to learn English. For her, this meant using her Korean to allow lowerlevel students’ access to English. Researcher:  What do you think is more important:  motivation or exposure? Sue:  I’m not a fluent English speaker, so I’m trying to give them more English

environment exposure, but I think I have . . . because I’m not a perfect speaker so I can show them good things and bad things, so I think both are important. Researcher:  What do you think other English teachers perceive to be the goals of English language education at the elementary school level?

Profiling the teachers  101 Sue: Most teachers think that elementary school students need to speak easy

English expressions and they have to understand while listening, and so we think we have more focus on speaking and listening, yeah, communication skills, and so we don’t want to give them more pressure on writing or reading. Researcher:  What’s the best way to improve these communication skills? Using lots of English and little Korean, or having fun? Both? What do you think? Sue:  We teachers think having fun is important as well, but it’s not everything, so sometimes we add explanations in Korean to make sure they understand. While acknowledging the need to expose students to English as much as possible, Sue also realized that she is not a native speaker of English, that it was acceptable to make mistakes when speaking English, and that sometimes she needed to speak Korean in order to more clearly express herself. Much like Jenny, she did not display any feelings of guilt when talking about using her Korean repertoire in class, and her comments in this interview reveal the social forces at work within her school that have seen her readjust her attitude towards excluding her Korean repertoire. Her use of the inclusive ‘we teachers’ highlights the teaching ideologies that she feels teachers in her context embrace. These reveal her beliefs towards using her full linguistic repertoire in her classes and also points to the strength of such socializing forces over those of the teacher training programs she previously attended.

Sarah • Female, 30–35 years • Years teaching English: 7.5 as subject teacher, 1.5 as homeroom teacher • BEd, TESOL • Current position: English subject teacher • Grade observed teaching: Fourth grade I had known Sarah for approximately two years prior to the study, through a teacher training course that she attended and on which I had taught. Sarah has a very good command of English, and I believed that there was no issue regarding her ability to express her true opinions during both interviews. Sarah had been married to a British citizen for about two years at the time of the interviews and had travelled to her husband’s country a few times. Sarah started her bilingual journey when she was 13 years old. At this time her parents employed a private tutor to help her learn English, Researcher:  What kind of things did she teach you? Sarah:  She taught phonics and English story, and a year later or some months

later she taught grammar. Researcher:  Did you like those classes? Sarah:  I liked it first with the phonics and the English stories because it’s so

different with Korean. I think at that time learning English, a new language, was fun for me, then that tutor checked every morning by phone that I

102  Profiling the teachers learned so I should speak loudly to her every morning, that way was fit to me so I liked it. Researcher:  Were you learning it by yourself or with brothers or sisters? Sarah:  By myself with the book and the CD-ROM. Researcher: And when the teacher taught you, how much English did she speak? Sarah:  I don’t really remember, but she didn’t teach only in English; she used Korean a lot, I think. This first experience was positive, and may be indicative of the socioeconomic level of Sarah’s families, as English has long been available to those with the monetary means to acquire it (Seth, 2002). Only within the last 10 to 15 years have government initiatives attempted to reduce this inequality by extending English education to the elementary school level. At the same time, she was experiencing public school English language classes: Researcher:  So, when you were in middle school, you started learning English,

how were those classes? Sarah: It was boring. I didn’t like English when I was in middle and high

school, it was all about grammar and tests and memorizing the words, and no teachers used games or other kinds of fun activities; maybe rarely they used pop songs, that’s all, just textbooks. This public school experience had more negative emotions associated with it compared to her tutor. In addition to these two experiences, she also attended a private academy which taught a variety of subjects, including English. This academy experience was very similar to her public school experiences. These three different forms of English education highlight her parents’ growing concern about Sarah’s need to develop English, and they reflect the concerns of a large number of economically well-off Koreans at the time (Park, 2009; Seth, 2002). The first time she encountered a monolingual English-speaking teacher was outside of formal classes, as part of an extra-curricular club activity; this involved going on field trips with the foreign teacher and no formal type of classroom work. She never experienced English lessons with a monolingual English-speaking teacher when she was in school. Next, the interview focused on her Korean teachers’ use of English: Researcher:  How much do you think your middle and high school teachers

used in class when they taught English? Sarah:  My Korean English teachers? No, they didn’t use English. Researcher:  How do you think that affected the classes? Sarah:  At that time, well, it was boring they just explaining grammar, so . . . Researcher:  Did you expect them to use English when teaching English or not? Sarah:  Well, I didn’t expect that kind of . . . you know . . . I think because I had

no other background or other theory to teach.

Profiling the teachers  103 Researcher:  It just kind of felt that’s the normal way of doing things. Sarah:  Everywhere it happened like that. Researcher:  Do you think the students liked having those English classes with

so much Korean in them? Sarah:  We didn’t think about it, because at that time all teachers used Korean. Researcher:  Do you think that maybe because they used Korean, it made the

classes more boring? Sarah:  I don’t think so. Researcher: Or was it the type of things they were teaching? Sarah: Yeah just the type, the textbook, translate, yeah.

Her experiences with teachers who relied heavily on Korean when teaching English saw her form initial assumptions about using one’s full linguistic repertoire when studying a language. Throughout this exchange, I feel I may have tried to link her teachers’ use of Korean to her feelings of boredom that she had mentioned previously. This was indicative of my own understandings of language teaching at the time, understandings which were heavily influenced by monolingual assumptions. However, she rebutted my suggestions and focused more on the fact that she felt the methods were boring, not the use of Korean. This interpretation happened through her lens as an experienced and educated teacher and did not necessarily reflect the feelings at the actual time of her classes when she was younger. It also highlights my own ignorance of the context and historical factors surrounding teacher use of their linguistic repertoires, and it positioned me squarely as an outsider to the phenomenon. Leading into the interviews, I had believed that I had a fairly comprehensive understanding of what teachers were experiencing; but looking back now, it is fairly obvious that I knew little, and that I had brought with me biases that affected the interviews. When asked to reflect upon her school experiences and relate them to her current teaching, the following exchange occurred: Researcher:  Do you think these experiences you had at school have influenced

the way you teach English now? Sarah:  I think so. Still, I think when I teach, the most difficult thing is students

have fun in class or [are] interested in, that’s how they concentrate and try to learn. I think if I succeed at that, then it’s half done. Researcher:  So, trying to make interesting activities? Sarah: Yeah, want to motivate them to ‘I want to learn this!’ Researcher:  And you think that idea comes from your experiences. Sarah:  I think so. Her emphasis on employing more motivational teaching methods in comparison to what she had experienced as a learner reflects an anti-apprenticeship of observation (Moodie, 2016) in terms of teaching methodology, where she strived to teach differently from how she was taught. This anti-apprenticeship did not seem to relate to how she perceived the use of her full linguistic repertoire, however,

104  Profiling the teachers as she often stated that she used her Korean as she felt necessary, and felt that increasing her students’ exposure to English was less of a concern than providing motivation to learn English. Sarah attended the local education university, where she studied English language teaching methodologies as well as attended language skills classes. During her time attending university, she also attended private language academies to improve her English language proficiency in order to travel to other countries. She believed at that time that English would allow her to travel more freely. Sarah and her parents invested a considerable amount of money and time into developing her English linguistic repertoire, as attending private language academies is often very expensive. Her first time with teachers who had monolingual English repertoires occurred during her university years. Researcher:  And, the academy classes were for language skills? Who taught them? Sarah: Native. Researcher:  How were those classes? Sarah:  I quite liked it, I enjoyed it. Researcher: Why? Sarah:  I don’t know, it was fun I think meeting people, and then talking was fun for me. I was a freshman, I can meet other people, so it was fun. Researcher:  So, during middle and high school you didn’t like English, but after you graduated you started to enjoy English more. When you were in university, did you have a choice to take these classes, or did you have to? Sarah:  I had to, I chose the academy myself. Researcher: Why? Sarah:  I don’t know. It’s like I thought I need to do something, and I want to travel a lot so people who travel learning English is helpful to me. This experience proved to be more positive for Sarah than her previous learning experiences. Unlike other participants, she did not mention any issues with this new approach to language learning, and she highlighted how she enjoyed the social aspects of these classes more than learning English. At this point in the interview I felt I was struggling to get her to talk about the use of linguistic repertoire when teaching, so I decided to ask her about travelling, as she had mentioned it a few times in relation to why she was learning English at university. She first discussed how she discovered the value of English as a lingua franca when travelling. Then I asked her to talk about when she travelled as part of a volunteer program to teach English to elementary school students in Thailand. When queried about her teaching experiences in Thailand, she explained that every day for two weeks, a small group visited a school and taught the alphabet to some students. Researcher:  When you were there, you couldn’t use Korean at all, so how did

that feel? Sarah:  Well we are worried a lot before we teach but the . . .

Profiling the teachers  105 Researcher:  What were you worried about? Sarah:  Just, you know, using English to, you know, other people, they can’t

understand Korean but it was simple, very simple, we just write the alphabet on the blackboard ‘repeat after me A’ ‘A’ so similar with my class they don’t really understand my English, but my body language was . . . Researcher:  Do you think that if you could have spoken the Thai language at that time you would have spoken Thai to help them? Sarah: Yeah, I think so. I was learning a little bit of Thai language at that time, so I used numbers in Thai like this in the class, like first, second, third, so they learned about it. This experience reveals how she lost agency in her teaching when she could not rely on using either her full linguistic repertoire or that of her students, and it connects with initial assumptions she had about language learning that connect to her own time as a learner. The following year, as a senior at university, she led a volunteer group to a small island in Korea to teach English to underprivileged children. Researcher:  When you were doing that, how much English or Korean do you

think you were using with them? Sarah:  Hmm . . . mostly Korean because those students had not really good

experience learning English, so mostly used Korean, I think. Researcher:  So, you used Korean because they didn’t like English? Sarah:  They don’t really understand English. Researcher:  So, their level was quite low. Sarah: Yeah.

As noted earlier, Sarah had an assumption that Korean was a legitimate tool for teaching language. This assumption was slowly molded into an attitude by her early teaching experiences which affected her agency to act in accordance with this assumption. After graduating from university and becoming a teacher, she attended several teacher training programs which espoused monolingual assumptions about the use of linguistic repertoires in language teaching. She enjoyed these programs because they informed her of new techniques for teaching English in her classroom as well as improved her confidence in using and teaching English. In the second interview, she revealed a slightly different experience she had with the training programs, Researcher:  Do you think any of your experiences from when you were a stu-

dent maybe influenced you when you are using Korean? Sarah:  Like when I was a student or as a teacher? As you know, when I was a

student I didn’t . . . you know, my teacher didn’t use English, but it was the first time in WTT, it was the first time only using English. It was difficult, especially the pronunciation class. She used a lot of difficult English at that

106  Profiling the teachers time like grammar English, even I don’t know them now, like verbs, nouns, like that things, ‘oh my god, what’s that?’ It was so difficult, so I thought when I teach grammar, I have to use Korean. Researcher:  Any other experiences or ideas like that about using Korean? Sarah:  I can’t think of anything, sorry. When I play games, even in ITT, the teachers saying different, like when you explain a game and we have to do something, we were always confused and say ‘he said like this,’ ‘no he said like that,’ then we asked again, so that’s why maybe when I play a game with students . . . as long as they use the target language during the games. These experiences in an ‘English-only’ learning environment highlighted for her how difficult this approach could be, and further shaped her developing attitude that her Korean was a valuable teaching tool. This exchange revealed discomfort she had and what she remembered as her time in an English-only class. Upon reflection, this seemed strange, as in the first interview she mentioned attending monolingual teacher classes in a private academy while attending university. In that interview she mentioned nothing about having problems then, instead focusing on the social aspects of it. Mann (2016) describes how the physical context and setting of an interview can influence topics of discussion, and it appears that this occurred here. The context of the first interview, which was a café that she frequented with friends, created a more informal environment, whereas the context of the second interview, an empty classroom in her place of employment, was more formal. The relaxed atmosphere associated with the café may have put some distance between her teaching identity, compared to the context of the classroom, which seemed to reinforce this identity. Another factor influencing her responses was the focus of the interviews; the first focused on her life experiences while the second focused on her teaching situation. When Sarah first started teaching English, she was involved in a special project, which was investigating whether or not elementary schools should teach English to first and second graders. This project evolved out of L1 exclusion theories within ESL teaching and was seeking to explore the viability of extending English language teaching to younger grades. At the time, English was taught to third grade students and older. However, a new government was voted in, and this program for first and second graders was officially discontinued, even if the policy of L1 exclusion was not, Researcher:  So it wasn’t officially changed but a new government came in, so

the new one doesn’t care about English as much so does that . . . because the new government has less focus on English, does that take pressure off you to use English in class compared to before? Sarah: Now, I think like when I do open class, the previous government at that time, teachers thought that using only English is good class, but now teachers change so elementary school, maybe they started to doubt 100% English is best, maybe not.

Profiling the teachers  107 Researcher:  They teachers themselves are doubting? Why? Sarah:  Well, elementary school is a very low level, and we at that time, even the

previous government thought it was important to use 100% at that time. I thought, is it really possible? It was very different place to place, students, so we have to think about students’ condition. So if my students can understand my English perfectly or even if they don’t understand, maybe I can feel I can use English 100%. Still, they feel interested and they can learn, but now teachers think, I think at that time the teachers thought the government policy is important and teachers think the way they thought teachers’ ideas were important and it wasn’t focused on students a lot . . . but teachers changing and the . . . Researcher: So, teachers’ experiences with trying to use 100% English . . . maybe those experiences have changed teachers’ attitudes towards 100% English? Sarah: Yeah, that also, but teachers started to think more about individual students. Researcher:  Instead of the policies? Sarah: Yeah, instead of policies and theory. Government educational policies had been mentioned only in passing with most of the teachers. When governments change, there is often a change in policy or attitudes towards certain ideological stances within education. This is evident here, where the change in government seems to have granted Sarah greater agency in using her linguistic repertoire. She also aligns herself with other teachers in order to justify changes in her practices to further enforce her beliefs about teaching. The exchange positions her as the insider with the expert knowledge of the situation, and myself as an outsider being given privy to what teachers really think or believe. Sarah stated that she employed her linguistic repertoire in accordance with the grade of her students, again highlighting how student linguistic proficiency regulates teacher agency. While she thought exposing her students to English is important, she felt strongly about being able to employ her full linguistic repertoire to ensure students could participate effectively in class. Sarah: Advantages? Exposure, and if they can understand my English, then

yeah, they can be exposed to a lot of English, so they can check their level and maybe they have confidence they can study everywhere, ‘yes I can understand English.’ Researcher:  Anything else? Sarah:  I don’t know, I can’t think of anymore. Researcher:  What about disadvantages of only using English? Sarah:  If they cannot understand, well, then they get some, maybe some students lose interest, some students get angry, and they . . . Researcher:  Has that happened before? Sarah: Yeah frustrating even for sixth graders, they care [about] other people a lot, but if they notice my partner understands very easy, but I don’t know

108  Profiling the teachers what’s going on, they just pretend to understand what I’m saying or pretend I’m not interested in English. Researcher:  Any other disadvantages? Sarah:  When they do bad behaviour I have to . . . what’s that? Researcher: Scolding? Sarah: Yeah, but if I have to use English, it’s not working. Researcher:  Why not? Sarah:  What if they don’t understand what I’m saying what’s wrong? So you have to do something and it’s not about the class, it’s about their behaviour, so I have to use Korean. Researcher:  Anything else? Sarah:  When I have to explain in Korean like grammar, it’s very difficult in English, like synonyms or opposite words or past present verbs . . . even I don’t know that exactly, so I think it’s easier to teach in Korean. Sarah strongly advocated for the need to employ her full linguistic repertoire throughout her interviews, which is not a surprise given her language learning history. Both her professional as well as her private life take on bilingual identities. She said that she felt her own English proficiency was improving as a result of the exposure she got at home with her husband, while she also exposed her husband to the Korean language. She described herself as having less fear of the English language than most Korean people, again reinforcing her identity as bilingual. Sarah:  Yeah, I’m confident in my English ability. I like English and I want to,

I think, compared to other Korean teachers, I have my husband, so maybe I can talk, I have no afraid, no fear. Researcher:  How about with your husband’s parents? Sarah:  Not confident, but I don’t hesitate, for Koreans when they talk to foreigners, they really worry about errors, but I don’t feel that any more Sarah began her journey as an emergent bilingual due to her parents and teachers recognizing the changing nature of Korean society, especially its growing desire to become part of the global community. She formed initial assumptions on how important it was to use the available linguistic resources when teaching, which were strengthened into tentative attitudes during her initial forays into language teaching. As an established teacher, she has firm beliefs about using her full linguistic repertoire and embraces a bilingual lifestyle in both her professional life and at home with her husband, a British native.

Michelle • Female, 35–40 years • Years teaching English: 2 as subject teacher • BEd, TESOL

Profiling the teachers  109 • Current position: English subject teacher • Grade observed teaching: Fifth grade I had known Michelle for about two years prior to the study through a series of teacher training programs she had attended. Like the other participants, we had developed a good rapport and so she agreed to join the project, although she did express concern about a lack of experience teaching English. She differed from the other participants in that she had taught English as a subject teacher for only two years, where the others had taught for at least five years. After consulting with her and discussing her experiences informally, I decided to include her into the study. Michelle was also older than the other participants by about five years. Michelle’s journey as an emergent bilingual began in middle school. She had no previous experiences either at home or at private language academies. When asked about her first experiences, she used the word ‘terrible,’ as she had to take extra classes in the morning to improve her English knowledge, which included grammar, pronunciation symbols, and reading. This led me to ask the following question, as she clearly had passion about learning English now: Researcher:  Were there any things that the teachers did that you liked? Michelle:  So I remember just one teacher I graduated from a private girls’

middle and high school, the same branch or foundation. So I remember they had six English teachers, just one English teacher spoke English very fluently; other than that, they didn’t speak English very well, just grammar and how to teach the pronunciation and how to pronounce, so fortunately, when I was [in my] third year of middle school, my homeroom teacher was English teacher who really spoke English really well, and he was very young and a motivated person, so he always tried to encourage the students and even using pop songs or some lyrics from sitcom or something, so especially I remember the folk song or Simon and Garfunkel. I remember I really enjoyed his class and since then I want to be kind of a better English speaker, I think a milestone in my kind of English period, I think so. Researcher:  So, you enjoyed the way he used different types of activities? Michelle:  Yes. Researcher:  So, you said he was a fluent English speaker. How much English did he use when teaching English? Michelle:  Not actually, yeah, he spoke, he could speak English very well because I saw him speaking with the other English teacher, native teacher, but when he taught in class, he didn’t use English very often because he just using tape recorder player, and then after playing the tape and then repeat after the tape, and again and again repeated and repeat and then reading textbook, and then repeat the textbook and then memorizing something, so sometimes I felt like I always tried to follow the way he taught us, so I think so, yeah, that’s why I’m always using some pop songs for my students and sometimes making students memorize because as an ESL situation students,

110  Profiling the teachers I think memorizing is a very good way to motivate and then understand better, so yes. Researcher:  How about the other teachers, how much English did they use in their classes? Michelle:  No, they didn’t use English at all, at all really. Researcher:  How do you think this affected the class? Michelle:  I think we didn’t know that because we always thought that’s a normal class. English class and math class and Korean class are all the same, the same subject not different, so I didn’t see the difference at that moment. These early experiences were either enjoyable or terrible, depending on the teacher and the methods they chose to employ. Initial assumptions about language teaching were forming in regards to what constituted an enjoyable lesson or not, as well as the use of a teacher’s full linguistic repertoire when teaching. I was a little surprised that she went to into details about linguistic repertories at this early stage of the interviews, as I had told her that the main focus of the current interview was detailing her past experiences. I had planned later to focus on linguistic repertories, but she initiated it herself. Later, after the interview, I found out that she had been talking to other participants in the study, which was another surprise, as I had not told anyone who was involved. However, it seemed the participants had talked with others about participating in the study and so had found out who was involved. This was an indication of the close-knit group that elementary school teachers had in the city where the study took place. This also revealed why her answers tended to be longer than other participants, as she had prepared more than the other participants. As I was going to move on to the next question, she interrupted with another memory she had from school: Researcher:  By the time you left high school . . . Michelle:  Oh, something came to my mind. . . . Exactly I don’t remember,

but from the first year of high school since then, some atmosphere of English education field, a little started to change, because since then some native teachers started to teach in public schools, so I could see some English teachers really enthusiastically study English really hard because they, even though they were English teachers, but they didn’t speak English very well because they didn’t have to speak English in class, in and out of class, but native teachers sometimes working for public school and then they had to communicate with each, with native teachers and people, so some teachers are really kind of freaked out whenever he have to have a conversation with native speakers in front of students, so exactly I remember so, I think, yeah, of course, until the third year of high school, I had to take extra classes before the classes start, English and math, but some teachers really tried to use English since then, yeah, right, right, right. Researcher:  So, when the native speaker teachers started coming, the Korean English teachers started using more English outside of class, and when they were teaching English as well?

Profiling the teachers  111 Michelle:  Yeah, I think so, but not difference, not that different. Researcher:  Not a big difference? Michelle:  Not a big difference, just a little bit changed, but it totally depended

on the teacher. This memory reflects a changing attitude towards globalization and the need to communicate with others in the global community that South Korea was experiencing. Due to her age, Michelle felt these effects when in secondary school, while the other teachers in the study were still in elementary school. The influx of monolingual English speakers into the secondary school context and its effect on established Korean teachers of English is a well-documented milestone in South Korean education. It is interesting to note that despite her teachers realizing that they needed to improve their own communicative competency to talk to the new English monolingual speaker teachers, these same teachers did not think it necessary to improve the competency of their students. As heard in other interviews, in high school, students focused on the KSATs, so this was considered more important than communicative competency. Michelle did not have any English monolingual speaker teachers when in either high school or middle school. Nor did she attend private English academies with them. However, she did have another language learning experience when she studied French, Researcher:  What do you remember of those classes? Michelle:  Actually, in French class we had two French teachers. One of them

was, she was really speak French very fluently, even she was, she helped some French translation for broadcasting system, KBS or something, so kind of top notch, and she studied abroad French in France so that’s why I loved the way she taught, and besides, she was very confident in front of students. Researcher:  Did she speak a lot of French in class? Michelle:  Yes, really. Researcher:  So, when you compare the French teacher to the English teacher? Michelle:  The French teacher was absolutely better. Researcher:  And she used more French while teaching French? Michelle:  Yes. Researcher:  And how did that make you feel? Michelle:  I think French book is very thin than the English textbook because we had just one or two classes a week, so, and then besides, some students felt like French subject just kind of optional and kind of memorizing to get more a better score, but as for me French was kind of really good, make me motivated. I don’t know why. Maybe because of the teacher, she always make students cheerful, more cheerful, even though she was speaking French and the pronunciation was really attractive to me. This experience of a teacher excluding aspects of her linguistic repertoire when teaching a language contrasted with the approach taken in her English subject classes. Her tone throughout this exchange was very positive, and she clearly

112  Profiling the teachers enjoyed this experience. In general, Michelle enjoyed her language learning experiences while in school and attributes most of the positive feelings she had to her teachers. Upon entering university, she attended a number of English language-related courses taught by both Korean and monolingual speakers of English. She enjoyed these classes, but as she stated, more because she attained good grades from these classes than anything else. After graduating from university with her teaching degree, she decided to attend graduate school in order to broaden her knowledge of English language teaching. However, she did not complete the program because she felt that it was not useful for her own needs. As a teacher, she continued to attend English language classes, because, even though she was not an English subject teacher, she still hoped to be one some day. Michelle enrolled in a graduate program again some years later, but again she failed to complete the course, which led her to lose all interest in the English language. In fact, she spent about 10 years avoiding English where possible, which indicated the level of disappointment she felt at failing the course. During the interview, it became apparent that some negative experiences had occurred during this time. Michelle became quieter and slightly upset at this point, so I did not push her for further details. It was not until a colleague suggested that they attend a short English teacher training course some years later that she rediscovered her passion for English, and she decided that she would like to become an English subject teacher again. Her experiences on several different in-service teacher training programs proved to be very positive. These programs were the same programs mentioned by the other teachers in the study and were part of the government’s drive to have all teachers employ only their English linguistic repertoires while teaching English. She revealed that they gave her more confidence as well as knowledge to conduct English subject lessons. She attended programs that had monolingual English speaker teachers as well as bilingual Korean teachers, which led me to ask: Researcher:  If you had to choose between a course in which the instructors

only spoke Korean or only spoke English, which would you choose? Michelle:  Absolutely just English, because the reason why we are teaching

studying or learning English is to improve our skills, real English skills, so maybe sometimes some teachers in case of take the course for the first time, they can be difficult for them, but eventually they could understand through the real English, yes, so, I think absolutely only English class is better. It seems that at this stage she had been socialized into an approach to teaching that excluded Korean due to the largely positive experiences she had on these programs. Her initial assumptions about relying on her full linguistic repertoire that had developed as a younger learner were challenged and modified during these programs into tentative attitudes that were less inclusive of language repertoires. Michelle was the least experienced of the teachers in this study and had never taught English as a homeroom teacher. This plus her experiences in her French

Profiling the teachers  113 class are possible reasons for why she was so susceptible to the influence of these programs. At the time of the study, she had taught English to fifth graders for only two years. She stated that after conversations with other teachers, she was aware that teachers in the lower grades used considerably less English in the classroom due to the students’ language proficiency levels. She was under no pressure from the principal or other teachers to use a certain amount of English in her classes. In addition to this, there was no external pressure from the parents of students attending her classes. Her students were the determining factors in terms of following her beliefs about excluding elements of her linguistic repertoire when teaching. Researcher:  How much English do you think you use in class? Michelle:  I think it depends on the students, but currently I think more than

80–90%. Researcher:  What grade? Michelle:  Fifth grade, but not that . . . a lot of lower-level students, but I always

try to give English words, and then just speaking in English is much better for students. Of course, sometimes they really didn’t understand anything, and even some students are just even no alphabet but just say hello or something, but these days when I say in English, they sometimes get some information from their peers’ friends so I try to use English as a much as I can. This suggests that while she may limit her own linguistic repertoire, she allows students access to their full linguistic repertoire when she feels it may benefit the students in their learning experience. I then asked her if she felt there had been any changes in her time as an English subject teacher in regards to how much English she used. Researcher:  Do you think you use more or less English compared to when

you first started teaching English? Michelle:  As I said before, until I saw Amanda’s class – she is a special

teacher in the Gwangju education field – until I saw her class, I really tried my best to use just English, because I thought I learned from ITT course or training course just using English, just using English is the best way as an English teacher. That’s why we trained a lot, that’s why we have to improve English. But nowadays, a little bit think differently, because I’m a teacher, I’m kind of special teacher. I think English should be different from other subjects, so of course we have to [teach] English to improve our, my students’ English ability or how to teach, but they should understand what I’m saying. So I think these days compared to last year, last year was the first year as an English teacher, so believe it or not, I wrote down the whole script for my English class for the day, so I script. I wrote the script by myself, the kind of memorizing because try not to make a mistake, because I was really embarrassed in case of my mistakes in front of students, I don’t know why.

114  Profiling the teachers This revealed more about the assumption that had developed in regards to using English and Korean when teaching. Her limited experiences meant that she believed an exclusion approach was most effective, and her identity as an English subject teacher is defined by her English use in the class. This assumption, however, was challenged again by a colleague, Michelle:  I believed speaking English was the really best way for my students,

but a couple of months ago I went to her open class, and even though she was kind of a top teacher, a designated teacher, so I really had big expectations, but she sometimes used Korean for lower-level students, and even then in front of the whole class, and I was a little bit surprised, ‘why she speaks English very fluently like a native speaker but she sometimes tries to speak Korean,’ so I was a little kind of surprised about that. Researcher:  Did you ask her why? Michelle:  No, I didn’t have the chance, because I had to leave. Researcher:  Why do you imagine she did that? Michelle:  I think looking back, I had a little bit of pressure by myself, I have to speak English as an English teacher because I have to be a good model for my students. I can speak English very well so they can, maybe they give some more opportunity or listening or exposure, but since then I started to change my mind because I think the goal is teaching, and then enjoy my class or make them happy, so since then, I [think a] little bit kind of Korean is okay, unless it’s not bad or something. This experience with a more experienced colleague was important, as it challenged Michelle’s initial assumptions about using only English. Observing a more experienced teacher had a powerful effect, as this more experienced teacher was held up as an exemplar of the school, and therefore what she did in class was considered best practice, in spite of the fact that it varied from educational policies. Her own reflections on this time revealed that she had thought a lot about this, and that it had affected her teaching practices, as she had started using Korean to teach grammatical items in her lessons, or to discipline her students. There was still a strong tendency to favour English over Korean, but to a lesser extent. Researcher:  So, you have talked a lot about how you use English, how much

English do you think should be used? Michelle:  I have been teaching just two years, so I have to learn more, so

I don’t know exactly but feel like more than 70% or 80% is better, but it totally depends on the students’ level. For example, think about the private school, their students are really, they are full of students who are really good at English, studied aboard already, so those classrooms are really appropriate for, yeah, students just using whole English, but public school students like ours just more than 70 or 80% is ideal, I think so. Researcher:  And that is based on your experience?

Profiling the teachers  115 Michelle:  I think so, last year I just said I just tried to use English, but some

students really hate me, especially under-level students because they didn’t understand anything, so at the first time, the first semester, whenever I every time they saw me outside of class, they said, ‘please use Korean didn’t understand anything please, I feel like an idiot,’ but I ignored them, and because I learned from training course I have to use English because I am an English teacher. Maybe looking back, I was really immature and kind of just show off because I learned something from the training course, and then I’m not a homeroom teacher anymore because the sixth grade, before I went to the training course I was a homeroom teacher for some students, so already knew them, so I want to just make a difference from a homeroom teacher and English, ‘I’m an English teacher not a homeroom teacher please recognize me’ like this, ‘you have to admit that’ so that’s why, but nowadays I don’t have to do that. Researcher:  So nowadays you are more readily adapting to students? Michelle:  Yes. This exchange reaffirmed her changing identity as a teacher, and how she perceived her identity as an English teacher to be very different from that of a homeroom teacher. This resulted in a change in actions, as well as how she felt students should see her. This was discussed further in the following change on the advantages of an English-only approach in the class: Researcher:  What do you think are the advantages of using only English? Michelle:  In case I use just English, I don’t have to go mad. Researcher:  Go mad? Michelle:  Yeah, because when I just teach using English, a little bit, I want

to have some, get some space between teachers and students, because students ‘ah she just speak English I don’t know anything,’ but I am teaching using English, so a kind of gap, I don’t have to go mad or be mad, a little bit difficult to explain, it’s hard to say but it’s true, when I teach using Korean, I have to go inside the students because I want to teach you, I want to teach students more, I want to improve, make you speaking more English ability, make it better so I have to teach in English and Korean both ways, so sometimes a little bit upset because of the expectation and then the higher expectation I have, the worse, the more disappointed about something. Researcher:  And when you use Korean, it becomes a little more personal? Michelle:  Personal, and then close to homeroom teacher, close to I have to teach the kind of attitudes or something, but when I just use English, I don’t have to control their attitude, just teaching a phrase or expressions like that, but it’s really hard to say, but it’s true, I think so. It seemed that the years she was a homeroom teacher had had an effect on her views as a teacher. As a homeroom teacher, she had a lot more responsibility

116  Profiling the teachers dealing with the students, and clearly this was stressful for her. For her, becoming an English subject teacher had released her from those responsibilities, and she clearly enjoyed this new freedom. Her admittance that she used English to create distance between herself and the students was something seen in the observations, and something other participants alluded to. When asked if there were any other advantages to an English-only approach, she mentioned the effects of exposing students to the target language as well. Researcher:  Any other advantages? Michelle:  Yeah, sometimes these days, according to my experience from this

year, when I taught fifth grade in the first semester, I think I used English more than second semester. In the second semester I used just Korean and sometimes Korean and English, upwards of 80% English and 20% Korean, but in the first semester more than 90% because I want to make students get used to it, my English, because in the first semester some students, ‘please, Korean’ ‘I don’t understand English, I don’t know anything,’ and then she always nagged me, but I ignored her and then the student started to get used to it, yeah, and the ‘English teacher always use so I have to listen to her learn or study,’ so getting used to it. This was the first time she mentioned exposure in both interviews, which, upon reflection, indicated that the act of using an English-dominant approach in her classes may be more for her own satisfaction than for any perceived benefit for her students.

In summary All of these teachers have spent most of their lives learning English. The stories they tell here span a time when the role of English in Korean society moved from the peripheral of society to being the preeminent influence on the South Korean education sector. The teachers in the study allow us an insider’s view of how this affected the South Korean people. The stories also provide important information about the beliefs these teachers have about language teaching, and how these beliefs were formed over a lifetime growing up during a time of change in the linguistic landscape of South Korea. These stories will inform the following chapters, which discuss classroom practices and their influence on English language learning in modern South Korean elementary schools.

References Aoki, N. (2010). Teacher anxiety revisited: A permeating sacred story. Handai Nihongo Kenkyuu, 22, 1–10. Butzkamm, W., & Caldwell, J. (2009). The bilingual reform: A paradigm shift in foreign language teaching. Tubingen, The Netherlands: Narr Studienbucher.

Profiling the teachers  117 Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1995). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Secret, sacred and cover stories. In D. J. Clandinin & F. M. Connelly (Eds.), Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes (pp. 3–15). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Copland, F., & Neokleous, G. (2011). L1 to teach L2: Complexities and contradictions. ELT Journal, 65(3), 270–280. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq047 Duff, P. A. (2012). Second language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Ellis, E. (2002). Teaching from experience: A new perspective on the non-native teacher in adult ESL. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 71–107. Kachru, Y. (1994). Monolingual bias in SLA research. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 795–800. doi:10.2307/3587564 Lee, J. H., & Macaro, E. (2013). Investigating age in the use of L1 or English-only instruction: Vocabulary acquisition by Korean EFL learners. The Modern Language Journal, 97(4), 887–901. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12044.x Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44(1), 64–77. doi:10.1017/S026 1444809990310 Liu, D., Gil-Soon, A., Baek, K.-S., & Han, N.-O. (2004). South Korean high school English teachers’ code switching: Questions and challenges in the drive for maximal use of English in teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 605–638. doi:10.2307/3588282 Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Macaro, E. (2006). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession (pp. 63–84). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer. Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom: Exploring ‘optimal’ use. In M. Turnbull & J. D.-O. Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 35–49). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Mann, S. (2016). The research interview: Reflective practice and reflexivity in research processes. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Moodie, I. (2016). The anti-apprenticeship of observation: How negative prior language learning experience influences English language teachers’ beliefs and practices. System, 60, 29–41. doi:10.1016/j.system.2016.05.011 Park, J.-K. (2009). ‘English fever’ in South Korea: Its history and symptoms. English Today, 25(1), 50–57. doi:10.1017/S026607840900008X Pavlenko, A., & Norton, B. (2007). Imagined communities, identity, and English language learning. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 669–680). Boston, MA: Springer US. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued: New York, NY: Routledge/ Orient Blackswan Private, Ltd. Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Varshney, R. (2008). Students’ views regarding the use of the first language: An exploratory study in a tertiary context maximizing target

118  Profiling the teachers language use. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(2), 249–273. doi:10.3138/ cmlr.65.2.249 Seth, M. J. (2002). English fever: Society, politics and the pursuit of schooling in South Korea. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Song, J. (2016). Emotions and language teacher identity: Conflicts, vulnerability, and transformation. TESOL Quarterly, 50(3), 631–654. doi:10.1002/tesq.312 Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2009). First language use in second and foreign language learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

5

Translanguaging strategies of inclusion

Introduction This chapter presents the analysis of how the teachers’ choices created effective translanguaging spaces which allowed students to improve their ability to participate in the lessons. Extracts taken from different classrooms are presented and analyzed in accordance with the framework mentioned in Chapter 2. Each of these strategies reveals the impact that teachers’ role modelling of a positive bilingual identity can have on the participation of their student in the language classroom. It finishes with a description of the translanguaging pedagogic subject position, which is the result of the different strategies employed by the teachers in this study. The translanguaging pedagogic subject position allowed students full access to their linguistic repertoire, which, sociolinguistically, was significant for a number of reasons. The translanguaging space, as first defined by Wei (2011), is a space created by bilingual/multilingual speakers that infuses aspects of their ‘personal history, experiences and environment, their attitude, belief and ideology, their cognitive and physical capacity’ in order to express their lived reality (p. 1223). This in essence refers to how individuals with linguistic repertoires that contain elements of more than one named language use all available resources to communicate. The notion of a space implies boundaries, and these boundaries are created by the languaging practices of speakers (Swain, 2006). These boundaries are not static but are constantly moving according to the speakers. Such a space is comprised of a trialectic of spatiality that involves perceived, conceived, and lived space (Lefebvre, 1991) with cognitive, socio-historical, and cultural dimensions. The cognitive dimension is where the speakers create the rules of interaction and interpretation within the space. The socio-historical dimension is the relationship the space has with wider social spaces and historical influences that have stayed with the speaker. The cultural dimension is the everyday living space created through the everyday experiences of the speakers. Traditional notions that separate languages into two different systems are based on perceived and conceived realities that function solely in the realm of dualism, treating languages as either/or phenomenon. A trialectic understanding adds lived space to the perceptions and conceptions of space, which allows for an

120  Translanguaging strategies of inclusion understanding which moves beyond this dualism to provide a space that can be both rather than either/or. Translanguaging embraces the trialectics understanding, as it allows for an understanding of language that moves beyond languages as discrete items to language as an all-inclusive system that connects to the social, the historical, and the spatial. To show how these spaces are created by teachers, I employ Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse to the teachers’ linguistic repertoires in interaction to show how translanguaging spaces are created in these classes. These extracts will look at different examples of how teachers’ linguistic repertoires, coupled with grammatical mood choices and IRF routines, can promote greater opportunity for students to participate. When the teachers are creating these spaces in their classrooms, they are influenced by the immediate context of the classroom, which includes the linguistic abilities of their students and the material to be taught as part of the syllabus. These influences are represented within the classroom, but additional, invisible, influences are also at play, such as the teacher’s own language learning experiences and the educational ecology of both the school within which they work as well as that of South Korean society. The analysis uses the notions of classification and framing to show how teachers create power and control in their classes. This power and control can either allow students to use their full linguistic repertoire in order to better participate in the learning process, or it can limit student participation by restricting what resources they are able to call upon within the classroom. As mentioned previously, classification refers to the distinctiveness of a situation, in this case the classroom, in relation to other situations outside of the classroom. This distinctiveness is created by boundaries that create distinctions between situations, and it is these boundaries that create space for learners and teachers in the classroom. A classroom with stronger classification would have little resemblance to what happens at home or even in other classrooms within a school. That is, the boundaries between what is allowed in class and outside of class are strong. For example, students would have less (or no) opportunity to voice opinions, choose topics of discussion, and so forth. Likewise, weaker classification would allow facets of home or other areas of life in to the classroom, which means there would be opportunities for students to actively engage in the situation and therefore help direct their own learning. Here, the boundaries between the classroom and non-classroom behaviour are weak, and therefore more crossover can occur in terms of acceptable behaviour. Weaker classification allows students to employ language and knowledge from outside of school settings to improve their learning. In weakly classified classrooms, students will have access to their full linguistic repertoire. Framing refers to how control is distributed within the classroom. Traditional classrooms see the teacher maintain most if not all of the power, which sees them make all choices in regards what is learned, how something is learned, how much time is spent learning a particular topic, and how communication occurs in the classroom. It also sets the social base of the classroom and establishes the teacher-students hierarchical divide. When students are given more of

Translanguaging strategies of inclusion  121 a voice in the learning process, or how something is to be learned or communicated, then the framing of the classroom weakens, creating a more egalitarian environment. Teachers use certain grammatical mood choices when interacting with students, such as the interrogative mood, which sees teachers asking questions, or the imperative mood, which is how teachers give orders or instructions. The declarative mood choice is often how teachers will evaluate a student’s answer. In strongly framed classrooms, teachers will limit themselves to these mood choices, while at the same time limiting students to declarative statements and limiting their ability to use the interrogative, i.e. ask questions themselves. These mood choices occur during exchanges where the teacher will initiate (I) an exchange by asking a question in the interrogative mood; students will be expected to respond (R), usually in the declarative; and then the teacher will then give feedback (F) on the student’s response, again usually in the declarative mood. In strongly framed classrooms, teachers will always initiate, and in weakly framed classrooms, students may be able to initiate exchanges themselves. These types of exchanges are atypical outside of the classroom context, where people are expected to contribute freely in everyday exchanges. However, classroom research shows that the establishment of IRF routines is a powerful tool for teachers who wish to maintain control. When the teacher initiates an exchange, they will usually signal to what extent the students can use their full linguistic repertoires, so that if a teacher asks a question in English, they will require an answer in English, unless they explicitly state otherwise. If a student were to reply using elements of their Korean repertoire, the teacher can choose to allow this or not. This is how they determine the classification of the classroom, and how they establish power, by deciding what students are allowed to access when answering a question. Classification creates boundaries, and these boundaries can allow space for translanguaging, or not. Why a teacher may weaken the classification of their classroom is intrinsically linked to the current teaching context, the everyday understandings teachers and students have of the languages they use, as well as the socio-historical influences of the act through both teachers and students. The following extracts will present different ways teachers were able to create space for translanguaging in their classrooms and look at whether or not these spaces provide opportunity for more than just participation.

Translanguaging strategies set 1 This first analysis presents a set of translanguaging strategies that all participating teachers were observed to use. This set is primarily concerned with how teachers use their full linguistic repertoire to remove ambiguity in instructions and lesson purpose. These strategies are described in Table 5.1. The table labels the strategy; who was observed to use the strategy, teachers (T) or students (Ss); the purpose of the strategy; and the strategy’s effect on the framing and classification of the phase in which it was used.

122  Translanguaging strategies of inclusion Table 5.1  Translanguaging strategies set 1 Label

Used by

Purpose

Framing

Classification

Instructional

T

Strengthens

Weakens

Concept-check

T

Strengthens

Weakens

Conceptconfirmation

Ss

Strengthens

Weakens

LessonElucidation

T

To give clear instructions To check student understanding of instructions To show understanding of instructions To make learning aims as unambiguous as possible

Strengthens

Weakens

The first example of teachers and students using their full linguistic repertoires to create a translanguaging space comes from a language learning activity phase. As mentioned previously, this phase is where teachers create situations for their students to practice language skills or vocabulary. In this specific phase, the students were practicing reading, speaking, and writing aspects of English language they had studied previously. We can see that the teacher started off the phase by using the imperative mood to call for student attention (line 1), and the students responded dutifully. The teacher then moved between interrogative and declarative mood choices while connecting the current curriculum genre to the larger curriculum macrogenre. The teacher then assigned every team member a number that served to guide their actions in the upcoming activity. As this was done, students assisted each other using Korean to confirm each group members’ number, and the teacher did not stop this from happening. Once this was achieved, the teacher then used Korean (line 15) to explain what to do if a group did not have five members. In line 16, the teacher then explained the activity using English as well as referring to a large TV screen, on which the teacher had put an image of the page from the students’ textbook to which the students would need to refer during the activity. The teacher used this image to then give an example of how the activity should be done, still in English. From line 19 on, the teacher then used Korean to ask students comprehension questions which check if the students had understood what they were required to do during the activity. These took place via the established IRF routine which had dominated the lesson to this point. She maintained a strong framing by using the regulative register and its associated mood choices within the IRF exchanges. This strong framing ensured that the students could comprehend what they were required to do. This use of Korean weakened the classification of the phase as it removed English temporarily, but this weakening of classification allowed for the boundaries of the phase to use student knowledge from outside the English classroom, namely Korean linguistic knowledge. This assisted students in understanding what was required to successfully participate

Translanguaging strategies of inclusion  123 in the activity. At line 44, the teacher told the students to begin the task. From this point on, the students were left to complete the activity in their groups. The teacher moved around the classroom to see that the students were participating. During this time the students used their full linguistic repertoires, English when reading and passing on knowledge, and Korean when discussing how to do something or what to do next. All groups were observed to have successfully completed the task at the end of the phase, when the teacher confirmed their answers. This example shows how the teacher’s full linguistic repertoire not only assisted in ensuring that students could complete the activity in their groups with minimal assistance from the teacher, but also modelled how students could use their linguistic repertoires when in their groups to ensure that they completed the activity successfully. The space created by the teachers and the students was defined by its weakened classification, which saw the boundaries of the space set to be more inclusive of students’ knowledge. This improved participation and allowed students to act creatively during the activity to make sure that they could find the answer to the puzzle that was at the centre of the activity.   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

I T: Look at me look at me R Ss: Look look look at you I T: OK, do you remember that we made a poster last time? R Ss: Yes I T: And we are going to do a running dictation with your posters, it’s a team activity so in your team, number one student raise your hand, number one R Ss: Students raise their hands I T: Two, two two two, number two R Ss: Students raise their hands (students are using Korean to help each other know who is what number in their groups; teacher doesn’t mind) I T: Yes, number three, three three R Ss: Students raise their hands I T: Four, four R Ss: Students raise their hands 1 T: T: OK, five R Ss: Students raise their hands F T: 없는 모둠 다섯명있는 모둠 (if you don’t have five, then all of you speak) T: OK, hands down. So first, number one in your team will go to one poster and remember the first sentence, like he has big brown eyes, and go back to your team and say the sentence to your team members, OK, and the second student, number two student go to the same poster again and remember the second and go back to your team and, yes, say the sentence to your friends, and number three student right, number three team go to the same poster again and remember the third clue and tell your friends, and fourth and fifth like this. After you talk about all the sentences you have to guess who he is or who she is from your textbook, page 145 Teacher puts textbook page up on screen up on the sc

124  Translanguaging strategies of inclusion 17 I T: So, like this, it was team five’s bandit so you have to circle the right picture and circle team five, like this, so you have to find five bandits, how many bandits? 18 R Ss: Five 19 F T: Five bandits, 왜 다 섯 개 죠? 여섯 모 둠 인 데? (Why five? There are six groups [of students]) 20 R S: 우리꺼 빼고요. (We don’t include our own) 21 F T: 그렇죠. 자기 거 빼고 몇 개 모둠을 찾으면 돼요? (That’s right, if you don’t include your own, how many do you find?) 22 R Ss: 다섯 (five) 23 F T: 다섯 모둠 것 찾으면 되겠습니다. (You can find five) 24 I T: 제일 먼저 누가 움직인다 구요? (Which student moves first?) Teacher holds up a single finger to indicate the number one and continues to do this for the other numbers 25 R Ss: 1번 (Number 1) 26 F T: 1번 (Number 1) 27 I T: 그 다음은? (And next?) 28 R Ss: 2번 (Number 2) 29 I T: 그 다음은 (And next?) 30 R Ss: 3번 (Number 3) 31 I T: 그 다음은 (And next?) 32 R Ss: 4번 (Number 4) 33 I T: 그리고 (And then?) 34 R Ss: 5번, (Number 5) 35 I T: 5번이 없으면 다시? (Who goes again if there is no number 5?) 36 R Ss: 1번 (Number 1) 37 I T: 한 사람이 여기로 갔다가 그다음사람이 저기로 갔다가 하면될까요? (If one student goes here, can the next student go here?) 38 R Ss: No 39 I T: 안되죠 한번에 하나씩만해서 총 몇 개를 찾으라구요? (No, you can each only go to one paper, how many will you find?) 40 R Ss: 5개 (five) 41 F T: 5개를 찾으면 되겠습니다. 한번에 한명씩만 움직이세요 (When you find five you are done. One student moves at a time) 42 IT: Are you ready? 43 R Ss: Yes 44 F T: There are posters around you around the wall, so ready, go Students start activity, teacher monitors When we look at the different ways the linguistic repertoires were used in this extract, we can see some different strategies emerging. Emma’s use of her full linguistic repertoire would be described as Official or Teacher-directed translanguaging strategies. This refers to how a teacher deliberately uses their full

Translanguaging strategies of inclusion  125 linguistic repertoires to guide students. Here we will add to this description to better understand the motives and consequences of this Teacher-directed translanguaging. Emma explained in the interviews that she sometimes needs to use Korean to ensure the students understand what they have to do to successfully complete certain activities with which they are not familiar. In this example, she gave instructions in English and Korean. I will label this strategy of employing her full linguistic repertoire to deliver her instructions instructional translanguaging. Instructional translanguaging had the purpose of allowing Emma to use her full linguistic repertoire to provide students with instructions that they could understand. It also allowed her to model language practices for her students that they would follow later in the activity. This positioned students to be able to successfully participate in the target activity without further assistance from the teacher. This strategy was dominated by imperative and declarative grammatical mood choices within an IRF cycle. Following this, Emma then asked her students a series of questions to check if they understood what they had to do. She had mentioned in her interviews that one thing she enjoyed from her in-service training programs was learning about the idea of concept-checking, which is a strategy to check if students have understood the teacher’s instructions. She had learned this strategy as part of a program which would have her not use Korean in class; however, she adapted this strategy to include the Korean language. I call this adaptation concept-check translanguaging, which is closely related to instructional translanguaging as it has the same pedagogic aims but differs in how it employed the interrogative grammatical mood choice more often. From the extract, the two new strategies fall under the umbrella term teacherdirected translanguaging. They allowed the teacher to maintain the strength of the phase via the initiation of exchanges as well as the use of less inclusive grammatical mood choices. Emma’s use of these different strategies positioned the students so they could respond using their own full linguistic repertoires. Students’ pupil-directed translanguaging can be further described according to the purpose of the students’ responses. The students responded to the teacher’s concept-check translanguaging by using the student strategy concept-confirmation translanguaging. This strategy allowed students to follow the teacher’s modelling of her linguistic repertoire and to answer questions using their full linguistic repertoire. This type of exchange can allow for more positive bilingual identity formation, as the students learn that both languages have a positive role to play in their educational experience. These strategies also set up an opportunity for pupil-directed translanguaging during the actual activity itself, as during the activity the students used their full linguistic repertoires to participate and complete the activity without the assistance of the teacher. Examples of this will be discussed later. The teacher in this extract, Emma, stated that she preferred to limit the role of Korean in her class as much as possible because she felt that it weakened the distinction of her English class to other subjects within the school. When

126  Translanguaging strategies of inclusion reflecting back on her language learning experiences, she described her successful, or enjoyable English-learning experiences occurring in contexts which were also decidedly distinct from her other subject classes. She attended a private afterschool English academy throughout her school years. When discussing her public school and afterschool English classes, she clearly perceived a difference between the two: public school teachers did not speak English, focused only on reading and translation, and were strict, while the afterschool teachers spoke only English, focused on a range of different activities, and were generally less strict in comparison. These experiences connect to her current teaching situation, where she perceived herself to be more liked when speaking English compared to when she speaks Korean. She has even received direct feedback from students confirming that they feel this way about her when she uses English or Korean. That being said, she realized that her students did not have a welldeveloped English repertoire, and so needed to have access to Korean at times in the class. Additionally, she used an array of strategies prior to using Korean when explaining complicated activities, such as using visual aids and stronger students to help students with less proficiency in English, as seen in the extract as well as in her own reflections. She stated that other contextual influences acting on her that were not visible in the classroom included the fact that her students also attend afterschool English classes, and that she worried they may unfavorably compare her to those classes. This type of pressure is not unknown in South Korea, especially given the almost unhealthy drive to acquire English that many families have adopted. There is often criticism and conflict between the public and private education sectors, with both sides constantly lobbying for changes to each other in order to gain access to students. This extract highlights the varying levels of context that are at play, and how the creation of a translanguaging space is influenced by current classroom and macro-social contextual factors, as well as socio-historical factors which continue to act upon the teacher. The next strategy comes from Sarah’s class, in the lesson objectives phase, which had the purpose of introducing the learning objectives of the curriculum microgenre to the students. The teacher was positioned at the front of the class and students were seated in pairs and facing the front. There was a TV screen to the right of the teacher which the teacher used to show a digital copy of the students’ textbook. This clear signaling of what students were expected to learn from a lesson was standard practice and was observed in every classroom observation. This extract from Sarah shows her using the declarative mood choice to state the aims of the lesson, before using the imperative mood choice to tell students to open their books to the activity they will focus on. This phase was strongly framed as the teacher declared content to be learned while students listened passively. Students were only involved in one exchange, line 4, where they responded to the teacher’s elicitation. Classification was weakened as the teacher’s full linguistic repertoire was used to link a previous curriculum macrogenre’s content with the current curriculum macrogenre.

Translanguaging strategies of inclusion  127 1 T: 오늘 공부할문제에요. (Today’s objectives) 수호가 공부할문제를 얘기해 줬어요 (Suho told us today’s objectives) 지난시간에는 (In the previous class) what are you doing? 이였죠? (we studied this) 오늘은 (today) what is she/he doing? 질문을 하고 답하는것까지 해볼거예요 (we will ask and answer this question) 2 T: Open your book 104, 104. OK the first activity is look and listen speaks 오늘은 (Today) listen and speak 생략 (will be omitted) 3 I T: let’s talk . . . 4 R Ss: together 5 T: 이것 도 생략 (this will also be omitted) let’s speak and play The purpose of this phase was to make as clear as possible to the students what they were going to study. In all observations, teachers used their full linguistic repertoires to ensure that the students were unambiguous about the lesson’s aims. This approach had the purpose of orientating students to the purpose of the lesson; therefore, I call this the lesson-elucidation translanguaging strategy as its purpose was to unequivocally and explicitly orient students to the lesson’s aims without any level of ambiguity. It was characterized by a stronger framing and weaker classification, a combination which teachers used repeatedly to ensure full student participation. Throughout all interviews the teachers stated that they would often rely on using their full linguistic repertoire to ensure that the students could understand what they were learning. Students were often described as being bored or frustrated if they did not know what they were learning, and often excluding Korean elements of their linguistic repertoire led to behavioural problems with the students. It would appear that all teachers wished to avoid issues relating to what they felt were students’ inability to deal with ambiguity in the language class. Tolerance of ambiguity in language learning refers to students ability to deal with new information in the target language without becoming frustrated due to a lack of precise understanding and has been found to correlate with successful language acquisition (Brown, 2000). The use of the lesson-elucidation translanguaging strategy was used by teachers to help students avoid becoming frustrated with a lack of understanding in regards to the lesson aims. This strategy is connected to each of the teachers’ past experiences as learners, where their teachers used the same strategy to avoid ambiguity in their classes. Although not covered in this study, it would suggest that avoiding ambiguity is a common strategy in the Korean educational context

Translanguaging strategies set 2 This analysis presents another set of translanguaging strategies that all participating teachers were observed to use. This set highlights how teachers and students used their full linguistic repertoire to learn about knowledge of new language. These strategies are described in Table 5.2. The table labels the strategy; who was observed to use the strategy, teachers (T) or students (Ss); the purpose of the

128  Translanguaging strategies of inclusion Table 5.2  Translanguaging strategy set 2 Label

Used by

Purpose

Framing

Classification

Vocabularydiscovery

T

Strengthens

Weakens

Associative

T or Ss

T: Strengthens Ss: Weakens

Weakens

Facilitative

T

To assist in discovering new vocabulary for linguistic repertoire To allow students to connect curriculum content to everyday life To facilitate acquiring pragmatic/ grammatical awareness of new expressions

T: Strengthens

Weakens

strategy; and the strategy’s effect on the framing and classification of the phase in which it was observed being used. The first extract comes from a vocabulary phase, in which teachers focused on introducing target vocabulary that would be used elsewhere in the curriculum genre. Here, Jenny had been using a computer screen to display images of different animals and eliciting from the students the different animals and their associated animal families. Up to this point, this had been carried out almost entirely in English. Students were struggling with the vocabulary, as can be seen in line 8 which shows the students were confused with the word mammals. In reaction to this confusion, Jenny changed strategy when she focused on the word reptile. She started by first saying the word in order for students to repeat after her, but as many of the students did not respond, she quickly asked if they knew the word in Korean by asking first in English, then immediately again in Korean. The students answered correctly in Korean, and then Jenny proceeded with the phase. The exchange is strongly framed, as Jenny initiated all the moves and limited students to responding to her initiations. She used the interrogative mood choice to ask questions and the declarative grammatical mood choice to state if students had answered her correctly or not, which added to the strength of the framing. Classification was also strong, as she continued to speak English, even when it seemed the students were uncertain of the meaning of some of the vocabulary. Upon reaction to the students misunderstanding about the word mammal, she chose to weaken the phase’s classification by speaking Korean to ensure that a similar misunderstanding would not occur with the word reptile. Her use of Korean signalled to the students that they could speak Korean to provide the answer.   1 I T: OK now let’s review five birds’ names, parrot, eagle, chicken, penguin, ostrich

Translanguaging strategies of inclusion  129   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

R Ss: parrot, eagle, chicken, penguin, ostrich F T: one more time R Ss: parrot, eagle, chicken, penguin, ostrich I T: they are mammals? R Ss: birds I T: they are . . . R S: mammals F T: mammals? R Ss: they are birds F T: birds right good I T: now last group, what group is left? Groups C, their name is? Reptiles R S: reptiles (only one student repeated) I T Reptiles, in Korean? 한국말로 뭘까요? (What is it in Korean?) R Ss: 파충류 (Reptile) F T: right, good, they have scales I T: do you remember scales? Scales? R Ss: yes: F T: they have scales and they have four legs or no legs I T: so what animal has no legs? R S: snake

The vocabulary phase was concerned with presenting new language items and did not require the teacher to instruct students how to do an activity. Instead, its purpose was to ensure that students would have a fundamental understanding of the target vocabulary items so they could participate in activities later within the curriculum genre. Here the teacher used the vocabulary-discovery translanguaging strategy, which employed the full linguistic repertoires of students to assist them in discovering a new linguistic item for potential adoption into their growing repertoire. As in the language learning activity phase, the use of adoptive-translanguaging employed the interrogative mood choice, and it strengthened the framing while weakening the classification of the phase. Subsequently, the teacher’s use of her full linguistic repertoire positioned the students to do the same, and this is seen in their response, where they reciprocated in the declarative mood. Before discussing the different factors influencing Jenny’s act, we will look at another extract that shows a different phase which builds upon the work in this vocabulary phase. This next extract comes from a language learning activity phase that occurred later in the same curriculum genre. The general goal of these phases was to allow students to practice language skills. In this particular phase, students practiced speaking and listening skills as a way of reinforcing the target vocabulary from the vocabulary phase, which came early in the vocabulary phase of the curriculum genre. For this phase, the teacher had asked the students to form a circle. The teacher was also part of the circle as she explained how to play the activity.

130  Translanguaging strategies of inclusion We start with the teacher giving instructions on how to participate in the activity. Initially, the exchanges were strongly framed, as the teacher-initiated exchanges used the imperative and declarative mood choices. As the students started to understand how to play the game, they began to respond to her in Korean, as seen in line 5. Jenny acknowledged their response but did not signal any problem with their use of Korean, which weakened the classification of the phase. Once the instructions had been given, the teacher then played the game with the students in order to reinforce her instructions. During the demonstration game, Jenny explained one more rule of the game, and at this point, one student told the other students to speak loudly in Korean as it was difficult to hear each other over the clapping, as seen in line 8. Again, Jenny did not respond to this outburst in Korean, instead she chose to speak Korean herself to ensure that the students had understood her latest instruction (line 9), which further weakened the classification and ensured that the students understood this new rule for the game. The students then played the game again, now without Jenny, who sat outside the circle and watched. When the game ended, she asked if the students would like to play again, to which one student stated that they should change animals (line 24). This was the first time that a student had initiated an exchange in English in the entire curriculum genre, and Jenny responded by asking the whole group if they would like to change their animal character for the game, to which the other students replied in Korean that they did not want to change (line 26). The student’s initiation in line 24 weakened the framing and the classification of the phase as the student’s attempt to change the game in accordance with how they might play the game outside of class. Jenny’s reaction was to re-strengthen the framing by using the interrogative mood to ask if other students would like to make the proposed change. Ultimately, the students decided not to change, but this showed that they felt comfortable enough to challenge the teacher’s initial rules and adapt the game in a manner to how they would normally play it outside of the classroom. To reinforce her control over the activity, the teacher employed the instructional register to maintain her control over the rules of the discursive order, namely how an activity is done. She stated that ‘we are running out of time, just same animals’ in line 27, which showed the students that she was in control of the timing of the activity, and if they wished to play, they would have to adhere to her timing or not play at all. The phase continued in a similar fashion, with students weakening the framing while the teacher strengthened the framing – a kind of jostling for control of the game between the students and the teacher. The phase’s weakened classification allowed for this jostling as the teacher permitted the students to speak Korean, which allowed students to manage the game while they spoke English as part of the game. The teacher remained a peripheral figure, stepping in only to help when students were potentially in conflict over the game.   1 I T: Stop, and when you clap your hands you say your name, for example I’m chicken, like this (demonstrating the timing of the slap clap saying name

Translanguaging strategies of inclusion  131

  2   3   4   5   6

chant) so say your name first and then you choose your friend, OK, choose your friend. OK lion I’ll choose you, chicken lion I T: Then, lion, you say your name R S: Lion . . . crocodile F T: Crocodile, it’s your turn OK, so first say your name, second your friend’s name. OK? R S: 한국 게임과 비슷하다 (This is like a Korean game) I T: Yes, similar game OK, let’s one more time practice associative They play the game until one student gets it wrong

  7 T: Oh, if you cannot say your name or your friend’s name, you are out. One more rule, students, one more rule, look at me, I’m chicken, if I say parrot and elephant’s name, if I say their names I’m out. Lion, if you say leopard or snake you are out.  8 Ss: 큰소리로 말하면 서로를 들을 수 있다 (Say it loudly so we can hear each other)   9 I T: Do you have any questions? 바로 옆사람의 이름은 말하면 되요 안되 요? 안 되요 (Can you say the name of people sitting next to you? Yes or no?) 10 R Ss: No 11 F T: OK let’s start 12 I T: Who wanna go first? Who wanna go first? 13 R Ss: Students raise their hands 14 F T: You? You want? 15 I T: Ready go 16 R Ss: Students play game, until one makes a mistake 17 I T: Bye bye, you are out, say it louder, say it louder, OK, now make a smaller circle, OK say it louder please, OK? 18 R Ss: 소리내어 말하다 (Speak louder) 19 I T: your name first, your name first, ready, let’s play one more time. Your ostrich, I’ll go first, ready, go Play until only four are left 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

T: one two three four, we are winners, I’ll give you a stamp. I T: Do you want to play one more time? R Ss: yes F T: OK, make a circle again I S: Change the animals! R T: Do you want to change the animals? R Ss: No 동물을 바꾸지 마라 F T: Shhhh, we are running out of time just same animals one more time OK I T: Who wants to go first? Who wanna go first? R S: Student raises hand F T: Leopard? OK, I T: Ready, everyone is ready? R Ss: yes

132  Translanguaging strategies of inclusion 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

F T: OK, ready go I S: 그가 말한 것을 들을 수 없다. (I cannot hear what he said) I T: What did you say? R S: Leopard FT: Leopard I S: 그가 말한 것을 들을 수 없다 (I cannot hear what he said) R T: Say it louder 박수 를 살 짝 작게 치세요 (Don’t clap too loudly) I S: I can’t hear what he is saying R T: I know so I said to clap quietly I T: Ready, go Students start again, but straight away a student makes a mistake and is out,

43 T: 박수칠때 이름을 말하세요 한번 봐 보세요. (You have to say the name when you clap, watch them) Game starts again 44 45 46 47

T: OK so you four are the winners I T: make a big circle please, R Ss: students reform the circle T: I’ll give stamps to the winners

This extract shows Jenny using the instructional translanguaging strategy to ensure that the students will be able to participate in the activity independently of her. This strategy is characterized by the teacher using the declarative and imperative mood choices to initiate and obtain feedback on student responses. These mood choices strengthened the framing of the phase and allowed the teacher to use the instructional register to ensure the teacher could make all the decisions in regards to the discursive order (i.e. pacing and content of the activity). The instructional translanguaging strategy’s primary purpose was to ensure students were able to understand what they needed to do for the activity, or in this case, game. The teacher’s use of the full linguistic repertoire instead of a limited repertoire weakened the classification of the phase, as the teacher also allowed her students access to Korean. This ensured that all students, regardless of their English linguistic aptitude, were able to understand what they needed to do. It also positioned students so that they were are able to use Korean to interact with each other and the teacher when they wanted to clarify or question their understanding of how the activity should be conducted. The teacher’s use of the instructional translanguaging strategy positioned students so that they could also employ some translanguaging strategies of their own. In line 4, we see one student associate the activity the teacher had explained to a game they were familiar with from outside the classroom. I call this use of the full linguistic repertoire to connect knowledge from outside of the classroom to that occurring within the classroom an associative translanguaging strategy, which has the purpose of allowing students to understand

Translanguaging strategies of inclusion  133 curriculum content by making connections to their everyday life. This weakened the classification, as the boundaries between the lesson and their life were weakened, but it ensured that students knew what to do. In addition, it weakened the framing of the phase, as the students, not the teacher, were creating this connection. If it was the teacher who used this strategy, it would have strengthened framing. During the interviews, Jenny stated that she believed Korean was a valuable tool for students learning English. Her own language learning experiences show that she did not have a lot of early exposure language classes which excluded Korean. Her public and private education experiences all involved Korean bilingual teachers who relied heavily on Korean while teaching English. It was not until university where she first experienced an English-only approach, and she recounted this as an unpleasurable experience as she could neither understand what the teacher was saying nor answer the teacher’s questions. This highlighted for her the value of developing communicative skills, something which is seen in her current beliefs about exposing students to as much English as possible to ensure they develop their own communicative skills. However, her own experiences as a school student also connect with her belief that Korean can play an important role in both learning and teaching English. Jenny’s teaching context differed from that of the other participants as she was working in an English centre rather than a regular English class. English centres are designed to create a total immersion experience for elementary students who visit from other public schools around the district. They receive government funding, and classrooms are thematically designed to encourage greater interest and participation in English lessons. As mentioned in her interviews, she was expected to not use Korean at all, and other teachers within the centre limited the use of their linguistic repertoires by excluding Korean from their classrooms. Despite this, Jenny still employed her full linguistic repertoire in accordance with her stated beliefs, choosing to ignore the dictates of the centre. Another contextual element which influenced how Jenny taught was the socioeconomic status of the students. The centre hosted students from different neighbourhoods, and Jenny explained that she felt students from neighbourhoods with higher socioeconomic statuses generally had competency in English, which in turn allowed her to use more of her English repertoire when teaching. Students from lower-socioeconomic-status neighbourhoods were felt to have generally weaker English proficiencies, and therefore she needed to utilize more Korean. This was the case for the classes that were observed as part of this research project. This next extract, from Sue, comes from a vocabulary phase, where the emphasis was on introducing new language that would be practiced later in the curriculum macrogenre. The extract starts in the middle of the phase, where the teacher had chosen to highlight an expression from the text that was part of the original focus. She then used this as an opportunity to introduce expressions that use a similar structure, although she did not explicitly go through the grammatical

134  Translanguaging strategies of inclusion structure that is common to the phrases. The language was first presented via a clip from a Harry Potter video, which modelled some of the target expressions. The teacher wrote down the target expressions on the board after eliciting responses from the students. Next, she used material from the textbook and a CD-ROM which presented a new video which specifically focused on the target expressions. Following this second video, she checked students’ comprehension of the video by using a series of questions from the CD-ROM. Throughout this phase, Sue spoke Korean to check if the students understood the expressions. Korean was either spoken directly by the teacher or put up on the TV screen as a translation under the English phras. Sue explained how to use the phrase rather than explain the grammatical features, and this was done in both English and Korean. The expression that she focused on in line 1, How nice of you, was initially not picked up by the students as they were unable to answer her question when she tried to elicit the expression from them, and so she played the video again to show the students where the expression was. Then she went on to explain the expression. She started by using the interrogative mood to elicit possible answers via an IRF exchange. She asked the students in English, and one student replied in Korean (line 3). This led her to confirm the student’s answer in the declarative mood in Korean, before she explained in English why or how the expression should be used. She then followed this up with an explanation in Korean to reinforce the students’ understanding. Then, in line 9, she went on to explain a similarly structured expression – How smart of you. Then, in line 12, she provided another similar expression in Korean, and the students responded with the English equivalent – How cute of you. The framing was strengthened during this stage of the phase, as Sue was initiating all the exchanges, which allowed her to control the discursive order and decide what the learning focus was. This framing was supported by her grammatical mood choices, which again were the interrogative and declarative mood choices. The use of Korean throughout to ensure that all students could understand both meaning and uses of the target expressions weakened the phase, as the boundaries of the phase allowed for students to access knowledge from their Korean linguistic repertoire. The translanguaging space created here resulted from this combination of a strengthened framing and weakened classification which allowed the teacher to guide the students to a point where they were able to produce similarly constructed language, as witnessed in lines 10 and 13 with the student’s production of the phrases How smart of you and How cute of you. The use of the students’ full linguistic repertoire allowed the students to use their creativity and produce grammatically correct expressions that the teacher had not yet modelled for them.   1 F T: How nice of you,   2 I T: can you say what it means? How nice of you?   3 R S: 잘했어

Translanguaging strategies of inclusion  135   4 F T: 잘했어 (good job) He wants to praise, praise Min, because she bought a doll for her sister 동생을 위해서 인형을 사줬잖아요 너 참 친절하구나라고 칭찬해주는 표현이야 (he bought a doll for his sister so it’s an expression to use to say you are so kind)   5 I T: Let’s read it together: How nice of you   6 R Ss: How nice of you   7 I T: how nice of you   8 R Ss: How nice of you   9 I T:너 정말 똘똘하구나? (you are so smart) 칭찬해주고 싶어요 뭐라고 하 면 좋을까? (if you want to say you are so smart what do you say?) 10 R S: How smart of you 11 F T: How smart of you. 12 I T:아니면 저 정말 귀엽구나? (or how cute you are) 13 R S: How cute of you 14 F T:그렇게 우리가 쓸수있겠지? (we can use it like that, right?) T: OK, let’s check the key expressions First, in the exchange between the teacher and the students from lines 2 to 4, the teacher employed the vocabulary-discovery translanguaging strategy when she asked students to show their understanding of the expression How nice of you. However, the target expression was more than just a single word and required pragmatic knowledge if it was to be successfully incorporated into the repertoire of the students. Therefore, the teacher then used the full linguistic repertoire in line 4 to explain how the expression could be used. This additional information, as well as the modelling of the expression, then facilitated an opportunity for the teacher to encourage the students to create similar expressions, as seen in lines 9 to 14. This strategy, which incorporated pragmatic knowledge to assist the students to know not only the language but how to use it in communication is facilitative translanguaging. This had the purpose of helping students acquire lexical items as well as the associative pragmatic awareness of how to use the lexical items in communication. It differs from vocabulary-discovery translanguaging in that vocabulary items often do not need an explanation of how they are used as single items have equivalent forms in different languages. Facilitative translanguaging adds pragmatic awareness for longer stretches of language, as such expressions can be culturally relative and additional knowledge is required to use them correctly. Facilitative translanguaging was characterized by the teacher’s use of interrogative and declarative mood choices when initiating exchanges and confirming students’ responses. It used the full linguistic repertoire of the teacher and students, weakening the classification but strengthening the framing, as the teacher was in control of the content as well as the pacing of the exchanges. Sue’s English language learning history suggests that she did not enjoy or dislike learning English when she was younger. She stated that her teachers all used Korean when teaching English, and that this was considered the norm. Although

136  Translanguaging strategies of inclusion she stated that she enjoyed learning Japanese because she was interested in Japanese pop culture, it seems it was not until she reached university that she became interested in English. Sue did not become an English teacher until after she had taken some in-service teacher training courses. Although she said she enjoyed these courses, she stated that she felt there was an obvious gap between what the courses proclaimed and the reality of the classroom. Specifically, she was concerned with the idea of how she was supposed to exclude Korean when teaching English. When she first became a teacher, she did not teach English, and she stated that she felt she would not have been ready to do so, as she would have struggled to teach only in English at that stage of her career. She acknowledged that she used more English at the time of the study compared to when she first started teaching English, as she had gained more experience and more strategies for using English in her classes. That being said, she still valued the use of Korean as it allowed her to manage the students. This connects to her previous experiences as a learner in school, where she said her teachers used Korean to teach English. However, it would appear that she believes in using as much English as possible based on her teacher training experiences, and she maintained that her use of English allowed her to act as language role model for students in her classes, as there was no one else in their day-to-day life who used English with them. This combination of experiences was not unique to Sue, and the value she placed with all aspects of her repertoire seemed to be reflected in her classroom practices.

Translanguaging strategies set 3 This analysis presents another set of translanguaging strategies that all participating teachers were observed to use. This set highlights how teachers and students used their full linguistic repertoire to create a more independent learning situation during activities. These strategies are described in Table 5.3. The table labels the strategy; who was observed to use the strategy, teachers (T) or students (Ss); the purpose of the strategy; and the strategy’s effect on the framing and classification of the phase in which it was observed being used. Table 5.3  Translanguaging strategy set 3 Label

Used by

Purpose

Framing

Classification

Participatory

Ss

Weakens

Weakens

Mediating

T

To allow students to act independently of the teacher to complete an activity To assist students when they have problems during an activity

Strengthens

Weakens

Translanguaging strategies of inclusion  137 When the students were participating in the activity, they would sometimes run into difficulty, and when this occurred, they relied on a different strategy to ensure that they could complete the activity. In the extract which examined how Jenny used the associative translanguaging strategy, we see a new strategy being used. Line 8 shows how one student used their full linguistic repertoire to tell another student to speak louder so they could participate in the activity more successfully. This strategy is called participatory translanguaging, which had the goal of allowing students to act independently of the teacher to complete an activity. This was seen again in lines 24 and 26, where the students employed their full linguistic repertoires to participate in the activity. This strategy weakened the classification and framing of the phase as the students took control of the activity. The teacher had used the instructional translanguaging strategy to position students to be able to conduct the activity independently, which they did using the participatory translanguaging strategy. When the students were playing the game as set up by the teacher, the teacher sat out of the circle. However, she intervened at different times to mediate the interactions between the students to ensure that the activity continued as she intended. This mediating translanguaging strategy was characterized by a weakened classification, as it saw the full linguistic repertoire of the teacher employed, as in lines 25, 27, 39, and 43. Mood choices varied but ensured that the rules of the discursive order were followed, which safeguarded against the game breaking down or losing its original purpose, and therefore strengthened framing.   7 T: Oh, if you cannot say your name or your friend’s name, you are out. One more rule, students, one more rule, look at me, I’m chicken, if I say parrot and elephant’s name, if I say their names I’m out. Lion, if you say leopard or snake you are out.  8 Ss: 큰소리로 말하면 서로를 들을 수 있다 (Say it loudly so we can hear each other)   9 I T: Do you have any questions? 바로 옆사람의 이름은 말하면 되요 안되 요? 안 되요 (Can you say the name of people sitting next to you? Yes or no?) 10 R Ss: No 11 F T: OK let’s start 12 I T: Who wanna go first? Who wanna go first? 13 R Ss: Students raise their hands 14 F T: You? You want? 15 I T: Ready go 16 R Ss: Students play game, until one makes a mistake 17 I T: Bye bye, you are out, say it louder, say it louder, OK, now make a smaller circle, OK say it louder please, OK? 18 R Ss: 소리내어 말하다 (Speak louder) 19 I T: your name first, your name first, ready, let’s play one more time. Your ostrich, I’ll go first, ready, go Play until only four are left

138  Translanguaging strategies of inclusion 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

T: one two three four, we are winners, I’ll give you a stamp. I T: Do you want to play one more time? R Ss: yes F T: OK, make a circle again I S: Change the animals! R T: Do you want to change the animals? R Ss: No 동물을 바꾸지 마라 F T: Shhhh, we are running out of time just same animals one more time OK I T: Who wants to go first? Who wanna go first? R S: Student raises hand F T: Leopard? OK, I T: Ready, everyone is ready?

Translanguaging strategies set 4 This analysis presents another set of translanguaging strategies that all participating teachers were observed to use. This set highlights how teachers and students used their full linguistic repertoire to show encouragement and support in lessons as well as ease tensions in independent learning situations. These strategies are described in Table 5.4. The table labels the strategy; who was observed to use the strategy, teachers (T) or students (Ss); the purpose of the strategy; and the strategy’s effect on the framing and classification of the phase in which it was observed being used. These extracts come from a language learning phase in Sarah’s class. In the first extract, we see the teacher instructing students to elaborate on what they had heard from a CD-ROM video activity. The teacher used the interrogative and metaphorical imperative mood choices to tell the students to check to see if they had understood the activity. The students responded in the declarative. The teacher then signalled if the students had answered correctly by providing positive feedback, which was a signal to continue responding to the initial initiation. The phase was strongly framed due to this interaction, but the full use of both teacher and students’ linguistic repertoire weakened the classification. The students were responding to the teacher’s concept-check translanguaging strategy by using their full linguistic repertoire in the concept-confirmation translanguaging strategy to show they understood what they had to do. The teacher then used the full linguistic repertoire to praise correct answers, as seen in lines 3, 5, and 7. This use of the teacher’s full linguistic repertoire had the effect of lowering student affect and encouraging more students to respond to the teacher’s Table 5.4  Translanguaging strategy set 4 Label

Used by

Purpose

Framing

Classification

Affective

T

To ease tensions in the learning process

Strengthens

Weakens

Translanguaging strategies of inclusion  139 initial request. This strategy, called affective translanguaging, had the purpose of trying to make the learning context more inclusive for the students, which encouraged more students to participate.   1 I T: 여러분 무엇을 들었나요? 한번 얘기해볼까요 (What did you hear? Let’s talk about it)   2 R S: I’m jumping and swimming 입니다   3 F T: Good   4 R S: I’m swimming 입니다   5 F T: OK   6 R S: What is he doing?   7 F T: 아주 잘했어요 (Very good job)   8 I T: 방금 뭐라고 했죠? (What did you just say?)   9 R Ss: What is he doing? 10 F T: What is he doing? Affective translanguaging involved more than just praising correct answers. It also involved the teacher singling out quieter students and encouraging them to participate, adding to the inclusive nature of the strategy. A good example of this is seen lines 11 to 13, where the teacher used the full linguistic repertoire to encourage a student to answer a question in front of the class, then to praise the student when they dutifully responded. The teacher then moved on to another quiet student in line 14, and again used the full linguistic repertoire to encourage the student to participate. In this instance, the students responded incorrectly; however, the teacher ignored the mistake and focused on the act of responding itself, praising the student and then modelling the answer correctly without focusing on the student’s error. 11 I T: Student name 가 해볼래요? (Will you try?) He is sleep . . . ing 12 R S: Sleeping 13 F T: 잘했어요 (Good job) He is sleeping 잠을 자고 있었죠? (Is he sleeping?) Now let’s repeat together ready go 14 I T: 나는 자신감 있게 말할 수 있겠다 (You can say it confidently). 손들어 보세요 (Raise your hands) Student name 가 한번 해볼래요? (Do you want to try?) Are you ready? Stand up 15 R S: He is cook 16 F T: 잘했어요 (Good job) He is a cook Managing students required more than just encouraging and praising students. It also required teachers to calm students down when they became too excited or were having behavioural issues that could potentially disrupt the lesson. These instances were similarly strongly framed to ensure that teachers could maintain control of their classes. All teachers pointed out that using their full linguistic repertoire was common when praising or disciplining students. They stated that excluding Korean in these situations lessened the impact of both praising and disciplining

140  Translanguaging strategies of inclusion

In summary Table 5.5 represents all of the translanguaging strategies observed in the lessons. All teacher translanguaging strategies strengthened framing. They were defined by the use of the interrogative, imperative, and declarative grammatical mood choices as well as the teachers initiating all exchanges and students responding to the teachers’ initiations. These strategies weakened classification, as they allowed for the use of the students’ full linguistic repertoire within the phases. Allowing

Table 5.5  Summary of translanguaging strategy sets Label

Used by

Purpose

Framing

Classification

Instructional

T

Strengthens

Weakens

Concept-check

T

Strengthens

Weakens

Conceptconfirmation

Ss

Strengthens

Weakens

Lessonelucidation

T

Strengthens

Weakens

Vocabularydiscovery

T

Strengthens

Weakens

Associative

T or Ss

T: Strengthens Ss: Weakens

Weakens

Facilitative

T

T: Strengthens

Weakens

Participatory

Ss

Weakens

Weakens

Mediating

T

Strengthens

Weakens

Affective

T

To give clear instructions To check student understanding of instructions To show understanding of instructions To make learning aims as unambiguous as possible To assist in discovering new vocabulary for linguistic repertoire To connect curriculum content to everyday life To facilitate acquiring pragmatic awareness of new expressions To allow students to act independently of the teacher to complete an activity To assist students when they have problems during an activity To ease tensions in the learning process

Strengthens

Weakens

Translanguaging strategies of inclusion  141 the students to use their full voice created a more inclusive learning space, which provided students with opportunity for more independent learning via certain activities the teachers had planned for. Teacher beliefs about language constructed the roles to which students were expected to adhere. These roles determined to what extent students were free to have their own, unique voice in the classroom. Traditionally, classification is determined by the crossover between content in classes. However, for a language class, the languages also affected the classification, as they determined to what extent a student is able to influence the uniqueness of a class. In these language classes, the students were limited in their actions by the language they were permitted to use. If a student had a strong command of English, they had the ability to participate in the class more than if they have a poor command of the language. Students with a poor command of English tended to struggle to ask questions about content when they did not have access to their first language. The use of English increased the classification of the classrooms by creating boundaries between categories of discourses from outside the English classroom and inside the English classroom; it also produced boundaries between those who have a good command of English and those who do not, most noticeably the teachers and the students.

The translanguaging pedagogic subject position Based on the notion of Bernstein’s Ideal pedagogic subject position, the translanguaging pedagogic subject position was the result of the different strategies employed by the teachers in this study. The translanguaging pedagogic subject position allowed students full access to their linguistic repertoire, which, sociolinguistically, was significant for a number of reasons. First, a student’s language is inextricably linked to its identity (Belz, 2003), and, socioculturally, language is a psychological tool (Vygotsky, 1978) that allows the learner access to cognitive processes, which has been shown in a number of studies to assist in second language learning. The use of the full linguistic repertoire allowed the students to create intersubjectivity with the learning task by allowing the participants to establish control of the discourse and the task they are doing (Brooks & Donato, 1994). This provided greater opportunity for students to co-construct the learning environment with the teacher. This control of the discourse and co-construction was more difficult to achieve when students were not granted access to their full linguistic repertoire. The strategies identified in this chapter therefore position the students as the following, which means that the teachers’ use of their linguistic repertoire positioned the students to: • Listen to and respond to the teacher using their full linguistic repertoire • Participate in/pair/group activities using their full linguistic repertoire • Focus on learning texts for listening, reading, speaking, and writing • Not interfere with other students • Have learning material ready • Sit in a position where they could see and hear the teacher clearly

142  Translanguaging strategies of inclusion • •

Ask questions using their full linguistic repertoire when unsure Add comments using their full linguistic repertoire when they wanted

Being positioned in such a way should, according to translanguaging theory, allow for the formation of positive bilingual identities rather than a negative nonnative speaker identity. The space that the strategies created for this position was the culmination of many experiences that had been occurring long before these students entered these teachers’ classrooms and will continue to occur long after they have left these classrooms. The teachers’ own experiences, beliefs, and ideologies, as well as those of the students and the greater educational ecology of English education in South Korea, were represented in these classes. In this chapter we have focused on the teachers use of translanguaging strategies to create a more inclusive learning environment. But this is only half of what occurred in these classrooms. Life is inextricably more complex, and other influences were acting upon the teachers that have not yet been discussed. These will be covered in the next chapter.

References Belz, J. A. (2003). Identity, deficiency, and first language use in foreign language education. In C. Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of foreign-language classrooms: Contributions of the native, near native, and the non-native speaker. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77(2), 262–274. doi:10.2307/344508 Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education Company. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Blackwell, UK: Oxford. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London, UK: Continuum. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wei, L. (2011). Moment Analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1222–1235. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.035

6 Translanguaging practices of exclusion

Introduction Chapter 6 provides an analysis of how teachers used their linguistic repertoires to restrict their students’ linguistic repertoires. The strategies involved here share many of the characteristics of those strategies described in the previous chapter. These include how teachers seemingly have all the power to decide how students can express themselves, and that such decisions are reflective of the experiences that the teachers had when they were students themselves. There are similarities in how the framing and classification of phases within curriculum genres were affected, as well as similarities in the grammatical mood choices employed in the IRF exchanges between teachers and students. The spaces created, however, are different in that they are less inclusive of student voice and knowledge. This space seemingly creates a situation where the teachers treated languages as discrete items which needed to be separated during the learning process. The teachers all expressed a desire to enhance the level of exposure of their students to the English language and discussed what they believed to be the benefits of such approaches to language learning. The fact that the teachers also acknowledged the value of using their students’ full linguistic repertoire and have developed strategies to enable this presents as a contradiction to their beliefs and actions at other times of their lessons. This contradiction has at its origin the discord between their own experiences as language students and what they have formally been trained to know and act upon. This chapter, therefore, reveals further complexities that acted within the classroom of these teachers and the conflict between beliefs and approaches that they experience throughout a lesson.

Translanguaging strategy set 5 Translanguaging strategy set 5 may seem like a mislabel, as it seems to present strategies that do not promote spaces seen as characteristic of translanguaging. However, I have decided to retain this set of strategies as a translanguaging set as they have all the characteristics of the previous set and, intentionally or not, affect or enable the former strategies to some degree. Just because they are presented somewhat in isolation here from the other strategies does not mean their effects

144  Translanguaging practices of exclusion were isolated in the curriculum genres where they took place. These extracts emanate from real classes and present tangible strategies used by the teachers. They employ the teachers’ full linguistic repertoire just as the previous chapter has done. Ultimately, as they are conducted within the same curriculum genre or microgenre, they must be seen as having a relationship with the more positive translanguaging strategies discussed earlier. This set was primarily concerned with regulating students’ use of their own linguistic repertoires. Table 6.1 labels the strategy; who was observed to use the strategy, teachers (T) or students (Ss); the purpose of the strategy; and the strategy’s effect on the framing and classification of the phase in which it was used. This first extract came from one of Emma’s classes, during an opening class phase. This phase prepared students for the lesson by practicing everyday expressions. First, the teacher greeted the students, then proceeded to ask the students a series of questions about their feelings, the day of the week it was, the weather, and the date. An initial imperative mood choice allowed the teacher to prepare the students for the lesson (Open your textbooks). A change to the interrogative mood occurred when she noticed that one student was absent (Where is Ji-yeon?). In reply, one student spoke in Korean that the absence was okay. Emma quickly reacted to the student’s use of Korean by using Korean herself to indicate that what the students had said, and how they had said it, were not acceptable (뭐 괜찮아? [What’s OK?]). Both the imperative mood and the interrogative mood choices reinforced the formal distance between the teacher and students, as only the teacher was allowed to ask questions or give instructions. The students were restricted to answering, and even then, only responded with an answer that the teacher expected. The mood choices, in the regulative register, insulated this phase from everyday social interactions, as such a one-sided exchange rarely happens outside of the classroom. This strengthened the classification of the phase and reinforced the hierarchical relationship between the teacher and the students, as commonly found within the vertical discourse of school contexts. The students’ use of Korean weakened the strength of this classification between the English classroom and

Table 6.1  Translanguaging strategy set 5 Label

Used by

Purpose

Framing

Classification

Restrictive

T

Strengthens

Strengthens

Depreciative

T

To restrict students’ use of linguistic repertoire To not value an answer given in the wrong language

Strengthens

Strengthens

Translanguaging practices of exclusion  145 regular Korean classrooms because Korean is a communicative tool outside of English class. As noted earlier, Emma believes in using as much English as possible, and on this occasion, the students had broken one of her requirements – do not speak Korean unless given permission to do so. Her own use of Korean was in keeping with her beliefs about needing Korean to maintain order, highlighting again her sense that the students were not following the rules she has for her classes. Her use of Korean weakened the classification of the class, but it also meant that students could comprehend her more effectively, much like they would in a non-English-subject class, as Korean for reprimanding students is a common occurrence in regular classes within the Korean education system. Weakening the classification gave students an opportunity to understand what was required of them to successfully participate in the English classroom. Despite the weakening of the classification, the phase is still within the confines of the vertical discourse characteristic of educational contexts because of how Emma’s use of Korean strengthened the framing of the phase. The Korean language, coupled with the mood choices, strongly framed the phase and positioned Emma in control by allowing her to make explicit the rules of social order in regards to who could say what. Korean utterances quickly gave the teacher control over the social base in the classroom and influenced what the students were saying about the absent student. Strong framing that arose out of the Korean utterances moved the students into the ideal pedagogical subject position, where the students were ready to listen to, and then respond to, the teacher’s questions and commands, all in English. The regulative register was then replaced by the instructional register in English as the students were situated into the ideal pedagogic subject position for the remainder of the phase. Despite the change in register, Emma maintained control by selecting the topics, sequencing the exchanges, pacing the exchanges, and deciding the criteria of what constituted an appropriate answer. Emma’s use of Korean instead of English in these situations permitted her control over the social base, or who has the control between her and the students. This exchange was literally in the first 30 seconds of the class, and her use of Korean in this exchange was important for framing the communications of classroom order for the rest of the curriculum genre. Her use of Korean instigated a less inclusive discourse as the students were restricted in what they could say by the teacher. This signalled to the students that their opinions and input, especially when in Korean, were neither sought nor welcomed by the teacher during the phase, and possibly during the curriculum genre. The impact of the teacher’s use of Korean was seen in the behaviour of the students. It was observed that the students who had answered in Korean did not fully participate after being reprimanded. When the teacher was leading the exchanges and expecting the students as a class to answer, these students were seen to not answer as expected, but because they were situated within a large class, the teacher did not seem to realize this. The students’ mistake in this case was to answer their teacher’s question in Korean about a non-curriculum-related situation. Although consistent with what Emma stated in the interviews, it would seem her adherence to her beliefs about

146  Translanguaging practices of exclusion English exposure had caused these students to detach themselves from the learning process on this occasion.   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

I T: Open your textbooks. Where is Ji-yeon? R S1: 책을 얻고있다 (He’s getting his book) R S2: 괘잖아 (It’s OK) F T: 뭐 괜찮아? (What’s OK?) I T: Are you on the right page? Hello everyone R Ss: Hello teacher I T: How are you today? R Ss: Fine, happy. . . . F T: Happy, tired, hot I T: Did you have PE class? R Ss: Yes I T: So maybe you are happy? R Ss: No F T: No, you look so tired. I T: What day is it today? R Ss: Today is Tuesday F T: Tuesday I T: And how’s the weather outside R Ss: It’s sunny F T: Sunny I T: And what’s the date today? R Ss: Today is October 28th

Emma’s use of her full linguistic repertoire here had the effect of restricting her students’ use of their own linguistic repertoire. This strategy, referred to as restrictive translanguaging, was characterized by framing that had been strengthened by the teacher dominating initiations and giving negative feedback when students respond using Korean. The teacher’s use of Korean may have initially weakened the phase’s classification, but it ultimately resulted in the phase’s classification being strengthened, as a space was created where only English was used by both the teacher and her students, and this space was very distinctive from situations outside of the English language classroom. Emma had formed a clear image of what her identity as an English subject teacher entailed, and this strategy reinforced that identity. In her interviews, she stated that she wanted to use as much English as possible, as her English classes were one of a very limited number of occasions where students could be exposed to English on a regular basis. She stated that her students expected her to speak more English as a subject teacher, something the other participants also mentioned. Student expectation, then, was an important influence in her actions on such occasions. Emma also elaborated on how using English allowed her to distinguish herself from other teachers in the school who conducted their lessons exclusively in Korean. She believed that students actually liked her more when

Translanguaging practices of exclusion  147 she used more English. She acknowledged that this was because she tended to reprimand students in Korean and therefore, whenever she spoke Korean, the students may have felt that she was upset (even if we know that she also used Korean for other reasons, too, as witnessed in the previous chapter). Her use of Korean and English as well as her perceptions of how students felt about her use of these different aspects of her linguistic repertoire had ties to her own experiences as a language learner, where she herself described her public school teachers who relied almost solely on Korean and were strict, while her private school teacher spoke exclusively in English and was perceived to be pleasant. The following extract comes from Jenny’s class. As mentioned previously, she believed that Korean is an important pedagogic tool for her classes. However, the school she worked in had a very explicit no-Korean policy when teaching English. This caused some conflicts for Jenny, who would normally rely on Korean during her classes if given the opportunity. The extract here came from a vocabulary phase, which was where she introduced new target vocabulary that would be used in later phases. The phase started in the interrogative mood, with the teacher asking students what they see in the images she was presenting on the screen. Each image was of an animal, as that was the theme of the curriculum genre. The phase was strongly framed, and the teacher was controlling the pacing of the phase as well as the content via this use of the interrogative mood. The instructional register was foregrounded here as the focus was the content, and the teacher’s continued use of interrogative and declarative moods, as well as English, also meant that there was a strong classification, as this type of interaction does not usually occur outside of the English classroom. During the phase, the teacher held up a picture of a bird and then proceeded to elicit descriptive language about birds. During the exchange, while the rest of the class responded with the word ‘eagle,’ one student (in line 11) instead replied with the Korean equivalent 독수리 (eagle). This caused Jane to stop what she was doing and use the restrictive translanguaging strategy to inform the student that his use of Korean was unacceptable, as seen in line 12. Her reaction to the student’s use of Korean meant that she could maintain the established framing and classification of the phase but seemed to contradict her beliefs about the importance of allowing students’ access to Korean. It would seem her response revealed why she reacted the way she did, namely because they were in the English centre, and there were strict rules about not using Korean. That being said, she herself contradicted the rules by speaking Korean, which aligns with her own beliefs about language use. This sent a mixed message to the students and caused the student in question to become alienated from the other students in the phase, and in fact later in the lesson, he became a disrupting presence, causing Jenny to reprimand him again.   1   2   3   4

I T: now the next word, look at this R Ss: bird F T: yes Bird I T: birds have . . .?

148  Translanguaging practices of exclusion   5   6   7   8   9 10 11 12

R Ss: Feathers F T: yes Bird, feathers, feathers . . . feathers R Ss: Feathers I: T do you know the name of any birds? RS: huh? F T: do you know any birds? R Ss: eagle (one student says 독수리 [eagle]) F T: Eagle, right 친구야 지금 영어 센터 왔으니까 조금만 영어로 해줘 (friend, this is the English centre please use English) Teacher holds up a new card

13 14 15 16 17

I T: ch. R Ss: chicken F T: and he said parrot. A parrot R S: Penguin F T: Penguin! Right, good

In both cases, it would seem that maintaining the uniqueness of the English classroom, or strengthened classification, was the reason behind the use of restrictive translanguaging. This serves to highlight who had control in the classroom. It would appear that although the teachers themselves may have clear pedagogical reasons for their decisions around language use in these instances, the students were not made aware of these. This led to levels of disengagement with the learning process. Continued disengagement can lead to detrimental effects on the students’ willingness or even ability to be involved in the learning process over longer periods, possibly even leading them to decide they do not want to learn English. Korean here definitely gave the teachers more control over the exchanges of the classroom, but at what cost? It would seem the immediate cost was less participation, and if this was to be a pattern that these students experienced over the course of their language learning experiences, one can imagine how they might feel less inclined to want to study English in the future. Another strategy seen commonly amongst the participating teachers was where they would just ignore a comment in Korean and/or request a response in English. Although this served to maintain the strengthened framing and classification of the phase, it had the effect of depreciating the answer of the student. This strategy, named depreciative translanguaging, does not promote an inclusive learning environment or acknowledge the extensive knowledge that students may bring with them into the classroom. As such, it also did not seem to promote positive bilingual identity formation, as students were observed to respond negatively to the teacher’s behaviour. 1 2

F T: No, they cannot fly. I T: This is . . .?

Translanguaging practices of exclusion  149 3 4 5 6

R Ss: 타조 F T: In English? R Ss: Ostrich F T: Right, ostrich

The total exclusion strategy The teachers’ use of Korean was not their only tool for maintaining control in the classroom. Restricted repertoire use was practiced by all teachers during different phases of their curriculum genres, but this does not mean that they relinquished the control they had. Earlier, we saw how teachers used their linguistic repertoires to strengthen the framing during different phases, and this strengthened framing gave them control over the social order (within the regulative register) as well as the discursive order (within the instructional register). Restricting their own linguistic repertoires to strengthen classification, or to create spaces where students were fully exposed to English, meant that grammatical mood choices were essential for maintaining strong framing. Maintaining the discursive order within the instructional register included deciding what was taught (selection), the order in which things were taught (sequence), how quickly the activities were conducted (pacing), and what constituted knowledge to be acquired (criteria of knowledge). Table 6.2 provides examples of how these different elements of the rules of discursive order were realized in the curriculum genres. Typically, selection was realized before a phase as well as at the beginning of a phase, as this was when teachers formulated what students would do as part of the lesson. This was arranged prior to a lesson by the teacher as part of preparation and was where the teacher decided what constituted knowledge to be learned. Next, the teacher decided the order of the stages within a phase and also exerted control over the time spent on each stage.

Table 6.2  Realizing discursive rules without Korean Rules of discursive order

Evidence

Examples

Selection

Teacher chose pictures to use

Sequence

Teacher decided the order of the pictures Teacher initiated all exchanges Teacher declared what was right and what was wrong

We’re going to look at the picture and the sentence on the screen Good, let’s start. John is short (showing a picture of John who is tall) John is short (showing a picture of John who is tall) Then what is right?

Pacing Criteria of knowledge

150  Translanguaging practices of exclusion Classification for these phases was very strong, as the presence of English without Korean is unique to the English classroom. In the extract for this section, the teacher relied on visual aids to assist students in understanding the instructions. Visual aids assisted in strengthening the framing, as they made the discursive order accessible to most students in the class. Students who did not understand the instructions were witnessed to imitate the actions of students who did. The activity type did not allow for any discussion or freedom of choice for the students, as the teacher dictated all rules of discursive order, which left the students with no opportunity to use the target language as they would have liked. The following extract is of a previous lesson review phase which occurred early on in one of Emma’s lessons. The aim of this type of phase was to review content from earlier in the curriculum microgenre. Emma had positioned herself at the front of the class and was using the TV screen to help present the instructions for the activity. She also employed gesture to help the students understand what they had to do. In this phase, Emma did not use her full linguistic repertoire. However, she did employ a multi-modal approach and relied upon images and writing on the TV screen as well as gesturing what to do when students felt the statement matched the image correctly or not. If the students felt the image did not match the statement, they were required to place their hands upon their heads and remain silent. Then the teacher would ask the whole class to state the correct answer as per the altered image, which would update and present the correct statement. If the statement was correct, then students were required to read the correct statement out as a class. Framing in this phase was strengthened by the teacher initiating all exchanges, as well as the teacher’s control over the PowerPoint displayed on the TV screen. The initial instructions used the declarative, interrogative, and imperative grammatical mood choices. These mood choices dominated the phase. Classification was also strengthened by the lack of opportunity for the students to bring their own voice to the activity; they literally stayed quiet when the activity demand they stay quiet as a correct answer, or read the correct answer on the PowerPoint as provided by the teacher. One student was witnessed to stray from this carefully orchestrated display by not putting his hands on his head for an incorrect statement. This led the teacher to single him out with a simple stare and tilt of her head until he put his hands on his head as well. The student appeared not to be able to read the TV statement and resorted to just following the actions of the other students in order to not be singled out by the teacher again.   1 I T: OK, good job. Before we start the lesson, let’s review the last lesson. It’s right or wrong. We’re going to look at the picture and the sentence on the screen. If the sentence is right, please repeat after me. But if the sentence is wrong, put your hands on your head. So, what will you do if the sentence is right? (Using screen with pictures to provide visual information about the activity)   2 R S: Repeat   3 F T: Repeat the sentence

Translanguaging practices of exclusion  151   4   5   6   7   8   9 10 11 12 13 14 15

I T: And if the sentence is wrong? R S: No I T: Show me (Gesturing to put hands on the head) R Ss: Students put their hands on their heads F T: Good, let’s start. I T: John is short (showing a picture of John, who is tall) R Ss: Students put their hands on their heads I T: What is right? R Ss: John is tall F T: Put your hands down I T: Lisa has green eyes (showing a picture of Lisa, who has blue eyes) R Ss: Students put their hands on their heads One student does not respond, and the teacher looks at the student and tilts her head to the side in query; the student copied the other students’ actions

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

I T: Then what is right? R Ss: Lisa has blue eyes F T: OK, down I T: She has long straight hair R Ss: She has long straight hair I T: OK, Mimi has long hair (showing a picture of Mimi who has short hair) R Ss: Students put their hands on their heads F T: OK I T: What is right? R Ss: Mimi has short hair F T: Hands down. I T: He has a big nose. R Ss: He has a big nose. I T: She has curly hair R Ss: She has curly hair I T: He is very short R Ss: He is very short F T: OK, great job.

All of the actions taken by Emma in this phase concurred with her belief that she must expose her students to as much English as possible. As she articulated, she was perceived by students as being more benevolent when she spoke English compared to when she spoke Korean, and therefore, we can understand why she would try maintain an English-only approach. This approach even related directly to her own favourable experiences as a student learning English. However, the level of control and power she had in this phase left little or no room for her students to add their own creative elements to this learning space. It also left little room for students who may not have developed sufficient reading skills in English.

152  Translanguaging practices of exclusion In this next extract, Michelle resorted to an elaborate set of rules which meant that students had to remain silent as part of the activity. The teacher positioned herself at the front of the classroom and used a TV screen to present the instructions of an activity which would allow them to practice language they had studied previously in the curriculum genre. These game rules allowed the teacher to maintain a strong framing over the phase, even though the students were quite restless, as they knew the end of the lesson was near. Students were starting to use Korean a lot more at this stage, and the teacher used the activity rules to limit this. This involved the students being divided into teams, having to put their heads on their desks and not look up unless told to by the teacher. After starting in the instructional register, the teacher quickly moved back to the regulative register once she realized she was losing control (OK, look at me, May I have your attention?). Once having gained control, the teacher moved into the instructional register to deliver instructions. Moving between registers occurred throughout the activity as the teacher struggled to maintain control over the class. The teacher initiated all interactions and limited students to responding to her. Grammatical mood choices coupled with the IRF sequence strongly framed the phase, and the activity type and exclusive use of English strengthened classification. Students were placed in the ideal subject position early in the phase, and these linguistic and interactive elements meant they could not move from it. Again, the teacher controlled the rules of discursive order. The teacher also controlled the rules of social order by foregrounding the regulative register when students did not respond to the instructional register.   1 T: OK, we have fifteen minutes but I will skip . . . Inaudible so it’s time to play a game Students start shouting in excitement   2 I T: OK, it’s time to play a game. OK sleeping elephants, so you have played this game before, OK, one person from each group . . . One student from each group comes to the front to collect materials for the game   3 I T: OK, look at me   4 R Ss: Look at you   5 F T: Look at me close your books, close your books Students put away their books   6 I T: OK, may I have your attention? May I have your attention? So I will explain how to play this game the sleeping elephants, we have four elephants, four elephants, for each team, so this guy, this person should be one, OK, one one two three four, K, one two three four. So, one, number one raise your hand, two, three, four, OK, (students respond accordingly but start to make a lot of noise) look at me

Translanguaging practices of exclusion  153   7 R Ss: look at you   8 I T: don’t talk, don’t talk, OK, when I say go to sleep, go to sleep, and then wake up number one, wake up number two, wake up number three, wake up number four, and then wake up elephants I will say and then make a sentence (shows on the screen) cute, like this. Ready? Ready? Ready? (One group is unsure of their numbers) one two three four (the teacher points out their numbers) ready? Ready? Number one wake up? stop, two wake up, three wake up, four wake up ok wake up and write down  9 R Ss: Students write down the answers on a board 10 I T: Ready, three two one go 11 R Ss: Students hold up boards, teacher checks who has the right answer 12 F T: no period. 13 I T: Everyone, everyone 14 R Ss: he has brown eyes 15 F T: he has brown eyes. No period (referring to some groups who did not add a period at the end of the sentence so they do not get a point). Put a period, period. 16 I T: OK round two, round two. Number one wake up, two wake up, three wake up, four wake up 17 R Ss: Students write their answers 18 I T: OK, three two one show me 19 R Ss: Students hold up their boards, teacher checks 20 F T: wow, everyone got it. 21 I T: Everyone, everyone, everyone 22 R Ss: John is tall and handsome 23 F T: one more time 24 R Ss: John is tall and handsome The activity continued on for another five minutes in the same manner. Michelle stated in her interviews that she used aspects of her Korean repertoire only when teaching grammatical features of English. She firmly believed in the need to expose her students to as much English as possible, but she also liked the distinctive nature of being an English subject teacher as it allowed her to distance herself from her students. Her experiences as a homeroom teacher were responsible for this feeling, as she felt that being a homeroom teacher required teachers to be more personally involved with all aspects of her students’ learning, which became a burden both physically and emotionally. Comparatively speaking, as an English teacher, Michelle felt she only had to help them learn to say a few simple words in English, which ultimately was less stressful than the duties of a homeroom teacher. She stated that her almost exclusive use of English supported her identity as an English teacher and characterized what she thought an English teacher was supposed to do. This differed from her experiences as a student, where she stated that all of her English teachers relied almost exclusively on their Korean repertoire to conduct their classes. However, her experiences

154  Translanguaging practices of exclusion in more recent teacher-training courses, which were conducted exclusively in English, were described as being more enjoyable and led her to believe that this more modern approach was a more effective method of language teaching. All of these experiences intertwined to influence her actions in the observed lessons.

How an increase in English affects the classroom An increase in the use of English saw a strengthening of the classification of the classes because other subject classes in these schools do not use the English language, so any increase in the use of the English language in English classes served to strengthen the boundaries between English classes and other subjects. English was situated as not only the content and competence to be learned in these classes, but also as a mode of transmission in how the content and competence was transmitted. English was used in both regulative and instructional registers of the pedagogic discourse of these classrooms: in the instructional register, as it was the content and competence to be learned; and within the regulative register, as it was one of two languages that controlled how the knowledge was transmitted. Essentially, for English language classes, the more English spoken in the classroom, the stronger the classification. The teacher was the most prominent influence on the use of English in the classrooms. If a teacher chose to restrict linguistic repertoires to English elements, she was socially constructing the boundaries of the classroom to exclude Korean from the classroom, effectively positioning the teacher in a position of power over the students as the teachers’ English proficiency was generally accepted by all in the classroom as the strongest. The effects of the English language and the Korean language on the framing of a phase within a curriculum genre differed from those on classification. Increases in the use of English weakened framing of the phases and curriculum genres. Teachers perceived that the use of English in the regulative register, or when they were trying to control student behaviour, led to many lower-level students not being able to understand their attempts at controlling student behaviour, which for the teachers was unacceptable. This saw most teachers admit that they used aspects of their Korean repertoire when disciplining students to ensure that they were understood. Also, within the instructional register, there was a perception that the use of English became a hindrance at times, because it meant that students were unable to follow instructions for activities or understand key lexical items which were necessary for completing the LLA phases.

The effects of maximizing English exposure Teachers realized their beliefs about maximizing English exposure in their classes by utilizing IRF sequences and mood choices within the instructional and regulative registers. This restricted student voice and input to topics predetermined by the teacher. Their use of English created a strong classification which ensured that students did not speak Korean unless given permission to, placing all the power

Translanguaging practices of exclusion  155 in the teacher-student relationship with the teachers. Students were afforded little opportunity to question the teacher in their first language, and the observations revealed that only students who seemed confident speaking English had any voice in the classrooms. Korean as a cognitive tool was often denied to the students. Even when the teacher spoke Korean, it was often not intended as an invitation for the students to do likewise, but as a directive to listen to the teacher. The beliefs behind the use of English and Korean resulted in students being put into teacherconstructed ideal pedagogic subject positions where the students’ role was to listen attentively, speak in English when instructed to by the teacher or an activity, and not to use Korean unless explicitly directed to by the teacher. It was only when in the ideal pedagogic subject position that the teachers believed that the students could acquire the target knowledge. The nature of the target language being taught suggests that the original social and power relationships of discourse were evenly distributed amongst the participants within the appropriated discourses. Conversations about everyday occurrences tend to be friendly and not about demanding an answer from one another. The recontextualization of these discourses into the Korean elementary school English language classes saw teachers, who wished to satisfy beliefs about English exposure, create a pedagogic discourse through the use of English which granted the teacher almost full autonomy over the power relationships between themselves and the students. The regulative register allowed the teachers complete control, which in turn allowed as much English believed necessary into the class. Students were given no voice to question this belief due to the levels of control exerted by the teachers. Teachers’ beliefs in the importance of English exposure restricted students’ learner autonomy in these classes, as student voice was limited to what knowledge they had of English, which at this relatively young age, was little. It was beyond the scope of this study to ratify if students felt powerless within this learning environment, and how motivated they felt when experiencing language learning classes like this. Teachers described their experiences in classes that excluded Korean as fun and free in comparison to those classes which were dominated by Korean. However, their own classes, despite preferring to use aspects of their English repertoire over Korean, were rigidly controlled through IRF routines and mood choices of exclusion. This suggests a very different appearance from that of their own experiences as students. Possible reasons for these differences can be found when we compare public schools to the schools of the private sector. Public schools traditionally follow a rigid curriculum to which the teachers are expected to adhere. Each week, a new curriculum macrogenre is to be completed, no matter the actual progress of the students in the class. Private education providers do not have the state-decided curriculum to follow. They have the freedom to focus on materials that complement the public school curriculum and can spend more or less time on different aspects according to what these teachers feel is required, or on what the parents of the students want them to focus. That being said, the ultimate goal of the private school sector, or Hakwon, is to ensure that the students are prepared for the Korean SATs, which students sit at the end of their high school educational experience (Kim, 2016). It is believed

156  Translanguaging practices of exclusion that 80% of elementary school students attend private school programs every day after their public school day has finished (Kim, 2016). In these private schools are teachers from other countries, who have been chosen specifically to teach English, as they do not have a Korean linguistic repertoire. These teachers are preferred by both the managers of such schools and the parents of the students, as they can offer immersion classes where the students’ Korean linguistic repertoire is completely removed from the learning experience. Most teachers in these schools have no formal training or expertise in language teaching and rely heavily upon textbooks or websites that grant access to language teaching materials that have been created in countries such as England or America. The class sizes in the Hakwon are traditionally smaller, often the third of a regular public school. In classes of these sizes, there is less need for regulatory actions and greater opportunity for the ‘teachers’ to be creative with their lessons. The participants in this study who stated they had such experiences when they were learners attempted to incorporate these experiences into their public school classes. The analyses suggest that due to the size of the classes, the rigid nature of the curriculum, and the need to limit their Korean linguistic repertoire, the compromise they have settled on is a highly restrictive atmosphere in which students are given little freedom to say anything unless it is in English, and it is what the teacher wants them to say. While this allowed the teachers to expose students more to English than if they were speaking more in Korean, it may have removed the element of enjoyment that the teachers all discussed when referring to their own private school experiences.

The learned need for control This highlights another belief that the teachers must all have about teaching (but seldom articulated); the need for control. The use of IRFs and restricting mood choices were in all likelihood linked to their experiences at public school with teachers who did not speak English as well as their experiences with teachers who did speak a lot of the target language. These teachers have taken these features and incorporated them into their classrooms via the use of English rather than Korean. They have, essentially, become translated versions of their school teachers, where the need for control overrides other beliefs. This might be an example of what Moodie (2016) refers to as the anti-apprenticeship of observation, where teachers attempt to not do what they observed their own teachers doing. However, the level of controls that were invoked despite the use of English suggests that the teachers were still strongly influenced by their learning experiences in regards to hierarchical relationships within the classroom. The fact that they believed in conducting their classrooms in English as much as possible affected the social construction of the classroom, in that by choosing to limit their own Korean, they were also limiting their students, which in turn limited the potential voice of the students and stripped them of the cognitive tools provided by their full linguistic repertoire. A comparison of the beliefs these teachers had with that of native-English-speaker teachers would provide useful insight into how teachers

Translanguaging practices of exclusion  157 of different cultural and linguistic backgrounds strive to maintain control in their language classrooms.

The pedagogic subject position of exclusion An ideal pedagogic subject position is one where the teachers feel the students are ready to learn the content of the class effectively. It is recognizable by how the teachers try to influence the behaviour of their students. In other words, it is a set of expected behaviours that the students need to, first, recognize and, then, follow in order for the teacher to be satisfied with their classroom behaviours. These expectations are influenced by the teacher beliefs and are embedded during the recontextualization process. The discourse patterns of the teacher are responsible for shaping this position, and from the examples given in this chapter, we can summarize these discourse patterns via the regulative and instructional registers. The regulative register is characterized by exchanges which see the teacher limit their grammatical mood choices to the interrogative and the declarative, i.e. asking questions within an initiation move and then declaring if the students’ answers are right or wrong in the feedback move. Within the regulative register, teachers will also use their full linguistic repertoire to inhibit or deny students’ access to their own full linguistic repertoire. Within the instructional register, the same rigid IRF routines and grammatical mood choices ensure that the students follow the teacher without deviation. When the teachers wanted to increase their students’ exposure to English, they positioned students in a space that saw students: • Listen to and respond to the teacher using only aspects of their English repertoire • Listen to the teacher use their full linguistic repertoire • Participate in/pair/group activities using only aspects of their English repertoire • Focus on learning texts for listening, reading, speaking, and writing • Not interfere with other students • Have learning material ready • Sit in a position where you can see and hear the teacher clearly • Ask questions using English repertoire only • Add comments using English repertoire only In this pedagogic subject position of exclusion, the students had little choice but to adhere to the teacher, as permission to utilize use their full linguistic repertoire, and inadvertently their psychological and cognitive processes, had not been given by the teacher. There was less co-construction of the learning environment when the students had limited voice. This subject position, as the previously mentioned translanguaging pedagogic subject position, was realized in the ‘characteristic discourse patterns’ of the teachers (Christie, 2000, p. 316) as outlined previously. As pedagogic subjects (Christie, 1995), students were expected to participate in

158  Translanguaging practices of exclusion the construction of the discourse so they could ‘enter into possession of the common knowledge of a culture’ (p. 221). The linguistic resources employed by the teachers in these examples were the primary tools assisting students in achieving the pedagogic subject positions. These linguistic resources within the pedagogic discourse of these classrooms, which were shaped by the beliefs of the teachers, inducted students into ways of working that were valued by society at large. The observed passiveness of the students when in these pedagogic subject positions may therefore be described as a desirable trait which had been internalized by the teachers over their own lifetime of experiences with language learning, and which they in turn were passing on to their own students. Students who accepted the pedagogic subject position that the teachers strived for were more likely to do well then those who did not.

References Christie, F. (1995). Pedagogic discourse in the primary school. Linguistics and Education, 7(3), 221–242. doi:10.1016/0898-5898(95)90024-1 Christie, F. (2000). Pedagogic discourse in the post-compulsory years: Pedagogic subject positioning. Linguistics and Education, 11(4), 313–331. doi:10.1016/ S0898-5898(00)00031-0 Kim, Y.-C. Ŏ. (2016). Shadow education and the curriculum and culture of schooling in South Korea: New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Moodie, I. (2016). The anti-apprenticeship of observation: How negative prior language learning experience influences English language teachers’ beliefs and practices. System, 60, 29–41. doi:10.1016/j.system.2016.05.011

7

Linguistic repertoires Their origins and impact on pedagogic discourse

Introduction This chapter opens by examining the primary and secondary influences that impacted on the teachers’ initial assumptions, then tentative attitudes about language use. Then the teachers’ established, firmer beliefs are presented. These beliefs are presented as context to the translanguaging strategies that have been discussed in Chapters 5 and 6. The translanguaging strategies are then further explored in terms of their influence of the recontextualization processes and socialization processes that occur in the classrooms. The effects of the patterns of teaching practices observed on the students present how negative use of language in the classroom can sometimes lead to diminished participation by the students.

Patterns of practice and their consequences The educational ecology of the classrooms observed illustrated a conflict in the teaching practices witnessed. All teachers seemed at times to cater for the inclusion of their students’ full linguistic repertoire as part of the learning process, while at other times they deliberately created learning spaces that were markedly less inclusive. All teachers were observed to employ different translanguaging strategies that assisted students in successfully participating in different phases of the curriculum genre. These strategies, as identified in Chapter 4, did not operate in isolation, but worked together to create learning spaces that encouraged students to eventually be independent at certain stages of a phase. The teachers’ use of instructional and concept-checking translanguaging strategies were important precursory strategies that allowed the teacher to set up spaces where students could act independently, via the use of their own translanguaging strategies such as participatory translanguaging during classroom activities. Students’ use of conceptconfirmation translanguaging was a strategy that often worked in tandem with the teachers’ own translanguaging strategies and served as evidence of how the students were enabled to work with the teachers in the creation of the spaces that allowed for greater independence. Teachers’ use of translanguaging strategies that were inclusive of students’ translanguaging strategies often occurred early in a phase. The inclusive nature of the spaces that permitted teacher and student translanguaging strategies to be used in tandem supports notions that translanguaging

160  Linguistic repertoires improves student comprehension of curriculum content and therefore allows students with different linguistic repertoires to participate within the phases (Allard, 2017; García & Kano, 2014; Paulsrud, Rosen, Straszer, & Wedin, 2017, p. 41). Nevertheless, at times the teachers would create spaces that did not allow for the students’ full linguistic repertoires to be used. One way this was accomplished was when teachers used their own full linguistic repertoire to inhibit the linguistic repertoires of their students. Restrictive and depreciative translanguaging were strategies that did just this. These strategies are still thought of as translanguaging, as they were observed to work in conjunction with other translanguaging strategies within a curriculum genre to provide spaces that allowed for student creativity and independence, even if these were not evident upon use of the strategy at the time it was used. An additional strategy was total exclusion, which involved the teachers discontinuing their own use of their Korean linguistic repertoire and preventing students from using theirs. This strategy was accompanied by the use of the TV screen or other teaching aides, which would display rules and actions for the students to follow, as well as elaborate gesticulations by the teacher to ensure that the students could still comprehend what was required to participate in such an activity. During activities that were influenced by this strategy, students were not permitted to interact with each other and often were required to remain silent as part of the activity. This strategy is not considered a true act of translanguaging, as the full linguistic repertoires of both teachers and students were not employed, and at such times students were not free to interact creatively or independently from the teacher. Such occasions gave the impression of teachers attempting to exert control over the students rather than provide a space for language learning to occur. The creation of these different spaces was inextricably connected to an array of influences that acted through the teachers, students, physical aspects of the classroom, and the larger educational ecology of South Korea. We will now explore these influences in more detail.

Tracking the origins of teachers’ beliefs about language use in their classes Teacher beliefs originate in, and are transformed by, a myriad of influences. These start from when teachers were learners themselves, to their experiences when learning to teach, and then actually teaching. Tracing the origins and evolution of beliefs in this study utilized ideas put forward in Barnard and Burns (2012), who suggested differentiating beliefs into three discrete periods of development: initial assumptions, tentative attitudes, and firmer beliefs. Differentiating between these periods allows for an isolation of the influences into distinct sets specific to the stage of development.

Primary influences acting on the formation of initial assumptions Initial assumptions are defined as axioms which enable pre-judgements about the surrounding world. These axioms are generally formed after limited experience

Linguistic repertoires  161 with a phenomenon. For teachers, axioms about teaching develop during their experiences as students while learning a second language throughout their school years. Based on teacher profiles created and presented in Chapter 4, the primary set of influences found to be acting on the formation of initial assumptions about language use in the classroom were: • • • •

Past language teachers’ language use Alternative language learning experiences Enjoyment of classes Teacher training courses

Each influence acted in conjunction with other influences within the set to create initial assumptions about how a linguistic repertoire can be used to enhance itself. The following will detail the influences and provide examples as given by the participants in the study.

Past language teachers’ language use While at school as students, all participants had English teachers who relied on Korean almost exclusively. As mentioned by the participants, as learners they did not question this approach and understood it to be standard practice. This influence worked in conjunction with the other influences to develop assumptions about the role Korean aspects of their teachers’ linguistic repertoires had when teaching English. Given the age of the participants, the teachers of the participants in this book had teaching practices which aligned with the grammartranslation method. This method of teaching allowed teachers to utilize their full linguistic repertoire to enhance their students’ grammatical knowledge of English. However, oral proficiency was seldom improved via this method. This was the dominant form of English education until the late 1990s and early 2000s. The participants in this study all began their formal English education in middle school because English was not part of the official elementary school curriculum until 1997, when it was incorporated into the curriculum from grades three to six (Yim, 2007).

Alternative language learning experiences Some participants had alternative language learning experiences which provided them with another view on how to teach languages. When experienced while at school, this influence countered the assumption that the only way to teach a foreign language was in Korean, as seen in Michelle’s French lessons or Sue’s Japanese lessons. Sue enjoyed learning Japanese as she was interested in the pop culture of Japan at the time. Michelle enjoyed her French classes due to her teacher, who spoke French well and spoke French while teaching French. Alternative language learning experiences occurring while still in school were described as enjoyable in comparison to the grammar-translation method that dominated their English classes. Jenny and Sarah did not mention any

162  Linguistic repertoires such experiences while attending in school but did describe such experiences at university. Emma attended private language learning academies in addition to her regular school, which exposed her to an approach where the teacher relied exclusively on her English. This teacher could not speak Korean and was employed due to this lack of Korean linguistic knowledge under the guise that the teacher would enhance the learning atmosphere by improving the level of exposure the students would have to a fully developed English linguistic repertoire. The teacher did not have to follow a strict curriculum, and instead allowed non-traditional activities in the classroom. These were remembered as entertaining by Emma. These alternative language learning experiences were pivotal in the creation of alternative assumptions about language teaching for those teachers who had them.

Enjoyment of classes Enjoyment of the English subject classes was universally mentioned when asked about learning experiences, with most participant teachers stating that they did not enjoy their English subject classes; participants used the word ‘boring’ to describe their English classes. Sue did not experience any alternative form of English language learning experience when in school (she did, however, experience Japanese classes which she enjoyed), and her experiences of learning English were generally negative throughout her school years. The fact that Emma, Sue, and Michelle had what they described as enjoyable alternative language learning experiences, and had generally positive emotions associated with these experiences, but disliked their time in the English subject classes, and therefore had generally negative emotions, is important in the formation of their assumptions about the role the different aspects of a linguistic repertoire could play. Sarah did not have any early alternative language learning experiences until she reached university, and she enjoyed these more for the social aspect of the classes rather than for the teaching methods. She disliked another experience in an in-service teacher training program which practiced excluding Korean. This encounter only served to reinforce her assumption about the role Korean should play in the classroom. Likewise, Jenny experienced only an alternative language learning experience upon reaching university, where she experienced teachers who spoke no Korean for the first time, and suddenly became aware of what she perceived to be her own deficiencies in her English. This experience was not an enjoyable experience at first but did raise awareness about how she felt her previous experiences in classes had left her deficient in her English communicative abilities. This experience formed a new assumption about the role that English could play in class, one that had not formed due to a lack of such experiences. However, unlike some of the other teachers, this assumption formed much later compared to her assumptions about the role of Korean in the classroom, which would prove significant in the eventual formation of her beliefs about using her full linguistic repertoire as a teacher herself.

Linguistic repertoires  163

Teacher training programs Participants experienced teacher training programs that espoused monolingual, or English-only, approaches to teaching English at different times of their careers. Training programs exposed participants to alternative forms of English education in which exposure to English was both explicitly and implicitly encouraged. Participants who experienced them prior to becoming English teachers, but who were already established as teachers, were more susceptible to the programs’ values than those who experienced them after becoming English teachers. For Sue and Michelle, these experiences aligned with positive alternative language learning experiences and negative public school English class experiences to assist in the formation of assumptions that were positive about enhancing the role of their English linguistic repertoire in class. The objectives of teacher training courses can influence how much of an impact they have on teachers. The teacher training programs experienced by the participants were solely geared towards improving the teachers’ English proficiency and resulted in Emma and Michelle teaching exclusively in English upon first becoming subject teachers.

The importance of primary influences Initial assumptions that were positive about using English in the classroom consisted of a combination of negative public school English class experiences and positive alternative language learning experiences. Additionally, the attendance of teacher training programs prior to English language teaching experience also facilitated the formation of positive initial assumptions about the use of their English linguistic repertoire. Emma, Sue, and Michelle had positive initial assumptions about the role of English, and generally unfavourable initial assumptions about the role of Korean when teaching English. Jenny and Sarah did not have alternative language learning experiences while in school, nor did they attend training programs that espoused the value of an English-only approach prior to becoming English teachers. This resulted in Sarah having an initial assumption that favoured the use of her full linguistic repertoire rather than excluding its Korean elements. Although they experienced alternative language learning experiences while in university, they reacted differently, with Jenny questioning the effectiveness of an approach that allowed Korean to dominate language teaching, and Sarah not mentioning it as a significant part of her development. Due to the relative lateness of these experiences, they managed to foster more favourable views of Korean than the other teachers. Although the experiences had as learners are important (Bailey et al., 1996; Hall & Cook, 2012; Johnson, 1994; Numrich, 1996) in the formation of beliefs, not a lot of literature focuses on this with Asian bilingual teachers in regards to the use of their full linguistic repertoire. The combination of own teachers’ language use and the emotions that are experienced in conjunction with this have longlasting effects on teachers. McMillan and Rivers (2011) revealed how Japanese teachers cited their own English teachers, who never spoke English, as a reason

164  Linguistic repertoires for why they chose to use the same approach when teaching language, and despite this not being explored in any great depth, it reveals the strength of these initial assumptions about language use. As will be seen later, experiences had as students learning a language are powerful influences that shape the origins of beliefs about language teaching, often in ways not always realized by teachers themselves.

Secondary influences acting in the formation of tentative attitudes Tentative attitudes evolved from initial assumptions, shaped further by experiences with the teaching of English. Some initial assumptions were entirely changed, while other assumptions generally remained intact. For language teachers, initial experiences with, and reactions to, language teaching influenced the formation of tentative attitudes. The secondary set of influences worked in conjunction with each other during the formation of tentative attitudes about language use in the classroom: • Teacher training programs • Colleagues • Language teacher identity • Students • School contextual factors During this stage of development, duplicate influences affected participants differently, largely due to the initial assumptions that the participants had formed. The following will elucidate these influences and how they acted upon the already formed initial assumptions of the participants.

Teacher training programs For teachers who had positive initial assumptions about English use, the training programs were well received. Emma enjoyed the programs and had her positive initial assumptions strengthened by attending the training courses. Sarah, on the other hand, had negative initial assumptions reinforced, as her focus was not so much on the content of the programs but on the fact that the content was delivered exclusively in English. Jenny, who had a more positive assumption about English than Sarah, responded more positively to the training programs as well. For teachers who attended the training programs as in-service English teachers, the effect was minimal in comparison to teachers who attended the same programs as pre-service English teachers (but were already established as teachers).

Teaching mentors The influence of colleagues is common in the formation of beliefs (Hall & Cook, 2012) and is a factor in the socialization processes that teachers experience when joining a new school environment. The support that teachers receive in the form

Linguistic repertoires  165 of emotional support and teaching skills, while not well understood (Farrell, 2003), was evident with some teachers in this study. In this context, it was common for mentor teachers, older teachers with more teaching experience, to meet with practicing English subject teachers once a year to offer advice. Sue had conversations with a mentor that led her to employ more of her English repertoire out of the class (but still in school) as well as in the class. Her mentor’s advice assisted in strengthening her assumption into an attitude, as it allowed her to conceptualize more appropriate language without resorting to Korean. The fact that her mentor had favourable views on the role of English revealed the underlying ‘philosophy, cultural values and accepted sets of behaviours’ (Farrell, 2003, p. 97) that were held by the school. As Sue was already an established teacher within this school, her transition to that of English teacher was smoother than that of a true novice teacher, as she was already aware of these values. The values associated with language teaching did not contrast with her own and therefore were amalgamated with her own quite easily. Favourable initial assumptions about the role of English accommodated secondary influences that supported the role of English. However, the presence of positive assumptions did not guarantee that the secondary influences would reinforce an assumption. Michelle witnessed a more experienced teacher’s class, a teacher she said that she admired and respected, and found herself re-evaluating her assumptions about the role of English and Korean. Being able to watch a more experienced teacher, one who she felt had a greater command of the English language, communicate in Korean in class, challenged her assumption about the role of Korean in the classroom. This experience led to a conscious effort to use more Korean in her own classes, but only when she felt it was appropriate. This challenged her initial assumption, shaping it to be more inclusive about the role her Korean linguistic repertoire could have. It also revealed a teaching philosophy that did not align with those espoused by the training programs, where in school the use of Korean in the English class was acceptable. Despite valuing the knowledge she had gained from the training programs, the status of the more experienced teacher proved more influential, as it reshaped her initial assumption. The influence of mentors while teaching differed for the participant teachers. The amount of experience a teacher had teaching language was important when it came to the influence of other teachers. For Emma and Sarah, who had more experience teaching English, as they started earlier in their teaching careers, little was mentioned of the influence of mentors. For Sue and Michelle, who had different paths to becoming English teachers, as mentioned previously, the influence of other teachers proved important factors in the evolution of their attitudes out of existing assumptions. Michelle had the least experience teaching English, and this may be why her attitude towards using Korean differed from her initial assumption about Korean.

Role of language teacher identity Another influence that shaped assumptions into attitudes was the different perceptions surrounding the identities of English subject teachers and homeroom teachers who taught English. Identity involves the understanding people have

166  Linguistic repertoires about their relationships to the surrounding world, how these relationships are constructed across both time and space, and how people understand their possibilities for the future (Norton, 1997). Teacher identity construction ‘must be understood with respect to larger social processes’ and is influenced by coercive or collaborative relations of power (Norton, 1997, p. 410). Participant teachers who taught English as a homeroom teacher discussed how they used more Korean when teaching English as a homeroom teacher than as a subject teacher. For Jenny, teaching experiences as a homeroom teacher differed from those as a subject teacher, while contextual factors as an English subject teacher and then an English centre teacher enabled her to use English more. Jenny stated that her identity as a homeroom teacher and as an English subject teacher were important determinants in how she used languages in the classroom. When she became an English subject teacher, she felt she started using more English. These identities were shaped by the context of the classroom, and more specifically the students’ perceptions of the participants as a teacher. Most participant teachers believed that as a homeroom teacher, students wanted them to speak Korean, while students were more comfortable with their using English as an English subject teacher. For Michelle, being an English subject teacher who relied almost exclusively on her English repertoire allowed her to distance herself from her students’ day-to-day problems. Alternatively, Emma stated she felt her use of English made her students feel more comfortable. When teachers became English subject teachers, they changed their attitudes towards the use of English, believing that there was a perception that they must speak more English as that was their assigned role in the school. This shift in perception led the participant teachers to form attitudes that embraced the greater use of English, but how much they embraced it varied from teacher to teacher. For teachers with assumptions that favoured using Korean in class, assumptions changed in favour of including more English. For teachers who already relied heavily on English, the change in perceived identity only served to enhance their use of this element of their linguistic repertoire. The identities mentioned by the teachers at varying stages of their careers were influential organizing structures which gave the teachers both recognition and positive reinforcement of what they were doing (Farrell, 2011). The views students had of them were powerful influences that created very different reactions from the teachers, where students were less willing to accept an English-only approach by homeroom teachers compared to that of subject teachers. This relates directly to the impression that identity is involved in creating the uniqueness of a category of teaching. Uniqueness in a category is established in identity, in voice, and in the rules or internal relations (Bernstein, 2000), and this uniqueness is preserved by power. Within the traditional classroom, the teacher has the power to control the strength of classification of a classroom or subject. Uniqueness in a category of teaching leads to strong classification, and classification relates to the power relationships within the classroom. By embracing this perceived role of the English subject teacher, the participant teachers in this study gave themselves greater access to power in the classroom by establishing a

Linguistic repertoires  167 stronger classification than that which is established in homeroom teacher English classes. The degree to which they chose to, or were even allowed to, employ English as a subject teacher then allowed them to decide how well they would preserve this power. This role changed teachers’ assumptions about English and Korean use in the classroom, as they realized that by using more English, they could change the behaviour of students in the classroom. This was achieved by creating a learning environment that built on students’ initial acceptance of English as the norm, something which, apparently, did not happen when English was taught as a homeroom teacher. Not all teachers chose to act upon this difference in role identity. Jenny and Sarah did not use as much English as the other teachers. The other three teachers acted upon this and used English to further establish their position of power in the classroom.

Students All participants mentioned the need to use Korean as a direct result of their students’ inability to successfully participate in an English-only learning environment, and given the attention paid to this in the literature, this was not a surprise (Copland & Neokleous, 2011; Giannikas, 2011; Liu, Gil-Soon, Baek, & Han, 2004; Macaro, 1997; Mitchell, 1988). Sue and Michelle first started teaching English with no Korean at all in their classes, instead choosing to ignore students that did not understand them. They were influenced by theories learned during training courses that stated increased exposure would eventually allow students to comprehend what they were saying. Jenny and Sarah favoured the use of their full linguistic repertoire when teaching, and therefore their students’ linguistic competencies were a source of justification for their own language choices. However, students’ linguistic proficiency was not as significant as other influences in determining how their own linguistic resources were employed. Decisions to use certain elements of their linguistic repertoire were predetermined by their initial assumptions. For teachers such as Jenny and Sarah, whose experiences led them to believe that there was an important role for Korean when teaching English, their Korean had a prominent place in class. For the other three teachers, whose experiences led them to minimize the role of their Korean in class, student level did not drastically alter ideas about using their English repertoire, although it prevented them from excluding Korean entirely, as they still desired to maintain control over the learning environment. The teachers felt their own language ability was not a factor in determining how much English they used. They felt the curriculum was simple enough as to not prove to be too troubling to teach, and they also did not fear not knowing something, freely admitting that they were not native speakers and did not know everything.

School-related contextual factors In addition to the previously mentioned influences, within the school, other physical, socioeconomic, and political factors were evident via the teachers’ comments.

168  Linguistic repertoires Jenny worked where both physical and socioeconomic factors affected her use of English and Korean. She explained that the English centre where she worked saw all students in the district only once, and that some areas within this district were more affluent than others, with students with more pronounced English competency residing in wealthier neighbourhoods. The socioeconomic status of students saw her depend on her Korean in classes with students from lower-status socioeconomic backgrounds. Another contextual factor was the centre, which had themed rooms and an array of materials that made it easier for teachers to use English, especially compared to normal schools which lacked such rooms or materials. In addition to the physical facilities, the presence of native speaker teachers enabled her to use her English more often in the classroom. This contextual factor linked to her experiences of when she was a homeroom teacher or subject teacher in normal schools. As nobody spoke English outside of the class in regular elementary schools, transitioning to English for English class was burdensome. This burden influenced her to incorporate less of her English compared to her work in the English centre school. Contextual factors strengthened her attitude that it was more problematic to rely on her English unless there were classrooms which were very conducive to using English. The average classroom was seldom endowed with the available facilities at the English centre, and Jenny was well aware of this. Just as the status of the teacher as a homeroom teacher or a subject teacher can weaken or strengthen the classification of a classroom, so too can the physical environment of the classroom itself strengthen or weaken the classification of a subject. It would appear that Jenny believed that it was easier to use English with students from more affluent backgrounds as well as in specialized English subject classrooms. Another area of influence was government policy. Sarah stated that the new government had not officially stated a change in its stance on Korean use in the classroom, but she felt that it was less concerned with this issue, something she believed the majority of English teachers were aware of. Her early assumptions about the need for utilizing her full linguistic repertoire in the English classroom were strong enough to resist government attempts to create an English-only teaching environment, because as soon as a pilot program that implemented an English-only approach with first and second graders was discontinued, she quickly re-established the presence of Korean in her teaching practices. This experience on the pilot program appeared to have hardened her initial assumptions into an attitude that using her full linguistic repertoire was imperative for teaching English. She interpreted the new government’s inaction over discussing the TETE policy as an opportunity to abandon the policy altogether, further strengthening her attitude towards using Korean in the classroom.

The role of secondary influences These secondary influences occurred while the participants were actively teaching English, which distinguished them from the primary influences. The secondary influences worked on existing assumptions by manipulating them into attitudes.

Linguistic repertoires  169 Any difference in practice was not always accompanied by a deeper attitude change to the different elements of their linguistic repertoire. Teachers viewed new influences through the lens of their assumptions, with different teachers experiencing similar influences in ways unique to them. The efficacy of these influences compared to that of the primary set of influences would appear to be less. However, on one occasion (Michelle), the efficacy was such that it saw the teacher make a substantial adjustment to her stance on using her full linguistic repertoire in her classes. Teachers who started teaching English after establishing themselves as teachers (Sue and Michelle) chose to rely more upon their English on becoming an English teacher than those who started their teaching careers as English subject teachers (Emma and Jenny). When teachers move from learning to teach to actual teaching, they undergo a socialization into the professional culture of a teacher, which requires the learning of ‘certain goals, shared values and standards of conduct’ (Calderhead, 1992, p. 6). Realities of the classroom tend to overwhelm new teachers, so that any ideals that may have formed during teacher training are often replaced by ‘the reality of school life’ (Farrell, 2006, p. 212). It would appear that for the teachers in this study, becoming English teachers after they had already established themselves as teachers meant that they were able to maintain the assumptions about language teaching they had learned during the training programs more so than those teachers who had to cope with the challenges of being a new teacher as well as teaching in a foreign language. The exception to this was Sarah, who was involved in a government pilot program which used an English-only approach with first and second grade students. Because of the high stakes surrounding this program, she had no choice but to follow the English-only approach when she first started teaching. Changes from assumptions to attitudes happen over time, and teachers who started off with assumptions that favoured English saw those assumptions refined, by a complexity of influences, into attitudes that allowed for their Korean repertoires at certain times. This is not new, and it has been written about before (Atkinson, 1993; Auerbach, 1994);. What was different in this study was how this trend could occur in reverse, by starting out their careers relying more on their full linguistic repertoire before choosing to be more restrictive in their use of their full linguistic repertoires as time progressed, as in the case of Emma.

Firmer beliefs Firmer beliefs were differentiated from tentative attitudes about language use in that they were less likely to change. They found their origins in the initial assumptions about language use which formed when at school or prior to teaching English, as well as the tentative attitudes about language use. The secondary influences that refined tentative attitudes into firmer beliefs continued to be present in the daily lives of the participants. These firmer beliefs are unlikely to change. Table 7.1 summarizes the beliefs that each participant had about using their full linguistic repertoire. It also includes the influences experienced by the teachers throughout the formation of the beliefs.

Table 7.1  Summary of each participant’s beliefs. Teacher

Influences

Stated beliefs regarding linguistic repertoires

Emma

• Parents •  Positive experiences both in

•  English exposure important

public and private language teaching •  Positive teacher training experiences that practiced Korean exclusion •  English use associated with teacher identity •  Student linguistic proficiency issues

Jenny

•  Parents and teachers •  Positive and negative

experiences at school.

•  Limited experience with

Korean exclusion in university

•  Positive teacher training

Sue

experiences that practiced Korean exclusion •  English repertoire associated with teacher identity •  Student linguistic proficiency issues •  Physical context of classroom and socioeconomic status of students •  Positive experience with Korean exclusion class (Japanese) • Negative experiences with public school language teachers •  Positive teacher training experiences that practiced Korean exclusion •  Influential colleagues who socialized her into embracing full linguistic repertoire

so should rely on English repertoire as much as possible •  English repertoire distinguishes her classes from other subjects/ teachers, improves class atmosphere better, lowers student affect •  Korean repertoire needed with students-grants her control of students, makes her like other (non-English subject) teachers in school/more authoritative and is used with boring activities/in effective teaching methods •  English exposure important but do not need to exclude Korean repertoire as can demotivate weaker students •  Korean repertoire ensures all participate and motivates weaker students

•  English exposure important,

distinguishes her classes from other subjects/teachers, but •  Korean repertoire ensures that all participate and motivates weaker students as she can control the students better

Linguistic repertoires  171 Sarah

Michelle

•  Parents and teachers •  Positive and negative

experiences at school •  Limited experience with Korean exclusion in university • Negative experience with Korean exclusion teacher training experiences •  Student linguistic proficiency issues •  Marital context • Government educational policy •  Positive (French) and negative experiences at school •  Positive teacher training experiences that practiced Korean exclusion •  Influential colleagues who socialized her into full repertoire use. •  English use associated with teacher identity •  Student linguistic proficiency issues

•  Difficult using only English repertoire

•  Exposure is important for

students with proficient English repertoires •  Korean repertoire ensures all participate and motivates weaker students as she can control the students better

•  English exposure important but amount depends on level of students •  Use of repertoires affects her identity, becomes a good role model for students •  Korean repertoire ensures all participate and motivates weaker students as she can control the students better

Beliefs about using their full linguistic repertoire All teachers felt that English exposure was important. However, Sarah felt that total exclusion of her Korean during class benefitted only students who already had proficient English. Only Emma felt that totally excluding her Korean was desirable, whereas the other teachers felt total exclusion of their Korean to be unrealistic or, in Sarah’s case, undesirable. Both Jenny and Sarah believed that relying exclusively on their English caused students to become demotivated. However, Emma believed that her students preferred her to use more of her English rather than Korean, as she believed that students liked her better when she used English. Emma, Sue, and Michelle all felt that English was important for creating a unique environment which distinguished themselves from other subjects in the school, with Michelle believing that by using a lot of English in class, she was acting as a good role model for her students. All teachers believed that their Korean granted them greater control over the students. They also believed that their Korean allowed all students to participate fully in their respective classes, especially the students with less proficient English. Three of the teachers believed that Korean allowed them to better express themselves in certain situations, with Jenny believing it had an important place in learning English. Emma, on the other hand, believed that using her Korean made

172  Linguistic repertoires her classes too similar to regular classes, taking away from the uniqueness of her classes, and that Korean was usually only used with boring or ineffective teaching methods and activities. The influences identified were instrumental in the formation of the beliefs that the teachers brought with them to the classroom. The beliefs act as a conduit between society and the classroom, highlighting the need to better understand the influences as well as beliefs that are ubiquitous in the classroom. These beliefs regulated the language choices of the teachers, and we will now turn to the features of this language to better understand the growing network of interconnections involved in the creation of the learning spaces observed in these classes.

Factors affecting pedagogic discourse The key elements affecting the classification and framing at the phase level of the curriculum genres were as follows: • Prevalence of IRF sequences • Grammatical mood choices within speech functions of system of negotiation • Use of English • Use of Korean There was a high level of consistency amongst teachers in regards to how these four factors interacted in the pedagogic discourse of their classrooms. Figure 7.1 presents how these different factors influenced the pedagogic discourse of the classroom. On the left, the horizontal discourse, which represents discourses not traditionally associated within educational contexts, is shown. On the right, vertical discourse, which represents discourses traditionally associated within educational contexts, is shown. The lines binding these two discourses are labelled classification and framing, with movement to the left deemed to weaken classification and framing, pushing the discourse towards a less rigidly controlled horizontal discourse. A move to the right was deemed to strengthen classification and framing, and push discourse towards a more controlled vertical discourse. The elements influencing the strength of framing and classification were the four elements identified earlier, namely, IRF prevalence, grammatical mood choices, the use of English, and the use of Korean. IRF prevalence and grammatical mood choices are in the centre as they were constant features of the curriculum genres observed. When there was an increase in the frequency of these elements, a shift to the right occurred, and there was a strengthening of both classification and framing. Likewise, a decrease in the frequency of these elements saw a shift to the left, and a weakening of both classification and framing.

How different aspects of the linguistic repertoires affected classification and framing The effects of the teachers’ use of English and Korean differed slightly, so they have been placed outside the lines of classification and framing. First, an increase

Linguistic repertoires  173

English language Korean language

H O R I Z O N T A L

Classification

W E A K

Constant Factors IRF Prevalence Grammatical Mood Choices

S T R O N G

V E R T I C A L Discourse

Discourse Framing English language Korean language

Figure 7.1  Elements acting in pedagogic discourse

in the use of the teachers’ English saw a strengthening of the classification of the classes. An increase in the use of English was considered to strengthen classification because other subject classes did not use the English language, so any increase in the use of the English language in English classes served to strengthen the boundaries between English classes and classes in other subjects. English was situated as not only the content and competence to be learned in class, but also as a mode of transmission in how the content and competence was transmitted. English was found in the regulative register and the instructional register of the pedagogic discourse of these classrooms: in the instructional register as it was the content and competence to be learned, and within the regulative register as it was one of two languages that controlled how the knowledge was transmitted. In contrast, an increase in the use of the teachers’ Korean during the curriculum genres weakened classification, as teachers in other subject classes within the schools relied exclusively upon a linguistic repertoire that was comprised solely of Korean, something also prevalent in everyday life in Korea. Using the Korean aspects of their linguistic repertoire during an English lesson potentially resulted in a decrease in the amount of English content and competency that was worked on in the class, so Korean in an English class weakened the boundaries between English classes and classes in other subjects. A strengthening of the classification resulted in a move towards the vertical discourse box, just as a weakening of

174  Linguistic repertoires classification resulted in a move towards the horizontal box. Essentially, for English language classes, the more English was spoken in the classroom, the stronger the classification. The teacher was the most prominent influence on the use of English in the classrooms. If a teacher chose to rely heavily on their English in the classroom, and chose to forbid or ignore students’ use of their Korean, then the teacher was socially constructing the boundaries of the classroom so that Korean was excluded, which effectively situated the teacher in a position of power over the students as the teachers’ English was generally accepted by all in the classroom as the most proficient. Conversely, if a teacher was open to the use of the students’ full linguistic repertoire and therefore Korean, then the boundaries of the classroom were weakened, permitting a more egalitarian setting in which students could express themselves according to the strengths of their linguistic repertoire. This space sanctioned students to initiate exchanges or incorporate knowledge from their everyday lives into the learning milieu of the classroom. The effects of the teachers’ English and Korean on the framing of a phase within a curriculum genre differed from those on classification. Increases in the use of English weakened framing of the phases and curriculum genres. Teachers perceived that reliance on English in the regulative register, which occurred when they were directing student behaviour, usually resulted in students with weaker or non-existent English failing to understand the teachers’ attempts at controlling student behaviour. This in turn occasioned in students challenging the teachers’ authority, and by in large this was considered intolerable. Most teachers acknowledged that they relied on their Korean when disciplining students to avoid any chance of being misunderstood. They felt that it would have been unfair to the students to depend on their English on these occasions. Also, within the instructional register, there was a perception that the use of English became a hindrance at times for similar reasons. If students with weaker English could not comprehend the teachers’ instructions or understand key lexical items which were necessary for completing the language learning activity phases, then how could these students be expected to successfully complete the phases as the teachers desired? Consequently, the teachers made use of their Korean to strengthen framing as these elements made the rules of social order in the regulative register and the rules of the discursive order within the instructional register more overt for students with differing proficiencies. The use of Korean by the teachers subsequently allowed them to maintain control over the classes, as it strengthened the framing during the different phases. In contrast, when students were permitted to use Korean, it allowed them to add more of a voice to the construction of the learning environment within the classrooms, which in effect gave students a greater sense of control over the proceedings. Due to the nature of the regulative register, shifts in tone were observed, as teachers sought to control the classroom and ensure that the students were paying attention. This was observed in all aspects of the teachers’ linguistic repertoires. These shifts in tone saw the teachers raise their voices in order to relay their unhappiness with the current behaviour of the students. In addition, teachers would position themselves at the front of the classrooms in order to ensure

Linguistic repertoires  175 that they could see all students, and that all students could see them. This also allowed teachers to use posture in conjunction with tone and register to gain attention and control of the classrooms. Similar acts were observed within the instructional register as teachers used tone, position, and posture to maintain control in conjunction within the fore-fronted instructional register.

Recontextualization Recontextualizing content granted these teachers the opportunity to impose their beliefs on the roles that their linguistic repertoire could have in the classroom. The recontextualization of content from outside the EFL classroom to activities within the class allowed for a change in the original social and power relations from the appropriated discourse, as they were replaced by new, virtual social and power relations of the classroom. It was the teachers who were in position to decide upon these new social and power relations, and the beliefs they had about the roles of their linguistic repertoire were important in influencing the strength of the classification, or power, and the framing, or control, of the lessons they were teaching.

Punctuating social spaces Teacher beliefs about language constructed the roles to which students were expected to adhere. These roles determined to what extent students were free to have their own, unique voice in the classroom. Traditionally, classification is determined by the crossover between content in classes. However, for a language class, the linguistic repertoires of teachers and students also affected the classification, as they determined to what extent students were able to influence the uniqueness of a class. In these language classes, the students were limited in their actions by the access they were permitted to have to their full linguistic repertoire. If students had proficient enough English, they had the ability to participate more effectively when the teachers practiced exclusion strategies. Students with weaker or non-existent English tended to struggle to participate. The use of English increased the classification of the classrooms by creating boundaries between categories of discourses from outside and inside the English classroom. It also produced boundaries between those who had proficient English and those who did not, most noticeably the teachers and the students. This created power for the teacher by punctuating social spaces ((Singh, 2002), and established ‘legitimate relations of social order’ (Singh, 2002, p. 578). The different pedagogic subject sets previously identified were established by the modes of communication and social interaction between the teachers and students. Teacher monologues, triadic dialogues, and seat work activities (Singh, 2010), as well as other teaching aides present in the classroom, facilitated regulative instructional registers which were not entirely utilitarian; they contained ideological elements (Bernstein, 2000) which served to create and legitimize boundaries between teachers and students, and among students themselves,

176  Linguistic repertoires based on the ability to function in their developing English linguistic repertoire. If regulative registers do constitute moral orders of school, and therefore a larger social consensus, then teaching strategies that exclude elements of a linguistic repertoire due to the influence of pervasive educational policies that have been in operation for an extended time period might in fact be mirroring social stratification, which divides citizens into those who can afford to learn English and therefore do, and those who cannot and therefore do not, based on already established socioeconomic factors, rather than providing all students, regardless of socioeconomic status, the opportunity to learn English. Park’s (2009) discussion of three ideologies of English that dominate discussions of the role of English in South Korea are said to dominate the conceptualization of English within the country. These are cited as reasons for the massive expenditure known to occur yearly by Korean parents in regards to education, and why the government and the private education sector continue to utilize unqualified teachers to raise levels of exposure within the language classroom. If such a prevailing contradiction does occur within Korean society in regards to the role of English, then it should come as no surprise as to why the teachers in this study also demonstrated conflicting actions that at times seem to understand the need to improve the linguistic repertoire of their students and create an inclusive learning space, while at others succumb to the temptation to practice exclusion. There clearly is a need for a new ideology that is more inclusive!

Patterns of practice Within the English classroom, different forms of classroom communication, or specialized patterns of practice, are instituted within the two principles of communication, the interactional and the locational, via classification (Bernstein, 1990). Students who understand these principles are able to communicate appropriately in class. These recognition rules (Bernstein, 1990) that students formulate allow students to take on a resemblance of the pedagogic subject position. However, the possession of these recognition rules does not guarantee that students can construct the pedagogic texts for themselves. Recognition rules are acquired by inferring the principles of selection, organization, and evaluative criteria (all elements of framing) as enacted by the teachers. Therefore, the presence of recognition rules are evidence of the internalization of the framing and classification rules used to create the ideal pedagogic subject position for the students to be in. Students being in the pedagogic position is proof not that they are learning the target language, but that they are learning how to behave as the teacher wants them to behave. The translanguaging pedagogic subject position and the pedagogic subject position of exclusion had recognition rules that the students acquired. While the acquisition of these rules may tempt some observers to state that the students were learning, a more critical eye might discern that they had in fact only learned how to react to their teachers. This is important for the Korean context because of the status of English within South Korean society. English is intricately linked

Linguistic repertoires  177 with success on the peninsula; it is a major determinant not only in university attendance, but equally in employment prospects. If students are to join the imagined communities as envisioned by their teachers, parents, curriculum designers, or policy makers, communities defined by people with proficient English, then practices that promote linguistic exclusion are not sufficient. This is especially the case when teachers employ teaching practices that incorporate inflexible levels of control and power in the classroom so that students have little control over how they can express themselves in the target language.

Imagined communities The practices of the teachers here suggest certain characteristics about the communities they envision their students will join. The teachers’ use of translanguaging strategies suggests they know an expanded linguistic repertoire will be required of their students, and this aligns itself with the strategic goals of South Korea in wanting to be a globally competitive state. It also aligns with the goals of the parents, as they want their children to have sufficiently proficient linguistic repertoires in order first to graduate from universities, and then to obtain employment with certain social status. English is the cultural capital they require in order for this to occur. This also aligns neatly with the ideology of necessitation as discussed by Park (2009), where there is an insistence upon the need to have English competency in order for the citizens of South Korea to remain globally competitive. The teachers’ choices to use translanguaging strategies throughout the curriculum genres have been established as a need to reconcile with the limited repertoires they bring with them into the class, and therefore do not truly align with the ideology of self-deprecation, especially considering that these students are emergent bilinguals still expanding their linguistic repertoires. Nor does the use of translanguaging strategies align with the ideology of externalization, as the use of the teachers’ full linguistic repertoire, as well as their practices which encourage the students to do likewise, creates an inclusivity which not only values all knowledge, and therefore languages, but also does not position the English repertoire as something foreign to the students. Teachers themselves, when translanguaging, are modelling effective bilingual identities that have status within South Korean society. These identities are an imagined community that the teachers either consciously or subconsciously model for their students. However, within the curriculum genres observed, there were examples of teaching practices which did not promote translanguaging ideologies. Restrictive and depreciative translanguaging as well as the total exclusion strategy were employed at different times by the teachers, and for different reasons. These strategies were used to strengthen the classification of the phases they were employed within, and this had the effect of prioritizing English over Korean repertoires. This creates an unusual situation within the South Korean context, as everyday life necessitates the use of Korean. The imagined communities for which these strategies might be preparing the students do not include the Korean language and align with the ideology of externalization, which is said to highlight the otherness, or

178  Linguistic repertoires non-Koreanness, of English (Park, 2009). The use of these strategies has its origins in government educational policies that are reactions to perceived inabilities of the Korean people to master English, and therefore align with the ideology of self-deprecation. This ideology caters to a vision of an imagined community where the Korean people continue to struggle with attaining an imaginary standard of knowledge that is equivalent to the equally imaginative ‘native speaker proficiency.’ Both imagined communities hold negative values for their citizens and can lead to a perpetuation of ideologies that do not promote certain levels of success as desired by the students, their teachers, and the parents of the students.

Positions of alienation, detachment, and estrangement Subject positions of alienation, detachment, and estrangement (Bernstein, 1975) are the result of disadvantaging educational policies which act through teachers via educational settings from the macro level of society. Subject positions of alienation occur when students do not understand what is happening. When this occurs, students reject both instructional and regulative registers. Students in this position are in a relationship of conflict with the school, class, and/or teacher. According to Bernstein (1975), the families of such children are not likely to value the instructional practices or moral orders of the school and therefore will not, or cannot, assist the student to strengthen their relationships to the class. Subject positions of alienation will occur often in children who cannot understand the regulative and instructional registers because they are spoken in English. If teachers restrict the linguistic repertoire of their students, then they will continue to stand in opposition, resulting in the student not improving their linguistic repertoire, and possibly resenting school all together. The subject position of detachment refers to students who are able to understand the instructional register but may be averse to the regulative register in which it is embedded. In this case, a student may well have proficient English and actually enjoy developing it but, due to the regulative nature of the teacher talk, may resist participating or act as though not interested in learning the content. This results in students using their linguistic repertoire inappropriately in class, moving off topic, or not answering questions that they may obviously know. Subject positions of estrangement refer to students who struggle with the instructional register, or the content to be learned, but who nonetheless have no issue with the regulative register. When given the opportunity, they will participate as much as they can; however, in a language class, this will often be difficult due to insufficient English competency. Failure to understand the instructional order will cause the student to suffer, and to move to a position of alienation. An ideal pedagogic subject position that values the voice of the students, no matter the language they speak, differs from one that does not, in that it creates individuals who are not simply fashioned to be students, but individuals who can add voice to a society. Ultimately, the influences of society acting upon, and then through, the teachers create the type of individuals it desires. The fact that two sets of ideal pedagogic subjects, namely the translanguaging pedagogic subject

Linguistic repertoires  179 position and the pedagogic subject position of exclusion, have been revealed in this study suggests that Korean society is still unsure of what individuals it wants to constitute its population. It also reveals how some teachers’ resistance to government educational policies may represent certain opinions they have on the government or the society in which they live.

References Allard, E. C. (2017). Re-examining teacher translanguaging: An ecological perspective. Bilingual Research Journal, 40(2), 116–130. doi:10.1080/15235882.2017. 1306597 Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching in the target language: A problem in the current orthodoxy. The Language Learning Journal, 8(1), 2–5. doi:10.1080/09571739385200261 Auerbach, E. R. (1994). Comments on Elsa Roberts Auerbach’s “Reexamining English Only in the ESL Classroom”. The Author Responds. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 157–161. Bailey, K., Bergthold, B., Braunstein, B., Fleischman, N., Holbrook, M., Tuman, J., & Waissbluth, X. (1996). The language learner’s autobiography: Examining the apprenticeship of observation. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Barnard, R., & Burns, A. (2012). Researching language teacher cognition and practice. International case studies. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters. Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes and control. Volume III: Towards a theory of educational transmission. London: Routledge. Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse: Class codes and control (Vol. 4). London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Calderhead, J. (1992). Induction: A research perspective on the professional growth of the newly qualified teacher. In J. Calderhead & J. Lambert (Eds.), The induction of newly appointed teachers (pp. 5–12). London, England: General Teaching Council. Copland, F., & Neokleous, G. (2011). L1 to teach L2: Complexities and contradictions. ELT Journal, 65(3), 270–280. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq047 Giannikas, C. N. (2011). L1 in English language learning: a research study in a Greek regional context. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 319–339. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2011.00282.x Farrell, T. S. C. (2003). Learning to teach English language during the first year: Personal influences and challenges. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 95–111. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00088-4 Farrell, T. S. C. (2006). ‘The teacher is an octopus’ Uncovering preservice English language teachers’ prior beliefs through metaphor analysis. RELC Journal, 37(2), 236–248. Farrell, T. S. C. (2011). Exploring the professional role identities of experienced ESL teachers through reflective practice. System, 39(1), 54–62. doi:10.1016/j. system.2011.01.012 García, O., & Kano, N. (2014). Translanguaging as process and pedagogy: Developing the English writing of Japanese students in the US. In J. Conteh & G. Meier

180  Linguistic repertoires (Eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–308. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000067 Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of preservice English as a second language teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 439–452. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(94)90024-8 Liu, D., Gil-Soon, A., Baek, K.-S., & Han, N.-O. (2004). South Korean high school english teachers’ code switching: Questions and challenges in the drive for maximal use of English in teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 605–638. doi:10.2307/3588282 Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. McMillan, B. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2011). The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward “English only”. System, 39(2), 251–263. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.04.011 Mitchell, R. (1988). Communicative language teaching in practice. London, England: Centre for Information on Language Teaching. Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409–429. doi:10.2307/3587831 Numrich, C. (1996). On becoming a language teacher: Insights from diary studies. TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 131–153. Park, J. S.-Y. (2009). The local construction of a global language: Ideologies of English in South Korea. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Paulsrud, B., Rosen, J., Straszer, B., & Wedin, A. (2017). Perspectives on translanguaging in education. In B. Paulsrud, J. Rosen, B. Straszer, & A. Wedin (Eds.), New perspectives on translanguaging in education (pp. 10–19). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Singh, P. (2002). Pedagogising knowledge: Bernstein’s theory of the pedagogic device. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(4), 571–582. doi:10.1080/ 0142569022000038422 Singh, P. (2010). Pedagogic discourse and student resistance in Australian secondary schools. In A. Morais, B. Davies, H. Daniels, & I. Neves (Eds.), Towards a sociology of pedagogy: The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research (pp. 251–285). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Yim, S. (2007). Globalization and language policy in South Korea. In A. B. M. Tsui & J. W. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian context (pp. 37–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

8

Translanguaging’s call for change

Introduction All agree that the greatest impact that translanguaging has had to date is its drive to create a more inclusive discourse for language learners. Its continued push against the well-established, traditional, and sometimes hegemonic views of language learners as deficient entities is noble, and studies from around the globe continue to build the translanguaging picture, highlighting its strengths while also seeking to improve upon its weaknesses. This book is offered as further support for the need to build upon this endeavour; to critically reject biased language policies and ideologies that position both educators and learners negatively, while also to critically assess the impact of translanguaging and its use in real world situations. Every context consists of factors that need to be addressed when attempting this, whether they be socio-historical and individual-specific, or societal in nature. This final chapter summarizes the main discussion points from the previous chapters and makes suggestions for creating a space for the translanguaging ideology in EFL contexts.

Socio-historical influences The translanguaging spaces discussed in this book were influenced by the histories, experiences, beliefs, and actions of the teachers, and these are situated within the larger culture of South Korea. The teachers in this study all mentioned the regimental nature of their own language learning experiences, where their English teachers used very limited English and were considered strict. The effects of these experiences are evident in the teachers of this study’s own classes; seen in the overreliance on IRFs and less-than-inclusive grammatical mood choices. These teachers do differ in that they seem to suggest that they use more of their English than past teachers. The teachers in this study who stated a positive reaction to English-only lessons as learners were more likely to exclude students’ Korean than those who did not have positive experiences with English-only learning approaches. Teachers in this context choose to employ their full linguistic repertoires based on their own personal experiences rather than with guidance from government policy, which results in some students becoming detached from the learning

182  Translanguaging’s call for change environment. Strategies which allow for translanguaging at the margins of or within curricula activity should improve socio-emotional states to ensure this is not always the case, and guidance on such issues needs to be made available in training programs at the very least. This needs to include strategies for moving away from the overemployment of IRF routines and exclusive grammatical mood choices to ensure the full benefits of translanguaging can occur. The decisions teachers make during their teaching are shaped by a lifetime of experiences, and accessing these experiences and the corresponding external influences is an important educational experience to which a lot of teachers do not always have access. The role of beliefs in language teacher actions has received a great deal of attention in the last 30–40 years (Basturkmen, 2012; Farrell & Bennis, 2013; Farrell & Ives, 2015). The exploration of language teachers’ beliefs and their development from initial assumptions into tentative attitudes and then firmer beliefs about language use in class is beneficial to any teacher training program that encourages or prepares EFL teachers for a target language–dominant approach. In order for teachers to be able to accept innovations in regards to language use in the classroom, they should better understand their own apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975). A raising of consciousness about how a teacher has come to make classroom decisions allows for a more critical interpretation of their own teaching practices. By articulating the primary and secondary influences that have shaped the assumptions, attitudes, and beliefs of teachers, a more penetrating exploration can be undertaken as to why teachers use their linguistic repertoires in the ways they do. For teachers who may rely more heavily on one aspect of their repertoire, the process in this study can unearth reasons for this and potentially assist both pre-service and in-service teacher trainers in developing strategies for encouraging teachers to embrace changes based on their previous experiences via the enactment of more collaborative teaching-learning relationships. For teachers who readily embrace exclusion theories, understanding how their beliefs may be affecting the social construction of the classroom is vital to ensuring that they understand the potential consequences of such theories of language learning. If teaching is to be seen as more than just the application of knowledge and of learned skill, as the call from research on teacher cognitions implies (Borg, 2006; Richards, 2008), then interviews of the type and focus discussed here could allow for a more in-depth exploration of personal experiences which shape the beliefs individuals have about a phenomenon. In addition to this, pre-service and inservice teacher training needs to be more than just the application of the accepted wisdom of language teaching methodology; it needs to build grounded alternatives that include the experiences of the teachers involved (Breen, Hird, Milton, Oliver, & Thwaite, 2001), so that teachers can better see the value in what they do as well as appreciate the value of attending training courses that seek to genuinely assist a teacher, rather than impose on them theories of teaching which contradict every experience they have had, especially in the case of language exclusion teaching approaches.

Translanguaging’s call for change  183 The use of interviews is revealing, but aligning beliefs to actual classroom actions is potentially of greater interest to teachers who attend training programs. In my own personal experiences with teacher trainees, they often wanted more concrete answers about teaching methodology or skills development. While some teachers did value the opportunity to reflect on their own classroom practices and experiences, more often than not, they want advice on actions that could further improve their teaching. The framework used here, although complex, has the ability to help teachers better understand how their prior experiences and beliefs about an issue affect their teaching actions. It allows them to understand whether the beliefs they have actually transpire in the classroom in a manner they would approve of, or reveals why they do not. It also has the ability for teachers to reflect further upon what they truly believe, and how sometimes contradictory sets of beliefs can work against each other when teaching. But more importantly, by aligning their language choices and actions with actual consequences in the classroom, teachers can be shown how they can make actual changes to their practice. Linking visible teaching characteristics to beliefs heightens the value of understanding the beliefs that the teachers have.

Translanguaging identity development The actions of the teachers observed in these studies reveal not only how the teachers understand or perceive their identities in class, but also how they perceive the identities of their students. When teachers are translanguaging, they are embracing bilingualism as a positive force in the learning process, especially when they also permit students to embrace the same positive bilingual identity by allowing students to use their full linguistic repertoires. This is a major tenet of translanguaging, and something that the teachers were conscious of as they mentioned within their interviews that they felt they needed to be positive role models for their students. However, their ideas of what were positive models differed. Emma believed that she portrayed a more positive role model when she relied more on her English, and this was corroborated by her actions in class, although she did use her full linguistic repertoire at times through her lessons. She stated that her use of Korean was perceived negatively by her students, indicating contrasting perceptions of her bilingualism: Korean when she was strict or angry, English when she was having fun or happy. Jenny acknowledged that she was supposed to be acting as a role model for her students within her school, as they visited her expressly to be taught solely in English. This in fact was a dictate of the school that was reinforced daily. However, she felt conflicted, as she believed that she should use the Korean language as it was part of who both she and her students were. Her perceptions of using both languages were more positive, and she therefore used her full linguistic repertoire as she felt it was positive for the learning environment. Nevertheless, she was prone to restricting students from doing the same, denying them the opportunity to possibly model themselves off her own teaching and develop their own positive bilingual identities. Sue, Sarah, and Michelle positively

184  Translanguaging’s call for change embraced their full linguistic repertoires in the classroom. Sue and Sarah were less prone to denying students the same rights to model themselves off their actions and develop their own bilingual identities. Michelle believed in utilizing her English as much as possible, and encouraged her students to do likewise, but acknowledged that Korean had an important role to play in the learning process as well. Generally, it was observed that students were both encouraged and discouraged at different times to embrace a more bilingual identity in these classrooms. Control seemed to be the deciding factor in whether a student could access their full linguistic repertoire and therefore develop their bilingual identity in a more positive fashion. This potentially highlights a possible point of conflict for teachers, as they struggle to maintain curricula prescriptions in the teaching and learning process. Alternatively, it may reflect the struggle that South Korea as a society is enduring in regards to the role of English in society and what it means for a country who has historically considered themselves to be monolingual. A country which has historically prided itself on its monocultural nature, and fended off those attempting to subjugate them, is now finding itself needing to adapt to global forces in order to remain economically competitive. On the one hand, South Korea still prides itself on its one-blood history; on the other, they realize the need to adapt to an ever-changing world. This means a fundamental shift in how South Koreans choose to perceive themselves as individuals not only within their country, but also within the classroom. Retaining the essence of their culture within an ever-expanding repertoire of world knowledge needs to be seen as a positive, not a detraction of what makes people Korean. It is happening, and one only needs to compare South Korean citizens to those in the North to understand the reality of this. This book also argues that it needs to be accepted at the language level as well. Despite the debates about the true role or motives of English language education in South Korea, clearly South Koreans are joining the ranks of bilingual and multilingual people around the world. There is clearly still resistance to such ideas, especially by those who hold to the past. However, by accepting the positivity of bilingualism or multilingualism, they have the chance to position themselves in a more competitive position than those traditional tenors of yesteryear who insisted upon the absolute authority and superiority of monolingualism. Translanguaging is offered here as way forward for the positive identity construction that South Koreans may be searching for, rather than what has been forced upon them via traditional views of language learning.

Effective translanguaging The transformative effect of translanguaging continues to be explored in regards to the building of positive identities. Studies suggest that restricting linguistic repertoires in the language process negatively affects learner identity. When teachers successfully employ their full linguistic repertoires, and allow students to do the same, students can be positioned into translanguaging spaces that build positive language learning identities. The translanguaging strategies discussed in Chapter 5 highlight how such practices can affect social realities of the classroom so that

Translanguaging’s call for change  185 more inclusive learning environments which promote equality can allow students to participate more effectively. Strategies that remove ambiguity in instructions and lesson purpose (set 1), that enable students to learn new language items (set 2), that create more independent learning situations during activities (set 3), or allow for the provision of encouragement and support in lessons as well as ease tensions in independent learning situations (set 4) are all characterized by a weakened classification of the learning environment. When weakening the boundaries between formal education and prior knowledge that students bring with them in the form of their full linguistic repertoires, teachers are valuing aspects of the students’ established identity and providing opportunities for this identity to grow positively into that of a bilingual or multilingual individual rather than a deficient ‘non-native’ identity. Importantly for teachers, this can occur without the teacher relinquishing too much control over the learning environment, as in each of the strategy sets mentioned, the strength of framing was still maintained by grammatical mood choices as well as IRF routines. The translanguaging pedagogical subject position created by such strategies provides students with opportunities to access their full linguistic repertoires, potentially shaping identity, developing sociocultural language functions and their associated cognitive processes to assist in second language learning. This aids in the creation of intersubjectivity with the learning task by allowing the participants to establish control of the discourse and the task they are doing (Brooks & Donato, 1994). That being said, simply using a full linguistic repertoire does not always guarantee the opportunity for positive identity development. As shown in Chapter 5, there are times when a teacher’s use of their full linguistic repertoires, can, in fact, negatively position students, causing them to detach from the learning process. When teachers use their full linguistic repertoires to inhibit students’ own use of their full linguistic repertoires, it becomes problematic for the translanguaging ideology. Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse provides new understandings into how translanguaging operates in EFL contexts. It is often suggested that embracing translanguaging and the use of full linguistic repertoires aids in improving student participation (Allard, 2017; García & Li, 2014). This appears to be true when the teachers’ full linguistic repertoires improve access to pedagogical goals, especially without negative socio-emotional effects. However, this is not apparent when a teacher’s full linguistic repertoire adds to the sense of control that teacher can have in the class while at the same time taking away student voice. This was seen when teachers used their own full linguistic repertoires as they saw fit but at the same time insisted that students limited their own voice to that of the target language, which was English in this case.

Teacher awareness Teachers need to be made aware of the benefits of employing their full linguistic repertoires as well as the possible consequences. The inequality created when

186  Translanguaging’s call for change teachers have access to all of their language while students do not creates situations which inhibit learning. Classrooms are naturally inclined to have hierarchical systems that favour the teacher, so that the teachers are able to work within the curriculum as defined by curriculum designers and the decrees of educational policy makers (Mehan, 1979). Teachers are tasked with finding a balance between maintaining control while trying to encourage student participation (Paoletti & Fele, 2004), and translanguaging is seen as a method of improving the balance in favour of student participation. Within language classrooms, the IRF is acknowledged as one of the most prevalent discourse structures, being found throughout the world (Walsh, 2011), and they were a major pattern of discourse within the classes observed in this study. The pervasiveness of IRF routines tempered some of the redeeming aspects of translanguaging by strengthening the framing of the lessons. This was often observed when teachers initiated exchanges, dictated grammatical mood choices, demanded information, and declared if the given information was correct or not. Although at times participation within IRF cycles was improved by translanguaging, it nevertheless did not allow students to direct learning conducive to the views of translanguaging. Arthur and Martin (2006) remark that IRF routines are a mechanism for teachers to control students’ access to their linguistic repertoires, and this book corroborates that point. Translanguaging within patterns of discourse such as IRF routines limits student participation to a certain degree, and moves students into positions of disadvantage. Consequently, it is important to raise teacher awareness of the possible negative outcomes of an overreliance on IRF structures. Identifying that teachers do utilize their full linguistic repertoires is one thing, but understanding the patterns of discourse within which the teachers’ repertoires are used helps to reveal issues that may remain hidden if the emphasis is just on repertoires. The classrooms observed in this study revealed that while teachers’ full linguistic repertoires could help students avoid positions of alienation or estrangement, it did not help students with regard to positions of detachment. Detachment was observed to occur when students were denied access to their full linguistic repertoires, especially when teachers sought to maintain control of the learning environment. Teachers deemed it reasonable to weaken classification for classroom management, but when students attempted to do likewise, they were often admonished. Additionally, when the teachers introduced non-pedagogic issues, it encouraged students to do likewise, leading to loss of control for the teacher, something that was discussed by the teachers in this study as something to actively avoid. Accordingly, when teachers have access to their full linguistic repertoires but students do not, then students will not be able to participate as effectively in classroom activities or engage critically or meaningfully with class content (Arthur, 1996; Arthur & Martin, 2006).

The need for translanguaging in South Korea A case could be made that the fundamental desire of translanguaging to create greater freedom or equality within the classroom is at odds with basic elements of

Translanguaging’s call for change  187 the more traditional and vaunted South Korean educational system. South Korea has consistently ranked well on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and has drawn praise from world leaders in regards to the success and scholastic ability of both teachers and students. It could therefore be argued that there is simply no need to change the educational culture if it is indeed so successful. Unfortunately, such arguments and measures of academic performance (such as PISA) shroud the cost of such success. Yale academic Seewong Koo states that ‘To be a South Korean child ultimately is not about freedom, personal choice or happiness; it is about production, performance and obedience’ (Koo, 2014). Such depictions of Korean students find support in the Youth Happiness Index, which constantly finds Korean youth some of the unhappiest in the world due to educational pressures, not to mention the comparatively high suicide rates Korea has within the OECD. Clearly, such disturbing facts need consideration in regards to the effectiveness of some of the educational practices in South Korea. Transformative action needs to occur within classrooms in order to address such issues. When teaching involves levels of control that prevent student voice from being part of the learning context, then the transformative social action of translanguaging, namely providing students with the opportunity to question historical or current realities (García & Li, 2014) may be difficult to achieve. For teachers seeking to take advantage of translanguaging’s transformative nature, creating spaces for students to use their full linguistic repertoires and initiate or lead exchanges is essential (Jaspers, 2018). Traditional modes of transition that see the teacher as a dispenser of knowledge, as well as the focal point of power and control, will need to be phased out in favour of less restrictive and authentic student-centred approaches.

Making critical praxis more available To assist teachers in embracing the criticality and creativity on offer from translanguaging, and move teachers away from teacher-centred approaches, more needs to be done in English teacher training or education to expose teachers in EFL contexts to different ideologies that act through the teachers while in class. The questioning of the legitimacy of the native speaker as the ideal teacher or model language user has been questioned for more than two decades (Brutt-Griffler & Samimy, 1999; Kachru, 1996; Phillipson, 1992; Widdowson, 1994). Yet this discussion seems to have had little impact in countries that should, in theory, benefit most from these discussions. Critical pedagogy sees education as an opportunity to empower people through problem posing and dialogue (Freire, 1970), and this is something that needs to be encouraged more in EFL contexts. This should start with the notion that there is a genuinely positive counterargument to the monolingual bias that they have been fed while learning about English education. Teachers in these contexts need to be given greater opportunity to use their own language learning and teaching experiences to examine how they have been positioned into the non-native speaker status which effectively denies them the chance of ever reaching the ideal status often granted to that of the native speaker. This approach has been shown to be effective in influencing

188  Translanguaging’s call for change small groups of graduate students (Pavlenko, 2003; Samimy & Brutt-Griffler, 1999), yet it has not been employed or accepted on larger, national scales. Such approaches at the graduate level restrict who has access to this knowledge; therefore, there should be some attempts to at least start the discussion at undergraduate levels, as this is the highest level of education that most teachers of English in EFL contexts seem to achieve. Modelling a suitable critical praxis at the undergraduate level would surely provide a model for teachers to employ in their own teaching, paving the way for theories such as translanguaging. A reimagination of communities that the learners and teachers could join needs to occur; communities which hopefully would be more constructive in the development of positive language identities. Reappropriating understandings of bilingualism, language ownership, and belonging as well as linguistic diversity (Pavlenko, 2003) is an important step that needs to occur with full support at the national level so that teachers can implement teaching approaches that will prepare their students for imagined future communities that are inclusive of linguistic diversity rather than exclusive. A failure to provide this possible reimagined future will continue to see student participation limited or even stopped, with the previously discussed consequences continuing to have detrimental effects on numerous students and, ultimately, society. Within the classroom, a rethink is required on the use of native speaker models that have dominated EFL classroom course books. Cook’s notion of basing teaching on the ‘L2 user’ provides a starting point for this rethink (Cook, 1999, p. 203). To improve upon this idea, the use of bilingual or multilingual users from EFL contexts would be useful. Teachers could benefit from more examples of the translanguaging strategies discussed in this book, especially those from outside the classroom. Translanguaging strategies used by bilingual or multilingual South Koreans throughout different areas of society would provide positive imagined future identities and communities for students, improving their desire to invest in the language beyond the need to simply pass a test or get a job. In addition to this, understanding the role that control has in their teaching, and how control can adversely affect the participation of students in the language classroom, needs to be addressed. Communicative language teaching techniques have been around language teaching for a while now, yet there is still a preference for language teachers who teach beginners or younger learners to forgo some of the positive aspects of communicative language teaching to maintain control. Often, teachers refer to how their students’ lack of target language proficiency results in students using other linguistic resources at their disposal rather than the target language, breaking rules about proper language classroom conduct (such as not using their full linguistic repertoire). This represents another opportunity for critical pedagogy to introduce teachers to models of teaching which have teachers more as facilitators rather than as a centre of authority. From undergraduate programs onwards, teacher trainees need to be exposed to poststructuralist understandings of teacher identity and roles in the classroom. Guidance needs to be given on how to circumvent traditional triadic classroom exchanges that pacify learners. As seen in this book, the positive transformative power of

Translanguaging’s call for change  189 translanguaging struggles to emerge in classrooms that hold traditional power relations. Yet teachers have not been exposed to alternatives, either as students in schools themselves or as teacher trainees, so there can be little or no expectation that they themselves will provide spaces for transformative action to take place.

Final comment This book has been written to offer a perspective on what is happening within South Korea’s English education system. It is a snapshot of what is happening at the elementary school level. Obviously, more research needs to go into not only the elementary school context, but other areas of English education within the peninsula. This topic is personal for myself due to my long-term relationship with the country and the people. I offer criticisms as well as advice only in an effort to assist South Koreans in achieving their own stated goals of economic prosperity and global achievement. The process of this research has had a profound impact on my own understanding of the country, its people, and the roles and impact of language ideologies within it. That being said, this book is not the end of a process, but merely the beginning of a new direction of enquiry that seeks to continually push for new understandings and knowledge that I can only hope at least some will find informative. Thank you.

References Allard, E. C. (2017). Re-examining teacher translanguaging: An ecological perspective. Bilingual Research Journal, 40(2), 116–130. doi:10.1080/15235882.2017. 1306597 Arthur, J. (1996). Code switching and collusion: Classroom interaction in Botswana primary schools. Linguistics and Education, 8(1), 17–33. doi:10.1016/S0898-5898 (96)90004-2 Arthur, J., & Martin, P. (2006). Accomplishing lessons in postcolonial classrooms: Comparative erspectives from Botswana and Brunei Darussalam. Comparative Education, 42(2), 177–202. doi:10.1080/03050060600628009 Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System, 40(2), 282–295. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London, UK: Continuum. Breen, M. P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2001). Making sense of language teaching: Teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 470–501. Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77(2), 262–274. doi:10.2307/344508 Brutt-Griffler, J., & Samimy, K. (1999). Revisiting the colonial in the postcolonial: Critical praxis for nonnative-English-speaking teachers in a TESOL program. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 413–431. doi:10.2307/3587672 Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185–209. doi:10.2307/3587717

190  Translanguaging’s call for change Farrell, T. S. C., & Bennis, K. (2013). Reflecting on ESL teacher beliefs and classroom practices: A case study. RELC Journal, 44(2), 163–176. doi:10.1177/003368 8213488463 Farrell, T. S. C., & Ives, J. (2015). Exploring teacher beliefs and classroom practices through reflective practice: A case study. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 594–610. doi:10.1177/1362168814541722 Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Jaspers, J. (2018). The transformative limits of translanguaging. Language & Communication, 58, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2017.12.001 Kachru, B. B. (1996). The paradigms of marginality. World Englishes, 15(3), 241– 255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-971X.1996.tb00112.x Koo, S. W. (2014, August 3). How South Korea enslaves its students: Opinion. The New York Times, p. SR4. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Paoletti, I., & Fele, G. (2004). Order and disorder in the classroom. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(1), 69–84. Pavlenko, A. (2003). ‘I never knew I was a bilingual’: Reimagining teacher identities in TESOL. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 2(4), 251–268. doi:10.1207/S15327701JLIE0204_2 Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Richards, J. C. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC Journal, 39(2), 158–177. doi:10.1177/0033688208092182 Samimy, K., & Brutt-Griffler, J. (1999). To be a native or nonnative speaker: Perceptions of nonnative speaking students in a graduate TESOL program. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp. 127–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Abingdon, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge. Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 377–389. doi:10.2307/3587438

Index

alienation 56, 178, 186, 189 Allard, E. 32, 36, 160, 179, 185 Anton, M. & Dicamilla, F. J. 21–22, 25, 37 assumptions 20, 46, 59, 60–61, 65–68, 73, 84–86, 91, 96, 99, 103, 105, 108, 110, 112, 114, 159–169, 182 attitudes 19, 30, 36, 41–43, 59–60, 65, 67–68, 72, 77, 80–81, 88, 96, 107–108, 112, 115, 159–160, 164–166, 168–169, 180, 182 Barnard, R. & Burns, A. 58, 62, 68, 77, 160, 179 Basturkmen, H. 68–69, 77, 182, 189 beliefs 8–11, 15, 17, 20, 24, 27–30, 36, 41–42, 46, 53, 56, 58–60, 62, 64–82, 85, 88, 90–92, 94–96, 99, 101, 107–108, 113, 116–117, 133, 141–143, 145, 147, 154–160, 162–164, 169–172, 175–183, 189 Bernstein, B. 8, 10–11, 46, 52–58, 62–64, 120, 141, 166, 175–176, 178–180, 185 bilingual 8, 10–12, 14, 19–20, 22–23, 26, 29, 31–35, 37–40, 42–43, 45, 63, 72–75, 77, 79–82, 84, 88–89, 96, 101, 108–109, 112, 116, 119, 125, 133, 142, 148, 163, 177, 179, 183–185, 188–190 Blackledge, A. 32–33, 39, 73, 75, 77, 80 Block, D. 2, 20, 38, 61–62, 76–77 Borg, S. 3, 12, 18, 28–29, 38, 53, 59, 62, 65, 67, 69–71, 77, 81, 182, 189 Bourdieu, P. 3, 12, 34, 38, 74–75, 77 Chappell, P. 6, 14, 28, 43, 53–56, 63 Christie, F. 49–51, 53, 56, 63, 157–158

classification 53–58, 120–123, 126–130, 132–138, 140–141, 143–150, 152, 154, 166–168, 172–177, 185–186 classroom management 17, 20, 24–25, 28, 30, 85, 186 codeswitching 20, 22–23, 25, 28, 30–31, 33 cognition 20, 65, 67–68, 182 competencies 20, 22, 167 comprehensible Output Hypothesis 17–18 control 11–12, 19, 22, 27, 29, 34, 53–55, 58, 115, 120–121, 130, 134–135, 137, 139, 141, 145, 147–152, 154–157, 160, 166–168, 170–175, 177, 184–188 Cook, G. 7, 20, 30, 31, 47, 71, 73–74, 163–164, 188 Cook, V. 20, 23, 25, 31 Creese, A. & Blackledge, A. 32–33 cultural capital 34, 74–75, 177 curriculum genres 11, 49–54, 57–58, 143–144, 149, 154, 172–174, 177 declarative 57, 121–122, 125–126, 128–130, 132, 134–135, 138, 140, 147, 150, 157 dependent translanguaging 34 detachment 56, 178, 186 discursive order 54–55, 58, 130, 132, 134, 137, 149–150, 152, 174 Duff, P. 73, 76, 82 Duff, P. & Polio, C. G. 23–25, 30, 72, 84 educational ecology 32, 120, 142, 159–160 EFL 5–12, 16–21, 23, 26–29, 34–35, 37, 47, 52, 62, 72, 75, 175, 182, 185, 187–188 Ellis, R. 17, 19

192 Index English-only 1, 30, 92, 106, 115–116, 133, 151, 163, 166–169, 188 epistemological 46, 61–62, 66–67, 71 ESL 16–17, 19, 62, 106, 109, 179 estrangement 56, 178, 186 exclusion 7, 8, 10–12, 17–18, 30, 75, 85, 98, 106, 114, 143, 149, 155, 157, 160, 170–171, 175–177, 179, 182 Farrell, T. S. 67–68, 70, 165–166, 169, 182 firmer beliefs 59–60, 68, 96, 159–160, 169, 182 first language see L1 Firth, A. & Wagner, J. 21 foreign language 3, 10, 16–17, 22–24, 26–27, 72–73, 161, 169 framing 53–58, 120–122, 127–130, 132–138, 140, 143–150, 152, 154, 172–176, 185–186 García, O. 7–8, 10, 19, 25, 31–37, 55, 160, 185, 187 genre theory 47–49 globalization 2, 19–20, 74–75, 111 Grosjean, F. 8, 74 heteroglossic 36 horizontal discourse 54, 172–173 ideal pedagogic subject position 53, 56, 141, 145, 155, 157, 176, 178 identity 3–4, 8–9, 11, 20, 22, 34–35, 54, 59, 61, 65, 72–76, 82, 84–88, 92–94, 99, 106, 108, 114–115, 119, 125, 141–142, 146, 148, 153, 164–167, 170–171, 183–185, 188 idiolects 31–32, 34 imagined communities 11, 35–36, 73–76, 177–178 imperative 7, 9, 57, 121–122, 125–126, 130, 132, 138, 140, 144, 150, 168 inclusion 2, 20, 119, 159 independent translanguaging 34 initial assumptions 59–60, 84, 88, 96, 99, 103, 105, 108, 110, 112, 114, 159–160, 163–165, 167–169, 182 instructional register 53–56, 58, 130, 132, 145, 147, 149, 152, 154, 157, 173–175, 178 interpretative 46, 61

interrogative 57, 121–122, 125, 128–130, 134–135, 138, 140, 144, 147, 150, 157 IRF 47, 55, 58, 120–122, 125, 134, 143, 152, 154–157, 172–173, 181–182, 185–186 L1 7–10, 16–30, 37, 47, 53–56, 62, 106 linguistic repertoires 8, 10–11, 32–37, 71–72, 84–86, 88, 92–96, 99, 101, 103–105, 107–108, 110–113, 119–129, 132–141, 143–144, 146–147, 149–150, 154, 156–157, 159–178, 181–188 Macaro, E. 6–8, 22, 24–26, 30–31, 85, 88, 96 Mann, S. 9, 59, 61, 77, 106 Martin, J. R. 46–49, 56–58 May, S. 19–20, 36 monolingual 2, 10, 17, 19–20, 23, 25, 29, 31–34, 37, 73–75, 87, 91, 98, 102–106, 111–112, 163, 184, 187 motivation 28, 70, 75, 97, 100, 103–104 multicompetence 23, 74 multilingual 19–20, 22–23, 31, 33–35, 75, 119, 184–185, 188 named languages 8, 31–33, 37 native English speakers 6, 19 natural translanguaging 34 negotiation 17, 56–57, 172 neoliberal 2–3, 74 NNESTs 8, 20, 23, 26–29 non-native speakers 8, 18, 20–21 Norton, B. 3, 34–35, 72–75, 85, 166 official translanguaging 34 optimal 7, 20, 28 Pajares, M. F. 58, 65–69 patterns of practice 11, 159, 176 Pavlenko, A. 34–35, 61, 73–75, 85, 188 pedagogic discourse 9–11, 46–47, 52–56, 62, 120, 154–155, 158, 172–173, 185 Phillipson, R. 19, 99, 187 positioning theory 35 positivist 46, 61–62 power 2–3, 5, 12, 19–21, 25, 29, 35, 52–56, 62, 73–74, 114, 120–121,

Index  193 143, 151, 154–155, 164, 166–167, 174–175, 177, 187–189 primary influences 160, 163, 168 psycholinguistic 8, 12, 17, 19–20, 22–23, 33 pupil-directed translanguaging 34, 125 Rampton, B. 33, 36 recontextualization 11, 52–53, 56, 155, 157, 159, 175 reflexivity 8–9, 11, 59, 77, 89–90 regulative register 53–56, 58, 122, 144–145, 149, 152, 154–155, 157, 173–174, 176, 178 secondary influences 159, 164–166, 168–169, 182 Seth, M. J. 2, 5, 102 SFL 47–48, 53, 62 Singh, P. 56, 175 social order 52, 54–55, 58, 145, 149, 152, 174–175 social turn 20, 46, 62 sociocultural 17–22, 31, 46, 62, 76, 141, 185 sociolinguistic 19–20, 68, 119, 141 spaces 11, 32–33, 35–36, 119–121, 143, 149, 159–160, 172, 175, 181, 184, 187, 189 speech functions 57, 172 Swain, M. 17–18, 20–22, 25–26, 33, 46, 119

teacher-directed translanguaging 34, 124–125 teacher training 1, 19, 27–28, 71, 82, 92, 98, 101, 105, 109, 112, 136, 154, 161–164, 169–171, 182, 187 teaching mentors 164 tentative attitudes 59–60, 68, 108, 112, 159–160, 164, 169, 182 TL 7, 9–10, 16–18, 20–30, 47, 55–56, 58, 67, 177, 183, 185–189 TOEIC 3 transformative 184, 187–189 translanguaging 8, 11–12, 31, 33–37, 55, 76, 120–125, 135, 139–143, 146, 148, 157, 159–160, 176–178, 181–183, 185–189 translanguaging pedagogy 32–34, 36 translanguaging spaces 33, 119–120, 122, 126, 134, 181, 184 translanguaging strategies 11, 119, 121–122, 124, 127–129, 132, 135–138, 140, 143–144, 147, 159–160, 177, 184, 188 vertical discourse 54, 58, 144–145, 172–173 Vygotsky, L. 21–22, 141 Wei, L. 19, 32–34, 36–37, 119 Widdowson, H. G. 17, 187