Session 5E

In line with current plurilingual approaches to foreign language (FL) teaching, the new Companion Volume to the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2018) calls for the use of multilingualism in the FL classroom, for instance by virtue of pedagogical translanguaging. Pedagogical translanguaging refers to instructional strategies designed to include the use of more than one language in the classroom in input and output activities, implicit and explicit language comparisons, the use of cognates or multilingual discursive tasks (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017). However, the empirical evidence on the effects of pedagogical translanguaging on FL learning outcomes is scarce. In this talk, we present findings on the efficacy of pedagogical translanguaging on grammatical development among 269 students learning English as a foreign language (EFL) in German primary schools. Over the course of six months, pedagogical translanguaging activitites were systematically implemented in a control-group design at four German primary schools in fourth grade. At this point, students had had two English lessons per week since grade 3. About 45% of students were bilingual in that they spoke languages in addition to German (mostly immigrant heritage languages) prior to learning English. We defined them as minority-language students, compared to majority-language German-only speakers. The intervention group received English lessons with translanguaging tasks involving explicit language comparisons at the lexical and the grammatical level, the use of cognates and false friends, cross-linguistic phoneme substitution and omission activities to enhance phonological awareness, multilingual songs and rhymes (see Table 1). All tasks blended in with the textbook used in class (Playway, Gerngross, Puchta, & Becker, 2013), and pedagogical translanguaging activities took up 20% of lesson time in total. The control group received the same lessons without these elements in an English-only format. In a pre-post-test study, the students were tested on general FL vocabulary and grammar skills before and after the 6-month intervention period. In addition, we administered shorter-term pre-post-tests targeting specific grammatical phenomena (wh-questions, adverb placement, passives, negation). For the duration of two weeks, these phenomena were taught with translanguaging (intervention group) or without reference to other languages (control group). In the intervention group, the activities involved language contrasts and comparisons with the majority-language German and the minority languages present in the classroom. In all other respects, the teaching was identical between the intervention and the control groups. In all short-term tests targeting specific grammatical development, interactions of Time and Group highlight that the intervention group consistently outperformed the control group by showing significantly greater development from pre-test to post-test. These effects held for minority-language and majority-language students, suggesting that translanguaging activities are beneficial even for students without prior bilingual experience. At the same time, the pre-post-tests on general grammar skills did not show any differences between the intervention and control groups after 6 months. These findings bear out that pedagogical translanguaging boosts grammatical development by activating students’ linguistic resources across their language repertoire. However, the findings indicate that pedagogical translanguaging activities need to be targeted and focussed on specific phenomena for students to benefit from plurilingual FL teaching. In the talk, we detail the intervention and the findings and discuss the implications and limits of pedagogical translanguaging for early FL teaching in the context of current plurilingual approaches to FL instruction. References Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017). Translanguaging as a pedagogical tool in multilingual education. Language Awareness and Multilingualism, 309-321. Council of Europe (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion Volume With New Descriptors. Online: https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989. Gerngross, G., Puchta, H., & Becker, C. (2013). Playway 4. Pupil’s Book. Stuttgart: Klett.

Abstract The emerging field of language teacher psychology (Mercer & Kostoulas, 2018) has so far mainly focused on the individual, studying teachers’ cognition (Borg, 2003), emotions (Gknonou, Dewaele & King, to appear), self and identity (Clarke, 2008)). However, research in education has shown that teachers’ work is always framed (Goffman, 1974) within a larger context. These practice architectures (Kemmis & Smith, 2008) or frame factors (Lundgren, 1999) are vital to understand conditions of practice and learning outcomes. In this paper, we hypothesize that frame factors may ultimately also have an impact on teacher psychology. The aim of this study was to explore how French teachers in Sweden perceive their role as motivators and how they identify and react to the challenges induced by current educational frame factors. The Swedish education system has recently undergone major changes characterized as marketization and choice (Yang Hansen & Gustafsson, 2016). Pupils can choose a non-mandatory second foreign language (SFL), but if numbers drop below five, the school is entitled to close the teaching in the SFL. Among the main SFLs in Sweden, French is currently the most threatened (Granfeldt & Ågren, in press). Cluster analyses of responses to a large-scale questionnaire (N=294) investigating the Teacher Motivator Self (TMS), i.e. the part of the teacher self focusing on stimulating the learner’s commitment to learn a foreign language, led to the identification of two opposing TMS-profiles: one describing an evolving past, present and future TMS but a weaker ideal TMS and the second showing a decreasing past, present and future TMS but a stronger ideal TMS. Follow-up interviews (n=10) showed that current challenges stemming from the educational context affect teachers’ psychology differently. Three teacher patterns were identified and labelled as a) the confident teachers b) the worried teachers c) the frustrated teachers. 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. Clarke, M. (2008). Language teacher identities: Co-constructing discourse and community. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Gkonou, C., Dewaele, J.-M. & King, J. (2019). The Emotional Rollercoaster of Language Teaching. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row. Granfeldt, J. & Ågren, M. (to appear). Évolution de l’étude de la langue française à l’école suédoise: les tendances de 2000 à 2018. Synergies Pays Scandinaves, 14. Kemmis, S. & Smith, T. J., (2008). Enabling praxis: Challenges for Education, Rotterdam: Sense. Lundgren, U. P. (1999). The Frame Factor Theory Revisited. Journal of Swedish Educational Research, 4(1), 31-41. Mercer, S. & Kostoulas, A. (2018). Language teacher psychology. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Yang Hansen, K. & Gustafsson, J. E. (2016). Causes of educational segregation in Sweden–School choice or residential segregation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(1-2), 23-44.