Heteroglossic Approach

This research is grounded in a critical view of the reality of language learning in Colombia, considering that linguistic policies are permeated by frameworks of reference and approaches disjointed from the context (Correa & Usma, 2013), namely, the monoglossic ideology and the additive bilingual education framework. The monoglossic approach indicates that there is a prevalence over the development of just one of the two languages (Arias Castaño, 2017). This is reflected in policies and the prevailing notion that bilingualism in Colombia is exclusively associated with English, although the national constitution declares the country is multiethnic and multicultural (Constitución Política de Colombia, 1991, art. 1). Consistent with this, an additive bilingual education framework is promoted, which conceives the learning of a second language as additional to the first, aiming for the personal enrichment of the individual. This framework advocates for the separation of languages and views the learner as two monolinguals in one (García, 2011).

In contrast, the heteroglossic approach differs from the diglossic relationship of languages as it takes into account the linguistic diversity of communities and recognizes the ecological and harmonious interaction of languages in the same context (Creese & Blackledge, 2010). From this perspective, a dynamic bilingual education framework is proposed. For García (2011), linguistic interactions occur at different levels and in various modalities, as if driving an off-road vehicle. According to this author, within this framework, “students are considered as a whole, their continued bilingualism is recognized, their bilingualism is seen as a resource, and transcultural identities are promoted” (p. 119). This concept is aligned with Bakhtin’s (1981) conception of heteroglossia as the coexistence of multiple voices, registers, and discourses within a language. For him, language is dialogic, facilitating meaning-making through the encounter of various linguistic and ideological voices. From this perspective, language users are seen as emergent bilinguals. Arias Castaño (2017) and García and Kleifgen (2010) posit that this categorization regards the use of both languages as resources, considering their learning potential rather than their deficit. As bilinguals acquire an unknown linguistic system, they climb through levels of proficiency until they reach a certain goal.

Translanguaging as a Transformative Pedagogy

The heteroglossic approach is enacted through translanguaging, defined by Williams (2012, as cited in García & Wei, 2014) as “a distinct pedagogical theory and practice that varies the language of input and output, but with ‘dual language’ processing for deeper understanding” (p. 91). Baker (2011) notes that it involves the systematic, strategic, and conscious use of two languages in the classroom to stimulate students’ cognitive development. For García and Wei (2018), “translanguaging refers to the human capacity of speakers to add and select different linguistic and semiotic characteristics to their communicative repertoire” (p. 3). Finally, Arias Castaño and Sánchez (2019) conceive it as “a bilingual pedagogy to foster students’ processing of the content and understanding” (p. 364). As for this study, we regard translanguaging as a pedagogical practice that integrates the use of emergent bilinguals’ communicative repertoire through scaffolding events. We also employ the concept as a didactic resource that mediates knowledge, used by instructors in a systematic, planned, conscious, strategic, and intentional manner, as Baker (2011) proposes.

The translingual environments are also framed within Cummins’s (2000) conception of a transformative pedagogy, characterized by being critical, social, liberating, and collaborative. It seeks to “develop students’ awareness of democratic ideals and give them the academic and critical literacy tools they will need for full participation” (p. 261). Those tools are provided to develop students’ linguistic repertoire, as conceived by García and Wei (2018), which is the dynamic use of all linguistic resources and multimodal expressions. Language is viewed as a semiotic system, which is the human capacity to “select and deploy” all linguistic and multimodal resources to communicate with others, beyond the limits imposed by dictionaries or defined language grammars by political and social norms.

As a non-formal initiative, the proposal breaks away from the constraints of the regular educational system, making it liberating, social, and collaborative—key characteristics of transformative pedagogy. The Colombian General Education Act of 1994 defines non-formal education as that which is offered to complement, update, supply knowledge, and provide instruction in academic or labor aspects without subjection to the system (Ley General de Educación, art. 36). Article 37 also declares that non-formal education promotes the personal development of individuals, the acquisition and reinforcement of national values, formation for artisanal, artistic, recreational, occupational, and technical activities, the protection and sustainable use of natural resources, and citizen and community participation.

Translingualand is also aligned with several specific objectives of primary basic education: (a) the development of basic communication skills, (b) the development of a critical spirit, (c) knowledge and exercise of the body, (d) the appropriate use of free time, (e) artistic formation, and (f) the acquisition of elements of conversation and reading at least in one foreign language, among others (Ley General de Educación, art. 21). Accordingly, Translingualand can be described as a non-formal learning proposal, mediated by translingual practices, grounded on a heteroglossic, dynamic education framework, for public primary schools’ emergent bilinguals.

Participants and Context

This study took place in two public schools in Pereira, Colombia, located in low socioeconomic zones. The participants were, on the one hand, 63 elementary school students who belonged to Grades 3, 4, or 5, and on the other hand, nine preservice teachers from a BA in Bilingualism who had been previously prepared in the use of translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy, and who took the role of instructors. The implementation of each proposed translingual environment was conducted as extracurricular activities, taking place on Saturday mornings for a total of 40 hours, divided into 20 sessions of two hours each.

Research Process

Table 1 provides a description of the different phases completed in the development of this study.

Table 2 presents the various phases and stages that comprise the methodological procedure for implementing translingual environments in the two public schools.

Data Collection and Analysis

For data collection, non-participant observations, questionnaires, and artifacts were used. Each translingual environment was observed twice by a researcher to gather insights into the use of both languages (Spanish and English) in the context of the sessions, the linguistic and social interactions among participants, and the potential enactment of translanguaging within the pedagogical practices employed during the process. For such purposes, researchers used an observation form with some predefined points.

Questionnaires were used to collect the instructors’ information about the children’s linguistic samples, content appraisal, and skills developed throughout the sessions. The questionnaires were administered via Google Forms during the implementation phase, and they included open-ended questions that addressed the aforementioned elements.

Some artifacts, from both instructors and students, were also collected for validation purposes. These artifacts included worksheets, didactic materials, oral (through videos and audio recordings), and written productions of students.

The data were analyzed utilizing the software QDA Miner Lite Free™, following the procedures of qualitative content analysis (QCA) as proposed by Kuckartz (2019), in which the data were first prepared to form main categories corresponding to the questions and units of observation contained in the instruments. Then, those categories were used to code the data and identify any subcategories; finally, a category-based analysis was conducted. The categories defined for this study were aligned with the core themes of the specific objectives: translingual practices, linguistic repertoire, and a set of knowledge and skills. A prior QCA was made by each researcher for further comparison to validate the analysis and triangulate the data.

Ethical Considerations

Informed consent letters were signed by the instructors and by the parents or tutors of the underage participants. The documents authorized us to collect their data, including photos and videos, audio recordings, and their transcription, as well as any artifacts resulting from the interactions within the context.

Researchers’ Role

This study included three researchers (the authors of this paper). One of us was the main researcher, in charge of the needs analysis process, the design of the extension project that later derived into the current study, and the preparation of the instructors. The other two co-researchers were responsible for collecting data through non-participant observations. The three researchers collected and analyzed data from questionnaires and artifacts, narrowing down the categories for reporting the findings.

Translanguaging as an Instructional and Communicative Strategy

The data give an account of the coexistence of Spanish and English in translingual environments. For this, the phenomenon of code-meshing was identified. This is understood as the integration of codes in bilingual spaces through the blending of different linguistic varieties, dialects, or languages within the same text or utterance for communicative or learning purposes (Canagarajah, 2011; Young & Martinez, 2011). In Translingualand, code-meshing was observed for scaffolding linguistic comprehension and production, as well as to establish fluent interactions among participants.

The excerpt below shows how participants of one of the translingual environments, whose focus was crochet, purposefully integrated both languages to communicate the intended message:

One child asks the instructor questions about the process to continue what they are knitting, and for this, she uses English purposefully to express crochet-related vocabulary, saying, for example: “Teacher, one triple crochet?”, “Teacher, ¿hago loops? [should I make loops?]”, “Teacher, ¿aquí hago three chains? [do I make three chains here?]”, “Teacher, the magic ring.” The teacher replied by making emphasis on these expressions, for example, “Yes, one triple crochet.” (Observation, Tejeland¹ Translingual Environment)

It is evident that both the child and the instructor strategically employed Spanish and crochet-specific vocabulary in English as part of their linguistic repertoire to scaffold the language functions of following and verifying instructions, as well as for fluently maintaining the interaction with the interlocutor. It is important to highlight how the participants used Spanish and English for keeping communication while displaying appropriation of the content and skills relevant to the Tejeland environment, including specific vocabulary related to the discipline. In this regard, Ortega (2019) states that there must be space for students in Colombian contexts to utilize their entire linguistic repertoire to create meaning within the classroom. The author also suggests that the use of translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy provides students in public Colombian schools with equitable opportunities to use their L1 as a tool to scaffold learning processes in a friendlier atmosphere.

Similarly, in another translingual environment whose focus was clay modeling, the participants utilized both languages to explain to the instructor how they made their craft:

When the instructor asked the participants about how they made the clay figurines, they answered using vocabulary related to geometric figures and colors in English:

Child 1: Primero hice el [first, I made the] circle and the square para la cabeza y el cuerpo del futbolista [for the soccer player’s head and body].

Child 2: Usé [I used] green clay para el bosque [for the forest] of the bear. (Observation, Clay-Motion Translingual Environment)

Based on the data previously presented, it can be seen that the participants added to their linguistic repertoire vocabulary in English that is commonly used in the clay-modeling translingual environment. This helped them explain the process of creating the clay sculptures using Spanish and English in the same sentence. Along the same line, both instructors and children utilized utterances for addressing content development and interaction through the use of English and Spanish, while stimulating the use of the entire linguistic repertoire of the participants as follows:

The instructor uses words in English and Spanish in the same sentence: “vamos a poner colbón al [let’s apply glue to the] support in this way para pegarlo [to paste it].” (Observation, Clay-Motion Translingual Environment)

After watching the video in English, one child expresses in Spanish what he understood from those instructions: “Yo entendí que hay que hacer la forma de cocodrilo con la mano derecha para iniciar el nudo” [I understood that you have to make the crocodile shape with your right hand to start the knot]. (Observation, Tejeland Translingual Environment)

The questions are in English. The participants read them and account for their understanding in Spanish. For example, Question 3 says, “What happened when Tommy touched the giant rainbow?” and a child repeats it in Spanish: “¿Qué ocurrió cuando Tommy tocó el arcoiris?” Also, the participants answer the questions in Spanish, including some words in English; for example, Question 4 says, “How did Tommy feel about his magical garden?” The children answer “no dice, pero creemos que [it is not mentioned, but we think] happy.” (Observation, Active Readers Translingual Environment)

Data suggest that English and Spanish were used to help participants understand the content of the workshops planned for each translingual environment, by providing them with input in one language and allowing them to confirm or discuss their understanding in the other language. Thus, Arias Castaño and Sánchez (2019) argue that allowing for the use of languages in contact in the classroom might be beneficial for both content and language acquisition. The authors also suggest that translanguaging should be fostered to integrally develop processes in which languages and content are assembled to make sense of the knowledge presented. In our study, participants used translanguaging for the appropriation of content, for giving, verifying, and following instructions, and for the use of routine expressions during the sessions.

In this matter, for routine expressions that are more frequently used, instructors and participants activated their linguistic repertoire by selecting English for the enactment of speech acts, including praising, using commands, and expressing politeness, as presented in the following excerpts:

Every time the children receive materials from the instructors, or they borrow them from their partners, they answer “thank you” or “thank you, teacher.” One of the kids arrived late, hugged the instructor, said “sorry,” and started explaining why he was late. (Observation, Tejeland Translingual Environment)

The instructor constantly expresses commands in English such as “be quiet,” “pay attention,” “silence,” “ready?” as well as praising expressions such as “good job,” “well done,” “perfect,” “very good,” “fantastic.” (Observation, Clay-Motion Translingual Environment)

The data confirm that the use of translanguaging is a significant factor in the instructional and interactional dynamics of the Translingualand proposal. It facilitates the scaffolding required for giving, verifying, and following instructions, for content development, and for expressing commands of politeness and praise. The use of translanguaging permits the fluent interaction of emergent bilinguals by accessing their entire linguistic repertoire to express intended ideas in determined communicative situations, while potentiating their linguistic development in both languages and the knowledge presented (Arias Castaño & Sánchez, 2019; Ortega, 2019).

Knowledge and Skills Developed Within the Translingualand Proposal

The Translingualand proposal enabled participants to acquire new knowledge in diverse areas and develop different skills. The acquired knowledge encompasses both generic and specific aspects of the discipline developed in each translingual environment. The skills range from cognitive, motor, and artistic elements.

Each translingual environment focused on a specific area, allowing participants to deepen their knowledge of this discipline. In the environment called “Rapzonízate,”² it was observed that most children were able to read and recognize the patterns they had written, demonstrating an understanding of structure and rhyme. In rap, there is a pattern of four lines, and at the end of each line, there is a word that leads the rhyme, corresponding to the structure “AAAA.” In addition, there are patterns in which the lines do not rhyme consecutively, but alternately, thus obtaining the structure “ABAB.” This knowledge is very specific to rap, and participants were able to identify both structures in their own rhymes, those of their peers, and those of the instructor. The following excerpts, from observation field notes and instructors’ answers to the survey, give an account of this:

One student reads his pattern, and his partners react by saying (in English) that it has a structure ABAB. The same situation occurs when the instructor reads his rhyme, the children say: “el del profe es una [the one from the teacher is a] pattern AAAA.” (Observation, Rapzonízate Translingual Environment)

The children were able to understand the different types of rhymes and how to create them with different words and endings. They were also able to understand the concept of “tempo” and follow the tempo of any song. They understand and know how to use the concept of “patterns” within the discipline. (Survey, Rapzonízate Translingual Environment. Translated from Spanish)

The data show that the children demonstrated a development of knowledge proper to the rap discipline, which was evident in their ability to identify various rhyme types, create rhymes with diverse word choices and endings, and effectively recognize and utilize concepts such as tempo, patterns, and structures.

Similarly, and as a result of their participation in the Translingualand proposal, it was found that the children developed a wide range of creative, motor, technical, physical, cognitive, and artistic skills. The following excerpts, taken from the answers provided by the instructors in the survey, exemplify this:

The children developed skills regarding stop-motion film creation, story writing, role assignment, and fine motor skills enhancement through the creation of clay motion products for their films. (Survey, Clay-Motion Translingual Environment)

The enhancement of motor skills, breathing techniques, and body coordination was evident in the development of the sessions of this environment. (Survey, TheArtRoom Translingual Environment)

There is evidence of the development of manual skills, motor skills, fine motor skills, hand-eye coordination, manual coordination, and pattern following. (Survey, Tejeland Translingual Environment)

The participants improved their handwriting throughout the course, as their writing in general was more legible by the end of the course compared to the beginning. (Survey, Active Readers Translingual Environment)

It was revealed that this program had a significant impact on the comprehensive development of the participants, particularly in areas such as fine and gross motor skills, hand-eye coordination, concentration, audiovisual creation, calligraphy, body awareness, and knowledge of various disciplines. In this fashion, translanguaging is demonstrated to be a transformative pedagogy for constructing students’ holistic progress in which what is “built in L1 leverages the L2 development through the integration of content, thus learners are empowered in not only linguistic but also general knowledge repertoire” (Arias Castaño & Sánchez, 2019, p. 365). This aligns with the conceptions proposed by the Colombian General Education Act of 1994, which declares that non-formal education spaces should complement the knowledge and improvement of individuals while enhancing their capacity to display skills in areas such as crafts, arts, and recreation, among others. This way, this project contributes to the pursuit of quality education and the promotion of lifelong learning opportunities proposed by Sustainable Development Goal 4.