A Conceptual Framework Supporting Translanguaging Pedagogies in Secondary Dual-Language Programs
Kathy Escamilla
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article presented explores an important area of research. Particularly noteworthy is its theoretical foundation that works very well.
Overall, I am positive with this contribution, as long as some points will be revised:
- On the terminology basis, it remains unclear why translingual pedagogies has been chosen within the context of translanguaging. The use of translingual instead is confusing, so it may make sense to frame the title and argument rather with translanguaging.
- The introduction is very good. However, within the remainder, there are quite some terminological deficiencies. First, it must be clarified that this article refers, same as García's work, to a second language context. This is implicit, and also insinuated at the end. However, the scope and sight/context of investigation deserves more attention at the beginning already.
- With the terminology: second language must be named, eventually also target language / dominant language / lingua franca, because readers get a bit confused about the idea of thought laying behind. This also refers to Canagarajah (2011), who applied his theory of codemeshing. This is rather concealed with this line of argument, wherefore I recommend to properly map translanguaging, codemeshing (and also code-switching, as mentioned in the table). Too often, concepts are not used properly. So be more precise here.
- It is argued that elementary schools have a stronger inclination to dual language programs. Immersion, however, is also a common practice in elementary schools (both for second/foreign language learning). Genesee (1987) as historical account might be worth mentioning. The research context/concept and the NCES sample needs more clarification not to confuse the global landscape of research with this rather local context later. This is a strong requirement.
- The table is very interesting but difficult to grasp in its entity. It should be decomplexed. A further column that graphically visualizes the different rows might help at a few instances (but is difficult to implement, I agree). The examples given are quite interesting, too, as they may attract the interest of educators in practice.
- Section 6 is too short, e.g., explaining design cycles. There needs to be more focus on methodology, i.e., what role does action research play, or collaboration with research institutions with design-based research? Nijhawan (2022) who worked on designing multilingual methods with code-switching and translanguaging might be a useful resource, also in context of the table given. Also, design-based research in educational contexts (look e.g., at The Design-Based Research Collective (2003), to validate your findings and discuss the application with other contexts.
- The real interesting parts are actually sections 7 and 8. Much more background about the implementation/action needs to be given. The context is too shortly described. And the conclusion must be more extensive (what is the surplus value/finding of this study? What knowledge can be shared). What further work is needed? So far, it is more the presentation of an idea in accordance with the research literature. If methods are better clarified and the findings contextualized, this could upgrade the work significantly.
Overall, I remain positive of this contribution if revisions are taken accordingly.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Language-wise, although nicely and fluently written, editing is necessary (e.g., bi/multilingual, put a "-" after bi; page 1: in "our" country, don't use plural 1st person; "implemented effectively, and evaluated effective" --> implemented and evaluated effectively). Please make sure the language use remains consistent.
Then, as mentioned above, spend more time with the proper use of terminology that could elsewise confuse readers.
Author Response
September 9, 2024
Guest Editors:
Dr. Margarita Jimenez-Silva
Dr. Karen Guerrero
Re: Revise and Resubmit for Special Issue: Supporting Multilingual Students in Schools: Perspectives, Challenges, and Opportunities Special Issue Information
Dear reviewers:
Thank you for the opportunity to revise the manuscript entitled: Conceptual framework Supporting Translingual Pedagogies in Secondary Dual Language Programs for your special issue, Supporting Multilingual Students in Schools: Perspectives, Challenges, and Opportunities, in the open access journal, Education Sciences. Here we are sharing our responses to reviewers’ comments:
Reviewer 1
- Review: On the terminology basis, it remains unclear why translingual pedagogies has been chosen within the context of translanguaging. The use of translingual instead is confusing, so it may make sense to frame the title and argument rather with translanguaging.
- Response: Generally, I use “translingual” as a noun and “translanguaging” as a verb. Translingual pedagogy, to me, sounds like the name of the practice with the action being to take up translanguaging. However, I agree that being consistent with the field is important. I am going to follow the example of Quin and Losa (2023) in the Modern Language Journal, “Translingual caring and translingual aggression: (Re)centering criticality in the research and practice of translanguaging pedagogy.” In this way, translingual is still used as a noun, but to add consistency, the term “translanguaging pedagogy” will be used throughout our article going forward. The title and running header of our piece has also been updated.
2. Review: The introduction is very good. However, within the remainder, there are quite some terminological deficiencies. First, it must be clarified that this article refers, same as García's work, to a second language context. This is implicit, and also insinuated at the end. However, the scope and sight/context of investigation deserves more attention at the beginning already.
3. Review: With the terminology: second language must be named, eventually also target language / dominant language / lingua franca, because readers get a bit confused about the idea of thought laying behind. This also refers to Canagarajah (2011), who applied his theory of codemeshing. This is rather concealed with this line of argument, wherefore I recommend to properly map translanguaging, codemeshing (and also code-switching, as mentioned in the table). Too often, concepts are not used properly. So be more precise here.
Response (to review comments 2 + 3): The section, “Conceptual Framework: Dynamic Dual Language Instruction for Dynamic Bilingual Learners” has been revised to include two paragraphs that describe different perspectives on language learning. “Second language” is now explicitly named in this section. Hopefully this section also clarifies terminological issues.
4. Review: It is argued that elementary schools have a stronger inclination to dual language programs. Immersion, however, is also a common practice in elementary schools (both for second/foreign language learning). Genesee (1987) as historical account might be worth mentioning. The research context/concept and the NCES sample needs more clarification not to confuse the global landscape of research with this rather local context later. This is a strong requirement.
Response: Using Genesee to look historically is a helpful comment. I found it appropriate to clarify the context of this framework in the revised section, “Conceptual Framework: Dynamic Dual Language Instruction for Dynamic Bilingual Learners” “This contrasts language programs taking a language acquisition approach which historically, were “based largely on monolingual children” (Genesee, 2002, p. 3) and sought to support student learning of two or more languages as separate skills, valued differently, and used desperately for academic purposes. Rather, this study considers the research in the context of education for simultaneous bilingual learners, which “pushes the power of cross-linguistic research…since bilingual children are their own controls on a number of variables (such as personality, age, cognitive ability, etc) that can confound studies of monolingual children” (Genesee, 2002, p. 3).”
5. Review: The table is very interesting but difficult to grasp in its entity. It should be decomplexed. A further column that graphically visualizes the different rows might help at a few instances (but is difficult to implement, I agree). The examples given are quite interesting, too, as they may attract the interest of educators in practice.
Response: Table 1 has been fully revised and narrowed to add specificity.
6. Review: Section 6 is too short, e.g., explaining design cycles. There needs to be more focus on methodology, i.e., what role does action research play, or collaboration with research institutions with design-based research? Nijhawan (2022) who worked on designing multilingual methods with code-switching and translanguaging might be a useful resource, also in context of the table given. Also, design-based research in educational contexts (look e.g., at The Design-Based Research Collective (2003), to validate your findings and discuss the application with other contexts.
7. Review: The real interesting parts are actually sections 7 and 8. Much more background about the implementation/action needs to be given. The context is too shortly described. And the conclusion must be more extensive (what is the surplus value/finding of this study? What knowledge can be shared). What further work is needed? So far, it is more the presentation of an idea in accordance with the research literature. If methods are better clarified and the findings contextualized, this could upgrade the work significantly.
Response (To comments 6 + 7): Sections 6-8 have been re-organized under the section heading, “Implementing translanguaging pedagogies.” This section was revised to fit with the parameters of this conceptual piece and with the objective of explaining how to use a conceptual framework for dual language programming. Finally, this section explains the context where our project is being implemented.
Review 8. Overall, I remain positive of this contribution if revisions are taken accordingly.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments. Very helpful.
Reviewer 2
I think this is a very timely and relevant manuscript and I think it can be published with very minor edits and really the edits relate more to expanding content than actual edits. Minor edits suggested include the following:”(Thank you!)
- Review: The author(s) seem to present the arguments that traditional dual language has a cognitive focus whereas dynamic bilingualism has a social identity development focus. I do not disagree with the focus but wonder if the two are mutually exclusive? I believe they are not but I think this comparison should be further developed and explained (perhaps in a short paragraph)
- Response: Thank you! The intent was to look historically at the way programs were designed. To clarify, a section on page 8 cites Genesee (2002) who explains the ideological evolution of dual language programs. This clarification continues on the top of page 9 where I use Lightbown & Spada to better explain the different perspectives on language acquisition vs. development. Additionally, on page 12, we write, “This contrasts traditional dual language programs that take up more cognitive perspectives where learning is centered on acquiring features of language taken apart from the learner’s social identity. While cognition plays a role in language classrooms, table 1 includes examples of practices that support translanguaging when educators make a paradigm shift to include more social perspectives on how languages are developed and used in a dynamic dual language classroom.”
- Review: The author(s) talk about the pedagogy (lines 170-171) at the level of stance, classroom design, and moment-to-moment shifts - I believe that something needs to be added about the pedagogy at the program level. Again, this need not be lengthy just a paragraph to include the program level in the pedagogy.
- Response: Sections 6-8 have been re-organized under the section heading, “Implementing translanguaging pedagogies.” This section was revised to fit with the parameters of this conceptual piece and with the objective of explaining how to use a conceptual framework for dual language instruction planning. Finally, this section explains the context where our project is being implemented. The program level is addressed more on pages 8-9 when we discuss the perspectives on traditional vs. dynamic dual language programs.
We hope the reviewers will find these revisions satisfactory. We are most grateful for the constructive feedback of our reviewers and for the timeliness of our editors.
Sincerely,
authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I think this is a very timely and relevant manuscript and I think it can be published with very minor edits and really the edits relate more to expanding content than actual edits. Minor edits suggested include the following:
•The author(s) seem to present the arguments that traditional dual language has a cognitive focus whereas dynamic bilingualism has a social identity development focus. I do not disagree with the focus but wonder if the two are mutually exclusive? I believe they are not but I think this comparison should be further developed and explained (perhaps in a short paragraph)
•The author(s) talk about the pedagogy (lines 170-171) at the level of stance, classroom design, and moment-to-moment shifts - I believe that something needs to be added about the pedagogy at the program level. Again, this need not be lengthy just a paragraph to include the program level in the pedagogy.
I
Author Response
September 9, 2024
Guest Editors:
Dr. Margarita Jimenez-Silva
Dr. Karen Guerrero
Re: Revise and Resubmit for Special Issue: Supporting Multilingual Students in Schools: Perspectives, Challenges, and Opportunities Special Issue Information
Dear reviewers:
Thank you for the opportunity to revise the manuscript entitled: Conceptual framework Supporting Translingual Pedagogies in Secondary Dual Language Programs for your special issue, Supporting Multilingual Students in Schools: Perspectives, Challenges, and Opportunities, in the open access journal, Education Sciences. Here we are sharing our responses to reviewers’ comments:
Reviewer 1 (redacted)
Reviewer 2
I think this is a very timely and relevant manuscript and I think it can be published with very minor edits and really the edits relate more to expanding content than actual edits. Minor edits suggested include the following:”(Thank you!)
- Review: The author(s) seem to present the arguments that traditional dual language has a cognitive focus whereas dynamic bilingualism has a social identity development focus. I do not disagree with the focus but wonder if the two are mutually exclusive? I believe they are not but I think this comparison should be further developed and explained (perhaps in a short paragraph)
- Response: Thank you! The intent was to look historically at the way programs were designed. To clarify, a section on page 8 cites Genesee (2002) who explains the ideological evolution of dual language programs. This clarification continues on the top of page 9 where I use Lightbown & Spada to better explain the different perspectives on language acquisition vs. development. Additionally, on page 12, we write, “This contrasts traditional dual language programs that take up more cognitive perspectives where learning is centered on acquiring features of language taken apart from the learner’s social identity. While cognition plays a role in language classrooms, table 1 includes examples of practices that support translanguaging when educators make a paradigm shift to include more social perspectives on how languages are developed and used in a dynamic dual language classroom.”
- Review: The author(s) talk about the pedagogy (lines 170-171) at the level of stance, classroom design, and moment-to-moment shifts - I believe that something needs to be added about the pedagogy at the program level. Again, this need not be lengthy just a paragraph to include the program level in the pedagogy.
- Response: Sections 6-8 have been re-organized under the section heading, “Implementing translanguaging pedagogies.” This section was revised to fit with the parameters of this conceptual piece and with the objective of explaining how to use a conceptual framework for dual language instruction planning. Finally, this section explains the context where our project is being implemented. The program level is addressed more on pages 8-9 when we discuss the perspectives on traditional vs. dynamic dual language programs.
We hope the reviewers will find these revisions satisfactory. We are most grateful for the constructive feedback of our reviewers and for the timeliness of our editors.
Sincerely,
authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Overall, I am happy with the revisions. Now I recommend to focus on language (i.e., remove inconsistencies, possible mistakes etc.), check the coherence. Then publication is likely.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Final proof-reading required.
Author Response
September 24, 2024
Guest Editors:
Dr. Margarita Jimenez-Silva
Dr. Karen Guerrero
Re: Minor Revisions for Special Issue: Supporting Multilingual Students in Schools: Perspectives, Challenges, and Opportunities Special Issue Information
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to read our review our manuscript. We have re-read the manuscript with careful attention to the most recent APA guidelines. To address your specifically mentioned concerns, the following adjustments were made:
Reviewer comment: Overall, I am happy with the revisions. Now I recommend to focus on language (i.e., remove inconsistencies, possible mistakes etc.), check the coherence. Then publication is likely.
- Title: The "f" i Framework has been capitalized
- References: Barton (1994) has been corrected
- References: Capitalization and other typographical errors have been corrected
- Tables/Figures: Headers and capitalization issues have been corrected
Thanks again for the prompt reviews and constructive feedback. We look forward to next steps.
Sincerely,
Authors
