The case of a pedagogical translanguaging intervention in a trilingual primary school: the students’

International Journal of Multilingualism ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rmjm20 The case of a pedagogical translanguaging intervention in a trilingual primary school: the students’ voice Oihana Leonet & Eider Saragueta To cite this article: Oihana Leonet & Eider Saragueta (2024) The case of a pedagogical translanguaging intervention in a trilingual primary school: the students’ voice, International Journal of Multilingualism, 21:4, 2112-2130, DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2023.2224009 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2023.2224009 © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 22 Jun 2023. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2374 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 4 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmjm20 The case of a pedagogical translanguaging intervention in a trilingual primary school: the students’voice Oihana Leonet and Eider Saragueta Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education, Philosophy and Anthropology, University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU, Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain ABSTRACT Although translanguaging has become a central issue in the multilingual education literature, research on pedagogical translanguaging practices remains underdeveloped. This article describes a study of 72 primary school students (age = 10.68) who participated in an intervention based on translanguaging pedagogies. During the intervention, the boundaries between Basque, Spanish, and English were purposefully and systematically softened to develop the students’communicative competence in the three languages. The study adopted a qualitative approach to explore the pedagogical validity of translanguaging. Focus group discussions were conducted as well as classroom observation in the Basque, Spanish and English language subjects. Qualitative Content Analysis was conducted to analyze the data. In addition, we analyzed translanguaging materials completed by students to gain a better understanding of their performance. The results are discussed in terms of specific translanguaging strategies designed for the intervention and show an increase in students’ metalinguistic awareness in the three languages. Students found pedagogical translanguaging useful since it facilitates language comparison and scaffolds understanding and written production. In addition, they found vocabulary strategies particularly beneficial for scaffolding foreign language learning. Finally, implications for the future development of translanguaging practices and research are brieflydiscussed. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 28 July 2022 Accepted 31 May 2023 KEYWORDS Translanguaging; scaffolding; metalinguistic awareness; multilingual education Introduction A number of authors have reported the benefits of softening boundaries between languages in the classroom (e.g. Cenoz & Gorter, 2015; Cummins, 2017; García & Wei, 2014), shifting away from monolingual conceptions about language teaching to more ecological teaching and learning practices (Hornberger, 2005). The term translanguaging has attracted considerable attention in the scientific community studying multilingualism © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. CONTACT Oihana Leonet [email protected] Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education, Philosophy and Anthropology, University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU, Tolosa Hiribidea 70, 20018 Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 2024, VOL. 21, NO. 4, 2112–2130 https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2023.2224009 and language acquisition and nowadays, as pointed out by Leung and Valdés (2019), ‘translanguaging is a multifaceted and a multi-layered polysemic term’(p. 365). For the purposes of the current article, we focus on the pedagogical use of translanguaging, following the original use of the term in Wales (Lewis et al., 2012) and go a step further to explore new pedagogical practices. These pedagogical strategies encourage students to use their multilingual repertoire to raise metalinguistic awareness and benefit from their multilingualism (Cenoz & Santos, 2020; Leonet et al., 2020). In any case, as state by Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain (2009, p. 4), ‘there is a blind acceptance of the notion that exclusive target-language use is the best practice’, and this is the norm in most multilingual educational contexts (Orcasitas-Vicandi & Leonet, 2022). The present study aimed to present the voices of a group of primary students who participated in an intervention based on pedagogical translanguaging. First, we define the concept of pedagogical translanguaging and review the main studies and pedagogical practices in the area, after which we describe a case study of a pedagogical intervention applied to 5th and 6 th grade primary students at a trilingual school in the Basque Autonomous Community. Second, in the method section, the context of the study is described followed by participants, instruments and data collection, and analysis. Third, the results of the study are explained in terms of specific translanguaging strategies designed for the intervention. For that, we have gathered multilingual students’metalinguistic reflections while developing language competence in a fluid linguistic pedagogical environment. The article concludes with a discussion, including suggested implications for the future development of translanguaging practices and research. Defining pedagogical translanguaging In the current study, a pedagogical translanguaging intervention was designed to develop primary students’communicative competence in Basque, Spanish, and English. Cenoz and Gorter (2021) describe pedagogical translanguaging as planned instructional strategies based on the student’s entire linguistic repertoire. The teacher plans these strategies to be implemented inside the classroom so that learners benefit from their multilingualism. Therefore, pedagogical translanguaging practices include various instructional strategies based on cross-linguistic comparison with the aim of developing multilingualism and multiliteracy. Concerning this definition, Cenoz and Gorter (2021) highlight the following theoretical concepts related to pedagogical translanguaging that are relevant and intrinsically connected to our study: Prior knowledge, scaffolding, and connected growers. There is broad consensus that learning is enhanced by building on learners’prior knowledge (Bransford et al., 2000). As described by Bransfrod and colleagues, prior knowledge refers to the pre-existing knowledge that a student possesses due to their previous experience and includes their cultural and social knowledge derived from their social roles. Regarding pedagogical translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021), prior knowledge includes previous information about vocabulary, grammar, pragmatics, and social aspects as well as beliefs about the languages in their repertoire. It also refers to the understanding of how these languages work, that is, the metalinguistic awareness of students due to their previous language learning experiences. The materials designed for the current study aimed to capitalise on students’previous linguistic knowledge by breaking boundaries between the languages and allowing metalinguistic reflection across them. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 2113 In turn, one of the functions of pedagogical translanguaging is to provide scaffolding as a way of developing students’multilingual repertoire, although it goes beyond this purpose (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021). García (2009) notes that bilingual teaching strategies play a scaffolding function, particularly when used with new speakers (see also Jones & Lewis, 2014). This concept originates from the work of Bruner, who defined scaffolding as follows: ‘A process of “setting up”the situation to make the child’s entry easy and successful and then gradually pulling back and handling the role to the child as he becomes skilled enough to manage it’(Bruner, 1983, p. 60). Scaffolding is, therefore, a resource offered over a limited timeframe. Once the students have internalised the knowledge, i.e. they can master the action previously performed with the help of an expert, the support is then removed. In the current study, translanguaging is regarded as a pedagogical tool, and therefore some of the translanguaging practices described later can be understood as scaffolding. With translanguaging practices we refer to specific didactic strategies and activities intended to develop students’multilingual repertoire rather than named languages in their repertoire (see Feller, 2022). In the present study, we have purposefully used the students’stronger languages for developing their linguistic competence in the foreign language. Based on learning theories in cognitive psychology, Cummins and Persad (2014) advocate using the L1 within the classroom. They explain that as the new knowledge is built on existing cognitive structures, the use of L1 provides an opportunity for students to activate and expand existing conceptual knowledge. This is particularly relevant for new language learners because their linguistic background knowledge is encoded in their L1. Translanguaging pedagogies –as described in their Welsh origins –aim to organise and mediate mental processes such as the assimilation and accommodation of information and choosing and selecting from the brain storage systems to communicate in speaking and writing. In turn, Swain and Lapkin (2013) discuss the notion that using the L1 in second language learning facilitates cognitive and metacognitive skills that are essential in the learning process (see also Turnbull & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009) and therefore contribute to the understanding of challenging and complex learning content. However, according to Swain and Lapkin, as students (2013) become proficient in the target language, its use should be increased to ensure exposure. Aside from sociocultural theory, scaffolding is also linked to dynamic systems theory due to its dynamic nature (Van Geert & Steenbeek, 2005). Finally, Kupers et al. (2017) state that scaffolding facilitates students’agency and autonomous work. The third theoretical concept related to the present study is connected growers, which was first used in dynamic systems theory to explain learning and development processes (Van Geert, 1994). The concept has since been applied to various areas such as language learning and multilingualism to describe the complex, nonlinear, and dynamic nature of language development (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). From a multilingual perspective, Cenoz and Gorter (2011) describe connected growers as skills in different languages that are connected to one another. For example, in a study with students who were learning Basque, Spanish, and English, they found that the skills used to organise content or to structure a text in one language were connected to the development of these skills in the other languages. Therefore, following Cenoz and Gorter (2021), the intervention designed for the current study uses pedagogical translanguaging to identify connected growers 2114 OIHANA LEONET AND EIDER SARAGUETA across languages with the aim of facilitating a more efficient development of a multilingual repertoire. Translanguaging strategies and practices Since its origins in Wales, the concept of translanguaging has gained wide acceptance in the bilingual and multilingual education research literature (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021). Nonetheless, translanguaging practices in the classroom have not progressed to the same extent and remain underdeveloped at the pedagogical level (Canagarajah, 2011). Pedagogical translanguaging can be used in language and content classes, and can take many forms. Cenoz and Gorter (2021) have placed pedagogical translanguaging practices into four categories according to the nature of the pedagogical intervention and the use of different languages within the learning task: (1) Enhancing metalinguistic awareness, (2) Use of whole linguistic repertoire, (3) Integrated language curriculum, and (4) translanguaging shifts. The taxonomy proposed by Cenoz and Gorter (2021) accurately captures the different didactic and organisational strategies that were implemented in the intervention described later in the methods sections. According to Cenoz and Gorter (2021, p. 31) the strongest form of pedagogical translanguaging includes those practices that ‘aim to develop metalinguistic awareness by activating prior knowledge and identifying connected growers so that students can make more progress in the development of their multilingual skills’. These practices can be designed at the phonetic, lexical, morphosyntactic, pragmatic, and discourse levels (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021; Leonet et al., 2020). Cenoz and Santos (2020) conducted a study on pedagogical translanguaging with primary and secondary education teachers in the Basque educational system. These authors employed three examples of pedagogical translanguaging strategies involving Basque, Spanish, and English in class. The first example used cognates in the science class to improve vocabulary building and reading comprehension. In the second example, a sequence of activities were used to develop syntactic awareness by comparing syntactic features of the three languages. Finally, in the third example, students completed various translanguaging activities such as reading and writing texts, discussions, and reflecting on cognates to develop awareness about different genres and registers. Cenoz and Santos (2020) concluded that pedagogical translanguaging can take different forms while summarising its potential to raise students’metalinguistic awareness. Hopp and Thoma (2021) conducted two intervention studies with primary school students learning English as a foreign language, in which they tested the effects of plurilingual teaching on grammatical development. In the first study, the teaching strategy aimed at illustrating the word order differences between subject and object questions while the second study targeted the production of passive sentences. The treatment in the experimental group included comparisons between English, the majority language (German) and the minority languages spoken by some students, while those in the control group completed the same activities in English only. The findings revealed that the plurilingual methodological approach facilitated grammatical development by increasing the majority language and minority language students’awareness of cross-linguistic similarities and differences, concluding that plurilingual foreign language teaching was suitable for all learners. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 2115 Other studies concerned with developing metalinguistic awareness at the lexical level reported a fluid and intentional use of more than one language. A Canadian intervention study conducted by Lyster et al. (2013) reported the benefits of developing morphological awareness by comparing compounds and derivations in English and French with a more specific focus on vocabulary development and morphological awareness. In a similar vein, Leonet et al. (2020) reported an intervention study with 5th and 6 th grade primary students. During the translanguaging intervention, word-formation strategies and morphological similarities among Basque, Spanish, and English were highlighted to enhance morphological awareness. The students learned to divide words into their smallest units of meaning as well as to derive words from a given affix and use this knowledge to guess unknown vocabulary. In some of the activities, the use of the three languages was required to raise cross-linguistic awareness. The authors found that the translanguaging intervention used with primary education students positively affected morphological awareness in the students’foreign language (English). In addition, participants perceived that the use of translanguaging strategies was useful for their learning while also being an enjoyable experience. Some researchers also advocate for explicit cognate instruction in class (Arteagoitia & Howard, 2015; Cummins, 2007; Cenoz et al., 2022). Cenoz et al. (2022) consider cognate identification a connected grower that facilitates the use of prior knowledge encoded in the students’linguistic repertoire to solve vocabulary gaps in the target language. Arteagoitia and Howard (2015) conducted a study with 230 6th and 8th-grade students of Latino origin. They examined whether the explicit teaching of cognate words affects students’vocabulary and reading comprehension. The results revealed a significant relationship between Spanish vocabulary knowledge and cognate knowledge, while they also found a significant correlation between cognate knowledge and reading comprehension. However, some studies claim that if students’metalinguistic awareness and strategy development are not sufficiently advanced, they might fail to recognise cognates in a text (Cenoz et al., 2022; Nagy et al., 1993). Therefore, the explicit teaching of cognate strategies might be necessary for students to take advantage of this connected grower. In this regard, Cenoz et al. (2022) found positive effects of explicit cognate instructions in a study conducted in a trilingual education setting with a minority language. These authors also found that the identification of cognates was linked to their linguistic characteristics but not to Students’L1, that is, primary school students take advantage of both Spanish and Basque when guessing the meaning of the unknown word in English. The use of whole linguistic repertoire, the second type of translanguaging practice proposed by Cenoz and Gorter’s(2021) encourages students to use two or more languages to complete a learning task, such as changing the language for input and output or look for information in different languages. However, they do not explicitly focus on developing metalinguistic awareness. For example, Lin (2015) proposed the so-called Multimodalities/Entextualization Cycle, where students’L1 (Cantonese) is used as a scaffold for teaching science content in the second language (English). Lin distinguishes three phases within this cycle: The initial phase is a period of experimentation where students make their first approach to the subject through multimodal resources that are meaningful to them (e.g. images, audiovisuals, and theatre). In the second phase, students read an academic text on the topic in L2 and construct the meaning of the text through notes or concept maps in the two languages. Finally, in the third phase, students use their L1 2116 OIHANA LEONET AND EIDER SARAGUETA and L2 to create academic texts (e.g. scientific experiments, expository texts, and instructional texts). Pedagogical translanguaging can also be used to foster students’linguistic and nonlinguistic cognitive structures by activating their L1. Escamilla et al. (2013) describe the socalled Preview-review technique, which consists of taking short intervals at the beginning and the end of the session to activate students’prior knowledge before the lesson and then later summarise the main content. Most of the session is taught in the target language. However, Escamilla and colleagues suggest that the use of students’L1 at these two points in the lesson might facilitate the activation of existing cognitive structures and stabilisation of the basic concepts (see also Cummins & Persad, 2014). The use of bilingual books has also been reported as a positive strategy in pre-primary education (Seals & Olsen-Reeder, 2020) and the third grade of primary education (Lyster et al., 2009). For example, Cummins (2005) proposed the creation of student-authored dual language books by taking the language in which it was originally written and then translating this to the L2, along with other multimedia and multilingual projects (e.g. creation of iMovies or PowerPoint presentations) and sister class projects where students from different language backgrounds collaborate using two or more languages (p. 588). The third type of pedagogical practice is labelled Integrated language Curriculum.In this case, students use only the target language in class and translanguaging is reflected in the syllabus of the language classes. An Integrated Language Curriculum implies the coordination of activities in different language subjects by employing similar methodological approaches as well as collaboration among teachers (Apraiz Jayo et al., 2012; Council of Europe, 2001; Lyster et al., 2013). The Basque Education Department has promoted the integrated language curriculum to achieve more efficient language learning through the coordination of activities in Basque, Spanish, and English language classes. In this educational context, Apraiz Jayo et al. (2012) reported the outcomes of communicative projects based on textual genres. For example, students from third grade of secondary education learned how to produce argumentative texts in the three languages, creating a complaint letter in Basque, a round table in Spanish, and a leaflet in English. The activities were sequenced to facilitate cross-referencing so that students could apply what they had learned in one language to the other languages. Finally, the fourth type of pedagogical translanguaging practice makes use of the socalled Translanguaging shifts. These strategies are not included in the lesson plan, that is, the teachers spontaneously shift language with a pedagogical purpose, by, for example, translating an unknown word or providing a short explanation in a language other than the language of instruction. Therefore ‘the shift starts as spontaneous, they have a pedagogical value and, in many cases, they may be linked to pedagogical translanguaging’ (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021, p. 33). Lewis et al. (2013) analyzed 100 lessons in primary and secondary Welsh schools and found that translation was used for clarifying the terminology associated with the lesson via bilingual worksheets and textbooks along with the teacher’s explanation. Jones and Lewis (2014) use the term ‘scaffolding translanguaging’ to refer to teacher-directed explanations in students’L1, related to Baker’s(2006:, p. 303) concept of ‘scaffolding language’. Baker proposed the latter concept to refer to the support that the teacher provides to the student through comprehensible language. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 2117 Research questions In this literature review we have seen that the cross-linguistic resources used to capitalise on students’multilingual repertoire have been associated with positive outcomes in various contexts (Arteagoitia & Howard, 2015; Cummins, 2007,2017; García & Wei, 2014; Hopp & Thoma, 2021; Leonet et al., 2020; Lin, 2015; Lyster et al., 2013; OrcasitasVicandi, 2020). However, most of these studies have been conducted in two languages. Thus, the current article will detail the implementation of an intervention in a trilingual setting, with the aim of exploring the experiences and opinions of primary education students participating in a translanguaging intervention. This work is guided by the following questions: RQ1. What are students’views on the translanguaging intervention? RQ2. What do students’metalinguistic reflections reveal about the translanguaging intervention? Method We present a case study to explore the pedagogical use of translanguaging as a scaffolding mechanism in language learning. A classroom-based ethnography was utilised (Erickson, 2010) to understand the distinctive features of the phenomenon and its complexity rather than to highlight generalities (Stake, 2000). The pedagogical intervention reported in this study is part of a larger project aimed at developing students’communicative competence in Basque, Spanish, and English and at increasing their language and metalinguistic awareness (see Leonet et al., 2017,2020). The study was conducted according to the standard local practice in approved human subject protocols at the University of the Basque Country. Context The intervention was implemented in a single state school in the Basque Country (Spain). Most students belong to the low-middle socioeconomic class. Although the main language of instruction in the school was Basque, and Basque, Spanish, and English were all taught as school subjects. Before the intervention, we interviewed school principals and analyzed educational documents to gather general information about the school and specific information about the content and teaching methodology used in the three language arts classes (Basque, Spanish, and English). Several classes were observed to determine how the school’s methodology works, and teachers participating in the intervention actively collaborated by exchanging their insights and views on the design of teaching activities. The project adopted a pedagogical translanguaging perspective (see Cenoz & Gorter, 2021) and lasted two school years, each one divided into three phases: Diagnostic, implementation, and evaluation. The data presented in this study were gathered during the implementation phase of the first year. In the first year, the diagnostic phase lasted from September to January. The research team conducted the following activities: Presentation of the project, classroom observations, and development of the 2118 OIHANA LEONET AND EIDER SARAGUETA translanguaging materials. We also provided training about the translanguaging approach and provided the specific materials to the teachers who participated in the intervention during this period. At the end of this phase, we conducted the pre-test. Students worked with the materials for 12 weeks during the implementation period in Basque, Spanish, and English language subjects. We also held focus group discussions with students at different points during this phase. Finally, after the implementation, we conducted the post-test. Translanguaging materials included activities that combined two or three languages and highlighted similarities and differences between them. Since the school’s methodology is based on group work rather than on direct instruction, we developed materials suitable for autonomous work. A teacher’s booklet was also created with specific instructions on how to use the materials. One of the authors of this article observed classroom performance and supported teachers during the intervention. Examples of these materials will be described below, together with the results. Participants The participants were 72 students (age = 10.68) from the 5th (n = 30) and 6th (n = 42) grade of primary education, of whom over half were female (n = 40) and 32 were male. All students participated in the pedagogical intervention in the language classes for up to 11 hours per week: Four for Basque, four for Spanish, and three for English. They had Spanish (48.6%), Basque (22.2%) or both (25%) as their L1, and 4.2% other languages. They were all learning English as a foreign language at school. Therefore, all students were bilingual in Basque and Spanish and emergent English learners. Students were more frequently exposed to academic content in Basque, as this is the main language of instruction in this school. However, most of them use Spanish at home with their parents, the dominant language in their surrounding sociolinguistic area. English is a foreign language, and thus the competence in this language is considerably lower. Instruments Focus group with students. Due to the participants’age, the students completed a written reflection as a preliminary step before conducting the focus group discussion. Before proceeding with the group discussion, the students individually answered the five openended questions on an answer sheet, writing their responses in Basque. The questions were designed to capture the multilingual practices students had experienced working with translanguaging modules. For the purpose of the current study, we specifically targeted the analysis of the following three questions: 1. What have you learned in this module? 2. What has surprised you most when you worked with two or more languages at the same time? 3. You know some Basque, Spanish, and English. Does what you know in one language help you to learn another language? INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 2119 classrooms while following a different curriculum (Orcasitas-Vicandi & Leonet, 2022). The excerpts from the focus group discussion with students and classroom observations clearly exemplify how the boundaries between languages were softened during the translanguaging intervention with the pedagogical purpose of integrating the different practices described by Cenoz and Gorter (2021). When comparing the two approaches, the majority of the students found it particularly useful to work with the three languages together and believe that they learn more this way. Concerning the second research question, many educational agents, including the Council of Europe (2001), have advocated for the integrated treatment of languages within the curricula. Based on the students’comments, it might be suggested that these connections have been strengthened due to the more fluent use of languages in the three subjects. The students’metalinguistic reflections reveal the potential of pedagogical translanguaging to enhance their metalinguistic awareness across languages. For example, at the textual level, as in the communicative project reported by Apraiz Jayo et al. (2012), the goal was for students to realise that they can use what they have learned about the characteristics of each genre to produce similar texts in the three languages. In the current pedagogical project, students wrote texts in Basque, Spanish, and English in the Basque language class while the project conducted by Apraiz Jayo et al. (2012) was limited to coordinating the sequence of activities between each language, allocating a separate space and a different teacher for each language class. Similarly, Lyster et al. (2013) reported a study based on the coordination of activities in French and English classes with the aim of fostering morphological awareness in both languages. Yet again, separate spaces and different teachers were earmarked for the two languages. In the current study, we go beyond the principle of coordinating activities by proposing stronger pedagogical translanguaging practices to develop cross-linguistic awareness (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021). Some of these activities are intended to develop students’metalinguistic awareness at the vocabulary level and include more than one language in the same activity. Positive outcomes regarding teaching word formation strategies across languages have also been reported in a study related to this same project (Leonet et al., 2020), with the cognate strategy being the most valued among students. Indeed, previous studies of cognate instruction have yielded somewhat positive results (Arteagoitia & Howard, 2015; Cenoz et al., 2022; Dressler et al., 2011; Feller, 2022; White & Horst, 2012). Moreover, in the current study, the teachers’spontaneous language shifts were frequently observed with the purpose of promoting understanding (Jones & Lewis, 2014; Lewis et al., 2013) and enhancing metalinguistic awareness. Our findings highlight the potential of pedagogical translanguaging to support foreign language learning. According to García (2009) the use of L1 can serve as a scaffold when students’competence in the target language is poor, as in the case of the students in the current study. The excerpt regarding the bilingual book serves as a clear example of how a student’s stronger language (Basque) can activate existing conceptual knowledge and support the understanding of a story in a foreign language (English). This pedagogical strategy has also been used with younger students in Canada and New Zealand with satisfactory results (Lyster et al., 2009; Seals & Olsen-Reeder, 2020). Indeed, the benefits of using students’L1 for learning another language have been reported in vocabulary learning (Arteagoitia & Howard, 2015; Leonet et al., 2020; Cenoz et al., 2022; White & Horst, 2012) and the development of literacy (Swain & Lapkin, 2013). Students in the current 2126 OIHANA LEONET AND EIDER SARAGUETA study perceived word formation and cognate identification as valid strategies. Further, the intervention made most students aware that they can capitalise on linguistic knowledge encoded in Spanish and Basque to support the understanding of unknown words in English. In addition, the project was implemented in a school with a particular pedagogical approach that places great emphasis on student autonomy and where frontal teaching is very limited. In the English subject, we have seen that instructions written in the students’ L1/L2 (Basque) can also scaffold task comprehension when autonomous learning and student agency is the goal (Kupers et al., 2017). Lewis et al. (2013) have reported how teachers’oral explanations in students L1 can be beneficial. In short, the results of the current study highlight the potential of using translanguaging as a scaffolding mechanism by providing input in the L1/L2 when the students’competence in the L3 is limited. However, for more advanced language students, translanguaging strategies aimed at developing metalinguistic awareness and integrating language curriculum seem more appropriate. Conclusions The development and analysis of pedagogical translanguaging practices have critical implications for research and practice in language education. In this article, we have analyzed translanguaging strategies through the lens of the student experience, observing examples of materials that facilitated students’understanding and creative production. An important function of pedagogical translanguaging is the development of metalinguistic awareness across languages explored at the lexical and morphological –as well as discursive –levels. We have also observed how translanguaging encourages the use of language as a mediating agent in cognitive processes. Students value the opportunity to work with translanguaging materials because they believe that the simultaneous use of the three languages helps them to capitalise on their existing knowledge more readily. And while students reported gains in all three languages, they stressed the benefits of translanguaging for facilitating foreign language learning. This study was exploratory and limited to analyzing pedagogical practices in only one school. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalised and should simply be taken as an example of how to put pedagogical translanguaging into practice. As an avenue for further research, we would recommend conducting additional intervention studies in different educational contexts to examine how translanguaging strategies can be adapted to other pedagogical approaches, sociolinguistic realities, and educational stages. However, despite such limitations, the findings presented here constitute a starting point towards showing how translanguaging pedagogies can take many forms. Moreover, the findings indicate that all these pedagogies are suitable for improving students’ linguistic competence in languages that are typologically distinct and with a different status and presence in each social context. Taken together, the results of this study make a significant contribution to the pedagogical translanguaging literature by bridging the existing gap between translanguaging theory and practice. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 2127 Funding This work was supported by Basque Government [grant number IT1666-22]; Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación [grant number PID2019-105818GB-I00]. ORCID Oihana Leonet http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8801-5455 References Apraiz Jayo, M. V., Pérez Gómez, M. D. M., & Ruiz Pérez, T. (2012). La enseñanza integrada de las lenguas en la escuela plurilingüe. Revista iberoamericana de educación. Arteagoitia, I., & Howard, L. (2015). The role of the native language in the literacy development of latino students in the U.S. In J. Cenoz, & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual education: Between language learning and translanguaging (pp. 61e83). Cambridge University Press. Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Multilingual Matters. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn (Vol. 11). National academy press. Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk. Oxford University Press. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review,2(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110239331.1 Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011). Focus on multilingualism: A study of trilingual writing. The Modern Language Journal,95(3), 356–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01206.x Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2015). Towards a holistic approach in the study of multilingual education. In J. Cenoz, & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual education: Between language learning and translanguaging (pp. 1–15). Cambridge University Press. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2021). Pedagogical Translanguaging. Cambridge University Press. Cenoz, J., Leonet, O., & Gorter, D. (2022). Developing cognate awareness through pedagogical translanguaging. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,25(8), 2759–2773. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2021.1961675 Cenoz, J., & Santos, A. (2020). Implementing pedagogical translanguaging in trilingual schools. System,92, 102273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102273 Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. Modern Language Journal, 585–592. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-15822-007. Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics,10(2), 221–240. http://www.aclacaal.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/08/7-vol-10-no2-art-cummins.pdf. Cummins, J. (2017). Teaching for transfer in multilingual school contexts. In O. García, A. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and Multilingual Education, Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 103– 115). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02258-1_8 Cummins, J., & Persad, R. C. (2014). Teaching through a multilingual lens: The evolution of EAL policy and practice in Canada. The Journal of Teaching and Learning,2(1), 4–40. https:// globalconversationsinliteracy.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/cummins2014.pdf. Dressler, C., Carlo, M. I., Snow, C. E., August, D., & White, C. E. (2011). Spanish-speaking students’use of cognate knowledge to infer the meaning of English words. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,14(2), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728910000519 Erickson, F. (2010). Classroom ethnography. In E. Baker, P. Peterson, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 320–323). Elsevier Science. 2128 OIHANA LEONET AND EIDER SARAGUETA Escamilla, K., Hopewell, S., Butvilofsky, S., Sparrow, W., Soltero-Gonzalez, L., Ruiz-Figueroa, O., & Escamilla, M. (2013). Biliteracy from the start: Literacy squared in action. Caslon. Feller, N. P. (2022). Translanguaging and scaffolding as pedagogical strategies in a primary bilingual classroom. Classroom Discourse, 312–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2021.1954960 García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley/Blackwell. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan. Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism: Perspectives of change in psycholinguistics (Vol. 121). Multilingual Matters. Hopp, H., & Thoma, D. (2021). Effects of plurilingual teaching on grammatical development in early foreign-language learning. The Modern Language Journal,105(2), 464–483. https://doi.org/10. 1111/modl.12709 Hornberger, N. H. (2005). Opening and filling up implementational and ideological spaces in heritage language education. Modern Language Journal,89, 605–609. Jones, B., & Lewis, W. G. (2014). Language arrangements within bilingual education. In W. G. Lewis, B. Jones, G. Lewis, & E. M. Thomas (Eds.), Advances in the study of bilingualism (pp. 141–170). Multilingual Matters. Kupers, E., Van Dijk, M., & Van Geert, P. (2017). Changing patterns of scaffolding and autonomy during individual music lessons: A mixed methods approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(1), 131–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1259624 Leonet, O., Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017). Challenging minority language isolation: Translanguaging in a trilingual school in the Basque Country. Journal of Language, Identity & Education,16(4), 216– 227. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2017.1328281 Leonet, O., Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2020). Developing morphological awareness across languages: Translanguaging pedagogies in third language acquisition. Language Awareness,29(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2019.1688338 Leung, C., & Valdés, G. (2019). Translanguaging and the transdisciplinary framework for language teaching and learning in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal,103(2), 348–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12568 Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2013). 100 bilingual lessons: Distributing two languages in classrooms. Bilingualism and multilingualism in school settings. In C. Abello-Contesse, P. M. Chandler, M. D. López-Jiménez, & R. Chacón-Beltrán (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education in the 21st century: Building on experience. Multilingual Matters. Lewis, G. N., Jones, B., & Baker, C. C. (2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation,18(7), 641–654. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13803611.2012.718488 Lin, A. M. Y. (2015). Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture and Curriculum,28(1), 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000926 Lyster, R., Collins, L. C., & Ballinger, S. (2009). Linking languages through a bilingual read-aloud project. Language Awareness,18(3–4), 366–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410903197322 Lyster, R., Quiroga, J., & Ballinger, S. (2013). The effects of biliteracy instruction on morphological awareness. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education,1(2), 169–197. https:// doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.2.02lys Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Social Research,1(2), https://doi. org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089 Nagy, W. E., García, G. E., Durgunoglu, A. Y., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. (1993). Spanish-English bilingual students’use of cognates in English Reading. Journal of Reading Behavior,25(3), 241–259. https://doi. org/10.1080/10862969009547816 Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Validity and qualitative research: An oxymoron? Quality & Quantity,41(2), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9000-3 Orcasitas-Vicandi, M. (2020). Crosslinguistic influence and morphological awareness in English (third language) writing. International Journal of Bilingualism,24(4), 616–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1367006919852164 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 2129 Orcasitas-Vicandi, M., & Leonet, O. (2022). The study of language learning in multilingual education: Students’perceptions of their language learning experience in Basque, Spanish and English. International Journal of Multilingualism,19(1), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2020. 1822365 Seals, C. A., & Olsen-Reeder, V. (2020). Translanguaging in conjunction with language revitalization. System,92, 102277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102277 Selvi, A. F. (2019). Qualitative content analysis. In J. McKinley, & H. Rose (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 440–452). Routledge. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435–454). SAGE. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2013). A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education,1(1), 101–129. https://doi.org/10. 1075/jicb.1.1.05swa Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2009). Concluding reflections: Moving forward. In M. Turnbull, & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 182–186). Multilingual Matters. Van Geert, P. (1994). Dynamic systems of development: Change between complexity and chaos. Harvester Wheatsheaf. Van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H. (2005). The dynamics of scaffolding. New Ideas in Psychology,23(3), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2006.05.003 White, J., & Horst, M. (2012). Cognate awareness -raising in late childhood: Teachable and useful. Language Awareness,21(1–2), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011.639885 2130 OIHANA LEONET AND EIDER SARAGUETA