Watching the CUNY-NYSIEB web series this week brought translanguaging to life for me in a way that theory alone hadn’t. In the first episode, teachers talked about welcoming students’ full linguistic repertoires as a central part of classroom learning, not just as support, but as a driving force for content understanding. It was powerful to see how they positioned translanguaging as more than just switching between languages, but instead it became a way to validate identity, deepen engagement, and connect students to one another. Episode 4 showed the use of this translanguaging practice in action. Teaching in a linguistically diverse classroom Charene Chapman-Santiago, she used visuals, body language, and technology as ways to integrate those languages in the classroom as parts of communication. Her methods showed how translanguaging can be multimodal and relational, and not only confined to verbal language alone.
Seeing how these translanguaging practices were implemented in existing classrooms, I took a lot more away from Dr. Mena’s Teaching & Learning Translanguaging Theory: The Ultimate Cheat Sheet. His framework of translanguaging and code switching as parallel units teaches students how they coexist and can serve as different instruments that belong to the overarching theme of language. I appreciated how he defined the different elements of each term and how each followed a set of guidelines when implementing their definitions within his classroom. He made sure to emphasize the distinction between the two by highlighting the significance of their own individual definition. Instead of generalizing the two, Mena honored the complexity of each, offering definitions that acknowledged their individual histories and functions while also situating them within a common goal, empowering bilingual students.
What really stood out to me was how intentional he was about teaching the difference between translanguaging and code-switching to his students. He didn’t just use the terms, he created a classroom culture where students understood how and why they might choose one over the other. For example, he talked about code-switching as something students may use in more formal settings or with certain audiences, while translanguaging allows them to draw on every linguistic resource they have to express themselves more fully.
It is clear that Menas interpretation and expression of these ideologies to his students, traverses throughout the educational sphere like the similarities we saw in the SUNY- NYSIEB. It is apparent that educators are all working to implement the values of code-switching and translanguaging into their teaching toolbelt to best serve their students.