FLIPPIN’ SCRIPTS: LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE PRACTICES IN A DUAL IMMERSION BILINGUAL PROGRAM A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Luis Poza June 25, 2014 © 2014 by Luis Ernesto Poza. All Rights Reserved. Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/ This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/cm329ff4174 ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Guadalupe Valdes, Primary Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. H. Alim I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Francisco Ramirez Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies. Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost for Graduate Education This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in University Archives. iii Abstract Flippin’ Scripts: Language Ideologies and Language Practices In a Dual Immersion Bilingual Program by Luis Poza Stanford Graduate School of Education Professor Guadalupe Valdés, chair In light of persistent inequalities in the education of students learning societally dominant languages in schools and their peers, this study explores the language ideologies and practices for a grade-level cohort at one particular dual immersion (DI) bilingual program. Dual immersion bilingual education, which pairs students learning English with an equal proportion of students learning Spanish (or another target language), has been touted as a useful remedy to some of the outcome disparities experienced by students classified as English Language Learners (ELL) and/or Latino within the school system. Despite a substantial amount of research supporting this claim (Collier and Thomas, 2004; Lindholm-Leary and Howard, 2008), there is also evidence that the implementation of DI programs varies tremendously (August and Hakuta, 2000) and in some cases perpetuates existing racial or linguistic stratification (Scanlan and Palmer, 2009). These circumstances create a need for further understanding of the processes and structures within DI that offer the greatest benefit and present the gravest threats. As debates over the value, effectiveness, and ideal models of DI proceed, so too is the ground shifting in scholarship on language, bilingualism, and second language iv acquisition (SLA). Informed by post-Structuralist approaches that view language as repertoires of social practice rather than bound sets of forms and rules (Makoni and Pennycook, 2007), scholarship in SLA and bilingual education is undergoing a multilingual turn (May, 2013), which emphasizes the social dimensions of language learning and prizes the communicative habits of bilinguals over paradigmatic monolingual “native speakers.” One salient feature of this multilingual turn is an emphasis on translanguaging (García, 2009), which recognizes the ways bilinguals draw from multiple communicative codes and modalities in making meaning. Translanguaging as a stance proposes the treatment of language as a dynamic repertoire of practices adapting to social needs and functions, while translanguaging pedagogical practices encourage support of students’ full linguistic repertoires as assets to be leveraged in the development of academic skills and knowledge, as opposed to traditional practice which advocates rigid separations of languages in bilingual education and adherence to standardized varieties. Seeking greater understanding of both the potential and pitfalls of DI education, and reconciling this task with the emerging discourses around translanguaging, this work explores four principal research questions: 1. What are the language ideologies and language attitudes expressed and made manifest by students, teachers, and parents at this particular DI program? 2. What language practices do students and teachers engage in during academic and social interactions? 3. How do the academic language practices, particularly teacher-led instruction, compare and contrast with the language practices that social-process oriented v conceptions of language and second language acquisition would propose for optimal learning and instruction? 4. What recommendations can be made for educators and DI program administrators to nurture opportunities for language and content learning more broadly and reconcile them with the demands of current testing regimes? In order to answer these questions, the study undertakes a mixed methods approach. A yearlong ethnographic observation of a 5th grade cohort, with particular attention to eight focal students, provides insight into the day-to-day linguistic practices during teaching, collaborative student work, and students’ socializing. Semi-structured interviews with students, teachers, and parents provide glimpses into individuals’ opinions regarding language, language learning, and language proficiency in ways that likewise shed light on particular ideologies about languages and their speakers. Matched- guise tests in Spanish and English offer quantitative attitudinal responses to linguistic variables associated with particular forms of speech and their respective speech communities. Finally, a critical discourse analysis of the core curriculum used at the school to support English Language Development (ELD) elucidates the assumptions about language, language learning, and language learners embedded in the teaching of ELD at the school and the connections between these assumptions and broader social ideologies about language, race, and immigration. The work shows that despite rhetoric praising and advocating for bilingualism and multiculturalism, students’ and teachers’ approaches to language learning and instruction reflect problematic views of language as static and necessarily adherent to standardized forms. Specifically, the study finds strong formal support for the separation of English vi and Spanish, strong distinctions in the status of prestige and vernacular varieties of both English and Spanish, and a prevalent monoglossic conceptualization of language – that is, one that sees language as the sum and rule-based arrangement of language items such as words, verb forms, and grammatical constructions to be measured in comparison to the imagined monolingual ideal. The work also shows, however, that in less regimented interactions such as loosely supervised student classroom collaboration and students at play during lunch or recess periods, Third Spaces (Bhabha, 1994) emerge in which normative scripts of unquestioned teacher authority, language standardization, and rigid language separation are challenged through translanguaging practices. In these interactional spaces, students and teachers do indeed draw from broader reaches of their linguistic repertoires than convention would allow through code-switching in speech, simultaneously consulting texts in Spanish and English and across modalities (for instance, magazine articles, PowerPoint slideshows, and online videos about a single topic), and using one language to discuss a text in another. Findings further show that the use of these translanguaging practices does not impede and may, in fact, support students’ meaning making activities and their development of academic skills as students deploy their hybrid language practices (Gutiérrez, Bacquedano-López, and Tejeda, 1999): (a) to ask questions and solicit clarification, (b) share their knowledge with peers and provide explanations, and (c) to jointly construct new knowledge or reach deeper understanding with peers. Based on these findings, the work closes by examining various proposed sets of principles for more equitable education (Flores, 2013; Hawkins, 2004) and attaching to these specific pedagogical practices that align. The intention of these practices is to draw vii attention to and challenge the ideological forces operating in policy, curriculum, and teaching practices aimed at ELL students and others acquiring societally dominant forms of language in schools, as well as to capitalize on the full breadth of students’ linguistic repertoires as educational assets. References August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (2000). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington DC: National Academies Press. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. Abingdon, UK: Psychology Press. Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2004). The astounding effectiveness of dual language education for all. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 1–20. Flores, N. (2013). Silencing the Subaltern: Nation-State/Colonial Governmentality and Bilingual Education in the United States. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 10(4), 263–287. García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons. Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano‐López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: