Attitudes of L2 vs. L3 / L3+ Learners to Translanguaging Pedagogies in Turkish University Context

Year 2025, Issue: 64, 1531 - 1558, 30.06.2025

Emel Küçükali , Dilara Koçbaş

https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1529459

Abstract

The present mixed-method study aims to explore and compare the attitudes of L2 and L3 learners to Translanguaging pedagogies (TP) from both quantitative and qualitative perspectives. TP refer to cross-linguistic teaching strategies such as translation, comparison of languages, and shifting between multiple languages and cultures. The participants/students (N=157) were selected through convenient sampling and were learners of English (N=92) or Russian (N=13) as a foreign language (FL) or Turkish (N=52) as a second language (SL) in a Turkish university. The quantitative data were collected from a questionnaire developed by the researcher and were analyzed through the Kruskal–Wallis H test. The qualitative data collected from semi-structured interviews and graphic elicitation tasks were analyzed through content and visual analysis using the CLAN (Computerized Language Analysis) Program. The findings indicated that in terms of their attitudes to TP, there is no significant difference between L3 and L3+ learners, however, L2 vs. L3/L3+ learners are quantitatively and qualitatively different. Statistically, L2 learners prefer the inclusion of one and two languages significantly more than L3/L3+ learners, who instead, favor three and more languages in class. The qualitative findings revealed that L2 learners preferred the integration of target languages (TL) only or a combination of Native languages (NL) and TL. Including third languages was not favored due to confusion and distraction from TL. However, L3/L3+ learners find three or more languages in class useful because they learn better, can find connections faster between languages and thus overcome the difficulties of TL. Based on the findings, pedagogical implications were suggested at the end of the study.

Keywords

Translanguaging Pedagogies , L2 Learners , L3 Learners , L3+ Learners , Attitudes

İkinci Dil Öğrenenlerin ve Üçüncü/Daha Fazla Dil Öğrenenlere Karşı Türk Üniversite Bağlamında Dilllerarası Geçiş Pedagojisine Yönelik Tutumları

Abstract

Bu karma yöntemli çalışma, ikinci dil, üçüncü dil ve üçüncü dilden fazla öğrenen öğrencilerinin Dillerarası geçiş pedagojilerine (DGP) yönelik tutumlarını hem nicel hem de nitel açıdan araştırmayı ve karşılaştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. TP, çeviri, dillerin karşılaştırılması ve birden çok dil ve kültür arasında geçiş gibi diller arası öğretim stratejilerini ifade eder. Katılımcılar/öğrenciler (N=157) uygun örnekleme yoluyla seçilmiştir ve bir Türk Üniversitesinde Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce (YDİ) (N=92) veya Rusça (N=13) veya SL (İkinci dil) olarak Türkçe (N=52) öğreniyorlar. Nicel veriler araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilen bir anketle toplanmış ve Kruskal-Wallis H testi ile analiz edilmiştir. Yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ve görsellerden toplanan nitel veriler, CLAN (Bilgisayarlı Dil Analizi) Programı kullanılarak içerik ve görsel analiz yoluyla çözümlenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, TP'ye yönelik tutumları açısından üçüncü dil ve üçüncü dilden fazla öğrenenler arasında anlamlı bir fark olmadığını, ancak ikinci ve üçüncü dil öğrenenlerin nicel ve nitel olarak farklı olduğunu göstermiştir. İstatistiksel olarak, ikinci dil öğrenen öğrencileri, sınıfta üç ve daha fazla dili tercih eden üçüncü dil öğrenen öğrencilerine göre bir ve iki dilin dahil edilmesini önemli ölçüde daha fazla tercih etmektedir. Nitel bulgular, ikinci dil öğrenenlerin sadece Hedef diller (HD) veya Ana diller (AD) ve hedef dilin bir kombinasyonunu tercih ettiklerini ortaya koymuştur. Üçüncü dillerin dahil edilmesi, kafa karışıklığı ve hedef dilden dikkatin dağılması nedeniyle tercih edilmedi. Bununla birlikte, üçüncü dil öğrenen öğrencileri sınıfta üç veya daha fazla dili faydalı bulmaktadır çünkü daha iyi öğrenirler, diller arasındaki bağlantıları daha hızlı bulabilirler ve böylece hedef dilin zorluklarını aşabilirler. Elde edilen bulgulara dayanarak, çalışmanın sonunda pedagojik çıkarımlar önerilmiştir.

Keywords

Dillerarası geçiş pedagojileri , ikinci dil öğrenenler , üçüncü dil öğrenenler , dördüncü dil veya daha fazla öğrenenler , tutumlar.

References

• Aronin, L., & Ó Laoire, M. (2003). Multilingual students’ awareness of their language teacher’s other languages. Language Awareness, 12(3–4), 204–219.
• Bagnoli, A. (2009). Beyond the standard interview: The use of graphic elicitation and arts-based methods. Qualitative Research, 9(5), 547–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109343625
• Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Multilingual Matters.
• Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01207.x
• Cenoz, J. (2013). The influence of bilingualism on third language acquisition: Focus on multilingualism. Language Teaching, 46(1), 71-86. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000218
• 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. (2020). Teaching English through pedagogical translanguaging. World Englishes, 39(2), 300–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12462
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). Routledge Falmer.
• Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. https://www.coe.int/lang-cefr
• Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x
• De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition (Vol. 24). Multilingual Matters.
• DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X10388468
• Deroo, M. R., & Ponzio, C. (2019). Confronting ideologies: A discourse analysis of in-service teachers’ translanguaging stance through an ecological lens. Bilingual Research Journal, 42(2), 214–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2019.1589604
• Dmitrenko, V. (2017). Language learning strategies of multilingual adults learning additional languages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1258978
• Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Ellis, N. C. (2008). Words and their usage: Commentary on the special issue on the bilingual mental lexicon. The Mental Lexicon, 3(3), 375–385.
• Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• García, O., & Kano, N. (2014). Translanguaging as process and pedagogy: Developing the English writing of Japanese students in the US. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (Eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 258–277). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783092246
• García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765
• Gibson, M., & Hufeisen, B. (2003). Investigating the role of prior foreign language knowledge: Translating from an unknown into a known foreign language. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), The multilingual lexicon (pp. 87–102). Springer.
• González-Davies, M. (2017). The use of translation in an integrated plurilingual approach to language learning: Teacher strategies and best practices. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 4(2), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/23247797.2017.1407168
• Goral, M. (2002). Lexical access and language proficiency of trilingual speakers. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). City University of New York.
• Goral, M., Levy, E. S., Obler, L. K., & Cohen, E. (2006). Cross-language lexical connections in the mental lexicon: Evidence from a case of trilingual aphasia. Brain and Language, 98(2), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.05.004
• Gorter, D., & Cenoz, J. (2017). Language education policy and multilingual assessment. Language and Education, 31(3), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2016.1261892
• Greasley, P. (2007). Quantitative data analysis using SPSS: An introduction for health & social science. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
• Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford University Press.
• Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism: Perspectives of change in psycholinguistics (Vol. 121). Multilingual Matters.
• Hufeisen, B. (2004). A brief introduction to the linguistic foundations. In B. Hufeisen & G. Neuner (Eds.), The plurilingualism project: Tertiary language learning: German after English (pp. 7–11). Council of Europe.
• Hufeisen, B., & Neuner, G. (2004). The plurilingualism project: Tertiary language learning: German after English. Council of Europe.
• Inci-Kavak, V., & Kırkgöz, Y. (2022). Attitudes towards translanguaging practices: A comparative study of literature and food engineering classes. Sustainable Multilingualism, 21(1), 105–142. https://doi.org/10.2478/sm-2022-0015
• Kemp, C. (2001). Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals: Implicit and explicit grammatical awareness and its relationship with language experience and language attainment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh.
• Kirsner, K., Lalor, E., & Hird, K. (1993). The bilingual lexicon: Exercise, meaning and morphology. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 215–248). John Benjamins.
• Kırkgöz, Y., Inci-Kavak, V., Karakaş, A., & Panero, S. M. (2023). Translanguaging practices in Turkish EMI classrooms: Commonalities and differences across two academic disciplines. System, 113, 102982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.102982
• Korkmaz, Ş. Ç. (2013). Third language learning strategies of ELT learners studying either German or French. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(28–1), 92–104.
• Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1008
• Kroll, J. F., & Tokowicz, N. (2005). Models of bilingual representation and processing: Looking back and to the future. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 531–553). Oxford University Press.
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
• Lemhöfer, K., Dijkstra, T., & Michel, M. (2004). Three languages, one ECHO: Cognate effects in trilingual word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19(5), 585–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000007
• Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, 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
• Liu, Y., & Fang, F. (2020). Translanguaging theory and practice: How stakeholders perceive translanguaging as a practical theory of language. RELC Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220939222
• 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
• MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. transcription format and programs (Vol. 3). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Makalela, L. (2018a). Moving out of linguistic boxes: The effects of translanguaging strategies for multilingual classrooms. In C. Kerfoot, & A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Eds.), Language in epistemic access (pp. 24-41). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315229744
• Makalela, L. (2018b). Teaching African languages the ubuntu way: The effects of translanguaging among pre-service teachers in South Africa. In P. V. Avermaet, S. Slembrouck, K.V. Gorp, S. Sierens, & K. Maryns (Eds.), The Multilingual Edge of Education. (pp. 261–282). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage publications.
• Neuner, G. (2004). The concept of plurilingualism and tertiary language didactics. In B. Hufeisen & G. Neuner (Eds.), The plurilingualism project: Tertiary language learning: German after English (pp. 13–34). Council of Europe.
• Phyak, P. (2018). Translanguaging as a pedagogical resource in English language teaching: A response to unplanned language education policies in Nepal. In K. Kuchah & F. Shamim (Eds.), International perspectives on teaching English in difficult circumstances (pp. 49–70). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53104-9_3
• Pujol-Ferran, M., DiSanto, J. M., Rodríguez, N. N., & Morales, A. (2016). Exploring plurilingual pedagogies across the college curriculum. Canadian Modern Language Review, 72(4), 530–549. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.3306
• Razali, N. M., Shamsudin, N. R., Maarof, N. N. N. A., & Ismail, A. (2012). A comparison of normality tests using SPSS, SAS and MINITAB: An application to health-related quality of life data. 2012 International Conference on Statistics in Science, Business and Engineering (ICSSBE), Langkawi, Malaysia. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSSBE.2012.6396570
• Rivera, A. J., & Mazak, C. M. (2017). Analyzing student perceptions on translanguaging: A case study of a Puerto Rican university classroom. How, 24(1), 122–138.
• Rosiers, K., Van Lancker, I., & Delarue, S. (2018). Beyond the traditional scope of translanguaging: Comparing translanguaging practices in Belgian multilingual and monolingual classroom contexts. Language & Communication, 61, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2017.11.003
• Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Sánchez, L. (2015). L2 activation and blending in third language acquisition: Evidence of crosslinguistic influence from the L2 in a longitudinal study on the acquisition of L3 English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(2), 252–269. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000091
• Turnbull, B. (2018). Is there a potential for a translanguaging approach to English education in Japan? Perspectives of tertiary learners and teachers. JALT Journal, 40(2), 101. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTJJ40.2-3
• Urdan, T. C. (2005). Statistics in plain English (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Fam Med, 37(5), 360–363.
• Wang, D. (2019). Multilingualism and translanguaging in Chinese language classrooms. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02529-8
• Wei, L., & Moyer, M. G. (Eds.). (2008). The Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism. Blackwell Pub.
• Williams, C. (1996). Secondary education: Teaching in the bilingual situation. The Language Policy: Taking Stock, 12(2), 193–211.
• Yuvayapan, F. (2019). Translanguaging in EFL classrooms: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 15(2), 678–694. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.586811
• Yüzlü, M. Y., & Dikilitaş, K. (2022). Translanguaging as a way to fostering EFL learners’ criticality in a hybrid course design. System, 110, 102926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102926