Speaker
Abstract section 2: Contribution/research questions
- What are the distinct subjectivities of university students regarding translanguaging practices in EMI classrooms?
- How do distinct learner groups employ diverse translanguaging strategies to enhance their engagement and comprehension?
Abstract section 4: Outcomes/results
The analysis identified three distinct student viewpoints. Tech-Assisted Learners rely heavily on AI and translation tools to understand difficult content. In contrast, Verbal Strategists prefer social interaction, using spoken code-switching and discussion with peers to clarify meaning. Finally, Confidence-Driven Learners rely on their own mental processing, switching languages to build confidence and understanding, rather than depending on tools or others. These findings show that translanguaging is a flexible strategy that varies according to individual learner needs.
Abstract section 3: Content/method
The study involved 40 university students in Narathiwat province. Q methodology was utilized to capture personal viewpoints quantitatively and qualitatively, relying on the foundational principles of Stephenson (1953) to reveal subjective perspectives (Brown, 1996; Thumvichit, 2022). Participants completed Q-sorting tasks involving statements on language use, followed by post-sort interviews. The analysis and interpretation were conducted following the guidelines of Watts and Stenner (2012).
Abstract section 1: Relevance
English Medium Instruction (EMI) often presents significant challenges, including language barriers, reduced comprehension, and limited class participation (Macaro, 2020). Translanguaging, which allows the flexible use of multiple languages, offers a potential solution to these issues by validating students' full linguistic repertoire (Canagarajah, 2011a). Research suggests that flexible bilingual pedagogies can enhance learning and teaching in multilingual settings (Creese & Blackledge, 2010). This study applies these concepts to the unique multicultural context of Thailand's Deep South.
Abstract section 5: References
Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 561–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239600600408
Canagarajah, A. S. (2011a). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110239331.1
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
Macaro, E. (2020). Exploring the role of language in English medium instruction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(3), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1620678
Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. University of Chicago Press.
Thumvichit, A. (2022). Illuminating insights into subjectivity: Q as a methodology in applied linguistics research. Applied Linguistics Review, 15(2), 531-554. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev2021-0205
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method and interpretation. Sage Publications.
| Title | Multilingual Students' Subjectivities on Translanguaging |
|---|---|
| Teaching Context | College and university education |