Exploring Functions of Translanguaging in Intermediate Students' Interactions in Science Classroom

Abstract

Research has shown that students' translanguaging serves various task-and non-task related functions. While research into translanguaging has attracted considerable attention in a western context, there is a dearth of studies examining translanguaging in a science classroom in Pakistan. The current study, therefore, explored the functions of students' translanguaging practices in an intermediate science classroom in Pakistan. Employing a case study design, the data was obtained from three intermediate students attending science class for over five weeks using structured classroom observations, audio recordings, and reflective journals and semi-structured interviews. Results of the study showed that participants employed translanguaging in both task-referring and non-task referring functions. The study also confirmed the benefits of translanguaging in helping participants to learn content in the science classroom. Implications for science teachers, teacher educators and policymakers have also been discussed.

Full text

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352315173
Exploring Functions of Translanguaging in Intermediate
Students' Interactions in Science Classroom
ArticleinGlobal Educational Studies Review · March 2021
DOI: 10.31703/gesr.2021(VI-I).02
CITATIONS
0
READS
838
3 authors, including:
Somal Rani
Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology
1 PUBLICATION0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Hassan Syed
Sukkur IBA University
20 PUBLICATIONS171 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Hassan Syed on 01 July 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

p- ISSN: 2708-2113
e-ISSN: 2708-3608
L-ISSN: 2708-2113
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2021(VI-I).02
Vol. VI, No. I (Winter 2021)
Pages: 11 – 23
DOI: 10.31703/gesr.2021(VI-I).02
Citation: Parkash, A., Rani, S., & Syed, H. (2021). Exploring Functions of Translanguaging in Intermediate Students’
Interactions in Science Classroom. Global Educational Studies Review, VI(I), 11-23. https://doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2021(VI-
I).02
Exploring Functions of Translanguaging in Intermediate Students’
Interactions in Science Classroom
Anjili Parkash *
|
Somal Rani †
|
Hassan Syed ‡
Abstract: Research has shown that students’ translanguaging serves various task- and non-task related
functions. While research into translanguaging has attracted considerable attention in a western context, there is a
dearth of studies examining translanguaging in a science classroom in Pakistan. The current study, therefore,
explored the functions of students’ translanguaging practices in an intermediate science classroom in Pakistan.
Employing a case study design, the data was obtained from three intermediate students attending science class for
over five weeks using structured classroom observations, audio recordings, and reflective journals and semi-
structured interviews. Results of the study showed that participants employed translanguaging in both task-
referring and non-task referring functions. The study also confirmed the benefits of translanguaging in helping
participants to learn content in the science classroom. Implications for science teachers, teacher educators and
policymakers have also been discussed.
Key Words: Translanguaging, Medium of Instruction, Science Education, Teacher Education,
Language Policy
Introduction
Pakistan is a highly diverse country with a
multilingual and multiethnic population. The
total languages being spoken in Pakistan are 65
(59 minor, 6 major) (Rahman, 2003), whereas as
per Ethnologue (2015), the number is 77. Urdu is
the national language and serves as a lingua franca
for interactions in Pakistan (Shah, Pillai, &
Sinayah, 2019). On the other hand, English is
considered as an official language and medium of
instruction (MOI) from secondary up to Higher
Education (Mahboob, 2017). Although there have
been changes in the government policies of
Pakistan, the role of English in Higher Education
institutes has remained relatively consistent
(Khan, 2013).
Teaching in Pakistan has always shown
irregular policy decisions with reference to MOIs
and the choice of language used by teachers and
*
MS Scholar, Department of Education, Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology, Karachi,
Sindh, Pakistan.
†
MS Scholar, Department of Education, Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology, Karachi,
Sindh, Pakistan.
‡
Assistant Professor, Department of Education, Sukkur IBA University, Sukkur, Sindh, Pakistan.
Email: hassan.ali@iba-suk.edu.pk
students in schools. Civan and Coşkun (2016)
argue that language choice for education hinders
the learning process, so MOI should be the
language in which learners are fluent. However, in
Pakistan, following the national education policy
(henceforth, NEP-2017), the MOI is fixed without
considering the educational needs of students.
Since English is not the first language of Pakistan,
students feel difficulty grasping the topic and have
a clear understanding of it because English alone
cannot help learners in effective meaning-making.
Also, this makes it harder for low English
proficiency learners to learn conceptual courses,
for example, science, after class V (Ashraf, 2018).
Other than this, the diversity of language remains
unrecognized in formal language education
policies in Pakistan (Manan et al., 2016). English-
in Education policy at the secondary education
level deprives students of their right to make use

Anjili Parkash, Somal Rani and Hassan Syed
12 Global Educational Studies Review (GESR)
of their mother tongue to make meaning and
tends to negatively affect students’ science
learning which eventually block their access to
university education and deprive them of their
career prospects. Additionally, English as an MOI
in such a multiethnic country like Pakistan has
shown some negative effects, for instance,
language genocide/ suppression of some other
local/regional or minority languages. In this case,
students struggle to understand what is being
taught to them, especially in science or
mathematical concepts, when English is used as
the MOI only (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2006). While the
NEP-2017 emphasizes the use of English as MOI at
the higher secondary level, students find it easy to
practice translanguaging in science classroom
instead of going monolingual (English only) to
enhance their conceptual understanding.
Therefore, this study aims to get an in-depth
understanding of ‘how and why intermediate
students use translanguaging in their task and
non-task referring talk in science classroom’. In
what follows, we discuss the linguistic landscape
and multilingual context of Pakistan along with a
critical review of literature on theory and
functions of translanguaging in the science
classroom. Next, it elaborates on the methodology
adopted to answer the research questions.
Subsequently, the findings section presents a
detailed illustration of cross-case and within-case
findings, followed by discussion, implications and
conclusion.
Translanguaging as a Theoretical
Framework
The concept of translanguaging originated in a
Welsh context as a term ‘trawsieithu’, which was
later translated into English as “Translanguifying”
but then changed to “Translanguaging” by a great
Welsh Educationalist, Cen Williams. (Lewis,
Jones, & Baker, 2012b). Translanguaging was
initially coined in the bilingual classrooms of
Wales as a pedagogical practice that was used for
making meaning, shaping experiences and
developing understanding through the use of two
languages. However, García (2009) argues that
translanguaging is not only a pedagogical practice
but also a cognitive process involved in everyday
communication. She says it is impossible to live in
multilingual communities without using
translanguaging. In a multilingual state like
Pakistan, where the majority of people can easily
speak more than two languages, they cannot live
without using integration of multiple languages at
a time to organize and mediate mental processes
of understanding, speaking, literacy, not just
learning. Moreover, she also suggests that
translanguaging is not just a process of scaffolding
instruction; rather, it is part of metadiscursive
regimes which the students of the 21st century
must perform (García, 2011).
There are three assumptions on which the
idea of translanguaging is built: First,
translanguaging is a hybrid use of languages in
which language users negotiate, create and
improvise meaning by using various interactional
contexts, knowledge about languages, and content
discussed (Gutiérrez, 2008; Ryu, 2019).
Canagarajah (2011) argues that translanguaging is
not the only individual; it is more of a social and
collective practice where all interlocutors
participate and pitch in for collective sense-
making. This involves language users in
sociolinguistic practices for co-constructing
meaning and developing a shared sense of
understanding by drawing upon multiple
linguistic and semiotic resources. Moreover, the
third assumption is about the word language in
translanguaging, which acts as a verb, and that
simply suggests language is never fixed; it is
dynamic, always changing and developing (Van
Lier & Walqui, 2012). Hence, translanguaging
always occurs when there are different
interactional contexts, discussions for collective
meaning-making in multilingual communities.
García (2009) emphasizes that it is important for
educators and students to understand the
importance of translanguaging because too often,
students, when translanguage, suffer linguistic
shame as they are always bound to use
monoglossic ideologies. Even educators hide their
natural translanguaging practices because they are
always told that a monolingual, English-only
instruction is a good and valuable way of dealing
with a class, while they know that an effective way
of teaching and learning is to have
translanguaging practices.
Functions of Translanguaging
Literature on translanguaging suggests
multifarious functions of translanguaging in
science classrooms. These functions can be
broadly classified into two categories, including

Exploring Functions of Translanguaging in Intermediate Students’ Interactions in Science Classroom
Vol. VI, No. I (Winter 2021) 13
task referring functions and non-task referring
functions.
Task referring category refers to the functions,
including elaboration (García and Leiva, 2014;
Karlsson, et.al., 2016; Msimanga & Lelliott, 2014),
translation (Apter, 2006; García, Makar, Starcevic
and Terry, 2011; Ryu, 2019; Wolf, 2011),
interpretation ( Romanowski, 2019; Ryu, 2019),
giving examples (e.g. Oliveira and Brown, 2016;
Linder et al., 2010; Warren, , 2001) and asking
questions (Berland and McNeill, 2010; Duarte,
2019; Karlsson et al., 2019)that are observed during
the on-task activities in the classroom. On-task
functions were predominantly found out by
Duarte (2019) in her study on ‘translanguaging in
mainstream education, clearly dominating
cognitively demanding speech acts. Also, this
category has led the non-task referring category by
63%, which shows how translanguaging served as
pedagogic purposes for teachers, too
(Romanowski, 2019).
The other category, namely off-task functions, are
defined as students’ non-task referring practices in
science classroom such as humor (Abu Bakar,
2018; Bell, 2011; Davila, 2019), requesting
(Bengochea & Gort, 2020) and doing informal chit-
chat (Romanowski, 2019) after the task had been
done. Duarte (2019) indicated that students not
only employ multiple semiotic resources but also
move flexibly between class-related and private
discussions. This idea implies students’ linguistic
loops of moving between formal to informal
communication in the classroom.
Gaps in Literature
Literature suggests multiple tasks and non-task
related functions of translanguaging practices in
science classrooms. There are various studies on
some task referring functions in translanguaging
such as elaboration, translation, interpretation
and asking questions discussed in the literature
above; there is still a need for further discourse
relating on and off task functions such as giving
examples, chit-chat, requesting and humor
specifically under science subject.
Methodologically, only a few studies have used an
experimental and qualitative approach; the
current study aims to fill the methodological gaps
by opting for multiple case study as an approach
to dive deeper into the concept by giving voices to
students’ practices and perceptions about
translanguaging. Lastly, research on
translanguaging practices of students has been
mainly conducted in European countries such as
Germany, Poland, and Sweden. The present study
intends to fill the gaps in Pakistan’s by exploring
translanguaging functions in science classrooms
which are proven to be effective in maximizing
students’ learning. The research questions of the
current study are:
Research Questions
1. To what extent do intermediate students
use translanguaging functions in their
interactions in science classrooms?
2. What is the task and non-task referring
functions of intermediate students’
translanguaging?
Methodology
The present study used a multiple-case mixed-
method approach to obtain in-depth information
to explore how and why intermediate students
practice translanguaging in science classrooms
and their perceptions of translanguaging (Yin,
2015, p.9).
Classroom Context
The current study was conducted at an
intermediate biology classroom in a public sector
school in the Sukkur region, Sindh, Pakistan. The
biology class was divided into two sections,
including male and female separately. There were
ten students in the male section and sixteen in the
female section. Both sections were given a consent
form to participate in the study. From the male
section, only two students agreed to be part of the
study, and from females, five students approved to
do so. Resultantly, female participants being
greater in number for cases were recruited for the
current study. The MOI of the school was English.
Notably, the selected class was characterized by
multilingual students from diverse backgrounds.
While most of the students spoke Sindhi as their
mother tongue (L1), a few spoke Urdu and Punjabi
too as their L1. English was mostly used while
doing classroom activities. The classes were taught
by a biology specialist named Ali (pseudonym).
With years of experience, this subject to
intermediate students. There were five biology
classes in a week. Each class was thirty minutes.
Five classes of sixty minutes each were
consecutively observed every week for answering
the research questions.

Anjili Parkash, Somal Rani and Hassan Syed
14 Global Educational Studies Review (GESR)
Participants
Participants for the study were recruited using
purposive and convenience sampling (Bryman
, 2016; Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007).
Intermediate students were directly approached
to participate in the study. Since a majority of
them were not familiar with the researchers, only
six students showed volition to participate in the
study. However, when the classroom observations
with audio recordings began, one of the five
participants took back her consent to participate
in the study, while another student missed two of
the five classes and subsequently stopped writing
diaries. In the end, the study was completed with
only three participants (Duff, 2012). As the
continuous visits were made prior to the study,
participants became comfortable with the
observers. Since the present study is based on
multiple case study approaches, it recruited the
least number of participants to find in-depth
information for answering the research questions.
Data Collection Methods
Multiple methods were used for data collection for
two purposes: to gain a holistic understanding of
the cases; and to be able to triangulate the data
obtained from each data source (Yin, 2003). The
data collection tools included: Structured
observation sheet, students’ daily diaries, semi-
structured interviews and field notes. A detailed
description of data collection methods and tools is
given below.
Classroom Observations
Structured observations were carried out through
an observation sheet. The observation sheet was
adapted from Romanowski (2019), originally
aimed at finding the kinds of speech-acts of Polish
students where translanguaging occurred more
frequently. The observation sheet was first piloted
and subsequently modified to suit the context of
the present study. The adapted observation guide
in the current study was already divided into two
categories; task and non-task are referring. Task-
referring speech-acts are comprised of the
subtypes: Elaborating (i.e. on topics or
phenomena), translating (i.e. new words or
phrases) and interpreting (i.e. making meaning)”.
The other subtypes of non-task functions
incorporated: “Chit-chat (i.e. after the task has
been completed), requesting (i.e. school
accessories) or what may be called ‘verbal
fidgeting’, playing with objects”. Sixty minutes of
classroom time were divided into five minutes
intervals in order to note the frequencies of
functions. For not missing any interaction of the
students, audio recordings of the three were also
carried throughout their observational classes.
There were five recordings for each case; every
recording was of 60 minutes as per the class
timing. Audio recordings were mainly used for
counting language frequencies and for examining
the occurrences of on task and off task
translanguaging functions. Table 2 shows the
description of functions that were used by
students for various purposes.
Table 1. Descriptions of Functions
Functions
Descriptions
Task-Referring
Functions
Elaboration
Elaboration refers to explaining/expanding a
concept or phenomena in further details.
Translation
The translation is defined as the process of
translating written texts from books to mother
tongue.
Interpretation
Interpretation denotes elucidation of science
concepts to make meaning of certain ideas.
Asking questions
Asking questions is said to be the process of
interrogating topics or concepts from teachers or
peers.
Giving examples
Giving examples followed by detailed elaborations
refers to exemplifying the concepts contextually to
get a deeper understanding of topics.
Non-Task Referring
Functions
Chit-chat
Chit-chat is defined as informal talks during
classroom off-task discussions.

Exploring Functions of Translanguaging in Intermediate Students’ Interactions in Science Classroom
Vol. VI, No. I (Winter 2021) 15
Humor
Humor refers to the state of making fun or amusing
peers during or after classroom activities.
Requesting
Requesting can be defined as an expression of
politely asking a peer for accessories or other stuff.
Field Notes
Jotted notes were taken during classroom
observations complemented with audio
recordings by the two observers for the purpose of
writing up the detailed summary of events, such as
activities, events and topics of discussion. The
other aim was to confirm the data taken by two
observers in the form of field notes to enhance the
credibility of the findings and be able to
contextualize participants’ translanguaging
practices (Bryman, 2016).
Diary Writings
Since the observations are inherently biased
towards what is visible but did not lend us insights
into what goes on in the mind of
learners/participants, diaries and semi-structured
interviews were used as introspective tools to get
deeper insights into the behavior of participants
and triangulate and corroborate the data obtained
through observations (Bailey, 1991). Each
participant was asked to answer two open-ended
questions at the end of each class in the form of
diary writings. The two questions were: How did
translanguaging help you in this class? When and
why did you use translanguaging in this class?
Semi-Structured Interviews
Each participant was interviewed at the end of five
observational classes to follow up on the data
obtained through classroom observations,
participants’ diaries and field notes about the
translanguaging functions and to know the
purpose and reasons behind using
translanguaging practices in science classes. The
interview was of around 20-25 minutes in which
ten questions were asked, including probing
questions. The questions were about students’
educational background. For example: Where
have they studied, what was the MOI there, what
is their opinion of using translanguaging in the
science classroom.
Data Analysis
Data in the current study were analyzed and
interpreted in two integrated ways, such as
within-case analysis and cross-case analysis.
Within-case analysis refers to the description and
examination of data from an individual case. Data
from each case was analyzed separately to get a
complete picture of each participant’s
translanguaging practices (Koners & Goffin, 2007).
Thus, the process of within-case data analysis was
narrative description using the evidence from
gathered data. Whereas cross-case analysis refers
to the comparative analysis of all the participants
(Duff, 2008). Comparisons were made to see the
similarities and differences across cases. The
process of data analysis of each data collection tool
is discussed below.
Structured Observation Analysis
Observation sheets were analyzed regularly to
note down the frequencies of functions of
translanguaging used by participants. The sheet
was divided into task-referring, i.e. explanation,
elaboration, translation, interpreting, asking
questions, giving examples, and non-task
referring, i.e. chit-chat, requesting, and humor
functions. Asking questions, Giving examples and
humour were the newly emerged functions in the
current context. Observations were done in 5
classes; the duration of each class was 60 minutes.
Frequencies were noted down by two
researchers/observers in intervals of 5 minutes. In
every 5 minutes, it was noted how many times a
participant was using that function in her
language. During the observations, the frequency
of participants’ communicational behavior was
recorded with a method named event sampling
(Bryman, 2016). This is usually done with tally
marks, in which an observer puts a tally mark
every time an event occurs. Thus, tally marks were
used every time a participant explained,
elaborated, interpreted something or responded
with regard to any other observed function.
Individual participant’s frequency of responses
was then analyzed by counting and calculating the
number from sheets manually. To ensure the
authenticity of data, counted frequencies were
double-checked from another observation sheet
filled by another observer.

Anjili Parkash, Somal Rani and Hassan Syed
16 Global Educational Studies Review (GESR)
Analysis of Diaries, Field notes and
Interviews
A qualitative content analysis approach was
adopted by this study to condense and reduce the
textual data from audio recordings, diaries and
interviews by coding, categorizing and
interpreting (Cohen et al., 2007). Coding refers to
the indexing or categorization of text from the
data to establish the framework of thematic ideas
about it and to find out the relation between
analyzed concepts (Gibbs, 2007). There are two
types of content analysis that were employed by
this study, i.e. manifest and latent. Manifest
content analysis refers to the descriptive or
surface-level meaning of data, while latent
analysis deals with the deeper interpretation of
data (Dornyei, 2007). Both types were used to find
functions of translanguaging and knowing about
students’ perceptions regarding it.
Data from audio recordings, field notes,
diaries, and interviews were assembled in textual
form by transcribing and translating.
Transcription involves close observation of data
through repeated and careful listening (J. Bailey,
2008). Data in Sindhi and Urdu language were
transcribed into English. Audio recordings were
carefully listened to to contextualize the functions
that were used by participants in context.
Moreover, diary and field notes were analyzed to
get inferred, and non-inferred chunks of text from
participants’ responses and were assigned names
explicitly to indicate for what function a participant
was using translanguaging. Interviews were also
transcribed and translated to get to know about
students’ perception of using translanguaging clearly.
Coding and Categorization
Data from qualitative sources such as diary notes,
field notes, audio-recordings and semi-structured
interviews were examined deductively and
inductively to explore functions that occurred in
translanguaging practices of students and also the
students’ perceptions about using translanguaging
in classroom rather than one language. Chunks
and segments of text were extracted and assigned
tags labels showing instances of particular
functions. Those segments were also supported by
students’ opinions that they non-inferentially
talked about in the diaries and interviews. For
example, instances of task-referring functions
were labelled as explanation, elaboration,
translations or interpretation, and instances of
non-task referring functions were tagged as chit-
chat, humor or requesting through inferential and
non-inferential coding because some opinions did
not directly lend into deductive categories and
required interpretation of the researcher.
Findings
Due to limited space and word limit, we only
present the findings of the cross-case analysis
below. Findings of within-case analysis will be
presented in a subsequent paper. Results of this
study are based on cross-comparison of
similarities and differences among participants.
Results of the cross-case analysis are
demonstrated in the table below, which shows
that participants employed translanguaging for
various functions and to various extents.
Cross-Case Analysis
Table 2. Occurrences of Participants’ task and Non-Task Referring Functions
Occurrences of Participants’ task and non-task referring Functions
Task-referring
Functions
Number of Occurrences
% of Occurrences
Elaboration
226
38.83%
Asking questions
123
21.13%
Giving examples
68
11.68%
Translation
51
8.76%
Interpretation
35
6.01%
Non-Task Referring
Chit-chat
54
9.27%
Humor
18
3.09%

Exploring Functions of Translanguaging in Intermediate Students’ Interactions in Science Classroom
Vol. VI, No. I (Winter 2021) 17
Requesting
7
1.20%
Total
582
100%
The table above demonstrates the
occurrences of functions of translanguaging used
by participants, which are divided into two
categories, i.e. task referring and non-task
referring. It shows the number and percentages of
occurrences of functions. Below is the description
of how each function was used in class. The
different extents of using these functions by
participants are further described by evidence and
examples from data and are presented as themes.
Elaboration
Elaboration was found to be a highly used function
of translanguaging in the category of task-
referring functions, mostly when participants
were working in groups or when they were
preparing to present a topic in class. It helped
participants to get an in-depth understanding of
the concepts through detailed descriptive
discussions. Participants considered elaboration is
important to convey their concepts in a clear way.
Besides, elaboration helped participants to build
each other’s understanding by explaining with
details and examples to contextualize the science
concepts. The quotes below illustrate the use of
translanguaging for elaboration,
I use my own language to convey more
information. (Participant-3, Diary-1)
We use Urdu or Sindhi for further
elaboration, and we also come to know about the
role of that topic in our society, too, by examples
(Participant-1, StR).
Translanguaging helped me to discuss topics
in detail by giving examples (Participant-3, StR).
Asking Questions
In addition, ‘Asking questions’ is the 2nd most
used function by participants, which emerged
within the current study context.
The following excerpts have been taken from
transcripts of classrooms 1 and 2 of Participants 1
and Participant 3, respectively, to illustrate ‘asking
functions’ as the function of translanguaging.
Participant 1: Ye breeds kisko kehte hain?
[what do we call breeds]? (Participant-1,
Transcript-1)
Evolutionary future genetic constitution pe
kese depend on karta hai? [How does the
evolutionary future depend on genetic
constitution]? (Participant 3, Transcript-
Moreover, it was also evident from
Participant 2’s diary notes in which she specifically
wrote about asking questions as a function she
used in translanguaging. ‘I used translanguaging
while making my friends understand the topics,
but the point where I actually used it was during
asking questions’ (Participant 2, Diary Notes-5)
Giving Examples
Participants also reported using translanguaging
for asking for or offering examples for content
understanding. The following excerpt shows how
it was used as the most important function in
translanguaging to explain the concepts in a clear
way. Participant 1 gave an example to her peer
when they were discussing lamarkian’s theory in a
group. She said, ‘for example, dis mothers ji
piercing kadhen babies main transfer nahe thindi
par lamark chayo huyo ta thindi aahe in lae ta unji
theory reject thi wai hui’. [English translation: ‘For
example, piercing in mother is never transferred
to the babies in the tummy; Lamark said, it does.
This is why his theory was rejected’ (Participant 1-
Transcript-4)].
Translation
The translation was mainly used when
participants tried to make sense of the science text
written in English in their book. All participants
strongly favoured translanguaging for it enabled
them to communicate their ideas easily and
helped them get their message across to their
peers. Participant-1 stated, ‘it really helps me to
understand things easily. Participant-3 also
reported, Sometimes, when Science teachers teach
us something in English only, we feel difficult to
understand it. However, when they translate the
difficult terms in our mother tongue, only then we
clearly understand it.
Moreover, it was frequently used in group
discussions, especially when the peers were unable
to get the meaning of some difficult vocabulary.

Anjili Parkash, Somal Rani and Hassan Syed
18 Global Educational Studies Review (GESR)
I used translanguaging to make my peers
understand in an easy way as their mother
languages are different. Sometimes we use our
mother tongue because some words can be better
understood in that language. It is also easy to
express our thoughts, ideas and opinions.
(Participant 1- Diary 2).
Interpretation
Interpreting ideas and opinions of one
another were continuously observed over five
observational classes of each participant. It was
used when participants were clarifying and
confirming the science concepts to one another.
Connecting expressions with the cultural meaning
of the concepts were also observed, which
ultimately helped students to understand the
concepts explicitly. The interpretation was highly
used by Participant 1 and least used by Participant
2. While Participant 1 always helped her peers in
understanding topics. Participant 3 was also
observed to use interpretation in her interaction
with her group members. The group was busy in
making a presentation which they were supposed
to present through a gallery walk. For instance,
Recombinant DNA technology k zariye hum
artificially genes produce karwa sakte hain aur
unhe phir kisi aur host main insert karte hain new
variety produce karne k liye, right?
[English translation: Through recombinant
DNA technology, we can artificially produce genes
and insert them in the host producing new variety.
Right?] (Participant-3, Transcript-3)
Chit-chat
Chit-chat was a non-task referring function as its
name suggests so. Asking each other about which
dress to wear on farewell or which drama did they
watch were the observed and recorded behaviors
of the participants for which the translanguaging
occurred. For participant-1, chit-chats and talking
to friends was always realistic in one’s own
language rather than speaking in English only.
Participant-2, on the other hand, showed a dual
attitude to chit-chats. While in her interview, she
stated, ‘I am not habitual of having informal
conversations in English’, data from classroom
observations and field notes suggest she did
engage in chit-chats with her neighbors
sometimes.
Requesting
Requesting was a non-task referring function that
was rarely found to be part of students’
translanguaging practices as it existed to the least
in occurrences. It was overall a least used function
because, in the study of (Romanowski, 2019), this
function was studied in teachers’ context when
they mainly requested school accessories.
However, in the current context, it was found in
student-student interaction when participants in
groups requested their peers for anything or when
they politely asked each other to do something. It
occurred mainly while asking peers for some help
in a polite way of asking a teacher to do any favor.
The occurrences of this function for all three
participants were almost similar. Participant 1 and
Participant 3 used it just a couple of times, and
Participant 2 used it thrice during the 5
observation classes. The examples are given below
to show how participants were using
translanguaging for requesting.
Meri pen gir gai hy, utha k dy do yar please’?
(My pen has fallen down, please take that from
there and give it to me). (Participant-3,
Transcript-2).
Ma’am aaj jaldi se windup kar k koi game ya
energiser hee karwa den. (Ma’am wind it up quickly
today and have some energizer or game please).
(Participant-1, Transcript- 3)
Humor
Humor, a non-task referring function, was also
found in students’ translanguaging practices.
According to participants, it is important to have
fun in class, especially in a language that others
use the most. Fun at times helps to make learning
effective. The attention span of students is never
too great, so they are usually seen to have some
side jokes with friends. For this function,
Participant 2 had higher occurrences than
Participant 3 and Participant 1 since she was more
of jolly nature. She always preferred to use her own
language, i.e. Sindhi, to make jokes in the class.
She stated in her interview,
Yes, it happens. When we make jokes in
English, nobody understands and laughs at it. We
find those things or jokes funnier when they are in
our own language/mother-tongue because we are
not habitual of having an informal conversation or
making jokes in English.

Exploring Functions of Translanguaging in Intermediate Students’ Interactions in Science Classroom
Vol. VI, No. I (Winter 2021) 19
Discussion
The current study showed some interesting task-
and non-task referring functions quantified with
frequencies of students’ translanguaging practice
in the science classroom; In relation to the first
main question of this present study on students’
use of translanguaging functions in their task and
non-task related talks, the task-related functions
were predominantly found in students’
translanguaging practices in line with Duarte's
(2019) study with a clear dominance of
‘elaboration’ on the peak with 226 out of 503
occurrences because of the fact that the classes
were fully student-centred and students were
always busy in creative activities like gallery walk,
group discussions, jigsaw, oral presentations and
so on which involved them in making elaborations
to peers understanding the science concepts.
Students’ perceptions also upkeep elaboration as a
way to clarify concepts to their peers using
translanguaging evident in García and Leiva (2014)
study, who suggest that elaboration enables
students to simplify their ideas and opinions,
which they could not do in only English that
limited their voices.
Moreover, asking questions under task-
referring functions allowed students to clear
queries regarding scientific terminologies using
translanguaging. For example, one of the
participants asked a question about a scientific
term, ‘deme’ from one’s peers and related the term
with that of the organism's population after a long
discussion and questionings on it. Karlsson,
Nygård Larsson, and Jakobsson (2019) also argue
that multilingual students make use of both their
L1 and L2 to relate scientific abstract content with
daily life experiences while clarifying their queries
sometimes supported by interpretations of the
ideas to conform answers.
One of the most interesting findings of the
present study that goes similar with Duarte's
(2019) study is that of asking questions as the
second most dominant occurring function in
student-student interactions. It highlights the role
of questioning in understanding science content
allowing students to challenge and question each
other's ideas (Berland & McNeill, 2010). To add
with, many research studies have been done on
the importance of exemplification as a strategy
used by teachers to learn abstract concepts in
science classrooms (Oliveira, Cook, & Buck, 2011;
Oliveira & Brown, 2016). However, the present
study highlights the importance of giving
examples as a function of task-referring category
in the science classroom using translanguaging.
Examples help students to connect abstract
science concepts with cultural context enabling
them to discuss the role of those topics in society
too by utilizing all linguistic resources to maintain
their focus. This idea is in support with Oliveira's
and Brown’s (2016) idea who suggest that
exemplification in science classrooms assist
students to stay focused and imagine abstract
concepts.
The off-task functions in the present study
including humor, chit-chat and requesting were
found less in number than on-task functions in
science classroom because students were mainly
involved in group activities all the time which
suggest that students devoted their time more
towards their learning rather than being non-
serious. One of the functions humor serves as an
informal way of making jokes on certain science
concepts while giving contextual examples and
has been identified as the source of enjoyment in
between classroom discussions. Participants’
perceptions evidently described humor as a
phenomenon which relates to cultural languages
and sounds amusing when it is done using
translanguaging as Bell (2011) describes humor as
entertaining when it is specific culturally. Using
English only in jokes or fun takes the essence away
from laughter in humor. Dávila (2019) has
emphasized to value students’ generated humor
and harness it for the reason that helps them in
content learning and understanding. The present
study found humor to be the second most
occurring translanguaging function under the
non-task referring category.
Additionally, students were found out to be
involved in chit-chat and muttering moving
between linguistic loops for everyday
conversations in L1 and more subject specific
expressions in L2 (Karlsson et al., 2019) while
chatting about private or home conversations. The
occurrences of chit-chat are found out to be on
peak with 54 frequencies out of 142 in off-task
functions. Not much literature has been done on
the role of chit-chat using translanguaging in
science classrooms.
Apart from functions of translanguaging in
science classroom, participants’ perceptions have
highlighted some other aspects of translanguaging
such as Participant 1 believed that translanguaging

Anjili Parkash, Somal Rani and Hassan Syed
20 Global Educational Studies Review (GESR)
helps her in seeking the attention of peers in a
multilingual context by using various linguistic
repertoires. In the same vein, translanguaging
assisted Participant 2 and Participant 3 to cope up
and learn new science vocabulary as one of them
shared about the word ‘circumcision’ as being
unaware for its meaning in her own language so
she connected that word with the cultural
meaning which was ‘Sunnat’ as per her religion.
This example represents translanguaging as a
phenomenon of offering multiple linguistic
resources. To wrap up, these ideas imply
translanguaging as a way which drives students’
learning on varied paths of weaving scientific
content with home languages to maximize
scientific understanding.
Conclusion
The findings of the study revealed that students
use translanguaging in their interactions for
multifarious functions; however, when they
interact or communicate with their teachers, they
prefer to use English. Translanguaging helps
students to develop a clear understanding of the
content of science, cope up with new and
unfamiliar words, makes their communication
easier, helps them in getting attention from peers
and makes the environment informal.
Translanguaging allows students to assert their
linguistic identities and enables them to not only
understand the content and get scaffolded help
from the more knowledgeable others but also
empowers them to proactively contribute to the
overall learning process by sharing their
viewpoints, challenging their own as well as that
of others ‘ideas. Thus, translanguaging allows
students to be masters of their own self. Therefore,
the study suggests that the translanguaging
practices of students in science classrooms cannot
be neglected since it helps them to make their
learning effective. In addition to that, science
teachers are suggested to not encourage their
students to make use of translanguaging in order
for the latter to optimize their learning in science
classrooms. The study highlights the need for
teacher educators to raise awareness of the pre-
service and in-service teachers about the
multiplicity of the pedagogical uses of
translanguaging.

Exploring Functions of Translanguaging in Intermediate Students’ Interactions in Science Classroom
Vol. VI, No. I (Winter 2021) 21
References
Abu Bakar, F. (2018). The Use of Humour in
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.
University of Otago.
Apter, E. (2006). The translation zone: A new
comparative literature. Princeton University
Press.
Ash, D. (2004). Reflective scientific sense-making
dialogue in two languages: The science in the
dialogue and the dialogue in the science.
Science Education, 88(6), 855–884.
Ashraf, H. (2018). Translingual practices and
monoglot policy aspirations: a case study of
Pakistan’s plurilingual classrooms. Current
Issues in Language Planning, 19(1), 1–21.
Bailey, J. (2008). First steps in qualitative data
analysis: transcribing. Family Practice, 25(2),
127–131.
https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmn003
Bailey, K. M. (1991). Diary Studies of Classroom
Language Learning: The Doubting Game and
the Believing Game.
Baker, C. (2010). Increasing bilingualism in
bilingual education. Welsh in the 21st
century, 61–79.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case
study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The
Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.
Bell, N. D. (2011). Humor scholarship and TESOL:
Applying findings and establishing a
research agenda. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1),
134–159.
Bengochea, A., & Gort, M. (2020).
Translanguaging for varying discourse
functions in sociodramatic play: an
exploratory multiple case study of young
emergent bilinguals. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–16.
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning
progression for scientific argumentation:
Understanding student work and designing
supportive instructional contexts. Science
Education, 94(5), 765–793.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods.
Oxford university press.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic
writing: Identifying teachable strategies of
translanguaging. The Modern Language
Journal, 95(3), 401–417.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2015). Multilingual
education. Cambridge University Press.
Charamba, E., & Zano, K. (2019). Effects of
translanguaging as an intervention strategy
in a South African Chemistry classroom.
Bilingual Research Journal, 42(3), 291–307.
Civan, A., & Coşkun, A. (2016). The effect of the
MOI language on the academic success of
university students. Educational Sciences:
Theory & Practice, 16(6).
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007).
Research Methods in Education, 6th edn
(Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge).
Coleman, H., & Capstick, A. (2012). Language in
education in Pakistan: Recommendations for
policy and practice. British Council
Islamabad.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the
classroom. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 57(3), 402–423.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010).
Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom:
A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The
Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design:
Qualitative and mixed methods approaches.
London and Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000).
Determining validity in qualitative inquiry.
Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.
Dávila, L. T. (2019). “J’aime to be Funny!”: Humor,
Learning, and Identity Construction in High
School English as a Second Language
Classrooms. The Modern Language Journal,
103(2), 502–514.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied
Linguistics Oxford University Press. New
York.
Duarte, J. (2011). Bilingual language proficiency: A
comparative study (Vol. 17). Waxmann
Verlag.
Duarte, J. (2019). Translanguaging in mainstream
education: a sociocultural approach.
International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 22(2), 150–164.
Duarte, J. (2020). Translanguaging in the context
of mainstream multilingual education.
International Journal of Multilingualism,
17(2), 232–247.
Duff, P. (2008). 書評 Duff, PA (2008). Case Study
Research in Applied Linguistics. New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum. 平成国際大学論集, (12),

Anjili Parkash, Somal Rani and Hassan Syed
22 Global Educational Studies Review (GESR)
131–138.
Duff, PA (2008). Case Study Research in Applied
Linguistics. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
平成国際大学論集, (12), 131–138.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st
Century: A Global Perspective. TESL-EJ, 13(1).
García, O. (2011). Bilingual education in the 21st
century: A global perspective. John Wiley &
Sons.
García, O., & Leiva, C. (2014). Theorizing and
enacting translanguaging for social justice.
In Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy
(pp. 199–216). Springer.
García, O., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2017).
Translanguaging in bilingual education.
Bilingual and Multilingual Education, 117–130.
García, O., & Wei, L. (2013). Translanguaging:
Language, bilingualism and education.
Springer.
García, O., & WEI, L. I. (2017). 13
Translanguaging, Bilingualism, and
Bilingual Education. The Handbook of
Bilingual and Multilingual Education, 223.
García, O., Johnson, S. I., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The
translanguaging classroom: Leveraging
student bilingualism for learning. Caslon
Philadelphia, PA.
García, O., Makar, C., Starcevic, M., & Terry, A.
(2011). The translanguaging of Latino
kindergarteners. Bilingual Youth: Spanish in
English-Speaking Societies, 42, 33–55.
Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Thematic coding and
categorizing. Analysing Qualitative Data,
703, 38–56.
Gogolin, I., Lange, I., Michel, U., & Reich, H. H.
(2013). Herausforderung Bildungssprache-
und wie man sie meistert. Waxmann Verlag.
Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical
literacy in the third space. Reading Research
Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164.
Karlsson, A., Nygård Larsson, P., & Jakobsson, A.
(2019). Multilingual students’ use of
translanguaging in science classrooms.
International Journal of Science Education,
41(15), 2049–2069.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.14772
61
Khan, H. I. (2013). An investigation of two
universities’ postgraduate students and their
teachers’ perceptions of policy and practice
of English MOI (EMI) in Pakistani
universities. University of Glasgow.
Koners, U., & Goffin, K. (2007). Learning from
postproject reviews: A cross-case analysis.
Journal of Product Innovation Management,
24(3), 242–258.
Larsson, P. N., & Jakobsson, A. (2017). Semantiska
vågor–elevers diskursiva rörlighet i
gruppsamtal. Nordic Studies in Science
Education, 13(1), 17–35.
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012a).
Translanguaging: Developing its
conceptualization and contextualization.
Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7),
655–670.
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012b).
Translanguaging: Origins and development
from school to street and beyond.
Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7),
641–654.
Linder, C., Östman, L., Roberts, D. A., Wickman,
P.-O., Ericksen, G., & MacKinnon, A. (2010).
Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy.
Routledge.
Makonye, J. P. (2019). The effect of
translanguaging in teaching the Grade 6
topics of perimeter and area in rural schools.
Southern African Linguistics and Applied
Language Studies, 37(3), 221–231.
https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2019.16718
80
Manan, S. A., David, M. K., & Dumanig, F. P.
(2016). Language management: a snapshot of
governmentality within the private schools
in Quetta, Pakistan. Language Policy, 15(1),
3–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-014-
9343-x
Manan, S. A., Dumanig, F. P., & David, M. K.
(2017). The English-medium fever in
Pakistan: analyzing policy, perceptions and
practices through additive bi/multilingual
education lens. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(6),
736–752.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.10806
59
Mazak, C. M., & Herbas-Donoso, C. (2014).
Translanguaging practices and language
ideologies in Puerto Rican university science
education. Critical Inquiry in Language
Studies, 11(1), 27–49.
Nygård Larsson, P. (2011). Biologiämnets texter:
Text, språk och lärande i en språkligt
heterogen gymnasieklass. Malmö högskola,
Lärarutbildningen.
Okal, B. (2014). Benefits of Multilingualism in

Exploring Functions of Translanguaging in Intermediate Students’ Interactions in Science Classroom
Vol. VI, No. I (Winter 2021) 23
Education, 2, 223–229.
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2014.020304
Oliveira, A. W., & Brown, A. O. (2016).
Exemplification in science instruction:
Teaching and learning through examples.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
53(5), 737–767.
Rahman, T. (2003). Language policy,
multilingualism and language vitality in
Pakistan. Lesser-Known Languages of South
Asia: Status and Policies, Case Studies, and
Applications of Information Technology, 73–
104.
Romanowski, P. (2019). Translanguaging in the
Polish educational context: Lessons learnt
from IB schools. Bellaterra Journal of
Teaching and Learning Language and
Literature, 12(1), 5–24.
Ryu, M. (2019). Mixing languages for science
learning and participation: an examination
of Korean-English bilingual learners in an
after-school science-learning programme.
International Journal of Science Education,
41(10), 1303–1323.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.16052
29
Shah, M., Pillai, S., & Sinayah, M. (2019).
Translanguaging in an academic setting.
Lingua, 225, 16–31.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2006). Language policy and
linguistic human rights. An Introduction to
Language Policy: Theory and Method, 273–
291.
Stevenson, A. R. (2013). How fifth grade Latino/a
bilingual students use their linguistic
resources in the classroom and laboratory
during science instruction. Cultural Studies
of Science Education, 8(4), 973–989.
Tan, E., Barton, A. C., Turner, E., & Gutiérrez, M.
V. (2012). Empowering science and
mathematics education in urban schools.
University of Chicago Press.
Van Lier, L., & Walqui, A. (2012). Language and
the common core state standards.
Commissioned Papers on Language and
Literacy Issues in the Common Core State
Standards and Next Generation Science
Standards, 94, 44.
Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M.,
Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J.
(2001). Rethinking diversity in learning
science: The logic of everyday sense-making.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The
Official Journal of the National Association
for Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529–
552.
Wei, L. (2011). Moment analysis and
translanguaging space: Discursive
construction of identities by multilingual
Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of
Pragmatics, 43(5), 1222–1235.
Wolf, A. (2011). Review of vocational education.
London: DfE.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and
methods (Vol. 5).
View publication stats