Teaching and Teacher Education 139 (2024) 104437
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Teaching and Teacher Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate
Research paper
Translanguaging in today’s multilingual classes – Students’ perspectives of
classroom management and classroom climate
Jasmin Decristan a, *, Victoria Bertram b, Valentina Reitenbach a, Katharina Maria Schneider c,
Dominique Patricia Rauch c
a
b
c
University of Wuppertal, Germany
DIPF ∣ Leibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education, Germany
Ludwigsburg University of Education, Germany
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Translanguaging
Multilingualism
Teaching quality
Classroom management
Classroom climate
Although several approaches for addressing students’ multilingualism have been proposed, their implementation
in class has often been challenged, with classroom-related concerns voiced over key dimensions of teaching
quality. This study investigates the relationship between a teaching unit including translanguaging and students’
perceptions of teaching quality in multilingual elementary school classes in Germany. Using data from an
intervention study involving 48 classes and 865 students, the results provide empirical evidence to allay concerns
over implementing translanguaging in multilingual classrooms, enhancing the understanding of the connection
between translanguaging and teaching quality.
Funding
This research was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education
and Research, Germany.
1. Background
As globalization has increased since the beginning of the 20th cen­
tury, our society has become increasingly diverse (e.g., Ball, 2009). In
today’s classrooms, students with different cognitive, language-related,
cultural, and economic backgrounds are seated side by side. This is
particularly common in countries with a large number of immigrants
from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, such as Germany
(Eurostat, 2023, p. 15). This migration-related multilingualism is char­
acterized by a large diversity of languages in the classroom, with chil­
dren often speaking more than one home language in addition to the
local language.
Research has provided frameworks and empirical data to effectively
consider students’ multilingualism in class (e.g., Duarte & Günther-Van
der Meij, 2018; Lorenz et al., 2021; Lucas & Villegas, 2013). The
established concept of translanguaging refers to a fluid and flexible use
of the different languages that constitute multilingual students’ full
linguistic repertoire (Lewis et al., 2012; Prilutskaya, 2021). In many
countries in Europe, however, the migration-related linguistic resources
of multilingual students are not addressed, and only the majority lan­
guage is used as the instructional language (e.g., Ellis et al., 2010 in
Germany and Austria; Lorenz et al., 2021 in Norway). Schools reflect the
social and political views of multilingualism in a society, with teachers
acting “as ‘ideology brokers’ (Blommaert, 1999), who produce and
reproduce the existing beliefs” (Putjata & Koster, 2023, p. 899). For
students with minority languages and cultural backgrounds that differ
significantly from the local context and the overreaching language
policy, this corresponds to the construction and consolidation of
marginalized identities, feelings of social exclusion, negative emotions,
and lower well-being in school (e.g., Broermann, 2007 in Germany;
Cenoz et al., 2022 in Basque Autonomous Community; Dryden et al.,
2021 in Australia). Teachers also frequently express concerns about
using translanguaging and a lack of preparedness in addressing the
multilingualism of students, especially in todays’ migration-related
multilingual classes (e.g., Bredthauer & Engfer, 2016; Dražnik et al.,
2022; Lorenz et al., 2021; OECD, 2019). The concerns are often related
to classroom management and classroom climate; core dimensions of
teaching quality (e.g., Klieme et al., 2009; Pianta & Hamre, 2009).
Classroom management focuses on the establishment of rules and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: decristan@uni-wuppertal.de (J. Decristan), v.bertram@dipf.de (V. Bertram), reitenbach@uni-wuppertal.de (V. Reitenbach), katharina.m.
schneider@ph-ludwigsburg.de (K.M. Schneider), dominique.rauch@ph-ludwigsburg.de (D.P. Rauch).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104437
Received 9 July 2023; Received in revised form 3 December 2023; Accepted 9 December 2023
Available online 23 December 2023
0742-051X/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Decristan et al.
Teaching and Teacher Education 139 (2024) 104437
procedures in class, effectively coping with disturbances in class, and
providing smooth transitions to maintain students’ involvement in
classroom learning and provide more time on task (e.g., Klieme et al.,
2009; Pianta & Hamre, 2009). Classroom climate refers to positive re­
lationships in class that include mutual respect between the students in a
class, helping and supporting each other, and having positive emotions
about being in the class (e.g., Klieme et al., 2009; Pianta & Hamre,
2009). These effective and positive interactions in class can be consid­
ered key characteristics of teaching quality. However, there has been
little empirical research to examine teaching quality in multilingual
classes that have implemented translanguaging. This study aims to fill
this research gap by using data from an intervention study conducted in
German migration-related multilingual elementary school classes.
implementing translanguaging in multilingual classrooms (e.g., Han­
sen-Thomas et al., 2020). By managing activities with peers in small
groups and assisting each other, they can promote effective use of
learning time and classroom management (Barahona et al., 2023).
In summary, translanguaging theory and translanguaging pedagogy
involve the fluid and flexible use of languages in the classroom to sup­
port students’ learning. Translanguaging must be embedded in a posi­
tive classroom climate that values students’ linguistic resources and
diversity, broadly encompassing the main principles summarized by
Lorenz et al. (2021). However, empirical research on the purposes and
challenges of implementing translanguaging in the classroom has drawn
an ambivalent picture.
1.1. Translanguaging
1.2. Classroom-related purposes and challenges of implementing
translanguaging
Translanguaging has become a prominent research strand on bilin­
gualism and multilingualism. Translanguaging is rooted in sociolin­
guistic and psycholinguistic research and refers to “the ability of
multilingual speakers to shuttle between languages, treating the diverse
languages that form their repertoire as an integrated system” (Cana­
garajah, 2011, p. 401). This definition highlights an important issue in
current conceptualizations of translanguaging. Instead of treating two
languages as separate and distinct, all language-related competencies
constitute an individual’s entire linguistic repertoire (e.g. García, 2009).
It is assumed that this repertoire can be used flexibly and fluidly for
communication and learning. Translanguaging also aims to enhance
students’ metalinguistic awareness, and it assists them in organizing and
elaborating on content to foster a deeper understanding of the subject
matter (Lewis et al., 2012; Prilutskaya, 2021).
The theoretical assumptions regarding translanguaging can be seen
in a natural setting among bilinguals and multilinguals. Moving across
languages is also referred to as “code-switching” or “code-meshing”.
However, these practices may indicate two separate language systems of
bilinguals. Therefore, in multilingual pedagogies, “translanguaging” is
preferred––a term that “goes beyond what has been termed codeswitching, although it includes it” (García, 2009, p. 140).
The intentional strategies employed by teachers to facilitate stu­
dents’ translanguaging (and enhance their learning) are referred to as
pedagogical translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021; Prilutskaya, 2021).
Lorenz et al. (2021, p. 2) have outlined five core principles that
constitute approaches to addressing multilingual students in class: (a)
acknowledging learners’ linguistic resources, (b) appreciating linguistic
diversity in class, (c) supporting metalinguistic awareness, (d) using all
languages present in class, and (e) having a holistic and fluid view of
languages. These principles can be seen in many strategies used in
classroom teaching and learning, such as serving as a role model for
translanguaging by scaffolding and encouraging students to use multiple
languages, providing multilingual materials, and creating opportunities
for cooperative group work with shared language resources (Cenoz &
Gorter, 2021; Kirsch, 2020). Therefore, in addition to a sociolinguistic
perspective, the pedagogical perspective emphasizes the establishment
of a “collaborative space” (Moody et al., 2019, p. 87) where different
languages are accepted and flexibly used, without focusing on
language-related dichotomies.
This collaborative space is particularly significant for multilingual
classes that follow a traditional monolingual instruction approach.
These spaces provide a safe environment in which students can use their
full linguistic repertoire for learning and experience less embarrassment
or shame (e.g., Dryden et al., 2021; Omidire & Ayob, 2022). Ebe and
Chapman-Santiago (2016) conducted a study in multilingual classes in
the U.S. focusing on English language instruction, showing that students
working in language-matching groups expressed positive feelings to­
wards translanguaging. Students can also support each other without the
teacher being proficient in their home languages (Schüler-Meyer et al.,
2017). Students are therefore seen as valuable resources for
1.2.1. Purposes of translanguaging in foreign language classes and its
relationship with teaching quality
Extensive research on language-teaching classes has consistently
provided evidence on classroom-related purposes of implementing
translanguaging. Hall and Cook (2012, pp. 285–287) summarized these
findings, confirming the goal of supporting (language) learning and
emphasizing two additional key purposes: managing classes and
fostering positive relationships. Littlewood and Yu (2011, p. 70)
distinguished between “core goals” (language teaching) and “framework
goals” (classroom management and classroom climate) of
translanguaging.
Recent empirical research conducted in foreign-language classrooms
in China has further validated these purposes. Teachers and students
employ translanguaging not only to explain content, enhance meta­
linguistic awareness, and convey meaning but also to effectively manage
classroom activities and establish positive relationships. Studies have
shown how translanguaging is used for classroom management when
providing instructions for an activity (Wang, 2019, p. 144, Chinese
foreign language classes) and raising attention to specific contents (Zhou
& Mann, 2021, p. 273 in Chinese university courses; Jing & Kitis, 2023,
p. 11, in a Chinese foreign language class). Translanguaging has also
been found to play a role in maintaining discipline in the classroom
(Zhang et al., 2022, p. 9 in Chinese as a foreign language classes).
Translanguaging positively affected time on task—a key aim of class­
room management.
Teachers have used translanguaging to support a community of
learning in which students can support each other (“interpersonal stra­
tegies” in Wang, 2019, p. 144). It has also been used to establish positive
relationships in the classroom (“rapport-building strategies” in Zhou &
Mann, 2021, p. 274). The reduction of language-related fears can be
seen as a key mechanism for community building (Cenoz et al., 2022;
Dryden et al., 2021; Omidire & Ayob, 2022). Students reported that
providing a safe space reduced their anxiety and enabled them to get
into contact with each other, as Yüzlü and Dikilitas (2022, p. 184)
showed with Turkish students using Turkish-English translanguaging in
high school English as a foreign language class.
Most importantly, core and framework goals are integral parts of
established frameworks of teaching quality. Various models and
frameworks of teaching quality worldwide involve content-related core
goals, classroom management, and positive interpersonal relationships
(see summary by Praetorius & Charalambous, 2018). Pianta and
Hamre’s (2009) widely recognized classroom observation system in the
U.S. encompasses instructional support, classroom organization, and
emotional support. In their three-dimensional model of teaching quality
predominantly established in European research, Klieme et al. (2009)
included cognitive activation, classroom management, and supportive
climate. Meta-analyses and summaries offer ample empirical evidence
for the significance of coherent content, classroom management, a
positive climate, and strong relationships for diverse student outcomes
(Brophy, 2000; Korpershoek et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2020).
2
J. Decristan et al.
Teaching and Teacher Education 139 (2024) 104437
1.2.2. Concerns about implementing translanguaging in today’s
multilingual classes
Implementing pedagogical translanguaging in today’s migrationrelated multilingual classes requires some additional thought and
planning, including reflection on language-related class composition
and how students can support each other to reach the learning goals. The
aims of translanguaging in language teaching classes cannot be fully
transferred to today’s migration-related multilingual classes with stu­
dents from diverse linguistic backgrounds and a broad range of com­
petencies in their home languages. For instance, it is not possible for
teachers to use all languages in class to explain content, convey mean­
ing, and enhance metalinguistic awareness. However, while acknowl­
edging this general limitation with respect to the core goals of
translanguaging, teachers also frequently express classroom-related
concerns about framework goals that hinder them from implementing
translanguaging; “Rather than any sort of intrinsic stand against trans­
languaging per se, it has more to do with teacher concerns regarding
exclusion and control in the classroom” (Ticheloven et al., 2021, p. 500).
Concerns about classroom management encompass various aspects,
including control, discipline, monitoring, task management, and time on
task. In their review of twelve empirical studies with language teachers
in Germany and Austria, Bredthauer and Engfer (2016, p. 142) identi­
fied teachers’ fears of loss of authority as a significant concern when
implementing translanguaging. Teachers also raise concerns about stu­
dents speaking negatively about them, which could further undermine
their authority. In the Netherlands, Ticheloven et al. (2021) found that
teachers felt uncomfortable when they could not understand what stu­
dents were discussing in class, and they considered the “risk of losing
control as more significant than the principle of linguistic inclusion” (p.
500). In Alisaari et al.’s (2019) study, over 50% of Finnish teachers
agreed to feeling uncomfortable when peers speak a language they do
not understand (p. 53). These concerns can be associated with organi­
zational stress, as translanguaging hinders teachers’ ability to effectively
monitor students’ activities, a critical component of classroom man­
agement. There are also concerns about time on task, with teachers
worrying about a lack of time and the potential inefficacy of learning
when too much attention is given to home languages (Bredthauer &
Engfer, 2016, p. 110; see also Alisaari et al., 2019, p. 53, for Finnish
teachers).
Regarding relationships and classroom climate, Ticheloven et al.
(2021) found that exclusion was a concern expressed by Dutch teachers,
parents, and students. One teacher highlighted “that you have to be
careful that speakers don’t use their languages to isolate others” (p.
500). In their review of twelve empirical studies with language teachers
in Germany and Austria, Bredthauer and Engfer (2016, p. 114)
confirmed that exclusion of students is a main concern. Alisaari et al.
(2019) showed that a key reason behind Finnish teachers not allowing
students to use their home language in class was the view that “home
languages are used for bullying” (p. 54).
However, the students’ perspectives of classroom management and
classroom climate has rarely been addressed. In one of the few studies
which considered the students’ perspectives, Ticheloven et al. (2021, p.
499) showed that students were well aware of the power of language and
the potential for inclusion and exclusion. The authors further summa­
rized that “as long as students did not feel excluded, they were positive
about other languages in the classroom”. This research is in line with a
larger study of 182 graduate students from various language back­
grounds in the U.S. which reported positive views of translanguaging in
social settings for second language learning (Moody et al., 2019, p. 96;
see also Duarte & Günther-Van der Meij, 2018, p. 34, in the
Netherlands). Bredthauer and Engfer (2016, p. 114) also reported that
students in Germany and Austria would like to find out more about their
peers’ home languages.
Besides this general view of the challenges of implementing trans­
languaging, there are specific concerns regarding potential discrimina­
tion against monolingual students who are not able to use multiple
languages or communicate with their multilingual peers using their
home languages. What is often the case for students who struggle to
understand the traditional monolingual instruction in regular classes
becomes the opposite hindering argument when it comes to mono­
lingual students who only speak the language of instruction. Teachers in
Germany and Austria expressed concern that German-only speaking
students would be excluded, and that allowing students to use their
home languages in school could contribute to the formation of ethnic
groupings (Bredthauer & Engfer, 2016, p. 114). In the study by
Ticheloven et al. (2021), a parent complained about a group of students
speaking Bulgarian during break time while her child was unable to
participate in the group’s conversation (p. 499). This concern, particu­
larly relevant for monolingual students, is also related to classroom
management. Just as teachers challenge the use of translanguaging due
to concerns about discipline, monitoring, and time on task (e.g., Alisaari
et al., 2019; Bredthauer & Engfer, 2016; Ticheloven et al., 2021),
monolingual students who do not understand their peers’ language
might be confused by multiple languages in the classroom. Trans­
languaging might therefore increase the extrinsic cognitive load (Swel­
ler et al., 2019) for monolingual students who are processing auditory
input without comprehending its content. The use of home languages of
multilingual students may contribute to a decrease in monolingual
students’ time on task and more classroom disturbances, leading to a
perception of lower classroom management. Again, the perspectives of
monolingual and multilingual students have not yet been considered.
2. Aims of the study and research questions
This study aims to examine the relationship between trans­
languaging and teaching quality in today’s migration-related multilin­
gual elementary school classes. Research has shown that both the
purposes of translanguaging in foreign languages classes and concerns
about translanguaging in multilingual classes are strongly, but oppo­
sitely, connected to classroom management and classroom climate (see
Fig. 1).
Although classroom management and classroom climate are integral
parts of established frameworks of teaching quality (e.g., Klieme et al.,
2009; Pianta & Hamre, 2009), studies considering students’ multilin­
gualism have not sufficiently acknowledged this research strand. To the
best of our knowledge, this study represents the first attempt to bridge
translanguaging and teaching quality. Moreover, while concerns and
benefits are primarily related to students’ behavior and exclusion or
inclusion in classroom interaction, the students’ perspectives has
received limited attention. There has also been little empirical research
examining the use of translanguaging, particularly using a larger sample
size, and involving today’s migration-related multilingual classrooms.
This study thus aims to address several research gaps by (a) examining
teaching quality after implementing translanguaging in today’s
migration-related multilingual classes, (b) considering the students’
Fig. 1. Purposes and challenges of translanguaging related to classroom man­
agement and classroom climate.
3
J. Decristan et al.
Teaching and Teacher Education 139 (2024) 104437
either the treatment group or the control group condition.
In the intervention, control group teachers gave regular German
language instruction while treatment group teachers used a teaching
unit including translanguaging. Regular German language instruction
was based on the federal states’ curricula for elementary schools that
focus on German reading, writing, and language use. Prior to the
intervention, treatment group teachers participated in three days of
professional development workshops, with each day consisting of about
3.5 h of training. During the workshops, teachers were provided with a
manual on the teaching unit and all the necessary materials free of
charge. The teaching unit including translanguaging comprised 12 les­
sons, each lasting 45 min. To evaluate the intervention, treatment group
students completed questionnaires and tests before (t1) and after (t2) the
teaching unit. Control group students were also assessed twice in their
German language classes. The time between the surveys was 63.1 days
on average (SD = 27.0 days). Furthermore, students handed out a
questionnaire to their parents to assess the language(s) used at home by
their families.
perspectives, and (c) using data from a study with a larger sample size,
applying multilevel analysis to distinguish within-class from
between-class level effects.
To obtain empirical evidence, an intervention study with a treatment
group (in which translanguaging was implemented) and a control group
(referring to regular German language instruction) in contemporary
migration-related multilingual German elementary school classes was
used. To address the concern that teachers do not feel well-prepared
(Alisaari et al., 2019; Bredthauer & Engfer, 2016; Dražnik et al., 2022;
Lorenz et al., 2021; OECD, 2019), treatment group teachers participated
in professional development workshops on translanguaging prior to its
implementation in their classes.
The first research question examines the impact of the intervention
involving translanguaging on elementary school students’ perceptions
of classroom management and classroom climate, comparing the stu­
dents’ perceptions of teaching quality in the treatment group with that
of the control group. Focusing on the between-class level of analysis, we
ask (1) to what extent does the intervention on translanguaging affect
elementary school students’ perceptions of classroom management and
classroom climate compared to control group classes with regular
German language instruction?
The second research question examines the differences in the
perception of classroom management and classroom climate between
monolingual German students and their multilingual peers within both
the treatment group (with translanguaging) and control group classes
(with regular instruction). Focusing on the within-class level of analysis,
we ask (2) to what extent do monolingual German students differ from
their multilingual peers in their perceptions of classroom management
and classroom climate, particularly compared to monolingual and
multilingual students in control group classes?
Lastly, we examine the impact of treatment-group students’ multiple
language use on their perceptions of teaching quality. Although the
differential perspective on the concerns and benefits of translanguaging
is often related to monolingual and multilingual students, the core
argument refers to students’ multiple language use in class; this is used
for the exclusion and inclusion of students and also affects classroom
management. Analyzing treatment group classes only while considering
the relationships within classes and between classes, we examine the
following research questions: (3.1) to what extent do students within
treatment group classes who reported using different languages during
the translanguaging intervention differ from their peers who reported
using only German language in their perceptions of classroom man­
agement and classroom climate? (3.2) To what extent is the proportion
of students’ self-reported use of different languages in the treatment
group negatively connected with their perceptions of classroom climate
and classroom management?
3.2. Treatment condition: translanguaging
The teaching covered a frame story in which the main character
“Merle” travels around the world, experiencing different cultures and
languages (more details in Decristan et al., 2022). The intervention
started with students creating language portraits (Gogolin & Neumann,
1991) to become aware of their language repertoire and their individual
emotional meaning of each language. Throughout the intervention,
teachers were expected to appreciate each student’s language(s) and
explicitly encourage them to utilize their full language repertoire. The
intervention further aimed to enhance a positive climate towards lin­
guistic diversity and encourage students to also use their home language
(s) for learning. This was done through small-group learning. Small
groups ideally consisted of four students, including two German-only
speakers and two students who spoke both German and another
shared language.
Teachers provided explicit step-by-step instruction on two reading
strategies—questioning and summarizing—followed by student practice
in small groups (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Bilingual prompt cards were
used to support students’ strategy use, with each card covering four
main steps for applying each reading strategy (e.g., “Is it a key ques­
tion?” for questioning, and “Name the most important who (main
character) or what (main thing)!” for summarizing; Munser-Kiefer,
2014). The prompt cards featured a wide range of languages, with 24
different languages (Albanian, Arabic, Armenian, Bulgarian, Chinese,
Croatian, English, French, Greek, Italian, Kiswahili, Kurdish, Mongolian,
Persian, Polish, Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Tamil,
Turkish, Urdu, and Vietnamese) in the first wave of data collection and
an additional set of 12 languages in the second wave (Aramaic, Arme­
nian, Berber, Czech, Dari, Dutch, Hungarian, Japanese, Paschto, Por­
tuguese, Telugu, Ukrainian). To ensure language accuracy, native
speakers translated the German prompt cards into the different lan­
guages. A language-learning pen was also available which provided
students with read-aloud strategy instruction. This was assumed to be
especially helpful for students who were not proficient in reading the
written language. Overall, the teaching unit aimed to create a supportive
and inclusive learning environment in which students could utilize their
language repertoire, engage in small-group collaboration, and apply
reading strategies in their diverse linguistic contexts.
3. Methods
3.1. Study design
The data was taken from an intervention study conducted in regular
fourth-grade elementary school classes in Germany which are charac­
terized by a large migration-related linguistic diversity. The intervention
aimed to enhance students’ reading competence in German with a
teaching unit including translanguaging (see Decristan et al., 2022). The
participation of both teachers and students was voluntary, and the study
received approval from a university ethics committee. The study was
conducted in three German federal states: Baden-Württemberg, Hessen,
and North Rhine-Westphalia. It consisted of two waves of data collec­
tion. The first wave took place during the 2018/19 school year in North
Rhine-Westphalia and Hessen. Classes in North Rhine-Westphalia were
assigned to the treatment group, while classes in Hessen were assigned
to the control group condition. To increase the sample size, a second
wave of data collection was conducted in Baden-Württemberg in the
2020/21 school year. In this wave, classes were randomly assigned to
3.3. Participants
In the first wave of data collection, 23 treatment group classes in
North Rhine-Westphalia and 15 control group classes in Hessen partic­
ipated in the study. In the second wave, nine treatment group classes and
four control group classes participated in Baden-Württemberg. In total,
the study involved 51 classes (with 32 in the treatment group and 19 in
4
J. Decristan et al.
Teaching and Teacher Education 139 (2024) 104437
the control group) and 916 4th-grade students (with 589 in the treat­
ment group and 327 in the control group). The sample included two
team-teaching classes (one in the control group and one in the treatment
group) and one teacher implementing the treatment in two classes. In
summary, 52 teachers participated in the study. The sample included
public schools in rural and urban regions. Table 1 summarizes the
descriptive statistics of the sample. Teachers were 45 years old on
average with a mean professional experience of 17 years. The majority
of teachers were female (90%), and five teachers (two in the treatment
group, three in the control group) had grown up multilingual. Students
were 10 years old on average, and 49% of them were female. The
treatment group and control group did not significantly differ in most
characteristics. However, treatment group students were significantly
younger than control group students (p < .001, Cohen’s d = –.346). This
slight difference of 0.19 years was due to different federal state policies;
in North Rhine-Westphalia, the reference day for school enrollment is
three months later than in Hessen.
Students’ multilingualism was assessed through a questionnaire that
asked which languages students spoke aside from German. For coding
multilingualism, only languages spoken outside of school subjects were
considered. We therefore excluded English taught as a foreign language
in elementary schools in North Rhine-Westphalia. Although English
competencies would also be part of students’ entire linguistic repertoire,
coding all students as multilingual would have resulted in no variance
within the treatment group. We thus focused on students’ home lan­
guages (see Eisenchlas & Schalley, 2020) throughout the whole sample.
Students’ answers were cross-validated with additional questionnaire
items related to language biography and information from teachers and
parents. A student was coded as multilingual (=1) if at least one lan­
guage other than German was noted. When only German was noted, a
student was coded as monolingual (=0). Multilingualism could not be
coded for eight students who missed the pre-assessment (t1) and whose
information from teachers or parents was not provided. Interrater
agreement was >99%, with 25% of the data double-coded. Overall, 605
students (67%) were coded as multilingual (with 68% in the treatment
group and 64% in the control group). There was no significant difference
in the proportion of multilingual students between the treatment and the
control group (χ2 = 2.245, p = .134). For most of the multilingual stu­
dents, one non-German home language was coded (78%), though 20%
spoke two non-German languages, and one student even reported using
four non-German home languages. Of those multilingual students who
also reported which language they had learned first (n = 488), 73 (15%)
stated that they had learned German as a first language, 249 (51%) had
learned German and another language simultaneously, and 166 (34%)
had learned another language first.
3.4. Instruments
Teaching quality was assessed using a student questionnaire admin­
istered at two times: before (t1) and after (t2) the intervention in the
treatment group, and at a similar time during regular German language
instruction in the control group classes. Classroom management was
assessed with a five-item scale that addressed disciplinary problems and
disruptions in class (e.g., “In our German language class, nobody in­
terrupts by talking”). Classroom climate was assessed with a four-item
scale measuring the avoidance of exclusion and positive peer relation­
ships in class (e.g., “In our German language class, we all stick together
well”). In the treatment group at t2, the reference to the lesson was
slightly modified to focus the answers on the specific teaching unit
(“During the teaching unit with Merle, …”). All items were rated on a
four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly
agree). The items used in both scales were adapted from Fauth et al.
(2014) who showed that these items could be used as a reliable and valid
indicator of teaching quality when assessing elementary school students.
Table 2 provides a summary of the descriptive statistics of the scales and
the correlations between the scales.
In the treatment group, multiple language use was assessed using a
questionnaire administered after the intervention (t2). Students were
asked whether they had used a language other than German during the
teaching unit. Among the 589 students in the treatment group, 41% (n =
240) reported using different languages (=1) during the teaching unit.
Conversely, 50% (n = 296) reported only using German (=0) and 9% (n
= 53) did not answer the question. On average, 44% of students reported
multiple language use in each class, ranging between classes from 11%
to 83%. Moreover, 28 of the 169 monolingual students in the treatment
group (18%) also reported using different languages during the teaching
unit. These students may have engaged with the bilingual material or
utilized the language-learning pen, resulting in their reporting of using
languages other than German. As we were particularly interested in the
effect of different language use in the classroom on teaching quality,
these 28 students were also coded with multiple language use (=1).
3.5. Missing data
Two treatment group classes were excluded from further data anal­
ysis. In both classes, the trained teacher was absent from school due to
personal reasons; a teacher who had not participated in the professional
development workshops implemented the teaching unit. Since the study
also used class-level aggregated ratings of teaching quality, we also
excluded one control group class. This class had fewer than six students
who had rated teaching quality at t1 or t2. Data analysis involved 48
classes, consisting of 865 students. This included 30 classes in the
treatment group with 547 students and 18 classes in the control group
with 318 students. Listwise deletion was used due to the inapplicability
of Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) estimation. FIML esti­
mation relies on the availability of predictor variables in the models;
since the models only included our predictor variables with missing
data, FIML was not applicable. However, the amount of missing data
was relatively low. At the individual level, the missing data ranged from
1% for students’ multilingualism to 10% for classroom climate at t1.
There was no missing data at the between-class level.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics of the total sample, the treatment group (TG), and the
control group (CG).
Teachers (N)
Female (%)
Age (M, SD)
Teaching experience (M,
SD)
Multilingual (%)
Students (N)
Female (%)
Age (M, SD)
Multilingual (%)
Total
TG
CG
52
90.4
44.7
(11.6)
17.1
(11.8)
9.6
916
49.0
10.2 (0.6)
66.6
33
90.9
44.3
(12.4)
16.1
(11.6)
6.1
589
48.2
10.1 (0.6)
68.4
19
89.5
45.3
(10.4)
18.8
(12.3)
15.8
327
50.5
10.3 (0.5)
63.5
ES
ΔTG–CG
.077
− .079
3.6. Data analyses
− .227
Because of the hierarchical structure of our data with students nested
within classes, we employed multilevel analysis using Mplus 8.9
(Muthén & Muthén, 2012–2022). To distinguish between within-class
and between-class effects, individual-level predictor variables (teach­
ing quality at t1, multilingualism, and multiple language use) were also
aggregated to the class level and centered at the grand mean.
Individual-level predictor variables were centered at the group mean
(see Enders & Tofighi, 2007). Research question 1 referred to the role of
− .159
− .012
− .346
.050
Notes. Effect sizes (ES) refer to η for dichotomously coded variables and to
Cohen’s d for continuous variables.
5
J. Decristan et al.
Teaching and Teacher Education 139 (2024) 104437
Table 2
Descriptive data analysis and correlations of classroom management and classroom climate.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
t1: Classroom
t2: Classroom
t1: Classroom
t2: Classroom
management
management
climate
climate
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
α
ICC1
ICC2
–
.43*
.57*
.31*
.62*
–
.37*
.60*
.65*
.47*
–
.39*
.37*
.74*
.42*
–
.85
.88
.73
.77
.17
.25
.09
.17
.77
.84
.61
.77
Total
TG
CG
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
2.58
2.59
3.13
3.07
.70
.77
.63
.72
2.57
2.71
3.11
3.18
.73
.78
.65
.71
2.60
2.40
3.17
2.88
.64
.70
.60
.71
Note. TG = treatment group, CG = control group; within-class-level correlations are shown below the diagonal, between-class-level correlations are shown above the
diagonal. *p < .05.
Table 3
Multilevel-regression analyses predicting classroom management and classroom climate at t2.
Within-class level
Pre-score (t1) of teaching quality dimension
Between-class level
Treatment (=1)
Pre-score (t1) of teaching quality dimension
R2 (within)
R2 (between)
Classroom management (t2)
Classroom climate (t2)
Model 1.1
Model 1.2
β (SE)
β (SE)
.419* (.03)
.370* (.04)
.462* (.12)
.704* (.09)
.621* (.14)
.546* (.10)
.175
.679
.137
.570
Note. *p < .05.
translanguaging in students’ perceptions of classroom management and
classroom climate. We used multilevel linear regression analysis with
each teaching quality dimension at t1, and the dichotomous treatment
variable (1 = treatment group; 0 = control group) as predictor variables
for each teaching quality dimension at t2 as outcome variable. Research
question 2 addressed differences between monolingual and multilingual
students. We used a multigroup-multilevel approach to test the differ­
ences in teaching quality at t2 between multilingual (=1) and mono­
lingual students (=0) within both the treatment and the control group.
Teaching quality at t1 was controlled for in this analysis. Finally, to
analyze research questions 3.1 and 3.2, only the treatment group was
included in the analysis. Students’ self-reported multiple language use
(1 = yes; 0 = no, German only) and teaching quality at t1 were used as
predictor variables at both the individual and class levels to predict
teaching quality at t2.
and good classroom management at both points of measurement (see
Table 2). The correlations between teaching quality at t2 and t1 were
medium to large, indicating consistency in students’ perceptions over
time. There was a decline in teaching quality in the control group classes
at the end of elementary school before transition to high school. This
decline might be attributed to the upcoming transition to high school,
when students in Germany are assigned to different school tracks. In
contrast, the treatment group classes showed positive changes in both
classroom management and classroom climate. The ICC1 values indicate
substantial variance in teaching-quality ratings between classes, sug­
gesting differences in teaching quality across different classes. The ICC2
values indicate reliable scores at the classroom level.
4.2. Research question 1: translanguaging and teaching quality in
multilingual classes
4. Results
To address concerns about implementing translanguaging in multi­
lingual classes, research question 1 asked to what extent trans­
languaging negatively affected students’ perceptions of classroom
management and classroom climate. The results from the multilevelregression analysis (see Table 3) indicate the impact of trans­
languaging on students’ class-level aggregated perceptions of classroom
4.1. Descriptive results
The descriptive results of the teaching quality scales show that stu­
dents in both intervention groups perceived a positive classroom climate
Table 4
Multilevel-multigroup-regression analyses predicting classroom management and classroom climate at t2 for multilingual and monolingual students.
Classroom management (t2)
Classroom climate (t2)
TG
Model 2.1a
CG
Model 2.1b
TG
Model 2.2a
CG
Model 2.2b
β (SE)
β (SE)
β (SE)
β (SE)
Within-class level
Pre-score (t1) of teaching quality dimension
Multilingualism (1 = yes)
Between-class level
Pre-score (t1) of teaching quality dimension
Multilingualism (1 = yes)
.384* (.05)
.041 (.04)
.480* (.04)
.037 (.05)
.302* (.05)
− .047 (.05)
.491* (.06)
− .028 (.05)
.805* (.09)
− .147 (.13)
.597* (.19)
.328 (.22)
.590* (.10)
− .135 (.12)
.711* (.20)
.062 (.21)
R2 (within)
R2 (between)
.151
.619
.231
.695
.093
.368
.242
.539
Note. TG = treatment group, CG = control group. *p < .05.
6
J. Decristan et al.
Teaching and Teacher Education 139 (2024) 104437
management (Model 1.1) and classroom climate (Model 1.2). Students
in the treatment group in which translanguaging was implemented
perceived higher teaching quality than control group students. Overall,
the results suggest that translanguaging had a positive impact on stu­
dents’ perceptions of classroom management and classroom climate,
even after controlling for the pre-assessment (t1) of each dimension of
teaching quality.
climate (Model 3.2). The results suggest that the variation in the pro­
portion of language use between classes did not have a significant
impact on students’ perceptions of teaching quality at t2. Overall, the
findings do not support concerns about the effect of multiple language
use in multilingual classes on classroom management and classroom
climate.
5. Discussion
4.3. Research question 2: multilingualism and teaching quality in
multilingual classes
This study examined the relationship between translanguaging and
teaching quality in multilingual elementary school classes in Germany.
We aimed to obtain empirical evidence addressing classroom-related
concerns about low classroom management and classroom climate
when implementing translanguaging in multilingual classes. Using data
from an intervention study that covered a teaching unit including
translanguaging with 48 classes and 865 students, the results revealed a
positive impact from the teaching unit on students’ perceptions of
classroom management and classroom climate compared to control
group classes with regular German language instruction. There were no
significant differences in perceived teaching quality between multilin­
gual and monolingual students within both the treatment and the con­
trol group, and no significant connections between treatment group
students’ self-reported language use and their perceptions of teaching
quality.
In summary, the results suggest that when teachers encourage stu­
dents to use their full linguistic repertoire in classes and coney a positive
attitude towards linguistic diversity, translanguaging in contemporary
multilingual classes does not negatively affect teaching quality.
Furthermore, the findings support the idea of language-inclusive class­
rooms and counteract classroom-related concerns about the use of
translanguaging in multilingual classes. This study also emphasizes the
connection between the aims of translanguaging and teaching quality
(5.1), contributes to the understanding of implementing trans­
languaging in multilingual classrooms (5.2), and has implications for
teachers’ professional development (5.3).
By employing multilevel-multigroup regression analysis, the role of
students’ multilingualism in the perception of classroom management
and classroom climate (research question 2) was examined. The results
at the within-class level of analysis indicate that there were no signifi­
cant differences in students’ perceptions of teaching quality at t2 be­
tween multilingual and monolingual students in both the treatment
group (Table 4, Models 2.1a and 2.2a) and control group (Models 2.1b
and 2.2b). These results suggest that being multilingual or monolingual
did not significantly affect students’ perceptions of teaching quality.
Moreover, Wald-test results (classroom management: W(df = 1) < 0.01,
p = .941; classroom climate: W(df = 1) = 0.07, p = .789) indicate that
the difference between multilingual and monolingual students’ per­
ceptions of teaching quality within classes was similar between the
treatment and the control group. Overall, these results suggest that
concerns about the use of translanguaging in multilingual classes were
not supported. Multilingual and monolingual students perceived rela­
tively high levels of teaching quality in the treatment group, and there
were no significant differences between multilingual and monolingual
students within the treatment and the control group.
4.4. Research question 3: multiple language use and teaching quality
To address research question 3 on the impact of students’ selfreported language use on classroom management and classroom
climate, we conducted multilevel regression analysis using data only
from the treatment group. The results are shown in Table 5. At the
within-class level (research question 3.1), students’ self-reported mul­
tiple language use did not significantly predict classroom management
(Model 3.1) or classroom climate (Model 3.2). The findings indicate that
students’ use of multiple languages did not have a significant impact on
the perception of teaching quality at t2 within classes.
Similarly, at the between-class level (research question 3.2), the
proportion of multiple language use in the treatment group did not
significantly predict classroom management (Model 3.1) or classroom
5.1. Bridging approaches to address students’ multilingualism with
research on teaching quality
The study contributes to the understanding of the relationship be­
tween considering the multilingualism of students (Duarte & Gün­
ther-Van der Meij, 2018; Lorenz et al., 2021) and established
frameworks of teaching quality (see summary of Praetorius & Char­
alambous, 2018). Referring to today’s migration-related multilingual
classes, this study focused on classroom management and classroom
climate as framework goals of translanguaging (Littlewood & Yu, 2011)
and emphasized its parallels with key dimensions of established
frameworks of teaching quality: classroom organization and emotional
support (Pianta & Hamre, 2009), and classroom management and sup­
portive climate (Klieme et al., 2009). In addition to these framework
goals, Littlewood and Yu (2011) also refer to the core goal of trans­
languaging—language teaching. Conceptually, translanguaging explic­
itly addresses this core goal by supporting students’ metalinguistic
awareness and elaborating on content to promote deeper levels of
cognitive processing and language development (Lewis et al., 2012;
Prilutskaya, 2021). The three-dimensional frameworks of teaching
quality also cover instructional support (Pianta & Hamre, 2009) and
cognitive activation (Klieme et al., 2009). In summary, in foreign lan­
guage teaching classes with teachers and students sharing at least two
languages, the core and framework goals of translanguaging align
remarkably well with established frameworks of dimensions of teaching
quality.
In multilingual classes, peers might also act as role models and
scaffold effective use of multiple languages and metalinguistic aware­
ness, guided by bilingual materials (e.g., Schüler-Meyer et al., 2017).
However, studies have not found solid evidence that peers are capable of
Table 5
Multilevel-multigroup-regression analyses predicting classroom management
and classroom climate at t2 by multiple language use in the treatment group
(TG).
Within-class level
Pre-score (t1) of teaching quality
dimension
Multiple language use (=1)
Between-class level
Pre-score (t1) of teaching quality
dimension
Multiple language use (=1)
R2 (within)
R2 (between)
Classroom management
(t2)
Classroom climate
(t2)
TG
Model 3.1
TG
Model 3.2
β (SE)
β (SE)
.387* (.05)
.333* (.05)
.037 (.04)
.053 (.04)
.782* (.09)
.669* (.11)
.063 (.13)
.067 (.15)
.152
.613
.114
.448
Note. *p < .05.
7
J. Decristan et al.
Teaching and Teacher Education 139 (2024) 104437
scaffolding metalinguistic awareness during small-group learning in
migration-related multilingual elementary school classes that involve
students with varying levels of proficiency in their home languages.
Moreover, when the core goal of teaching is not foreign language
learning, the opportunities and benefits of scaffolding meta-linguistic
awareness have yet to be examined.
Future studies could explore the connection between trans­
languaging and teaching quality by more explicitly linking both con­
cepts in their methodological approaches. In this study, the established
instruments of teaching quality used (e.g., Fauth et al., 2014) did not
relate to the appreciation of linguistic resources and diversity in class (e.
g., “In our classroom, we all stick together and value linguistic di­
versity”) or to multiple language use (e.g., “When using different lan­
guages in our classroom, no time is wasted”). Although in the treatment
group the post-test questionnaire items on teaching quality referred to
the teaching unit (see Section 3.4), future studies that have a more
explicit reference to the use of translanguaging may provide further
evidence on its relationship. The questionnaire items could also be
carefully checked with respect to their fit for multiple language use in
small-group learning. For instance, interrupting each other might be a
natural part of assisting and helping each other in a multilingual mode of
communication.
Lastly, the analysis of the relationship between students’ multiple
language use and teaching quality referred to students’ self-reports of
having (not) used different languages during the teaching unit. Rei­
tenbach et al. (2023) analyzed multilingual students’ self-reported rea­
sons for using their home language during this teaching unit. The results
show that use of the home language was connected with positive emo­
tions and easier communication within the small group, further
emphasizing the role of translanguaging in teaching quality. However,
future studies on the classroom-related purposes of students’ trans­
languaging in multilingual classes that analyze video or interview data
could reveal further empirical evidence of their links with key di­
mensions of teaching quality. In particular, teachers’ views on classroom
management and classroom climate when using translanguaging in their
classes should be considered in more detail.
teaching unit, as both were closely intertwined. Treatment group
teachers were provided with a well-structured teaching unit to imple­
ment in the classroom during the professional development workshops;
this might have made a positive contribution, particularly to classroom
management. However, teachers in this study discussed the teaching
unit during the professional development workshops, implemented it in
their classes independently, and then the students’ perspectives on
teaching quality were considered afterwards. This long way from a wellstructured teaching unit to students’ reports of their perceptions of the
quality of classroom interaction (see Krauss et al., 2020) suggests that
the well-structured teaching unit alone cannot fully explain the positive
effects of the teaching unit on teaching quality. Instead, students’
mutual respect and positive climate in class might have also contributed
to fewer disturbances and more time on task (e.g., Wang et al., 2020).
This assumption is empirically supported in our study by the strong
positive connection between classroom management and classroom
climate (see Table 2). However, future studies should shed further light
on the mechanisms that support classroom management when imple­
menting translanguaging in today’s multilingual classes and the role of
the teaching unit itself on teaching quality.
5.2.1. Multiple language use as a key concern about implementing
translanguaging in multilingual classes
Classroom-related concerns and challenges to implementing trans­
languaging in multilingual classes are particularly related to students’
use of multiple languages in class (Alisaari et al., 2019; Bredthauer &
Engfer, 2016; Ticheloven et al., 2021). The empirical results of this
study, however, show that students with multiple language use in a class
and their peers that only used German language (research question 3.1)
all reported higher levels of classroom management and classroom
climate and did not differ in their perceptions of teaching quality. The
proportion of students’ multiple language use within a class (research
question 3.2) was also not related to classroom management and
classroom climate. One of the main findings of our study is that our
empirical results do not support classroom-related concerns about
multiple language use (Alisaari et al., 2019; Bredthauer & Engfer, 2016;
Ticheloven et al., 2021). However, the results also do not indicate the
benefits of multiple language use on classroom management and class­
room climate that have been demonstrated in foreign language classes
(see summary of Hall & Cook, 2012). This initially seems to contradict
the findings of studies on foreign language classes. However, all the
students in those classes were supposed to use different languages for
language learning. In today’s multilingual classes, the aim of addressing
students’ multilingualism is not to prevent students from using other
languages, but to create inclusive classrooms that cater to the needs of
all students.
5.2. Comprehensive understanding of translanguaging in multilingual
classes: addressing concerns and acknowledging limits
The results of this study refer to a conceptualization of trans­
languaging that incorporates various principles for addressing students’
multilingualism, such as the appreciation and acknowledgment of
learners’ linguistic resources and diversity, and the use of all languages
present in class (e.g., Lorenz et al., 2021). This approach reflects the
conceptual advancements of translanguaging; beginning with a narrow
conceptualization for bilingual education, translanguaging is now un­
derstood as a holistic approach for considering the multilingualism of
students (e.g., Duarte & Günther-Van der Meij, 2018).
A holistic translanguaging approach that builds on students’ re­
sources is particularly important in today’s multilingual classes. First, in
multilingual classes that typically follow a monolingual instruction
approach, the encouragement of multiple language use needs to be
embedded in an environment that is safe and supportive for linguistic
diversity to reduce students’ fear of using their home languages in the
classroom (e.g., Cenoz et al., 2022; Dryden et al., 2021; Ebe &
Chapman-Santiago, 2016; Moody et al., 2019; Omidire & Ayob, 2022).
Second, to provide opportunities to use all the languages present in
multilingual classrooms, peer collaboration should be encouraged be­
tween multilingual students with shared home languages (e.g., Dryden
et al., 2021; Omidire & Ayob, 2022; Schüler-Meyer et al., 2017).
Consequently, it is neither theoretically meaningful nor practically
feasible to distinguish the specific effects of each principle of trans­
languaging in multilingual classrooms on teaching quality.
A major limitation of this study is that the effects of translanguaging
on teaching quality cannot be distinguished from the effects of the
5.2.2. Limitations of implementing translanguaging in today’s multilingual
classes
The successful introduction of innovative and unfamiliar teaching
approaches requires additional resources and (planning) time for
teachers (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Omidire & Ayob, 2022). This
was also the case in our study: teachers had to invest additional time and
resources, such as participating in a three-day professional development
workshop, planning the lesson, organizing group work, and providing
students with multilingual materials. Multilingual materials were also
developed within the project; this involved contacting native speakers
and translating core content, additional work that would be hard to
manage alongside a regular teaching schedule. However, teachers can
also use freely available tools to translate specific materials into multiple
languages. The composition of matched home-language small groups
places another limit on implementing translanguaging in multilingual
classes. In our study, about two-thirds of the students within a given
class did not have a peer with a matching home language, and this group
composition was also identified as a major factor in students’ exclusive
use of German (Reitenbach et al., 2023).
8
J. Decristan et al.
Teaching and Teacher Education 139 (2024) 104437
5.3. Implications for teachers’ professional development
Data availability
In this study it was acknowledged that teachers do not feel wellprepared to effectively consider the multilingualism of students in
class (Alisaari et al., 2019; Bredthauer & Engfer, 2016; Dražnik et al.,
2022; Lorenz et al., 2021; OECD, 2019). As a result, teacher professional
development workshops were part of the intervention. The workshop
lasted for three days, with approximately 3.5 h of training each day
focused on a teaching unit that emphasized the use of translanguaging
during small-group learning and reciprocal teaching. The first day
referred to the multilingualism of students and emphasized the appre­
ciation of linguistic resources and diversity. The second day focused on
reciprocal teaching, highlighting its application for reading strategy
learning. On the third day, the use of translanguaging during reciprocal
teaching was the emphasis. The study offers further empirical evidence
for the successful implementation of approaches for teaching in multi­
lingual classes after teacher-training workshops (see also Kirsch &
Aleksić, 2018; Lorenz et al., 2021). However, this study did not address
the effects of teacher variables on classroom interaction and student
outcomes. Professional development workshops have been shown to
positively impact teachers’ beliefs regarding multilingualism and reduce
fears and concerns over the implementation of translanguaging in class
(e.g., Cenoz et al., 2022; Lorenz et al., 2021; Portolés & Martí, 2020).
Teachers’ professional knowledge and motivation (as further compo­
nents of their professional competence) might have also affected
teaching (Krauss et al., 2020). However, it goes beyond the scope of this
paper to examine these mechanisms. The sample size of treatment group
teachers (n = 30) was also rather low, indicating a lack of statistical
power to detect those mechanisms.
Research has shown that workshops that include teacher collabora­
tion and discussion on content and incorporate time for reflection and
feedback are particularly effective (e.g., Darling-Hammond et al., 2017).
In this study, teachers had ample opportunity to discuss the imple­
mentation of translanguaging in their classes. They were guided by
trained research staff and experienced teachers who provided valuable
insights. Professional development workshops on translanguaging
should systematically incorporate these established design elements.
In summary, our study indicates that particular emphasis should be
given to key dimensions of teaching quality when designing professional
development workshops and implementing translanguaging in today’s
multilingual classes. The ambiguous findings on the concerns and pur­
poses of translanguaging emphasize that establishing language-inclusive
classes with high teaching quality does not depend on whether trans­
languaging is implemented, but on how it is implemented in the
classroom.
Data will be made available on request.
References
Alisaari, J., Heikkola, L. M., Commins, N., & Acquah, E. O. (2019). Monolingual
ideologies confronting multilingual realities. Finnish teachers’ beliefs about
linguistic diversity. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of
Research and Studies, 80(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.01.003
Ball, A. F. (2009). Toward a theory of generative change in culturally and linguistically
complex classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 45–72. https://
doi.org/10.3102/0002831208323277
Barahona, E., Padrón, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (2023). Classroom observations of a crossage peer tutoring mathematics program in elementary and middle schools. European
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 515–532. https://doi.org/
10.30935/scimath/12983
Blommaert, J. (1999). The debate is open. In J. Blommaert (Ed.), Language ideological
debates (pp. 1–38). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808049.1.
Bredthauer, S., & Engfer, H. (2016). Multilingualism is great–but is it really my business?
–Teachers’ approaches to multilingual didactics in Austria and Germany. Sustainable
Multilingualism, 9, 104–121. https://doi.org/10.7220/2335-2027.9.5
Broermann, M. (2007). Language attitudes among minority youth in Finland and
Germany. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 187/188, 129–160.
https://doi.org/10.1515/IJSL.2007.053
Brophy, J. (2000). Teaching. The International Bureau of Education, UNESCO.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable
strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/41262375.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2021). Pedagogical translanguaging. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009029384
Cenoz, J., Santos, A., & Gorter, D. (2022). Pedagogical translanguaging and teachers’
perceptions of anxiety. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2021.2021387
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional
development. Learning Policy Institute.
Decristan, J., Bertram, V., Reitenbach, V., Schneider, K. M., Köhler, C., & Rauch, D. P.
(2022). Linguistically responsive reciprocal teaching in primary school: Effectiveness
of an intervention study on students’ reading competence. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2141757. ).
Dražnik, T., Llompart-Esbert, J., & Bergroth, M. (2022). Student teachers’ expressions of
‘fear’ in handling linguistically diverse classrooms. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2086258. ).
Dryden, S., Tankosić, A., & Dovchin, S. (2021). Foreign language anxiety and
translanguaging as an emotional safe space: Migrant English as a foreign language
learners in Australia. System, 101, Article 102593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
system.2021.102593
Duarte, J., & Günther-Van der Meij, M. (2018). A holistic model for multilingualism in
education. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 5(2), 24–43.
https://doi.org/10.21283/2376905X.9.153
Ebe, A. E., & Chapman-Santiago, C. (2016). Student voices shining through: Exploring
translanguaging as a literary device. In O. García, & T. Kleyn (Eds.), Translanguaging
with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments (pp. 57–82). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315695242.
Eisenchlas, S. A., & Schalley, A. C. (2020). Making sense of the notion of “home
language” and related concepts. In A. C. Schalley, & S. A. Eisenchlas (Eds.),
Handbook of home language maintenance and development: Social and affective factors
(pp. 17–37). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501510175.
Ellis, E., Gogolin, I., & Clyne, M. (2010). The janus face of monolingualism: A comparison
of German and Australian language education policies. Current Issues in Language
Planning, 11(4), 439–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2010.550544
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional
multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
Eurostat. (2023). June). Migration and migrant population statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/e
urostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Migration_and_migrant_population_sta
tistics.
Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2014). Student ratings of
teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes.
Learning and Instruction, 29, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2013.07.001
García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century.
In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, A. K. Mohanty, & M. Panda (Eds.), Social justice
through multilingual education (pp. 140–158) (Multilingual Matters).
Gogolin, I., & Neumann, U. (1991). Sprachliches Handeln in der Grundschule [Linguistic
practices in the primary school]. Die Grundschulzeitschrift, 5, 6–13.
Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning.
Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000067
Hansen-Thomas, H., Stewart, M. A., Flint, P., & Dollar, T. (2020). Co-learning in the high
school English class through translanguaging: Emergent bilingual newcomers and
monolingual teachers. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 20(3), 151–166.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1726759
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jasmin Decristan: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding
acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing - original draft, Writing
- review & editing. Victoria Bertram: Data curation, Project adminis­
tration, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Investiga­
tion. Valentina Reitenbach: Data curation, Project administration,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Katharina Maria
Schneider: Data curation, Investigation, Writing - original draft,
Writing - review & editing. Dominique Patricia Rauch: Conceptuali­
zation, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing - original draft,
Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
9
J. Decristan et al.
Teaching and Teacher Education 139 (2024) 104437
Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement
of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational
Researcher, 38(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09332374
Portolés, L., & Martí, O. (2020). Teachers’ beliefs about multilingual pedagogies and the
role of initial training. International Journal of Multilingualism, 17(2), 248–264.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2018.1515206
Praetorius, A.-K., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2018). Classroom observation frameworks for
studying instructional quality: Looking back and looking forward. ZDM–Mathematics
Education, 50(5), 535–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0946-0
Prilutskaya, M. (2021). Examining pedagogical translanguaging: A systematic review of
the literature. Languages, 6(4), 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6040180
Putjata, G., & Koster, D. (2023). It is okay if you speak another language, but …’:
Language hierarchies in mono- and bilingual school teachers’ beliefs. International
Journal of Multilingualism, 20(3), 891–911. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14790718.2021.1953503
Reitenbach, V., Decristan, J., Kramer, V., Schneider, K. M., & Rauch, D. P. (2023).
Selbstberichtete Gründe für die (Nicht-)Nutzung von Familiensprachen beim
mehrsprachigkeitssensiblen Reziproken Lehren [Students’ reasons for (not) using
their home languages during linguistically responsive reciprocal teaching].
Unterrichtswissenschaft, 51, 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-023-00171-4
Schüler-Meyer, A., Prediger, S., Kuzu, T., Wessel, L., & Redder, A. (2017). Is formal
language proficiency in the home language required to profit from a bilingual
teaching intervention in mathematics? A mixed methods study on fostering
multilingual students’ conceptual understanding. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 17, 317–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9857-8
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and
instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
Ticheloven, A., Blom, E., Leseman, P., & McMonagle, S. (2021). Translanguaging
challenges in multilingual classrooms: Scholar, teacher and student perspectives.
International Journal of Multilingualism, 18(3), 491–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14790718.2019.1686002
Wang, D. (2019). Translanguaging in Chinese foreign language classrooms: Students and
teachers’ attitudes and practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 22(2), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1231773
Wang, M. T., Degol, J. L., Amemiya, J., Parr, A., & Guo, J. (2020). Classroom climate and
children’s academic and psychological wellbeing: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Developmental Review, 57, Article e100912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
dr.2020.100912
Yüzlü, M. Y., & Dikilitas, K. (2022). Translanguaging in the development of EFL learners’
foreign language skills in Turkish context. Innovation in Language Learning and
Teaching, 16(2), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2021.1892698
Zhang, Q., Osborne, C., Shao, L., & Lin, M. (2022). A translanguaging perspective on
medium of instruction in the CFL classroom. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 43(5), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1737089
Zhou, X., & Mann, S. (2021). Translanguaging in a Chinese university CLIL classroom:
Teacher strategies and student attitudes. Studies in Second Language Learning and
Teaching, 11(2), 265–289. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2021.11.2.5
Jing, Y., & Kitis, E. D. (2023). Pedagogical translanguaging in the primary-school
English-L2 class: A case-study in the Chinese context. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2173213
Kirsch, C. (2020). Translanguaging pedagogies in early childhood education in
Luxembourg: Theory into practice. In C. Kirsch, & J. Duarte (Eds.), Multilingual
approaches for teaching and learning (pp. 15–33). Routledge.
Kirsch, C., & Aleksić, G. (2018). The effect of professional development on multilingual
education in early childhood in Luxembourg. Review of European Studies, 10(4),
148–163. https://doi.org/10.5539/res.v10n4p148
Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras study – investigating effects of
teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In T. Janik, &
T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the
classroom (pp. 137–160). Waxmann.
Korpershoek, H., Harms, T., de Boer, H., van Kuijk, M., & Doolaard, S. (2016). A metaanalysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom
management programs on students’ academic, behavioral, emotional, and
motivational outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 643–680. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0034654315626799
Krauss, S., Bruckmaier, G., Lindl, A., Hilbert, S., Binder, K., Steib, N., et al. (2020).
Competence as a continuum in the COACTIV study: The “cascade model”.
ZDM–Mathematics Education, 52(2), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-02001151-z
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Developing its
conceptualisation and contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7),
655–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2012.718490
Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign
language classroom. Language Teaching, 44(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0261444809990310
Lorenz, E., Krulatz, A., & Torgersen, E. N. (2021). Embracing linguistic and cultural
diversity in multilingual EAL classrooms: The impact of professional development on
teacher beliefs and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, Article e103428.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103428
Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying
the foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 52(2), 98–109.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.770327
Moody, S., Chowdhury, M., & Eslami, Z. R. (2019). Graduate students’ perceptions of
translanguaging. English Teaching & Learning, 43(1), 85–103. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s42321-018-0019-z
Munser-Kiefer, M. (2014). Leseförderung im Leseteam in der Grundschule [Reading training
in tandems in elementary school. Waxmann.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012–2022). Mplus. Muthén & Muthén [Computer
software].
Omidire, M. F., & Ayob, S. (2022). The utilisation of translanguaging for learning and
teaching in multilingual primary classrooms. Multilingua, 41(1), 105–129. https://
doi.org/10.1515/multi-2020-0072
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2019). TALIS 2018
results (Vol. I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. TALIS, OECD
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering
and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
10