Professional Audit Worksheet Functional ResumeDirections Use thi

Professional Audit Worksheet: Functional Resume
Directions: Use this worksheet to complete your professional
audit and functional resume. Enter your responses to Parts One
and Two directly in this document.NAME:PART ONE
Directions: Locate a career position you are interested in by
exploring one of the following digital options.
· Online job board (suggestions can be found in Module 8.3 of
your text)
· Social or professional networking site (i.e., LinkedIn) of your
choosing
Complete the following:
· Site You Visited:
· Career:
· Explain which soft and hard skills you have that would be
beneficial for your selected career (three to four sentences):
· Discuss a plan to develop two hard skills and two soft skills
not already in your personal skillset or that you need to enhance
for this career (three to four sentences):
· Explain how being digitally literate will make you more
marketable in the workplace (three to four sentences):
· Review the “Personal Branding” area of your TypeFocus
Assessment results located under the ‘”Job Search Tools” tab.
The Personal Branding area provides some great information
and will help you learn to customize your resume to your unique
personality. Fill in the table below with your results. You will
use this information to help you complete your resume.

Type
Personality Strengths
Example: Introverts
Example: thoughtful, able to focus, carries through on tasks,
can work independently
Enter your own type here
Enter your own personal adjectives based on your TypeFocus
assessment
assessment
assessment
assessment
PART TWO
Directions: Based on your own job experience, fill in the
Functional resume with the template provided below. The
resume should provide a thoughtful and thorough reflecti on of
your experience, skills, and values that demonstrate your
suitability for the position to which you are applying. Consider
what you have learned about formal communication to create a
professional looking resume.
NAME
Address
Phone│ Email

EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER
GEN102: Digital Literacy for Life and the Workplace
Key skill related to the position you are applying
QUALIFICATIONS SUMMARY
Relevant Qualification
· Describe what you do, accomplish, or learn

EMPLOYMENT/VOLUNTEER HISTORY
EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER, Community Action Head
Start – city, Michigan September 2014 –
Present
OWNER/OPERATOR, Angel Land Daycare - City, Michigan
October 2004 – August 2017
Your Title, Name of Organization- City, State
Start-End (month, year)
EDUCATION & TRAINING
Early Childhood Education (AA), Major
January 2023
Ashford University, San Diego, CA
PROFESSIONAL/COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
Member, Name of organization
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journal
Code=rbeb20
International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage:
https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

‘It’s not my Chinese’: a teacher and her students
disrupting and dismantling conventional notions
of ‘Chinese’ through translanguaging in a heritage
language classroom
Ming-Hsuan Wu & Genevieve Leung
To cite this article: Ming-Hsuan Wu & Genevieve Leung
(2020): ‘It’s not my Chinese’: a
teacher and her students disrupting and dismantling
conventional notions of ‘Chinese’ through
translanguaging in a heritage language classroom, International
Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2020.1804524
To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1804524
Published online: 10 Aug 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 137
View related articles
View Crossmark data
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journal
Code=rbeb20
https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.10
80/13670050.2020.1804524
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1804524
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalC

ode=rbeb20&show=instructions
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmissio n?journalC
ode=rbeb20&show=instructions
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/13670050.2020.1
804524
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/13670050.2020.1
804524
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/13670050.20
20.1804524&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-08-10
‘It’s not my Chinese’: a teacher and her students disrupting and
dismantling conventional notions of ‘Chinese’ through
translanguaging in a heritage language classroom
Ming-Hsuan Wu a and Genevieve Leung b
aTESOL & Bilingual Education, Adelphi University, Garden
City, USA; bDepartment of Rhetoric and Language,
University of San Francisco, San Francisco, USA
ABSTRACT
Translanguaging theory re-conceptualizes the linguistic systems
and
practices of multilinguals as well as multilingual classroom
pedagogies.
While many studies have documented translanguaging in
bilingual
classrooms, there is little discussion about how translanguaging
can
advance the field of heritage language education. This paper
shares
findings from a qualitative investigation of a Mandarin heritage
program
in the U.S. enrolling ethnic Chinese students from various

Chinese
language backgrounds. Drawing on ethnographic fieldnotes and
interviews, we argue that the teacher’s flexible use of linguistic
resources
provided the basis for productive classroom exercises among
heritage
students who struggled with Mandarin as an imposed identity.
Through
activities that enabled students to use multiple Chinese
languages,
students critically examined the diversity of Chinese languages
within
the U.S. context. This, in turn, facilitated their Mandarin
learning in the
classroom, as they actively engaged in disrupting and
dismantling
conventional notions of ‘Chinese.’ The teacher also reflected on
her
translanguaging practices and the challenges she faced in class.
While
Mandarin is currently heavily emphasized in the language
teaching
arenas, translanguaging as a pedagogical heuristic helps create
space to
liberate the voices of these language minority students who are
often
left out under the generic category of heritage ‘Chinese’
speakers.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 12 February 2020
Accepted 15 July 2020
KEYWORDS
Heritage language;
translanguaging; language

maintenance; metalinguistic
knowledge
Introduction
Translanguaging theory re-conceptualizes the linguistic systems
and practices of multilinguals as well
as multilingual classroom pedagogies. Teachers who embrace
translanguaging as a pedagogical
stance encourage students to draw on their full range of
communicative resources to engage with
academic materials (García and Sylvan 2011). Researchers have
demonstrated that translanguaging
as a multilingual pedagogy for teaching and learning provides
educators with a tool and framework
to create more equitable classrooms (García and Leiva 2014).
While many studies have documented
translanguaging in bilingual classrooms, there is still relatively
little discussion about how trans-
languaging can advance the field of heritage language (HL)
education, especially in the case
where multiple varieties of a language like ‘Chinese’ (co-)exist
in the classroom. This paper shares
findings from a qualitative investigation of a Mandarin HL
program at a public school that enrolled
ethnic Chinese students from various Chinese language
backgrounds, including Mandarin, Canto-
nese, Fujianese, Taishanese, Hakka, or a combination of these
languages. Drawing on ethnographic
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Ming-Hsuan Wu [email protected]
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION
AND BILINGUALISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1804524

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2315-2192
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7361-9838
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.tandfonline.com
fieldnotes, interviews, and documents, we argue that the
teacher’s flexible use of linguistic resources
provided the basis for productive classroom exercises among
heritage students who struggled with
Mandarin as an imposed identity. We analyze the various ways
in which the teacher drew on stu-
dents’ linguistic repertoires and how students drew on personal
and community resources in
response to the translanguaging tasks. Through activities
enabling students to use multiple
Chinese languages, students critically examined the diversity of
Chinese languages within the U.S.
context. This, in turn, facilitated their Mandarin learning in the
classroom as they simultaneously
engaged in disrupting and dismantling conventional notions of
‘Chinese.’ The teacher also
reflected on her translanguaging practices and the challenges
she faced in class. As our data illustrate,
it was not easy for the teacher to shift from a Mandarin-only
pedagogy to a translanguaging one, and
documenting the teacher’s own struggles and concerns about
this shift offers key insights into a
language teacher’s decision-making process. We argue that
while Mandarin is currently heavily
emphasized in the language teaching arenas, translanguaging as
a pedagogical heuristic helps
create space to liberate the voices of these language minority

students who are often left out
under the generic category of heritage ‘Chinese’ speakers.
Translanguaging as a pedagogical stance
Translanguaging as a theory and pedagogical stance has
received growing scholarly attention in the
field of language education. Translanguaging represents an
approach to language pedagogy that
affirms and leverages students’ diverse and dynamic language
practices in teaching and learning
(Vogel and García 2017, 1). Translanguaging is an umbrella
concept that refers to a theory of bilingu-
alism, communicative practices, and a pedagogical stance, all of
which have the potential to be trans-
formative to the way that we understand and approach
multilingualism and multilingual education
(Mazak 2017).
In a review of recent articles on translanguaging by Poza
(2017), in which he reviewed 53 articles
published between 1996 and 2014 on their definitions,
exemplifications, and implications of trans-
languaging, a variety of translanguaging teaching practices that
have been discussed and identified
by previous research include: 1) translanguaging in verbal
interactions; 2) translanguaging in literacy;
3) using multimodal texts (images, symbols, musical videos) to
aid in conveying or understanding
meanings; 4) using culturally relevant texts. To be specific,
translanguaging in verbal interactions
include interactions between students in unstructured spaces in
the classroom or social spheres
(Milu 2013; Li 2013), formal lesson delivery that involves
multiple languages (Creese and Blackledge
2010; Palmer et al. 2014), or conversation about academic

content during collaborative work (Sayer
2013). Translanguaging in literacy refers to practices such as
translating and clarifying texts (Hélot
2011), codemeshing in composition to establish author’s voice
or convey complex ideas academically
(Cenoz and Gorter 2011; Canagarajah 2011) or consulting texts
in multiple languages during research
(Martin-Beltrán 2014). While the list is neither exhaustive nor
comprehensive, it shows the range of
translanguaging practices that were utilized by teachers in and
out of the classrooms. Specifically,
our discussions of translanguaging practices in our focal HL
classroom were built upon Poza’s
(2017) identification of these creative language uses by the
teachers and students during their inter-
actions in various spaces.
The academic and affective benefits of translanguaging
pedagogies have been widely acknowl-
edged among previous research. To date, most of these benefits
were documented through class-
room-based qualitative research. Academically, a more flexible
and strategic use of students’
multiple languages can increase their class participation, deepen
their understanding of the
course materials, ease the cognitive demands of the tasks, help
students develop their metalinguistic
awareness, and make the instructional time more effective.
Affectively, translanguaging helps build
rapport between teachers and students (even when teachers are
at early acquisition stages of stu-
dents’ L1s), increase students’ sense of belonging in class,
affirm their bilingual/bicultural or multilin-
gual/multicultural identities, and open spaces for students to
navigate their socio-emotional

2 M.-H. WU AND G. LEUNG
challenges associated with learning academic knowledge
(Creese and Blackledge 2010; García, Flores,
and Woodley 2012; García and Kano 2014; García and Leiva
2014; García and Kleyn 2016; Palmer et al.
2014; Selzer and Collins 2016; Woodley 2016). In light of these
academic and affective benefits for the
language minority students, Vogel and García (2017) argue it is
socially unjust when bilingual stu-
dents are forced to learn or perform academically with less than
half of their full linguistic repertoire.
Existing translanguaging research in the U.S. primarily focuses
on bilingual or monolingual tea-
chers working with English Language Learners (ELLs) or
emergent bilinguals on their English in
various subjects and of different grade levels. While some
research on translanguaging in HLs
does exist, most work tends to focus on the learning of Spanish.
In either scenario, the use of multiple
languages in the classrooms is deemed to be necessary to bring
students’ full range of linguistic
repertoires to move the classes along. However, it should be
noted that the subject matter being
taught and learned in English classrooms is often more
challenging than what is being taught and
learning in the HL classrooms. This is related to the ideology
that English is considered critical for aca-
demic success and is the language of prestige and power in the
U.S., whereas teaching and learning
an additional language other than English is not required in
most U.S. primary schools. As a result,
instructional time, resources, and opportunities are unequally

allocated for teaching and learning
English and/or a HL among language minority students . We
argue that what can be achieved in multi-
lingual classrooms involving teaching and learning a societal
language (like English) through trans-
languaging, as documented in prior research, might not be fully
replicated in classrooms involving
teaching and learning of a minority language (like ‘Chinese’)
for various contextual factors.
‘Chinese’ heritage education: the need for a translanguaging
approach
In current socio-political-economic contexts, the term ‘Chinese’
often refers to Mandarin, the official
language of People’s Republic of China and Taiwan, and thus
teaching Chinese as a HL oftentimes
means teaching Mandarin. However, in many Chinese diasporic
communities that have experienced
extensive periods of immigration from Southern China,
residents often speak other varieties of
Chinese, such as Cantonese, Fujianese, or Hakka. In fact, the
famed Lau v. Nichols case of 1974,
which led to bilingual education and more meaningful
educational experiences for bilingual students
with limited English proficiencies, was driven by Cantonese-
speaking Chinese American families who
challenged the San Francisco Unified School District, and San
Francisco is home to several established
bilingual Cantonese–English language programs. Current
Chinese HL programs, however, often place
ethnic Chinese students, regardless of their HL in the ‘Chinese
as a HL’ track that teaches Mandarin
and uses Mandarin as the medium of instruction. Such tracking
is highly contested because it fails to
recognize that these Chinese varieties are not mutually

intelligible. Through the linguistic lens of
mutual unintelligibility, these varieties are separate languages
from Mandarin, but have enough over-
lapping in phonology, intonation and particularly in grammar
and script, which allow the knowledge
of these varieties to become assets for understanding Mandarin.
However, sociolinguistically speak-
ing, ‘we usually do not speak of Chinese in the plural’ (Ramsey
1987, 17). The fact that standard
written Chinese matches most closely to spoken Modern
Standard Mandarin than other varieties
of Chinese yields statements like, ‘Cantonese is only an oral
language’ or ‘words in my dialect
cannot be written down,’ which propels Mandarin-as-standard
ideologies and discounts and delegi-
timizes other varieties of Chinese. Other scholars have stated
similarly that in order to uphold a one-
nation one-language language ideology, nation states tend to
ignore language diversity (Bauman
and Briggs 2003; Blackledge 2008), though language educators
and researchers have called for
heightened awareness of the ways that language teaching of
‘standard languages’ have disenfran-
chised communities of speakers of marginalized languages and
varieties (Delpit 1996; Lin 2004). In
the case of the Chinese context, a comprehensive analysis of
language policies involved with the
learning of Chinese, foreign languages and minority ethnic
languages in the People’s Republic of
China since its establishment in 1949, Lam (2005) argues that a
multilingual approach is essential
given the multilingual linguistic realities of this country.
Following Lam, we contend that such an
AND BILINGUALISM 3

approach is also essential for teaching of Chinese in Chinese
diasporic communities because many
members are multilingual in multiple Chinese varieties; not
doing so disadvantages speakers of
other non-Mandarin Chinese varieties and discounts their lived
experiences.
In fact, growing Chinese HL research has revealed that students
speaking other varieties often
experienced much alienation and frustration in learning a
language that is assumed to be their HL
(Wu and Leung 2014, 2015; Wu, Lee, and Leung 2014; Kelleher
2008; Wiley 2008; Wong and Xiao
2010). We argue that a truly translanguaging approach to
Chinese HL education has to take into
account the linguistic realities in which the heritage students
reside and build upon the students’
multilingual knowledge in multiple Chinese varieties. This is in
line with Wong and Xiao’s (2010)
call to rethink ‘Chinese’ HL pedagogy and the emotional ties
HL speakers may have to non-Mandarin
varieties, such as Cantonese as well as Li’s (2013)
documentation of Cantonese-speaking students’
skillful use of their knowledge of Cantonese in the
complementary classrooms in Britain. Specifically,
Li argued that ethnic Chinese students’ local linguistic and
cultural knowledge (i.e. Cantonese
language knowledge and British cultural knowledge) can
provide important learning opportunities
for Mandarin-speaking teachers, who were usually foreign
nationals from China and had lived in
Britain for a limited period of time. Li (2013) noted that even
while the status of Mandarin is outpow-

ering other varieties rapidly among the Chinese diaspora in
Britain, Cantonese remains powerful and
influential at the local level; along similar lines, Wong and
Xiao (2010) also reported that the language
hegemony of Mandarin results in non-Mandarin HL speakers to
be ‘caught in the webs of power
structures and social discourses’ (324). As a result, students’
experiences with and proficiency in Can-
tonese, though oftentimes muted, remain particularly relevant in
Mandarin HL classrooms.
At a time when the emigration patterns from China to the U.S.
has changed with Fujian province
surpassing Guangdong province to become the number one
emigrate province in China since the
mid-1990s (Liang and Morooka 2004), we anticipate that the
Chinese HL classrooms will continue
to be linguistically diverse and that Chinese HL teachers will
have to grapple with challenges
different from other HL teachers, who, by and large, work with
students whose home languages
are at least intelligible to the designated HL. These challenges
are also different from ESL teachers
or content area teachers working with learners from multiple
linguistic and ethnic backgrounds on
a societal-dominant language because ESL students may not
have any heritage identification or
the same strong emotional connections with English. In this
paper, we share some translanguaging
practices that were documented in a multilingual Chinese HL
classroom and their impacts on
language minority students’ learning of Mandarin. A closer look
at how the teacher went from a Man-
darin-only approach to including multiple Chinese languages to
facilitate her students’ learning of
Mandarin expands the scholarly discussion of what

translanguaging practices might look like in a
Chinese HL class and the transformative potential of a
translanguaging approach, providing new pos-
sibilities for us to rethink Chinese HL education.
Research context
Data were from drawn from a larger school ethnography
conducted by the first author that investi-
gated the school’s culturally relevant pedagogy and its impacts
on minority students’ academic
success and interracial/interethnic friendships. The school is a
K-8 multiracial, multilingual charter
school located in a northeastern U.S. city that taught Chinese in
the form of Mandarin to all students.
At the time of data collection, about 70% of the total 440
students were Asian students and 20% were
African American students. Similar to other Mandarin programs
in the U.S., the school offers two
tracks of Mandarin. Students of Chinese heritage were often
placed in Chinese as a HL track with Man-
darin as the medium of instruction and non-Chinese students
were placed in Chinese as a world
language track with English as the medium of instruction. In the
2009–2010 academic year, the
6th to 8th graders had three weekly sessions of Mandarin, but
the classes were reduced to 1.5 ses-
sions a week during 2010–2011 year due to the elimination of
funding from the Foreign Language
Assistance Program.
In this paper we focus on the experiences of Teacher Meihua (a

pseudonym) and her multilingual
Chinese HL students, whose linguistic repertories included a
variety of Chinese languages. As the only
HL teacher at school, Teacher Meihua taught roughly 200 K-8
graders (about 40% of the total student
population) in the heritage track. According to Meihua, about
one-third of her students were from
Fujianese-speaking families, one-third from Cantonese-speaking
backgrounds, and the remainder
from mixed backgrounds (i.e. a combination of Mandarin,
Fujianese, Cantonese, Taishanese, Indone-
sian, or Vietnamese). She estimated that grades K-2 had a
higher percentage of Fujianese speakers,
but some classrooms in Grades 3–5 had a higher percentage of
Cantonese speakers. Meihua grew up
in China and came to the U.S. for higher education in her late
twenties. She had lived in the U.S. for
more than five years at the time the project was conducted. It
was her second year teaching at the
school, but it was her first year in charge of all HL classes. Her
home language is Teochew, a language
she still used to communicate with her parents even after she
immigrated to the U.S. She learned
Mandarin at school since it is the official language of China and
the medium of instruction at all
schools that she had attended in China. Later, when she
attended college in Guangdong province,
she learned Cantonese because, in her own words, Cantonese is
essential for living in Guangdong.
Meihua was a conscientious, reflective teacher who strived to
develop engaging lessons for all of
her 200 students from K-8th grades. She wrote different lesson
plans per week for all 18 heritage
classes that she taught and was often seen using her lunchtime
or teaching break to revise her
lesson plans. She constantly asked for Wu’s feedback and

wanted to learn more about the research
in HL education. Meihua was particularly adept at creating age-
appropriate arts and crafts activities
for her students to learn Mandarin, and Wu observed that these
art projects provided a safe space in a
Mandarin-only classroom for students from non-Mandarin
speaking backgrounds. Meihua also had a
strong rapport with her students and she often had students
come to her classroom during lunch-
time to socialize with her or check out Chinese books from her
bookshelves.
Methods
Wu observed Meihua’s heritage classes two hours a week over a
ten-month period as part of a larger,
school-based ethnography project. Wu conducted extensive
participant observations of the Man-
darin classes and 15 semi-structured interviews with students
and Meihua during the 2010–2011 aca-
demic year. Field notes and interview transcriptions went
through an iterative process of open
coding, initial memos, focused coding, and integrative memos
(Creswell 2013; Maxwell 2013).
Leung was invited to observe Meihua’s class during the middle
of the research project at a time
when Meihua experienced much frustration with her students
from non-Mandarin speaking back-
grounds. As a Cantonese speaker who learned Mandarin as an
additional language in school,
Leung’s linguistic trajectory mirrored many of the non-
Mandarin students in Meihua’s class.
Because of this connection, Wu hoped that Leung could provide
insightful feedback from the per-
spective of an HL education researcher, educator, and learner. It

should be noted that translangua-
ging was not the original focus of the school-based research
project that Wu conducted. This
paper is a result of revisiting Wu’s data in an effort to use a
translanguaging lens to (re-)examine
the complexity of a multilingual Chinese HL classroom. In
particular, we took two excerpts from pre-
viously examined field notes to view through a translanguaging
lens, which we will identify in the
discussion section.
We used ATLAS.ti to organize multiple data sources. For the
work presented here, prominent
codes identified include ‘students’ linguistic reality,’ ‘students’
learning and not learning Mandarin,’
‘non-Mandarin Chinese,’ ‘teacher’s concern for
translanguaging,’ ‘teacher’s resistance of translangua-
ging,’ ‘parents’ concerns,’ and ‘multiple Chinese.’ Both authors
conferred carefully on the interpret-
ation of data within each code. We used a grounded theory
framework (Strauss and Corbin 1990)
and narrative analysis (Riessman 2008) to understand the
participants’ meaning-making processes
and building theory from the data itself. We looked out for
instances where different languages
were used and switched (e.g. English, varieties of Chinese),
pronouns, dialogic voicing, and co-
AND BILINGUALISM 5
construction of narratives in group discussions. Viewing our
participants’ words not as objective
accounts but as significant recounted events told to us,

signifying tellers’ evaluations of their experi-
ences and ideological beliefs about language. When we did not
agree upon the themes or codes, we
went back to the data for another run of the analysis.
Researchers’ positionalities
Wu is an immigrant and is a speaker of Mandarin, Taiwanese
Hokkien, and Hakka with extensive
experiences teaching Mandarin as a foreign or a heritage
language in the United States. Leung is
a Cantonese and Taishanese heritage speaker and had learned
Mandarin in college. At the time of
the research, both of us were graduate students in a language
education program in a northeastern
U.S. city. As speakers of multiple Chinese languages, we have
found value in every variety that we
speak, with each one connecting us with members of various
communities. With our proficiency
in Mandarin and other varieties of Chinese, we have been able
to connect with many Chinese HL lear-
ners in the U.S. through the totality of our linguistic repertoires.
Together, we have published several
articles focusing on non-Mandarin Chinese speakers’
experiences and identity development with the
hope of drawing more scholarly attention to this group’s
experiences, especially since this group is
sizable in overseas Chinese communities.
Findings: classroom context
In this section, we present major findings that emerged from the
data. To better contextualize the
findings, we first present the struggles that students faced when
learning Mandarin as an imposed
HL from our previous work.

In our other work (Wu, Lee, and Leung 2014; Wu and Leung
2014, 2015), we have reported that
learning Mandarin as a HL is highly contested among Chinese
students because in reality, many stu-
dents did not hear much Mandarin in their linguistic ecologies.
As a result, students’ real HL back-
grounds are highly related to their performance in the class.
Mandarin-dominant students often
became the de facto leaders in the classrooms. Throughout
different grade levels, it was obvious
that Cantonese or Fujianese-dominant students participated in
the Mandarin class far less frequently
than the Mandarin-dominant students; the former group’s verbal
participation was only documented
at the word or phrasal level. In student interviews with 7th and
8th graders, 20 out of 26 students
identified Mandarin as their least favorite subject, and some
characterized Mandarin learning as
‘mostly guessing meaning.’ A few students commented on
liking the Mandarin class because they
got to do arts and crafts and the teacher is nice. In the following
excerpt, two students share the
difficulty of being a Cantonese or Fujianese speaker in the
Mandarin classroom:
Wu: Is there anything else that you hope the teacher can do to
help you learn?
April: Well, I am hoping that she [Teacher Meihua] can
translate [what she says] in English because I have no
idea sometimes what she says because I am not 100% Chinese,
you know.
Wu: What do you mean?
April: I was born in America and at home we don’t speak
Mandarin. We speak Fujianese.

Monica: And we speak a different type of Chinese [Cantonese]
at home … Most of the time, I don’t understand
what she [the teacher] says.
Toward the end of our conversation, April reiterated her
difficulty in the Mandarin only classroom and
hoped for more English instruction because ‘It [Mandarin] is
not my Chinese.’ (cited in Wu, Lee, and
Leung 2014, 28)
We believe April’s quote, which we cited once before in our
2014 work, is worth another look. We
argue that April and Monica’s difficulties stemmed not just
from the mere difference between their
HL and Mandarin, but were also related to their struggles of
learning an ascribed HL they did not
necessarily identify with. When ethnic Chinese students are
assumed to have some or default knowl-
edge of Mandarin, their unique needs as non-Mandarin heritage
learners are not recognized. Thus, it
does not come as a surprise to hear that few non-Mandarin
heritage students showed interest in con-
tinuing learning Mandarin beyond the current school context.
Instead, they mentioned they would
rather study a language such as French or Spanish that they
could at least learn on an equal
footing with other non-heritage students entering high school or
college. This might be related to
the feeling of isolation these students experienced in a
Mandarin-only classroom where the ‘one-

size-fit-all’ pedagogy was geared toward Mandarin-speaking
speakers (Wu, Lee, and Leung 2014;
Wu and Leung 2014).
In this current paper we add in Teacher Meihua’s perspective.
As a conscientious language
teacher, Meihua became more aware of her students’ struggles
during her second year of teaching
at school. The following fieldnotes captured the challenge she
faced when teaching multilingual
Chinese HL classes.
When I met with Meihua during lunch break, she brought up a
question that she hopes I can give her some
advice. The question is how she can better teach her Cantonese-
speaking kids. She was very upset when one
lower grade student’s auntie came to her and accused her of
teaching nothing to this student because she
doesn’t speak English in her heritage class. According to the
aunt, this student couldn’t understand anything
in class because Meihua only teaches the class in Mandarin but
the student only understands Cantonese.
Meihua doesn’t think the accusation is fair because she has
spent so much time planning the lessons. The stu-
dent’s parents are thinking about transferring her to the other
track so she could learn something. I asked
Meihua to give me an estimate of Cantonese-speaking kids in
the heritage track, and I was very surprised to
hear that probably half of her students across K-8th speak
Cantonese. Meihua is struggling with whether or
not she should increase her English use in class. However, she
also remembers the last coordinator told her
that she was not hired to teach kids English, but to teach them
Mandarin. Meihua said that she doesn’t care
what others tell her to do, but only cares about what would be
best for her students to learn Mandarin “in a pro-

fessional way.” It seems that the struggles faced by the
Fujianese or Cantonese students are greater than I’ve
expected. Meihua told me that some of her Fujianese speaking
kindergarteners even cried in her class during
the first few weeks of the semester!. (Field notes, 10/12/2010)
Meihua’s request came at a time when Wu also noticed the lack
of verbal participation and engage-
ment among the Cantonese or Fujianese-speaking students in the
7th and 8th grade classrooms. Part
of the school ethnography allowed Wu to follow the same group
of students to other classes (includ-
ing English Language Arts and Social Studies) and examine
their classroom participation in classes
beyond the Mandarin classroom. Wu documented very few
tokens of Mandarin utterances produced
by students whose only Chinese exposure at home is Cantonese.
For these students, their inability to
express themselves in Mandarin made them invisible and
inaudible in the Mandarin classroom.
However, these same students interacted actively with their
peers in small group assignments and
classroom discussions in English Language Arts and Social
Studies. It seemed that language
played a determining factor among many HL students’
participation in the Mandarin classroom.
Per Meihua’s request, Wu invited Leung to observe her class
and give her suggestions on how to
reach out to non-Mandarin HL students.
Leung’s observation confirmed the struggles faced by these
students. Her post-observation notes
confirmed that the non-Mandarin-dominant students were ‘not
on the same page’ with the Man-
darin-dominant students on several activities and when the class
was reading aloud in Mandarin,

these students oftentimes did not participate. One was
‘mumbling words,’ another ‘show disengage-
ment by putting her head down while another showed
disengagement by not being on task and
speaking out of turn, or fiddling with pencils or scribbling.’
However, Leung also noted the great
student-teacher rapport and the advantage of Meihua being
proficient in both Cantonese and Man-
darin. As a result, Leung suggested that Meihua do the
following in her future teaching:
(1) Using a contrastive analysis method to explicitly draw
connections between different varieties of
Chinese or show differences between them to make it clear to
the non-Mandarin speaking stu-
dents that their real HL is still valuable in helping them
understand Mandarin and the knowledge
of multiple varieties of Chinese is an asset. Sample contrastive
analysis questions include, ‘this is
how this word/phrase is said in Mandarin; here is how it’s said
in Cantonese. Have you ever heard
AND BILINGUALISM 7
of this before, or heard your parents/family members use it?’ Or
‘This is how X is pronounced in
Mandarin. It sounds a little bit like Cantonese word X, doesn’t
it?’
(2) When working with students of other linguistic
backgrounds, do contrastive analysis by asking
them how they might say it in their home language to create a
sense of expert feeling among

them and make them feel more invested in their language
learning in the class (Personal Com-
munication, 2/20/2011).
Critical moments where teacher Meihua integrates
translanguaging pedagogy
In the following sections, we analyze Teacher Meihua’s
reactions to the suggestions as well as the
process that she went through in integrating translanguaging
pedagogy into her Mandarin class-
room. We recognize that the process was delineated ex post
facto by ourselves as researchers, but
we explicitly chose these key moments as illustrative of the
maximal range of what multilingual stu-
dents were capable of doing when Teacher Meihua allowed them
to more fully draw on the linguistic
resources they brought to the classroom. We believe that these
critical vignettes clearly capture the
ways Meihua incorporated translanguaging practices. We do not
mean to call these moments repre-
sentative of every classroom interaction Wu observed but aim to
show how translanguaging prac-
tices have much to offer in revisioning a new future for Chinese
HL education.
Translanguaging outside of the Mandarin classroom: learning
basic Fujianese from
students
Meihua’s first reactions to the suggestions included suspicion,
worry, and insecurity. She was worried
that using more Cantonese might disadvantage her Mandarin
and Fujianese-speaking students. In
addition, she thought her not speaking Fujianese might mean her
inability to reach out to her Fujia-

nese-dominant students. Lastly, she held the belief that a
Mandarin language class meant exposing
students to Mandarin as much as possible during class time.
After several back and forth discussions
with Wu, Meihua finally decided to step out of her comfort zone
and do something outside of her
regular class. The excerpt below documents Meihua’s first step
to learn basic Fujianese from her
older students beyond her regular Mandarin class.
During lunch break, some 7th graders came back to Meihua’s
room to finish their posters. Meihua stood next to a
table of four students and was learning how to count from 1-10
in Fujianese from April. April was busy correcting
Meihua’s tones while the rest were working on their posters.
April was very patient with Meihua and she pro-
nounced the numbers in Fujianese several times for Meihua to
imitate. Occasionally, Andrew joined in the con-
versation and corrected her pronunciations while he was writing
down the characters on the poster. Meihua
shouted out at one point, “Oh my god! This is so hard.” She felt
the tones were particularly difficult and she
had to practice the tones several times with the students. Even
after much practice, she was still not able to
count from 1-10 in Fujianese by herself. Meihua also asked
students how to say “sit down,” “book,” “come
here,” “look at me” in Fujianese and she was very surprised to
hear how different the pronunciations and
usages are from Mandarin. For example, for pronouncing “you”,
there are two different ways of saying it, depend-
ing on the gender, which is different from Mandarin. At first, I
thought she just wanted to learn random phrases in
Fujianese, but later when there were only two of us, she told me
that she wants to learn some classroom com-
mands in Fujianese because she has many Fujianese speaking
younger learners in her class and she would like to

better communicate with them. At the end of our conversation,
Meihua shared, “I didn’t know that Fujianese is so
different from Cantonese. It’s like a totally different language. I
can see why my Fujianese students struggle in my
class.” She also thought it’s important for her to feel what her
students might feel. (Field notes, 4/14/2011)
We argue what happened above confirms prior translanguaging
research on the importance of trans-
languaging in social space (Milu 2013) as well as advancing
teacher-student rapport (Li and Luo
2017). Since Meihua did not feel comfortable including non-
Mandarin Chinese varieties in her Man-
darin classroom, lunch time became a good alternative for her to
engage students in non-Mandarin
varieties. Even though it was an ‘unofficial’ space and time in
school, doing so still yielded important
results. When Meihua took on a learner role and showed
increased interest in learning students’
home languages, it not only helped her better understand her
students’ struggle but it also helped
students see there was space at school for their home language
and their knowledge is validated,
which led to their heightened willingness to engage in their
home language and Mandarin. The fol-
lowing vignette captured the students’ active participation at
this important moment.
Andrew and April are the two students who took the lead to tell
Meihua how to say phrases in Fujianese and the
other girl, Maggie, who can speak Cantonese, Fujianese,

Hoisanese, and Mandarin, joined the conversation by
commenting on how to best learn Fujianese if one knows
Cantonese. Since she knows Meihua also speaks Can-
tonese, she often told Meihua to compare and contrast phrases
in Fujianese with Cantonese. She often threw in
equivalent phrases in Cantonese to help Meihua learn. While
she was doing that, she also explained to me in Can-
tonese that this is how she learns Mandarin, that is, through
comparing and contrasting it with her more domi-
nant language Cantonese. Interestingly, she forgets that I
actually don’t speak Cantonese so when she gives me
several examples of equivalent phrases in Cantonese and
Fujianese, I can only nod my head with a big smile on
the face. I could sort of guess what she said because of the
context and because she said “compare and contrast”
in English. This is the first time that I heard her speaking full
sentences in Cantonese and giving me wonderful
examples in Mandarin!. (Field notes, 4/14/2011)
It became clear that April, Andrew and Maggie, who were rarely
seen participating in the Mandarin
classroom, had a vast knowledge base that their teacher could
tap into. While Cantonese and Fujianese
are not mutually intelligible to Mandarin, they share similarities
in syntax and thus students’ knowledge
of Cantonese and Fujianese was still very helpful in learning
Mandarin. Students were eager to share
what they knew when the opportunity was provided and with
such an important opportunity, they
no longer viewed themselves or were viewed as invisi ble and
inaudible participants.
Including minority Chinese languages in the Mandarin class
In the past, Meihua used mostly Mandarin in her class with
some translation to English when she saw

students confused or lacked participation from students.
However, after she had witnessed the lin-
guistic capacity of her ‘quiet’ students during lunch time, she
became more willing to include minor-
itized Chinese languages in her Mandarin class. Her various
ways of including minority Chinese
languages in class went beyond the compare and contrast
activity that was described earlier. In
one class that Wu observed, she started out by asking her older
students how to say ‘我會說中文’
(I can speak Chinese) in Fujianese. At first, students’ Fujianese
translations varied. She went on to
explain the linguistic situation of Guangdong province,
highlighting that not everyone from Guang-
dong province speaks Cantonese or speaks Cantonese the same
way. She posited that a similar lin-
guistic phenomenon could be found in Fujian province.
Fujianese-dominant students then went on
to compare and contrast several tokens in Mandarin and
Fujianese to see if their Fujianese trans-
lations do sound differently and the Cantonese-dominant and
Mandarin-dominant students also
joined this discussion by serving as ‘judges.’ It didn’t take long
for the students to reach the con-
clusion that not everyone from Fujian province spoke the same
variety of Fujianese.
As students became excited about learning about the linguistic
diversity in China, Meihua asked a
student, Yemin, who had attended schools in Fujian for several
years, if teachers used Fujianese in the
classroom setting in Fujian. Yemin used his cultural knowledge
of the Chinese educational context to
respond in Mandarin that the language of the classroom was
Mandarin/Putonghua. He added that if
students spoke Fujianese, they would be scolded

(說福州話會被罵的). He also described the para-
doxical situation where Fujianese would sometimes ‘slip out’ of
their teachers’ mouths unconsciously
(可是他們自己有時候會不小心跑出來) or students’ out-of-class times
(我們下課的時候照講)
despite the Mandarin-only language policy at school. Yemin
closed with the reflective commentary,
‘But it’s so strange. Why can’t they co-exist?’ (可是很奇怪阿?
為什麼他們能共存呢?)
Meihua’s willingness to learn students’ home languages and
openness to include discussion of
different varieties enable her students to develop not only
metalinguistic awareness of different
Chinese varieties but also critical language awareness that
challenged the hegemonic language
policy in multilingual societies. We argue that Meihua’s
translanguaging pedagogy opened up ‘ideo-
logical and implementational spaces’ (Hornberger 2002) for
multiple languages in the local ecology,
AND BILINGUALISM 9
and seemed to make an important impact on the language
minority students in her Mandarin
classroom.
Following the above exchange, Yemin continued to tell the class
that he had just learned from a
website that Fujianese actually preserves more features of Old
Chinese than Mandarin and the two
languages belong to two different language families. He was so
excited to learn this that he had

shared this new piece of information with his friends on the
playground during recess. Meihua
acknowledged Yemin’s contribution and confirmed that in
comparison to Mandarin, many ‘dialects’
are actually closer to Old Chinese in terms of pronunciation.
Upon hearing this, many students’ faces
brightened, especially those from non-Mandarin speaking
backgrounds. This was an important
teaching moment when all the students, including those who
were observed to be less invested
in the class, were ‘hooked’ to the content being taught in the
Mandarin classroom. Seeing her stu-
dents’ interest in learning more, Meihua explained that
sometimes these varieties provided more
semantic information than Mandarin in a single vocabulary
word. She used the word ‘bed’ as an
example from Teochew, her own heritage language. In Teochew,
a bed is called 眠床, literally ‘bed
for sleeping’, whereas in Mandarin, one calls 床(‘bed’) without
眠(‘sleeping’) as the modifier. Stu-
dents quickly noted that Fujianese also has the same way of
saying ‘sleeping beds.’ For the following
ten minutes, the whole class engaged in more structured and
conscientious comparison and contrast
analysis of Fujianese, Mandarin, Cantonese, and Teochew.
Unlike the earlier compare and contrast of
random tokens in Mandarin and Fujianese, this time the
discussion turned to a collective effort: Fujia-
nese-speaking students took turns to offer phrases or words in
Fujianese for the rest of the class to
guess the meanings and learn the pronunciations.
Toward the end of this activity which had been centered on
Fujianese, a Cantonese-speaking
student volunteered to offer some random Cantonese words for
his classmates to guess the

meaning. In this activity, students not only harnessed different
‘Chineses’ to engage one another
in metalinguistic conversations, but they also utilized various
languages available to them to
perform their multilingual identities that are distinct from an
imposed Mandarin-only identity. The
Fujianese or Cantonese-dominant students were no longer
invisible or inaudible learners in the class-
room. Meihua’s willingness to accept students’ linguistic
diversity in the classroom validates who they
are, allows them to develop their repertoires of multiple
‘Chineses’ and creates space for them to pos-
ition themselves as multilingual Chinese speakers who know a
variety of Chinese languages not just
limited to Mandarin. This moment that we were able to capture
confirms existing translanguaging
pedagogy research on the importance of allowing students to
draw upon all their existing language
skills. In the case of Mandarin HL education, we argue that
translanguaging pedagogy should at least
start with an acknowledgement of linguistic diversity in the
Chinese diasporic communities so that a
translanguaging stance can be enacted by creating spaces for
multiple varieties of Chinese in the
Mandarin classroom.
Using the Mandarin classroom as a site to challenge linguistic
hierarchy
Translanguaging allows teachers, regardless whether they are
proficient in their students’ languages,
to ‘set up the affordances for students to engage in discursive
and semiotic practices that respond to
their cognitive and social intentions’ (García and Li 2014, 93).
Doing so not only helps students
develop metalinguistic awareness, create teacher-student

bonding, but also helps challenge the
language hierarchies and inequalities (García, Flores, and
Woodley 2012; García and Leiva 2014). Fol-
lowing the metalinguistic conversation described above during
which linguistic minority students
actively shared their knowledge in Fujianese or Cantonese with
their classmates came an important
moment that Meihua created for students to further voice their
concerns in learning Mandarin and
explore issues related to different varieties of Chinese in their
own context.
Seeing how the dynamics of the class interaction changed
dramatically, Meihua quickly decided to
take a moment to ask students’ interest in learning other
varieties of Chinese. She asked students if
they would be willing to learn Fujianese or Cantonese if they
were offered at school. A Fujianese
heritage speaker, Sharlene, who rarely participated in the
Mandarin class, quickly clapped her hands
to show her excitement and approval of this proposal. Yemin
was also excited about Fujianese being
offered in school, especially because he had recently learned
that Fujianese has preserved more Old
Chinese features than Mandarin. However, another Fujianese
heritage speaker, Yu argued that there
is little need for learning Fujianese because in their local
Chinatown community, most Chinese res-
taurants were owned by Cantonese speakers and thus learning
Cantonese would be more useful
than Fujianese or Mandarin. Yemin disagreed and the three-way

discussion below that ensued
among Sharlene, Yemin and Yu gives us a close-up look at how
non-Mandarin heritage speakers
make sense of the value(s) of non-Mandarin Chinese in their
own communities. Examining these dis-
courses provides an important basis for challenging the current
normative view of seeing Mandarin
as the most valuable Chinese variety and for engaging students
in discussing important issues related
to race, ethnicity, and class in the broader context. Yemin began
by situating his view of the perceived
utility of Fujianese. In his opinion, in Flushing Chinatown in
New York, ‘everyone’ speaks Fujianese, so
it is very useful (大家都是說福州話, 很好用的). Yu disagreed, saying
Fujianese is only used in ‘black
ghost neighborhoods’ and what is actually used in Chinatown is
Cantonese (福州話都是用在黑鬼
區
1, 廣東話才是用在Chinatown). Sharlene countered with her own
family’s experiences, saying
her family members all own restaurants in Chinatown and they
all speak Fujianese. She added her
own thoughts about language utility and why it is useful to learn
Fujianese: ‘the more languages,
the more better.2’ Zehua challenged this statement in English,
‘Well, it depends on which language.’
Yu agreed, commenting in Mandarin about the types of jobs
Cantonese language ability can yield
(‘good jobs’) versus Fujianese, which is only for ‘bad jobs’
(會說廣東話會幫助你找工作, 福州話不
會.福州話都是不好的工作). Since Sharlene continued to insist that
‘the more languages, the
better’, Yu asks her in Mandarin, ‘So what if you learn
Cantonese?’’ (那如果要你學廣東話呢?). Shar-
lene then answers this question without any hesitation. She

responded in English, ‘I would love to
learn Cantonese, if that’s offered because the more languages,
the more jobs you can get.’
This spontaneous, back and forth discussion among students
across languages continued until
Meihua needed to stop the class and reminded them to get
packed and move on to their next
class. Sharlene in particular, was still in conversation with other
students about the importance of
Fujianese until Meihua headed to her and helped her pack her
bag. While students were lining up,
Meihua told the students that she was impressed by how much
Mandarin students used in this dis-
cussion, which she believed should be called ‘a debate.’ She
also stressed that even though the class
might have seemed rather ‘disorganized’ due to its lack of
traditional teacher presentation, there was
a lot of student learning and participation. She highlighted
several times that she was proud of the
students and wanted them to feel proud of themselves, too.
Examining these students’ exchanges reveals that Meihua ‘set
up the affordances for students to
engage in discursive and semiotic practices that respond to their
cognitive and social intentions’
(García and Li 2014, 93). While she viewed the activity as not
‘organized,’ what she did actually embo-
died core components of translanguaging pedagogy, as defined
by García, Johnson, and Seltzer
(2017): a stance that believes in students’ diverse language
practices as valuable, a design that inte-
grates students’ in-school and out-of-school or community
language practices with unit plans and
assessment driven by students’ ways of knowing and language
practices, and a teacher’s ability to

make moment-by-moment adjustment to the plans based on
students’ feedback. When students
were provided with the opportunity to bring in their community
knowledge, which was positioned
as constructive and valuable to the classroom discussion, we see
how linguistic minoritized students
become active participants in the class, which in turn enhanced
their Mandarin learning.
Furthermore, when classroom activities centered around
students’ out-of-school and community
language practices, they also allowed teachers to examine
students’ understanding of broader social
issues related to race, ethnicity, language, and class. As the
above student discussion shows, many
were acutely aware of the linguistic hierarchies among different
varieties of Chinese and some com-
ments reflected how language ideologies cannot be separated
from current racial hierarchies in the
AND BILINGUALISM 11
U.S. and how they are fraught with potential to be challenged
and contested; thus, the classroom can
serve as a site where these ideologies can be discussed and
unpacked in depth.
Discussion and conclusion
In this paper, we have illustrated the emotional and
sociolinguistic complexities that teachers and
students encounter in a ‘Chinese’ HL classroom. As can be
seen, the HL classroom is full of tensions

and potential mismatches in students’ linguistic realities and
aspirations. By showing how Teacher
Meihua took on the vulnerable role of both teacher and learner
to open the floor for her students
to showcase the knowledge they brought into her classroom, we
argue that this type of pedagogy
illustrates the full transformative potential that translanguaging
can offer. Her translanguaging peda-
gogy opened up not just implementational spaces for multiple
Chineses to co-exist in her classroom
but also ideological spaces for students to reflect upon their
stances towards different languages and
speakers of different languages in their own socio-political
contexts. While the present study is only
based on some students’ experiences in one school in the U.S.,
it nonetheless still points to the need
for those who work with and in Chinese diasporic communities
to move away from a ‘Mandarin-only’
pedagogy. Our data have provided evidence that
translanguaging as a pedagogical stance gives
language educators ample opportunities to honor multiple
varieties within the local language
ecology, which not only maximizes students’ experiences of
learning Mandarin and/or other
Chinese varieties, but also using Chinese diasporic spaces to
produce counter-hegemonic discourses.
In sum, to create an inclusive learning environment that fosters
our diverse Chinese HL learners,
we have showcased a perspective that develops a critical
language awareness of ‘Chinese.’ This view
confronts the imbalance power among different varieties of
Chinese, interrogating how and why
Mandarin has enjoyed such strong support in HL programs
despite the long history of non-Man-
darin-Speaking Chinese immigrants in the U.S. (Wu and Leung

2014, 2015; Wu, Lee, and Leung
2014). At a time when Mandarin is heavily emphasized in
language teaching and research and is
increasingly assumed to be the HL of Chinese diasporic
communities, we believe a translanguaging
approach has the power to tap into the rich linguistic resources
that Chinese diasporic communities
offer and develop more effective and engaging pedagogies that
help students become more com-
petent language users in their own local contexts and beyond.
We close this paper echoing and
building off the very insightful quote from Yemin: why can’t
Chinese languages co-exist – and we
would argue, be valorized and thrive – in the Mandarin HL
classroom?
Notes
1. 黑鬼, literally translates to ‘black ghost’, is a pejorative term
to refer to African Americans in some varieties of
Chinese. Similarly, the term 白鬼‘white ghost’ refers to
Caucasians. These terms are generally considered pejora-
tive, but some have argued that the cultural use of ‘ghost’ is
used to refer to ‘foreign-ness.’ More on intra- and
interracial relationships at this school has been discussed in
Wu’s 2017 work.
2. Like many other HL learners in her class, Sharlene was a
former ESL student so her English sometimes did not
align with standard English.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors

Ming-Hsuan Wu is an Assistant Professor in the School of
Education at Adelphi University in New York. Her work seeks
to
understand teachers’ agentive roles in positively impacting
immigrant students’ academic and social lives as well as
young people’s agentive roles in contesting dominant discourses
on diversity. She has published her work in Inter-
national Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Urban
Education, and Journal of Language, Identity & Education.
Genevieve Leung is an Associate Professor of Rhetoric and
Language at the University of San Francisco. She directs the
minor in Asian Pacific American Studies and is the academic
director of the MA program in Asia Pacific Studies at USF. Her
research looks at Chinese American language and cultural
maintenance, particularly of varieties of Cantonese and
Hoisan-wa. Her work has been published in various journals
related to language, identity, and education, teacher edu-
cation, and heritage language education.
ORCID
Ming-Hsuan Wu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2315-2192
Genevieve Leung http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7361-9838
References
Bauman, R., and C. L. Briggs. 2003. Voices of Modernity:
Language Ideologies and the Politics of Inequality. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Blackledge, A. 2008. Language Ecology and Language
Ideology. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, edited
by
A. C. P. Martin and H. H. Hornberger, 2nd ed., Vol. 9, 27–40.
New York, NJ: Springer.
Canagarajah, S. 2011. “Codemeshing in Academic Writing:
Identifying Teachable Strategies of Translanguaging.” Modern
Language Journal 95 (3): 401–417.
Cenoz, J., and D. Gorter. 2011. “Focus on Multilingualism: A
Study of Trilingual Writing.” Modern Language Journal 95 (3):
356–369.
Creese, A., and A. Blackledge. 2010. “Translanguaging in the
Bilingual Classroom: A Pedagogy for Learning and
Teaching?” Modern Language Journal 94 (1): 103–115.
Creswell, J. W. 2013. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design:
Choosing among Five Traditions. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Delpit, L. 1996. Other People’s Children. New York: The New
Press.
García, O., N. Flores, and H. Woodley. 2012. “Transgressing
Monolingualism and Bilingual Dualities: Translanguaging
Pedagogies.” In Harnessing Linguistic Variation to Improve
Education, edited by A. Yiakoumetti, 45–75. Bern: Peter Lang.
García, O., S. Johnson, and K. Seltzer. 2017. The
Translanguaging Classroom. Leveraging Student Bilingualism
for Learning.
Philadelphia: Caslon.
García, O., and N. Kano. 2014. “Translanguaging as Process
and Pedagogy: Developing the English Writing of Japanese

Students in the US.” In The Multilingual Turn in Languages
Education: Opportunities and Challenges, edited by J. Conteh,
and G. Meier, 258–277. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
García, O., and T. Kleyn, eds. 2016. Translanguaging with
Multilingual Students: Learning From Classroom Moments.
New York: Routledge.
García, O., and C. Leiva. 2014. “Theorizing and Enacting
Translanguaging for Social Justice.” In Heteroglossia as
Practice
and Pedagogy, edited by A. Blackledge, and A. Creese, 199–
216. Dordrecht: Springer.
García, O., and W. Li. 2014. Translanguaging: Langua ge,
Bilingualism and Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
García, O., and C. Sylvan. 2011. “Pedagogies and Practices in
Multilingual Classrooms: Singularities in Pluralities.” Modern
Language Journal 95 (3): 385–400.
Hélot, C. 2011. “Children’s Literature in the Multilingual
Classroom: Developing Multilingual Literacy Acquisition.” In
Language Policy for the Multilingual Classroom. Pedagogy for
the Possible, edited by C. Hélot, and MÓ Laire, 42–65.
Bristol, England: Short Run Press.
Hornberger, N. H. 2002. “Multilingual Language Policies and
the Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Approach.”
Language Policy, 1, 27–51.
Kelleher, A. 2008. “Placements and re-Positionings: Tensions
Around CHL Learning in a University Mandarin Program.” In
Chinese as a Heritage Language: Fostering Rooted World
Citizenry, edited by A. W. He, and Y. Xiao, 239–259. Honolulu,

HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource
Center.
Lam, S. L. A. 2005. Language Education in China: Policy and
Experience From 1949. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University
Press.
Li, W. 2013. “Who is Teaching Whom? Co-Learning in
Multilingual Classrooms.” In The Multilingual Turn
Implications for
SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education, edited by S. May, 167–
190. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Li, S., and W. Luo. 2017. “Creating a Translanguaging Space
for High School Emergent Bilinguals.” The CATESL Journal 29
(2): 139–162.
Liang, Z., and H. Morooka. 2004. “Recent Trends of Emigration
From China: 1982-2000.” International Migration 42 (2):
145–164.
Lin, A. 2004. “Introducing a Critical Pedagogical Curriculum:
A Feminist Reflexive Account.” In Critical Pedagogies and
Language Learning, edited by B. Norton, and K. Toohey, 271–
267. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Martin-Beltrán, M. 2014. “What do you Want to say?” How
Adolescents use Translanguaging to Expand Learning
Opportunities.” International Multilingual Research Journal 8
(3): 208–230.
AND BILINGUALISM 13
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2315-2192
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7361-9838

Maxwell, J. 2013. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive
Approach. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mazak, C. 2017. “Introduction: Theorizing Translanguaging
Practices in Higher Education.” In Translanguaging in Higher
Education. Beyond Monolingual Ideologies, edited by C. M.
Mazak, and K. S. Caroll, 1–10. Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Milu, E. 2013. “Translingual Practices in Kenyan hip hop:
Pedagogical Implications.” In Literacy as Translingual Practi ce:
Between Communities and Classrooms, edited by S.
Canagarajah, 104–112. New York, NY: Routledge.
Palmer, D. K., R. A. Martínex, S. G. Mateus, and K. Henderson.
2014. “Reframing the Debate on Language Separation:
Toward a Vision for Translanguaing Pedagogies in the Dual
Language Classroom.” Modern Language Journal 98 (3):
757–772.
Poza, L. 2017. “Translanguaging: Definitions, Implications, and
Further Needs in Burgeoning Inquiry.” Berkeley Education
Review 6 (2): 101–128.
Ramsey, S. R. 1987. The Languages of China. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Riessman, C. K. 2008. Narrative Methods for the Human
Sciences. Los Angeles: Sage.
Sayer, P. 2013. “Translanguaging, TexMex, and Bilingual
Pedagogy: Emergent Bilinguals Learning Through the
Vernacular.” TESOL Quarterly 47 (1): 63–88.
Selzer, K., and B. Collins. 2016. “Navigating Turbulent Waters:
Translanguaging to Support Academic and Socioemotional

Well-Being.” In Translanguaging with Multilingual Students:
Learning From Classroom Moments, edited by O. García, and
T. Kleyn, 140–159. New York: Routledge.
Strauss, A. L., and J. M. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative
Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Vogel, S., and O. García. 2017. “Translanguaging.” In Oxford
Research Encyclopedia of Education, edited by G. Noblit.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.181
Wiley, T. G. 2008. “Chinese “Dialect” Speakers as Heritage
Language Learners.” In Heritage Language Education: A new
Field
Emerging, edited by D. Brinton, O. Kagan, and S. Bauckus, 91–
106. New York: Routledge.
Wong, F. K., and Y. Xiao. 2010. “Diversity and Difference:
Identity Issues of Chinese Heritage Language Learners From
Dialect Backgrounds.” Heritage Language Journal 7 (2): 153–
187.
Woodley, H. H. (2016). From Pain to Healing in Language
Teacher Education. Modern Language Journal 100(2), 570-572.
Wu, M.-H. 2017. “A Critical Examination of Asian Students’
Interracial and Interethnic Friendships at a Multiracial Urban
School.” Urban Education doi:10.1177/0042085917690206.
Wu, M.-H., K. Lee, and G. Leung. 2014. “Heritage Language
Education and Investment among Asian American Middle
Schoolers: Insights From a Charter School.” Language and

Education 28 (1): 19–33.
Wu, M.-H., and G. Leung. 2014. “Re-envisioning Heritage
Language Education: A Study of Middle School Students
Learning Mandarin Chinese.” Heritage Language Journal 11 (3):
207–223.
Wu, M.-H., and G. Leung. 2015. “Contemporary Chinese
American Language Maintenance: Perspectives of Youth and
Young Adults in Philadelphia and San Francisco.” Chinese
America: History & Perspective 69–74.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.181
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085917690206AbstractIntroduction
Translanguaging as a pedagogical stance‘Chinese’ heritage
education: the need for a translanguaging approachResearch
contextMethodsResearchers’ positionalitiesFindings: classroom
contextCritical moments where teacher Meihua integrates
translanguaging pedagogyTranslanguaging outside of the
Mandarin classroom: learning basic Fujianese from
studentsIncluding minority Chinese languages in the Mandarin
classUsing the Mandarin classroom as a site to challenge
linguistic hierarchyDiscussion and conclusionNotesDisclosure
statementNotes on contributorsORCIDReferences

Professional Audit Worksheet Functional ResumeDirections Use thi

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Professional Audit Worksheet Functional ResumeDirections Use thi

Similar to Professional Audit Worksheet Functional ResumeDirections Use thi (20)

More from DaliaCulbertson719

More from DaliaCulbertson719 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Professional Audit Worksheet Functional ResumeDirections Use thi