FLORES AND ANEJA “Why Needs Hiding?” 441 “Why Needs Hiding?” Translingual (Re)Orientations in TESOL Teacher Education Nelson Flores Geeta Aneja University of Pennsylvania Though applied linguists have critiqued the concept of the native speaker for decades, it continues to dominate the TESOL profession in ways that marginalize nonnative English–speaking teachers. In this article, we describe a naturalistic study of literacy negotiations in a course that we taught as part of the required sequence for a TESOL teacher education program. The course had the explicit goals of (a) supporting preservice teachers, many of whom are nonnative English speakers, in challenging these native-speaker ideologies, and (b) introducing preservice teachers to translingualism as a framework for challenging these ideologies with their own students. We focus on one of the culminating projects, in which students developed their own projects that enacted the new understanding of language associated with translingualism. By looking closely at the journey of three students through this project, we shed light on the possibilities and challenges of bringing a translingual perspective into TESOL teacher education, as well as the possibilities and challenges confronted by preservice TESOL teachers who are nonnative English speakers in incorporating a translingual perspective into their own teaching. These case studies indicate that providing nonnative English teachers with opportunities to engage in translingual projects can support them both in developing more positive conceptualizations of their identities as multilingual teachers and in developing pedagogical approaches for students that build on their home language practices in ways that challenge dominant language ideologies. Over the past several decades, applied linguists have questioned the privileging of the native speaker as the model to which all language learners should aspire (Graddol, 2006; Kachru, 1992; Phillipson, 1992; Rampton, 1990). Yet, despite these critiques, native speaker ideologies continue to dominate the field, as seen in job advertisements, curricular resources, and language assessments (Kumaravadivelu, 2016; Selvi, 2010). This continued privileging of native speakers is especially troublesome considering the increasing number of nonnative English speakers seeking to become TESOL professionals, both in the United States and abroad. It has been estimated that nonnative English–speaking teachers (NNESTs) outnumber their native English–speaking counterparts three to one (Crystal, 2012). As the number of nonnative English–speaking TESOL professionals has increased, so has their enResearch in the Teaching of English Volume 51, Number 4, May 2017 Copyright © 2017 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved. 441 442 Research in the Teaching of English Volume 51 May 2017 rollment in TESOL teacher education programs in the United States (Kamhi-Stein, 1999). Research has demonstrated that such students face challenges in TESOL teacher education programs, which are often unresponsive to their unique learning needs (Braine, 2010; Kumaravadivelu, 2016; Liu, 1998; Samimy & Brutt-Griffler, 1999). Ironically, while native speaker ideologies have been stringently critiqued in applied linguistics, these ideologies continue to permeate the teacher education programs that prepare future nonnative English–speaking TESOL professionals. This article seeks to contribute to the growing literature that challenges native speaker ideologies in teacher education programs (Barratt, 2010; Brady & Gulikers, 2004; Lee, 2004; Liu, 1998). Specifically, we describe a course that we taught as part of the required course sequence for a TESOL teacher education program that had a large number of students who would traditionally be considered nonnative English speakers.1 The article first provides an overview of the paradigm shift that has occurred in applied linguistics and served as the theoretical foundation for the course. It then gives an overview of the course, with a particular focus on the sociocultural approach to teacher learning (Johnson, 2006) that was utilized to introduce this paradigm shift to the preservice teachers who were taking the course. The article then focuses on one of the culminating projects, in which students read Canagarajah (2013) and developed projects informed by the translingual orientation that he proposes as a rhetorical style that can counteract these native speaker ideologies. We look closely at the journey of three students through this project. The hope is to shed light on the possibilities and challenges of bringing a translingual perspective into TESOL teacher education, as well as the possibilities and challenges confronted by novice teachers who are nonnative English speakers in incorporating a translingual perspective into their own teaching. The Multilingual Turn in Applied Linguistics Though applied linguists have always been interested in issues of language diversity, scholars have recently brought attention to the monolingual bias that has informed much of this work (García, 2009; Kachru, 1994; Ortega, 2013). This monolingual bias has its origins in the rise of nation-state/colonial governmentality in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, part of the global geopolitical reconfiguration into industrialized nation-states and the colonies they exploited for their raw materials (Flores, 2013; Mignolo, 2011; Pennycook, 2002). This time period witnessed the emergence of monoglossic language ideologies, which position monolingualism as the norm to which all national subjects should aspire (Flores, 2013; García, 2009)—an ideal that stands in sharp contrast to the multilingual practices that had been the norm in previous eras of human history (Canagarajah, 2013; Yildiz, 2013). Part of this ascendency of monolingualism was the emergence of the idealized “native speaker” who was deemed to have inherited a particular national language as a birthright and was endowed with the responsibility of protecting it from foreign contamination (Bonfiglio, 2010). Scholarship challenging the monolingual bias in applied linguistics has coalesced around a multilingual turn in applied linguistics (May, 2014). The mul- FLORES AND ANEJA “Why Needs Hiding?” 443 tilingual turn has reconceptualized language, transforming it from a bounded object, whose borders are determined by idealized native speakers, into a fluid social practice that can be molded by language users in ways that fit their needs. Different terms attempting to describe this reconceptualization of language have emerged, including metrolingualism (Pennycook & Otsuji, 2015), polylanguaging (Jørgensen, 2008), transidiomatic practices (Jacquemet, 2005) and translanguaging (García, 2009). Each of these terms is an attempt to challenge dominant language ideologies and to offer spaces for previously marginalized language users to assert the legitimacy of their language practices. The multilingual turn has already influenced language learning pedagogies as applied linguists have reimagined language classrooms in ways that encourage students to use their entire communicative repertoire as they engage in new language learning (Rymes, 2014). Cummins (2007) advocates the use of bilingual instructional strategies “that acknowledge the reality of, and strongly promote, two-way cross-language transfer” (p. 222), which includes a focus on cognates, developing dual-language projects, and fostering bilingual pen pal relationships. These bilingual instructional strategies have been found to increase students’ metacognitive and metalinguistic awareness in ways that improve their literacy skills (Jiménez et al., 2015). García and Wei (2014) incorporate bilingual instructional strategies under the broader concept of translanguaging, which positions the fluid language practices of bi/multilingual students as the starting point for curricular decisions made in contexts of language learning. Yet, they seek to go beyond the use of bilingual instructional strategies as scaffolding for language learning in order to re-envision language education in ways that “call forth bilingual subjectivities and sustain . . . bilingual performances that go beyond one or the other binary logic of two autonomous languages” (García & Wei, 2014, pp. 92–93). These bilingual subjectivities allow students to develop sociocritical literacy that begins with their lived experience and empowers them to appropriate and transform dominant language practices as they are in the process of developing them (Gutiérrez, 2008). From a translanguaging perspective, the goal of language development is no longer for students to attain “native-like” proficiency, but rather for students to strategically choose features of their communicative repertoire in ways that reflect their bi/multilingual identities and that accommodate their interlocutors. The multilingual turn has also begun to reshape the content of teacher education. This teacher education research focuses primarily on identifying the knowledge that preservice teachers need in order to develop linguistically responsive classrooms that are attuned to the language learning needs of their students (Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008). Hornberger (2004) offers the continua of biliteracy as a heuristic that can be used in teacher education to “break down the binary oppositions so characteristic of the field of bilingualism and literacy and instead draw attention to the continuity of experiences, skills, practices, and knowledge” (p. 156) that characterizes the lived experience of bi/multilingual children. Similarly, García (2008) argues for the importance of supporting preservice teachers in developing multilingual awareness that will provide them with the 444 Research in the Teaching of English Volume 51 May 2017 tools for drawing on their students’ multilingualism in the classroom. The NNEST movement (Braine, 2010) has also been instrumental in legitimizing the language proficiencies and cultural backgrounds of nonnative English–speaking students in teacher education contexts (Pavlenko, 2003; Samimy & Brutt-Griffler, 1999) and in helping nonnative preservice teachers overcome perceived inferiority rooted in the assumption of a native speaker ideal (Bernat, 2008; Suárez, 2000). Though all of this work has been extremely important in identifying how we, as teacher educators, can modify our content to challenge the monolingual bias, a remaining question is how we can modify our own pedagogical approaches in ways that provide preservice teachers with models of how to enact transformative language education in their own classrooms. That is, it is one thing for teacher educators to provide preservice teachers with tools for challenging the monolingual bias, and quite another for us to model how to counteract these biases through the pedagogical approaches that we enact in our own classrooms. An additional consideration for TESOL teacher education is how to prepare preservice teachers for the reality that the monolingual bias continues to dominate the profession. Many TESOL professionals who embrace the multilingual turn may find its underlying principles in conflict with their primary responsibility of preparing students to score well on standardized assessments based on nativespeaker norms (Hornberger & Link, 2012; Menken, 2008; Templer, 2004). In addition, TESOL professionals attempting to enact a translanguaging pedagogy may confront language policies that create barriers for such pedagogical approaches (Lin, 2013; Malsbary & Appelgate, 2016), as well as resistance from students and families who prefer an English Only model of instruction (Crawford, 2000; Lee, 1999). Many nonnative English–speaking teaching professionals will also continue to face hiring discrimination and feel pressured to sound like native speakers in order to make themselves employable (Clark & Paran, 2007; Flynn & Gulikers, 2001; Selvi, 2010). Teacher education programs must prepare preservice teachers to successfully balance their desire to challenge the monolingual bias with the need to accommodate the status quo. One framework that offers insights into how teacher educators may develop more linguistically responsive classrooms while also balancing the realities of dominant language ideologies is translingualism. Developed in rhetoric and composition studies, translingualism attempts to balance socialization into linguistic normativity with validation of students’ home language practices. A translingual orientation challenges monoglossic framing of languages as “(1) stable and (2) discrete from one another; (3) internally uniform; and . . . (4) each [having] its specific, fixed, and appropriate sphere of influence” (Horner, 2011, p. 58). Advocates of translingualism argue that language diversity should not be seen as a barrier, but rather as a resource that can facilitate more effective communication. As Horner, Lu, Royster, and Trimbur (2011) argue: When faced with difference in language, this approach asks: What might this difference do? How might it function expressively, rhetorically, communicatively? For whom, under what conditions, and how? The possibility of writer error is reserved as an interpretation of last resort. (pp. 303–304) FLORES AND ANEJA “Why Needs Hiding?” 445 Nonetheless, adopting a translingual orientation does not entail the acceptance of a free-for-all where people can simply do and say whatever they want. Instead, it emphasizes the negotiated nature of all communicative interactions and shifts language learning away from treating language as an object that students must acquire by following correct rules of grammar, and toward treating language as a malleable tool that students can appropriate to develop unique rhetorical styles. Canagarajah (2013) offers a glimpse into how this approach might be applied in a teacher education context. Specifically, he describes a course on teaching second-language writing where he introduced a translingual orientation to students and provided them with the opportunity to develop literacy autobiographies. He identifies four translingual macrostrategies that were used by his students when writing these literacy autobiographies: (1) envoicing, (2) recontextualization, (3) interactional strategies, and (4) entextualization. He describes how all four of these macrostrategies offered his students opportunities to negotiate meaning in ways that challenged dominant language ideologies. In particular, these projects allowed writers to balance their desire to deviate from monoglossic framings of language with their need to be understood by their audience. Therefore, these translingual macrostrategies offer a way to begin challenging the monolingual bias while also confronting the realities of the dominant language ideologies that continue to permeate society. It is this balance between accommodation and resistance that lies at the core of translingualism that we believe to be a productive starting point for empowering nonnative English–speaking preservice teachers pursuing degrees in TESOL. The Course The course, entitled “Introduction to Sociolinguistics in Education,” is required for all TESOL students at our university. In the spring of 2014, Nelson was the professor and Geeta the teaching assistant for two sections of the course with a total of 36 students. Of these students, 29 would traditionally be considered nonnative English speakers, with 28 of these being international students from China. The remaining 7 students would traditionally be considered native English speakers and were born and raised in the United States, though all but one of them considered themselves proficient in at least one language in addition to English. Most of the students had little to no prior teaching experience. The course pedagogy was informed by the sociocultural turn in teacher education that conceptualizes learning as “negotiated with people in what they do, through their experiences in the social practices, not just accumulated information,” and the processes of learning as “negotiated with people in what they do, through experiences in the social practices associated with particular activities” (Johnson, 2006, p. 237). Taking this stance as our starting point, we constructed the course syllabus so that it was not just providing students with information about the multilingual turn in applied linguistics, but also was allowing them to experience the multilingual turn through both our pedagogical approach and the various assignments they were expected to complete throughout the semester. In particular, 446 Research in the Teaching of English Volume 51 May 2017 the course was constructed so that the students would have ample opportunities to reflect on the ways their lived experiences had shaped their pedagogical stance related to language education (Cross, 2010), and to develop new narratives about their lived experience that would allow them to construct transformative pedagogical approaches that would be empowering both to them and their students (Johnson & Golombek, 2011). With this sociocultural perspective in mind, the course syllabus was divided into three major, overlapping strands, each with a culminating project. The first strand focused on introducing students to what it means to think like a sociolinguist. Students were introduced to the concept of language socialization (Heath, 1982) and the complex and often fraught language socialization processes that second language learners experience (Morita, 2004). They were also introduced to the concept of nation-state/colonial governmentality (Flores, 2013) as a way of historicizing the rise of monoglossic language ideologies, as well as communicative repertoires (Rymes, 2014) as a conceptual approach to the framing of language use that is not confined by these monoglossic language ideologies. Students were supported in constructing their own understandings of these concepts as they developed and implemented research studies at formal and informal teaching sites both on and off campus. The second strand of the course focused on applying sociolinguistic principles to their teaching. Students were introduced to scholars who sought to apply sociolinguistic principles to teaching (Alim, 2007) and were supported in constructing their own understanding of this pedagogical approach as they developed lesson plans implementing some of these principles for a community context of their choosing. The goal was for students to begin to imagine themselves as teachers who were applying sociolinguistic principles in their teaching. The knowledge that students were constructing in these two strands was shaped by a third strand that explicitly focused on translingualism. This included reading an author who engaged in translingual writing (Anzaldúa, 1987), as well as an academic engagement with translingual rhetorical strategies (Canagarajah, 2013). This strand culminated in each student developing a translingual project that engaged with these translingual rhetorical strategies. This project was completed in three drafts. Students’ first draft of their project was accompanied by a reflection that described how they used translingual rhetorical strategies to create their project. They shared this draft and reflection with a randomly assigned peer and exchanged feedback. They then completed a second draft of their project, along with a reflection on whether and how they had revised their project based on their peer’s feedback. They shared this second draft with one of us and we gave them feedback. Finally, they developed a final project, along with a reflection on whether and how they had revised their project based on our feedback. This third strand will be the focus of this article, with evidence from the first and second strands offered when appropriate to illustrate the ways that adopting a translingual orientation changed the pedagogical stance of the preservice teachers in the course. FLORES AND ANEJA “Why Needs Hiding?” 447 Methods This study is a naturalistic examination of classroom negotiation of literacy (Canagarajah, 2013). The major objectives of the study were twofold: (1) to document how students enacted and negotiated translingual literacy practices with one another and with the professor and teaching assistant, and (2) to document how students took up a translingual orientation in their other course projects and field placements. Thus, the data for this study were collected in two phases. The first phase occurred in spring 2014 during the implementation of the course. The second phase occurred in fall 2014 and spring 2015, when students conducted their supervised teaching. For the first phase of data collection, all 36 students consented to having their projects studied as part of our data analysis, including their three drafts and reflections as described above, as well as recordings of their meetings with their peers and with the professor or teaching assistant, and their other course projects. We adopted a hybrid inductive and deductive coding approach to theme development (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). We began with our deductive coding scheme, which included coding the projects and recordings for explicit discussion of key concepts from the course. We then went back through the projects and recordings, and developed inductive codes that were derived from the data itself. These inductive codes served as a way of keeping ourselves attuned to the sense-making of the students in ways that were not exclusively focused on the course content. The second phase of the study occurred in fall 2014 and spring 2015 as students engaged in their supervised teaching. For this second phase, 10 students— 9 international students and 1 domestic student—consented to continue their participation. We began this second phase by analyzing their other course projects to see whether and how they had applied a translingual orientation to their other work in our course. This was followed by open-ended focus groups and interviews that were designed to explore whether and how adopting a translingual orientation affected their pedagogical approaches during their fieldwork. In the second phase of the study, our deductive coding included all of the codes that emerged in the first phase, to show how students’ thinking about the issues raised in the first phase compared with their thinking about these issues once they were teaching their own classes. The consistent deductive coding across both phases of the study allowed us to systematically track how students adopted a translingual orientation in the course, as well as their efforts to adopt this orientation as they began to confront the practical considerations of their fieldwork experience. The inductive coding in the first phase allowed us to systematically identify crosscutting themes that resonated with students and that we may not have originally considered. Bringing all of these data together allows us to make strong claims about how our students adopted and/or resisted a translingual orientation in their course work and fieldwork. A limitation of our study was that we were unable to observe the students 448 Research in the Teaching of English Volume 51 May 2017 in their various field sites and had to rely on their reports of what they were doing in their classrooms. We, therefore, are not making claims about what the students were actually doing in their classrooms, but rather about the sense-making they were engaged in regarding the relevance of translingualism to their teaching. We also recognize that these findings are not generalizable to other contexts. However, our hope is that our findings offer insights to other teacher educators who are interested in adopting a translingual orientation in their courses. In order to provide a general sense of the themes that emerged through the project, Table 1 provides a code frequency analysis of both phases of the study. While space does not allow for a detailed discussion of every student, below we explore case studies of three students who participated in all phases of the study and who we feel illustrate well these cross-cutting themes. The discussion focuses TABLE 1. Code Frequency in Phase 1 and Phase 2 Code Phase 1 N = 108 Phase 2 N = 10 NEGOTIATION 84 10 IDENTITY 55 2 WESTERN EXPECTATION 44 0 ERRORS 28 2 COMMUNICATIVE REPERTOIRES 27 9 LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES 27 3 PUNCTUATION 26 1 AUTHOR’S INTENT 23 4 CULTURAL EXPRESSION 16 2 TEACHING 13 10 LANGUAGE OWNERSHIP 9 2 LANGUAGE MIXING 9 1 MULTIMODALITY 7 0 GENRE CONVENTIONS 4 0 TONE 4 0 NATIONALITY 3 2 WORD CHOICE 3 1 LIMITATIONS OF TRANSLINGUALISM 3 7 Note. Values for Phase 1 represent the number of student projects that were coded with each code. With 36 students and 3 different iterations of the project, the highest number possible is 108. Values for Phase 2 represent the number of students (out of 10) who mentioned each topic during our conversations with them. FLORES AND ANEJA “Why Needs Hiding?” 449 on prominent themes within their piece and their choice and justification for genre. We also focus on the ways that they applied the knowledge they gained from the translingual project to their other course projects as well as in their fieldwork. These case studies illustrate the general tension that all students who participated in the project expressed. On the one hand, all three of these students found adopting a translingual orientation empowering in making sense of their own lived experience as nonnative English speakers pursuing degrees in TESOL. On the other hand, all three of these students also struggled with extrapolating the practical implications of a translingual orientation when confronted with the daily realities of their own classrooms. Translingualism in Action Though each of the translingual projects students developed was different and all of the negotiations that students engaged in with one another and us were unique, certain themes quickly became apparent through our data analysis. Specifically, all of the students blended aspects of their communicative repertoires in ways that they had never been able to do before in an academic context. Many of the students engaged in these translingual practices as part of personal narratives that explicitly explored the relationship between language and identity. A few of the students decided to engage in fictionalized storytelling. A common theme through all of the projects was the disjuncture between the static nature of dominant linguistic categories, such as native and nonnative speakers, and the complex linguistic realities that defined their lived experience. These projects offered students the space to construct new ways of understanding language that resisted dominant, static categorizations. Yet, while students overwhelmingly supported adopting a translingual orientation, they struggled with the implications of adopting this orientation as nonnative English–speaking teaching professionals. Case 1: “Why Needs Hiding?” Our first case study focuses on Candace.2 In her autobiographical project, Candace explored the relationship among language, power, and identity, and described how the rising social status that came with her increasing English language proficiency also led her to internalize the superiority of English over Mandarin and local dialects.3 Here, she reflects on the impact of this internalization on her identity development: However, what I also want to show is the contradictory nature of the language power. For one hand, this power of language positively motivates me to learn more standard languages through mimicking and repeating. One the other hand, this power of language rapes me of the chances to speak dialects and so-called stigmatized languages. This power of language puts me in a dilemma where I am losing myself and my identity in order to fully take advantage of the language power. I try to use my voices to argue that we are actually somehow controlled by this power of language. (Candace, Reflection 1) 450 Research in the Teaching of English Volume 51 May 2017 In the conclusion of her translingual piece, Candace writes that as a bilingual person who straddles multiple, seemingly discrete languages and identities, she should make an effort to break out of the dichotomy of “us” versus “them” by embracing her multiple identities rather than “hiding” her own and “mimicking” others. She extends this personal insight toward an understanding of the relationship of language and power in the broader society and envisions a world of linguistic egalitarianism, wondering, “Why not be tolerant to Mandarin in Hong Kong? Why not view everyone as a valued self with their valued language?” (Candace, Draft 1). Candace negotiates the complexities of language, power, and identity not only in her explicit message, but also through her use of translingual writing strategies. For example, she chooses to literally translate some phrases—for example, “to be ‘洋气’ (Foreign air)? Or to be ‘土鳖’ (country turtle)”—in order to retain the feel of the Mandarin original while still presenting it in a way that remains accessible to readers who may not understand Mandarin. By strategically using her knowledge of English and Mandarin, Candace is able to construct a translingual subjectivity that not only illustrates her bilingual proficiencies but also accommodates readers in a US context who are unable to read Mandarin. In addition to literal translation, Candace sometimes chooses semantic translations as she uses idioms in Shanghainese and Mandarin in different contexts to explore their social implications. For instance, when reflecting on her use of Shanghainese, she writes: I also remember how I was more popular among my Shanghainese students when I used specific Shanghai prefix “是伐啦? (right?)” in the classroom teaching. (Candace, Draft 1) Here, a semantic translation (“right?”) functions as an interactional strategy to facilitate the reader’s understanding of the utterance in context. Later, as she reflects on the feeling of mimicking others’ languages and losing her own, she writes: On the road of empowering myself with standard and highly valued language, I am somehow 东施效颦 (A monster who mimics Snow Princess’ smile but ends as a failure). However, the fact is that, when we keep mimicking and mimicking others’ languages, I lost our own languages. (Candace, Draft 1) In her first reflection, she writes that she chooses to use Mandarin here as a way to “attack the behavior of over-mimicking of the standard English or those highlyreputed languages such as Shanghai dialects.” By actively using Mandarin, she is resisting a societal preference for English and Shanghainese, two languages that she perceives as being in positions of legitimacy and power in the first half of her translingual piece. Furthermore, she chooses to translate semantically for readers who are unable to read Mandarin or are unfamiliar with the background of this phrase. Candace blends multiple semiotic resources, including different languages, text colors and styles, formatting strategies, and images throughout her translingual FLORES AND ANEJA “Why Needs Hiding?” 451 writing piece. In doing so, she resists monoglossic language ideologies and instead embraces her use of multiple languages as expressions of her identity: I use different language and dialects to convey my inner voices. One message I try to convey is that language should be a weapon and power to state out our identity and voice; however, language shouldn’t be the weapon to disdain other languages in order to empower their own ones. . . . I strongly attack the idea of distinguishing languages via nationalities, economic development and geography. (Candace, Reflection 1) She also resists the power dynamic inherent to a classroom context—that of a professor over students. In an individual interview, Nelson asked her about a line toward the end of her piece that used unconventional English grammar: Language is a power? Why needs hiding, why needs mimicking? Why not value the country turtle? (Candace, Draft 2) In her final reflection, written after this interview, Candace explains why she chose to retain this unconventional structure despite Flores’s question: I used the Chinese mind to write and in our languages we don’t use “do” in the questions. Here, because the topic is related with whether I control the language or am controlled by the language, I want to show the tension between myself and my language. Furthermore, I want to show the agency of myself and I am kind of in the middle of two languages. Because of these two reasons, I choose to retain this Chinglish version of the language to show my identity as a multilingual and an English language learner who wants to preserve her Chinese identity. (Candace, Reflection 3) While “Chinglish” is often used in pejorative ways (Lu, 2004), here Candace is reclaiming this term in order to describe and validate her experiences as a bilingual user of both English and Chinese. In this way, an utterance that might traditionally be considered ungrammatical English caused by negative interference from Chinese is reframed as an entextualization strategy meant to elicit a particular reaction from the reader. Rather than becoming a marker of deficiency or incomplete acquisition, this “Chinglish” utterance instead is a strategy employed by an agentive language user in order to position herself as a multilingual who is not simply “mimicking” the English language practices socially constructed as grammatical, powerful, or legitimate, but who is instead reconstructing English in ways that allow her to reflect her Chinese identity. During the course of the semester, Candace began to apply the insights she gained from the translingual project to a sociolinguistic research project in her fieldwork placement at a local nonprofit adult ESL literacy class. All of her students were African immigrants who spoke multiple languages but had little experience with formal schooling. In her analysis of the classroom’s interactions, she identified a failed attempt at adopting a translingual orientation, in which she instructed students to write down a translation of a word in their L1. When Candace asked 452 Research in the Teaching of English Volume 51 May 2017 one student to translate a word another student replied, “How could he do that? We never went to school!” Yet, rather than abandon a translingual orientation, Candace used her analysis of the students’ fluid language practices during their oral interactions with one another to adapt a translingual orientation to this particular context. Together with two of her classmates, Candace devised a strategy that they termed translingual audio-diaries as part of their sociolinguistics in education project; this strategy offered students the opportunity to use their entire communicative repertoire to create audio-recordings describing their previous experiences with linguistic discrimination. In the following term, Candace further refined these translingual audio-diaries. She had her students make recordings of themselves speaking in a language of their choice and then working first to transliterate their speech into the Roman alphabet and next to translate it into English. While her students were primarily interested in learning Standardized American English and would likely have reacted negatively to her deliberately encouraging “ungrammatical” use (such as “why needs hiding?”), Candace was able to make them see how their home languages could provide a valuable foundation for their development of English literacy. By isolating orthographic concerns (e.g., learning letter-sound pairings, forming letters on a page), students were able to focus on discrete skills without getting distracted or overwhelmed by English features (e.g., meaning, vocabulary, unfamiliar phonemes, etc.) not directly related to orthography. As a result, students were able to develop confidence in using the Roman alphabet by using their home language as a bridge to English literacy. In summary, Candace used the translingual project as an opportunity to explore the tensions that she experienced as a bilingual user of Chinese and English. In order to express these tensions, Candace relied on a number of translingual rhetorical strategies that included conscious deviations from what her professor indicated as conventional grammatical structures. In her teaching, both during that semester and the subsequent semester, Candace was able to use the insights she had gained from adopting a translingual orientation to help her students draw on their home language practices to facilitate their literacy skills and English language development. This is a strategy that Candace claimed she would not have considered if she hadn’t been given the opportunity to explore her own translingual identity and its relevance to language teaching. Case 2: “Where Are You from EXACTLY?” Our second case study focuses on Joy. Joy’s project, like Candace’s, was autobiographical in the sense that she used it to reflect on her own language use. Specifically, Joy considers the manner in which languages, nativeness, and linguistic ownership are often tied to specific geographic areas: My project begins with a question many people ask me “where are you from EXACTLY?” when they find me speaking different dialects and ends with my answer to the question “what language I speak does not equal where I come from”. I position myself as being a legitimate user of three dialects and do not associate one language with one specific city. (Joy, Draft 1) FLORES AND ANEJA “Why Needs Hiding?” 453 Joy resists the idea that any one of her languages is more “authentic” than the others, or that she is in some way less qualified or entitled to communicate in some of these languages. In her first reflection, she writes, “I see all the dialects as my own languages.” She builds on this stance to complicate the meaning of the question, where are you from?, since people who ask this question are often, in fact, inquiring about other details, as she explains in her interview with Nelson: The question “where are you from” can mean different things. If people say, “where were you born,” it’s a way to say that. If people think “where are you from” means “where did you grow up,” if people mean “where did you spend most of your time” or “where are you studying” or “where are you working,” it can mean different things, but if people want to know where are you from just because the language you speak, I don’t think that makes sense, so that’s the main idea I want to convey in this project. (Joy, Interview) Joy was the only student who used a non-text-based medium for her project, instead producing an audio-visual presentation in Microsoft PowerPoint. She chose this medium primarily because some of the dialects she speaks do not have a written form, and she could use PowerPoint’s multimedia format to present recordings of the languages to her audience. Capitalizing on this multimodality, two of her slides are particularly salient. The first (Figure 1) features her use of digitally altered screenshots of three simultaneously occurring Facebook events, one for each focal language: She justifies this decision in her first reflection: FIGURE 1. Joy’s Facebook events 454 Research in the Teaching of English Volume 51 May 2017 People may think only those who can speak the dialect of a region should attend the gathering and one person belongs to one city. By saying that I plan to going to Chongqingese gathering, Shanghaiese gathering and Ningboese gathering, I am opposing monolingualism. (Joy, Reflection 1) It is also important to note that in the original project Joy also relied on the interactional strategy of using a designated color for each language (blue for Chongqingese, yellow for Shanghainese, and red for Ningboese), which she maintains throughout her translingual project. To reinforce the overlap of her languages and identities, she includes the slide shown in Figure 2. Here, she visually represents the manner in which her languages interact among locations, social and academic contexts, and interlocutors, through the use of overlapping circles whose coloring corresponds to each language. In a subsequent conversation, she explains that she gave each language and city a designated color because “this is how people see my languages.” However, she goes on to explain that this slide was intended to display the languages’ interaction: In this slide, I show that my languages interact—the colors are mixed. I made this intentionally to show how my languages interact with each other. They cannot be separated. And I wanted to move towards a hybrid and complex mixture of languages so you see the combination of sounds and languages I speak. (Joy, Interview) In this way, Joy is able to juxtapose the static nature of dominant linguistic categories with the dynamic nature of her lived experience. FIGURE 2. Joy’s overlapping circles FLORES AND ANEJA “Why Needs Hiding?” 455 Like Candace, Joy sought to adopt a translingual orientation in both her other course assignments and her fieldwork placement. She conducted her sociolinguistic research project in her fieldwork placement. Here she used a translingual orientation to critique the power relations that emerged between a nonnative English– speaking teacher and a native English–speaking teaching assistant. She also used a translingual orientation to provide a counter-narrative that highlighted the many skills of nonnative English speakers. Along with two of her classmates, she also applied a translingual orientation to her sociolinguistics in education project. The group developed a project in which students at a university ESL program would have the opportunity to develop translingual advertisements to highlight tourist attractions in their country of origin. They noted that the goal of this project was “to inform students that their multicultural background and multilingual resources . . . can be their extra resources to draw on in their academic study.” Joy continued to attempt to apply a translingual orientation to her teaching in the year following the course, as she student-taught in two different settings. The first was a Mandarin class where the majority of her students were adolescents whose parents were first-generation immigrants from China and who spoke Cantonese, Mandarin, Fuxinese, or some combination thereof in addition to English. In this setting, perhaps because students often felt themselves in between American and Chinese cultures, Joy found translingual strategies useful for engaging students’ interest and encouraging them to produce new kinds of language and cultural artifacts representative of their Chinese American experience. For example, students in her class read a story about a very smart boy named 司马光 who used a sharp rock to break a water tank in which his friend was drowning. As a follow-up activity, instead of having students recite the text (as she confessed she might have done before being exposed to a translingual approach), she had students create their own versions of the story using a set of Mandarin structures that she provided and supplementing them with English as needed. Then, students worked together to translate their stories to produce a final product that was in Mandarin. In reflecting on this project, Joy said: In one of the groups’ students, he becomes an old granny. In another, he becomes a snake. But if I told them to use Mandarin only, they never would have come up with these stories because I haven’t taught them the words for it. . . . My language class is more interactive and my students are more motivated. Most of them are forced by their parents to come to Sunday Chinese school. (Joy, Interview) Because students were developing understandings of themselves as translingual and transnational individuals, it was significant and beneficial for them to engage with language in ways that reflected these identities and their formation. While these strategies were successful in this context, Joy noted that her adolescent Chinese-heritage students were already highly proficient in English, a language of power and wider communication in the Philadelphia area. She wondered whether such strategies would be as successful in her second teaching context, a nonprofit adult ESL class focused primarily on what she called “survival English.” 456 Research in the Teaching of English Volume 51 May 2017 In this second setting, students were interested in practical daily and vocational uses for language, including filling out job applications, going to the doctor, purchasing groceries, and so on. For many students, the twice-weekly class that she taught was the only English instruction, and in some cases the only English communication, that they experienced. As a result, students preferred to receive as much English exposure as possible in that time. A commitment to a translingual orientation was further complicated by the explicit English Only policy of the nonprofit itself. Like Candace, Joy used the translingual project as an opportunity to explore the relationship between her languages and her identity. In particular, she was able to use this project as an opportunity to speak back to the dominant narrative that connects particular languages with particular places and to illustrate the ways the complexities of her lived experience challenge this dominant notion. She was able to use the insights she gained from this project to develop a new approach to working with heritage learners of Chinese, seeking to build on their bilingual identities by providing them with translingual spaces where they could use their entire communicative repertoire as part of their sense-making in the class. However, she did not feel that such an approach would be appropriate in her work at a nonprofit adult ESL class with a strict English Only policy. This begs the question of how we can support students in adopting a translingual orientation in contexts with strict English Only policies—a question that is also explored in the next case study. Case 3: “People MOUNTAIN People SEA” Our final case study focuses on Yolanda. In contrast with both Candace and Joy, who presented explicitly reflective pieces, Yolanda chose to develop a diary describing a recent trip she had taken to Orlando, Florida. She primarily used English and Mandarin, along with strong visual cues, to describe her experiences and reactions. In her first reflection, she justifies her choice of genre primarily through the importance of building a relationship with her readers: I hoped to create a relaxing and burden-free readership with my potential reviewers. A mini-diary is much less academic and serious than autobiography. Also, diary could be easier to manipulate if I wanted to insert some interactional and emotional sentences to make it more intimate to readers . . . maybe even enabling them to recollect their sweet memories of travelling before. . . . I tried to establish a co-membership with my potential readers since everyone must have traveled to somewhere before. (Yolanda, Reflection 1) Yolanda emphasizes the significance of creating a “relaxing,” “intimate,” “burdenfree” experience for her readers and observes that a diary or autobiographical genre can ease this process. In her translingual project, she adhered to this genre by using recontextualization strategies like writing in the first person and dividing the entries into days. Through the majority of her piece, Yolanda used either Mandarin characters or conventional English (in addition to other semiotic resources such as pictures, capitalization, text size, and so on). However, at times, she chose to blend these languages creatively to capture aspects of her experience in ways that could not FLORES AND ANEJA “Why Needs Hiding?” 457 be conveyed through just one language or the other. One such case was her use of the phrase “people mountain people sea,” which is a direct translation from a Mandarin idiom that roughly translates as “very crowded”. In her first reflection, Yolanda writes that in this phrase, she strategically uses Mandarin and English elements of her communicative repertoire to vividly illustrate how crowded the parks were while also incorporating an element of humor and identification with her Chinese background. In her second reflection, she explains that after receiving feedback from her peer partner, she added the clip-art images of people (see Figure 3) as an interactional strategy to help readers who were unfamiliar with 人 (Mandarin: “person”) or the idiom “people mountain people sea” understand the intended meaning. Interestingly, she also notes that she only used this interactional strategy for the first two occurrences of the phrase: I did not add the pictures to every “people mountain people sea” in the rest of the text partially because I want my readers could be socialized into my way of translingual writing. I hope they could frame the meaning of “crowdedness” whenever they came across this code-meshing phrase in the text. (Yolanda, Reflection 2) In this way, she provided a level of support to readers who do not understand Mandarin, while still expecting them to make an effort to familiarize themselves with her ways of communicating. Yolanda also had to decide whether to make changes based on the professor’s feedback. For instance, she decided to change her first sentence from “in the past spring break” in her second draft to “during the past spring break” in her third draft: I changed the preposition “in” to “during”. Prof. Nelson said that “in the past spring break” was not conventional. I did not want my readers to struggle with the first sentence because of the unconventional language use, therefore, I immediately modified it into “during the past spring break”. (Yolanda, Reflection 3) FIGURE 3. Yolanda includes clip-art images of people 458 Research in the Teaching of English Volume 51 May 2017 In this case, Yolanda chose to use what the professor suggested as conventional English in order to facilitate her readers’ understanding of the first sentence. However, when the professor questioned her later decision to describe the price of a buffet on her first night in Orlando as “friendly,” she chose not to revise this wording: I did take his feedback into consideration before I wrote my 3rd draft. The reason I didn’t change my third draft is . . . resistance to revise, and also that errors are subjective. As long as I can justify my decisions, then why should I change it? It’s my linguistic identity of a bilingual user of both Chinese and English. (Yolanda, Reflection 3) Yolanda here asserts herself as a legitimate user of both English and Mandarin, and emphasizes that authorial intent can take precedence over conventional, often monolingual language use. This stance differs markedly from a traditional model of academic writing in which the writer is expected to communicate clearly and unambiguously while the reader, the professor in this case, should invest minimal effort in decoding students’ writing. Yolanda applied the insights that she gained from her translingual project to other course assignments. For their culminating sociolinguistics in education project, her group encouraged students to use translingual strategies to develop presentations about their countries of origin. In the reflection that they included with their project they wrote that their hope was that adopting a translingual orientation would help both the presenters and the audience to “engage in the negotiation and co-construction of meaning, building up a new recognition of language as flexible and semiotic elements rather than as composites of rules.” In her sociolinguistics research project, Yolanda examined the ways that a Mandarin teacher engaged in translanguaging with her students in order to enhance their language learning and develop a more egalitarian relationship. Both projects demonstrated Yolanda’s growing awareness of the implications of a translingual orientation that she developed through engaging in translingual projects of her own. In the semester following the course, Yolanda continued to develop her translingual orientation to teaching in a community-based adult ESL program. Most of her students were highly educated in their home countries, and many were only intending to be in the United States for a short time. While her institution explicitly prohibited languages other than English in the classroom, when reflecting on her teaching philosophy and practices, Yolanda observed that the translingual orientation she had learned about in the sociolinguistics class had affected her perception of her students and their language use. She noted that after the translingual writing project, she was less impulsive in “correcting” what she perceived to be students’ “errors” and instead sought to understand why they were using language in the way that they were. In an interview, she provided the example of “I very often go grocery shopping on weekends,” which she argued would more conventionally be said, “I go grocery shopping on weekends very often”: When I was teaching time prepositions on, in, and at, one student said, “I very often go grocery shopping on weekends.” Well, that student is also Chinese, and the transliteration of Chinese is exactly this word order. So it helped me rethink the role of the students’ L1 FLORES AND ANEJA “Why Needs Hiding?” 459 in the classroom. I did that in my project too, like saying, “the price is so friendly” and it was intentional. And this would be helpful even if I don’t share students’ L1. Thinking about the cause of an error is important, is it intentional or is it L1 or is it something else? (Yolanda, Interview) Whether one word order is indeed more conventional than the other is less relevant in this context than Yolanda’s attempt to treat this discrepancy as an opportunity to become more familiar with students and their linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Her focus shifted from understandings of “correct” and “incorrect” to intentionality and attempting to understand the social implications and consequences of her students’ linguistic choices. This shift in Yolanda’s approach to students’ language use was all the more significant because the institutional constraints of her teaching setting did not facilitate the use of languages other than English in the classroom. As Yolanda described it: The institution does not allow us to use languages other than English, so my class is really an English Only class. If we hear someone using another language, we are supposed to direct them back to English use. (Yolanda, Interview) Like Joy, she also observed that students themselves may be opposed to using their home languages in class, primarily because of limited opportunities to communicate in English outside of the classroom: A second issue is they come for two hours once a week. Some students will say, “No. I come here for two hours a week to learn English. Why do you ask me to do something other than English?” This may depend on students and institution. (Yolanda, Interview) While Yolanda could not overtly draw on her students’ home languages or backgrounds as resources in the classroom, she still felt that adopting a translingual orientation changed how she related to her students and, in particular, how she approached “error correction” in her classroom—unconventional structures were no longer categorically “wrong” but rather provided valuable insights into her students’ experiences. Thus, a translingual approach can still benefit teacher-candidates and their students in the classroom, even in explicitly English Only settings. As in the first two case studies, Yolanda also used the translingual project as an opportunity to experiment with language in ways that expressed her bilingual identity. Unlike Candace and Joy, Yolanda did not do a traditional autobiographical piece, but instead decided to focus on recounting a story about a trip to Orlando, Florida. Despite this, she was still able to explore the relationship between language and identity, seeking to embrace the constant interplay between Chinese and English that shaped her daily life. She also felt empowered to disagree with the professor and insist that he accommodate her rhetorical style and not expect her to do all of the work. In the next semester, she tried to reproduce this dynamic with her own students by resisting the role of an all-knowing expert and seeking to approach “errors” as opportunities for negotiation with her students. The fact that she was able to do this in a context with a strict English Only policy indicates 460 Research in the Teaching of English Volume 51 May 2017 that even in contexts where translanguaging is not permitted, a translingual lens can profoundly affect teachers’ teaching philosophy and classroom practices. (Re)Orienting TESOL Teacher Education Currently there is a strong disjunction between the multilingual turn in applied linguistics and the pedagogical practices that are present in TESOL teacher education programs. At the theoretical level, applied linguists have called into question the monolingual bias that has permeated the field since its inception in the 1960s and have challenged the privileging of native speakers as ultimate authorities on the language. Though these theoretical contributions have begun to make their way into the course work of TESOL teacher education programs, the pedagogical practices of many of these programs remain unchanged. One consequence of this is the continued marginalization of the increasing numbers of nonnative English–speaking teachers who are entering these programs. In this article, we have made a case for translingualism as an overarching conceptual framework that provides insights into how the pedagogical practices of TESOL teacher education programs can be reshaped in ways that align with the multilingual turn. A translingual orientation shifts the conversation from identifying and correcting “errors” toward negotiating meaning across difference. In a context of essays, exams, and grades, adopting such an orientation is easier said than done. In a context where nonnative English speakers will inevitably confront hiring discrimination and cannot necessarily afford to reject conventional grammatical structures, adopting such an orientation may seem daunting if not impossible. Yet, our experience with the translingual projects described in this article indicates that providing even a small space for this orientation in our TESOL teacher education programs can go a long way. The translingual projects offered students an opportunity to analyze the world and themselves in a different way. This new view of the world significantly changed how they approached their subsequent fieldwork experiences, even in contexts where the use of languages other than English was strictly forbidden. Our TESOL teacher education programs are becoming increasingly linguistically diverse. This linguistic diversity includes multiple languages alongside multiple language varieties, such as World Englishes. How would TESOL teacher education look if we provided spaces for students to develop projects that explore this linguistic diversity through a translingual lens? How might this help these programs more effectively prepare students—regardless of their language backgrounds—to become agents of change in challenging monoglossic language ideologies? The linguistic diversity is already there. Why needs hiding? NOTES 1. While we acknowledge the ideological roots and empirical ambiguities associated with dichotomized notions of nativeness and nonnativeness, throughout this paper we use these terms because FLORES AND ANEJA “Why Needs Hiding?” 461 the majority of the students identified themselves explicitly as NNESTs, and this positionality affected their self-perceptions, their writing projects, and their teaching. 2. Pseudonyms are used for all research participants. 3. All three of our participants refer to local varieties spoken in their community as dialects. Though these language varieties are not all mutually intelligible with Mandarin, we have decided to use the terminology preferred by the participants. REFERENCES ALIM, H. S. (2007). Critical hip-hop language pedagogies: Combat, consciousness, and the cultural politics of communication. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 6, 161176. ANZALDÚA, G. (1987). Borderlands/La frontera: The new mestiza. San Francisco: Ann Lute Books. BARRATT, L. (2010). Strategies to prepare teachers equally for equity. In A. Mahboob (Ed.), The NNEST lens: Non-native English speakers in TESOL (pp. 180–201). New Castle, United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. BERNAT, E. (2008). Towards a pedagogy of empowerment: The case of ‘impostor syndrome’ among pre-service non-native speaker teachers in TESOL. English Language Teacher Education and Development Journal, 11, 1–8. BONFIGLIO, T. (2010). Mother tongues and nations: The invention of the native speaker. New York: De Gruyter. BRADY, B., & GULIKERS, G. (2004). Enhancing the MA in TESOL practicum course for nonnative English-speaking student teachers. In L. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience (pp. 206–230). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. BRAINE, G. (2010). Nonnative speaker English teachers: Research, pedagogy, and professional growth. New York: Routledge. CANAGARAJAH, S. (2013). Negotiating translingual literacy: An enactment. Research in the Teaching of English, 48, 40–67. CLARK, E., & PARAN, A. (2007). The employ- ability of non-native speaker teachers of EFL: A UK survey. System, 35, 407–430. CRAWFORD, J. (2000). At war with diversity: US language policy in an age of anxiety. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters. CROSS, R. (2010). Language teaching as sociocultural activity: Rethinking language teacher practice. Modern Language Journal, 94, 434–452. CRYSTAL, D. (2012). English as a global language. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. CUMMINS, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 221–240. FEREDAY, J., & MUIR-COCHRANE, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5, 80–92. FLORES, N. (2013). Silencing the subaltern: Nation-state/colonial governmentality and bilingual education in the United States. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 10, 263–287. FLYNN, K., & GULIKERS, G. (2001). Issues in hiring nonnative English-speaking professionals to teach English as a second language. CATESOL Journal, 13, 151–161. G ARCÍA , O. (2008). Multilingual language awareness and teacher education. In J. Cenoz & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education: Vol. 6. Knowledge about language (2nd ed., pp. 385–400). Berlin: Springer. 462 Research in the Teaching of English GARCÍA, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. GARCÍA, O., & WEI, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. GRADDOL, D. (2006). The future of English. London: British Council. GUTIÉRREZ, K. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 148–164. HEATH, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society, 11(1), 49–76. HORNBERGER, N. (2004). The continua of biliteracy and the bilingual educator: Educational linguistics in practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7, 155–171. Volume 51 May 2017 language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 486–509. JØRGENSEN, J. N. (2008). Copenhagen Studies in Bilingualism, The Køge Series: Vols. K15– K16. Languaging. Nine years of poly-lingual development of young Turkish-Danish grade school students (Vols. 1–2). Copenhagen, Denmark: University of Copenhagen. KACHRU, B. (1994). Monolingual bias in SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 795–800. KAMHI-STEIN, L. (1999). Preparing non-native professionals in TESOL: Implications for teacher education programs. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp. 145–158). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. KUMARAVADIVELU, B. (2016). The decolonial option in English language teaching: Can the subaltern act? TESOL Quarterly, 50, 66–85. HORNBERGER, N., & LINK, H. (2012). Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual classrooms: A biliteracy lens. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 261–278. LEE, I. (2004). Preparing nonnative English speakers for EFL teaching in Hong Kong. In L. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience (pp. 230–251). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. HORNER, B. (2011). Relocating basic writing. Journal of Basic Writing, 30(2), 5–23. LEE, S. (1999). The linguistic minority parents’ perception of bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal, 23, 199–210. HORNER, B., LU, M., ROYSTER, J., & TRIMBUR, J. (2011). Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English, 73, 303–321. JACQUEMET, M. (2005). Transidiomatic practices: Language and power in the age of globalization. Language and Communication, 25, 257–277. JIMÉNEZ, R., DAVID, S., FAGAN, K., RISKO, V., PACHECO, M., PRAY, L., & GONZALES, M. (2015). Using translation to drive conceptual development for students becoming literate in English as an additional language. Research in the Teaching of English, 49, 248–271. LIN, A. (2013). Toward paradigmatic change in TESOL methodologies: Building plurilingual pedagogies from the ground up. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 521–545. LIU, D. (1998). Ethnocentrism in TESOL: Teacher education and the neglected needs of international TESOL students. ELT Journal, 52, 3–10. LU, M. (2004). An essay on the work of composition: Composing English against the order of fast capitalism. College Composition and Communication, 56, 16–50. JOHNSON, K. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 235–257. LUCAS, T., VILLEGAS, A., & FREEDSON-GONZALEZ, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 361–373. JOHNSON, K., & GOLOMBEK, P. (2011). The transformative power of narrative in second MALSBARY, C. B., & APPELGATE, M. H. (2016). Working downstream: A beginning EL FLORES AND ANEJA “Why Needs Hiding?” 463 teacher negotiating policy and practice. Language Policy, 15, 27–47. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. MAY, S. (ED.). (2014). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education. New York: Routledge. RAMPTON, B. (1990). Displacing the ‘native speaker’: Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELT Journal, 44, 97–100. MENKEN, K. (2008). English learners left behind. Clevendon, England: Multilingual Matters. RYMES, B. (2014). Communicating beyond language: Everyday encounters with diversity. New York: Routledge. MIGNOLO, W. (2011). The darker side of Western modernity: Global futures, decolonial options. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. SAMIMY, K., & BRUTT-GRIFFLER, J. (1999). To be a native or non-native speaker: Perceptions of “non-native” students in a graduate TESOL program. In G. Braine (Ed.), Nonnative educators in English language teaching (pp. 127–144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. MORITA, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 573–603. ORTEGA, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63, 1–24. PAVLENKO, A. (2003). “I never knew I was a bilingual”: Reimagining teacher identities in TESOL. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2, 251–268. PENNYCOOK, A. (2002). Mother tongues, governmentality, and protectionism. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2002(154), 11–28. PENNYCOOK, A., & OTSUJI, E. (2015). Metrolingualism: Language in the city. New York: Routledge. PHILLIPSON, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. SELVI, A. F. (2010). All teachers are equal, but some teachers are more equal than others: Trend analysis of job advertisements in English language teaching. WATESOL NNEST Caucus Annual Review, 1, 156–181. SUÁREZ, J. (2000). ‘Native’ and ‘non-native’: Not only a question of terminology. Humanising Language Teaching, 2(6). Retrieved from http://www.hltmag.co.uk/nov00/mart.htm TEMPLER, B. (2004). High-stakes testing at high fees: Notes and queries on the international English proficiency assessment market. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 2, 189–226. YILDIZ, Y. (2013). Beyond the mother tongue: The postmonolingual condition. New York: Fordham University Press. Nelson Flores is an assistant professor of educational linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education. His research seeks to denaturalize raciolinguistic ideologies that inform current conceptualizations of language education. Geeta Aneja earned her doctorate in educational linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education. Her research explores post-structuralist approaches to the native-nonnative dichotomy, how native speakerist ideologies are recreated in various contexts in applied linguistics and TESOL, and the material effects of such ideologies on practitioners, researchers, and students. Initial submission: November 16, 2015 Final revision submitted: May 11, 2016 Accepted: June 1, 2016