This article examines the role of translanguaging practices and pedagogies in two-way dual language classrooms. Much of the recent expansion of dual language programs across the US has occurred in mid-sized cities and rural communities where English monolingualism is the norm; however, the extant literature on flexible language practices in bilingual learning spaces has largely ignored the implications of translanguaging in these contexts. This case study of a Midwestern dual language classroom provides evidence that flexible language practices can both bolster and hinder the aims of two-way programs. Drawing from these findings, I argue for the creation of a critical translanguaging space, a sociolinguistic learning environment that interrogates micro- and macro-level power flows in the classroom and establishes strategic spaces for language use.

Translanguaging remains a timely and important topic in bi/multilingual education. The most recent turn in translanguaging scholarship involves attention to translanguaging in context in response to critiques of translanguaging as a universally empowering educational practice. In this paper, seven early career translanguaging scholars propose a framework for researching translanguaging “in context,” drawing on the Douglas Fir Group's (2016) transdisciplinary framework for language acquisition. Examining translanguaging in context entails paying attention to who in a classroom wields power, as a result of their greater proficiency in societally valued languages, their more “standard” ways of speaking these languages, their greater familiarity with academic literacies valued at school, and/or their more “legitimate” forms of translanguaging. In our framework for researching translanguaging in context, we propose three principles. The first principle is obvious: (1) not to do so apolitically. The other two principles describe a synergy between ethnographic research and teacher‐researcher collaborative research: (2) ethnographic research can assess macro‐level language ideologies and enacted language hegemonies at the micro‐ and meso levels, and (3) teacher‐researcher collaborations must create and sustain inclusive, equitable classroom social orders and alternative academic norms different from the ones documented to occur in context if left by chance.

We cast our lens on intersectional networks of identity negotiated by young children in immigrant families. Although some scholars discuss identity construction, we reference identity negotiation to capture the active, strategic, and agential work that we witnessed in our study. We begin by synthesizing relevant research on children’s identity negotiation. We then explore theoretical frames that form the basis for our claims related to intersectional identity negotiation. These 3-year longitudinal collective case studies of Carlos and Liz involved observations, spoken data, and student-created artifacts (e.g., writing samples, maps, photographs, drawings). Data sources were designed to highlight literacy practices and identity construction across time. The cases of Carlos and Liz reveal intersectional networks of identity negotiation that entail positionings relative to various dimensions of self including language, gender, technological practices, nationality, and race. We maintain that attending to the identity negotiations of children in immigrant families reveals sophisticated, agential, and strategic negotiations on the part of children.

In this conceptual article, the authors introduce the Translanguaging Framework for Deaf Education (TFDE), drawing upon two perspectives on language and learning: crip linguistics and critical translanguaging space. The TFDE is a retheorization of the Language Zone, a pedagogical framework for supporting language learning in deaf education, and is designed to support educators to approach language use and users from an asset-oriented perspective. In line with this stance, the TFDE validates the linguistic resources deaf students bring to the classroom and encourages students’ full use of their communicative repertoires for meaning making, while also working to expand their linguistic resources and increase communicative flexibility. Examples of translanguaging pedagogical practices with deaf students, such as coming to a shared understanding, building metalinguistic knowledge, and honing communication for external audiences, are explained and illustrated through classroom scenarios with deaf students. Readers are also provided with tools for critically analyzing the social context to ensure accessible and equitable language environments for deaf students and to protect spaces for the use of minoritized languages such as ASL.