A considerable amount of research in L2 learning contexts has demonstrated the advantages of bi/multilingual practices for enriching learning (e.g., Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain(eds), 2009; DiCamilla and Antón, 2012; Cheng, 2013; May(ed.), 2014; Sali, 2014; Levine, 2015; Sert, 2015; van Compernolle, 2015; Al Masaeed, 2018, 2020, 2022c; Larsen-Freeman, 2018). May(ed.)’s (2014) edited volume, for example, convincingly criticized monolingual ideologies in second language acquisition (SLA) and highlights multilingual practices as the norm of our modern era.

Therefore, the term translanguaging has gained significant support to highlight the ways in which bilingual and multilingual practices can be used for the purpose of meaning-making and for challenging monolingual ideologies in bilingual education and L2 contexts (e.g., García, 2009; Turner and Lin, 2017; Al Masaeed, 2020). However, translanguaging is a relatively recent development in the field, with a strong but sometimes controversial relationship to code-switching. Code-switching and translanguaging are both multilingual phenomena occurring in multilingual societies and L2 contexts. While some traditions see code-switching as a sub-component of translanguaging, others do not. Both have potential functions in multilingual classrooms through the use of two or more languages or language varieties. Translanguaging refers to the multilingual practices that both learners and teachers deploy to “engage in complex and fluid discursive practices that include, at times, the home language practices of students in order to make sense of teaching and learning, to communicate and appropriate subject knowledge, and to develop academic language practices” (García and Wei, 2014, p 112).

Moreover, the term translanguaging is multifaceted and has been conceptualized and used by researchers and practitioners in various ways. For example, two main models of translanguaging have been proposed to explain the cognitive processing of language and how multilingualism functions. These models are the unitary and the integrated models of translanguaging. The unitary model argues that “bilingualism and multilingualism, despite their importance as sociocultural concepts, have no correspondence in a dual or multiple linguistic system” (Otheguy et al., 2019, p. 625). According to this model, code-switching is a separate phenomenon from translanguaging because it considers code-switching as a dual competence model based on two separate linguistic systems (Otheguy et al., 2015). In other words, some of the leading scholars mentioned above (namely, Garcia, Wei, and Otheguy) have adopted a deconstructivist proposal that rejects the existence of named languages and, by extension, questions the psychological reality of bilingualism (see García et al., 2021, for details).

On the other hand, the integrated model assumes that the internal linguistic system of the individual is structured with separate lexical systems for each language and overlapping grammatical systems which share language components including phonetic, morphological and phonological features (MacSwan, 2017). This model considers code-switching as part of translanguaging, presupposing a distinction between the cognitive linguistic systems. More recently, MacSwan (2022) edited a thought-provoking volume that takes on a multilingual perspective on translanguaging to reject the deconstructivist thesis that does not acknowledge the existence of named languages or discrete language communities. This perspective accepts “language diversity as psycholinguistically real and socially significant, drawing on empirically informed theories of language and society to challenge prevailing language ideologies which oppress and disadvantage linguistically diverse communities” (p. 31).

Because of such various understandings of the term, Leung and Valdés (2019) argue that translanguaging is “still evolving and deepening as a stance, a theory, and a pedagogy” (p. 358). In this study, similar to MacSwan (2022), we adopt a translanguaging perspective that acknowledges the existence of named languages and varieties as part of the social (i.e., external) perspective when analyzing speakers’ utilization of bilingual and multidialectal practices in L2 contexts. This linguistic fluidity does not disregard multilingual speakers’ awareness of linguistic and ideological boundaries, but rather acknowledges their ability to strategically and creatively exploit and manipulate the linguistic resources they have at their disposal for engaging in productive and meaningful interactions. Consequently, translanguaging practices in the L2 classroom should be strategically and purposefully employed to support and enrich learners’ desire to expand their linguistic repertoire in the named L2 (Al Masaeed, 2020). In this vein, the teacher’s role is to support and model linguistic fluidity to help learners internalize, understand, and produce the desired named language so it remains the general means of communication in the L2 classroom. Additionally, adopting a multidialectal and multilingual translanguaging perspective empowers us to advocate for learners of diverse linguistic backgrounds.

Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) functions as a standard written language and is considered as the official language of Arab countries. MSA is considered a symbol of unity and nationalism among Arabic-speaking people regardless of their religious faiths. However, in addition to MSA, Arabic is a multidialectal language with different national language varieties, each with its own set of linguistic rules (Ferguson, 1959; Holes, 2004; Al-Batal, 2018; Al Masaeed, 2020, 2022a,b; Nassif and Al Masaeed, 2022). Drawing on empirical research, scholars have increasingly characterized the sociolinguistic situation in the Arab world as a continuum of spoken and written varieties with multiple registers (Holes, 2004; Mejdell, 2011; Younes, 2015). Therefore, while this makes the process of teaching and learning Arabic linguistically and pedagogically challenging, it positions it as an interesting context that is better be explored through a translanguaging standpoint.

A recent line of empirical research in Arabic has demonstrated that learners value the opportunity to learn and use multidialectal practices (e.g., Abdalla and Al-Batal, 2012; Al-Batal, 2018; Isleem, 2018; Zaky and Palmer, 2018; Al Masaeed, 2020; Nassif and Al Masaeed, 2022). However, studies on multidialectal and multilingual translanguaging in L2 Arabic contexts are still scarce. A small number of studies have investigated this matter in the Arabic language context (e.g., Al-Bataineh and Gallagher, 2018; Al Masaeed, 2020, 2022a). Al-Bataineh and Gallagher (2018) conducted a study in the United Arab Emirates to investigate the attitudes of future teachers toward translanguaging when writing stories for young bilingual learners and to identify the variables that shaped their attitudes. The participants were asked to write a storybook of a fictional character’s experience using MSA and English, and Emirati dialect as required. They found that the participants held highly inconsistent and uncertain attitudes toward translanguaging which they concluded were influenced greatly by language ideology. However, many participants did regard translanguaging as a positive learning practice. Moreover, many believed that it made reading translingual stories more interesting than the monolingual one.

Al Masaeed (2020, 2022a) studies on L2 Arabic during study abroad in Morocco and Jordan, respectively, demonstrate the need for the field of L2 Arabic to move beyond the MSA-only language ideology to support learners’ sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence development. For example, his study in Morocco (Al Masaeed, 2020) examined multidialectal and multilingual translanguaging practices among 10 learners (native speakers of English) and eight speaking partners during a summer program in Morocco. The participants were required to do four dyadic conversation sessions a week. The author examined recordings of speaking sessions that were supposed to be in MSA only. He concluded that despite the MSA-only policy, the participants used multidialectal and multilingual translanguaging as valuable resources for achieving and maintaining intersubjectivity throughout their interactions. The results also showed that alternations between MSA and non-MSA varieties were more frequent than switches between Arabic and English. He also concluded that French, while present, was the least utilized language in the examined conversations. In a more recent study, Al Masaeed (2022a) investigated the role of bidialectal practices during study abroad in Jordan on learners’ pragmatic development. He employed a spoken discourse completion task to collect pre-and post-program speech acts production. His findings demonstrated that the ability to use bidialectal practices was a clear indication of learners’ pragmatic development.

The synthesis of L2 Arabic research illuminates the following key points: (1) learners are interested in learning at least one spoken variety of Arabic alongside MSA, (2) multidialectal multilingual translanguaging practices mirror the sociolinguistic reality of Arabic speakers, and (3) multidialectal practices contribute to developing pragmatic competence. Based on these empirical insights, one can argue that L2 Arabic teachers should encourage and engage in multilingual and multidialectal translanguaging practices to help learners internalize, understand, and produce the desired L2. Previous research on teachers’ use of L1 in L2 contexts demonstrated that there is usually a discrepancy between recommendations/beliefs and actual practices on the ground (e.g., Turnbull and Arnett, 2002; Kim and Elder, 2005; Macaro, 2009; Copland and Neokleous, 2011; Sali, 2014). However, what seems to be still lacking is research on teachers’ use of multidialectal and multilingual translanguaging practices in less commonly taught languages such as Arabic. Therefore, the current study draws on data from classroom observations and individual interviews to explore whether L2 Arabic teachers’ beliefs about translanguaging practices (mis)align with their actual linguistic practices in the classroom.

The current study participants were 11 L2 Arabic teachers from a number of three Islamic independent schools in Sydney, NSW, Australia. They were all volunteer participants who were recruited and consented in accordance with Institutional Review Board regulations. Teachers’ background and demographic information is presented in Table 1 below. The independent school system is similar to the mainstream public-school system in terms of the taught curriculum and the objectives derived from the New South Wales (NSW) Bord of Studies (BOS) syllabus for languages other than English. According to the Board of Studies NSW (2009), the current syllabus content is consistent with a communicative focus, with the integration of the four core language skills: listening, reading, speaking and writing within the cultural context of Arabic-speaking communities. For individual teachers, there is still a considerable degree of autonomy in classroom decision-making including task selection and decisions about which language and language varieties are most appropriate for classroom use.

However, the syllabus lacks explicit methods and provides minimal teaching guidelines (Liddicoat et al., 2007; Cruickshank, 2008). Moreover, in independent Islamic schools, English is used as the medium for instruction across all areas of the curriculum, whereas Arabic is specifically taught as a single subject. Arabic is taught as a required subject mainly in primary schools and up to Stage 4 (years 7–8) or Stage 5 (years 9–10) in some high schools, depending on the school. It is also offered as an elective subject at Stage six (years 11 and 12) in some high schools.

Data were obtained over 9 months from 11 L2 Arabic class sessions ranging from first to tenth grade with an average number of 25 students in each classroom. In addition to the demographic information that was collected through a background survey, data for the study were gathered through classroom observations and individual interviews to explore whether L2 Arabic teachers’ beliefs about bilingual and multidialectal practices (mis)align with their actual linguistic practices on the ground. Each teacher was observed once in their classrooms for a period of 40–50 min; and following classroom observations, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted. Both classroom observations and interviews were audio-recorded.

Classroom observations data were analyzed as follows. The teachers’ language use in the classroom was transcribed and read carefully. Next, the total number of words spoken by each teacher in their observed class were calculated, and multidialectal and multilingual translanguaging practices were categorized and tagged with codes. Then, instances of multilingual and multidialectal translanguaging (i.e., MSA, non-MSA, and English) were grouped into their relevant categories, and frequency of occurrence were tallied. But when it comes to Arabic in particular, each word, collocation, and structure was analyzed and categorized as MSA or spoken using linguistic categories in line with previous L1 and L2 Arabic studies (e.g., Alaiyed, 2018; Nassif and Al Masaeed, 2022). For example, we took into account internal word voweling for words that are shared between MSA and spoken Arabic (e.g., the word for “book” could be ktaab or kitaab—the second only is considered MSA; the verb “I like” is considered MSA if it is uḥib, but spoken Arabic if pronounced as baḥib as in Jordanian and Egyptian Arabic). MSA mood and case ending markers on word ends were not considered because these markers are usually dropped by Arabic speakers (Alaiyed, 2018). After that, following Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002), functions for translanguaging practices were identified.

Analysis of the individual interview responses was conducted as follows: the teachers’ interview responses were audio-recorded, transcribed, and then read and reread carefully until they became very familiar. Next, all statements relating to the research focus were identified, and each was assigned a code, or category. These codes were then recorded and each relevant statement was put under its appropriate code (open coding). Then, in a process of categorical aggregation (Creswell, 2007), the most relevant themes were grouped together under main categories (axial coding). The most relevant, similar and common concepts and categories were then organized into a data table. After that, the most common, interesting, frequent and relevant themes to the research focus were chosen as the main themes to emerge from the interview data. In so doing, the main related themes addressed by most teachers included the use of English and non-MSA varieties alongside MSA. Consequently, individual teacher instances of multidialectal and multilingual translanguaging practices were compared to their stated beliefs in the interviews.

Findings show that instructors’ beliefs about multilingual translanguaging practices (mainly the use of English alongside Arabic) varied to include support for its use as a primary resource as it is the students’ L1; support for its use for specific purposes to facilitate communication; and a total opposition to its use because it slows learners’ L2 progress. Hamad and Salwa, for example, are advocates for the unlimited use of English as a resource for L2 learning. This is because they have a large number of students who come from non-Arabic speaking backgrounds in their classes and because it is the language that learners are more comfortable and familiar with.

But the majority of teachers advocate for using English for specific purposes in the classroom. Bara, for example, believes that a limited amount of English is needed mainly with students of lower proficiency levels for giving instructions and explaining the task at hand. She commented, “I prefer Arabic, but I don’t apply [it] all the time because it’s hard sometimes, especially for lower levels. It’s hard to speak only in Arabic with them specially if you are explaining a task.” Three teachers (Najwa, Nasir, and Sana) are totally against the use of English in the classroom because it negatively impacts learners’ progress in Arabic. Najwa, for example, believes that Arabic should be taught through the use of Arabic only. She stated in the interview that, “it is easier for them to read English than Arabic and they will rely on English to understand Arabic. I want them to focus on Arabic because when they have the English they won’t put effort to read the Arabic.”

However, classroom observations of teachers’ actual linguistic practices reveal substantial use of English in the classroom. In fact, as can be seen in Table 2 below, while all teachers were found to employ English in their classroom talk, most of them (9 of 11) employed English more than Arabic. Furthermore, all of those who supported the limited use of English did end up using it more than Arabic; and while all teachers who were against it ended up using it frequently, one of them (Najwa) was found to use it more than Arabic.

In addition to information provided in Table 2 above, examples 1–3 below are extracted from class observations of the three teachers who stated their opposition to the use of English alongside Arabic in the classroom. In all examples in this section, MSA is in default font, non-MSA is underlined, and English is in bold. Translation is provided in italics on a separate line when needed. Furthermore, transliteration conventions used in this article are adopted from Alhawary (2018) (please see Supplementary Appendix A).

These examples are representative of teachers’ talk in the classroom, and provide an idea of the frequency and some common functions (e.g., asking questions, classroom management, explaining and clarifying vocabulary, etc.) of deploying English in class. They also point to the misalignment between teachers’ language beliefs and their actual practices.

Findings regarding multidialectal translanguaging practices [i.e., the use of spoken varieties alongside MSA reveal that the majority of instructors (8/11)] supported the limited use of non-MSA spoken varieties alongside MSA for specific purposes (e.g., encouraging students, asking questions, giving instructions, etc.), but 3/11 were in opposition to utilizing any non-MSA varieties. Those who were in favor of a judicious use of multidialectal practices believe that such practices would support students’ home language, enhance cultural connections, and maximize participation. The three teachers who were against the use of non-MSA believe that such practices are different from what is in the textbook and can be confusing and challenging for students who come from non-Arabic speaking backgrounds. Only one of these three teachers (Yosra) was found to use non-MSA eight times in the little amount of Arabic (15.95%) she used in class time. The other two were found to be consistent.

However, classroom observations reveal that teachers’ actual linguistic practices fell into three categories: (a) teachers who didn’t use non-MSA at all, (b) those who employed it occasionally (less than 10%), and (c) those who used it more frequently (more than 10%) (as Table 3 below shows). An interesting finding is that the two teachers who used English the least (Najwah and Sana) were found to use multidialectal practices the most; and those who deployed multilingual practices the most (Salwa and Raid) did not use multidialectal practices at all.

Examples 4–6 below are extracted from class observations of the three teachers who used non-MSA the most alongside MSA in the classroom.

Similar to the use of English, the employment of non-MSA is found to serve various functions in the data including (but not limited to) asking questions (as in example 4), offering an explanation (as in example 5), or providing comments on students’ answers/work to evaluate their performance (as in example 6) (see Supplementary Appendix B for a complete list and frequency of the functions both multilingual and multidialectal practices serve in the current study). However, example 6 is of special interest and merits more attention. Hiyam asked the student (in Egyptian Arabic) to start reading and when he was done, she asked him about what he understood from the text he has just read. The student answered in Lebanese Arabic, but Hiyam repeated the student’s answer using Lebanese Arabic and then commented (in Egyptian Arabic) to evaluate the student’s answer. Next, the student read the answer from the book in MSA. What is interesting in this exchange is the teacher’s criticism of the student’s use of non-MSA in spite of her own employment of multidialectal and multilingual translanguaging practices in both her request and evaluation of his answer. This is a clear example of the misalignment between teachers’ beliefs and their actual linguistic practices regarding multidialectal and multilingual translanguaging practices.