Participant observation

With regards to schools, I conducted almost daily observations during the first school year and observed two or three times per week during my second year. Overall, I observed 227 Quechua classes across both schools, which lasted forty five minutes each. My observations focused on teachers’ and students’ language practices and

metacommentary on language, speakers and language learning. Though I was particularly interested in participants’ use of Quechua and metacommentary related to Quechua, I documented the wide range of language practices and metacommentary that occurred. During most whole-class dynamics, I sat or stood in the back of the class, where youth would often save me a seat if available. On a few occasions, I was invited to sit next to a student if their partner was absent, which provided an interesting insider perspective to youth’s experience in the class. During group work, I walked around youth’s desks and approached those who asked for my help. I focused my observations on youth with a range of language backgrounds and classroom participation patterns, including the focal

youth and the youth participants I previously mentioned. The evolution of my observational focus was reflected in my fieldnotes. While my first-year fieldnotes included more descriptions of classroom routines and teacher-student dynamics, my second-year fieldnotes included more in-depth notes on individual youth across time or further exploration of themes and patterns I had identified.

I took a small notebook to classes, and, in my second year, I used my phone, where I wrote down jottings and naturally-occurring discourse of interest. Sometimes youth would ask me what I wrote about, and I showed them my notes, though my note taking did not cause much interest overall. I tried to write detailed fieldnotes on my computer when I returned home, though sometimes I was too tired and would get to them on the next day. I began fieldnote writing going over my initial jottings (Emerson et al., 2011) and used a two-column table to write fieldnotes, on one side keeping my

description of events, and on the other, questions/reflections/thoughts that emerged related to the research design, my positionality, and my research questions. This was a helpful practice to engage in self-reflexivity throughout the fieldnote writing process (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). I followed Emerson et al.’s (2011) understanding of fieldnotes, not as attempts to capture objective realities, but as “Active processes of interpretation and sense-making that frame or structure not only what is written but also how it is written” (p. 9). Many of these initial side comments I wrote led to later memos and reflections.

In the second half of my first year of fieldwork, I broadened the focus of my observations to include non-Quechua classes to better understand youth language practices across a wider range of classroom settings. I selected language-related subject

areas like English and Spanish Language Arts, other subject areas like Education for Work and Art, and the classes of the students I had already observed during Quechua

time. I observed at least two different types of classes per year, totaling 25 classes. Some teachers allowed me to continue individual youth’s recordings during class and record some video as well. During non-Quechua courses, I took on a more observational role, as teachers rarely asked me to get involved. With English classes, however, this was

different. Teachers would often ask me for my help to practice pronunciation, such as reading texts or lists of vocabulary words and having students repeat after me.

Participating in English-related events became a small way to contribute to the school, and I helped train students for the province-wide spelling bee contest, acted as a judge for English school contests, or helped teachers translate or clarify the meaning of certain words. Though I was at first worried I would be expected to volunteer in more English- related events, taking time away from my fieldwork in Quechua classes, this never happened. What is more, making my English-speaking self-audible to youth was perhaps one way to challenge discourses that framed youth’s interest in English as representative of their lack of interest in Quechua, as if learning and speaking both languages could not go hand in hand. During classes, when assisting individual youth, I tried to make

metalinguistic connections between Quechua and English, and highlighted youth’s knowledge of Quechua as a helpful resource for English learning, though I am not sure if youth saw it the same way.

Through my observations and participation in a wide range of school activities - plays, sport tournaments, anniversary and school day ceremonies, parades, fieldtrips,

practices and languaging experiences beyond their classroom walls. While in these events I often participated as a volunteer or chaperone, negotiating how to relate to youth during recess was trickier, as teachers and students kept markedly separated spaces. With time, I found different ways to join youth during recess, such as offering to help with their homework, joining the crowds that watched the recess volleyball matches, and, in some cases, hanging out outside their classrooms, especially when Quechua class ended right before recess. Nevertheless, during recess, I spent more time with teachers. Lunchtime conversations were apt moments to observe teachers’ own language practices, which often included Quechua and contrasted with the lack or limited use of Quechua in their interactions with students. I also talked with many non-Quechua teachers and staff about their views of the course and youth’s Quechua proficiency.

Besides classroom observations and daily conversations, I participated in teacher meetings and Quechua teacher-training workshops, which allowed me to observe how teachers and staff talked about (or didn’t talk about) the Quechua language course and its implementation. Participating in impromptu teacher meetings and conversations were also informative, such as conversations in the principal’s office or in the teachers’ room where many planned and graded while on their free periods. I also participated in three workshops for Quechua teachers hosted by members of the DREC34 office, and one

workshop led by the UGEL35 IBE specialist, both attended by teachers of both schools.

During my first year of fieldwork, I participated in various activities developed by Cusco-based educational organizations, such as the weeklong regional IBE teacher

34 _{Acronym for “Dirección Regional de Educación del Cusco” (‘Regional Educational Office of}

Cusco’).

workshop. As a participant, I met the IBE specialist of the DREC, who invited me to join

the regional Mesa Técnica de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe (‘Technical Group for

Intercultural Bilingual Education’), a group formed by individuals from various governmental and civil society organizations working in the field of IBE. Throughout 2016, I participated in most of their monthly meetings, helped organize and run some of their events, and participated in meetings with representatives of the Ministry of

Education, broadening my understanding of how Cusco educational actors made sense of Quechua and Quechua language education. I also developed a working relationship with the IBE specialist of the Regional Directorate of Education of Cusco (DREC) and a

bilingual education consultant working in the Directorate. Together, we developed and implemented three teacher-training workshops for Quechua teachers of all the public high school of Urubamba (more in upcoming sub-section on collaborations). I also attended a two-day workshop run by the DIGEIBIRA36 office of the Ministry of Education in Cusco,

with the purpose of training a group of teachers that would implement a pilot IBE model in rural high schools. In 2017, the IBE specialist changed, leading to a decrease in the activities organized by their office and by the Technical Group for IBE. In part due to these changes, but also because of the little connection between activities taking place in schools of Urubamba and those of educational actors in Cusco, my involvement with these groups decreased in 2017. Up to this date, I continue to collaborate with IBE teacher-training workshops in Cusco, though not with the purpose of data collection.

36 _{Acronym for “Dirección General de Educación Alternativa, Intercultural Bilingüe y de}

In addition to schools and educational activities, my participant observations took place in the homes of youth as well as in the various spaces where we hung out. Besides focal youth, I visited the homes of 12 other youth, who fell within a spectrum of bilingual proficiencies and affiliations to Quechua, school years, and places of residence. In most cases, I conducted one-time visits to interview youth’s parents, and, sometimes, I was invited to return to visit and participate in town festivities and family agricultural

activities. I also spent time with other youth without the presence of other adults, mostly upper-year students. I volunteered to help youth from Inmaculado Corazón School edit their video projects, and spent many afternoons working with them. I also hung out with some youth at a café in town, was invited on a hiking trip, and joined a group of youth on a town pilgrimage. All of these youth called me by my first name and saw me closer to the young volunteer figure than the teacher figure. Spending time alone with them allowed me the rare opportunity to peek into youth-youth interactions, where I quickly noticed Quechua was not a main communicative resource. During these events, I also had informal conversations with youth about their opinions on the Quechua course and about Quechua in general.

In the case of focal youth, described in more detail above, I conducted a total of 57 observations, a higher proportion of which were with T’ika and Raúl, whom I met earlier on the project and with whom it was easier to schedule home visits. During my participative observations, I focused on the language practices of youth, as they interacted with members of older and younger generations, as well as with their similarly-aged siblings and cousins. I also paid attention to metacommentaries about language and discourses about youth in relation to Quechua. Parents, including Quechua monolinguals

and bilinguals, often spoke to me in Quechua and I would reply in the language they addressed me in. When parents and other adults would approach me to engage in

conversation, youth, following local interactional dynamics, would participate mostly as listeners. Nevertheless, there were plenty of other opportunities to interact with youth and younger family members, and I often found a time during visits to strike up conversations with youth or play with the younger children. Participating in family celebrations

(baptisms, chukcha rutukuy ‘hair cut ceremonies’, birthdays, wakes), holidays like Día

de Todos los Santos (‘All Saints Day’) and Semana Santa (‘Easter’), and family-wide

agricultural activities (planting and harvest) allowed me to meet focal youth’s extended family, grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins, and observe inter and intra generational language practices. I did not take notes during my observations with focal youth and families, except to write down new Quechua words or phrases, as I did not feel it was appropriate and it got in the way of my active participation. On my way back home I rushed to write down jottings and later wrote detailed fieldnotes.

During all of my participant observations, I took photos and videos when appropriate, which served to complement my fieldnotes and were especially helpful to contextualize fieldnotes and audio recording data during later analysis.