Researching Translanguaging as a Feasible Pedagogical Practice: Evidence from Chinese English-as-a-Foreign-Language Students’ Perceptions

Abstract

Translanguaging as pedagogical practice and a theory of language has gained increasing importance in recent years. However, little research has reported Chinese English-as-a-foreign-language students’ perceptions of translanguaging; neither has research examined the predictive effects of the factors contributing to the amount of student translanguaging in the Chinese English-as-a-foreign-language classrooms. This study intended to fill the gap by inviting 292 Chinese English-as-a-foreign-language students to respond to a questionnaire that explores students’ perception of translanguaging. Two research questions were addressed: first, how do students’ attitudes to translanguaging vary across second-language proficiency? Second, how is the amount of student translanguaging predicted by students’ attitudes to translanguaging and the amount of teacher translanguaging? The results of a one-way analysis of variance revealed a statistically significant difference among the four groups in attitudes to teacher translanguaging and students’ translanguaging. A post hoc test found that non-English major first-year university students had a significantly higher level of acceptance of teachers’ and students’ translanguaging than English major first-year university students. Multiple regression analysis showed that the amount of teacher translanguaging and student attitudes to translanguaging explained a significant quantity of the variance in the amount of student translanguaging. The implications of the study were also discussed.

Keywords

Translanguaging practices monolingual principle English-as-a-foreign-language classrooms student and teacher perceptions China

Introduction

Scholarly attention to translanguaging as translingual practices (Canagarajah, 2013, 2020) and as a theory of language (Li, 2018) has been surging in recent years (Zhang, 2022), making translanguaging a ‘new paradigm’ (Cenoz and Gorter 2017, cited in Woll, 2020: 1). The translanguaging pedagogy helps to re-examine the age-old question of the role of the first language (L1) in second, foreign and additional language teaching and learning (Li, 2018). However, translanguaging does not merely entail going across the two languages of instruction, but rather going beyond named languages that are in effect socially constructed (Li, 2018; Li and García, 2022; Otheguy et al., 2015). The contingent use of the L1 in second-language (L2) classrooms is a ubiquitous phenomenon that defies the ‘monolingual principle’ (Cummins, 2007), which attributes successful language learning to the ‘maximum exposure’ to the L2 (Cummins, 2005) and ‘forced output’ in that language (Barcroft, 2006). The discrepancy between classroom practice of bilingualism/multilingualism and the monolingual principle has aroused rounds of debates on the exclusion or inclusion of the L1 in L2 classrooms (May, 2011, 2019). Translanguaging offers a new theoretical perspective on the debate, providing potentially novel and flexible ways of responding to the needs and practices of multilingual students and addressing gaps between policy and classroom realities (Costley and Leung, 2020). Nevertheless, many educational practitioners find themselves in a dilemma between the need to translanguage in the classroom and the monolingual principle. Educational practitioners and other stakeholders need to be aware of translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy, which requires empirical evidence on the advantages of translanguaging over the monolingual approach and students’ attitudes to translanguaging.

From the translanguaging perspective, we attempt to explore students’ perceptions of translanguaging used by teachers and students, including students’ attitudes to the translanguaging practices in Chinese English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) classrooms in Mainland China, intending to assess the necessity of incorporating systematic translanguaging in the classrooms. The rationale for focusing on learners’ perceptions is that the research results can provide decision-making information regarding translanguaging for policymakers, who value students’ opinions more than others’, as an awareness of student-centred approaches has become the mainstream in most countries. Another reason is that the theme remains underexplored in the EFL teaching programmes (Paulsrud et al., 2021), especially in the Chinese university context.

Review of the Literature

Translanguaging as a Teaching Strategy and a Theory of Language

‘Translanguaging’ as a term was first used by Baker (2001) to translate Williams’ (1994) Welsh term, referring to the teaching strategy of using L1 as a resource in bilingual education in Welsh schools, where teachers purposefully guide learners to receive information in one language, then use the other language to conduct output activities. For example, the teacher would ask the students to read Welsh paragraphs and then write reviews in English, with the basic assumption that learners must fully understand the information before they can use it correctly and successfully (Lewis et al., 2012). Williams’ and Baker's practice of using translanguaging as a teaching strategy in bilingual education was later introduced by García in bilingual education in North America. From the perspective of teaching practice, García (2009: 45) defined translanguaging as ‘a variety of discourse practices that bilinguals participate in order to understand their bilingual world’. This definition refers to natural practices that are not designed as teaching strategies and may occur outside the classroom.

From Williams to Baker and García, the definition of translanguaging has evolved from sporadic ontological studies of language to the focus on multimodal and multisensory global language resources (Wang, 2021). The connotation of translanguaging has been expanded to include a range of ideas, agendas and practices of dynamic language use (Cenoz and Gorter, 2019), as opposed to the rigid ideology of language separation that exists in and out of schools. Vogel and García (2017: 1) summarize translanguaging this way:

Translanguaging is a theoretical lens that offers a different view of bilingualism and multilingualism. The theory posits that rather than possessing two or more autonomous language systems, as has been traditionally thought, bilinguals, multilinguals, and indeed, all users of language, select and deploy particular features from a unitary linguistic repertoire to make meaning and to negotiate particular communicative contexts. Translanguaging also represents an approach to language pedagogy that affirms and leverages students’ diverse and dynamic language practices in teaching and learning.

Deemed as a reaction to the monolingual approach, translanguaging as a ‘practical theory of language’ (Li, 2018) has severely challenged the monolingual ideology in language education. Translanguaging problematizes the ‘monolingualist perspective’ (Leung and Valdés, 2019), which entails a bias that hinders students and educators from making connections to the already existing knowledge of other languages that most learners bring with them. It has also problematized the ‘Native Speaker Norms’ (Cook, 1999; May, 2011; Phillipson, 1992; Zhang, 2012); that is, the native speaker as the model or reference. Practically speaking, it is generally believed that translanguaging is proven to be an effective teaching practice in various educational settings where the school language or the language of instruction is different from the language of learners (Li, 2018). A series of empirical studies have shown the positive impact of translanguaging on teaching; that is, improving participants’ confidence and motivation (Creese and Blackledge, 2010) and improving students’ performance in specific skills of the L2 (Galante, 2020; Llanes and Cots, 2020; Sun and Zhang, 2022; Turnbull, 2019).

Students’ Perceptions of Translanguaging in the Classroom

Among all the stakeholders, students’ perspectives and practices should be studied more extensively than those of institutional policymakers and teachers, because students are the agent of learning. In contrast, other stakeholders, including teachers and policymakers, are supposed to help them learn.

A profusion of research has investigated teachers’ perceptions of translanguaging practices in the classroom. Research conducted on both sides of the Atlantic (e.g. Egaña et al., 2015; Martínez et al., 2015) suggests a tendency for teacher discourse to be contaminated by the monolingual ideology even where a multilingual approach is successfully implemented and its benefits acknowledged (Woll, 2020). The obstacles that prevent teachers from taking a translanguaging stance in classrooms have been revealed in previous research (see e.g., Deroo and Ponzio, 2019; Tian, 2020; Wang, 2019). These obstacles include the institutional policy, the lack of guidance for teachers to implement translanguaging, stake-holders' personal preferences for linguistic purism and concerns over the haphazardness of using translanguaging as a pedagogical choice (Fang and Liu, 2020). All the obstacles can be attributed to one pivotal problem – that is, the monolingual ideology deeply rooted in the minds of teachers, which in turn are influenced by institutional policymakers – yet there is a lack of research that examines the policy-makers' perception of translanguaging to ‘further reveal multiple stakeholders’ perspectives’ (Fang and Liu, 2020: 4).

Research into students’ perceptions of translanguaging has focused on students’ attitudes to teacher translanguaging and student translanguaging. In this regard, previous studies yielded contradictory results regarding students’ attitudes to translanguaging in EFL classrooms. Some reported that the respondents were unwilling to employ the L1 (Nazary, 2008). However, more studies showed a different picture. A survey conducted by Chiou (2014) revealed that higher-proficiency English learners are not against the use of L1 in class, while lower-proficiency English learners depend on L1 to facilitate their learning. In an Indonesian context, Werang and Harrington (2020) compared student teachers’ attitudes to L1 use in primary and secondary school English classrooms to those of the teachers in their teacher training programmes. They found that about 40% of the respondents were ‘Avoiders’ who ‘never’ intended to employ the L1 or only occasionally, while another 20% were ‘Embracers’ who intended to employ it regularly or often. Meanwhile, they discovered a correlation between the intended use and the teachers’ attitudes and behaviour in the programme (Werang and Harrington, 2020) but did not reveal the predictive effects of these factors.

Adopting the translanguaging perspective, recent researchers such as Fang and Liu (2020) found that students regarded translanguaging as an appropriate practice that boosts their confidence and promotes their learning of the target language (see also Fang and Ren, 2018; Liu et al., 2020; Wang and Curdt-Christiansen, 2019). These findings endorse the students’ needs for translanguaging as a strategy for learning and teaching in both EFL and English-as-the-medium-of-instruction (EMI) classrooms (Fang and Liu, 2020). Translanguaging also bears predominant promise in content-based instruction (CBI) programmes as it could be a practical pathway for deeper engagement in content and language learning, although there were two contrasting attitudes of the CBI students (Wang, 2021).

A few previous studies have examined the variation in students’ attitudes to translanguaging in different course settings but found no significant difference in the attitudes between students from EFL classes and from EMI classes (Fang and Liu, 2020). However, there is a paucity of research into the variation in students’ attitudes to translanguaging by students with different L2 proficiency because of the difference in grades and majors. Addressing the gap, the current study takes the initiative to compare students’ attitudes to understand that variation.

The Amount of Translanguaging in the EFL Context

The existing literature focusing on classroom translanguaging has covered a variety of educational backgrounds, most of which focus on kindergarten to 12th grade (K-12) middle schools, while few studies are conducted in higher education (Liu et al., 2020). The target language investigated in most of the literature is English, including English as a second language (ESL), EFL and EMI.

In the context of EFL, the research on translanguaging has mainly focused on describing the spontaneous language practice of teachers and students and exploring the students’ attitudes to translanguaging practice in the classroom. However, most studies focused on teacher translanguaging, while very few paid enough attention to the students’ translanguaging.

Regarding how much translanguaging there is in various language classroom contexts, relevant research has not found conclusive answers. Some research reported a large proportion of L1 use; for example, Guk and Kellogg (2007) revealed that in a foreign language context, L1 (Korea) accounted for 46.93% of the total utterances between or among students. By contrast, some studies in a similar foreign language setting discovered much less L1 use; for example, Storch and Aldosari (2010) found that L1 words accounted for only 7% of the total number of words produced and L1 turns accounted for only 16% of the total number of turns. The findings are consistent with studies in ESL contexts (e.g. Storch and Wigglesworth, 2003) and immersion settings (e.g. Swain and Lapkin, 2000).

Abundant as the literature is, it has not yet revealed the predictive factors of the amount of student translanguaging and how they predict it. It is natural to assume that the amount of student translanguaging is predicted by students’ attitudes to translanguaging, which is correlated to students’ beliefs in the role of maximum input and output in language learning. Compared with maximum input, maximum output is supposed to directly predict the amount of student translanguaging, because students with the ideology that maximum exposure is crucial to the success of L2 learning would demand teachers to use the L2 to the maximum. By the same token, students with the ideology that maximum output is essential to successful L2 learning would expect themselves to use as much L2 as possible. Hence, students’ beliefs in maximum output were introduced to the current study as an independent variable.

Method

Research Questions

Situated in a Chinese context, where the current language policy and classroom discourse practices are still native-oriented (Fang and Baker, 2018), the study investigated Chinese students’ perceptions of translanguaging in university EFL classrooms, including the perceived amount of translanguaging and students’ attitudes to translanguaging. More importantly, it examined the predictive factors determining the amount of student translanguaging. We identified four independent variables: students’ attitudes to translanguaging, students’ beliefs in maximum output, teachers’ attitudes to translanguaging, and the amount of teacher translanguaging. With the student being the focus of the enquiry, the study tries to answer the following questions:

How do students’ attitudes to translanguaging vary with L2 proficiency?

How is the amount of student translanguaging determined by the predictive factors?

In the process of data collection, we found it difficult for students to comprehend the strong version of the concept of translanguaging, especially the part where there are no named languages, only one integrated repertoire (Otheguy et al., 2015), even when we made explanations on the conception in the questionnaire. For the convenience of the study, we focused on translanguaging practice in its narrow sense; that is, the deployment of the multiple linguistic resources instead of all multimodal and multisensory resources. Previous studies suggest that teachers and students use various forms of translingual resources, such as code-mixing, translation and non-standard variety of L2 (Fang and Liu 2020; Wang and Curdt-Christiansen, 2019). Out of the three forms, translation involves not only translation practices in the traditional sense, but also the scenario where speakers translate what they said in the target language into the native language to make themselves understood. In contrast, the non-standard variety of L2 in the current context refers to the so-called New Chinglish (Li, 2016), which happens only occasionally, while code-mixing as the weak version of translanguaging (García and Li, 2014) is the most salient one. Hence, code-mixing became the focus of the current study and was defined as using both Chinese and English, including mixing English and Chinese, at the inter-sentential and intra-sentential levels. It also includes the alternation of the language of input and output in the same class; that is, the original meaning of translanguaging practice in Williams’ and Baker's sense.

Data Collection

The data for this paper comes from a larger study conducted in the Chinese university context that utilized multiple sources of data. In this paper we focus on the data gathered through an online survey. The link for the survey was sent to students at this university with the help of some of the teachers and students.

The dependent variable of the study, the amount of student translanguaging, was operationalized as the frequency of code-mixing in class and solicited from the questionnaire. So was one of the independent variables, the amount of teacher translanguaging. The frequency was converted into a numerical scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = 1%–20%, 2 = 21%–40%, 3 = 41%–60%, 4 = 61%–80%, 5 = 81%–100%). The other two independent variables are students’ attitudes to students translanguaging and students’ beliefs in maximum output; these two were operationalized as the extent of agreement or disagreement with the survey statements on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree).

Instrument

The instrument for collecting data is a questionnaire adapted from Chiou (2014), which is similar to that used by Fang and Liu (2020). The questionnaire consists of 18 items, which are arranged to elicit the following information that is needed: (a) students’ attitude towards teacher translanguaging and student translanguaging; (b) the occasions of teacher translanguaging and student translanguaging; and (c) students’ beliefs in the role of maximum input and output of the L2. It is meaningful to differentiate students’ attitudes to translanguaging practice use from the occasion of translanguaging practice because a student may agree that teachers or students can adopt translanguaging on certain occasions as a makeshift but disapprove of classroom translanguaging in general. The second part of the questionnaire is to collect students’ biodata and demographic information. The respondents can understand the questions in the questionnaire as it is in Chinese and free of technical terms.

Research Site

Located in the capital city of a coastal province in southern China, the target institution is a state-owned provincial level university funded by the provincial government. The university enrols students who specialize in English as their major. Following the national policy, the students take College English as a compulsory course for non-English majors, just as they do in high school and primary school.

It is worth mentioning that there is a policy in high schools that can be referred to as maximum exposure: teachers should speak English as much as possible in instruction. The yardstick that divides English majors into different classes is their English proficiency determined by the college entrance examination, or, for non-English majors, by an examination organized by the institution at the beginning of the first semester. One of the learning objectives for non-English major students is to pass the College English Test Band 4 (CET 4), and for English majors to pass the Test for English Majors Band 4 (TEM 4). Both tests involve individual tests for listening, reading and writing skills, but the speaking test is a separate one.

Sampling

Firstly, we divided the would-be respondents into two groups: non-English majors and English majors, because English majors have much more class time to learn English. Then each group was divided into two sub-groups based on their grade; that is, grades 1 and 2. The student respondents from the target institution were chosen by convenience sampling to have roughly equal numbers of students among the four groups.

Following the strict ethical requirements, we sought and obtained the permission from the dean and deputy deans of the College of Foreign Languages of the university to conduct the research and contact the teachers who would help in sending the link for the online survey to their students. The students were guaranteed that non-participation would not affect their grades or their relationship with the teacher and were informed of the right to withdraw in the electronic version of a participant information sheet (PIS). The researchers then downloaded the completed form of the questionnaire and filtered out unqualified forms which meet either one of the following two conditions:

The respondents took less than 30 s to finish the questionnaire (the platform records the time automatically).

The respondents chose the same answer for seven executive items.

Participants

The participants were 292 students (210 females, 82 males) chosen by convenience sampling from a single university at the beginning of the semester. One hundred and forty-seven of them were non-English majors and 145 were English majors.

Table 1.

Participant Information.

Groups	Students	Number	%
1	Non-English major first-year student	102	34.9
2	Non-English major second-year student	45	15.4
3	English major first-year student	87	29.8
4	English major second-year student	58	19.9
Total		292	100.0

Data Analysis

SPSS was used to run the statistical analysis, including that of reliability and validity. The sum of the figures for all the related items was computed after an exploratory factor analysis.

A one-way between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to answer the first sub-question: how do students’ attitudes to translanguaging vary across L2 proficiency? The grouping variable was students’ L2 proficiency. Multiple linear regression was used to answer the second question: how is the amount of student translanguaging predicted by students’ attitude towards translanguaging, students’ learning belief and the amount of teacher translanguaging?

Results

Variance of Attitudes among Students with Different Proficiency

To understand how students’ attitudes to translanguaging vary across English proficiency, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare students based on their English proficiency, which firstly divided them into non-English majors and English majors because of the vast difference in the time spent in learning English, while each group was divided into two sub-groups based on their grade; that is, first-year and second-year university students.

Table 2.

Students’ Attitudes to Translanguaging Practices.

		n	M	SD	SE	95% confidence interval for mean		Min.	Max.
		n	M	SD	SE	Lower bound	Upper bound	Min.	Max.
Student attitude to teacher translanguaging	1	102	3.6789	.49550	.04906	3.5816	3.7762	2.25	5.00
	2	45	3.6611	.41340	.06163	3.5369	3.7853	2.75	4.50
	3	87	3.4770	.49801	.05339	3.3709	3.5832	2.25	4.50
	4	58	3.5259	.45809	.06015	3.4054	3.6463	2.25	4.25
	Total	292	3.5856	.48335	.02829	3.5299	3.6413	2.25	5.00
Student attitude to student translanguaging	1	102	3.3595	.60195	.05960	3.2412	3.4777	1.33	5.00
	2	45	3.0444	.68387	.10195	2.8390	3.2499	1.67	4.33
	3	87	3.0690	.62905	.06744	2.9349	3.2030	1.67	5.00
	4	58	3.1437	.70948	.09316	2.9571	3.3302	1.00	5.00
	Total	292	3.1815	.65582	.03838	3.1060	3.2570	1.00	5.00

The mean indicates that English majors are significantly less receptive to teacher translanguaging and student translanguaging than non-English majors. When two sub-groups under the same category were examined, non-English major first-year university students held more positive views on teacher translanguaging and student translanguaging than non-English major second-year students. In contrast, English major first-year students were less supportive of teacher translanguaging and student translanguaging than English major second-year students.

Table 3.

Homogeneity of Variances in Students’ Attitudes to Translanguaging.

		Levene statistic	df1	df2	p
Student attitude to teacher translanguaging	Based on mean	.696	3	288	.555
	Based on median	.608	3	288	.610
	Based on median and with adjusted df	.608	3	283.035	.610
	Based on trimmed mean	.649	3	288	.584
Student attitude to student translanguaging	Based on mean	1.082	3	288	.357
	Based on median	.859	3	288	.463
	Based on median and with adjusted df	.859	3	281.545	.463
	Based on trimmed mean	1.068	3	288	.363

df: degree of freedom.

The test of homogeneity of variances in attitudes to teacher translanguaging and student translanguaging (Table 3) shows that the p values of the two variables are all larger than .05, indicating that the variances are equal among the four groups in terms of the two variables. Therefore, the requirements of homogeneity of variance were met and the following results of one-way ANOVA were proven valid.

Table 4.

One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of Students’ Attitudes to Translanguaging.

		Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	p
Student attitude to teacher translanguaging	Between groups	2.378	3	.793	3.479	.016
	Within groups	65.607	288	.228
	Total	67.985	291
Student attitude to student translanguaging	Between groups	5.261	3	1.754	4.212	.006
	Within groups	119.897	288	.416
	Total	125.158	291

As shown in the table of the one-way ANOVA of students’ attitudes to translanguaging (Table 4), the F value for students’ attitudes to teacher translanguaging is 3.479, with a p value of .016, which is less than the set α level, .05, symbolizing a statistically significant difference among the four groups; meanwhile, the F value for the attitudes to student translanguaging is 4.212, and the p value is .006, which is again smaller than the set α level, .05, indicating that there are statistically significant differences among the four groups in terms of students’ attitudes to teachers’ translanguaging.

A Scheffe post hoc test (see Table 5) revealed that the non-English first-year group had a significantly higher acceptance of teacher translanguaging (M = 3.68, SD = .50) compared to the English major first-year group (M = 3.48, SD = .50). Likewise, non-English first-year students (M = 3.36, SD = .60) held a significantly more positive view on student translanguaging compared to the English major first-year students (M = 3.06, SD = .62). Nevertheless, no significant difference in acceptance of teacher or student translanguaging was found between non-English second-year students and the English major second-year students.

Table 5.

Multiple Comparisons of Students’ Attitudes to Translanguaging.

Dependent variable	Group (I)	Group (J)	Mean difference (I– J)	SE	p	95% confidence interval
Dependent variable	Group (I)	Group (J)	Mean difference (I– J)	SE	p	Lower bound	Upper bound
Student attitude to student translanguaging	1	2	.01781	.08541	.998	-.2224	.2580
		3	.20191*	.06965	.040	.0060	.3978
		4	.15306	.07849	.286	-.0677	.3738
	2	1	-.01781	.08541	.998	-.2580	.2224
		3	.18410	.08764	.223	-.0624	.4305
		4	.13525	.09481	.566	-.1314	.4019
	3	1	-.20191*	.06965	.040	-.3978	-.0060
		2	-.18410	.08764	.223	-.4305	.0624
		4	-.04885	.08091	.947	-.2764	.1787
	4	1	-.15306	.07849	.286	-.3738	.0677
		2	-.13525	.09481	.566	-.4019	.1314
		3	.04885	.08091	.947	-.1787	.2764
Student attitude to student translanguaging	1	2	.31503	.11547	.061	-.0097	.6397
		3	.29051*	.09416	.025	.0257	.5553
		4	.21580	.10611	.249	-.0826	.5142
	2	1	-.31503	.11547	.061	-.6397	.0097
		3	-.02452	.11848	.998	-.3577	.3086
		4	-.09923	.12818	.896	-.4597	.2612
	3	1	-.29051*	.09416	.025	-.5553	-.0257
		2	.02452	.11848	.998	-.3086	.3577
		4	-.07471	.10938	.926	-.3823	.2329
	4	1	-.21580	.10611	.249	-.5142	.0826
		2	.09923	.12818	.896	-.2612	.4597
		3	.07471	.10938	.926	-.2329	.3823

*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Factors Predicting the Amount of Students’ Translanguaging

To answer the second question – that is, how is the amount of student translanguaging determined by the predictive factors – a multiple linear regression was conducted. Table 6 shows the descriptive statistics of the predictive factors determining the amount of student translanguaging, namely, the amount of teacher translanguaging, student attitude to student translanguaging, student belief in maximum output and teacher view on student translanguaging.

Table 6.

The Amount of Translanguaging and Attitudes to Student Translanguaging.

	M	SD	n
The amount of student translanguaging	3.24	1.156	292
The amount of teacher translanguaging	3.12	1.422	292
Student attitude to student translanguaging	3.1815	.65582	292
Student belief in maximum output	4.06	.823	292
Teacher view on student translanguaging	2.7363	.71001	292

The table of coefficients of the amount of student translanguaging (Table 7) demonstrates that student belief in maximum output did not enter the predictive model, nor did the teacher’s view on translanguaging, indicating that neither of these two variables had predictive effects on the amount of student translanguaging. Meanwhile, the amount of teacher translanguaging contributed significantly to the model (beta = .132, t = 2.83, p = .005), so did student attitude towards student translanguaging (beta = -.154, t = -2.59, p = .010). In other words, the more translanguaging teachers use, the more translanguaging students use. The final predictive model was: The amount of student translanguaging = 2.844 + (.132* The amount of teacher translanguaging) - (.154*Student attitude to student translanguaging).

Table 7.

Results of Multiple Regression of the Amount of Student Translanguaging.

Model 1	Non-standard coefficients		Standard coefficients	t	p	95.0% confidence interval for B
Model 1	B	SE	Beta	t	p	Lower bound	Upper bound	Tolerance	VIF
(Constant)	2.844	.613		4.641	.000	1.638	4.050
-The amount of teacher translanguaging	.132	.046	.162	2.831	.005	.040	.223	.998	1.002
-Student attitude to student translanguaging	-.271	.105	-.154	−2.586	.010	-.478	-.065	.920	1.087
-Student belief in maximum output	.114	.084	.081	1.362	.174	-.051	.279	.920	1.087
-Teacher view on student translanguaging	.140	.095	.086	1.475	.141	-.047	.327	.961	1.040

VIF: variance inflation factor.

As shown in the summary of the predicative model (Table 8), a significant quantity of the variance in the amount of student translanguaging was explained by the amount of teacher translanguaging together with students’ attitudes to student translanguaging, F (4, 287) = 4.880, p =.001, R² = .064. The value of R square indicated that the model could explain 6.4% of the variance. The effect size of the current model was small according to Cohen’s (1988) standard, which states that a small, medium and large effect size of R square is .02, .13, and .26 respectively.

Model	R	R square	Adjusted R square	SE of the estimate	Change Statistics
1	.252^a	.064	.051	1.126	.064	4.880	4	287	.001

Table 8.
Model summary^b of the predictors of the amount of student translanguaging

Model R R square Adjusted R square SE of the estimate Change Statistics

R square change F change df1 df2 Sig. F change

1 .252^a .064 .051 1.126 .064 4.880 4 287 .001

a. Predictors: (Constant), Teacher view on student translanguaging, The amount of student translanguaging, Student belief in maximum output, Student attitude to student translanguaging.

b. Dependent variable: The amount of student translanguaging.

Discussion

The study explored Chinese students’ perceptions of translanguaging in an EFL university context. Specifically, how students’ attitudes to classroom translanguaging vary with L2 proficiency (RQ1), and how the amount of student translanguaging is predicted by students’ attitudes to translanguaging, and the amount of teacher translanguaging (RQ2).

Variation in Students’ Attitudes to Translanguaging

In response to RQ1, the questionnaire data revealed that students’ L2 proficiency was indicative of their attitudes to classroom translanguaging. However, unlike some previous studies that found no statistically significant difference between groups divided by different programme settings – for example, EFL and EMI programmes (Fang and Liu 2020), presumably different programme settings entailing the attenders’ different L2 proficiency – the study found a statistically significant difference in attitudes to translanguaging between students from different programmes; specifically, non-English major first-year students and English major first-year students. Nevertheless, no statistically significant difference was found between the non-English second-year group and the English major second-year group (n = 292).

There are several possible explanations for the variation. On the one hand, first-year university students are less mature but are more prone to be misguided by the following items: (a) information given by the media hyping English-only instruction, an epitome of maximum exposure policy; (b) their former experience in high schools, where English-only instruction was deemed as a privilege to a few top students; and (c) the inertia to believe there is more opportunity to access more capable teachers who give English-only instruction. On the other hand, different programmes involve different objectives of language learning. English majors are supposed to spend a lot more time learning and mastering the English language as they will depend on it in a relevant future career. Therefore, English majors expect more exposure to and output of the target language. However, in grade 2, students begin to accept that there are good reasons why teachers discard English-only instruction, and translanguaging bears certain advantages in teaching and learning a foreign language. They embrace it simultaneously.

The respondents in the study were found to generally demonstrate a positive attitude to teacher translanguaging and a neutral-to-positive attitude towards student translanguaging (Fang and Liu, 2020). The findings reflected the students’ belief that translanguaging is conducive to boosting communication efficiency, scaffolding less proficient students, relieving anxiety and increasing participation.

Factors Predictive of the Amount of Student Translanguaging

To answer RQ2, we found that the amount of teacher translanguaging and students’ attitudes to translanguaging explained a significant quantity of the variance in the amount of student translanguaging. The results reveal that the amount of student translanguaging is significantly influenced by the amount of teacher translanguaging rather than teachers’ explicit statements on translanguaging; for example, L2 should be the first option, whereas the use of L1 in the class should be avoided, indicating that college students have a certain degree of agency when it comes to teachers’ instructions because they do not only passively listen to teachers’ preaching, but also actively observe teachers’ practices. The correlation between programme teachers’ behaviour and the possibility of students imitating the teachers’ practice resonates with that in the study by Werang and Harrington (2020).

It is a spontaneous reaction for the student to emulate the teacher, especially in a typical Eastern Asian country like China, although the students have witnessed the shift in the educational environment from following an authority such as the teacher to possessing critical thinking. The latter has been much emphasized in the English reading course in college. Chinese university students enjoy enormously more freedom and independence than they do in high schools as they generally leave their home for college, coinciding with becoming adults. All these factors contribute to their trajectory of stance and amount of translanguaging practices. To help students establish the proper conception of translanguaging, particularly the frequency of deploying translanguaging practices and the circumstance in which to utilise them, we need to draw up reasonable and plausible guidelines in implementing a translanguaging strategy, which was considered beneficial, although it has been reported that students had the confidence in dealing with possible issues that may occur in using L1 (Werang and Harrington, 2020).

The results also imply that teachers should be consistent in their practice of and stance on translanguaging and be watchful when they translanguage because their practice has strong predictive effects on the amount of students’ translanguaging practice, which impacts students’ perceptions of translanguaging. Moreover, the study highlights that rooted in the ‘creative and critical process in which multilingual people use to communicate in their everyday lives in dynamic, flexible, multimodal, semiotic, and purposeful ways’ (Espinosa et al., 2021: 12; see also Pontier, 2022), translanguaging is an empowering pedagogy as it makes space for learners to make use of their entire linguistic repertoire.

Conclusion and Implications

The results suggest that the monolingual policy, including its variant, maximizing the target language, has not yet proven as successful as it was intended to be, however appealing it seems to be, because students tend to approve of the value of translanguaging over the monolingual approach. People thought that students ‘need’ English-only instruction, but the truth is that students merely ‘want’ it. The English-only instruction is like a commodity of ubiquitous consumerism that produces and takes advantage of anxiety for privilege and promotion in a fast-changing society. It is also a conception formed due to the monolingual ideology that is personified in the English language teaching (ELT) curriculum and syllabus, administrators’ and teaching supervisors’ counsel, teachers’ impulsion, etc.

The study implies that translanguaging should be part of the agenda of university EFL classrooms because students’ viewpoints on translanguaging become increasingly mature and reasonable as they experience more university EFL classes personally and understand the benefits of translanguaging. The popular belief that translanguaging is just a helpful scaffold for learners when they are not proficient in the target language turns out to be a paradox, as students need translanguaging when they are not proficient. However, when they are, they do not pay close attention to which language to choose, just like bilinguals or multilinguals who translanguage unconsciously in real life.

To cater to diversified needs in terms of translanguaging, we ought to emphasize students’ needs, which require careful investigation. A survey like the one in the current study can serve this purpose. The results of such empirical studies help to encourage teachers and students to deploy all the communicative resources at their disposal. More importantly, they also help to alter policymakers’ mindsets and convince them to modify the language allocation policy and reconsider the Native Speaker Norms that permeate practice. These necessary changes will allow for more fluidity of language use in the classroom. Before this becomes a reality, teachers can take some versatile measures like striking a deal with students about language use at the beginning of the course, such as the percentage of L1 use (Liu and Fang, 2020). Meanwhile, teachers facing criticism from teaching supervisors or complaints from students for not adopting English-only can be equipped with the translanguaging theory and empirical evidence on students’ positive attitudes to translanguaging.

As the study was conducted in an environment where COVID-19 was rampant, we were not able to enter the classrooms and meet the participants in person to explain some possible questions about the questionnaire; as a result, the effect size of the predictor model is limited. Furthermore, more powerful predictors can be explored as the factors included in the questionnaire are far from exhaustive.

In the future, efforts can be made to find more powerful predictors for students’ behaviours and perceptions. Questions like what factors determine the amount of student translanguaging and their attitudes can be designed for students as open-ended questions; for example, in a questionnaire or an interview. Furthermore, policymakers’ perceptions of translanguaging need to be explored to provide a bigger picture of the issue discussed. Besides, it will be useful to conduct a mixed-methods longitudinal study, with sufficient qualitative data, to track the trajectory of students’ perceptions of translanguaging in terms of the amount of students’ translanguaging practices and students’ attitudes to translanguaging.

Footnotes

Author Contribution Statement

ZW Jiang and LJ Zhang conceived and designed the study. ZW Jiang collected and analysed the data and drafted the manuscript, and all the authors revised the manuscript. LJ Zhang finalized it for submissions as the corresponding author.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Ethics Statements

Studies involving human subjects: the studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee, with ZW Jiang as the first researcher.

Inclusion of identifiable human data: no potentially identifiable human images or data is presented in this study.

Funding

This work was supported by Hainan University Project of Supporting Young Scholars: [Grant Number DC2100004421].

ORCID iDs

Zhihui Will Jiang

Lawrence Jun Zhang

Naashia Mohamed

Appendix

References

1.
Baker C (2001) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 3rd edn. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

2.
Barcroft J (2006) Can writing a new word detract from learning it? More negative effects of forced output during vocabulary learning. Second Language Research 22(4): 487–497.

3.
Canagarajah S (2013) Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. London: Routledge.

4.
Canagarajah S (2020) Transnational work, translingual practices, and interactional sociolinguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics 24(5): 555–573.

5.
Cenoz J Gorter D (2017) Translanguaging as a pedagogical tool in multilingual education. In: Cenoz J Gorter D May S (eds) Language Awareness and Multilingualism. 3rd edn. Cham: Springer, pp.309–321.

6.
Cenoz J Gorter D (2019) Multilingualism, translanguaging, and minority languages in SLA. Modern Language Journal 103(1): 130–135.

7.
Chiou B (2014) Rethinking the role of L1 in the EFL classroom. English Teaching & Learning 38(4): 53–78.

8.
Cohen J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

9.
Cook V (1999) Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33(2): 185–209.

10.
Costley T Leung C (2020) Putting translanguaging into practice: A view from England. System 92: 102270.

11.
Creese A Blackledge A (2010) Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? Modern Language Journal 94(1): 103–115.

12.
Cummins J (2005) Teaching for Cross-Language Transfer in Dual Language Education: Possibilities and Pitfalls. Istanbul: Universidad bogaziciturquía Estambul.

13.
Cummins J (2007) Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10(2): 221–240.

14.
Deroo MR Ponzio C (2019) Confronting ideologies: A discourse analysis of in-service teachers’ translanguaging stance through an ecological lens. Bilingual Research Journal 42(2): 214–231.

15.
Egaña EA Cenoz J Gorter D (2015) Teachers’ beliefs in multilingual education in the Basque country and in Friesland. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 3(2): 169–193.

16.
Espinosa CM Ascenzi-Moreno L García O (2021) Rooted in Strength: Using Translanguaging to Grow Multilingual Readers and Writers. New York: Scholastic.

17.
Fang F Baker W (2018) ‘A more inclusive mind towards the world’: English language teaching and study abroad in China from intercultural citizenship and English as a lingua franca perspectives. Language Teaching Research 22(5): 608–624.

18.
Fang F Liu Y (2020) ‘Using all English is not always meaningful’: Stakeholders’ perspectives on the use of and attitudes towards translanguaging at a Chinese university. Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics. Revue Internationale de Linguistique Generale 247: 102959.

19.
Fang F Ren W (2018) Developing students’ awareness of global Englishes. ELT Journal 72(4): 384–394.

20.
Galante A (2020) Pedagogical translanguaging in a multilingual English program in Canada: Student and teacher perspectives of challenges. System 92(102274): 1–10.

21.
García O (2009) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. 1st edn. Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell.

22.
García O Li W (2014) Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

23.
Guk I Kellogg D (2007) The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and student-led interactional mediation of tasks. Language Teaching Research 11(3): 281–299.

24.
Leung C Valdés G (2019) Translanguaging and the transdisciplinary framework for language teaching and learning in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal 103(2): 348–370.

25.
Lewis G Jones B Baker C (2012) Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation 18(7): 641–654.

26.
Li W (2016) New Chinglish and the post-multilingualism challenge: Translanguaging ELF in China. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 5(1): 1–25.

27.
Li W (2018) Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics 39(1): 9–30.

28.
Li W García O (2022) Not a first language but one repertoire: Translanguaging as a decolonizing project. RELC Journal. Epub ahead of print 18 April 2022: 1–12. DOI: 10.1177/00336882221092841

29.
Liu JE Lo YY Lin AMY (2020) Translanguaging pedagogy in teaching English for academic purposes: Researcher–teacher collaboration as a professional development model. System 92: 102276.

30.
Liu Y Fang F (2020) Translanguaging theory and practice: How stakeholders perceive translanguaging as a practical theory of language. RELC Journal. Epub ahead of print 28 August 2020: 1-9. DOI: 10.1177/0033688220939222

31.
Llanes À Cots JM (2020) Measuring the impact of translanguaging in TESOL: A plurilingual approach to ESP. International Journal of Multilingualism. Epub ahead of print 29 Apr 2020:1-16. DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2020.1753749

32.
Martínez RA Hikida M Durán L (2015) Unpacking ideologies of linguistic purism: How dual language teachers make sense of everyday translanguaging. International Multilingual Research Journal 9(1): 26–42.

33.
May S (2011) The disciplinary constraints of SLA and TESOL: Additive bilingualism and second language acquisition, teaching and learning. Linguistics and Education 22(3): 233–247.

34.
May S (2019) Negotiating the multilingual turn in SLA. Modern Language Journal 103: 122–129.

35.
Nazary M (2008) The role of the L1 in L2 acquisition: Attitudes of Iranian university students. Novitas-Royal 2(2): 138–153.

36.
Otheguy R García O Reid W (2015) Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review 6(3): 281–307.

37.
Paulsrud B Tian Z Toth J (2021) English-Medium Instruction and Translanguaging. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

38.
Phillipson R (1992) ELT: The native speaker's burden? ELT Journal 46(1): 12–18.

39.
Pontier RW (2022) Developing translanguaging stances in ESOL-focused teacher education courses: Teacher candidates’ beliefs about and knowledge of bilingualism and bilingual education. TESL-EJ 25(4): 1–22.

40.
Storch N Aldosari A (2010) Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research 14(4): 355–375.

41.
Storch N Wigglesworth G (2003) Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly 37(4): 760–770.

42.
Sun PP Zhang LJ (2022) Effects of translanguaging in online peer feedback on Chinese university English-as-a-foreign-language students’ writing performance. RELC Journal. Epub ahead of print 7 April 2022:1-20. DOI: 10.1177/00336882221089051

43.
Swain M Lapkin S (2000) Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research 4(3): 251–274.

44.
Tian Z (2020) Faculty first: Promoting translanguaging in TESOL teacher education. In: Lau SMC Viegen V (eds) Plurilingual Pedagogies: Critical and Creative Endeavors for Equitable Language in Education. Cham: Springer, pp.215–236.

45.
Turnbull B (2019) Translanguaging in the planning of academic and creative writing: A case of adult Japanese EFL learners. Bilingual Research Journal 42(2): 232–251.

46.
Vogel S García O (2017) Translanguaging. In: Oxford University Press (ed.) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.1–21.

47.
Wang D (2019) Translanguaging in Chinese foreign language classrooms: Students’ and teachers’ attitudes and practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22(2): 138–149.

48.
Wang P (2021) A case study of translanguaging phenomenon in CBI classes in a Chinese university context. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 31(1): 95–108.

49.
Wang W Curdt-Christiansen XL (2019) Translanguaging in a Chinese–English bilingual education programme: A university-classroom ethnography. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22(3): 322–337.

50.
Werang EA Harrington M (2020) Avoiders and embracers: Attitudes towards L1 use by Indonesian EFL student teachers. RELC Journal. Epub ahead of print 16 November 2020:1-16. DOI: 10.1177/0033688220960545

51.
Williams C (1994) Arfarniad o ddulliau dysgu ac addysgu yng nghyd-destun addysg uwchradd ddwyieithog [An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual secondary education]. PhD Thesis, University of Wales, UK.

52.
Woll N (2020) Towards crosslinguistic pedagogy: Demystifying pre-service teachers’ beliefs regarding the target-language-only rule. System 92(102275): 1–11.

53.
Zhang LJ (2012) Moving beyond the native-nonnative divide: Message from the chair. TESOL NNEST IS Newsletter 23(1): 1–2.

54.
Zhang LJ (2022) Translingual practices and English as an additional language: A conversation with Professor Suresh Canagarajah. RELC Journal. Epub ahead of print 9 June 2022:1-9. DOI: 10.1177/00336882221104512