Towards an understanding of translanguaging in EMI teacher education classrooms

Abstract

This study aims to explore a teacher educator’s perceptions and practice of translanguaging in his education classrooms as a teacher of English as a medium of instruction (EMI). Adopting a qualitative case study approach, the research revealed that the teacher educator used three translanguaging strategies (i.e. integrating academic discourse with everyday discourse, linking verbal and other semiotic resources, and using students’ first language) to create a ‘translanguaging space’ in his EMI classrooms for content teaching and learning. The findings also showed that the teacher educator’s translanguaging practice was both planned and generative, depending on his situated teaching context which presented him with various teaching opportunities and challenges (e.g. students’ resistance and university policy). The study highlights the importance of teacher educators’ reflective practice in their execution and improvement of translanguaging practice in EMI classroom settings.

Keywords

EMI multilingual classrooms teacher education translanguaging

I Introduction

English as a medium of instruction (EMI) generally refers to ‘the use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English’ (Macaro et al., 2018, p. 37). Following the ongoing trend of globalization, EMI has gained great popularity in higher education, particularly in multilingual and multicultural contexts where English is used as a lingual franca for professional purposes (e.g. business and academic study). Recent studies on EMI (for a detailed review, see Macaro et al., 2019) have not only shed light on its potential benefits for students’ cognitive development and academic learning, but also revealed the complexities and difficulties (e.g. students’ limited English proficiency and teachers’ lack of pedagogical competence) embedded in its implementation in content classrooms.

To enhance the effectiveness of EMI, a group of researchers (e.g. García & Li, 2014; Li, 2018) have made a clarion call for the practice of ‘translanguaging’, which entails a dynamic and functionally integrative use of languages (i.e. one’s plurilingual resources) and language resources for knowledge (re)construction in content learning. The promotion of translanguaging places a premium on the mediating role of language in high-order mental processing, through which learners can externalize their thoughts and negotiate meaning with others (e.g. peers and teachers) in their learning environment. Through translanguaging, not only can students expand their linguistic repertoire (Basturkmen & Shackleford, 2015) and ‘expropriate the language of content to make meaning in acceptable forms’ (Barwell, 2016, p. 108), but they can also be empowered to take charge of their academic learning and socialize themselves into the specific discourse community of their discipline (García, 2009).

To date, while previous studies have examined critical issues related to EMI curriculum design (e.g. Leong, 2017), policy making (e.g. Lei & Hu, 2014), as well as various stakeholders’ views on its benefits and problems (e.g. Yuan, 2020a), there is a lack of research on its classroom implementation, particularly in teacher education courses. Given that teacher education is traditionally housed in higher education institutions, EMI has made inroads into teacher education courses provided for pre- and in-service teachers of different subject backgrounds. Such EMI courses with specific content focuses (e.g. curriculum study, school psychology and teaching pedagogy) are delivered for teachers with a view to enhancing their professional knowledge and teaching competence in their own subjects. Although a number of researchers (e.g. Cenoz & Gorter, 2017; Li, 2018) have argued for the potential of translanguaging as a powerful tool for content teaching in EMI classrooms, limited attention has been paid to how teacher educators can employ translanguaging in their teaching of teachers in content-based courses in higher education. In view of such a research gap and considering the pivotal role of teacher educators in promoting teacher development and student learning (Yuan, 2017, 2018), research on translanguaging in EMI teacher education classrooms is thus warranted.

The present study, adopting a qualitative case study approach (Creswell, 2007), explores a Hong-Kong-based teacher educator’s EMI teaching with a specific focus on his translanguaging practice. The study does not intend to depict a successful, exemplary case which shows frequent and effective translanguaging practice. Instead, drawing on multiple sources of data including interviews, field observation and relevant documents (e.g. teaching materials), the study aims to shed light on how a teacher educator perceives and engages in translanguaging in real EMI teacher education classrooms influenced by a wide range of linguistic and socio-cultural factors (Macaro et al., 2019; Yuan, Chen & Peng, 2020). The findings of the study can provide practical implications for teacher educators (and EMI teachers in similar disciplines) on how to maximize the potential of translanguaging to facilitate students’ academic learning and personal development in multilingual settings.

II Conceptual framework

1 Defining ‘translanguaging’

Translanguaging refers to the act of using individuals’ multilingual, multimodal, and multisensory resources to make meaning in their situated social context (Li, 2018). Multilinguals possess a translanguaging instinct that drives them to draw on a variety of language resources in daily communication. They can, for example, draw upon two or more languages (e.g. Chinese and English) or a mix of language styles (e.g. a colloquial style and formal written style) or varieties (e.g. language indexing different social groups or generations) to express their thoughts and achieve specific goals (García & Li, 2014). In this sense, the process of translanguaging involves an individual using his/her linguistic repertoire (i.e. including all the linguistic varieties such as registers, dialects, styles, and accents) and multimodal repertoire (e.g. gestures, signs, graphs, and photos) to make sense of and interact with the complex social reality (Li, 2018). By making use of their linguistic and semiotic repertoires in specific social and spatiotemporal contexts (Pennycook, 2017; Prinsloo & Krause, 2019), individuals can exercise their agency and engage in ‘reconfiguring context through critical and creative language use’ (Lee & Canagarajah, 2019, p. 4) for their own personal purposes and interests.

In the field of education, translanguaging has been proved to be an effective pedagogical practice in facilitating language and content integrated learning (Coleman et al., 2018; García, 2009). As Li (2018) argues, translanguaging, which ‘takes us beyond the linguistics of systems and speakers to a linguistics of participation’ (p. 15), involves a process of knowledge (co)construction that goes beyond language(s) to facilitate academic learning and personal development. Yet, in content-based classrooms mediated by translanguaging, language and content may not be given equal attention or focus. Cross (2016) noted that teachers, driven by their agenda or goal, may choose to focus on teaching linguistic knowledge (i.e. necessary for comprehending content) or content-based concepts (i.e. providing a context for learning the language) at any stage of a lesson. Also, teachers’ translanguaging practice (e.g. the choice of languages when multiple language resources are available) depends on the unique situations of the class they teach (e.g. students’ expectations). Through purposeful employment of multiple language resources (e.g. written texts and spoken utterances) and other meaning-making tools (e.g. diagrams, images, and videos), teachers create a ‘translanguaging space’ (Li, 2011, p. 1222) for knowledge co-construction and negotiation with students in content-based classrooms. In this space, the symbiotic relationship between language and content (and thinking), created by teachers’ translanguaging practice, form an organic whole and promotes effective learning in complex and shifting school and social environment (Jones, 2000; Maxwell-Reid, 2017). On the other hand, tensions may rise in teachers’ translanguaging practice in specific classroom settings. For instance, Cross (2016) points out the conundrum regarding which language(s) should be used by teachers and students in EMI classrooms to meet their personal preferences and needs.

Intrigued by the complexities of translanguaging and its potential for EMI teaching, previous studies (e.g. Canagarajah, 2011a, 2011b; Lin, 2019; Toth & Paulsrud, 2017) have looked into effective translanguaging pedagogies, which can provide dynamic and rich resources for teachers to scaffold students’ content learning and for learners to externalize their thoughts, (re)construct their thinking, and engage in knowledge building. One critical strategy of translanguaging is integrating different language codes (e.g. English and Chinese) associated with students’ ethnic, linguistic, and socio-cultural backgrounds. Coleman and his colleagues (2018) argued that in a multilingual classroom setting with no common first language (L1), translanguaging allows flexible use of the L1 and other languages for communication purposes, content learning and intercultural communication. For example, Turnbull et al. (2011) found that when students’ L1 was used in second language (L2) mediated science classrooms, they were able to expand not only their L2 language skills but also their science knowledge. Toth and Paulsrud’s (2017) study concurred this point. They depicted how two subject teachers with different access to language resources (i.e. Swedish and English) accepted, resisted, and negotiated language policies with their students in EMI content classrooms. Their findings highlighted the importance of raising teachers’ and students’ awareness of the value of translanguaging in content learning and helping them exercise agency in their language use. In Grandinetti et al.’s (2013) study, an Italian science teacher inserted Italian terms in his conversation with the students in an EMI classroom. The code-switching act proved to be useful in assessing and enhancing students’ understanding of science terminologies and their applications. More importantly, the integrated use of different languages showed respect to students from different socio-cultural backgrounds. Thus, it can reduce the power distance between teachers and students and lead to an open and democratic classroom atmosphere which facilitates their meaning negotiation and boosts their learning motivations (Lin, 2019).

Another strategy of translanguaging is to combine various language styles and discourses, referring to ‘language-in-use’ that indicates one’s social roles and relationships (Gee, 2014, p. 19). Henderson (2017) revealed an English–Spanish bilingual teacher’s intra-sentential integration of two different language styles (i.e. a mix of formal register and slang). This integration of both ‘academic discourse’ and ‘everyday discourse’ allowed him to connect with his students at different proficiency levels of the two languages to increase their learning interest and engagement. Similarly, Duff (2004) showed two social studies teachers’ efforts in integrating ‘academic discourse’ and ‘pop culture discourse’ to engage their students and increase their learning motivation. However, as the teachers used materials that were culturally and contextually specific (e.g. local TV shows) in their content lessons, the mixture of discourses was more facilitative to local Canadian students’ learning than to immigrant students. This finding hence suggests the complexities and potential challenges (e.g. developing culturally relevant and inclusive materials) embedded in the use of translanguaging pedagogy in multilingual classrooms.

Furthermore, translanguaging can be achieved through a combination of different semiotic and meaning-making resources including ‘textual, aural, linguistic, spatial, and visual resources, or modes’ (Li, 2018, p. 21). For instance, one science teacher in Lin and Lo (2017) integrated a diagram with her oral explanations when teaching the chemical structure of a type of food substance (i.e. ‘polysaccharides’). The use of both visual resource (i.e. diagram) presented by a PowerPoint slide and verbal elaboration facilitated students’ noticing and comprehension of the target concept. Lin (2019) also observed that a Cantonese-as-L1 science teacher and her students drew upon various semiotic resources to learn about the function of blood platelets, such as the mobilization of verbal explanation (i.e. ‘Platelets for blood clotting’) and hand gestures (i.e. using fingers to signal blood clotting). These examples thus showed that translanguaging for content teaching and learning relies on ‘semiotic assemblages’ (Pennycook, 2017, p. 269) of various resources, be it written, verbal or physical.

Taken together, translanguaging can manifest in various and dynamic forms, depending on students’ backgrounds and needs as well as available resources in specific classroom settings. The effective use of translanguaging is based on how teachers integrate ‘language brought by the other’ (i.e. their students) with their own language resources in dialogic meaning co-construction (Canagarajah, 2011b). Translanguaging also ‘interrogates linguistic inequity’ (García & Li, 2015, p. 235) by showing respect to individuals and their language backgrounds, culture, and identities. It is therefore transformative, empowering both the learner and the teacher to (re)negotiate their power relations and create an open, flowing learning experiences in their situated pedagogical contexts and beyond (Block, 2018; Li, 2018). While researchers have argued that teachers need to be sufficiently aware of the value of translanguaging (Toth & Paulsrud, 2017) and carefully synthesize multiple translanguaging resources into a connected and coherent ‘flow’ (Lemke, 2016), such a practice is highly complex and context-specific, which points to the need for systematic research of translanguaging in real classroom situations (Li & Lin, 2019). In particular, despite a growing body of studies (e.g. Duff, 2004; Lin & Lo, 2017) that have shed light on the effective features of translanguaging practice as reviewed above, there is a lack of research on teachers’ perceptions about translanguaging (Canagarajah, 2011b). In light of the interactive relationship between teachers’ pedagogical thinking and practice (Yuan, 2017), such an area is worth research attention in order to augment our knowledge of translanguaging as a potentially effective teaching approach in EMI classrooms.

2 Locating translanguaging in current teacher education literature

In teacher education, there is a rich volume of literature on effective strategies and conditions for teacher learning at both pre- and in-service levels. Although this line of research does not explicitly touch on the notion of translanguaging, it can inform our investigation of the emergence and functions of translanguaging in EMI teacher education classrooms in university settings.

Existing studies (e.g. Maclean & White, 2007; Ryan & Ryan, 2013) in teacher education have demonstrated the facilitative role of translanguaging in shaping and mediating teacher thinking, actions and identities. For instance, in Yuan and Mak’s (2019) study, the student teachers engaged in collaborative lesson planning, micro-teaching and video-based reflections with the ongoing support of the teacher educator. Such a learning process imbued with rich linguistic resources in both written (e.g. lesson plans and peer comments) and verbal forms (e.g. reflection videos) helped the student teachers cognitively and emotionally analyse their strengths and weaknesses and identify directions for the improvement of their teaching effectiveness. In a similar vein, Urzúa and Vásquez (2008) described how teacher learning could take place through dialogic interactions in a school-based teacher learning group. During their reflective discussion, the teachers evaluated their own teaching practice by using cognitive statements (e.g. ‘we realized’) and professional terms (e.g. ‘modeling’ and ‘guiding framework’) to justify their analysis and establish their stance as reflective teachers. The teachers also talked about their future plans through different linguistic strategies (e.g. using assertive statements and modal verbs such as ‘should’), which evidenced their growing reflective competence in problem analysis and decision making. Similar findings can also be observed in Johnson (2009), Orland-Barak and Yinon (2007), as well as Ryan and Ryan (2013), all of which have shed light on the intertwined relationship between teachers’ professional learning and their contextualized language use in daily teaching and social interactions (e.g. with their colleagues and students).

While the above reviewed research has augmented our understanding of the socially and discursively mediated process of teacher learning, none of them have provided explicit knowledge about translanguaging and its pedagogical complexity and potential in teacher education. There is also little information about how teacher educators perceive and use language(s) and other semiotic resources to facilitate learning to teach in EMI classroom settings. Given that EMI has been increasingly promoted in university curriculums including teacher education programs in many geographical settings (e.g. China, Korea, and Singapore), it is necessary to examine to what extent and how teacher educators engage in translanguaging in EMI classrooms in order to maximize its pedagogical potential for preparing and developing effective teachers. To this end, this study, informed by the existing studies on the effective features of translanguaging in classroom teaching (García & Li, 2014; Li, 2011, 2018; Lin & Lo, 2017; Pennycook, 2017) and the relevant research in teacher education (e.g. Urzúa & Vásquez, 2008; Yuan & Mak, 2019), investigated a Hong Kong-based teacher educator’s professional beliefs and practice about translanguaging in his teacher education practice.

III Methodology

1 Research question

The study aims to address a central question, i.e. how does a teacher educator perceive and engage in translanguaging practice in his EMI teacher education classrooms? To answer this question, the study follows a qualitative case study design (Creswell, 2007) by drawing on multiple sources of data, including interviews, field observation, and relevant documents over one academic year.

2 The participants and the context

This study is part of a larger research project that explored teacher educators’ professional practice and development in Hong Kong. While the main project focused on a total of six teacher educators who voluntarily took part in the research (see Yuan, 2020b; Yuan &Yang, 2020), this article presented the case of one teacher educator, Kenny (pseudonym). Kenny was chosen as the focus of the current study because he provided access for extended classroom observation in different courses and contexts (i.e. Hong Kong and mainland China) over an academic year. In this sense, Kenny is regarded as a potentially information-rich case, which can offer meaningful and in-depth data on teacher educators’ translanguaging practice in real classroom settings. As a qualitative case study, the research does not intend to generalize its findings. The merits of the study lie in the richness of research data derived from multiple sources (i.e. real-time observation, field notes and interview), which can generate a new and richly textured understanding of translanguaging as an underexplored phenomenon in teacher education. Research ethics approval had been gained from the authors’ university and consent had been sought from Kenny before the study commenced.

As a male ethnic Chinese who was born and educated locally in Hong Kong, Kenny spoke Cantonese as his L1 and had a very high command of English as his L2. He could also speak fluent Mandarin given his exposure and practice in everyday social life (e.g. watching Mandarin TV shows and conversing with colleagues from mainland China). At the time of the study, Kenny, with a PhD in Education, had been working as an assistant professor in a local university for two years. Before this job, he had taught English as a lecturer in another university for eight years. In his current teacher education work, he offered content-based courses (e.g. about curriculum design, classroom assessment, and school leadership) for both pre-service and in-service teachers in different teacher education programs. Additionally, upon invitations, he provided teacher education workshops on topics related to school curriculum and classroom pedagogy to teachers in Hong Kong and mainland China. Given his university’s EMI teaching policy, Kenny’s courses and workshops were mainly delivered in English, while most of his students were ethnic Chinese who used English as an L2 or a foreign language in their academic study and daily life.

3 Data collection

Data collection lasted over one academic year from 2018 to 2019. First, the researchers observed Kenny’s teacher education practice (i.e. two practical workshops and two teacher education courses) to explore whether and how he used translanguaging strategies to co-construct knowledge with the teachers. The teacher education workshops (observed by the first author) took place in a Mainland Chinese university where teachers mostly used Mandarin as the instructional language in daily classroom teaching. However, as the university had been gradually promoting EMI over the past years, Kenny was invited to provide workshops for a group of science (e.g. engineering) teachers (whose first language is mandarin) and help them learn how to promote classroom interaction in their EMI classrooms. The teacher education courses (observed by the second author) took place in Kenny’s own university, which adopted English as the main language for classroom teaching. These courses, which focused on issues about teacher leadership and curriculum reform, were offered for pre-service teachers (whose first language is Cantonese) who aimed to teach in primary or secondary schools after graduation in Hong Kong. Thus, we believe a focus on Kenny’s teaching in different contexts (with students of different linguistic and social backgrounds) can to a large extent shed light on his translanguaging practice in authentic EMI classroom settings. In total, six sessions of Kenny’s teacher education courses (i.e. around 18 hours), plus the teacher education workshops (i.e. around six hours), were observed and audio-recorded, with field notes taken to document critical incidents (i.e. episodes indicating Kenny’s translanguaging practice). Meanwhile, documents related to Kenny’s teacher education courses, which included the course syllabus, PowerPoint slides, and handouts, were collected to enrich our dataset and provide different perspectives about his translanguaging practice in teaching teachers.

Following the observation, a semi-structured interview was conducted with Kenny at the end of the academic year to understand his perceptions of the roles and functions of translanguaging in EMI content courses (for the sample interview questions, see Appendix 1). In the interview, Kenny reflected upon his use of translanguaging in content teaching with a specific focus on its effectiveness and areas for improvement. Some lesson transcripts (particularly regarding the critical teaching episodes identified through our initial analysis) were shown in the interview to help him recall and reflect upon his translanguaging practice. The interview, conducted in English and lasting for around 60 minutes, was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis.

4 Data analysis

A qualitative and inductive data analytic approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994) was used in data analysis. First, with reference to the research question and the field notes taken during field observation, the episodes that evidenced Kenny’s translanguaging practice were identified in the audio-recorded observation data and were further transcribed verbatim and analysed in light of the conceptual framework on translanguaging (e.g. García & Li, 2014; Li, 2011, 2018; Lin & Lo, 2017). Specifically, we reviewed the lesson transcripts and field notes to identify Kenny’s use of different strategies of translanguaging in his teaching and count their frequency of occurrence. For instance, he used colloquial languages to exemplify and explain an academic term (e.g. motivation) to facilitate students’ content learning, which evidenced an instance of his integration of academic and everyday discourse in his EMI classroom. As the analysis of observational data continued, we brought in the collected documents (e.g. handouts and PowerPoint slides) for comparison and contrast to confirm, extend, and refine the emerging themes. Such a recursive and interactive process led to three translanguaging strategies, namely, 1) integrating academic discourse with everyday discourse (i.e. 45 instances, which accounted for 65% of the translanguaging strategies identified in the data), 2) linking verbal and other semiotic resources (i.e. 18 instances, 26%), and 3) using students’ L1 as a facilitative semiotic resource (i.e. 6 instances, 9%).

The interview transcript was also reviewed in line with the observation and documents data to identify Kenny’s professional beliefs about translanguaging as a pedagogical approach in his teacher education classrooms. For instance, he shared his strong belief in bridging the gap between theory and practice in teacher education, which explained his integrative use of multiple semiotic (e.g. diagrams) and linguistic (e.g. verbal explanation) resources to help students experience and apply theories in practice. To ensure validity of the study, the two authors engaged in rounds of data analysis and discussions in the research process. The rigorous discussion and critical challenges among the researchers facilitated data interpretation and helped validate and refine the analysis.

IV Findings

In this section, drawing on data from classroom observation, related course material, and the follow-up interview, we report the three translanguaging strategies adopted by Kenny according to their frequency of use. The data excerpts were selected as they were illustrative of Kenny’s typical use of specific translanguaging strategies. We also present his perceptions and reflections about the use of translanguaging in teacher education classrooms.

Translanguaging strategy 1: Integrating academic discourse with everyday discourse

Kenny’s most frequently used translanguaging strategy was integrating academic discourse and everyday discourse to bridge theory and practice in his teacher education classrooms, which accounted for around 65% (45 instances) of the identified translanguaging strategies. This can be illustrated with a classroom episode about teacher collaboration and team diversity in school contexts. In this episode, following a task where students played different roles (e.g. ‘leader’ and ‘follower’) in teamwork, Kenny skillfully moved from academic discourse to everyday discourse to help the students reflect upon their role-play experience (i.e. how different roles influenced teamwork) based on an established framework on team diversity (Driskell, Goodwin, Salas & O’Shea, 2006) (see Excerpt 1).

Excerpt 1:

Kenny’s course; analysis of characteristics of different roles

Kenny

… Let’s discuss together. How would you explain these roles? How about ‘leaders’? What characteristics? ‘Leaders’ tend to be what? Maybe more dominant and high self-esteem. Good. Use these kinds of words . . . OK? Yeah?

Student 1

Expressive

Kenny

More expressive, right? That means high expressivity. High social perceptiveness. You understand social perceptiveness, right? Yeah, OK, good, like how you can notice, like behaviors of other people, like feelings . . . How about other roles, like ‘followers’? OK? [Students gave their response in a low voice.] Yeah, followers tend to have lower self-esteem. They don’t believe in themselves. They tend to listen to others. They don’t have firm ideas or stance.

As shown in Excerpt 1, to facilitate the students’ discussion and analysis, Kenny modeled on the task by discussing the characteristics of a role (i.e. leaders) with the use of theoretical terms (i.e. high self-esteem; see underlined text) from the framework. Then, he invited the students to think about the characteristics of different roles by using discourse markers with a rising intonation (i.e. OK? Yeah?) and direct questioning (i.e. Anything else?). As he expected, the students tried to use academic terms from the previously introduced framework to express their thoughts (i.e. expressive; see underlined text). In response, he rephrased or expanded the students’ use of academic discourse with everyday discourse. For example, he used a colloquial expression, like, three times in one breath to give examples (i.e. like how you can notice, like behaviors of other people, like feelings; see boldface text) about high social perceptiveness. Similarly, the academic term of lower self-esteem (see underlined text) was elaborated with simple, everyday languages such as don’t believe in themselves, tend to listen to others, and don’t have firm ideas or stance. These examples showed how Kenny clarified difficult academic concepts for the students based on their everyday experience and discourse.

In addition, Kenny tried to bridge the gap between theories and practice by modeling on how academic concepts learned in the course may be applied in real classrooms. For instance, in the workshop which focused on analysing students’ backgrounds and learning needs, Teacher 1 shared her thoughts about Japanese students’ English accent as a potential barrier to EMI education (see Excerpt 2). After that, Kenny introduced the academic concept of ‘L1 influence’ to raise the discussion from an everyday to an academic level.

Excerpt 2:

Kenny’s workshop; whole-class discussion of students’ English learning difficulties

Kenny

For EMI classrooms, you are going to encounter a variety of students from different countries and they speak English with different accents, right? . . . Do you know how Japanese speak English? Does anyone speak Japanese here or know Japanese?

Teacher 1

A little bit

Kenny

A little bit. Do you know how they speak English?

Teacher 1

Probably their pronunciation habit is influenced by Japanese. Some words in English are very difficult for them to pronounce correctly.

Kenny

Exactly. It is an influence from their L1, you know, first language. Japanese English is heavily influenced by L1 . . . Like Japanese students, they say ‘lestaulant’.

Teachers

Restaurant [Laughter]

Kenny

‘Restaurant.’ Yeah. So, if you teach in international classrooms, it would be good to understand a little bit more of your students’ accents. So, you got to pay a little more attention to how they speak.

As shown by the underlined phrases in Excerpt 2, Kenny reframed the discussion about some Japanese students’ pronunciation difficulties by using the academic concept of ‘L1 influence’, an important concept in second language acquisition research. Following a funny (and exaggerating) demonstration of some Japanese’s English pronunciation of the word, ‘restaurant’, he summarized this discussion by shuttling between everyday and academic discourse to highlight the importance of understanding the influence of students’ linguistic backgrounds on their English learning and academic study.

In the interview, Kenny recounted that he used this translanguaging strategy (i.e. the integration of academic and everyday discourse) because of his strong belief about the symbiotic relationship between theories and practice in teacher education. As seen in the quote below, he believed that teachers should be able to understand and apply theories to enhance their teaching practice:

I always emphasized the importance of using theories to justify and explain practice . . . They [teachers] need to explain what they are doing right now. With those principles in mind, they can transfer their practice to other contexts. (Interview)

Despite his efforts to help teachers close the theory-practice gap through translanguaging, Kenny encountered some challenges in his teacher education classrooms. Some students, especially in-service teachers, often complained that the theories he introduced were abstract and irrelevant to their classroom practice (Interview). This challenge prompted Kenny to actively engage in translanguaging to help teachers appreciate the value of theory and explore its potential in improving their teaching effectiveness. For instance, he tried to share more personal stories and experience about his own classroom teaching and professional development to illustrate the mutually constitutive relationship between theory and practice (Interview).

I have been improving in terms of making my teaching more practical . . . Students always want the teacher to share some more of their experience . . . So, I planned to add some personal experiences. (Interview)

He gave an example about how he shared his own English learning experience to his students to supplement their understanding of the concept of ‘learner motivation’.

In the first lesson, I asked the students to draw a motivation graph according to their English learning history. Then I asked them to share their learning history to the class. I think it was not enough for them to understand the notion of learner motivation. So, I also shared my learning experience and motivations, including the ups and downs, to help them understand learner motivation in language classrooms. (Interview)

The sharing of practical experience thus constituted another translanguaging act combining both academic discourse (i.e. the academic concept of ‘motivation’) and everyday discourse (i.e. his personal narratives as a language learner). Overall, informed by his own teaching belief, Kenny tried to use different language varieties to bridge theory and practice in order to promote his students’ future practice as language teachers.

Translanguaging strategy 2: Linking verbal and other semiotic resources

As observed, depending on the task design and requirement, Kenny often skillfully blended verbal resources and other semiotic resources into his teacher education classrooms. This act constituted the second most frequent translanguaging strategy he used (18 instances, around 26% of all the identified translanguaging strategies) in our classroom observation data. For example, in the teacher education course, he changed his voice to help the students comprehend a concept (see the underlined text in Excerpt 3).

Excerpt 3:

Kenny’s course; analysis of characteristics of different roles

Kenny

… But being a follower is shirking the responsibility. You know what I mean by ‘shirking the responsibility’? Like [with a change of voice] ‘this is not what I said. I just followed you. You said it and I followed you’, right?

[Students’ laughter]

To help the students understand the term ‘shirking the responsibility’ (i.e. the characteristics of followers), he humorously switched his voice and mimicked the thoughts of a follower (i.e. ‘this is not what I said, I just followed you. You said it and I followed you’). The students’ laughter indicated that his translanguaging attempt was successful not only for content learning but also for social involvement (Lin, 2019). As he shared in the interview, this translanguaging strategy (i.e. the use of voice along with verbal explanations) acted as a ‘performance’ to attract the ‘audience’s attention’ and ‘get them closer to the actual scenario’ (Interview). Through this translanguaging practice, he aimed to help the students digest the content in an entertaining way.

I think it is similar to playing a video showing that scenario, but I just don’t have that video. So, I am the video, showing them the scenario. (Interview)

Kenny also blended different semiotic resources (i.e. PowerPoint slides and handouts which consisted of images, diagrams, tables, and written paragraphs) in his teacher education classrooms to help students digest difficult content knowledge (Interview). For instance, in the session about language learner motivation, while he used shared his personal narrative to facilitate students’ understanding of academic concepts, he also provided a motivation graph on a handout and asked the students to draw their English learning motivation trajectory on it (see Figure 1). After that, he asked the students to identify factors influencing their motivation to learn English at different stages and write their own definition of motivation. On the next page of the handout, he included two paragraphs of definitions of motivation, taken from the literature (i.e. Dörnyei & Ottó, 1998; Gardner, 1985), for the students to make comparison. The integration of visual resource (i.e. motivation graph) and written resource (i.e. definitions of motivations), along with his verbal sharing and explanations, evidenced his use of a translanguaging strategy for content teaching.

Figure 1.

The motivation graph about English language learning.

Kenny’s integration of semiotic resources and verbal explanations is also evident in his course about teacher leadership in school contexts. In one session about teacher collaboration, he gave the students some guided questions and asked them to discuss with reference to the academic concepts shown in the diagram on the handout (see Figure 2). The guided questions and the table on the handout were thus used as semiotic resources to help the students analyse how different categories of diversity may affect group performance.

Figure 2.

A discussion task about teamwork in school contexts.

After the students’ group discussion, Kenny invited them to share their ideas and comments, during which the semiotic resources on the handout mediated knowledge building and exchange between him and the students. Excerpt 4 illustrates how Kenny used the diagram to help a student analyse her teamwork experience (i.e. a focus on question 3 on the handout).

Excerpt 4:

Kenny’s course; student’s sharing about teamwork experience

Student 2

I once had a group presentation about music education . . . I was not good at music and don’t know anything about music, so I just wanted to be a follower . . . And I don’t want to cause conflicts. So, in our group discussion, when someone said the music is good, I just said ‘you’re right. The music is very good’ . . . I just wanted to finish the group presentation. I don’t care about my stance.

Kenny

Thank you. We can analyse many things based on this experience . . . So, first, she chose to be a follower who agreed with others. She mentioned that ‘I don’t know anything about music.’ What is this? This is low self-esteem, isn’t it? . . . She can say: ‘In my experience, other group members are music-major but I’m not. Compared to them, I have lower self-esteem, so I was not confident. I didn’t trust my ideas. That’s why I tend to follow after people.’ This is how we can use the concepts to construct our experience.

In Excerpt 4, after the student shared her teamwork experience, Kenny elaborated on how academic concepts (i.e. low self-esteem and trust; see underlined text) from the diagram can be used to structure and analyse her experience. The use of the academic jargon showed his effort in exploiting the semiotic resource of the handout to help the students construct meaning and deepen their understanding of the target content knowledge about team diversity.

In the interview, Kenny recalled that his integration of written resource and verbal explanations was a ‘planned’ act of translanguaging (Interview). This was guided by his belief about the importance of maximizing students’ learning through the use of different linguistic resources (e.g. written and oral). He explained:

The framework [shown by the diagram] on the handout was to give the students something to draw on for discussion . . . Then they did not have to generate the types of diversities by themselves, which may be difficult. (Interview)

In other words, Kenny’s use of both written resource and verbal explanations was carefully planned with a clear pedagogical purpose of providing a framework for the students to practice and expand their knowledge base. Through his strategic use of verbal resources and other semiotic resources including written (e.g. handouts) and physical (e.g. his voice), Kenny created a facilitative content learning environment in his EMI teacher education classrooms.

Translanguaging strategy 3: Using students’ L1 as a facilitative semiotic resource

Compared to the former two translanguaging strategies, only a few instances (i.e. 6 instances) of students’ L1 use (i.e. Mandarin) were found in Kenny’s workshops provided for teachers in the mainland Chinese university. The use of the students’ L1, which accounted for only 9% of the identified translanguaging strategies he used, had important functions of promoting students’ learning motivation and engagement with the content knowledge about teacher education. For instance, at the beginning of the EMI workshop he provided for university teachers in mainland China, he introduced himself by using both Mandarin Chinese, the teachers’ L1, and English (see the underlined text in Excerpt 5). Although Mandarin was not Kenny’s mother tongue, he intentionally used it to break the ice and connect with the mainland Chinese teachers.

Excerpt 5:

Kenny’s workshop; self-introduction

Kenny

Do you know anything about me?

Teacher 2

Yes, your name is [Kenny’s English name].

Kenny

Yeah, my name is [Kenny’s English name] and [Kenny’s Chinese name, written in simplified Chinese on a name tag on the front desk which had been prepared by the university] is my Chinese name. Is it complicated?

Teachers

Yeah

Kenny

You know, in Hong Kong, we write in traditional Chinese, so this is even more complicated. In the past when I was in a primary school, to, you know, I got punished (for misbehavior in the classroom), and I was asked by my teacher to write [Kenny’s Chinese name] like two hundred times. It was, you know, a pain in the ass.

[Teachers’ laughter]

As shown in Excerpt 5, through this purposeful use of Mandarin, Kenny was trying to align himself with the teachers who likely felt at ease in a Mandarin-speaking environment. After this, he interjected a comment on writing his name in traditional Chinese characters (i.e. this is even more complicated). The use of the comparative, more complicated, indicated that he was comparing traditional Chinese, a form of written Chinese, to another form (i.e. simplified Chinese). This then led to his personal anecdote of writing his name in traditional Chinese as a punishment for his misbehavior in the primary school. According to our observation, the teachers were intrigued and amused by Kenny’ self-introduction as suggested by their loud laughter. Therefore, his translanguaging practice (i.e. the use of both English and Mandarin), facilitated by the light-hearted personal story, served to motivate the teachers and encouraged their participation in the latter tasks.

In the interview, reflecting on this episode, Kenny pointed out that this was ‘an unplanned and spontaneous act’ prompted by the name tag (showing his name in simplified Chinese) placed at the front desk of the classroom. Since all the teachers could see the name tag, he instantly decided to use this readily accessible resource to introduce himself in a ‘casual’ and engaging way (Interview).

I wanted to engage them in some interaction instead of just saying, ‘Ok my name is [Kenny’s English name] bla bla bla. (Interview)

By making efforts to use the teachers’ L1 (but not his), Kenny intended to create a welcoming atmosphere in his EMI workshop.

I tried to build an atmosphere, like a relaxing environment, in the classroom. We can laugh and have more interaction . . . It’s a good strategy for rapport building. (Interview)

Kenny not only used the teachers’ L1 to bond with the teachers, but also used this translanguaging strategy to help them comprehend and absorb new content knowledge. For instance, after analysing general English learning needs of university students, Kenny skillfully weaved a Mandarin term (‘Gaokao’) into his sharing about his own research conducted in Hong Kong to illustrate effective techniques for assessing university students’ complex learning needs (see Excerpt 6).

Excerpt 6:

Kenny’s workshop; exemplification of students English learning needs

Kenny

… and this is what I found. A little bit of the background [English proficiency level], OK? My students got Level 5 double star in English in the HKDSE [Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination], it’s like Gaokao. The Gaokao result they’ve got from their secondary school. Level 5 double star is the highest. Next is Level 5 star, and then Level 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 . . . So, these are very strong students. They may not have problems with basic use of English . . . But they need special help with citation (to learn) how to avoid plagiarism, how to paraphrase from those journal articles into their own ideas. So, I encourage teachers to pay more attention to how to paraphrase and summarize ideas (in their teaching) . . . But those weaker students may struggle with writing and speaking. So, you may pay more attention to how they write, and how they do presentations.

As underlined in Excerpt 6, Kenny’s simple reference to ‘Gaokao’ (i.e. the college entrance examination in China) in Mandarin constituted a useful translanguaging act for the teachers to ‘draw relevance between their own education system and that of Hong Kong’ (Interview). Using ‘Gaokao’ as a conceptual lens (see underlined text), Kenny helped the teachers quickly grasp his main message that students with different English exam results have specific strengths and weaknesses in English and academic learning. To further consolidate this new content knowledge, he compared advanced English learners’ learning needs (i.e. citation in academic writing) with those of weaker students who needed extra support in basic language skills (i.e. writing and speaking).

In fact, Kenny did not plan to use this translanguaging strategy (i.e. the switch between Mandarin and English) when he was preparing the workshops. Influenced by the dominant ideology behind the EMI language policy and practice in Hong Kong, he held the belief that English should be used to the largest extent in his classroom teaching:

In the EMI university context, everything that I prepare should be in English . . . This is what the university wants to see. Therefore, I assume that there is no need at all to use Chinese [Mandarin or Cantonese]. (Interview)

The above quote can thus explain his relatively limited use of students’ L1 in his teacher education classrooms due to his personal assumptions about EMI (i.e. English should be the dominant language) and the university policy.

Overall, only in rare cases as presented above, Kenny would spontaneously interject terms in the students’ L1 to address their learning needs or boost their learning motivation despite the potential of an L1-mediated, culturally responsive approach for mediating teacher learning. His teaching belief and practice about EMI seems to suggest an exclusive relationship between English and other languages, which may reduce his engagement in translanguaging (particularly the flexible use of multiple languages) in promoting teacher learning in multilingual classrooms.

V Discussion

Responding to Li and Lin’s (2019) call for more research on translanguaging in real classrooms, this study investigated the use of translanguaging in teacher education practice. It offers a realistic perspective on how translanguaging is perceived and enacted by a teacher educator in his daily work. As shown by the analysis, Kenny used different translanguaging strategies and resources in his EMI teacher education classrooms. Cognitively, he shuttled between different language codes as well as styles (i.e. academic discourse and everyday discourse) to connect abstract theories with real classroom contexts and practices. He also helped the students deepen their understanding and engage in interactive learning by drawing on different semiotic meaning-making resources in verbal, written, and physical forms (i.e. his voice). Socially and emotionally, he tried to integrate students’ L1 with English for rapport building, which could lower their affective resistance and prepare them for content learning. The findings thus suggest Kenny’s attempts to create a ‘translanguaging space’ (Li, 2011) where pre- and in-service teachers were encouraged and guided to participate cognitively, socially, and emotionally in meaning negotiation and knowledge co-construction with the peers and the teacher educator.

Interestingly, while Kenny drew on a variety of translanguaging resources in his EMI teaching practice, he might not always be aware of his own translanguaging acts. This finding was observed in Toth and Paulsrud’s (2017) participants who did not explicitly identify their use of translanguaging as a pedagogical resource in EMI teaching. In our study, Kenny intuitively used the students’ L1 in his EMI lessons not only to create a warm and welcoming learning environment, but also to help the students link their prior L1-mediated experience (i.e. ‘Gaokao’) with new pedagogical concepts introduced in English. Kenny’s spontaneous translanguaging practice therefore attested to Li’s (2018) notion of ‘translanguaging instinct’, which describes individuals’ predisposition to adopt their available repertoire of semiotic resources to facilitate communication in multilingual encounters. Such translanguaging instinct, as shown by Kenny’s case, is an important component of teacher educators’ professional competence and can act as the driving force for their improvisation (e.g. using students’ L1) in EMI classrooms to meet student’ complex needs and shifting classroom situations.

In contrast to relying on their intuition, teacher educators’ translanguaging practice can also be carefully planned. In Kenny’s case, he prepared teaching materials containing a concept map, which acted as written resource to facilitate his verbal explanation of new content knowledge to the students. In addition, he implemented this planned translanguaging practice through a dialogic approach of interaction with the students (Urzúa & Vásquez, 2008). As seen in the analysis, Kenny asked the students to use the academic terminologies on his prepared handout in their group discussion. After the students shared their thoughts in class, he expanded their thoughts by further referring to the academic terms and elaborating them with everyday discourse. This planned translanguaging practice with the use of a dialogic approach therefore provided an important site for the students to engage in meaning negotiation and co-construction in their content learning process (Yuan, 2018). This finding aligns with Canagarajah’s (2011b) argument that effective translanguaging practice depends on individuals’ intention and ability to integrate others’ language into their own semiotic repertoire in a process of dialogic meaning construction.

As mentioned before, the article does not intend to present Kenny as an exemplary case with a high command of translanguaging use. In fact, the findings reveal some challenges faced by Kenny which impeded his translanguaging practice. For instance, his implementation of translanguaging strategies, such as integrating academic and everyday discourse to bridge theory and practice, was not well-received by his students due to their doubts and resistance towards academic theories provided in his courses. To respond to this challenge, Kenny tried to evaluate his specific teaching context and added more personal stories to help students understand and process educational theories. This trial-and-error process reflected the context-specific nature of teacher educators’ translanguaging practice to meet students’ complex learning needs. The finding also aligns with existing teacher education literature, which highlights the need to engage in deliberate design, careful execution, and conscious examination of teacher education practice with a view to promoting teacher learning and growth (Johnson, 2009; Yuan & Mak, 2019).

Another interesting finding is that Kenny mainly used students’ L1 (i.e. Mandarin) in his teacher education workshops provided for science teachers in the mainland Chinese university, while he showed a sense of resistance towards using L1 in his Hong Kong university classrooms. Behind such a difference was the powerful influence of context in mediating teacher educators’ translanguaging practice in EMI classrooms. Moving to a new teaching context (i.e. a mainland Chinese university), Kenny’s sensitivity towards linguistic diversity might become heightened, which promoted his awareness and use of translanguaging, whereas in his Hong Kong university with a long-standing EMI policy he seemed to be bound by the assumption that English should dominate his classroom teaching as ‘the academic lingua franca’ (van Leeuwen, 2003, p. 20) in higher education. This differs from Toth and Paulsrud’s (2017) participants who negotiated and resisted the dominant language policies in their content classrooms based on their teaching purposes. Kenny’s belief, derived from his situated work context, somehow contradicts the ideology of translanguaging which fervently promotes the pedagogical value of using different language resources in facilitating content learning in an EMI setting (e.g. García & Li, 2014; Li, 2018). This contradiction, which might go unnoticed by teacher educators (as shown in Kenny’s case), could pose difficulties to the full implementation of translanguaging for academic study and personal learning.

Apart from the external factors, the study demonstrates that teacher educators’ translanguaging practice is strongly influenced by their personal values and beliefs about teaching and teacher education. In the study, Kenny believed that teaching is like a performance and thus teachers are ‘performers’ who need to use all resources available to put on a good ‘show’ for the audience. In his teacher education classrooms, this belief drove him to draw on written, verbal and physical translanguaging resources to teach and facilitate learning in an interactive, engaging, and entertaining way. More importantly, as a teacher educator Kenny held a firm belief in the integrative relationship between theory and practice in teacher education. This belief prompted him to adopt the translanguaging strategy of shifting between different discourse types (i.e. academic and everyday discourse) to practicalize abstract academic concepts and theoretical approaches in relation to the school reality. Therefore, the implementation of translanguaging, which can be both conscious and subconscious, entails the complex interaction and negotiation between various internal (i.e. personal values and teaching philosophies) and external factors (e.g. institutional policy and students’ needs) in specific socio-cultural settings.

VI Implications and conclusions

The study speaks to the complexity of teacher education pedagogies, which include not only various teaching tools, materials and tasks, but also teacher educators themselves who need to engage in concrete and contextualized practice and discourses. It also shows that the use of translanguaging for content learning needs to occur in a process of dialogic meaning negotiation and co-construction. Through such dialogic interactions, teacher educators can draw upon a wide range of translanguaging resources, planned or out of intuition, to enhance the teaching-learning process, relationships, and experiences.

As suggested by the findings, teacher educators may not always be aware of how translanguaging works to help enhance their own classroom practice. Some may not even be aware of their own translanguaging capacity and practice. This indicates that teacher educators firstly need to become conscious of their own translanguaging intuition (Li, 2018) and view translanguaging as a useful tool for teacher education. They can also analyse and further expand their own translanguaging repertoire in practice. For instance, with reference to the three types of translanguaging strategies in Kenny’s classroom practice, teacher educators can reflect upon their own use of different types of multimodal and semiotic resources to teach content and facilitate students’ learning in EMI courses. They can also video-record their own teaching for self-analysis of strengths (i.e. effective translanguaging strategies) and weaknesses (i.e. translanguaging strategies that do not work well). In addition to self-reflection, they can invite their colleagues to observe their lessons and give comments on their translanguaging practice, which may reveal their own ‘blind spots’ that need further work and improvement.

The finding also showed that teacher educators’ translanguaging practice is closely related to their individual beliefs and values as well as external policy and requirement in different teaching contexts. Therefore, teacher educators need to engage in ongoing reflections to examine their personal assumptions and work environment (and its associated social, cultural and linguistic features) when engaging in translanguaging practice. Specifically, they can reflect upon their beliefs about language use (e.g. regarding whether and how to use students’ L1) and critically analyse how translanguaging practice may help them actualize such beliefs. It is important to note that not all teacher educators have the sensitivity toward language and semiotics, so they may need to work with language specialists to collectively explore, plan and implement translanguaging strategies that can aid content teaching and learning. This may also require the logistic support from universities which need to provide time, space and funding for such collaborative teaching and learning to occur and grow in EMI programs.

This study has some limitations, which need to be addressed in future research. First, it reported only one case and future research can thus examine and compare different teacher educators’ translanguaging practices to reveal its potential diversity. Second, as the study only drew on data from the teacher educator’s perspective, researchers can consider collecting data from students to understand how translanguaging help them engage in dialogic knowledge construction and how their content learning in EMI classrooms contributes to their academic/professional development. The translanguaging practice of teacher educators of different subject backgrounds can also be explored to provide insights into the types of support teacher educators may need to cultivate their translanguaging capacity in EMI teaching.

Footnotes

Appendix 1 Funding

This article is based on a research project supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (EdUHK 28604017).

ORCID iD

Rui Yuan

References

Barwell

(2016). A Bakhtinian perspective on language and content integration: Encountering the alien word in second language mathematics classrooms. In Nikula

Dafouz

Moore

Smit

(Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 101–122). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Basturkmen

Shackleford

(2015). How content lecturers help students with language: An observational study of language-related episodes in interaction in first year accounting classrooms. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 87–97.

Block

(2018). The political economy of language education research (or the lack thereof): Nancy Fraser and the case of translanguaging. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 15, 237–257.

Canagarajah

(2011a). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 401–417.

Canagarajah

(2011b). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 1–28.

Cenoz

Gorter

(2017). Translanguaging as a pedagogical tool in multilingual education. In Cenoz

Gorter

May

(Eds.), Language awareness and multilingualism (pp. 309–321). 3rd edition. Cham: Springer International.

Coleman

Hultgren

Tsui

C.C.

Shaw

(2018). Forum on English-medium Instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 701–720.

Creswell

J.W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cross

(2016). Language and content ‘integration’: The affordances of additional languages as a tool within a single curriculum space. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48, 388–408.

10.

Driskell

J.E.

Goodwin

G.F.

Salas

O’Shea

P.G.

(2006). What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 249–271.

11.

Dörnyei

Ottó

(1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4, 43–69.

12.

Duff

P.A.

(2004). Intertextuality and hybrid discourses: The infusion of pop culture in educational discourse. Linguistics and Education, 14, 231–276.

13.

García

(2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell.

14.

García

(2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

15.

García

(2015). Translanguaging, bilingualism, and bilingual education. In Wright

W.E.

Boun

García

(Eds.), The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 223–240). London: Palgrave.

16.

Gardner

R.C.

(1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

17.

Gee

J.P.

(2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. 4th edition. New York: Routledge.

18.

Grandinetti

Langellotti

Ting

Y.L.T.

(2013). How CLIL can provide a pragmatic means to renovate science education – Even in a sub-optimally bilingual context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 354–374.

19.

Henderson

K.L.

(2017). Teacher language ideologies mediating classroom-level language policy in the implementation of dual language bilingual education. Linguistics and Education, 42, 21–33.

20.

Johnson

K.E.

(2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York: Routledge.

21.

Jones

(2000). The role of language in the learning and teaching of science. In Monk

Osborne

(Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say (pp. 88–103). Buckingham: Open University Press.

22.

Lee

Canagarajah

(2019). The connection between transcultural dispositions and translingual practices in academic writing. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 14, 14–28.

23.

Lei

(2014). Is English-medium instruction effective in improving Chinese undergraduate students’ English competence? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52, 99–126.

24.

Lemke

J.L.

(2016). Translanguaging and flows. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Communication, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.

25.

Leong

P.N.C.

(2017). English-medium instruction in Japanese universities: Policy implementation and constraints. Current Issues in Language Planning, 18, 57–67.

26.

(2011). Moment Analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1222–1235.

27.

(2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied linguistics, 39, 9–30.

28.

Lin

A.M.Y.

(2019). Translanguaging classroom discourse: pushing limits, breaking boundaries. Classroom Discourse, 10, 209–215.

29.

Lin

A.M.Y.

(2019). Theories of trans/languaging and transsemiotizing: Implications for content-based education classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22, 5–16.

30.

Lin

A.M.Y.

Y.Y.

(2017). Trans/languaging and the tradic dialogue in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Language and Education, 31, 26–45.

31.

Macaro

Curle

Pun

Dearden

(2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51, 36–76.

32.

Macaro

(2019). Exploring the role of language in English medium instruction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23, 263–76.

33.

Maclean

White

(2007). Video reflection and the formation of teacher identity in a team of pre-service and experienced teachers. Reflective Practice, 8, 47–60.

34.

Maxwell-Reid

(2017). Classroom discourse in bilingual secondary science: Language as medium or language as dialectic? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23, 499–512.

35.

Miles

Huberman

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.

36.

Orland-Barak

Yinon

(2007). When theory meets practice: What student teachers learn from guided reflection on their own classroom discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 957–969.

37.

Pennycook

(2017). Translanguaging and semiotic assemblages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14, 269–282.

38.

Prinsloo

Krause

(2019). Translanguaging, place and complexity. Language and Education, 33, 159–173.

39.

Ryan

(2013). Theorising a model for teaching and assessing reflective learning in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 32, 244–257.

40.

Toth

Paulsrud

(2017). Agency and affordance in translanguaging for learning: Case studies from English-medium instruction in Swedish schools. In Paulsrud

Rosén

Straszer

Wedin

Å.

(Eds.), New perspectives on translanguaging and education (pp. 189–207). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

41.

Turnbull

Cormier

Bourque

(2011). The first language in science class: A quasi-experimental study in late French immersion. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 182–198.

42.

Urzúa

Vásquez

(2008). Reflection and professional identity in teachers’ future-oriented discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1935–1946.

43.

Van Leeuwen

. (2003). Feasibility of policy in university language teaching today. In Van Leeuwen

Wilkinson

(Eds.), Multilingual approaches in university education: Challenges and practices (pp. 19–45). Maastricht: University of Maastricht.

44.

Yuan

(2017). Exploring university-based teacher educators’ teaching beliefs and practice: A Hong Kong study. Teaching in Higher Education, 22, 259–273.

45.

Yuan

(2018). ‘Practicing what I preach’: Exploring an EFL teacher educator’s modelling practice. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 414–425.

46.

Yuan

(2020a). Promoting EMI teacher development in EFL higher education contexts: A teacher educator’s reflections. RELC Journal, 51, 309–317.

47.

Yuan

(2020b). Novice nontraditional teacher educators’ identity (re)construction in Hong Kong. International Journal of Educational Research, 99, 101508.

48.

Yuan

Mak

(2018). Reflective learning and identity construction in practice, discourse and activity: Experiences of pre-service language teachers in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74, 205–214.

49.

Yuan

Yang

(2020). Understanding university-based teacher educators’ boundary crossing experiences: voices from Hong Kong. Teachers and Teaching, 26, 193–213.

50.

Yuan

Chen

Peng

(2020). Understanding university teachers’ beliefs and practice in using English as a medium of instruction. Teaching in Higher Education. Epub ahead of print 29 January 2020. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2020.1715936.