Short Research Papers

Translanguaging: Theoretical andPedagogical Implications in theJapanese University ESP Classroom
Kevin Bartlett
Department of English, Mukogawa Women’s University
This research paper describes the findings of a project which explored the implementationof translanguaging approaches in a Japanese ESP-focused university classroom. First,
a theoretical overview of translanguaging and the benefits of incorporating learners’
L1 ( Japanese) in the L2 (English) classroom will be provided from the perspectives ofpsycholinguistics, sociocultural linguistics, and educational praxis. Then, an overview of
how translanguaging approaches were incorporated in the Japanese ESP-focused classroom
will be explained to show how students’ L1 and L2 can be utilized to increase language
retention, communicative output, and motivation. The project involved 90 nativespeaking Japanese participants who undertook one of their compulsory English classes in atranslanguaging approach and who were asked to write and present about topics related totheir science and technology major. Results of this study showed that utilizing a student’s
whole linguistic repertoire can increase their motivation, language production, content
retention, and cognitive strategies
本研究は日本の大学のESP授業において実施したトランスランゲージングのアプローチについて報告するものである。本稿ではまず、トランスランゲージングの理論的背景を紹介し、英語の授業において学習者のL1（日本語）を取り入れることの利
点を心理言語学、社会言語学、教育的視点から論じる。その後、授業内容の概説を通じて、トランスランゲージングがいかに学習者の言語リテンション、伝達アウトプ
ット、動機付けの増大をもたらしたかを記述する。参加者は、90人の日本語を母語とする理工学専攻の大学生で、大学における必修としての英語授業を履修していた。当該英語授業では、専攻する理工学に関するトピックについての小論文の執筆や発表を行った。その結果、トランスランゲージングを用いて学習者の言語レパ
ートリーの全てを活用させることが、動機付け、言語産出、学習内容の保持、認知方略の増大につながることが明らかとなった。

15

Bartlett

The issue of whether to use a learners’ native language in the foreign language
classroom has been a topic for debate within many educational institutions.
Even today, there are numerous English as a foreign language (EFL) programs
throughout universities in Japan in which there are English-only policies, andteachers are divided as to whether the L1 should be used in the classroom(Barker, 2003; Ford, 2009). One of the main reasons as to why some universities
are enforcing the exclusion of learners’ L1 in L2 classrooms is the belief that it
takes time away from interaction within the L2 (Lee, 2013). Yet, monolingualclassrooms in which students’ L1 is prohibited have been shown to have negative
effects on learner motivation and communicative output. A study by Stephens(2006) found that classrooms that adhered to the L2-only dogma were found tolower learners’ levels of motivation and morale and also led to higher resentment
rates towards studying English. Finding the balance between how much the L1
and L2 should be utilized in the L2 classroom is therefore paramount in creating
learner-centred classes that are challenging yet stimulating.
Consideration is indispensable for providing opportunities for students toprocess and search for information in their L1 and L2, along with providing
ample opportunities to use the L2 to discuss what they discovered. For example,
Macaro and Lee (2013) found that excessive usage of a student’s L1 forcommunication deprives learners of L2 communicative opportunities; however,limiting students’ L1 use can increase their level of anxiety when communicatingwith limited L2 proficiency. With these considerations, rather than dismissing
the use of the L1 completely, curriculum design should consider students’ needs,
their past EFL learning history, and proficiency scores when attempting toincorporate bilingual approaches within the classroom.
Translanguaging
Originally used in Welsh bilingual education in the 1980’s, translanguaging iscurrently defined as incorporating two languages alongside each other for the
purpose of teaching and learning of content (Conteh, 2018). The benefits oftranslanguaging approaches were recognized as useful for not only the teachingof content but also for the pedagogical implications it could have on foreign16Translanguaging, OCJSI 3, pages 15-33

language learners’ L2 linguistic development (García, Johnson, & Seltzer, 2017).
Translanguaging was also defined by Garcia and Wei (2014) as follows:
The deliberate and systematic use of two languages for education and learning
purposes. Second language learners are not considered to be acquiring a new
language, but adding to the integrated linguistic system of which their first
language is already a part. (pp.19–20)
Research suggests that through the incorporation of translanguaging
approaches in the language classroom, students are not hindered from using their
entire linguistic repertoire to express and develop their ideas, while simultaneously
improving their L2 abilities in real-life settings. The results of translanguaging
approaches are interpreted by Wei (2018) as a means to help “to maximize thelearner’s, and the teacher’s, linguistic resources in the process of problem-solving
and knowledge construction” (p. 15). These benefits are observable in both the
ESL classroom, and more recently in the EFL classroom (Ford, 2009). Garcia(2017) originally conducted classes with bilingual L1 Spanish/L2 English
speakers to develop their L2 language abilities and to promote better content
retention. She reasoned that the need for translanguaging came from the “needto teach students, and not teach the language” (Garcia et al., 2017, pp. 43).
Thus, it promotes personalised approaches to language teaching and learningfor each student. Through the incorporation of translanguaging techniques in
the classroom, teachers can bridge the disconnect in communication that could
be prevalent due to learners’ language limitations. Translanguaging approaches
activate creative thinking for communicative and problem-solving processes
which can have multiple benefits on learners’ future study and employment
endeavours (Lin & He, 2017).
In the EFL classroom, particularly in Japanese universities, Yamauchi(2018) found that translanguaging approaches increased student motivationand content retention among Japanese learners, and a study by Bartlett (2018)
found that language retention and comprehensible output levels in English forSpecific Purposes (ESP) classes improved when compared to their monolingualclassroom counterparts in Japanese EFL settings. Bartlett’s (2018) study
showed that incorporating translanguaging approaches has a positive impact on
17

Bartlettstudents’ content retention, knowledge building, linguistic competence, learnerautonomy, and motivation levels. This shows that translanguaging approaches
can provide a reliable means to support students in multiple facets of theireducational development. These benefits are a viable means to counter thedifficulties outlined in promoting the communicative participation of learners
in Japanese EFL contexts, in which cultural constructs and social hierarchy canhinder participation levels in the L2 classroom (Bartlett, 2017). Such difficulties
have been outlined in the traditional culture of learning and teaching in Japan,
in which the teacher is perceived as the holder of knowledge and students’ roles
are to acquire it with little to no disruption to the flow of classes (Bartlett, 2017).
Further difficulties include a lack of discussion and the existence of opinion
exchange tasks within classrooms which are focused on examination success(Bartlett, 2016), and obstacles Japanese teachers have in transitioning fromlecture-focused classrooms, which are the norm in Japanese high schools, todiscussion and groupwork-focused classes that students encounter at university
and that cause confusion about what is expected of them within the classroom(Cacali, 2018). Translanguaging operates best with the acceptance that students’
L1 and L2 can work together in the classroom rather than in competition witheach other, and teachers can strategically plan for students to use both languages
for learning and cognitive development purposes. In particular, translanguaging
approaches in the classroom allow for students to develop their native language,
L2 language skills, and content comprehension; they can also further aid in
learners’ social and emotional development.
Yet, with the above benefits being mentioned, one cannot forget that in EFL
contexts, the learner is studying a foreign language. The use of the target language
is a key tool in language acquisition, and in some cases translanguaging can bea limiting force for students who are not interested in L2 acquisition and who
abuse the translanguaging approach by constantly choosing the L1 over the L2
regardless of their L2 level of competence. Especially found within the Japanesecase is the overuse of grammar translation methods as a hindrance to language
acquisition (Bartlett, 2016).
So long as the goal of incorporating translanguaging techniques is to improve18

Translanguaging, OCJSI 3, pages 15-33

learners’ language usage, content retention, and autonomy, and that these
improvements are observable within the classrooms, then the goals of the classand reasons for incorporating translanguaging are easily justifiable in Japanese
EFL contexts.
Benefits of L1 usage in L2 classrooms
The benefits of allowing the L1 to be present in the L2 classroom have beenoutlined by multiple scholars who provide evidence from psycholinguistics,
sociocultural linguistics, and educational praxis perspectives as to their potential
positive impact on learners’ native and foreign language skills.
From a psycholinguistic perspective, allowing the L1 in the L2 classroom
permits for better comprehension of the content to take place (Bialystok et al.,2005). This provides opportunities for learners to better consider and understandthe linguistic characteristics of their L1 through the process of language transfer.
The cognitive connection between languages allows for parallel activation ofboth L1 and L2 languages to assist with cognitive function both within andoutside linguistic domains (Bialystok et al., 2005). This interconnectivity of
L1 and L2 has been found to promote communicative competence throughout
the learners’ full linguistic repertoire, and in particular to the development of
their L2 (Lee & Lo, 2017). Additionally, it promotes cross-languaging andencourages positive perceptions of the L2 compared to monolingual classrooms(Bohn, 2018). At the classroom level, the incorporation of L1 allows students tointeract with content relevant to their level of knowledge on certain topics andto then transfer and share this knowledge in the L2 communicatively for real-life
language usage to be practiced (Caruso, 2018). As expressed by Troedson and
Dashwood (2019),
Translanguaging pedagogies promote metacognition, build deeper thinking,and enable emergent bilingual students to engage with texts that are typicallyconsidered beyond their instructional capacity (p. 117).
This allows them to then transfer these skills to their L2 for more focused
topic-based engagement.
Within the field of sociocultural linguistics, which explores the interactions
19

Bartlettbetween language, culture, and society, research shows multiple areas in whichlearner identity and language use are intertwined (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005).
First, according to Alrabah, Wu, Alotaibi, and Aldaihani (2016), when teachers
incorporate students’ L1 in the classroom, they show an understanding andaccommodation of their learners’ linguistic and cultural identity; doing thisfacilitates the L2 acquisition process by allowing the individual, their language,
and their lived experiences to be present within the classroom. Bartlett (2018)
outlines that the use of students’ L1 in EFL classrooms allows for betterinterpersonal connections to be established with the teacher and other learners.
This permitted for students to maintain interest in language enquiry, therefore
promoting language acquisition and increasing learning motivation andwillingness to communicate.
Concerning educational praxis, the use of L1 in classrooms has beenshown to benefit language analysis, comprehension checking, error feedback,and classroom management. For example, Sharma (2006) stated that theuse of the learners’ mother tongue allows for students to make connections
between the language being studied and the language that they possess. Suchconnections allow for better cognitive connections to be established between
the language being taught and learners’ mother tongue. The use of L1 throughtranslanguaging develops students’ language analysis abilities that assist withthe acquisition of grammar and vocabulary in the L2. Comprehension checking
can occur when teachers ask students to provide reasons and examples fortheir answers which may be based on native language resources used to search
for information (Shariati, 2019). Rather than getting students to read only asentence or rote phrases back to others in the classroom word for word from thematerials provided, having them provide the answers and reasons in their L1 forsaid responses (for lower-level learners) shows teachers that students have fullycomprehended what was covered during class time if the teacher is proficient in
the learners’ L1.

20

Translanguaging, OCJSI 3, pages 15-33

Methods

In order to address the research question “Does translanguaging have a positiveeffect on science and technology students’ communicative output and language
retention?”, 90 students were selected to study a second/third-year ESP-focused
English subject in which translanguaging approaches were incorporated. As
this researcher has seen the benefits translanguaging can have on science andtechnology majors at a different university (Bartlett, 2018), this study was in partan exploration to see whether students at a different university showed the same
increases to motivation, L2 output, and content retention as was recorded in
the 2018 study. The project followed an explanatory sequential mixed methods
research design in which participants were first given surveys, then put into followup focus group discussions. In this study, class sizes were 46 and 44 students, andthey were taught in the second semester of 2019. The average TOEIC IP score of
students in April 2019 was 375 (max 715, min 170).
Classroom praxis
Throughout the Japanese 16-week semester, students were introduced to topics
that related to their majors (science and technology focused), with the main
theme focused on “Artificial Intelligence: Its Merits and Demerits.” As part of
the requirements for the course, students in groups of five or six were assigned
to practice writing an abstract, literature review, methods, and results section fora research paper on a problem within a sub-topic of the theme, based on theirpast knowledge within their major course of study. The group leader oversaw theselection of the sub-topic. The teacher explained the guidelines for writing eachsection of the paper. Options for sub-topics (AI and \~) were as follows:• Agriculture• Transportation• Medicine• Education• Robotics• Care work
After the paper was fully researched over a six-week period both in and out
21Bartlettof class, and their results and ideas about solving the “problem” were written
up, the groups were then asked to create a PowerPoint presentation and givea 5-10-minute talk based on the paper. The presentations introduced the data
they found when reading about the topic, and explained their ideas/solutions/recommendations for future developments within the field to the audience(other groups within the same class).
When it came to searching for information for their papers, the instructor
introduced students to Google Scholar and explained how to use it, alongwith the university’s online library resources. Students were each asked to findarticles in Japanese, articles with a similar focus in English, and a newspaper
article written in English about their sub-topic. Students at first read articles inJapanese individually for content checking, then created a vocabulary list in theirgroups for specialist words that they didn’t know in English. Next, students werethen asked to read the English articles in groups during class time to see whether
they had similar or differing concluding ideas and to make additions to their
vocabulary lists based on vocabulary that they didn’t know from the English
articles that they read.
Data collection procedure
During week 16, students were asked to complete a survey in English or Japanese(both were provided) which included five multiple-choice questions and wereasked to rank their responses on a five-point Likert scale with the following
options: 1) Strongly disagree, 2) Disagree, 3) Neutral, 4) Agree, and 5) Strongly
Agree.
Two weeks after the course concluded, 15 participants (seven in focus group
1 and eight in focus group 2) were randomly selected to take part in a focus
group discussion lasting 20 minutes each. These discussions were recorded using
Zoom. The focus group discussion asked participants to provide reasons for why
they selected the responses they did on the survey.
Data analysis procedure
Results from the multiple-choice survey were statistically analysed to show thefrequency of responses for each question. The focus group responses were input
22Translanguaging, OCJSI 3, pages 15-33

into NVivo 12, and a thematic and statistical analysis was conducted by coding
the responses into themes and creating nodes. These results also underwent a
manual statistical and thematic analysis by the researcher to check for clarity andconsistency of the data output by NVivo.

Results

The following results were gathered from both student questionnaires anda write up of student responses in the group work discussions. Some of the
responses were transcribed from students who responded in English, and others
were translated from the students’ Japanese responses.
Do you feel that this class allowed you to study/use English in a way thatwould help you in the future (work, graduate school, etc.)?
The results of Question 1 showed that 84 participants selected strongly agree,
and 6 students selected agree. During the focus group discussion, participant E
stated that,In this class, I was able to use my knowledge of engineering in a more practicalway. Most of my English subjects focus on topics that are too general, but in

Figure 1. Question 1 responses.

23

Bartlettthis subject, I could make presentations and learn to read articles in English
about my major. I think this will come in useful when I start working.
Furthermore, participant C stated that,As I plan to go to Graduate school, I was happy to start reading and making
presentations in English about my major. When I told my professor (in thedepartment of Engineering) about this, he was very pleased.
These responses show that not only did students feel that incorporatingtranslanguaging approaches in the classroom were beneficial, but allowing theirprior knowledge from their majors to be part of the context of the class was also
advantageous. Incorporating practical tasks using language specific to their major
was viewed positively and perceived by participants to be beneficial to their
future work and study endeavours. Furthermore, it shows that some teachers
see a benefit to students using their knowledge of science and engineering in the
EFL classroom as advantageous to students’ content learning.
Question 2: Do you feel that this class allowed you to become familiar withdoing research?
Figure 2 shows results from Question 2; 69 participants selected strongly

Figure 2. Question 2 responses.

24

Translanguaging, OCJSI 3, pages 15-33

agree, with 21 students selecting agree. This shows that students viewed thissubject as one where they were not only using English in a positive way but werealso gaining literature search skills.
During the focus group discussions, Participant J explained that,
I really enjoyed this class because it allowed me to learn vocabulary necessary
to my major by reading real articles in English. Although I don’t like to study
English, this subject allowed me to become more interested because I could
see how useful English is to conducting research. I enjoyed learning newthings about my major that I hadn’t studied yet.
Furthermore, participant B stated that,
I like how we read about the topics in Japanese and English, and that we could
choose articles freely. I think that seeing how English is used in research, andthen being able to use that information in my paper and presentation was
useful to allow me to better understand how to conduct research.
These responses show that not only do participants sense the value oftranslanguaging techniques in their language development, but they also
perceive the benefits they have on being able to read about and conduct researchwithin their majors in the future.
Question 3: Do you feel that this class allowed you more opportunities tocommunicate in English with your classmates compared to your other English
subjects?
For this question, 82 participants strongly agreed that it did, with 8
participants agreeing that it did. When participants were asked about this in thefocus group discussions, participant F responded that,
In my other English subjects, the teacher does most of the talking and we
focus on reading and answering questions in short sentences. Even though
the teacher puts us into groups to answer these questions, we don’t really needto communicate, but in this subject, we needed to speak more. In my group,
we had to talk about what we read in English, and how we were going toapproach the report and the presentation.
Participant I added that,
In my other English subjects, we are always told to speak in English, so if I
25

BartlettFigure 3. Question 3 responses.

don’t know a word, I don’t participate. But in this subject if I didn’t know
a word, I would be able to say it in Japanese and my group members would
be able to tell me the English for the word. I think in this class, I was able toparticipate and talk more because of this.
The results of the focus group show that not only the types of tasks students
were presented with, but also the allowance to incorporate their L1 if necessary,
allowed for communication to continue to flow and for language building totake place.
Question 4: Do you think this subject increased your overall motivation to
study English?
The questionnaire results showed that 66 participants selected “strongly
agree”, with 22 participants selecting “agree” and 2 participants selecting“neutral”. When participants were questioned about their responses during
the focus group discussions, a majority of participants stated that motivation
increased due to the type of content being covered, which allowed for Japanese to
be used when necessary for comprehension checking. According to participantL,
26

Translanguaging, OCJSI 3, pages 15-33

Figure 4. Question 4 responses.

I was happy to study English in this subject more than my other English
subjects, as I was able to use knowledge from my major, and study new
language that is valuable to my other studies. I like that I could speak with myclassmates in English about engineering topics.
Participant H further explained that,
I always looked forward to this class. The teacher provided us with materials
that were useful and interesting, and I was able to explore new language using
authentic materials. I like how the teacher supported our learning and caredabout our future goals. Especially when I didn’t know the English, I could
consult my classmates and teacher in Japanese and English which was great.
These responses suggest that due to the type of materials covered, the ability
to communicate in English during group discussions, and to make enquiries inJapanese all influenced the motivation levels of participants within this study.
This indicates that translanguaging approaches, material relevancy, and theability to inquire in both their L1 and L2 as required increased the amount ofmotivation students had within the EFL classroom.
Question 5: Do you think that your level of English improved as a result of27

BartlettFigure 5. Question 5 responses.

this class?
The survey results showed that 58 participants selected “Strongly agree” with
32 participants selecting that they “agree” that their level of English improved asa result of taking this class.
According to participant J in the focus group discussion,
In this class, I was required to use the general English that we had studied
since high school and was also required to use English specific to my major.
As a result, I was able to practice and use the English I already knew and wasthen able to use new English related to my major. I think I am now better able
to communicate in English than before.
Furthermore, participant K stated that,
I like that in this subject I could use Japanese to ask questions if I didn’t know
the English. I was then able to hear the English for the Japanese. This allowed
me to learn new vocabulary and listen to how the grammar that I had studied
in the past could be used in that sentence. I think I am better able to use thegrammar and vocabulary I have learned in the past more confidently becauseof this.
28

Translanguaging, OCJSI 3, pages 15-33

The responses to the focus group discussion provide evidence that by allowing
participants to use L1 in the L2 classroom, along with creating an environment
where they had to use a variety of English to complete the tasks, was beneficial
to all learners who took part in this study. By allowing participants to practicallyuse their entire linguistic repertoire, their confidence in using English noticeably
improved as a result of incorporating translanguaging approaches within theclassroom.

Discussion

The results of this study have shown that incorporating translanguaging
approaches allows for a higher level of English for Specific purposes to be present
with science and technology majors. Translanguaging approaches further permit
learners to cater their language learning to their real-life needs (such as language
relevant to their majors) which hold a higher probability of being encounteredin either graduate school or their future workplace environs where discussing
their knowledge and opinions about science and technology focused topics willbe essential. Following the recommendations outlined by Hornberger and Link
(2012) of varying and interchanging the languages during the input, processing
and output stages of information collection and sharing were permitted freely
in the earlier stages of the course, with the amount of Japanese being lessened
as a result of the new language acquired throughout each lesson, with students
encouraged to use English expressions as they learned them.
With translanguaging approaches, learners were able to consolidateand better grasp the language necessary for their major areas of study, andconcurrently promoted skills relevant to research and inquiry. Although
English is not required in Japan for day-to-day living, offering courses catered to
students’ majors and interests increases the overall motivation (Bartlett, 2018)
and as a result, allows for an increase in their output levels in their language
classes to be observed. This is further evident when comparing this study tothe one conducted by Bartlett in 2018 at a different university, which showedsimilar results. Translanguaging approaches assisted with language acquisition inallowing learners to increase their understanding of the language they already29

Bartlettpossessed, along with growing their language abilities through ESP-focusedtasks.
Furthermore, varying the language used for input, processing, and output,
as outlined by Hornberger and Link (2012), has allowed for students to create
better lexical networks between the L1 and L2, which has had an observable
impact on their use of English both in and out of the classroom. An example
from an ESP-focused EFL classroom (Bartlett, 2018) is where students whoare science majors use their past language knowledge to find information about
the topic under investigation in their own language (L1) or the language being
studied (L2). They then comprehend and cognitively process the information
while considering the English required to express the knowledge to others
through communicative means. They then bring this information to a group
discussion and share what they have learned in English (L2). Through multiple
classes in which I have used translanguaging as a support tool for content
comprehension, this researcher has allowed students to use their L1 to build
their linguistic knowledge and to transfer it to their L2, which is a powerful
cognitive strategy (Berger, Crossley, and Kyle, 2019).
Using translanguaging as a tool of communication as outlined by (Bartlett,2017) has allowed for students to do the following:• paraphrase what students read in the articles in their L1,• identify prior knowledge (both of English and their content studies), and• describe how it can be mobilized within the problem being investigated
As a result, translanguaging approaches have allowed for learners’ willingness
to communicate in English to increase and for their linguistic repertoire to grow.
These approaches have had a positive impact on participants’ communicativecompetence and has developed their sociocultural identity as bilingual languageusers (Lin and He, 2017).

Conclusion

This study has shown that the incorporation of translanguaging techniques
has multiple benefits to learners’ language usage and comprehensible output.
Although more research is needed in other content areas, the benefits of30

Translanguaging, OCJSI 3, pages 15-33

translanguaging approaches as outlined within this study illustrate thattranslanguaging approaches within Japanese EFL contexts are a viable means ofimproving the communicative competence of EFL learners.

References

Alrabah, S., Wu, S.-h., Alotaibi, A. M., & Aldaihani, H. A. (2016). English
teachers’ use of learners’ L1 (Arabic) in college classrooms in Kuwait.
English Language Teaching, 9(1), 1–11.
Barker, D. (2003). Why English teachers in Japan need to learn Japanese. The
Language Teacher, 27(2), 7–11.
Bartlett, K. (2016). Japanese teachers’ attitudes towards incorporating CLT
in the high school English language classroom: An ethnographic study.
Kwansei Gakuin University Humanities Review, 21(1), 93–104.
Bartlett, K. (2017). The use of L1 in L2 classrooms in Japan: A survey ofuniversity student preferences. Kwansei Gakuin University Humanities
Review, 22(1), 71–80.
Bartlett, K. (2018). Applying translanguaging techniques in Japanese EFL
settings. The Asian Conference on Language Learning, Official Conference
proceedings 2018, 239–252.
Berger, C. M., Crossley, S. A., & Kyle, K. (2019). Using native-speaker
psycholinguistic norms to predict lexical proficiency and development insecond-language production. Applied Linguistics, 40(1), 22–42.
Bialystok, E., Luk, G., & Kwan, E. (2005). Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning
to read: Interactions among languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies
of Reading, 9(1), 43–61. https://10.1207/s1532799xssr0901_4
Bohn, O.-S. (2018). Cross-language and second language speech perception. In
E. Fernandez, and Smith Cairns, H. (Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics(pp. 213–239). Wiley-Blackwell.
Brown, H. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.).
Longman Publishers.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A
sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), 585–614.
31

Bartletthttps://10.1177/1461445605054407
Cacali, E., & Germinario, R. (2018). Moving between Systems: Schemabased strategies for transitioning students from secondary to tertiary ESL
classrooms in Japan. The Asian Conference on Language Learning, Official
Conference Proceedings 2018, 171–183.
Caruso, E. (2018). Translanguaging in higher education: Using several
languages for the analysis of academic content in the teaching andlearning process. Language Learning in Higher Education, 8(1), 65–90.
doi:10.1515/cercles-2018-0004
Conteh, J. (2018). Translanguaging. ELT Journal, 72(4), 445–447.
Ford, K. (2009). Principles and practice of L1/L2 use in the Japanese university
EFL classroom. JALT Journal, 31(1), 63–80.
Garcia, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism andeducation. Palgrave Macmillan.
Garcia, O., Johnson, S. I., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom:
Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Caslon Inc.
Hornberger, N. H., & Link, H. (2012). Translanguaging in today’s classrooms:
A biliteracy lens. Theory into Practice, 51(4), 239–247.
Jaspers, J. (2018). The transformative limits of translanguaging. Language &Communication, 58, 1–10. https://10.1016/j.langcom.2017.12.001
Lee, J. H., & Lo, Y. Y. (2017). An exploratory study on the relationships
between attitudes toward classroom language choice, motivation,and proficiency of EFL learners. System, 67, 121–131. doi:10.1016/j.
system.2017.04.017
Lin, A. M., & He, P. (2017). Translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in CLIL
classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 228–244.
https://10.1080/15348458.2017.1328283
Macaro, E., & Lee, J. H. (2013). Teacher language background, codeswitching,and English‐only Instruction: Does age make a difference to learners'
attitudes? TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 717–742.
Shariati, M. (2019). Students' attitudes towards the use of L1 in EFL
classrooms: A case study at an English language school in Iran. Journal of32Translanguaging, OCJSI 3, pages 15-33

Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 6(2), 198–217.
Sharma, K. (2006). Mother tongue use in English classrooms. Journal of
NELTA, 11(1), 80–87.
Stephens, M. (2006). The use and abuse of Japanese in the university English
class. The Language Teacher, 30(8), 13–18.
Troedson, D .A., & Dashwood, A. (2019). Bilingual use of translanguaging:
Chinese student satisfaction in a transnational Business degree in English.
International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 17(4), 113–128.
Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied
Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30.
Yamauchi, D. (2018). Translanguaging in the Japanese tertiary context:
Students perceptions and pedagogical implications. Niigata University ofInternational and Information Studies Research Journal, 3, 15–27.

Author Bio

Kevin Bartlett (EdD) is an Associate Professor in the Department of English, Schoolof Letters at Mukogawa Women’s University, Japan. Originally from Melbourne,
Australia, his research interests include Applied Linguistics, Second Language
Acquisition, Social and Cultural Anthropology, and Japanese Society and Culture.
kevin_17@mukogawa-u.ac.jp
Received: September 17, 2020
Accepted: November 6, 2021

33