【Teaching Practice Report】

Opening Translanguaging Spaces:
Facilitating Bilingual Development in an English Discussion
Class
Omar Shelesh
Abstract
This teaching practice report documents the experimental implementation of the bilingual pedagogy oftranslanguaging in an undergraduate English discussion program at a Japanese university, with the primary aim
being to facilitate bilingualism and the development of a bilingual identity among learners. This intervention
specifically focuses on how translanguaging practices can be integrated into an established teaching context whileproviding learners with opportunities or spaces to utilize their native linguistic resources to enhance their experienceof learning English discussion.
Keywords: translanguaging, English discussion, bilingualism, Japanese university

Introduction
This teaching practice report details the implementation of a bilingual pedagogical practice in anexperimental classroom-based intervention in an undergraduate English discussion program at aJapanese university, with the primary goal being to promote bilingualism and, more specifically, thegrowth of a bilingual identity among learners.
Although open to wide interpretation, the terms bilingual and bilingualism most often refer to“the use of two or more languages (or dialects) in everyday life” (Grosjean, 2013, p.5), and it isgenerally accepted that a bi- (or multilingual) person is an individual who knows, uses, and is fluent
to various degrees in two or more languages. Going by this definition, it could be said that the stateof being bilingual suggests a certain level of mastery of a foreign, second, or other language (L2) and,
therefore, achieving bilingual status is something that L2 learners should be encouraged to strive forand even embrace. This view has been espoused by academics, such as Ofelia García, who argue that
foreign language learners—irrespective of their actual level of language proficiency—should berecognized as “emergent bilinguals” (García, 2009). This condition requires that an L2 learner isnurtured through routine exposure to bilingual pedagogical practices, which not only serve tobolster their self-identity as a capable and competent user of foreign languages but also work to raise
their cognitive awareness of the interrelationship between their native language (L1) and the foreign
language(s) they are studying.
Such an enviable situation, however, stands in stark contrast to the reality of the author’s
personal experiences of teaching tertiary-level L2 learners in Japanese universities, where it is clearthat while bilingualism, as a concept, is understood by most learners, the prospect of personallyattaining bilingual status is not something the majority could conceive of or would feel comfortable
adopting as part of their sociolinguistic identity. This appears to be a common phenomenon among
native Japanese L2 learners and has been documented in recent research (see Turnbull, 2021). Thissentiment is further compounded by the fact that general foreign language education programs (andEFL in particular) adhere to the policies of language segregation (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017), which are
124

OPENING TRANSLANGUAGING SPACES: FACILITATING BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASS

deeply embedded in their teaching methodologies, both at the practitioner and institutional level.
Therefore, in an effort to reverse this trend, the primary purpose of the current teachingpractice report is to document the integration of a bilingual pedagogical practice within an English
discussion course context and promote the development of bilingualism amongst L2 learners. By
providing learners with spaces to utilize their native linguistic resources, it is hoped that this courseof intervention works to strengthen attitudes and beliefs in their abilities as competent and confident
bilingual Japanese-English speakers.

Translanguaging: A Bilingual Pedagogy
What is required to achieve the stated objective is the deployment of an effective bilingual
pedagogy, one which provides a foundation upon which the practice of normalizing the combined andintentional use of multiple languages can transform the process and experience of foreign language
learning. This is where translanguaging comes into prominence. A concept initially conceived by Cen
Williams in the Welsh language as trawsieithu (Williams, 1994), it is the bilingual practice ofstrategically combining the use of two languages within a single subject lesson. The English versionof the term, translanguaging was subsequently introduced by Colin Baker (2001), who outlinestranslanguaging as “the process of making meaning, shaping experiences, gaining understanding
and knowledge through the use of two languages” (Baker, 2001, p. 288). In a practical sense, thesubject content is presented in one language, after which learners can demonstrate theirunderstanding by producing it in another. The benefits of this are twofold: it promotes a more
complete understanding of the subject matter whilst supporting the development of the L2 (Baker,
2001, as cited in García & Lin, 2017). Further delineations of the concept were made by García and
Lin (2017) to reflect different theoretical perspectives on how languages are learned, with distinctions
drawn between weak translanguaging and strong translanguaging (García & Lin, 2017, p. 124). Weaktranslanguaging (as practiced in educational contexts) essentially preserves boundaries between
named languages; however, it also views these boundaries as flexible, fluid linguistic spaces where
the exchange and transfer of information and meaning occur among bilingual learners and theirlearning environment. The strong form of translanguaging (as practiced by bilinguals in any context)
views all named languages as being part of a single, holistic linguistic system, underpinned by auniversal grammar structure. Bilingual speakers can freely navigate through this system using all
linguistic resources available, enabling them to effectively and appropriately communicate in any
given interactive context. The perspective of a single linguistic system is also espoused by
Canagarajah (2011a), who describes translanguaging as “the ability of multilingual speakers to
shuttle between languages, treating the diverse languages that form their repertoire as an integrated
system” Canagarajah (2011a p.401). Other important theoretical distinctions come from Cenoz and
Gorter (2022), who recognize spontaneous translanguaging—to denote the communicative events ofbilingual speakers that occur naturally (and beyond a teacher’s control)—and pedagogicaltranslanguaging—the controlled and deliberate implementation of teaching strategies designed toactivate a learner’s bi-/multilingual skill set. The notion of learners engaging in purposeful, teacherdirected bilingual pedagogical practices is also conceptualized in the research of Jones (2017), who
designates this as Cognitive Academic Translanguaging.
In light of the stated aims of this teaching practice report and the theories outlined here, it
should be stated that no particular form or method of translanguaging will be given preference overanother in the process of planning and implementing bilingual pedagogical practices. This will allow
125

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

for flexibility as different strategies are considered in terms of their potential practical application
within the discussion lesson setting.

The Need for Translanguaging Spaces
As the title of this report declares, the objective is to facilitate bilingual pedagogical practices
through the use of spaces (opportunities) for translanguaging. The necessity to create such spacesin this educational context alludes to the possibility of unfavorable, even hostile reactions that await
emergent bilingual learners in foreign language classes who engage in what might be ordinarily
natural behavior to them. Whilst framing the situation this way is somewhat extreme, it is notunrealistic, as Canagarajah (2011b) points out, bilingual learners often conduct translanguaging
discreetly amongst each other and out of sight of the teacher, possibly fearing negative repercussions
if they are “discovered.” Therefore, there are virtually no safe spaces for these learners. This may be
an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of the longstanding language separation/segregation
policies that permeate foreign language education (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017). This means that thelearners’ L1 is largely isolated and/or ignored whilst foreign language skills are being taught.
Language separation practices stem from theories about the potential risk of errors due to L1“interference” (Lott, as cited in Bhela, 1999, p.22; Ooi & Abdul Aziz, 2021), which is often cited asjustification for using such methods.
Fortunately, however, proponents of pedagogical translanguaging have come to vigorously
defend the concept of translanguaging spaces, citing the importance of teachers consciously andproactively creating spaces to foster healthy translingual competency in and amongst bilingual
learners (see Canagarajah, 2011b; Wei, 2011). Bonacina-Pugh et al. (2021) also draw some useful
insights on this subject from their analysis of translanguaging practices in foreign language education,
forming the conclusion that, “… as teachers open up spaces for translanguaging practices, students
can creatively interact with each other, engage with their own text, and together find solutions for the
linguistic problems they encounter; and ultimately, students can develop the target language thatthey are learning” (Bonacina-Pugh et al., 2021, p.24, my emphasis).
Therefore, it is upon this theoretical basis that the author set out to create viable translanguaging
opportunities in the given teaching context, which will manifest in the form spaces, both physical—in
the sense of time and place—and cognitive, as in the mind of learners (Wei, 2011).

Teaching Context and Participants
The teaching context featured in this report is an English language discussion course provided
by Rikkyo University in Tokyo. All first-year freshmen students are required to take Discussion class,a weekly 100-minute-long class consisting of practical, topical discussion-based lessons, conducted
over a 14-week semester. The relatively small (ten student) teaching groups are arranged according
to ability level (I-IV) based on students’ TOEIC scores. Students study oral functions frequently
utilized in discussions, namely Discussion Skills phrases (e.g., “What’s your opinion?” and “In my
opinion…”, etc.) and Communication Skills phrases (e.g., “Could you repeat that, please?” and “Do you
understand?”, etc.), developing their ability to contribute to the exchange of ideas. The course
adheres to a unified lesson format and communicative teaching approach, comprising four mainteaching stages: The Fluency stage, the Function Presentation stage, the Practice stage, and two
Discussion stages. These are taught in conjunction with the aforementioned Discussion and126

OPENING TRANSLANGUAGING SPACES: FACILITATING BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASS

Communication Skills.
In light of the stated aims of this report, an examination of the syllabus design, teachingapproach and objectives of the course was conducted. It revealed that the program does not expressly
reject bilingualism or bilingual development in learners. However, neither does it accommodate it.
This is evident in the founding documentation, authored by Hurling (2012), which, by omission,
appears to implicitly advocate monolingualism through the aforementioned general language
separation/segregation practices in EFL teaching. This influence can be seen in both classroom
practice and research within the Discussion class program: The course follows a strictly
communicative teaching approach, and instructors are strongly encouraged to conduct classes as animmersive English language experience; learners are also required to use English at all times
throughout lessons whilst receiving and following directions from instructors in English. Furthermore,
in-house action research has often focused on the development of effective strategies to deter and/or
suppress learners’ use of L1.
These were influential factors when it came to selecting a suitable participant teaching group as
the subject of study and intervention: any potential candidate class would have to have alreadyaccepted and adapted to the principles of an immersive, monolingual environment by demonstrating
a consistent use of English throughout lessons. Equally, however, to fulfill the stated objectives, theparticipants would also need to be willing to contemplate issues relating to their bilingualism as wellas participate in any bilingual activities required by the intervention.
Therefore, based on these criteria, the group selected was a single, Level-II ability class,consisting of 10 (majority female) native Japanese speakers with combined TOEIC listening andreading scores ranging from 480 to 679. The students were judged by the author to be above averagein terms of English language proficiency and attitude toward learning and, most importantly, capableof maintaining an English-only environment during lessons. Moreover, learners were willing to share
their opinions on the subject of bilingualism, which the author gauged through informal discussions
with individual participants. This yielded largely predictable results, as it was revealed that thebilingual label was not what the majority of students felt comfortable associating themselves with,even if they commanded a higher level of English proficiency. Amongst the most frequently cited
reasons were, (1) a lack of self-belief in their English language ability and (2) not wanting to appear
boastful in front of peers by proclaiming to be bilingual. As mentioned previously, the denial ofbilingual identity seems to be a common stance amongst native Japanese learners of English,
particularly at the tertiary level (see Turnbull, 2021). Nevertheless, the students’ professed
reluctance to identify as bilingual would be advantageous for this study, as it established a contextual
foundation upon which bilingual pedagogical practices could be implemented and provide
opportunities for evidencing the impact of the intervention.

MethodFrom a methodological perspective, collecting and recording evidence of this type of practicalintervention would be most effectively achieved through a reflective teaching journal. Journaling is aform of qualitative, longitudinal data collection that can be documented in the form of retrospective
field notes as well as incorporating reflections on and for action (Murphy, 2014). This would enable theauthor to document and respond effectively to what was being observed whilst students were
engaging in translanguaging during the intervention period.
The intervention and reflection period for this teaching journal officially took place in lesson 7,
127

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

with lessons 1 through 6 being used purely for class observation, evaluation, and planning. In
addition, unofficial observations were made from lesson 8 onwards. Furthermore, to meet theobjectives and develop an appropriate interventional strategy, the following initial research question
was proposed: What are the practical planning considerations when designing pedagogicaltranslanguaging activities on an English discussion course? In response, the author made reflective
notes during observations of lessons 1-6, which gave rise to further guiding questions to evaluate
potential areas for creating viable translanguaging spaces within a standard discussion lesson:
1. Considering the practicalities of physically accommodating translanguaging spaces (both spatiallyand temporally) in class, how will it be possible to implement pedagogical translanguaging
activities without unduly disrupting classroom management, lesson stages, and/or timing?
2. Is there potential for the course to accommodate pedagogical translanguaging strategies (that is,mental/cognitive translanguaging spaces) without disrupting or undermining learners’ ability toachieve the functional, linguistic objectives of the course?
Therefore, in response to the above questions, it was necessary to consider the purpose andcompatibility of each of the planned stages of a typical Discussion lesson, that is for their potential toaccommodate the physical (spatial) and temporal adaptations required for pedagogical translanguaging
Figure 1.
Lesson Stages Identified as being Compatible with Pedagogical Translanguaging Activities.
Discussion classlesson stage/
activity

Is it potentially compatible with pedagogicaltranslanguaging activities? How?

Description/purpose[1] QuizAn 8-question, multiple-choice test
based on homework reading fromthe textbook.

[2] Fluency

Interactive speaking and listening
Yes—learners can easily be directed to discuss warm-up
warm-up pair work activity, using
questions (written in English) using L1.
questions based on the lesson topic.

[3] Presentation

First exposure to the new target
language (Discussion andCommunication Skills phrases).

No[4] PracticeSemi-controlled pair work practiceof target language.

Yes—a short plenary activity can be added wherelearners are directed to translate the target language(English Discussions Skill phrases) into L1, followed by
the second practice of the same questions but conductedentirely through L1.

[5] Discussion 1
Preparation

Generate ideas/topical content,
ready for the following discussion.

No[6] Discussion 1

Interactive, free-production group
activity utilizing target language(with scaffolding).

No[7] Discussion 2
Preparation

Generate ideas/topical content,
ready for the following discussion.

[8] Discussion 2

Interactive, free-production group
activity utilizing target language(no scaffolding).

No

Yes—specific organizational Discussion Skills phrases
can be deployed as an L2 phrasal framework, throughwhich learners can conduct their discussions but express
the content of their ideas through L1.

Note. The stages judged to be most suitable for this purpose were the Fluency stage [2], the Practice stage [4], the final
Discussion Preparation stage [7], and Discussion stage [8].

128OPENING TRANSLANGUAGING SPACES: FACILITATING BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASS

activities. All stages of a standard Discussion class lesson have been outlined in the following table
and include those stages identified as being compatible with pedagogical translanguaging activities(see Figure 1).

Teaching Journal
The following section of this report documents the experimental implementation of pedagogicaltranslanguaging activities for each of the lesson stages previously identified as being compatible withsuch practices. Each stage will be designated as an Intervention which is followed by a Rationale
section (explaining the intended pedagogical strategy for creating the translanguaging space), a
Recorded experience/event section (detailing what exactly transpired whilst implementing thestrategy), and concluded by a Reflection section (a discussion segment exploring thoughts and ideas
produced in response to what occurred during the intervention).

Reflective Teaching Journal Entries for Lesson 7
Inter vention: Lesson Stage [2]—Fluency
Rationale:
Opening Translanguaging Space No. 1
The Fluency (or warm-up) stage involves learners working in pairs and orally responding to 3questions based on the lesson topic (see Figure 2). It has been a standard procedure for students todiscuss all questions in English, and from experience, question three (Q3) [Share three interestingideas or facts from the reading] has never been popular among students; their interaction rate falls,
and the answers given are always short and lacking in detail. Therefore, as a question that was
producing very little student engagement, I judged that there would be minimal disruption to thelearning if I were to commit this question to become the first weak or pseudo-translanguaging spacein the lesson by making the students discuss Q3 in Japanese only. This would also serve as an
icebreaking event at the start of this lesson to subtly introduce the legitimate use of L1 into thecourse.
To aid the students’ understanding of this intentional change, I produced a visual presentation
slide to direct students to switch to using L1 for Q3 (see Figure 3).
Recorded Experience/Event:
When introducing the warm-up questions, I asked the students to answer Q3 in Japanese only.
Figure 2.
Textbook-based Warm-up Questions to Activate Schemata on the Lesson Topic.

From: Kita et al., (2022). What’s Your Opinion? Interactive Skills for Effective
Discussion Book II (2nd ed., p. 48).

129

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Figure 3.
Presentation Slide Displaying Warm-up Questions withAdditional Directions to Open Translanguaging Space 1.

Adapted from: Kita et al., (2022). What’s Your Opinion?
Interactive Skills for Effective Discussion
Book II (2nd ed., p. 48).

The students were slightly confused by this instruction, pausing and looking at me withexpressions that appeared to say, “Why do you want to hear us speak Japanese?” I had to repeat
myself, trying to do my best to appear confident in assuring them that this was a legitimate partof the lesson. I revealed the adapted presentation slide, which reinforced my verbal instruction,
after which they accepted the direction without further question and proceeded with the activity.
Not surprisingly, when using L1, there was a definite uptick in interaction when they reachedQ3, with some pairs continuing to talk after the three-minute timer had elapsed. Overall, they
appeared relatively comfortable switching from English to Japanese mid-way through an activity.
Reflection: Lesson Stage [2]I have tentatively labeled this as a pseudo-translanguaging space, as the overall warm-up activity
facilitates the very weak translanguaging practice of abruptly alternating L2-L1 between questions.
There is also a mild form of translanguaging that takes place within the interactive exchanges of Q3
itself; students read the English text whilst also discussing it in Japanese, in a process similar to thatwhich Baker (2011) alludes to in his definition of translanguaging.
Whilst I had anticipated students would switch over from using L2 to L1 (Japanese) quite
willingly, I did not anticipate that I myself would initially feel slightly awkward and somewhat
professionally negligent about asking them to use L1 in an English language class. It appears as
though I may require some psychological reconditioning to become more comfortable during thisperiod of administering and implementing pedagogical translanguaging practices.
Overall, it appears as though we have mutually accepted that L1 can be used in Discussion class;
it is no longer to be kept “hidden” in fear of reprimand, as observed by Canagarajah (2011b).
Therefore, I will incorporate this new translanguaging space in subsequent lessons. However, there
are adaptations to be made for future lessons: to ensure students have remained on task throughout
the activity, I will nominate some of them to provide verbal feedback to me (in English) at the end of
the activity about what they discussed in Q3. This additional English reproduction stage will bring
the practice more in line with Baker’s translanguaging notion of learners “processing and digesting”
the content (Baker, 2011, p.289). Furthermore, I must think about how to better explain the purposeof these interventions to students, specifically why they must use their L1.

130

OPENING TRANSLANGUAGING SPACES: FACILITATING BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASSInter vention: Lesson Stage [4]—PracticeRationale:
Opening Translanguaging Space No. 2
The Practice stage usually involves the semi-controlled practice of the Discussion Skill phrases(see Figure 4), using specially selected extended practice questions designed to elicit the target
Discussion Skills phrases (see Figure 5). Again, as with all stages of the lesson, it has been a standard
procedure for students to discuss all questions using the target language in English. This stage
always appears to be one of the most productive in terms of achieving its objectives; therefore, I was
reluctant to interfere directly with the processes of this stage. However, I judged that further
reinforcement of target language acquisition could be achieved with the addition of some type of
consolidation activity involving the students’ L1 in a strong translanguaging space immediately after
the L2 practice activity. Using Cenoz and Gorter’s (2022) theory of raising learners’ “metalinguistic
awareness” (Cenoz & Gorter, 2022, p.31), I devised a simple two-step activity that involved students
translating the target language (Discussions Skill phrases) into Japanese (the opening of atranslanguaging space), followed by a free practice of the same practice questions but conductedcompletely in Japanese. I produced another visual presentation slide to prompt students to translate
the target language phrases as well as initiate practice of the same questions but using L1 (see Figure
6 and Figure 7). This will form the second translanguaging space.
Recorded Experience/Event:
After students completed the regular practice activity, I asked them something to the effectof, “So, does anyone know how to say these Discussion Skill phrases in Japanese?” They had
never been asked this type of question about the Discussion Skills phrases, and once again, theylooked around at each other, appearing perplexed as to why the teacher was interested inhearing them speak Japanese. After about 30 seconds of talking amongst themselves, several
Figure 4.
Textbook-based Target Language Discussion Skills Phrases for Lesson 7.

From: Kita et al., (2022). What’s Your Opinion? Interactive Skills for
Effective Discussion Book II (2nd ed., p. 48).

Figure 5.
Textbook-based Practice Stage Questions.

From: Kita et al., (2022). What’s Your Opinion? Interactive Skills for
Effective Discussion Book II (2nd ed., p. 49).

131

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Figure 6.
Presentation Slide Displaying the Target Discussion Skills Phrases
with Additional Directions to Open Translanguaging Space 2.

Adapted from: Kita et al., (2022). What’s Your Opinion? Interactive
Skills for Effective Discussion Book II (2nd ed., p. 48).

Figure 7.
Slide Displaying Additional Prompts to Initiate Practice of the Same
Questions Using L1.

Adapted from: Kita et al., (2022). What’s Your Opinion? Interactive Skills
for Effective Discussion Book II (2nd ed., pp. 48-49).

students volunteered a translation of the phrases. Not being a competent Japanese speaker
myself, I tried my best to repeat what I had heard (to the amusement of the students) and thenI asked back, “Does everyone agree that these translations are correct?”, to which they all
nodded (but, of course, I had no idea if they were right). Students were even more surprised by
my next instruction: “You can now discuss any of the practice questions again, but in 100%
Japanese—don’t forget to use the translated Discussion Skills”. After another silent pause, I
gradually began to hear a trickle of Japanese phrases, interspersed with giggles. The L1 they
were producing sounded slightly stilted as if they were making a cognitive effort to spontaneouslytranslate all previously learned Discussion Skills as well as apply the newly acquired target
language phrases. I then revealed the presentation slide to students as additional guidance andcement understanding, after which the exchanges soon turned into full-blown L1 discussions,accompanied by bursts of raucous laughter. After the 2-minute activity had finished, students
appeared to be in a state of amused bewilderment. I asked them how it felt to use the Discussion
Skills in Japanese, to which I received replies like, “weird” … “interesting” … “unnatural.”132

OPENING TRANSLANGUAGING SPACES: FACILITATING BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASS

Reflection: Lesson Stage [4]As per standard lesson procedures, students always learn and apply the target language inEnglish; however, this activity forced them to engage in subsequent practice of the target language,
but through L1 (Japanese). I have tentatively designated this process as L1 retropracticing. The L1
retropracticing process allowed them to remap and further assimilate the target language using the
cognitive architecture of their L1, enhancing their metalinguistic awareness following Cenoz and
Gorter’s (2022) notion. Moreover, I felt this activity took students experientially beyond the usualsubject matter limitations set by their English language abilities, as they could use L1 to articulate
and explore ideas more deeply (ideas that could be imported back into English discussions later on).
This intervention appeared to lower students’ affective filter, as it evoked a range of emotional
and physiological responses (for example, laughter) promoting a more relaxed learning environment
and possibly increasing students’ willingness to communicate (WTC) (McCroskey, 1992). Furthermore,taking only a total of 4 minutes, incorporating this activity directly after the practice stage had
minimal impact on overall lesson timing and pacing.
Adaptions to be made for future lessons: I need to ensure that students are able to makeappropriate translations of the target language into Japanese. Therefore, I shall prepare pre-translated
target language phrases, ready to present as confirmation. Finally, I need to think about how I, as theteacher, can close this translanguaging space to transition more smoothly to the next stage.
Inter vention: Lesson Stage [7]—Discussion 2 Preparation
			Lesson Stage [8]—Discussion 2
Rationale:
Opening Translanguaging Space No. 3
Stages 7 and 8 are closely linked, that is, the Discussion 2 Preparation stage enables students togenerate content and ideas, ready to use in the un-scaffolded, free-production Discussion 2 stage. I
deemed that it may be beneficial to create the final space across these two stages in a single
translanguaging activity that would resemble a preparatory hybrid L1–L2 (Japanese-English)translanguaging discussion just before the main discussion. This consists of deploying the functionaltarget language, that is, organizational English Discussion Skills as an L2 framework of phrases,around which students can conduct their discussions and add the L1 content of their ideas. I
anticipate that I will encounter difficulties verbally articulating what I need the students to do for the
Figure 8.
Presentation Slide Introducing the Hybrid Discussion with Questions
and Discussion Skills Phrases to Open Translanguaging Space 3.

Adapted from: Kita et al., (2022). What’s Your Opinion? Interactive Skills for
Effective Discussion Book II (2nd ed., pp. 48, 51).

133

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Figure 9.
Presentation Slide Displaying a Model Translanguaging Hybrid
Discussion Pattern.

Adapted from: Kita et al., (2022). What’s Your Opinion? Interactive Skills
for Effective Discussion Book II (2nd ed., p. 48).

hybrid discussion; therefore, I produced two more visual presentation slides, the first to open thetranslanguaging space (see Figure 8) and the other to model the discussion pattern structure so thatstudents can engage in the translanguaging task more efficiently (see Figure 9).
Recorded Experience/Event:
After successfully completing the Discussion 1 stage, I warned the students that they weregoing to need to use their Japanese language skills to prepare for the final Discussion stage. The
reaction to this was mixed, but I got the overall impression that they were curious and wanted totry out whatever I had planned. This practice was completely new to them, but after displaying
the model presentation slide, I asked two of the more confident students to demonstrate an
exchange, after which the whole group was keen to begin. As with the intervention at stage 4,
there was considerable excitement and elevated levels of interaction, especially when making
the L1-L2 switches. The hybrid discussion ended after 5 minutes, at which point the discussion
groups appeared sufficiently energized with ideas, ready to conduct the discussion again in
English. Subsequent spoken use of the target language (Discussion Skills) by students, on thewhole, was produced accurately and with very little hesitation. Discussions also appeared toprogress in a more sustained manner, with students wanting to speak right up until the final bell.
Reflection: Lesson Stage [7] & [8]Many aspects recorded in the previous intervention stage were present in this stage also, suchas enhancing metalinguistic awareness, lowering the affective filter, and enabling students to fully
explore and share ideas and content knowledge through L1, before exercising them in English.
Moreover, this particular hybrid discussion task allowed students to experience a strong form ofdeliberate, teacher-directed translanguaging, designated as Cognitive Academic Translanguaging(Jones, 2017).
Incorporating this activity directly after the Discussion 1 stage had minimal impact on overall
lesson timing and pacing, taking only a total of 5 minutes. I will, therefore, include this in subsequent
lessons as the final safe translanguaging space in the lesson plan.

134

OPENING TRANSLANGUAGING SPACES: FACILITATING BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASS

Conclusion
This report set out to document the practical considerations of applying pedagogicaltranslanguaging practices through the creation of translanguaging spaces in an English discussion
course in a Japanese university setting. Judging by the findings made during the writing of theteaching journal, it is important to consider not only what translanguaging practices should be
employed but how such practices may be incorporated within a course without unduly impacting thepre-existing pedagogical infrastructure. Once these aspects have been considered, however, theprocess of designing and applying context-appropriate pedagogical practices based on the latest
translanguaging theory can result in both observable and convincing outcomes. For example, asreported in the reflective journal here, the application of an effective pedagogical translanguaging
discussion activity (the intervention at Stages 7 and 8) enabled learners to comfortably switch
between English and Japanese in a planned and deliberate manner (Jones, 2017). This means thatstudents could achieve the aims inherent to the Discussion class, that is, to demonstrate the ability toengage with the task cognitively on multiple linguistic levels and to simultaneously synthesize theirknowledge of the Discussion Skills patterns in English (Hurling, 2012). Moreover, during thispreparatory phase of the discussion, as students were interacting in L1, this constituted a legitimate
form of strategic planning and rehearsal, as defined by Ellis (2005, 2009). Therefore, as the resulting
oral performances demonstrated, the bilingual pedagogical practice of translanguaging can produce
learners who are noticeably more stimulated, confident, and primed to express their views in thecontext of a monolingual English discussion.
Despite these apparent successes, however, certain aspects remain unclear and could not be
addressed in this report, such as the issue of identity: did exposure to pedagogical translanguaging
practices, as demonstrated in this teaching context, in any way persuade learners into becoming
more accepting of their bilingual status? This is a complex issue, and it would be impossible to gauge
this from data gathered from the narrow, short-range interventional study presented here. However,whilst I doubt that any significant progress has been made, I believe that through the course oftranslanguaging, the learners’ internal L1–L2 barrier (established over years of segregated language
instruction) has been partly “disrupted” (García, 2009). This disruption, caused by the controlled
practice of incorporating two languages into a single academic task, has potentially triggered a shift
within learners; a shift in the balance of power between the L1–L2 dichotomy, an equalization of
languages, so to speak, which, on a subconscious level, could work to cultivate a learner’s bilingual
identity over the longer term.
The results of this interventional study and the body of current literature make it abundantly
evident that more empirical inquiry in this field is both necessary and feasible. Furthermore, it ishoped that the results of any future study could potentially lead to changes in other curricular
contexts offered by Rikkyo University, such as the English debate course, where students would be
able to benefit from exercising their inherent bilingual abilities and all from the safety of atranslanguaging space.

135

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

References
Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (3rd ed.). Clevendon:
Multilingual Matters LTD.
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Bhela, B. (1999). Native language interference in learning a second language: Exploratory casestudies of native language interference with target language usage. International Education
Journal, 1(1), 22-31.
Bonacina-Pugh, F., Da Costa Cabral, I., & Huang, J. (2021). State of the art review on translanguaging
in education. Language Teaching, 54(4), 439-471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000173
Canagarajah, S. (2011a). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research andpedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2(2011), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110239331.1
Canagarajah, S. (2011b). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies oftranslanguaging. Modern Language Journal, 95:401-417
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017). Minority languages and sustainable translanguaging: threat oropportunity? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(10), 901-912. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1284855
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2022). Pedagogical Translanguaging (Elements in Language Teaching).
Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Language Learning &Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11
Ellis, R. (2009). The Differential Effects of Three Types of Task Planning on the Fluency, Complexity,
and Accuracy in L2 Oral Production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474-509. https://doi.
org/10.1093/applin/amp042
García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective (1st ed.). WileyBlackwell.
García, O., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2017). Translanguaging in bilingual education. In O. García & A.M.Y. Lin(Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education (Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 5),
117-130. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer International Publishing.
Grosjean, F. (2013). Bilingualism: A short introduction. In Grosjean, F. & Li, P. (Eds.), The
psycholinguistics of bilingualism (Vol. 2nd, p. 5). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hurling, S. (2012). Introduction to EDC. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion,
1(1), 1.2-1.10.
Jones, B. (2017). Translanguaging in Bilingual Schools in Wales. Journal of Language, Identity &Education, 16(4), 199-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2017.1328282
Kita, S., Sturges, J., Arthurson, D., & Truxal, D. (2022). What’s Your Opinion? Interactive Skills for
Effective Discussion Book II (2nd ed., pp.48-51). Tokyo, Japan: DTP Publishing.
McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale.
Communication Quarterly, 40(1), 16-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379209369817
Murphy, J. M. (2014). Reflective teaching: Principles and practices. In M. Celce-Murcia & D. M.
Brinton (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed.) (pp.613-629).
Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage.
Ooi, W. Z., & Abdul Aziz, A. (2021). Translanguaging Pedagogy in the ESL Classroom: A Systematic
Review. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development,
136

OPENING TRANSLANGUAGING SPACES: FACILITATING BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASS

10(3). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarped/v10-i3/10816
Turnbull, B. (2021). Am I bilingual? Reporting on the self-reflections of Japanese EFL learners.
International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(5), 1327-1348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006921
1019467
Wei, L. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities bymultilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1222-1235. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.035
Williams, C. (1994). Arfarniad o Ddulliau Dysgu ac Addysgu yng Nghyd destun Addysg Uwchradd
Ddwyieithog [An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual
secondary education]. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Wales, Bangor. https://
research.bangor.ac.uk/portal/files/20574535/null

137