【Research Brief】

Translanguaging in Discussion Class:Investigating the Viability of a Bilingual Pedagogy
in a Japanese University EFL Context
Omar Shelesh
Abstract
This study originated from reflective teaching practices tentatively engaging with the bilingual-focused pedagogy oftranslanguaging in a Japanese university setting. While initial findings have been encouraging, there is a clear needfor more empirical research into the viability of translanguaging in this context. Therefore, in light of its initialresearch findings, it is the purpose of this study to propose a suitable research setting, appropriate research questions,and practical suggestions for a research methodology.
Keywords: translanguaging, English discussion, bilingualism, Japanese university

Introduction
The linguistic segregation of learners’ first language (L1) from the second “taught” language(L2) in educational settings has long been accepted as the norm. In English language teaching (ELT)
contexts, in particular, practitioners have continued to maintain traditional methods and approaches
in ELT, teaching the target language in immersive, English-only environments; any use of thelearners’ L1 is considered to be counterproductive “interference” (Ooi & Abdul Aziz, 2021). However,interest in the advantages of incorporating learners’ L1 into the L2 teaching and learning process has
generated a great deal of excitement among scholars in recent years (see Cummins, 2007; Lin, 2015),
adding momentum to the progressive notion that considers all second language learners as“emergent bilinguals” (García, 2009). This ideological movement aims to establish bilingualism as a
key objective of conventional foreign language education, through the normalization of the combinedand deliberate use of multiple languages in the foreign language classroom (Canagarajah, 2013;
García & Wei, 2014). This has consequently raised interest in the development of effective bilingual
teaching and learning pedagogies, with the concept of translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017, 2022;
García & Wei, 2014) receiving much attention from educational scholars and practitioners. However,despite this extensive interest generating a substantial body of research, there is still a lack ofcontext-specific studies documenting the viability of pedagogical translanguaging in Japanesetertiary EFL education, and English oral communication contexts, in particular. Therefore, this study
proposes that a further examination of the viability of this emerging bilingual pedagogy be carriedout. This study introduces literature pertaining to the theoretical context of translanguaging,referencing relevant prior research. This will be followed by an evaluation of the nominated EFL
course as the potential subject of this study, a presentation of some pertinent research questions,along with practical suggestions for a research methodology. The study concludes with a brief
discussion of the initial findings.

183

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

Background
The term translanguaging is a prefix-extended form of languaging, a concept introduced by
Swain (1985) and later developed by scholars such as Becker (1988) who defines language not only
as a code or system of rules but as a dynamic and potentially limitless process of context-sensitive
communication and interaction. With this concept of languaging in mind, it was Welsh educationalist
Cen Williams who, in the course of conducting research on bilingual secondary education in Walesin the 1980s, conceived of the Welsh term trawsiethu (Williams, 1994), as an all-encompassing label
for the complex bilingual pedagogical practices that he was studying among Welsh- and Englishspeaking learners. Although Williams’ idea at first only appeared in an unpublished doctoral thesis,
the term was subsequently translated into English by scholar Colin Baker, adopting the wordtranslanguaging (Baker, 2001), after which the concept would receive wide recognition from other
scholars and academics. This initiated a paradigm shift in bi- and multilingual education exploration,
which is still evolving to this day, as evidenced in a significant—and increasingly complex—body ofcontributory research from scholars, such as Baker (2001, 2011), Canagarajah (2011, 2013, 2018),
Cenoz and Gorter (2017, 2022), García (2009), to name a few.
In order to gain a more practical and in-depth understanding of what translanguaging means in
its original educational context, we should look to one of Baker’s many contributions to the conceptual
arena. It is here that he describes four important potential benefits of translanguaging, namely,(1)promoting a more complete understanding of the subject matter; (2) promoting the development of
L2, or the “weaker” language; (3) enhancing links and co-operation between learners’ homes andinstitutions; and (4) facilitating the integration of advanced speakers with beginners (Baker, 2001, as
cited in García & Lin, 2017). Therefore, translanguaging can be described from a teaching andlearning perspective (and relating to benefit points [1] and [2] specifically), as an applied process inwhich the subject matter or content of a lesson is taught through the use of two languages. Morespecifically, the subject matter is presented in one language, after which learners can demonstrate
their understanding by producing it in another (Baker, 2011). As Baker explains in this often-quoted
example, “To read and discuss a topic in one language, and then write about it in another, means thatthe subject matter has to be processed and ‘digested’” (Baker, 2011, p. 289). This notion ofinternalization taking place within bilingual learners as they are translanguaging is a key tenet of theconcept and should not be underestimated. Moreover, as seemingly innocuous and simple as someof these practices appear to be, translanguaging activities require that learners activate and engage
with highly complex cognitive processes on both a conscious and subconscious level. This suggeststhat while translanguaging practices could be relatively simple to implement, they may induce
profound and transformative changes within bilingual learners (García & Wei, 2014).

Extending the concept
While the meaning of the “trans” prefix of translanguaging mostly aligns with the characteristics
and practices described thus far, that is meaning to go “across”, or “between” languages as per
Williams’ (1994) original concept, it was academic Ofelia García, who extended the meaning toinclude the notion of “beyond”, by which the concept transcends the classroom and pervades thewider world (Cenoz & Gorter, 2022). García, a North American-based academic responding to thecomplex sociolinguistic realities of bilingualism in the U.S., saw fit to redefine translanguaging as“multiple discursive practices in which bilinguals engage in order to make sense of their bilingual184

Translanguaging in Discussion Class: Investigating the Viability of a Bilingual Pedagogy in a Japanese University EFL Context

worlds” (García, 2009, p. 45). The context of García’s description is based on the experiential
practices of bilingual English–Spanish speakers, as they navigate and negotiate all aspects of theirlives through the prism of two different languages. Extending the translanguaging concept in thisway would have far-reaching implications for the movement as a whole, promoting further discourseand delineation of its features and characteristics, giving rise to the notion of weak and strongtranslanguaging (García & Lin, 2017). These terms form a key part of the theoretical research forthis brief, and can be defined as follows:• Weak translanguaging, primarily used in educational contexts, represents Williams’ (1994)
original translanguaging concept that acknowledges that bilingual learners have two official,“separate” languages. However, figuratively speaking, engaging in translanguaging can cause
the boundary between the two to become “soft” and “permeable”, as observed by Williams(1994) in his study of the bilingual practices of English- and Welsh-speaking learners.
• Strong translanguaging is based on García’s (2009) extended theory of the concept, whichstates that bilingual people do not speak separate languages, but possess a single language“repertoire”, the features of which they deploy selectively, and at will, in response to thedemands of a specific communicative context (García & Lin, 2017).
The notions of weak and strong translanguaging have subsequently become commonly used
expressions when describing translanguaging practices in education and will be referenced insubsequent sections of this brief. Furthermore, the application of translanguaging practices in
educational contexts will now be referred to as pedagogical translanguaging, elaborated in thefollowing section.

Pedagogical translanguaging
Pedagogical translanguaging is a term denoting the specific application of translanguaging
practices in the classroom. In their authoritatively written guide on the subject, Cenoz and Gorter(2022) reinforce the definition of pedagogical translanguaging as, “a theoretical and instructional
approach that aims at improving language and content competences in school contexts by using
resources from the learner’s whole linguistic repertoire” (Cenoz & Gorter, 2022, p. 1). They also
posit that “[t]ranslanguaging is learner-centered and endorses the support and development of all the
languages used by learners. It fosters the development of metalinguistic awareness by softening
boundaries between languages when learning languages and content” (Cenoz & Gorter, 2022, p. 1).
It is clear from this description, which includes phrases such as “whole linguistic repertoire” and“softening boundaries”, that Cenoz and Gorter readily accept both the strong and weak notions as aframework through which pedagogical translanguaging practices can be described. Going further,
they explain that pedagogical translanguaging practices are designated as strong or weak, “…
depending on the degree of pedagogical intervention that takes place in the process of learning…”(Cenoz & Gorter, 2022, p. 30). This definition is particularly useful, as the practical research proposed
for this brief aims to utilize certain strong interventional practices which can raise learners’“metalinguistic awareness”, that is using more than one language in a class to teach specific subject
matter (Cenoz & Gorter, 2022, p. 31). Overall, what is understood from Cenoz and Gorter’s
contribution, is that pedagogical translanguaging, particularly in the context of EFL, can be a flexible
pedagogical process, over which the teacher has a considerable degree of governance. Therefore,185

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

through deliberate planning and activity design, the teacher can leverage learners’ metalinguistic
awareness to simultaneously achieve goals in both language acquisition and subject knowledge, aims
that would be otherwise difficult to reach in a purely monolinguistic setting.

Translanguaging in a Japanese educational context
While this study provides an introduction and theoretical context to the concept oftranslanguaging, it still only represents a small fraction of the academic discourse available on thesubject. However, as the author has discovered, there is still an apparent scarcity of concrete, contextspecific studies of the practical application of pedagogical translanguaging in tertiary foreign
language education, particularly in settings such as English education in Japanese university. Thereis one important exception to this, however. It is a case study conducted by Blake Turnbull (2019)
who investigated the effects of weak and strong translanguaging practices in the planning of English
academic and creative writing within a Japanese university’s EFL program. Turnbull’s study
demonstrates the effective operationalization of pedagogical translanguaging in an as yet comparatively
untested academic context and presents new insights and avenues of potential inquiry into its
strategic application.
The methodology of Turnbull’s study was to use a relatively small sample of two English writingclasses consisting of first-year Japanese EFL students. The classes were sub-divided into threegroups, each group being tasked with a discussion activity within which students were to plan forwriting an essay on a given topic. Importantly, the first group was limited to preparatory discussions
using monolingual English only (no translanguaging); the second group could use a weak form oftranslanguaging, and the third group could engage in strong translanguaging (Turnbull, 2019, p.
237). For empirical data collection, a mixed-methods approach was used involving qualitative audio
conversation analysis of student discussions, as well as quantitative analysis of students’ compositionassessment scores (Turnbull, 2019, p. 242).
In addition to providing a strong basis upon which further studies could be modeled, Turnbull’s
research methodology yielded important findings consistent with notions advocated by theconceptual literature on multi-competence, as espoused by Cook (1991) and García and Wei’s (2014)
theories on translanguaging. For example, Turnbull was able to observe significant differences inwriting scores between students using monolingual English (L2) only and those engaging in strongtranslanguaging practices (Turnbull, 2019, p. 245). He concludes that “The freedom and confidence
that allowing [foreign language] learners to engage in translanguaging practices as the emergent
bilinguals they are not only raises their ability to produce the [target language] in desired settings
but also affords them the ability to express themselves, to make meaning, and to learn as whole
individuals acting in their bi- or multilingual worlds” (Turnbull, 2019, p. 248).
Building upon the encouraging conclusions drawn in Turnbull’s study, it is the intention of thisbrief to propose an expansion of research in translanguaging pedagogies to encompass practicalEnglish oral communication programs within a similar Japanese university’s EFL setting. For the
purposes of this research brief, a specific English discussion course at a Japanese university was
proposed as the teaching context and subject of investigation.

Context: The Discussion class
The Discussion class (DC) at Rikkyo University is a compulsory course for all first-year

186Translanguaging in Discussion Class: Investigating the Viability of a Bilingual Pedagogy in a Japanese University EFL Context

undergraduate students, consisting of practical, discussion-based English language classes delivered
weekly, over a 14-week semester. The program’s original concept and curriculum documents,
authored by Hurling (2012), stipulate that a near-identical procedural and methodologicalcommunicative language teaching approach is followed by instructors, whatever the topical or
language learning objectives may be. Teaching groups are divided up according to their faculty ofmajor study, and designated one of four ability levels, based on the student’s TOEIC test performance:
Level I (TOEIC score band 680 or above) to Level IV (TOEIC score band below 280). A level-specifictextbook is also issued to all students, chronologically covering all target language and discussion
topics for the semester. All scheduled classes last for 100 minutes and are typically made up of
between 9 and 10 students, which is intended to facilitate greater student-centered learning andstudent-to-student interaction time. The intimate group learning environment is an essential elementof the course, as one of its primary aims is to develop fluency through maximizing opportunities forstudent interaction and enable students to better participate in the exchange of views by performing
various oral functions commonly utilized in discussions (Hurling, 2012). These functions are
introduced in the DC curriculum as Discussion Skills (e.g., giving and asking for opinions, reasons,and examples) and Communication Skills (e.g., appropriately reacting to others’ ideas and checking
understanding). In a typical lesson, students are presented with new Discussion Skills phrases (e.g.,“In my opinion, ...”) alongside a predefined topic on a contemporary issue, through which they
practice and apply the new language. This is enacted through the DC lesson plan, which follows a set
menu of practical and interactive stages, that is the Fluency stage; the Function Presentation stage;
the Practice stage; and two main production stages, Discussion 1 and Discussion 2 (Hurling, 2012).
In addition, students are more formally assessed on their ability to apply the discussion skills at
regular intervals throughout the semester, by way of a summative discussion test.
In order to ascertain the suitability of the DC as a candidate for conducting pedagogicaltranslanguaging research studies, the course was evaluated against three qualifying criteria:(1) The course’s inherent compatibility in the form of evidence of pre-existing bilingual ortranslingual concepts available in the theoretical framework of the course.
(2) Potential for the course to accommodate pedagogical translanguaging strategies on apractical level, without unduly disrupting standard lesson procedures and/or timing.
(3) Potential for the course to accommodate pedagogical translanguaging strategies without
disrupting or undermining the functional, linguistic objectives of the course.
As for criterion point (1), Hurling’s (2012) founding documentation on the course’s curriculum
design was examined for references to bilingualism or translanguaging that could be exploited,
however, no evidence of this was found. The apparent absence of any bilingual considerations at thecourse’s conception could be viewed as a disadvantage; however, it also indicates potential
opportunities for the introduction of fresh teaching practices onto fertile new ground. Criterion (2)was evaluated positively, as DC lessons are principally based on uniformly consistent and repeatableteaching methods that would allow for strategic and systematic implementation of supplementarypedagogical translanguaging activities. Moreover, the course’s well-resourced institutional context
makes it possible to conduct research over multiple lessons and across multiple teaching groups.
Criterion (3) was also given a positive assessment, as the linguistic scaffolding provided by certain
functional Discussion Skills, that is organizational phrases, such as “Who would like to start?” and“What shall we discuss first?” could facilitate a bilingual framework within which English and the187

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

learners’ L1 (in this case Japanese) could be used interchangeably in any given translanguaging task,
and without interfering with the target language and/or aims of the lesson.
It should also be mentioned that a research study conducted in this teaching context may benefit
wider, institutional-level objectives, as the course is administered by the Center for Foreign Language
Education and Research (FLER), which alludes to translanguaging in its core statement of philosophy,
citing the concept as part of efforts to promote intercultural understanding through multilingualinteraction and “translanguaging dialogues” (The philosophy of the FLER establishment, 2022).
Therefore, taking the above criteria into consideration, the Discussion course was determined to
be a suitable testbed for conducting a pedagogical translanguaging research study.

Methodology
Based on the aforementioned previous research studies and proposed research context, thefollowing research questions were formulated in order to provide focus for subsequent research
activities. It should be acknowledged that this is not an exhaustive list and that these questions may
require adaptation in response to variations in teaching context, and/or in order to optimize researchoutcomes. However, for the purposes of this brief, the following questions were adopted as arepresentative sample in this particular discussion class context, which informed suggestions for the
research methodology. The research questions are as follows:(1) What are the effects on students’ English (target language) output in terms of fluency andaccuracy when implementing translanguaging pedagogies in an English discussion course?
(2) To what extent does the intervention of translingual pedagogies influence students’ attitudes
toward using L1 in the English discussion classroom?
(3) To what extent does the intervention of translingual pedagogies affect students’ self-identity as“bilingual” speakers?
(4) What are the practical planning considerations when implementing translanguaging pedagogies
on an English discussion course?
(5) To what extent do teachers’ attitudes toward bilingualism and the use of L1 in English classes
affect the implementation of translanguaging pedagogies?
From a methodological perspective, these research questions encompass a wide range ofpotential data sources, variables, and other influential factors related to the use of translanguaging;
therefore, research carried out for this study was assessed to be best conducted under the umbrellaof action research, combined with a mixed-methods approach. Action research is known as “[a]powerful tool for change and improvement” (Cohen, et al., 2007, p. 297) as it encourages a moredisciplined investigative approach from researchers, requiring that they “plan, act, observe andreflect more carefully, more systematically, and more rigorously than one usually does in everyday
life” (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1992, p. 10, as cited in Cohen, et al., 2007, p. 297-8). Moreover,incorporating a mixed-methods approach into action research enhances the ability of practitioners totriangulate multiple sources by “making use of all available data (both qualitative and quantitative) inorder to build a rigorous, cohesive set of conclusions” (James, et al., 2008, p. 81). Therefore, in thecourse of implementing both strong and weak pedagogical translanguaging strategies, the principles
of action research dictate that researchers/practitioners record and respond effectively to what they
are observing while students are translanguaging. It is therefore recommended that researchers

188

Translanguaging in Discussion Class: Investigating the Viability of a Bilingual Pedagogy in a Japanese University EFL Context

maintain documentation in the form of retrospective field notes (Murphy, 2014) written shortly after
the lesson has finished, also documenting reflections on and for action (Murphy, 2014). Journaling is
a form of qualitative, longitudinal data collection that could also be adapted to involve student
participants. For example, students could be asked to make brief weekly journal entries regarding
their experiences of how translanguaging is affecting them, answering questions to help researchers
gain insights into changing attitudes toward L1 use in the EFL classroom (based on researchquestion 2), as well as expose issues pertaining to bilingualism and identity (research question 3).
Other mixed qualitative and quantitative methods, such as pre- and post-discussion course
surveys could be deployed for student participants to complete in order to assess the comparative
impact of translanguaging on changing attitudes. Surveys could be extended to teaching staff toobtain further background data concerning attitudes and beliefs toward bilingualism and L1 use in
the EFL classroom (research question 5), which could be cross-examined for correlations withcorresponding student attitudes toward converging issues.

Preliminar y Results and Discussion
As stated previously, this brief is based on preliminary research consisting of exploratoryreflective teaching practices tentatively engaging with the bilingual-focused pedagogy oftranslanguaging. The author initially set out to gauge the practical effectiveness of the pedagogy, as
per research question (1) What are the effects on students’ English (target language) output in terms offluency and accuracy when implementing translanguaging pedagogies in an English discussion course?
To this end, casual experimentation was conducted by devising and implementing certain weak andstrong translanguaging practices (García & Wei, 2014) at strategic stages of a discussion lesson,
while observing the reactions of students as they were exposed to new bilingual activities, along withany changes in their fluency or accuracy when producing the target language. This yielded noticeable
results, as witnessed when conducting preparatory hybrid L1 L2 (Japanese–English) translanguaging
discussions prior to the main Discussion stages, in an average ability class. This consisted of
deploying the functional target language, that is organizational English Discussion Skills as an L2
framework of phrases, around which students could conduct their discussions and add the L1 content
of their ideas. Looking back reflectively at this intervention, students were afforded an opportunity
to experience a strong form of deliberate, teacher-directed translanguaging (Jones, 2017). Thisparticular hybrid discussion task demanded that students should not shift between English andJapanese arbitrarily, but do so in a controlled and intentional manner. Students clearly demonstrated
the ability to cognitively engage with the task on multiple linguistic levels, that is simultaneously
synthesizing their knowledge of the interactional Discussion Skills patterns in English (Hurling,2012), while effectively rehearsing ideas in their L1, in interactions that resembled strategic planningand rehearsal (Ellis, 2005, 2009). As a consequence of this intervention, the monolingual English
discussions started off with students visibly more confident and enthusiastic about the task they
were to undertake. Furthermore, they were able to interact fluidly, with little or no hesitation whenrecalling and applying the target language phrases mid-discussion.
This limited intervention demonstrates that the effective implementation of pedagogicaltranslanguaging practices is possible with relatively minor adjustments in the planning of regularclassroom activities, while also producing tangible, practical outcomes in terms of target language
output and fluency. At the time of writing, the author continues the reflective journaling process of
documenting experiences of experimenting with pedagogical translanguaging practices in the189

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

discussion class context, the findings of which will guide the development of a future research study.

Conclusion
This research brief set out to draw attention to the possibilities and advantages of conducting
research into the application of pedagogical translanguaging in an English discussion course in a
Japanese university setting. As the existing literature and preliminary research presented in this brief
have demonstrated, there is both a clear need and opportunity for further empirical research in thisarea. There are still many questions to be resolved; therefore, the framing of relevant researchquestions may need further consideration. The design of surveys and other research instruments
will also require careful attention in order to harvest the most relevant data. Most importantly, thedevelopment of effective pedagogical translanguaging activities to implement during this study will
be paramount.
Finally, it is expected that this study will provide the best opportunity for both learners andteachers alike to have a collective translanguaging experience, while exploring the many tangible
potential benefits that can be had from engaging in pedagogical translanguaging practices, not onlyin terms of increasing attainment levels in L2 acquisition but also on a sociolinguistic level, throughreinforcing the identities of learners as true bilingual speakers.

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.
Becker, A. L. (1988). ‘Language in particular: a lecture’ In D. Tannen & R. O. Freedle (Eds.). (1988).
Linguistics in context: Connecting observation an understanding: Lectures from the 1985 LSA/TESOL and NEH Institutes (Vol. 29). Praeger.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). 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. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. (2018). Translingual practice as spatial repertoires: Expanding the paradigm beyond
structuralist orientations. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 31-54. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/
amx041
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. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. R. B. (2007). Research Methods in Education. London:
Routledge.
Cook, V. J. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multicompetence. Interlanguage Studies
Bulletin (Utrecht), 7(2), 103-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839100700203
Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms.
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue Canadienne De Linguistique Appliquee, 10(2),190Translanguaging in Discussion Class: Investigating the Viability of a Bilingual Pedagogy in a Japanese University EFL Context

221-240
Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Language Learning andLanguage Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, andaccuracy 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.). Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
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.
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke,
UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hurling, S. (2012). Introduction to EDC. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion,
1(1), 1.2-1.10.
James, E. A., Milenkiewicz, M. T., & Bucknam, A. (2008). Participatory action research for educational
leadership: Using data-driven decision making to improve schools. Thousand Oaks, California:
SAGE Publications, Inc., https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483329369
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
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1992). The Action Research Planner (3rd edition). Geelong, Vic.:
Deakin University Press.
Lin, A. M. (2015). Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture and Curriculum,28(1), 74-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000926
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.) (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,
10(3). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarped/v10-i3/10816
The philosophy of the FLER establishment. (2022). The Center for Foreign Language Education andResearch (FLER). https://fler.rikkyo.ac.jp/message/index.html Accessed: 2022/6/15.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input andcomprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second
language acquisition, 235-253. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Turnbull, B. (2019). Translanguaging in the planning of academic and creative writing: A case of
adult Japanese EFL learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 42(2), 232-251. https://doi.org/10.10
80/15235882.2019.1589603
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

191