International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning

ISSN: 2204-0552 (Print) 1833-4105 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpl20

Translanguaging in English academic writing

preparation

John Adamson & David Coulson

To cite this article: John Adamson & David Coulson (2015) Translanguaging in English
academic writing preparation, International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 10:1, 24-37,
DOI: 10.1080/22040552.2015.1084674

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/22040552.2015.1084674

Published online: 06 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 56

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpl20

Download by: [Australian National University] Date: 27 April 2016, At: 01:33
 International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 2015
Vol. 10, No. 1, 24–37
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/22040552.2015.1084674

Translanguaging in English academic writing preparation

John Adamsona and David Coulsonb
a
Department of International Studies and Regional Development, University of Niigata Prefecture, Niigata,
Japan; bGraduate School of Language Education and Information Science, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto,
Japan

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 01:33 27 April 2016

We investigate translanguaging (i.e. the co-use of first and second translanguaging; CLIL;
academic writing
languages) in a Content and Language Integrated Learning course,
as a pragmatic means to promote the skill of young university
students in extended critical academic writing. We aimed to prepare
new undergraduate students (n  =  180) for courses where partial
English-medium instruction is typical, rather than full immersion.
This means that both Japanese and English may be used in the
teaching and completion of regular classes. Data from students’
answers to questionnaires and their written work over a three-year
period demonstrate (a) how translanguaging facilitates completion
of tasks and (b) the appearance of positive perceptions of students
toward this policy. Further, content and language assessment
criteria in writing, and the strategic use of Japanese language
reading related to class themes, resulted in improved outcomes for
most students of lower proficiency. Awareness of translanguaging
among the students led to improved written work, and this enhanced
authenticity and relevance to local purposes. Conclusions indicate
that translanguaging in a partial English-medium context reflects the
growing realities of English use as a Lingua Franca.

Introduction
This study focuses on translanguaging in a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
English language preparation course in a Japanese university. Translanguaging means “the
adoption of bilingual supportive scaffolding practices” (Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra, 2013,
p. 218), in this case, using students’ L1 (Japanese) with their L2 (English) to negotiate com-
plex academic tasks and understand and convey meaning. The lecture preparation class
takes place in Japan, where local academic norms of practice take precedence over English
immersion practice (Brown & Adamson, 2012).
The purpose of the class in focus, which takes the form of academic lecture training
(including listening, note-taking, critical thinking skills development, and essay writing), is
to prepare first-year students for English-medium instruction (EMI). Starting from the second
year, content lectures for economics, politics, and regional development themes are regularly
delivered in English or a hybrid of English and some Japanese. Brown and Adamson (2012)

CONTACT  John Adamson  adamson@unii.ac.jp

© 2015 Taylor & Francis
 International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning   25

reported on the beliefs of these area specialists about language preparation for EMI, spe-
cifically that both Japanese and English ability for in-class interaction and writing (through
the use of multilingual citations) is a key competence for students. Research into students’
perceptions of our bilingual approach to writing training in this class revealed some posi-
tive feedback, particularly among lower proficiency students (Adamson & Coulson, 2014).
Building on these studies, this research examines the extent to which students engage in
the translanguaging process and their perceptions of that process to write academic reports.
In light of the trend in Japanese tertiary education toward EMI, the role of the students’
L1 (Japanese) in academic writing preparation remains under-researched in this particular
context.
First, we give an overview of the context of the study and next review the literature in
translanguaging, writing and literacy development, and CLIL, paying attention to the local
context. How data from questionnaires and written reports were analyzed will be outlined
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 01:33 27 April 2016

and followed by presentation of findings and discussion. Conclusions focusing on research

questions and implications for practice will be drawn.

Context
The academic lecture preparation course is compulsory for all first-grade students (about
180 per year), and meets once a week for one academic year. The students under investi-
gation represent the lower proficiency half of the cohort, as assessed by a placement test
upon entering the university. The higher proficiency group was taught simultaneously in a
parallel class. For the purpose of this study, we focus on the lower proficiency group, which
was observed in the early years of the course (2009–2010) as requiring particular support
in terms of our emphasis on multimodality and autonomy. Japanese freshmen in general
encounter an academic culture shock upon entering university in terms of the necessity
to engage critically with taught materials; for the linguistically lower proficiency group,
the additional need to attend to this requirement in English was at times acute, so their
perceptions about their experience in the lecture class were thought to be informative for
our teaching practice.
Our immediate response from 2011 onwards was to adopt a team-teaching approach,
collaborating materials design and delivering class input in tandem to give the large class
the advantage of receiving the support of two teachers. This was achieved by rotating lecture
input, with one lecturer speaking and the other writing key notes on the board or monitoring
the class to provide language guidance in either English or Japanese when needed. Although
designated as “lower-proficiency” on a linguistic placement test, this cohort of students has
subtle differences in terms of gender and awareness of course input. These variables are not
the direct focus of this study but do remain possible future avenues of inquiry.
A CLIL approach, with a dual focus on language and content objectives, was adopted
(Marsh, Mehisto, Wolff, & Frigols-Martin, 2010). Requirements for the class focus on: lecture
listening of lengthening duration; pre-class reading of selected texts related to the listening
themes; maintenance of a portfolio containing lesson handouts, note-taking sheets, reading,
and writing drafts; and a final essay. The possible titles (several options were available) for this
end-of-year report (2000 words) focused on regional economy, Japanese cultural exports,
Japanese population and immigration, Japanese healthcare, local and global environmental
issues, and Japanese NGOs. This selection was prepared to reflect the foci of the university’s
 26    J. Adamson and D. Coulson

content curriculum. Assessment of the course is by continual assessment (portfolio main-

tenance, homework, tests, and the final report). The written report assessment is based on
content coherence, critical argument, and language use. Overall, we focused on how the
students could orient themselves better to the demands of this cognitively challenging task
and the completion of university standard-written discourse in English.

Research questions
The research questions were:

(1) How do students translanguage in CLIL report writing?

(2) How do they perceive L1 use in CLIL lectures?

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 01:33 27 April 2016

(3) Is this approach transferable across the curriculum?

Literature review
The literature review addresses three overlapping themes: the use of the students’ L1 in
CLIL contexts; L1 in L2 learning and the translanguaging approach; and L1 use in L2 writing.

L1 in CLIL
Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010, p. 1) refer to the “dual focus” of CLIL on content and language
and how such an approach gives an “authenticity of purpose” (p. 5) to syllabus design, as it
brings resources and methods from the students’ fields of interest into the classroom. This
content focus in language classes may lead to motivational benefits, especially for lower
proficiency learners with more confidence and interest in content (Edsall & Saito, 2012).
The issue remains, however, as to the role of L1 in such pedagogical contexts. Lasagabaster
(2013) sees merits in students accessing knowledge and culture through their L1, as well as
teacher use of the L1 in classroom meta-discourse. This strategic use of the L1 constitutes,
according to Lasagabaster (2013), a form of bilingual training and a means to reduce anxiety
among nervous L2 users. The engagement with content is viewed by Ikeda (2012, p. 12) as
an “intentional organic” in that its practice is emergent; we further argue that the organic
engagement here lies also in the lesson-by-lesson discovery of how effectively the L1 can
be applied in CLIL contexts. This leads to a discussion of the larger issues of how the L1 is
intertwined with the L2, and what arguments and beliefs underpin translanguaging as a
tool in the CLIL classroom.

L1/L2 and translanguaging

Cummins (1994) refers to L1 use in L2 pedagogical contexts as nurturing “additive bilingual-
ism” and contrasts this with the “two solitudes” of L1 and L2 in total immersion language
programs. Beliefs about the priority of L2-only use in SLA are entrenched in some learning
environments, leading some critics to regard L1 as interference (e.g. May, 2013). This view is
at odds with an established view of bilingualism, namely that bilinguals are not two mono-
linguals in one brain (e.g. Grosjean, 1982).
 International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning   27

In contrast, there is a growing body of work advocating L1 use as a cognitive benefit to

L2 learners since L1 is just one of the several “ethnolinguistic repertories” (Benor, 2010) that
learners possess. Fu and Matoush (2015) present convincing examples of the use of “trans-
mediation” to demonstrate how learners’ identities can be optionally expressed in their L2,
resulting in an overall increased willingness to use all their linguistic repertoires more actively.
Furthermore, Blackledge and Creese (2010) see the strategic code-switching of L1 and L2 in
the classroom as a mirror of language use in a multicultural society. Termed “translanguaging,”
Garcia and Wei (2014) see the uses of L1, L2, and possibly more languages as the “integration
of (bilingual) language practices” (p. 80). From an ecological perspective (Hornberger, 2002),
such a view of bilingualism in a community or educational establishment, impacted by waves
of immigration, needs to be reconceptualized to one which views use(s) of language(s) as
intertwined and fluid – “hetereoglossic” – rather than existing in separate, static, or “mono-
glossic” states (Garcia, 2009). This natural “intralingual diversity” (Blackledge, Creese, & Takhi,
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 01:33 27 April 2016

2014, p. 194) reflects, and represents, “the presence of various languages and dialects in the
community” (p. 194) and acts to “decenter monolingual practice” (Donahue, 2013, p. 150).
In some US educational contexts, translanguaging has gained more official acceptance;
for instance, García and Flores (2013) highlight the growing integration of language, literacy,
and content learning which embraces translanguaging in Common Core State Schools in the
USA, a bold move toward both L1 and CLIL approaches. This realization that language and
literacy development are related within bilingual students (Blackledge & Creese, 2010) may
not, however, extend to teacher training for mainstream education (Martin, 2005), despite
the potential that it holds for creating “safe” (p. 80) language practice for lower proficiency
learners. Further, to Martin’s concerns, is the potential “guilt” among students, and teachers,
when using L1 in L2 learning contexts (Setati, Adler, Reed, & Bapoo, 2002, p. 147).

Writing
Looking at writing with use of students’ L1 in CLIL contexts, Dalton-Puffer (2007) notes that
most emphasis in CLIL research has been placed on oral discourse and the language choices
inherent in classroom interaction. L1 use can be viewed from various perspectives: oral inter-
action using the L1 as a resource in the process of writing (planning and reviewing drafts)
or, in this study, the use of L1 references and notes which requires translation into L2. Again,
mirroring monolingual practice in oral interaction, similar beliefs are found regarding writing.
However, the subtle shift found in CLIL L2 writing contexts is that the dual focus in CLIL is
on both language and content outcomes, in contrast to the purely language outcomes of
a language class with no content integration. This move away from language assessment
implies a shift away from monolingual practice into a more pragmatic use of L1.
Despite some research highlighting poor writing outcomes in CLIL classes (Llinares &
Whittaker, 2006) in post-secondary contexts, cognitive benefits are reported; for example,
Lorimer (2013, p. 163) examines the development of an “ear for difference” between lan-
guages, termed as “rhetorical attunement,” when comparing and contrasting references in
the L1 and L2 on the same content theme. Hanson (2013, p. 212) found that writing students
find it “helpful to look at things in different languages” and “get a different perspective on
the topic.” When planning and accessing references for L2 content writing themes, Hanson
(2013, p. 207) notes: “Not only does a multilingual orientation more accurately reflect the
linguistic reality within the academic community, it is also consistent with ‘connected’ online
 28    J. Adamson and D. Coulson

culture.” Furthermore, Hanson (2013, p. 207) regards the ability to translanguage between
the L1 and L2 as a strategic type of writing “fluency,” essential in academic writing instruction.
Importantly, student views are considered in Elsherif’s study (2012) into L2 writers’ percep-
tions of their L1, which revealed positive attitudes in text construction.
Clearly, use of L1 texts as references in L2 writing requires translation, and this raises the
issue of who translates more, higher or lower proficiency students. Wolfsberger’s (2012)
study shows that lower proficiency multilingual writers use translation more than higher
proficiency students. However, discussion of whether translation is justified or not, or how
much should be allowed, is overshadowed by Lu and Horner (2013, p. 27) who sees L1
to L2 translation as a necessary strategy, whereby students need to “consider how, when,
where, and why specific language strategies might be deployed.” Moreover, this “translingual”
approach (p. 29) to writing works to “foreground the agency and responsibility of the writers,”
a point which is strengthened by the relationship between “language choice” in multilingual
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 01:33 27 April 2016

contexts and autonomy-building (Levine, 2011).

Autonomy and self-directed learning are typical aims at the tertiary level to nurture stu-
dents capable of independent study (Dam, 1995). When given the choice to use or not to
use, their L1 students’ agency and self-responsibility are augmented.
For non-advanced students studying overseas in an English-L1 medium, translanguag-
ing is also reported as being facilitative in students’ approach to writing tasks. Ofelia and
Kano (2014) report the case of Japanese secondary school-age children in America as they
developed their skills at academic writing in English for SAT tests. Having already been in
the country for between one and four years, they were fluent English speakers. Through
interviews, it became clear the students made use of translanguaging to negotiate the com-
plexities of creating written text and to hone metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness.
This in turn led to the emergence of greater self-regulating strategies for these individuals.
Ofelia and Kano also claim that far from using translanguaging as a crutch, it scaffolds the
emergence of increasingly effective strategies as proficiency moves toward the advanced
level. “Pluriliteracies give agency to the person involved in the literacy act to use different
literacy practices to capitalize on the meaning of the text that is being received or produced”
(p. 271). Additionally, research on the difficulty East Asian learners of English face in develop-
ing unimpeded reading, due to the cognitive factors involved in getting used to switching
between writing systems, (e.g. Coulson, 2013) attests to the persistent difficulty in critical
reading skills across languages, as diverse as Japanese and English. For students such as
those reported here without the advantage of extended overseas exposure, the expectation
that the majority should perform similarly in L2 critical reading and writing preparation, as
in L1, is barely realistic.
Choice by students opens this discussion into a confrontation over how to reconcile their
beliefs about language use with what teachers believe or what disciplinary norms expect.
This is a potentially new cognitive territory for students, termed “third space” (Moje et al.,
2004, p. 7) or alternatively “risk” (Thesen, 2014, p. 6). Fundamentally, this is the intersection
of literacy practices and beliefs from the familiar and private networks (1st space) with the
discourses expected in the disciplinary norms (2nd space); here, the tension is between the
1st space use of L1 Japanese references in L1 content writing with 2nd space new writing
norms advocated by the CLIL writing instructor. The premise is to “draw on multiple resources
or funds to understand the world and … oral and written texts,” (Moje et al., 2004, p. 42)
leading possibly to acquiescence, hesitance, or even resistance from students, reactions
 International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning   29

which all represent a manifestation of agency. This “tension between pulls towards conven-
tion … and towards more hybrid, experimental and open forms” requires recognition by the
CLIL practitioner (Thesen, 2014, p. 6).
In sum, allowing and trusting students to develop an autonomous self-determined
approach to writing, which may include translanguaging, is a pragmatic response to the
cognitively challenging task of critical second language writing. As Tochon (2014) argues,
writing is an essential skill to practice for students to engage in deeper and more meaning-
ful learning since “it stabilizes discourse and practice and develops agency” (p. 85). In the
following section, we will describe, from the perspective of the evidence presented above,
an investigation of English L1 lower proficiency students as they approached a complex
academic course involving listening and writing.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 01:33 27 April 2016

Methodology
Initial research into this lecture course focused on student perceptions of the CLIL approach,
as we were interested in gauging student feelings toward this novel methodology (Adamson
& Coulson, 2014). We then simultaneously progressed into more specific areas of inquiry
associated with course delivery, including that of student portfolio use (Adamson, 2014), and
this current study of L1 use and translanguaging. The questionnaires (see Appendix 1) were
primarily developed to address issues surrounding student perceptions of the course, yet,
due to the open-ended nature of some questions, frequently revealed perceptions related
to language use. This became increasingly apparent through the 2011–2013 academic year,
when we as lecturers became more aware of the potential benefits of L1 use and so started
to convey this to the students in class.
To investigate translanguaging in this educational context, two forms of data were ana-
lyzed: questionnaire data and final reports. All students taking the course were asked to
complete questionnaires and all reports completed at the end of the 2nd semester could be
analyzed. Questionnaires (n = 475 from 2011 to 2014) were collected over three academic
years. The questionnaires were distributed at the end of each semester. The questionnaires
were bilingual. Likert scale’s (from 1 to 7) closed questions asked students about their per-
ceptions of improvement in listening, the CLIL teaching approach, the constructiveness and
motivation to do out-of-class study to support in-class learning, and transferability of the
skills acquired to other classes. Open-ended questions were created to gather qualitative
feedback about what students perceived to be the focus of the class, why they are required to
manage a portfolio of lesson materials, and how they see the class to benefit other studies. As
the course lasts one year, and each cohort is different, longitudinal inquiry helps restructure
certain elements of the materials and delivery. Contrasting 1st and 2nd semester data has
enabled us to track shifts in perceptions toward the course each year (Adamson & Coulson,
2014) and the effectiveness of lecture portfolios in autonomy-building (Adamson, 2014).
Questionnaire responses were scanned for mention of L1 use and translation.
Students’ year-end reports (n = 271 from 2011 to 2014) were also analyzed for in-text
citation practice and end-of-report reference lists, with attention paid to: Japanese (L1) and
English (L2) references; the themes of L1 references; whether in-text referencing used direct
quotations or paraphrasing; and the final grade awarded to assess whether L1 referencing
was related to higher grades.
 30    J. Adamson and D. Coulson
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 01:33 27 April 2016

Figure 1. Changes in student perceptions, 2011–2014.

In essence, this triangulation of data constitutes a small case study with the intrinsic
purpose (Stake, 1995) of revealing insights into local translanguaging practice. Students
were informed that research was being conducted into their perceptions of the course and
L1 use. Anonymity was ensured and students could opt out of participation.

Findings
The two sets of data from questionnaires and report analyses from three years will be dis-
cussed. Quantitatively analyzed data from the questionnaire are summarized for each aca-
demic year and represented in Figure 1, showing the changes from early (1st semester)
and late (2nd semester) student perceptions. Qualitative findings for file (portfolio) use and
translanguaging/L1 use are given for each year. Although it is recognized that this study
focuses on translanguaging, we give an overview of all the findings for the year, as there
may exist an interplay between perceptions toward the CLIL/multimodal course objectives
and use of language(s). Messages regarding language use are, in effect, seen within the
context of other findings.

Questionnaires: 2011–2012 (early/late n = 86/63)

From Figure 1, it can be seen that students felt their abilities had improved over the year
and that the CLIL teaching approach was effective. The class was generally believed to be
beneficial for other classes, implying that cross-fertilization could take place. Anomalies
arose, however, in the out-of-class activities (homework and outside reading), which were
not seen as “constructive,” yet nevertheless, “motivating.” Qualitative findings concerning file
(portfolio) management revealed ambivalence as to the purpose of keeping materials in an
orderly manner, with some students commenting that the purpose was to satisfy the teacher,
rather than the intention of developing long-term autonomous learning skills. Important to
this study, open-ended responses revealed positive mention of L1 use in class, particularly
for classroom management; in terms of writing, late questionnaire findings showed aware-
ness of the importance of translating L1 articles into L2 for writing semester-final reports.
 International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning   31

2012–2013 (early/late n = 74/65)

In the second year data, quantitative findings were generally positive, concerning improve-
ment in listening, teaching effectiveness, and the perceptions of constructiveness and
motivation of out-of-class activities. There was, however, a clear drop from semester 1 to
2 concerning the perception of the benefit of the lecture class across to other subjects.
Qualitative findings showed similar attitudes toward lecture file management as in the pre-
vious year. Also, there were fewer mentions of the practicality of L1 use in class or for writing
in either semester compared to 2011–2012.

2013–2014 (early/late n = 89/88)

Our final data-set revealed a general perception that listening skills had improved and a
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 01:33 27 April 2016

more positive belief that the course would be of benefit to the study of other subjects in the
curriculum emerged. However, there was a more neutral feeling toward out-of-class activities
compared to the year before. Perceptions of teaching effectiveness clearly dropped from
1st to 2nd semester, yet qualitative findings showed slightly more positive views toward the
purposes of file management. Of note in this year’s findings were the surprisingly higher
rates of mention of the usefulness of L1 use in class and for the final report. Students spe-
cifically mentioned the practicality of the teacher’s use of Japanese in class to clarify lesson
tasks, such as listening strategies, note-taking skills, and homework objectives. 2nd semester
questionnaire responses tended to focus on the all-important report, with some students
mentioning the benefit of translation of information from Japanese articles to contrast with
information on the same themes written in English language articles (presumably showing
non-Japanese perspectives). The Japanese perspective on international issues was com-
monly noted for both the report and in-lecture discussions. Finally, noteworthy was the
reference to the practicality of content knowledge transfer from the content curriculum to
the lecture preparation class. The reverse appeared too in 20% of the responses, the use of
content learned in the lecture-preparation class (in L2 English) for politics and economics
classes (in L1 Japanese). Such findings were not evident in earlier data.

Reports
Reports were written over the 2nd semester on themes covered over the year. Students were
encouraged to supplement understanding of lecture input with supplementary reading
from teacher-recommended or self-sourced English or L1 (Japanese) literature. Increasingly,
from 2011, we encouraged this bilingual practice to make students aware of the contrast
in stances taken by Western and Japanese researchers. To gauge the uptake of this practice
among students, we analyzed the reports to trace: the average number of L1 references used
in the reports; the overall average of references (L1 and L2); the percentage of L1 references
used for that cohort; the percentage of students who used 3 or more L1 references; how
academic citation was carried out (through paraphrasing or direct quotation); and, whether
those attaining high grades were using high counts of L1 references. Table 1 represents the
quantifiable areas of the investigation.
 32    J. Adamson and D. Coulson

Table 1. L1 use in reports.

Average number Percent of L1 refer- Percent of 3 or
Average number of of L1 and L2 refer- ences (%) more L1 references
Year (n) L1 references ences (%)
2011–2012 (n = 89) 2 4 48 36
2012–2013 (n = 89) 1.5 3.5 38 14
2013–2014 (n = 93) 1 3.5 36 15

2011–2012 (n = 89)
In-text referencing was mostly by paraphrasing, and direct quotations were often quite
limited to short sentences or words and/or replication of data (graphs and tables). As can be
seen in Table 1, the average number of L1 references per student was two and the average
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 01:33 27 April 2016

number of L1 and L2 references combined was four. Of all the references made by the 89
students investigated, 48% were L1. In contrast, 36% of the students used three or more
Japanese references. Finally, looking at the grade awarded for the report and the number
of L1 references, no clear relationship emerged; some linguistically very low-proficiency
students in the group used a majority of L1 references, yet more proficient students were
also likely to do so.

2012–2013 (n = 89)
The second-year reports revealed that most in-text referencing was paraphrasing, but fewer
direct quotations were made compared to 2011–2012. The average number of L1 references
per student dropped to between one and two, as did the average number of L1 and L2 com-
bined, to between three and four. Of note, 38% of all references were L1, down from 48%
the previous year; 14% of the students used 3 or more L1 references, a large drop. Again,
no clear relationship between the amount of L1 references and report grade was evident.

2013–2014 (n = 93)
The third year of analysis of in-text referencing revealed a greater balance of direct quota-
tion and paraphrasing, compared to previous years. The number of L1 references dropped
to around one per report, but the number of L1 and L2 references remained between three
and four. The number of students who used no L1 references was lower. Overall, there was
a slight drop in total references to L1 sources and 15% of the students used three or more
L1 references, as before. Once again, no clear relationship between L1 references and grade
was found.

Discussion
It can be noted from the questionnaire findings that, despite a drop in positive perceptions
regarding the transferability of lecture skills from the first to second semesters over the first
two years, there was a significant rise in the third year. This was not confined to the transfer
of language skills from the lecture class to other classes, but surprisingly pointed to the
transfer of content knowledge acquired in the lecture class to the content curriculum. It
had been assumed that transfer of content would occur only from the content curriculum
 International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning   33

to the lecture class, so this development, reported by 20% of the respondents, reflected a
“cross-fertilization” of knowledge between language and content classes. As the lecture class
is positioned by the lecturers themselves as a CLIL approach, this points to a potentially
growing sense of “authenticity” (Edsall & Saito, 2012) of materials and skills to the wider
curriculum, not simply to other English language classes.
Other findings pinpointed the usefulness of the students’ L1 in class and for the year-
end report, the importance of L1–L2 translation of reference articles, which illustrated the
Japanese perspective on particular issues. Bringing both sets of findings together, the use
of some students’ “ethnolinguistic repertoire” (Benor, 2010) to access content knowledge is
a sign of awareness among such students who use their L1 that the lecture class foci have
begun to decenter monolingual practice. Furthermore, it may be said that for the lower
proficiency students in this study, L1 use is beneficial, as it creates “safe” language practice
(Martin, 2005, p. 80). Yet, concerning those who progressed in proficiency over the year’s
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 01:33 27 April 2016

study, when using the L1 in report writing, the idea of safety is perhaps surpassed by the
practicality of achieving “rhetorical attunement” (Lorimer, 2013 in Cangarajah, p. 163) in
smoothly translanguaging between Japanese and English references.
Conversely, analysis of reports over the three years shows a decrease in L1 references (48,
38, and 35%, respectively), despite teacher promotion. L1 references were used mostly by
either the lowest proficiency students or more proficient students in the group investigated,
possibly because, for the former, L1 content was linguistically more accessible, and, for the
latter, since L1 sources were useful to contrast with L2 perspectives. The Fukushima tsunami
and nuclear disasters occurred during the 2011–2012 year, and many reports addressed this
topic, and much access to L1 references was made among all students; over time, other issues
tended to replace them, particularly Japanese health and longevity, which have recently
been highlighted in the Japanese media. Unlike the conflicting Western and Japanese media
reports on these disasters (with the Western media accused of exaggeration of some aspects
of the relevant issues), health-related themes were not possibly reported from such diver-
gent perspectives.
The question remains about the overall significance of the decrease in L1 references,
despite teacher encouragement. One goal of translanguaging use is to augment language
choice (Levine, 2011) and so autonomy can only be encouraged, not forced, upon learners.

Conclusion
Returning to the three research questions, the following conclusions can be drawn from
this small-scale case study.
The first question asked: How do students translanguage in CLIL report writing?
The use of the students’ L1 use may be related to local thematic relevance (the Fukushima
disasters of 2011) and tentatively to their proficiency level. Over time, though, despite teacher
prompting, less L1 referencing was evident. As argued in the previous section, this initially
disappointing finding needs to be tempered by the potentially increasing awareness among
students of their own rights to choose their preferred language in citation practice.
The second research question asked: How do they perceive L1 use in CLIL lectures? From
2013, findings showed increased positive perceptions about in-class L1 use and appreciation
of teacher L1 metadiscourse to explain tasks and expectations. For this lower proficiency
 34    J. Adamson and D. Coulson

class, this may have lessened anxiety among the least proficient among them and allowed
for more focus on the tasks themselves, rather than on the metadiscourse.
The third questions asked: Is this approach transferable across the curriculum? This
approach (translanguaging for in-class and report writing purposes) was initially taken to
mean the transfer of knowledge from content classes to the lecture class or the use of
new note-taking skills across the curriculum. Unexpectedly, however, the use of content
acquired in the CLIL lecture class over to the content curriculum presented a new dimension
of cross-fertilization of skills and knowledge between the lecture class and content classes.
Implications for CLIL practice need to be confined to this particular, local practice at a
Japanese university. This context is clearly one in which the use of English as a Lingua Franca
is confined and shaped by the role of English in wider Japanese society, and for the students’
studies (for potential EMI in which both Japanese and English are intermingled). The partial
English-medium context is important to remember when drawing implications for practice
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 01:33 27 April 2016

from these findings, as the ultimate goal is not one of the total L2 immersion. Perhaps of
most importance is the hybridity of the context and translanguaging purposes.
In light of this, the most immediate implication for our own practice addresses the “new-
ness” of two factors: firstly, combining content with language and presenting that as a viable
means for undergraduate Japanese to learn a language; and secondly, the use of the students’
L1 for in-class and writing purposes. Overcoming reticence, hesitation, or unfamiliarity with
these factors for students just out of Japanese high school, where content and most language
classes are delivered in their L1, leads to the negotiation between teacher and learner of
a potentially “third space” of literacy acquisition and a sense of “risk” in encountering new
ways of learning.
The engagement with this newness led to some eventually positive perceptions of L1
use, as reported in this study. However, data on actual L1 citation use suggests that, despite
the promotion of student choices, feelings of “guilt” (Setati et al., 2002) may possibly play a
role among students with embedded views of how languages should be learned. The ques-
tion remains as to how to make translanguaging more familiar in the fabric of the lecture
class through earlier teacher prompting in class and for reports or the introduction of clear
assessment criteria, which accept and encourage L1 use. These ideas would provide more
overt incentives for translanguaging but may also potentially over-sensitize students to
language(s) uses, which are best left to emerge naturally in the process of teaching content
and language. The clearest implication here is not to overly focus on, or reward, translan-
guaging, but to regard it as part of the natural fabric of classroom interaction and writing
practice – a pragmatic approach.
One further implication concerning writing is to fine-tune the report questions to include
more themes on which local, Japanese views can be contrasted with those of the Western
(English) media. This manipulation may result in short-term increases of L1 citations, and
probably more awareness of “rhetorical attunement,” (Lorimer, 2013, p. 163) but if pursued as
a teaching strategy in the long-term, suggests teacher control over L1 use, which runs fun-
damentally counter to principles of student autonomy and self-direction which are equally
important to develop as course goals.
Finally, further collection of data of L1 practice and student perceptions are needed for
purposes of comparison over the longer term for this particular context of a CLIL lecture
preparation class. The issues raised in this study will be constantly revisited every year until
more effective measures for the promotion of translanguaging can be designed.
 International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning   35

References
Adamson, J. (2014). Developing autonomy through portfolios and networks in CLIL lectures.
LACLIL (Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning), 7, 21–39. doi:
10.5294/laclil.2014.7.1.2, eISSN 2322-9721.
Adamson, J., & Coulson, D. (2014). Pathways towards success for novice academic writers in a CLIL
setting: A study in an Asian EFL context. In R. Al-Mahrooqi, A. Roscoe, & V. S. Thakur (Eds.), Teaching
writing in EFL/ESL: A fresh look (pp. 151–171). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Benor, S. B. (2010). Ethnolinguistic repertoire: Shifting the analytic focus in language and ethnicity.
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14, 159–183. doi:10.1111/j.14679-841.2010.00440.x
Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning
and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94, 103–105. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00986x
Blackledge, A., Creese, A., & Takhi, J. K. (2014). Beyond multilingualism: Heteroglossia in practice. In S.
May (Ed.), The multilingual turn (pp. 191–215). New York, NY: Routledge.
Brown, H., & Adamson, J. (2012). Localizing EAP in light of the rise of English-medium instruction at
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 01:33 27 April 2016

Japanese universities. On CUE Journal, 6, 5–20 (JALT College and University Educators SIG Journal).
Coulson, D. (2013). The development of word reading skill in secondary schools in East Asia. In
R. Al-Mahrooqi, & A. Roscoe (Eds.), Focusing on EFL reading: Theory and practice (pp. 60–84). Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1994). The acquisition of English as a second language. In K. Spangenberg Urbschat &
R. Pritchard (Eds.), Reading instruction for ESL students (pp. 36–62). Delaware: International Reading
Association.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin, OH: Authentik.
Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2013). Future challenges for English-medium instruction at the
tertiary level. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities
(pp. 2213–2221). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Donahue, C. (2013). Negotiation, translinguality, and cross-cultural writing research in a new
composition era. In A. S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Literacy as translingual practice (pp. 149–161). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Edsall, D., & Saito, Y. (2012). The motivational benefits of content. OnCue Journal, 6, 66–94.
Elsherif, E. (2012). Literature review on the use of first language during second language
writing. Humanising Language Teaching, 6, 1–14. Retrieved from http://www.hltmag.co.uk/
dec12/mart03.htm
Fu, D., & Matoush, M. (2015). Focus on literacy. Oxford Key Concepts and Language Classroom Series.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
García, O., & Flores, N. (2013). Multilingualism and common core state standards in the United States. In
S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education (pp. 147–166).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Garcia, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hanson, J. (2013). Moving out of the monolingual comfort zone and into the multilingual world:
An exercise for the writing classroom. In A. S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Literacy as translingual practice
(pp. 207–214). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hornberger, N. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological
approach. Language Policy, 1, 27–51. doi:10.1023/A:1014548611951
Ikeda, M. (2012). CLIL no genri to shidouhou [The teaching principles of CLIL]. In Y. Watanabe, M. Ikeda,
& S. Izumi (Eds.), CLIL: New challenges in foreign language education (Vol. 2 pp. 1–15). Tokyo: Sophia
University Press.
Lasabaster, D. (2013). The use of the L1 in CLIL classes: The teachers’ perspective. Latin American Journal
of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 6(2), 1–21.
 36    J. Adamson and D. Coulson

Levine, G. S. (2011). Code choice in the language classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Llinares A., & Whittaker, R. (2006). The written language produced by Spanish learners of geography
and history in two types of CLIL contexts. [Special CLIL issue]VIEWS, 13, 28–32.
Lorimer, R. (2013). Writing across languages: Developing rhetorical attunement. In A. S. Canagarajah
(Ed.), Literacy as translingual practice (pp. 162–169). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lu, M.-Z., & Horner, B. (2013). Translingual literacy and matters of agency. In A. S. Canagarajah (Ed.),
Literacy as translingual practice (pp. 26–38). New York, NY: Routledge.
Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., & Frigols-Martin, M. (2010). European framework for CLIL teacher
education, A framework for the professional development of CLIL teachers. Graz: European Centre for
Modern Languages, Council of Europe.
Martin, P. W. (2005). Bilingual encounters in the classroom. In J.-M. Dewaele, A. Housen, & L. Wei (Eds.),
Bilingualism: Beyond the basic principles (pp. 67–87). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
May, S. (2013). Disciplinary divides, knowledge construction, and the multilingual turn. In S. May (Ed.),
The multilingual turn (pp. 7–31). New York, NY: Routledge.
Moje, E. B., McIntosh-Ciechanowski, K., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 01:33 27 April 2016

toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and
discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 28–70.
Ofelia, G., & Kano, N. (2014). Translanguaging as process and pedagogy: Developing the English writing
of Japanese students in the US. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (Eds.), The multilingual turn in languages
education (pp. 258–277). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Setati, M., Adler, J., Reed, Y., & Bapoo, A. (2002). Incomplete journeys: Code-switching and other language
practices in Mathematics, Science and English language classrooms in South Africa. Language and
Education, 16, 128–149.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thesen, L. (2014). Risk as productive: Working with dilemmas in the writing of research. In L. Thesen &
L. Cooper (Eds.), Risk in academic writing (pp. 1–24). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Tochon, F. V. (2014). Help them learn a language deeply. Blue Mounds, WI: Deep University Press.
Wolfsberger, M. (2012). L1 to L2 writing processes and strategy transfer: A low at lower proficiency
writers. TESL-EJ, 72, 1–15. Retrieved from www.teslej.org/wordpress/issues/volume7/ej26/ej26a6
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 01:33 27 April 2016

Appendix 1.
International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 
 37