上海外国语大学

硕士学位论文

EMI 教师超语实践个案研究

院系：英语学院

学科专业：英语语言文学

姓名：何雨航

指导教师：葛现茹

2023 年 5 月
 Shanghai International Studies University

TRANSLANGUAGING PRACTICES OF EMI TEACHERS:

A CASE STUDY

A Thesis Submitted to the School of English Studies

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of Master of Arts

By

He Yuhang

Under the Supervision of Associate Professor Ge Xianru

May 2023
 答辩委员会成员

主席：王艳艳

成员：张艳莉、王雪梅
 摘要

近年来关于超语的研究已经证明了其教育价值，但只有少数研究讨论了在职
教师如何将其融入课堂教学实践。尽管许多教师对课堂超语持积极态度，但他们
的态度与实践之间存在差异。本研究聚焦于全英文教学（EMI）教师何时、如何
以及为何建立超语空间，通过调取个人所掌握的多语言、多模态和多感官资源来
传递特定的学科知识。本研究以上海一所国际中学为案例，通过视频辅助课堂观
察和半结构化访谈收集数据，以超语为分析视角，采用多模态会话分析和主题分
析法分析数据，观察了四位 EMI 教师的课堂超语实践，调查了她们对超语实践
的理解，讨论了课堂超语实践的影响因素。
通过数据分析，本研究发现教师课堂超语实践有五种类型：超语转换、带入
外界知识、调用整体语言资源库、增强元语言意识、用词语构建乐趣，主要围绕
两个目的：1) 加深学生对新知识的理解；2) 活跃课堂气氛。此外，尽管四位教
师对课堂超语实践持三种不同看法：虚拟态度、最大化态度、最优态度，但她们
在教学原则上有相似之处：以理解为主、效率优先、活动中心为原则。本研究也
进一步阐明了造成教师课堂超语实践和认知之间不一致的影响因素：社会群体、
学生特点、教师教育背景。基于此，本研究不仅对教学语境中课堂超语的使用类
型做了进一步阐释，还深化了超语作为语言实践理论的理解，为今后教师实施超
语教学提供了可操作性建议，也为我国相关研究提供了参考与启示。

关键词：超语；全英文教学；认知；多模态话语分析；主题分析
 Abstract
Recent studies on translanguaging have proved its educational values, yet only a
few have discussed how in-service teachers can actually incorporate it into classroom
pedagogy. Although many teachers hold positive attitudes towards pedagogical
translanguaging, there is a mismatch between their beliefs and practices, which
indicates a need for further investigation into the use of pedagogical translanguaging as
a social practice. Against this backdrop, the present study focuses on when, how, and
why English-medium instruction (EMI) teachers establish a translanguaging space to
utilize individuals’ multilingual, multimodal and multisensory resources to negotiate
subject-specific knowledge. Based on data collected through video-assisted classroom
observation and semi-structured interviews, triangulated with field notes, this study
uses translanguaging as an analytical perspective to explore four EMI science teachers’
practices and perceptions of pedagogical translanguaging in a secondary school in
Shanghai. The data are analyzed using Multimodal Conversation Analysis and
Thematic Analysis.
This study identifies five types of teachers’ translanguaging practices:
translanguaging shifts, bringing the outside in, using whole meaning-making repertoire,
enhancing metalinguistic awareness, and constructing fun with words, which are
conducted mainly for two purposes: 1) deepening students’ understanding of new
knowledge; 2) enlivening the classroom atmosphere. Although these teachers hold
distinct perceptions (virtual, maximal, and optimal position), they share similarities in
teaching principles (comprehension-based, efficiency-driven, and activity-centered).
Moreover, the consistency and divergence of their practices and perceptions also shed
light upon the influencing factors: social community, characteristics of students, and
educational backgrounds of teachers. This study not only contributes to a better
understanding of translanguaging as a practical theory, but also makes it visible and
actionable for teachers to put pedagogical translanguaging into practice, which is a new-
established line of applied linguistics research in educational contexts.
Keywords: translanguaging; English-medium instruction; perceptions; multimodal
conversation analysis; thematic analysis
 Contents
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 1
Abstract (Chinese) ......................................................................................................... 2
Abstract (English) .......................................................................................................... 3
Chapter One Introduction .............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Research Background ...................................................................................... 1
1.2 Significance of the Research ............................................................................ 2
1.3 Overview of the Thesis .................................................................................... 3
Chapter Two Literature Review..................................................................................... 4
2.1 Translanguaging as a Theory ........................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Origin and Definition ............................................................................ 4
2.1.2 Development and Theorization ............................................................. 5
2.2 English-Medium Instruction ............................................................................ 9
2.2.1 Definition .............................................................................................. 9
2.2.2 EMI in China....................................................................................... 10
2.3 Pedagogical Translanguaging ........................................................................ 12
2.3.1 Definition ............................................................................................ 12
2.3.2 Functions of Pedagogical Translanguaging ........................................ 12
2.4 Empirical Research on Pedagogical Translanguaging ................................... 13
2.4.1 Categorization of Pedagogical Translanguaging Practices ................. 14
2.4.2 Perceptions of and Attitudes Towards Pedagogical Translanguaging 16
2.4.3 Factors Influencing Translanguaging Practices .................................. 17
2.5 Summary ........................................................................................................ 19
Chapter Three Research Methodology ........................................................................ 20
3.1 Research Questions ........................................................................................ 20
3.2. Setting and Participants................................................................................. 21
3.2.1 Research Setting.................................................................................. 21
3.2.2 Participants.......................................................................................... 22
3.3 Data Collection .............................................................................................. 24
 3.3.1 Data Collection Methods .................................................................... 24
3.3.2 Procedures of Data Collection ............................................................ 26
3.4 Data Analysis ................................................................................................. 28
3.4.1 Overview of Data Analysis ................................................................. 28
3.4.2 Analysis of Observational Data .......................................................... 28
3.4.3 Analysis of Interview Data ................................................................. 30
3.5 Validity and Reliability .................................................................................. 31
Chapter Four Results.................................................................................................... 33
4.1 Categorization of Teachers’ Pedagogical Translanguaging .......................... 33
4.1.1 Translanguaging Shifts ....................................................................... 34
4.1.2 Bringing the Outside in ....................................................................... 37
4.1.3 Using Whole Meaning-Making Repertoire ........................................ 40
4.1.4 Enhancing Metalinguistic Awareness ................................................. 43
4.1.5 Constructing Fun with Words ............................................................. 46
4.2 Teacher Perceptions of Pedagogical Translanguaging .................................. 49
4.2.1 Varied Attitudes .................................................................................. 50
4.2.2 Similarities in Perceptions .................................................................. 53
4.3 Consistency and Divergence Between Practices and Perceptions ................. 57
4.3.1 Consistency and Divergence ............................................................... 58
4.3.2 Mediating Factors of Pedagogical Translanguaging........................... 62
Chapter Five Discussion .............................................................................................. 69
5.1 Features of Teachers’ Pedagogical Translanguaging .................................... 69
5.2 Teacher Perceptions of Pedagogical Translanguaging .................................. 71
5.3 Mediating Factors of Pedagogical Translanguaging...................................... 72
Chapter Six Conclusion ............................................................................................... 75
6.1 Major Findings ............................................................................................... 75
6.2 Implications of the Study ............................................................................... 76
6.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research ......................................... 77
References .................................................................................................................... 79
Appendices................................................................................................................... 90
Appendix A Interview Outline (phase I) ............................................................. 90
Appendix B Interview Outline (phase II) ............................................................ 91
Appendix C Transcription Convention ................................................................ 92
Appendix D Preliminary Results of Thematic Analysis of Interview Data......... 93
 List of Figures

Figure 2. 1 Translanguaging as the Theoretical Framework ................................ 8

Figure 2. 2 Pedagogical and Spontaneous Translanguaging............................... 12
Figure 4. 1 Teacher Perceptions of Pedagogical Translanguaging.......................49
Figure 4. 2 Continuum of Teachers’ Perspectives on Translanguaging ............. 57
Figure 4. 3 Mediating Factors of Pedagogical Translanguaging ........................ 62
 List of Tables

Table 3. 1 Background Information of Participants ............................................ 24

Table 3. 2 Summary of Data Collected ............................................................... 28
Table 4. 1 Features of Teachers’ Pedagogical Translanguaging..........................34
 Chapter One Introduction
1.1 Research Background
With the worldwide expansion of English use in all phases of education comes the
notion of lingua franca. This global rush is fundamentally ascribed to the trend of
globalization and the development of international communication. Thus, the past two
decades have witnessed a soaring number of educational settings embedded with
English-Medium Instruction (EMI), a pedagogical model of teaching non-English
subjects through English as an intermediate language (Dearden, 2015; Feng, 2009; Hu,
Li, & Lei, 2014; Macaro, et al., 2018; Pun & Tai, 2021; Sah, 2020; Tai & Li, 2020a,
2020b, 2021; Tollefson & Tsui, 2014).
Along with the sociocultural turn in education, however, researchers begin to
“focus not so much on language as input”, but recognize the pivotal role of social
interaction in teaching and learning (Lin, 2018, p. 2). As is noted by some, if such a
target-language-only policy of EMI is strictly followed, one may fail to recognize
individuals’ plurilingual and sociocultural repertoire both as valuable resources (e.g.,
Lin, 2018; Lo & Macaro, 2012). Thus, there is an urgent need for research to inform
both teachers and policymakers to make decisions on how to best capitalize on the non-
target languages in an EMI classroom (Lin, 2018, p. 1).
Over time the waves of the “multilingual turn” have led us into an era, where
simply speaking many different languages is no longer sufficient for individuals and
society as a whole (Li, 2018; May, 2014). In other words, the matter today is not about
counting how many languages one masters, but to what extent those valuable resources
interact and form an integrated linguistic repertoire ready for individuals to employ.
Along with the “multilingual turn” in education, a group of studies argue for a more
nuanced ethnographic understanding of the complex multilingual repertoires of
individual speakers (e.g., Lin & Lo, 2017; Lin & Wu, 2015; May, 2014).
Translanguaging, as such a pedagogical practice and analytical lens, has recently
attracted the attention of EMI researchers. Just as Li (2016) emphasizes, this
translanguaging perspective focuses on the dynamic process when multilinguals

1
moderate social and cognitive activities by using different semiotic resources (p. 21).
In today’s post-multilingualism era, what truly matters is to describe “the ways in which
people of different and mixed backgrounds use, play with, and negotiate identities
through languages” (Makoni & Pennycook, 2012, p. 449).

1.2 Significance of the Research

Although an increasing number of people have recognized that translanguaging as
a pedagogical practice is on the rise and here to stay (e.g., García & Lin, 2017; Li, 2016;
Li & Shen, 2021; Qin & Wang, 2021), not much has been focused on teachers’
translanguaging in EMI settings (Lin, 2018). There are only limited empirical studies
(e.g., Lin & He, 2017; Lin & Lo, 2017; Lin & Wu, 2015; Tai & Li, 2020a, 2020b, 2021)
examining how translanguaging is employed by EMI teachers in China in order to
accomplish their pedagogical goals. The current research explores how an intermixing
of individuals’ linguistic repertoire and content learning interplay in the EMI context,
which may help gain a subtle understanding of the enabling potentials of
translanguaging as a pedagogy. By doing so, chances are that in-service teachers are
able to take up their leading roles and make a fundamental change in their classrooms.
Along with the “sociocultural turn” and “multilingual turn” in education, there is
an urgent call for more ethnographic understanding in the EMI classrooms.
Theoretically, this research can be regarded as an attempt to adopt translanguaging as
a practical theory in the Chinese contexts. By doing so, this research may be
constructive for a better understanding of the complex multilingual repertoires of
language users. On the whole, studies of translanguaging may not necessarily give us
clear answers to the post-multilingualism question, but they do offer us insights into the
phenomenon of multilingual awareness that furthers the development of applied
linguistics.

2
1.3 Overview of the Thesis
This thesis is comprised of six chapters. Chapter 1 briefly introduces the research
background and significance of the thesis by bringing out the “sociocultural turn” and
“multilingual turn” in education. Starting with the origin of translanguaging, chapter 2
discusses some key concepts underpinning translanguaging as the theoretical
framework of the current study. Through reviewing the previous literature on
pedagogical translanguaging both at home and abroad, chapter 2 summarizes the
research gaps in the setting of EMI classrooms. Chapter 3 conveys the research
questions and the methodological approach of this study. Details concerning the context
of the study, the participants’ information, methods for data collection and procedures
of data analysis are elucidated. In chapter 4, the major results of the current study are
presented, which contain a group of representative transcripts, screenshots of the
observational data, and extracts of interview data. Then chapter 5 includes an
interpretation of the findings. It illustrates how this research relates to theoretical and
practical issues mentioned in previous studies on pedagogical translanguaging. Finally,
chapter 6 highlights both the theoretical and practical implications of the present study.
Additionally, research limitations are acknowledged, with suggestions for future
research given in the end.

3
 Chapter Two Literature Review
This chapter starts with the origin of translanguaging in Wales and then traces the
development of translanguaging as a practical theory. It also discusses some key
concepts and terms underpinning translanguaging as the theoretical framework of this
study. In addition, an overview of the previous literature on pedagogical
translanguaging both at home and abroad is provided, after which the research gap is
summarized in the end.

2.1 Translanguaging as a Theory

2.1.1 Origin and Definition

The concept “translanguaging” itself has undergone some changes. Originally, this
term was first used by Colin Baker (2001) as a translation of Cen Williams’ (1994)
Welsh term trawsieithu. In his doctoral thesis, Williams (1994) coined the term
trawsieithu to note the bilingual language practice in Welsh revitalization classrooms,
where teachers mainly taught in Welsh while students responded primarily in English.
He argues that purposeful concurrent use of both languages in the classroom can be
beneficial for developing language skills and help students gain a deeper understanding
of the subject being studied. At first, translanguaging was only intended as a descriptive
label, as it refers to an educational practice that “deliberately switches the language
mode of input and output in bilingual classrooms” (Lewis, Jones, & Baker, 2012a, p.
643). It is worth mentioning that translanguaging, from the very beginning, is described
as a dynamic process rather than an object. More importantly, it concerns language
production as well as effective communication (Lewis, et al., 2012a, 2012b).
Since translanguaging is an emerging term, scholars have defined and extended it
from their own perspectives over the years (e.g., Baker, 2011; Creese & Blackledge,
2010; Canagarajah, 2011; García & Li, 2014; Li, 2011). Baker (2011), for example,
defines translanguaging as “the process of making meaning, shaping experiences,
understandings and knowledge through the use of two languages” (p. 280). García
(2009) extends the concept of translanguaging by describing it as “multiple discursive
4
practices” in which bilinguals participate to make sense of the world around them (p.
46). According to Li (2018), translanguaging, with its emphasis on meaning making
and knowledge construction, is a process during which people think and speak “beyond
the boundaries of named languages” (p. 19). In other words, it challenges the
boundaries between languages and other cognitive systems which were formerly
viewed as separate and encapsulated. The trans prefix emphasizes the use of one’s
whole linguistic repertoire that goes “beyond the socially constructed language systems”
(Li, 2016, p. 8). The notion of languaging refers to a dynamic and ongoing meaning-
making process, in which languages work as a medium “through which thinking is
articulated and transformed into an artifactual form” (Swain, 2006, p. 97). Although the
definitions given by scholars differ slightly, they have all reached an agreement that
translanguaging is not merely a linguistic practice that poses language switching, but
also a social interaction that transcends the conventional understanding of languages as
labeled entities.
Additionally, it should be noted that translanguaging is by no means a neologism
replacing terms such as code-switching, code-mixing, or code-meshing, which typically
identify different linguistic codes and emphasize the structural analysis of languages
(Li, 2018, p. 9). Essentially, what makes translanguaging distinguished from code-
switching is the view that challenges the separation of language systems and advocates
using one’s assemblage of meaning-making resources to facilitate communication and
social interaction. Just as Canagarajah (2011) conceptualizes, languages are not
“discrete and separated” but “part of a repertoire” and “an integrated system” (p. 1).
Furthermore, translanguaging does not deny the existence of named languages; instead,
it stresses that languages are social, cultural, and political inventions (Makoni &
Pennycook, 2007).

2.1.2 Development and Theorization

Over the years, translanguaging, as both a flexible language practice and a
pedagogical approach, has been increasingly referred to in scholarly literature (e.g.,

5
Canagarajah, 2011; García & Li, 2014; García & Lin, 2017; Lemke & Lin, 2022; Li,
2016; Li & Shen, 2021; Qin & Wang, 2021). As people began to recognize the potential
educational benefits of translanguaging, scholars such as García, Canagarajah, and Li
Wei are among the first to join the discussion that deepens the work in this field. García
(2011) posits translanguaging as not only a way to “scaffold instruction, to make sense
of learning and language”, but also a part of “the metadiscursive regime that students
in the twenty-first century must perform” (p. 147). Canagarajah (2011) also recognizes
translanguaging as a “proactive” classroom practice during which teachers provide a
safe space for using the multilingual repertoire as a resource (p. 8). Likewise, Li (2018)
notes that such a classroom practice may help to construct “a translanguaging space”
which “invigorates” students’ linguistic repertoire with new possibilities (p. 24).
Nevertheless, the challenge of translanguaging starts from its theorization and
application in practice. The theory of translanguaging stands at the “crossroads” of
applied linguists, because it relates to bilingual and multilingual education (Cenoz &
Gorter, 2022, p. 43). Traditionally, the notion of bilingualism is additive, as it refers to
an addition of autonomous languages. However, this point of view that keeps languages
apart has been questioned by many (e.g., Cummins, 1979; Garcia, 2009), as they argue
that the proficiency of bilinguals in different languages was not stored separately in the
brain. Instead, there is a “cognitive interdependence” that allows for more creative
linguistic practices. From bilingualism as dual to bilingualism as dynamic, there is a
change of perception that language practices of bilinguals are complex and interrelated
and do not emerge in a linear way. Along with Cook’s (2012) multicompetence,
dynamic bilingualism becomes widely accepted by not putting barriers between
language and other cognitive systems, which also lays a solid foundation for the later
conceptualization of translanguaging. Today, the conceptualization of translanguaging
theory has been under rapid development (e.g., García & Li, 2014; Li, 2018). In
response to the call for an “applied linguistic theory of language practice” by some
scholars (e.g., Kramsch, 2015; Li, 2011), translanguaging is developed as a practical
theory that disputes the monolingual ideology of language use and proposes language

6
as a “multilingual, multisemiotic, and multimodal” resource for sense-making (Li, 2018,
p. 22).
With regard to translanguaging as a theoretical framework, there are some key
theoretical arguments that underpin the notion of it. Essentially, Li (2011) brings
forward the concept of Translanguaging Space, a social space for multilinguals by
bringing together different facets of their individual histories, experiences, and
environments, their beliefs and ideologies and making it a “lived experience” (p. 1223).
In such a space, language users are not just moving between different linguistic and
semiotic systems, but moving beyond them. Just as Li (2018) notes, they “break down
the ideologically laden dichotomies” through social interaction (p. 23). Accordingly,
such a space has its own transformative power because it is ever-evolving and generates
new practices and identities. Following Pinker’s (1994, 2007) metaphor of “language
instinct” to describe human’s innate ability to learn languages, some scholars (e.g.,
García & Li, 2014; Li, 2016) extend the idea as Translanguaging Instinct, a biologically
based drive to combine all available resources (cognitive, semiotic, sensory, and modal)
in language learning and use. In other words, such a natural capacity empowers
individuals to “transcend the culturally defined language boundaries to achieve
effective communication” (Li, 2016, p. 7). In addition, these two related aspects have
embraced two concepts as the major units of analyzing translanguaging practices:
creativity and criticality of individuals’ performance. For one thing, creativity is
defined as the ability to “choose between following and flouting” the rules or norms of
language use; for another, criticality refers to the capacity to “question”, “problematize”,
or convey ideas (Li, 2011, 2016). The two concepts are inextricably related, as is argued,
and one’s creativity is “the best expression of one’s criticality” (Li, 2016, p. 8).
Simply put, the translanguaging framework shows the whole meaning-making
process that individuals are engaged in the translanguaging space, where they are about
to break the language boundaries with a translanguaging instinct, as presented in Figure
2.1. In educational contexts, teachers construct a translanguaging space in the
classroom in which individuals have the opportunity to bring together their multiple
meaning-making resources. With the translanguaging instinct, individuals can perform
7
creatively and critically, as they are provided with the autonomy to construct new
meanings and configurations of language practices. On the whole, translanguaging has
challenged the long-held belief for a monolingual education which is centered on total
immersion in the target language (Li & Shen, 2021, p. 12). In today’s post-
multilingualism era, it is about time that we shifted the focus away from language itself
to how language users “orchestrate” their diverse resources and empower themselves
in everyday social life (Li, 2018, p. 27). In this sense, the translanguaging perspective
offers a new theoretical stance with its transformative power to reexamine language
and multilingualism.

Figure 2. 1 Translanguaging as the Theoretical Framework

In order to provide qualitative evidence for the application of translanguaging

theory, recent years have witnessed an increase in studies on translanguaging in various
educational settings (e.g., Lin & Lo, 2017; Lin & Wu, 2015; Nikula & Moore, 2019).
In his review, Prilutskaya (2021) surveys the types of courses where translanguaging
can be noted: bilingual classrooms, English-medium instruction (EMI), content and
language integrated learning (CLIL), English being labeled as a second (ESL) or
foreign language (EFL) learning and so on. It can be mentioned that translanguaging is

8
broadly applied to content-based classrooms (e.g., mathematics, physics, biology,
statistics, and computer science) since translanguaging itself highlights the focus on
meaning-making during social interactions. Although previous studies have challenged
the traditional monolingual ideology, only a few studies have adopted translanguaging
as an analytical lens itself (e.g., Pun & Tai, 2021; Tai, 2021; Tai & Li, 2020a, 2020b,
2021). The translanguaging framework, however, is in a position to offer an emic
insight into the creative aspects of individuals’ practices that brings together one’s
social and cultural backgrounds into a coordinated whole. Information of this kind may
help to gain a holistic understating of how to best utilize every possible resource
(multilingual, multimodal, multisensory, multisemiotic) at hand in today’s world.

2.2 English-Medium Instruction

2.2.1 Definition
As more attention is driven to reduce the barriers to educational access and equity,
the central role of language policies in schools, especially medium of instruction (MOI)
policies, has been internationally acknowledged (Baker, 2011). The promotion of
English MOI is related to the preconceived belief that English symbolizes sociocultural
mobility and empowerment (Arcand & Grin, 2013; Sah & Li, 2018). Spurred by the
desire to render themselves more prestigious and to be the educational hub, more and
more universities in non-English-speaking countries, including China, are caught up in
the rush to offer both undergraduate and postgraduate programs through the medium of
English. However, scholars have suggested that English-Medium Instruction (EMI) is
still ill-defined and may not be fully agreed upon (Airey, 2016). To name a few,
Director of EMI Oxford’s Centre for Research and Development on EMI describes it
as “the use of English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions
where the first language of the majority of the population is not English” (Macaro, et
al., 2018, p. 37). Knagg (2013) likewise defines EMI as the use of English to teach and
learn other subjects in educational systems at all levels where most students do not
speak English as their first language (British Council, 2013, p. 23). In different areas of

9
the world, EMI is sometimes labeled as immersion or content-based education or
content-based language learning.
It should be noted that EMI is not the same as content and language integrated
learning (CLIL) because the former stands on its own and has no clearly stated language
aims. In contrast, the latter follows a dual goal of both language and subject. Taguchi
(2014), interestingly, describes the attainment of English skills in the EMI courses as
“a by-product of the process of gaining content knowledge in academic subjects” (p.
89). In other words, learning in an EMI classroom is applying a language other than the
learners’ mother tongue as a tool for academic study and without explicit language-
gaining outcomes. As a consequence, this paper refers to the research setting as EMI
classrooms, in which the science teachers clearly stated that there are no preconceived
language-learning goals in their lessons. The participants’ information will be further
elucidated in chapter 3.

2.2.2 EMI in China

As EMI becomes a growing phenomenon in the Chinese context, there has been
substantial interest in investigating the feasibility and effectiveness of it in higher
education (e.g., Dearden & Macaro, 2016; Evans & Morrison, 2011; Fenton-Smith,
Humphries, & Walkinshaw, 2017; Gao, 2008; Hu & Lei, 2014; Hu, Li, & Lei, 2014).
Nevertheless, it is of equal importance to explore it in different educational stages.
Based on Dearden’s (2015) report, it can be concluded that actually EMI has become a
growing phenomenon in all phases of education. Compared with other Anglophone
countries, however, China is a newcomer with regard to EMI education, which
officially started only two decades ago. As for China, primary and secondary schools
have been particularly affected by the common belief that nurturing true English
competency should begin at an early age (Feng, 2009, p. 87). Internally, parental
pressure is reported as a significant factor promoting the wide use of EMI (Dearden,
2015, p. 21). Externally, English language education at all stages is spearheaded by the
Ministry of Education, which has disseminated policy documents to specify new

10
English Curriculum Standards (ECSs) for primary, secondary, and tertiary schools since
2001 (e.g., Ministry of Education, 2005, 2011, 2017). Hence, more secondary schools
in well-resourced areas like Shanghai are caught in the rush to offer lessons through the
medium of English. Additionally, some international secondary schools in China are
endowed with a perfect linguistic environment where EMI can be more feasibly and
practically applied since members and staff in such schools usually have a higher level
of English proficiency than their counterparts. With such an increasing number of
secondary schools adopting the EMI design in China, future research should be
conducted to redress the balance and facilitate better implementation of EMI in the
Chinese context.
Even though EMI has enjoyed great popularity in China, it is by no means a
pedagogy for in-service teachers to adopt without consideration. One of the well-
researched outcomes of EMI is the divergence and tension between its English-only
ideology and the actual classroom practice (e.g., Evans, 2009; Hu, Li, & Lei, 2014; Lo
& Macaro, 2012). In this pivotal study, Lo and Macaro (2012) have identified that in
Hong Kong there was diversity in the actual amount of English used by EMI classroom
members despite the schools “claiming” to change to EMI. The study of Hu, Li and Lei
(2014) is also worth mentioning as it notes a similar phenomenon in universities of the
Chinese mainland. Likewise, their findings add to our understanding of the
considerable “misalignment” between “EMI as policy” and “EMI as experienced” (p.
37). To put it simply, although EMI centers on a monolingual policy, sometimes
teachers are more than willing to be bilingual or even multilingual by using non-target
languages to achieve their pedagogical goals. As is argued, “macro- and meso-level
stakeholders seem to have adopted EMI policies uncritically” in many cases
(Walkinshaw, et al., 2017, p. 7). As such, it should be worthwhile to adopt a proper
analytical perspective and dig into the actual EMI practices so as to see how in-service
teachers utilize every possible resource (multilingual, multisemiotic, multisensory,
multimodal) at hand.

11
2.3 Pedagogical Translanguaging

2.3.1 Definition
Recent advances in empirical studies on translanguaging have motivated scholars
to distinguish pedagogical translanguaging from spontaneous translanguaging in the
context of multilingual education. Cenoz and Gorter (2017, 2020, 2022), for instance,
distinguish these two types and present a continuum (Figure 2.2) rather than a
dichotomy to show the relationship. Pedagogical translanguaging “takes as its basis a
focus on multilingualism” (Cenoz & Gorter, 2022, p. 14). It is a theoretical and practical
approach that is planned, systematic, and usually creatively designed by the teachers.
Spontaneous translanguaging refers to the practices of multilingual usage which is
unplanned and sporadic in naturally occurring circumstances. It is true that pedagogical
translanguaging includes the alternation of languages in both the input and output, yet
it also “goes beyond the original approach of translanguaging” as it embraces other
elements from the whole linguistic repertoire an individual can employ (Cenoz &
Gorter, 2022, p. 18). As an instructional strategy, pedagogical translanguaging is
exclusively designed in educational contexts with a pedagogical purpose. In this sense,
the teachers need to be creative to turn their pedagogical translanguaging into both
linguistically inclusive and pedagogically useful.

Figure 2. 2 Pedagogical and Spontaneous Translanguaging

(Cenoz & Gorter, 2022)

2.3.2 Functions of Pedagogical Translanguaging

Over the years, studies have examined the educational potential and values of
pedagogical translanguaging practices (e.g., Liu, 2020; Nikula & Moore, 2019; Tai,
2021; Tai & Li, 2020a, 2020b, 2021). Most notably, pedagogical translanguaging can
12
help teachers achieve pedagogic goals. For instance, there is a group of studies in HK
led by Tai and Li recently demonstrating the creative acts of both teachers and students,
through which one can shed light upon detailed classroom practices such as
constructing playful talk, promoting co-learning, bringing together individuals’ funds
of knowledge, and enacting inclusive pedagogy (Tai & Li; 2020a, 2020b, 2021).
Moreover, pedagogical translanguaging serves to empower students’ meaning-making
repertoire and equalize power relations. For example, Tai (2021) discusses how
translanguaging can be employed as an inclusive pedagogy for ethnic minorized
students. Through pedagogical translanguaging, a key inclusive practice, teachers are
able to “promote inclusion and participation” for linguistically and culturally diverse
students (p. 1007). In this way, teachers have the opportunity to foster a more equitable
learning environment for all learners and make knowledge construction easier.
To sum up, significant findings have been derived to illustrate the empowering
potential of pedagogical translanguaging, which also lays a foundation for future
research in the Chinese contexts. Through pedagogical translanguaging, teachers can
mobilize various multilingual and multi-semiotic resources to make content-specific
knowledge accessible to all students. In such a safe translanguaging space, students can
fully use their holistic repertoire for knowledge acquisition.

2.4 Empirical Research on Pedagogical Translanguaging

Although a group of researchers call for more studies on pedagogical
translanguaging in the Chinese context (e.g., Han, 2020; Li & Shen, 2021; Qin & Wang,
2021), the majority of China-based empirical research are examining the courses in
higher education (e.g., Evans & Morrison, 2011; Gao, 2008; Hu & Lei, 2014; He, Lai,
& Lin, 2016; Yuan & Yang, 2020; Zhao, Zhang, Xu, & Zhang, 2021), with only limited
fine-grained analysis of translanguaging being made in the secondary-level classrooms.
The latter, however, should be a worthy-of-exploring context where pedagogical
translanguaging is fostered. Just as Li (2018) mentions, translanguaging can be an
effective pedagogical method in various educational settings where the school language

13
or the “language-of-instruction” (LOI) is different from that of the students (p. 15).
Some international high schools in Shanghai, China, for instance, adopt English as the
instructional language. However, such a monolingual language-in-education policy is
often not observed by teachers and students (Tai & Li, 2021). Instead, more flexible
classroom practice is preferred. In other words, schools of this kind have provided a
well-suited “translanguaging space”, which, according to Li (2018), is constructed for
individuals to “integrate linguistic codes that have been formerly separated” and bring
together different identities, values, and practices into one integrated performance (p.
23).
Research on pedagogical translanguaging in the EMI classrooms mainly adopt a
qualitative design, which is aimed to understand “the complex interplay between factors
that impinge on what appear to be simple classroom interchanges” (Tsui, 2008, p. 268).
The qualitative analysis of those research findings mainly yielded several themes.
Specifically, the categorizations, individuals’ attitudes, and influencing factors
concerning translanguaging as a pedagogy are the most well-researched aspects.

2.4.1 Categorization of Pedagogical Translanguaging Practices

As the importance of translanguaging as a pedagogy is recognized, scholars have
tried to describe and categorize the specific characteristics of each practice in a variety
of classrooms (e.g., Cenoz & Gorter, 2022; Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Kao, 2022;
Palmer, Martínez, Mateus, & Henderson, 2014; Wang, 2019). To be specific, Cook
(2001) is among the first to recognize the positive functions that L1 could perform in
bilingual classrooms. In his seminal article on language use, three roles are identified:
“conveying meaning”, “explaining grammar”, and “organizing the class”. Since the
publication of García and Li’s groundbreaking work in 2014, translanguaging has been
a buzzword in Applied Linguistics and an increasing number of scholars began to
reconceptualize the dynamic bilingual practices from a new perspective. Palmer and his
counterparts (2014), for example, identify three translanguaging instructional strategies:
modeling dynamic language practices; positioning students as competent bilinguals;

14
drawing attention to language crossing. To some extent, their study has furthered the
conversation by opening a window into the pedagogical translanguaging skills. It is
worth mentioning that Creese and Blackledge (2010) call attention to the flexible
classroom pedagogy at the complementary schools. Through a language ecological
perspective, they present seven specific skills that translanguaging may help to
construct. Based on the study of Creese and Blackledge (2010), Kao (2022) further
derives five themes of CLIL teachers’ use of translanguaging approaches: to clarify
instructions; to reinforce content learning; to ask critical questions; to give students a
voice; to manage the classroom (p. 11). In addition, other research discussing classroom
translanguaging practices also identifies some potentially powerful principles. The
book of Cenoz and Gorter (2022), for instance, lists four different pedagogical
translanguaging forms according to the degree of pedagogical intervention. Likewise,
Wang (2019) also categorizes classroom translanguaging into three main groups:
“interpretive”, “managerial”, and “interactive” function (p. 71). Despite the fact that
scholars have identified various features and strategies of classroom translanguaging
practices, there are commonalities with regard to their descriptions and categorizations.
Since the research into classroom discourse is context-specific, studies embedded
with different social and cultural background are necessary so as to depict a
comprehensive picture of the pedagogical translanguaging that teachers can employ.
Just as Wang (2019) argues, studies in this field are still rather “tentative and
exploratory” (p. 105). Research comparing the results obtained in the classrooms which
have adopted translanguaging pedagogies is still limited (Cenoz & Gorter, 2022, p. 45).
As such, more inspiring context-driven research into pedagogical translanguaging is
needed so as to testify or further revise the already-existing categorizations based on
practices presented in different classrooms.

15
2.4.2 Perceptions of and Attitudes Towards Pedagogical

Translanguaging
A large number of studies have adopted attitudinal surveys or questionnaires to
gauge teachers’ and students’ attitudes, whereas an in-depth emic perspective is also
necessary when it comes to an individual’s perception of pedagogical translanguaging.
Specifically, a group of studies on pedagogical translanguaging have presented the
quantitative analysis of Likert items on individuals’ beliefs and attitudes (e.g., Kao,
2022; Mbirimi-Hungwe, 2019; McMillan & Rivers, 2011; Nambisan, 2014). Against
the background of calls for a move away from the English-only dogma, McMillan and
Rivers (2011) survey the teachers’ beliefs on the use of L1 in a Japanese university, the
results of which have demonstrated that “language choice is best viewed as a continuum”
(p. 258). Likewise, the studies of Mbirimi-Hungwe (2019) and Nambisan (2014) also
investigate the science teachers’ views on the use of pedagogical translanguaging by
adopting open-ended questionnaires. It is true that their research methodologies largely
ensure the validity of the data collected. However, such a quantitative design may end
up obtaining responses that are sometimes ambiguous or incomplete. Some scholars,
on the other hand, tend to address this issue by collecting firsthand qualitative data from
either teachers or students (e.g., Al-Bataineh & Gallagher, 2018; Doiz & Lasagabaster,
2016; Fallas-Escobar, 2020; Galante, 2020). In this milestone study, Macaro (2009)
identifies three major types of teacher attitudes regarding the use of L1 in the L2
classroom: “virtual”, “maximal”, and “optimal” position. The virtual position mirrors a
native-speaking environment where L1 was excluded; the maximal position rejects the
use of L1 but admits that it is inevitable; the optimal position acknowledges the
pedagogical value of L1. To a large extent, his investigation can be referred to the
translanguaging study, because it is teachers’ attitudes towards the value of L1 that
largely determine their acceptance of pedagogical translanguaging. Besides, the Arabic
study of Al-Bataineh and Gallagher (2018) draws upon the field of linguistic
ethnography and successfully identifies how future teachers perceive translanguaging
and the possible forces shaping their attitudes. As is argued, such an ethnographic

16
approach is “particularly suitable for studying the covert and take-for-granted elements
of language ideologies” (Wang, 2019, p. 55). Qualitative studies of this kind may help
derive valuable insights into individuals’ perspectives which are usually socially and
culturally constructed.
Although many EMI teachers hold positive attitudes towards pedagogical
translanguaging (e.g., Mbirimi-Hungwe, 2019; McMillan & Rivers, 2011; Raja,
Suparno, & Ngadiso, 2022), a division between their perceptions and practices is noted
in numerous studies (e.g., Al-Bataineh & Gallagher, 2018; Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2016;
Fallas-Escobar, 2020; Nambisan, 2014; Yuvayapan, 2019). In the studies of Nambisan
(2014) and Yuvayapan (2019), the majority of teachers believe that translanguaging is
significant, yet only a few actually implement it in the classroom. Such a divergence is
also noted in the Spanish study of Doiz and Lasagabaster (2016), who highlight the
ambivalent views held by different EMI teachers. Yet some parts of their research
outcomes appear to lack objectivity and validity, since they rely on the teachers’ self-
reported practices for data analysis, which may sometimes differ from what is actually
going on in the real classrooms. As such, observational data is necessary when it comes
to the issues concerning pedagogical translanguaging.
By and large, the overwhelming presence of the mismatch between individuals’
beliefs and practices indicates a need for further investigation into the use of
pedagogical translanguaging as a social practice. As is argued, it is still an issue being
highly contested in both schools and educational programs (García, 2017). As such,
further studies from the broader sociocultural contexts are needed to investigate the
mediating factors that lead to the mismatch between perceptions and practices, which
may in return contribute to a full implementation of pedagogical translanguaging as a
formal classroom strategy.

2.4.3 Factors Influencing Translanguaging Practices

Despite the increasing number of people recognizing the pedagogical functions of
translanguaging, challenges and constraints of adopting it into classroom practices exist.

17
For instance, research like that of Galante (2020) discusses the challenges of
implementing pedagogical translanguaging reported by both students and teachers in a
Canadian university. Similarly, the article of Lin and Lo (2017) reveals a number of
constraints Chinese teachers may be confronted with in content-based classrooms, such
as the dual challenge of teaching content and language, differences in students’ L2
proficiency, and a tight syllabus in an exam-driven culture. Likewise, Yuvayapan (2019)
explores the constraints resulting in the conflicts between individuals’ attitudes and
practices in regard to pedagogical translanguaging. The aforementioned research on the
challenges and constraints indicates that there are multifaceted factors (e.g.,
stakeholders, context) mediating the implementation of translanguaging as a pedagogy.
Just as Costley and Leung (2020) emphasize, the innovative practices or the goodwill
of teacher staff that go on in isolation in classrooms would not be enough to result in
the ongoing translanguaging practices or have lasting pedagogical influences (p. 29).
As such, detailed research delving into the overall interaction among those possible
factors is necessary.
Some current studies examining the application of pedagogical translanguaging
specify the possible mediating factors from both micro and macro levels. The study of
Fallas-Escobar (2020), for example, examines how individuals’ postures are informed
and shifted by personal, institutional, and societal factors. In his review, Prilutskaya
(2021) summarizes three factors enabling and constraining the application of
pedagogical translanguaging in English language teaching classrooms: stakeholders,
context, and activity type. Similarly, Wang and Kirkpatrick (2012) identify five
relevant factors, from policy to individual competence, that influence the actual
translanguaging practices. Although some researchers of this kind only give a relevant
discussion in the sections reporting findings or conclusions, they seem to reach an
agreement that there are mainly three subsections pertaining to the mediating factors:
institutional, professional, and personal. Since there is no top-down language policy
fostering pedagogical translanguaging practices in China, future research based on
different classrooms in the Chinese context is necessary, for the purpose of discovering
how the teachers actively shift their translanguaging stances and appropriate the
18
influencing factors around them. Information of this kind may offer a few pathways to
make pedagogical translanguaging not a mere fantasy in China.

2.5 Summary
Despite the growing quantity of the translanguaging research in EMI classrooms,
there are still some lacunae in this field. Firstly, the current literature has proved the
positive outcomes pedagogical translanguaging can bring about to the classroom
practices, yet only a few scholars have conducted down-to-the-ground studies
discussing how in-service teachers can actually incorporate it into classroom pedagogy.
In other words, it is far from the point to only prioritize the agenda of raising teachers’
awareness of adopting translanguaging as a pedagogy. Secondly, there is a paucity of
research examining secondary schools in the Chinese mainland, the lack of which may
reflect a bias in exploring bilingual education in the overall Chinese contexts. Nikula
and Moore (2019), for example, argue at the end of their study that it is essential for
teachers to have an overall understanding of translanguaging as a pedagogic strategy,
through which they may be able to conduct strategic use of it according to different
situational demands.
Against this backdrop, the present study focuses on how EMI teachers in the
secondary schools mediate the disconnection between their translanguaging
perceptions and practices, as well as how they facilitate learners’ participation through
pedagogical translanguaging. Such an emphasis on complexity and a holistic
understanding of individuals’ experiences and performance calls for a case study of the
particular entity (Duff, 2007, p. 32). Besides, this study adopts translanguaging as the
theoretical lens so as to investigate how individuals construct the translanguaging
space, where they can “orchestrate” diverse resources creatively and critically with the
translanguaging instinct during the meaning-making process. Such a framework is able
to provide a dynamic epistemological stance to examine individuals’ practices. Only
when the teachers are both willing to and able to use translanguaging as a well-informed
pedagogy, can its potential be fully employed in the overall teaching and learning.

19
 Chapter Three Research Methodology
This chapter covers the methodological approach underpinning this research, as
well as a justification of the methods used in the process. Details concerning the context
of this study, the participants’ information, methods used for data collection, and
procedures of data analysis will be further elucidated.

3.1 Research Questions

The main thrust of the present research is to explore how the EMI science teachers
perform and perceive their pedagogical translanguaging practices in the secondary-
level classrooms. To be specific, this study adopts a translanguaging lens through which
we can better understand when, how, and why EMI science teachers establish a
translanguaging space in which classroom participants can utilize their multilingual
(e.g., English, Chinese), multimodal (e.g., gesture, facial expression, drawing, picture)
and multisensory (e.g., sounds, visual image, olfactory sense) resources to negotiate
subject-specific knowledge. In order to address this issue, this research aims to answer
the following research questions:
1) What are the features of teachers’ pedagogical translanguaging practices in the
EMI science classrooms?
2) How do these EMI science teachers perceive their pedagogical translanguaging
practices?
3) Do these EMI science teachers’ pedagogical translanguaging practices agree
with their perceptions? If not, what are the mediating factors that influence their
practices?
The current study adopts a qualitative methodology as it suits the exploratory
nature of the research. In the case of the real-life world, interpretation or understanding
of the naturally emerging languages or behaviors usually requires consideration of
subjects’ own perceptions, personal experiences, and other aspects concerning the
evolving lives of individuals. In other words, qualitative data are indispensable when it
comes to individuals’ practices and their own perceptions of certain aspects. Since

20
many of the qualitative data are directly observable, it can be said that they are
“objectively measurable” (Lune & Berg, 2012, p. 20).
Specifically, this study follows a case study approach because it helps gain an in-
depth understanding and interpretation of individuals’ uniqueness and commonality.
Besides, it may also provide “thick descriptions of a complex social issue embedded
within a cultural context” (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 155). In this study, when it comes to EMI
teachers’ pedagogical translanguaging performance and perceptions, it is necessary to
delve into their actual classroom practices and real-life experiences. Through those
socially constructed interactions, one can truly elucidate how EMI teachers bring
together different experiences, beliefs, and values into one integrated pedagogical
performance. In this sense, the case study approach offers “rich and in-depth insights
that no other method can yield” (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 155). Additionally, it is important
to note that a case study does not necessarily have to be a single-case study; it can also
have a multi-case design (Yin, 2003), which is adopted by the current research. Due to
its comparative nature, the multi-case design shares some practical advantages, such as
strong face validity (Dörnyei, 2007).

3.2. Setting and Participants

3.2.1 Research Setting

The present study is conducted in a privately-owned international school in
Shanghai, China, where the development of EMI is well-established and flourishing,
compared to other cities. As a prestigious international school running for more than
ten years, G school (all names are pseudonyms) provides a two-year intensive A-Level
curriculum (AS and A2) and aims to combine the essence of Chinese and Western
education that allows students to realize their full potential. Specifically, General
Certificate of Education Advanced Level (A-Level) is part of the British national
curriculum. Similar to Chinese Higher Education Entrance Exams, the A-Level
certificates form the key part of entry requirements by almost all of the world’s
Anglophone universities. Unlike a state secondary school, one of the objectives of G

21
school is to provide an internationally-recognized curriculum and to develop those
essential skills sought by first-class Western universities. According to its mission
statement, it is to prepare Chinese high school learners to qualify for study at prestigious
higher educational institutions and to better fit into a culturally diversified society.
An A-Level curriculum basically focuses on more than 60 academic subjects, and
the students need to study three or more subjects over two years, after which they are
assessed by a series of exams (in English) as well as being graded from A*, A, B, C, D
to E. Although the language policy at G school does not emphasize the use of English
that much, most of the lessons are delivered in English, for the purpose of creating a
rich English learning environment for all students. The focused subjects of the current
study include mathematics, physics, and chemistry. As typical science disciplines, the
combination of the three subjects is a common choice for most students at G school.
For each subject group at G school, there is a mix of expatriate and local staff, each
teaching independently yet cooperating to maximize classroom learning.
It is worth noting that there is no more fixed “class” at G school. Instead, students
are given much freedom to choose the “Group” (as they call it) they prefer to take part
in (usually with teachers’ guidance). In other words, members in the same subject
Group may hold different academic interests and have different combinations of
courses. The students, whose ages vary from 16 to 18, have completed their core and
foundation years of education in either local Chinese or foreign schools. Moreover, they
have all gone through the school’s highly competitive admission examination and are
considered capable of having lessons in English. As is reported, some of the students
have overseas experiences, but all are determined to obtain places in leading
universities through A-Level curriculum.

3.2.2 Participants
Contact with the participant teachers first began in September 2021. To reduce the
Hawthorne Effect (Phakiti, 2014), the teachers were not informed of the focus of the
current study at the very beginning but only told some general information, such as a

22
brief introduction to the researcher, the research procedures, duration, as well as the
intended use of the findings. The sampling procedure was conducted according to
several parameters: they should be Chinese L1 speakers teaching EMI science subjects.
It is the researcher’s consideration that only when those EMI teachers have shared
linguistic repertoire and cultural background with their students, can they make
pedagogical translanguaging practices possible in the classroom. Through convenience
sampling (Wen, 2001), the sample size was largely limited to four teachers. Since the
inquirer needs to walk into the classrooms, consent was obtained from those teachers
on a voluntary basis, before which they were informed that video-recoding would be
necessary, but confidentiality and anonymity would be ensured.
The participants are four female teachers at G school (Grace, Fiona, Rita, and Zoe).
Detailed participant information is shown in Table 3.1. The reason for selecting these
four teachers is that they all teach science subjects, including chemistry, physics, and
mathematics, to the students in the same grades, which provides the condition for
comparisons among them. Grace, who is responsible for teaching chemistry to A-Level
students, obtained a bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineering and a master’s degree
in Information System Management and Electronic Innovation from two of the top-
ranked universities in the UK. She once earned a scholarship for excellent A-Level
grades (four A*) during college. After one year of working in a foreign company as a
data analyst, she went to G school and has been teaching chemistry since then. Fiona
obtained her master’s degree in Opto-electronic Information Engineering from a
prestigious university in China and is now teaching physics for the A-Level curriculum.
In addition, she has years of teaching experience in both educational institutions and
public high schools before coming to G school. Rita teaches mathematics to A-Level
students. She was awarded her master’s degree in Financial Mathematics from a top-
ranked university in the UK. Besides, she has a four-year teaching experience in a
public high school in China before going abroad to pursue the master degree. Zoe has
a bachelor’s degree in Bilingual Chemistry Teaching and is now teaching chemistry for
the A-Level curriculum, the same subject as Grace, at G school. Although Fiona and
Zoe have no overseas studying experience, their English language proficiency is well-
23
qualified as the former chose English as a minor degree while the latter majored in
bilingual teaching in the college.
To sum up, these four teachers comprise a typical group of qualified cases in terms
of studying EMI science teachers at a secondary level in China. Specifically, all four
teachers can be regarded as fluent bilinguals (Chinese and English) with a firm
understanding of the A-Level curriculum. It should also be noted that these teachers
have abundant experience in teaching science subjects in English either at public high
schools or in educational institutions. In this sense, they can be expected to have
developed stabilized teaching methods and styles of their own, and their beliefs and
insights have been shaped and refined by years of teaching.

Table 3. 1 Background Information of Participants

Participants Gender Subject Number of Teaching Degree Oversea
students experience experience
(years)
Grace F Chemistry 24 2 Master Undergraduate
& postgraduate
in the UK
Fiona F Physics 24 4 Master \

Rita F Mathematics 27 8 Master Postgraduate in

the UK
Zoe F Chemistry 27 4 Bachelor \

3.3 Data Collection

3.3.1 Data Collection Methods

In order to understand how exactly EMI teachers perform and perceive
translanguaging pedagogically, the present research conducts close-up observation of
the actual classroom practices. As such, three data collection methods were employed:
(1) classroom observation with video recordings; (2) semi-structured interviews; (3)
field notes, among which the researcher takes down notes during both the observation
and interviews.

24
 Observation helps researchers interpret the naturally occurring phenomena in
social contexts, especially when a study aims to examine individuals’ linguistic
performance and interactions (Van Lier, 1988). Classroom observation in the current
study mainly takes the form of naturalistic observation, accompanied by video
recordings and ample field notes. As a non-participating observer, the researcher tried
to focus on teachers’ pedagogical translanguaging practices, especially to note down
the creative and critical instances of the teacher-student interactions. Additionally, the
videotaping allows researchers to “capture version of conduct and interaction in
everyday settings and subject them to repeated scrutiny using slow motion facilities and
the like” (Heath & Hindmarsh, 2002, p. 103). More importantly, this video-assisted
observation allows researchers to pay attention to not only linguistic interactions
happening in the classroom but also the relevant non-verbal aspects of teachers’
pedagogical practices (gestures, facial expressions, eye gaze, etc.), which are included
in the holistic meaning-making repertoire from a translanguaging perspective. As such,
this way of collecting data requires the inquirer to have a strong sense of reflexivity and
to be able to gain in-depth information based on the existing situations. During this
process, researchers’ own cultural backgrounds and interpretive capacities matter a lot
when making sense of the intricacy of situated everyday classroom activities (Rampton,
2006, p. 392).
In order to answer questions concerning individuals’ attitudes and perceptions,
interviews may help researchers obtain genuine thoughts in the interviewees’ own
words. As is simply put by Gass and Mackey (2007), interviews are “one of the most
common methods for eliciting narratives in sociolinguistic research” (p. 136). Through
such an emic perspective, it is easier for the researchers to depict and interpret a
particular issue in the sociocultural context. Accordingly, the current study conducts
semi-structured interviews with the teachers so as to understand their perceptions of the
pedagogical practices and attitudes towards using translanguaging in the secondary
EMI science classrooms. One of the advantages of using semi-structured interviews is
that the researchers only give several open-ended questions and guiding prompts, with
most of the time given to spontaneous responses and follow-up questions in a timely
25
manner. According to Dörnyei (2007), such an approach will not limit the “depth and
breadth” of respondents’ stories by some ready-made responses (p. 136). In this sense,
the teachers are encouraged to elaborate on the topic in an exploratory manner. As
mentioned, it is the researchers and participants that jointly construct a special
discursive form, during which sparkling insights may arise from their exchange of
experiences (Duff, 2007). In addition, the comparison between EMI teachers’ attitudes
and practices can be uncovered, since this approach allows researchers to investigate
how a complicated set of factors come together and shape the social environment of the
relevant individuals (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 155). To sum up, the interview is not merely a
method of collecting facts for qualitative studies, but also a means to “pursue deeper
understanding in all its complex, elusive and shifting forms” (Richards, 2003, p. 50).
Another complementary data come from the researcher’s ample field notes, which
mainly contain three parts: (1) notes taken down during the classroom observation; (2)
notes taken down during interviews with teachers; (3) notes taken down during informal
talks with teachers and students. It is worth mentioning that field notes may help
preserve some of the linguistic characters of the classroom interaction that videotaping
may fail to capture. Also, they can be a reminder of certain aspects of the observed
behaviors that are noteworthy. As mentioned, fieldnote taking helps to “contextualize”
the behavior and speech when audio- or video-recording is not enough to cover the
whole picture of what was happening (Duff, 2007, p. 140).

3.3.2 Procedures of Data Collection

Overall, the data collection procedure of this study spanned from October 2021 to
April 2022. There were mainly two phases of the whole procedure: (1) classroom
observation and interviews with the teachers (phase I); (2) interviews with the teachers
(phase II).
Specifically, interviews in phase I, conducted in November 2021, mainly focused
on obtaining personal information of these teachers and general information about their
classes, during which it was expected that familiarity and trust could be established

26
between teachers and the researcher. Moreover, all the interviews were conducted in
Chinese, the participants’ native language, to save time and avoid misunderstanding.
Guiding questions are listed in Appendix A. As for the observational data, eight formal
observations were conducted, with an average two-week interval from October 2021 to
March 2022 (with a winter vacation in the middle). For each 45-minute session
observed, the researcher came to the class ten minutes early to set up the video recording
facility at the back of the classroom, for the consideration that the appearance of the
researcher and camera would not cause any distraction or interference to either the
teachers or students. In addition, informal interviews were also conducted with the
teachers and students during the six-month observational period in order to obtain
complementary information about the observed lessons. These interviews, according to
Spradley (1979), can be regarded as ethnographic interviews because they took place
spontaneously rather than being scheduled in advance with the participants.
Consequently, these supporting materials have enriched the database sources, which is
also a triangulation of the overall data collected.
In phase II, semi-structured interviews with teachers were conducted for the
purpose of understanding their own perceptions and attitudes towards using
multilingual and multimodal resources in the EMI science classrooms (see Appendix
B). Participants were therefore asked general questions with regard to their own
pedagogical practices, not directly related to translanguaging. Also, it was anticipated
that their answers would provide some insights into factors that influence their
pedagogical practices. It should be noted that interviews in this phase were held online
through Tencent Conference (an online platform), with the assistance of audio
recordings.
In conclusion, the database of the current study consists of four parts, and the
detailed information is shown in Table 3.2. Qualitative research, as is noted, is
“emergent rather than tightly prefigured” (Creswell, 2002, p. 20). In this sense, a vast
array of the materials, along with a rich and thick description, is of vital importance
when making sense of the qualitative data.

27
Table 3. 2 Summary of Data Collected
Data sources Data collection period Quantity
(Oct. 2021-Apr. 2022)
Classroom videotaping Ongoing 720 minutes (41136 words)

Formal interviews Phase 1: beginning of the observation 246 minutes (33063 words)
Phase 2: end of the observation
Field notes Ongoing 45 pages (2700 words)

Informal interviews Ongoing 44 minutes (6853 words)

(4 teachers & 1 student)

3.4 Data Analysis

3.4.1 Overview of Data Analysis

Guided by the overarching research questions, the current study utilizes
Multimodal Conversation Analysis (MCA) as the overall analytical framework and
incorporates a rich source of materials, for the purpose that such detailed information
may help examine the EMI science teachers’ translanguaging practices and perceptions.
Just as Denzin and Lincoln (2005) write, qualitative studies use a variety of
interconnected interpretive techniques, in an effort to better comprehend the subject
matter at hand (p. 4). Specifically speaking, the analysis of the observational data aims
to identify extracts of teachers’ pedagogical translanguaging practices, especially those
creative and critical ones, and to categorize these specific strategies in terms of
functions; whereas the analysis of the interview data concentrates on using Thematic
Analysis to explore potential themes concerning teachers’ perceptions and attitudes
towards using translanguaging practices, and on collating all the interview data in
search of the possible factors that affect their actual language use.

3.4.2 Analysis of Observational Data

The process of analyzing observational data (classroom videotaping) is divided
into three stages: (1) identifying and transcribing videotaping extracts; (2) labeling and

28
categorizing; (3) selecting representative extracts for reporting purposes. As the main
analytical stance, MCA extends conversation analysis by focusing on multimodal
resources that individuals employ, and such an emic approach to analyzing language-
based data “focuses on how social order is co-constructed by the members of a social
group” (Brouwer & Wagner, 2004, p. 30). In this sense, MCA allows researchers to
explicate the detailed process of the actual happening and bring together whatever is
relevant from the social context, in order to understand how and why teachers’
pedagogical translanguaging is employed at specific moments of the classroom
practices.
Based on the field notes, the researcher picked out all the video clips containing
teachers’ creative and critical use of translanguaging. It is worth noting that the
nonverbal aspects of the original classroom practices were also counted in, which, as
discussed above, the translanguaging perspective regards as an integral part of social
interaction. In the present study, nonverbal behaviors, such as facial expressions,
gestures, gaze, and manipulation of objects, are all included in individuals’
communicative repertoire. In the first stage, 36 typical scenarios showing teachers’
pedagogical translanguaging practices were picked out in total. Those extracts were
transcribed using Jefferson’s (2004) and Mondada’s (2018) transcription conventions
(see more in Appendix C). This process is an indispensable preparatory move, and
transcribing itself may help provide clarity and insights to the researcher at the very
beginning of data analysis.
After the first round of selection, the researcher repeatedly replayed the recordings
of those episodes and tried to label them according to the purposes of teachers’ practices
as well as the following outcomes. Through these specific moments of translanguaging
practices, we are empowered to identify what appears to be semiotically significant to
the overall pedagogical practices. After examining the four teachers’ pedagogical
practices, two major functions of pedagogical translanguaging were categorized, with
five specific strategies derived in total (see more in Results). It should be noted that the
categorization of this study was developed based on previous findings (e.g., Cenoz &
Gorter, 2022; Tai & Li, 2020) and the emerging themes from the data itself.
29
 Although extracts cannot represent the whole data collected in full detail, they are
always and necessarily selective. For reporting purposes, only representative extracts
of observational data were selected and presented in this study. To address the concern
of representativeness, the following two aspects were considered:
(1) the selected extracts should be comparable to others, directly or indirectly, in
terms of contents and forms (Have, 1990);
(2) the deviant cases should be considered (Ford, 2012).
It needs to be noted that the ultimate goal of selecting episodes is not to present the
best-suited or fine-tuned instances, but to provide interrelated and recurrently-occurring
examples that can show an authentic picture of the data collected. The goal of MCA
analysis, as Have (1990) argues, is to “formulate the means used by the members in
their situated interactions” (p. 35). In other words, the chosen examples should be both
context-free and context-sensitive. Consequently, as long as the selected extracts can
answer the research questions with their representative nature, it can be said, to a large
extent, that their representativeness is sufficient and the research results are reliable. In
the current study, the chosen extracts are typical extracts showing teachers’ pedagogical
translanguaging practices in their classrooms, and atypical (deviant) sequences are not
found.

3.4.3 Analysis of Interview Data

All the interview data were coded and analyzed using Thematic Analysis developed
by Braun and Clarke (2006). Due to the fact that different sociocultural factors such as
life experience and beliefs can play a role in affecting one’s overall use of meaning-
making resources in the social interaction, translanguaging practices are complex in
nature. In this sense, a flexible analytical approach is needed so as to understand EMI
science teachers’ perception of the use of pedagogical translanguaging. Specifically,
there are six steps of the analytical process, which is iterative with movement back and
forth between different steps:

30
 (1) Transcribing, familiarizing, and translating. With the assistance of online
automated speech recognition, the researcher proofread all audio-recording
transcription right after each interview. The researcher read the original transcripts
many times during the pre-coding phase, since “the theory or general pattern of
understanding will emerge” from the initial notes and memos (Creswell, 2002, p. 20).
Then, transcriptions were translated and presented.
(2) Coming up with initial codes. Based on the notes in the first step, labels or
keywords were come up with to describe the highlights of some segments. Besides,
codes that jumped out as relevant and potentially interesting were also noted.
(3) Generating themes. Based on the codes listed, the researcher categorized and
incorporated relevant ones into the broader themes, which were expected to cover the
main points and recurring meanings in the data.
(4) Revising themes. At this stage, the researcher revised the candidate themes to
ensure that all themes could accurately represent the recurring patterns in the data, and
that there should be enough convincing examples to back them up. As Creswell (2002)
argued, data analysis is a continuous process including continuing reflection on the texts
(p. 21). It was then that thematic maps were drawn so as to help understand the
relationships among those themes.
(5) Naming and interpreting themes. At this stage, the names of each theme were
finalized into succinct ones, which fit into the final account of the research questions.
Also, explanations were given concerning how each theme may address the overarching
research questions.
(6) Writing reports. The detailed analysis of the data can be viewed in the Results
chapter.

3.5 Validity and Reliability

A set of techniques were employed in order to ensure the validity and reliability of
this study, which include triangulation, member checking, and peer debriefing
(Creswell, 2007). Specifically, the triangulation of the data was achieved by using

31
different methods of data collection and data analysis: 1) collecting data via different
sources; 2) using the same method to collect different data; 3) adopting different
analytical approaches to interpret the data. Just as Yin (2003) notes, having multiple
sources of data allows researchers to “corroborate and augment evidence from other
sources” (p. 87). In this way, the strengths of each complement the weaknesses of the
other, through which the consistency of data can be ensured. It should be mentioned
that the interview transcripts and results were sent to the four teachers through WeChat
soon after the preliminary analysis was finished, which allows the participants to
double-check that the researcher did not misinterpret their original intentions. In
addition, peer debriefing was used to enhance the accuracy of the interpretation.
Preliminary results were shown to external auditors, either familiar or unfamiliar with
the current research, for the purpose that they may give pertinent suggestions. In this
way, there is a greater chance that the interpretation can resonate with people other than
the researcher.
The validity of qualitative studies, however, does not carry the same connotations
as it does in quantitative research (Chen, 2001; Creswell, 2002). Instead, it is used to
suggest whether the research findings are accurate and authentic from the perspective
of the researcher and participants, and thus terms such as “trustworthiness” and
“confirmability” abound (e.g., Creswell & Miller, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 2000). In this
sense, the researcher is supposed to give a full account of how the participants perceive,
understand, and construct the world. As is argued, qualitative research is primarily
interpretative, “with the inquirer typically involved in a sustained and intensive
experience with participants” (Creswell, 2002, p. 21). In other words, it is the
researcher’s role to filter the data through a personal lens that is situated in a specific
sociocultural context. To conclude, as long as a real, rich, and thick interpretation from
an “insider” perspective is provided, one can say that the dependability and credibility
of the current study will be ensured.

32
 Chapter Four Results
This chapter presents the results of data analysis and tries to reports on the possible
answers to the three research questions correspondingly. Firstly, a large number of
representative transcripts and screenshots of the observational data are displayed so as
to reproduce the translanguaging strategies those EMI teachers employ. Besides, a
group of extracts of interview data are also presented so as to better understand the
teachers’ attitudes towards pedagogical translanguaging, from which the consistency
and divergence between their practices and perceptions will be further elucidated.

4.1 Categorization of Teachers’ Pedagogical Translanguaging

The categorization of teachers’ pedagogical translanguaging is derived and refined
based on the study of Cenoz and Gorter (2022), plus those codes emerging from the
current data. Cenoz and Gorter (2022) classified those translanguaging practices
according to the degree of pedagogical intervention. Overall, there are five types of
teachers’ translanguaging practices: translanguaging shifts, bringing the outside in,
using whole meaning-making repertoire, enhancing metalinguistic awareness, and
constructing fun with words. In the present study, the pedagogic purposes of those
teaching practices were analyzed, with two types summarized eventually: deepening
students’ understanding of new knowledge and enlivening the classroom atmosphere
(Table 4.1). To some extent, each type of teachers’ practices illuminates the critical and
creative aspects of translanguaging. More details on each step of the coding process are
included in the Appendices.

33
Table 4. 1 Features of Teachers’ Pedagogical Translanguaging
Strategies of Pedagogic Purposes
Pedagogical Translanguaging
Translanguaging Shifts

Bringing the Outside in

Deepen the Understanding
Using Whole Meaning-Making Repertoire

Enhancing Metalinguistic Awareness

Constructing Fun with Words Enliven the Atmosphere

4.1.1 Translanguaging Shifts

“Translanguaging shifts” is a term first coined by García, Johnson and Seltzer
(2017) to refer to teachers’ unplanned decisions for communicative needs in their
classroom. For example, sometimes students may ask for a translation of a certain term
so as to better understand it, and teachers may thus offer extra explanations and build
them on their planned syllabus. As is noted, those shifts start as spontaneous but in most
cases have pedagogical values (Cenoz & Gorter, 2022, p. 33). Accordingly, these
practices can also be linked to pedagogical translanguaging.
In this study, eleven instances were found which demonstrate how the EMI
teachers make translanguaging shifts between different linguistic resources so as to help
students resolve the perceived linguistic discrepancies and extend new knowledge.
Extract 4.1.1 is a typical case that reveals this interactional phenomenon. Prior to the
extract, the teacher (T) was talking about the 3D displayed formula. In lines 03-05, T
was introducing a new type of chemical bond, during which she mainly deployed
multisemiotic resources (drawing and outlining on the blackboard) to deepen students’
understanding. After one student mistook it in Chines as “wet bond” (line 07), the other
students were laughing at this hilarious translation (line 07). After T accepted S1’s
response, she immediately switched back to Chinese “wedge-shaped” (line 10). By
doing so, she was in a position to correct students’ mishearing (lines 10-12) and to avoid
34
further misunderstanding. In line 13, some students were still repeating the word “wet”,
T then redirected the talk back to the English expression of the new term (line 14) and
used body gestures to show the structure of the chemical bond more vividly (lines 16,
19). During a 7-s pause, T checked the handouts and ensured that the students had
received her message (lines 15-16). Then, T once again explained what the bond looks
like by saying “wedge bond means stick out of the play” (line 18), after which T
immediately switched the linguistic code from English to Chinese (line 19), probably
because she wanted to avoid another mishearing as before. Here, T raised her hands,
holding a pen and mimicked the structure of the chemical bond again to make a deeper
impression upon those students (line 19). In this extract, the teacher translanguages
among different linguistic codes, consciously or subconsciously, for the purpose of
resolving linguistic discrepancies between teachers and students. By doing so, the
teacher successfully helps students extend the new knowledge.

Extract 4.1.1
[Grace 1 - 04:30] The students mistake the new terms in Chinese.
01 T: =for example this molecule=
+T looks back on the BB
+T circles the molecule on the BB
02 =this is a 2D version of the molecule (.) and this is 3D (.) version
(0.7)
+T repeatedly points at the 2D picture of the molecule on the BB
+T looks at the students
+T looks back on the BB
+T moves her arm from the left to the right
03 if you look at this (0.8) little solid triangle=
+T outlines the triangle on the BB with a pen
04 =and these (.) dash lines=
+T marks some black dots on the BB next to the dash lines #1

Image #1 Teacher is marking the chemical bonds on the BB

35
05 =we call this (.) wedge bond (1.5) wedge bond
+T extends her forefinger to point at the chemical bond on the BB
+T looks at the students
06 (1.0)
07 S1: 湿键？
((tr. wet bond))
((students mishears it))
08 (1.2)
09 Ss: Hahahaha
10 T: 楔子形的 (.) 楔子形的=
((tr. wedge-shaped))
+T extends her index finger and points to the top #2

Image #2

11 =就是实心三角形的=
((tr. it’s a solid triangle))
12 =[比较楔子形的]
((tr. wedge-shaped))
13 Ss: [wet (.) wet]
((some students are repeating the word “wet”))
14 T: wedge bond
+T looks down and looks at the computer
15 (7.0)
+T looks back at the handouts in her hands and takes a few steps back along the BB
+T turns over the handouts on the desk and takes a look
16 这个应该 handout 上给你们打出来了吧 (.) 这个 wedge bond
((tr. I suppose it has been printed on the handouts (.) the wedge bond))
+T raises her arm horizontally and points at the BB
+T looks back at the students
17 (0.5)
18 wedge bond means (.) stick out of the play=
19 =是不是指向外的啊 (.) 就是指向外的
((tr. it’s outward-pointing, right?)) ((tr. it points outwards))

36
 +T raises the pen which is perpendicular to the BB with the nib facing the
students
+T horizontally moves the pen forwards and backward repeatedly to show
what “outward-pointing” looks like

4.1.2 Bringing the Outside in

“Bringing the outside in” is a term first used by Tai and Li (2020a) to refer to
teachers’ making connections between students’ out-of-school experiences and what
they learn in the classrooms. In this study, four instances were identified which illustrate
how EMI teachers use everyday metaphors through translanguaging to facilitate their
explanations and students’ knowledge learning. Through creating real-life experiences,
the teachers managed to bring the outside world into the classroom space. Extract 4.1.2
is a typical case that demonstrates this feature. Prior to the extract, the teacher raised a
question asking students why one should use a laser beam rather than a light bulb in the
interference and double-slits experiment. In order to fully explain this physical
phenomenon, T played a short video talking about the energy level of objects. After
playing it, T dragged the video progress bar back and stopped it at a certain moment.
In lines 02-08, T mainly deployed Chinese to engage in the verbal talk in order to
establish links between resident/non-resident students and electrons at different energy
levels. By doing so, T motivated students’ reaction (line 07) and activated their
knowledge regarding the actual situation of different types of students in the school,
which in turn facilitated their understanding of different light sources. Subsequently,
the photon released in spontaneous emission was analogous to those students’
homework (line 12). In lines 13-14, T continued to establish a real-life scenario by
saying that the incoherent source of lights was similar to students’ homework of mixed
quality. Simultaneously, T turned to the computer and dragged the video progress bar
back and forth in order to find appropriate video snapshots (lines 16-17). T then stopped
at a specific moment, pointed at the high-energy electron with her index finger and
continued her analogy by saying “this is me” (line 18, image #4). In this example, the
teacher’s explicit analogical examples (e.g., resident/non-resident students, homework,
self-study at night) and use of multimodal resources (e.g., video, projector, gestures)
37
indicated her strategic use of translanguaging as a pedagogy. Notably, T’s use of
pedagogical translanguaging established a bridge between students’ familiar prior
knowledge of being resident/non-resident students and new knowledge of physics. In
this way, the teacher was enabled to get the physical terms “spontaneous emission” and
“excited emission” understood among students.

Extract 4.1.2
[Fiona 1 - 11:40] The teacher explains why the experiment uses a laser beam instead of a light bulb.
01 T: 什么是 light bulb 和 laser beam 之间的<区别> (0.3)
((tr. what are the differences between a light bulb and a laser beam))
02 举个例子啊比如说你们都是在学校 (.) 上学的小孩儿 (0.4)
((tr. for example, you are all school students))
03 有走读生和住校生 (0.5) 那住校生就要上晚自习 (.) 对吧↑ (0.4)
((tr. some are resident and others are non-resident)) ((tr. resident students have to do the self-
study at night, right?))
04 走读生是啥意思呢就是你回去的作业是自己完成=
((tr. as for non-resident students, their homework is finished by themselves))
05 =然后呢 (0.7) 你是不能跟别人商量的=
((tr. that means you cannot discuss with others))
06 =所以走读生交过来的作业都是 (1.2) 奇奇怪怪
((tr. so the homework of non-resident students is strange))
07 Ss: hahaha
08 T: 有对的有不对的 (0.7) 所以这个就是 light bulb 发出来的这种光 (0.6)
((tr. some are correct and some are not)) ((tr. so it’s just like the lights coming from the light bulb)
09 就相当于是 (0.4) 我在 (.) 高能级的 electron=
((tr. it is equivalent to the electron at a higher energy level))
10 =它 (.) 发生了 spontaneous emission 自发辐射 (0.5)
((tr. it has spontaneous emission))
11 它自发辐射时会向外释放 photon 光子 (0.3)
((tr. it releases photons during the spontaneous emission))
+T extends and curls her fingers repeatedly, palm facing the
ground
12 这个光子就是他们完成的作业 (.) 对吧 (0.7)
((tr. the photon is just like their homework, right?))
+T repeatedly swings her two hands inward horizontally
13 由于你是走读生 (.) 所以你这个作业就奇奇怪怪千奇百怪五花八门的=
((tr. since you are non-resident students, your homework is miscellaneous))
14 =向各个方向的所以是 incoherent source (0.8)
((tr. it goes in all directions, so it’s an incoherent source))
+T stretches out her two arms in the air in different directions
15 但是呢像这种情况啊是 (1.2) 我们 (.) 外界强制力我们让你上晚自习=

38
 ((tr. but in such a situation)) ((tr. we)) ((tr. you are asked to do the self-study at night by
the external force))
+T looks back at the screen and extends her index finger to point at the BB
+T takes a few steps back to the right side of the BB
16 =等一下
((tr. wait a minute))
+T walks to the desk and bends over to use the computer
17 (13)
+T drags the video progress bar back and forth and stops it at a certain moment
18 来了一个 (.) 对吧 (.) 这就是我
((tr. here comes one)) ((tr. right)) ((tr. this is me))
+T turns back at the screen and extends her index finger to point
at the video #3

Image #3

19 (1.9)
+T walks a few steps back to the right side of the BB
20 这个我过来了 (.) 我把你们抓到一起给你们讲 (.) 讲完了之后再写作业 (0.7)
((tr. here I come)) ((tr. I gather you all together and teach you)) ((tr. after that you do the
homework))
21 那这个时候你们交的作业是不是都一样的啊=
((tr. then you will hand in the same homework))
22 =因为你们学会了 (.) 你们的版本是一样的 (.)
((tr. because you have all learned how to do it)) ((tr. your homework is of the same version))
23 那你们 (0.5) 交出来的作业就是 coherent source 对吧=
((tr. then the homework you hand in is just like a coherent source, right=))
24 =所以激光就是 (.) 通过一个外界的强制的 (0.4) 这个叫<excited>=
((tr. so laser beam uses an external force called excited=))
+T repeatedly points at the picture in the video with her index finger #4
25 =叫受激辐射受激辐射 (.) 是需要一个外界的刺激的
((tr. called excited emission)) ((tr. it needs an external stimulation))

39
 Image #4 Teacher is pointing at the process of excited emission on the screen

4.1.3 Using Whole Meaning-Making Repertoire

In the dataset, six instances were found when teachers use their multilingual,
multimodal, and multisensory resources (whole repertoire) in different ways for
meaning making. It is worth noting that sometimes teachers’ use of multisemiotic
resources (e.g., gestures) can activate students’ expanding their own meaning-making
resources. As is argued by Cenoz and Gorter (2022), pedagogical translanguaging
includes not only the alternation of languages in both the input and output, but also
other elements “from the whole linguistic repertoire” that an individual can employ (p.
18). In this sense, those pedagogical features can be considered examples of
translanguaging strategies, because they aim to expand one’s communicative repertoire
and support comprehension for pedagogical purposes.
Extract 4.1.3 is a representative one showing how different languages and
meaning-making resources (e.g., visual aids) are used as the scaffold. Prior to the
extract, the teacher left some time for Q&A, and one student asked a question
concerning the intensity and brightness of lights. After T accepted S1’s question (line
03), T started guiding students to think independently by initiating another question
(lines 05-06). In lines 07, T tried to refresh students’ memory by saying “do you still
remember” and then explained the relationship between distance and intensity (lines
08). Subsequently, T drew the students’ attention by using the laser pointer because T
wanted to demonstrate that the brightness of lights changes along with the distance (line
09). In order to show the changes more obviously, T projected the lights first on the
blackboard and then moved to the wall on the right side of the classroom (images #7,

40
8). In the meanwhile, T said “you see the brightness I see here is not the same as that
from there”. In line 10, T turned to face the students and projected the lights farther to
the back of the classroom, which also led the whole class to do the same, turn around,
and watch the demonstration (line 11, image #9). After her explanation, T double-
checked (line 15) and then looked back at students until she got a satisfied response
from S1 (line 18). It should be noted that the teacher has employed her own meaning-
making resources as much as possible for pedagogical purposes. Through using
gestures, visual aids, and drawings, the teacher managed to provide meaningful
scaffolding and explain students’ questions better. As proposed, translanguaging can
be regarded as a “multilingual, multisemiotic, multisensory, and multimodal resource”
for sense-making (Li, 2018, p. 22). Through such a translanguaging strategy, the EMI
teachers are able to impart content knowledge and promote the overall understanding.

Extract 4.1.3
[Fiona 1-10:04] The teacher responds to students’ questions with the assistance of visual aids.
01 S1: 这个 d 增加 (.) 亮度减小 (0.8) 是因为光源的消耗 (2.1)
((tr. as the d increases (.) the brightness decreases)) ((tr. because of the consumption of lights))
+T looks at S1
+T looks back at the table on the BB
02 就是亮那个 intensity XXX ((inaudible))
((tr. just the intensity))
03 T: 你是说这个地方吗 (1.6) [噢]
((tr. did you mean here)) ((tr. oh))
+T looks upward and points at the table with the laser pointer
04 S1: [d 增] 加 (.) 大 d=
((tr. d increases))
05 T: =噢因为什么 (.) intensity 除了跟 amplitude (.) 和 frequency 有关=
((tr. oh, because of what)) ((tr. except that intensity is related to amplitude and frequency))
+T looks at S1
06 =还跟什么有关? (2.0)
((tr. what else is involved?))
07 距离诶: 记不记得 (0.7) 因为它相当于是一个 XXX ((inaudible)) 对不对 (0.5)
((tr. distance, right:)) ((tr. still remember)) ((tr. because it is equivalent to XXX, right?))
08 那 (.) 随着距离的变长 (0.5) 它的 intensity 就会 (.) 下降 (1.0) 下降=
((tr. as the distance increases, its intensity decreases))
+T turns to the wall, raises her RH holding the laser pointer and projects the light on the
wall

41
 +T raises her left arm and extends her index finger to
point at the wall repeatedly
09 =那我 (.) 你看我从这看到的亮度和在这边看到的亮度 (0.5) 是不一样的 (1.0)
((tr. then you see the brightness I see here is not the same as that from there))
+T turns to the BB and projects the lights on BB #5
+T moves her right arm horizontally toward the
wall #6
+T looks at students

Image #5 Teacher projects the lights on the BB

Image #6 Teacher points at the right wall

10 因为它距离变了 (.) 或者望到这个

((tr. because its distance has changed)) ((tr. or we can see from this position))
+T turns to the back of the classroom and projects the lights to the
back #7
11 (2.8)
+Ss turns to the back of the classroom #7

42
 Image #7 Teacher projects the lights to the back of the classroom

12 教室的后面它更远了 (.)
((tr. to the back of the classroom it’s even farther))
13 你这个亮度和在 (0.7) 黑板上直接看的亮度肯定是不一样的啊
((tr. the brightness you get here is definitely different from that you see directly on the blackboard))
+T moves her right arm back towards the BB with the lights presented on the
BB
14 (3.2)
+T looks down at the computer
15 所以 (.) 这个地方会下降 (0.5) 可以理解吗?=
((tr. so this will decrease, can you understand?))
+T turns to the BB and draws circles on the screen with the laser pointer
16 =因为距离<变长了> intensity 变弱了
((tr. because the distance gets longer and the intensity gets weaker))
17 (3.0)
18 S1: 好
((tr. okay))

4.1.4 Enhancing Metalinguistic Awareness

In this study, three instances were identified showing the situations where teachers
draw students’ attention to specific aspects of different languages so as to enhance their
metalinguistic awareness. For instance, sometimes EMI teachers may list the
differences and similarities in the language level so that students can progress in
developing their multilingual skills. Extract 4.1.4 is a typical example that reveals this
phenomenon. Prior to the extract, the teacher was introducing the names of the
homologous series of Alkanes. At the beginning of this extract, T mainly deployed
Chinese to clarify the similarities of those substances by outlining the “ane” part of each
name (lines 01-04). By doing so, T naturally initiated another question asking the
43
students whether they knew the rest parts of these names (prefixes) (line 05). After a
two-second pause, S1 took a guess and mistook them as Latin numbers (line 07). On
hearing it, T turned back and wrote the word “prefixes” in the blank on the blackboard
in order to show the correct answer to her question (image #10). Subsequently, T
switched back to English and told students that the prefixes had been printed in the
handouts (lines 11-12). After a 5-second pause, T started to write those prefixes on the
blackboard so that students may have a deeper impression. In lines 14-17, T listed all
the corresponding prefixes of Alkane in sequence. It is worth mentioning that T once
again highlighted the importance of memorizing those prefixes by drawing a circle on
the blackboard (line 18). By outlining and explaining the prefixes of homologous series,
the teacher tried to help facilitate those students’ understanding and memorization.
Such a metalinguistic analysis of specific aspects of languages, to a large extent, helped
learners establish an awareness of linguistic features. As a result, translanguaging can
be applied as a pedagogical strategy that activates students’ prior linguistic knowledge
into acquiring new linguistic resources.

Extract 4.1.4
[Grace 1-19:00] The teacher introduces the naming of chemical substances.
01 T: So (.) if you look at the (0.7) names of these molecules say=
+T raises her RH and points at the end of the word “methane” with a pen
+T underlines the “ace” part of each word on the BB
02 =all end with (0.5) <ane> (1.2)
03 所以他们都是 Alkane 都属于 Alkane 这一族的 (1.0)
((tr. so they all belong to Alkane))
+T looks at students and puts her index finger next to the word “butane”
04 他们的命名 (0.6) 他们的名字 (.) 后面都是 ane 结尾的对吧=
((tr. the naming)) ((tr. their names all end in ane, right?))
05 =那他们前面的这个 (1.5) meth- (.) eth- (.) prop- (.) but- (.)
((tr. then meth-, eth-, prop-, but- at the head of their names))
+T turns to the BB and raises her right arm to point at the initial part of each word one by
one as she speaks
+T looks back at the students
06 这是什么东西啊 (2.0)
((what are these?))
07 S1: 是不是拉丁数字吗
((tr. are they Latin numbers))

44
08 (1.0)
+T turns back and raises her RH
09 T: prefixes (0.5) prefixes (.) 前缀 prefixes
((tr. prefixes))
+T writes the word “prefixes” in the blank of the BB
+T grabs the eraser and rubs out the “es” part
10 (3.0)
+T encloses the word “prefix” in double quotes
11 so (.) on your handout (1.0)
+T turns to the desk, bends slightly over the computer and turns the slides to the next page
12 the prefixes the (1.7) name of the prefixes are shown in this table
+T looks back at the screen
+T grabs the eraser and rubs out the marks on
the BB
13 (4.3)
14 so >one two three four< (.) meth- (.) eth- (.) prop- (.) but- (1.5)
+T stretches out her right arm above her head and points at the corresponding names in
the table as she speaks
15 and fifth one pent- (.) pent=
+T looks at students and back to the BB
+T moves her right arm forward to the left part of the screen and
points at the prefix “pent-” #8

Image #8 Teacher points at the prefix “pent-”

16 =six one hex- (1.0) seven one hept- (1.2)

+T moves her right arm forth and back to the corresponding words shown on the screen
as she speaks
17 eight (.) oct- (1.4) nine (.) non- (1.8) ten dec- (1.5)
18 so these prefixes you need to be familiar with
+T raises her right arm and draws a circle around all the prefixes shown on the BB
+T looks at students

45
4.1.5 Constructing Fun with Words
Notably, the entertaining functions of language have been realized for years (e.g.,
Cook, 2000; Waring, 2013). Built on Cook’s (2000) definition of “language play” and
Waring’s (2013) “playful talk”, this study identifies classroom communication with
ludic effects between EMI teachers and students as “constructing fun”. In this study,
five instances were found which contain such playful interaction and meaningful
communication. Extract 4.1.5 is a typical example showing this interactional
phenomenon and revealing the role of pedagogical translanguaging in enlivening the
classroom atmosphere. Prior to the extract, the teacher was teaching the concept of
structural formula and showing some of the possible forms. T explained that once one
bond is omitted, the formula can be called structural (lines 01-02). In lines 04-05, S1
asked a question to check his own assumption. However, T failed to recognize this
question (line 07), which led S1 to initiate another one (line 08). At this time, T wrote
the formula she thought would be on the blackboard and then looked back at S1 in order
to eliminate the information gap (line 10). After T totally understood what S1 truly
wanted to know, T gave the response in a very direct way (line 12). Subsequently, T
continued saying “what is it if you write like this” with a louder voice. Simultaneously,
T raised her right hand and quickly drew the wrong form of the structural formula on
the blackboard (image #13). After T finished her drawing, the students were laughing
in order to express their enjoyment of seeing the incorrect form (line 14). At the same
time, T acknowledged the funniness, smiling and saying “people may think you are
painting if you write in this way” (line 15), which caused more laughter among the
students (line 16). In this extract, T translanguages through switching her intonations
and displaying her facial expressions to show the incorrectness of S1’s assumption.
Here, T’s correction of the wrong structural formula is considered as constructing fun
as signaled by the reactions of both students and the teacher (laughter in lines 14 and
16). Concurrently, the teacher’s translanguaging practices also involve her use of
lingual (e.g., stress, intonation change), semiotic (e.g., drawing on the BB), and gestural
(e.g., drawing circles in the air) resources, which all together enliven the classroom

46
atmosphere. This pedagogical strategy is also verified in the following interviews (see
more in 4.2).

Extract 4.1.5
[Zoe 1-13:10] The teacher is introducing the correct form of structural formula.
01 T: 我只要有键收起来这种 (0.5) 它都可以叫做 (.) structural=
((tr. but once there is one bond omitted, it can be called a structural))
02 =不管你收了 (0.7) 多少根键 (1.0) 对不对啊 (0.5)
((tr. no matter how many bonds you have omitted)) ((tr. is it right?))
03 它的 structural formula 的范围是很大的啊 (.) [所以呢]
((tr. the range of structural formula is quite wide)) ((tr. so))
+T takes a few steps back with RH drawing circles in the air
+T puts her RH on the BB
04 S1: [全都收]完
((tr. omit all))
+T looks at S1
05 全都收完行不行?
((tr. what if I omit all, is it ok?))
06 (0.8)
07 T: 可以啊 (.) 这不就是全都收完了吗=
((tr. yes))
((tr. this one has omitted all, isn’t it?))
+T takes a few steps forward and stretches out her right arm to point at the
formula on the BB
+T looks at S1
08 S1: =那我把 O 写到 C 上面呢?
((tr. what if I put O above C?))
09 (3.0)
+T writes the possible display of the formula (O above C) on the BB
10 T: 这样子的?
((tr. like this?))
+T looks at S1
11 S1: 不加键
((tr. with no bond))
12 T: 不可以 (1.0) <不加键>不可以写到它上面=
((tr. no)) ((tr. you cannot write it above without bond))
+T puts her RH down and takes a few steps back
13 =你写成这样子算什么啊
((tr. what is it if you write like this))
+T raises her RH and quickly draws the wrong form of structural formula on the BB #9

47
 Image #9 Teacher is drawing the wrong form of structural formula

14 Ss: hahahahahha
+T smiles and looks at the students
15 T: 你这样$什么东西啦$ (2.0) 写成这样子人家以为你在画画
((tr. what’s this))
((tr. people may think you are painting if you write in this way))
+T points at the wrong form with a pen
+T smiles and looks at S1
16 Ss: hahaha
+T grabs the eraser and rubs out the marks on the BB
17 S2: 只写双键可以吗
((tr. only the double bond is left, is it ok?))
+T looks at S2
18 T: 只写双键可以的 (.) 这样子嘛 (0.5) 然后是这边正常写就好了
((tr. it’s okay to write the double bond only, like this)) ((tr. and the other parts will be the same))
+T puts down the eraser and writes the correct structural formula on the BB
+T looks at S2
+T extends her right arm forward and draws a
horizontal line on the left of the formula

To conclude, the five features of EMI teachers’ pedagogical translanguaging

mentioned above have been used mainly for two different purposes: deepening students’
understanding of new knowledge and enlivening the classroom atmosphere.
Translanguaging shifts has been employed to make strategic shifts between different
linguistic resources; bringing the outside in manages to build new knowledge upon
students’ prior ones (e.g., relevant out-of-classroom knowledge); using whole meaning-
making repertoire means applying different languages as the scaffold; enhancing
metalinguistic awareness helps students focus on specific aspects of languages, while
constructing fun with words centers on how teachers facilitate learning in an interactive,
engaging and entertaining way. To some extent, each type of strategies has illuminated
48
the critical and creative values of translanguaging. Through the observational data, this
study manages to demonstrate how teachers construct a translanguaging space in the
EMI science classroom in which pedagogical translanguaging is employed strategically.
Likewise, interview data is also inspiring as it goes beyond practices to individual
perceptions and provides more emic perspectives.

4.2 Teacher Perceptions of Pedagogical Translanguaging

The classroom observation indicates that all the participant teachers have
translanguaging practices, yet they still have different views towards their own
communicative resources. Based on Macaro’s (2009) study and theories, this research
derives three themes concerning EMI teachers’ perceptions of and attitudes towards
pedagogical translanguaging. By and large, these teachers hold three quite distinct
positions: “virtual”, “maximal”, “optimal”, as identified earlier by Macaro (2009),
whereas they still share some similarities with regard to teaching principles, as is
presented in Figure 4.1. More details on the preliminary results of thematic analysis are
included in Appendix D.

Virtual Position

Difference Maximal Position

Optimal Position
Teacher Perceptions of
Pedagogical Translanguaging
Comprehension-based

Teaching
Similarity Efficiency-driven
Principles

Activity-centered

Figure 4. 1 Teacher Perceptions of Pedagogical Translanguaging

49
4.2.1 Varied Attitudes
Virtual Position
This virtual position is represented by teachers who prefer to use the target
language only in the classroom so as to mirror the environment of the target language
countries. In this G school, some teachers hold the belief that “immersion” education is
beneficial for the students since they will go abroad for further study sooner or later.
From their perspective, a higher proportion of English used in science lessons means
students’ quicker and better adaption to the target language countries. When asked
about the reasons for their holding such a virtual position, the teachers have offered the
following accounts in the interviews.

Extract 4.2.1
[Grace - 0:3:0]
In fact, I want to create a good English learning environment for them. When they go abroad, they
also need to learn various subjects instead of English only, right? They have to learn all the subjects
in English, so it’s better to get used to it early.

Extract 4.2.2
[Grace - informal interview]
In my opinion, the construction of knowledge should be completed in English at this stage, since
students are going to the UK for undergraduate study in the future. Now he is receiving science
knowledge in Chinese, but the whole knowledge network is not complete, which is difficult for him
to study abroad in the future.

Extract 4.2.3
[Grace - 0:11:49]
In fact, however, it is useless for him to know the Chinese meanings, if he wants to go abroad
studying in the future.

The examples above are typical ones that illustrate the attitudes of teachers holding
the virtual position towards their own pedagogical translanguaging. In extracts 4.2.1
and 4.2.2, Grace explains that she aims to construct a linguistic environment where
students are encouraged to use English only during the whole learning process.
Particularly, Grace reinforces the significance of constructing new knowledge in
English for students at this stage. Besides, T devalues the use of Chinese during the

50
learning process in extract 4.2.3. As for teachers like Grace, it is believed that students
should acquire new science knowledge through English-as-the-medium teaching.
Otherwise, as is suggested, there is a possibility that students may fail to get accustomed
to studying abroad.

Maximal Position
Although EMI teachers all agree that immersion can create a favorable learning
context to enhance students’ exposure to the target languages, some of them doubt its
practicality. The maximal position is held by teachers who are more flexible towards
the use of mother tongue and target languages. As for this group of teachers in G school,
teaching in English at every moment is just a desirable condition, whereas the
occasional use of Chinese is inevitable and acceptable. Although they believe that the
exclusive use of target language is unattainable in the actual classrooms, they still try
their best to reach this goal. When being asked the relevant questions about language
use in the EMI science classes, those teachers provide the following accounts in the
interviews.

Extract 4.2.4
[Zoe - 0:7:37]
International schools do need more English input, which may be beneficial to the students as long
as they can accept it.

Extract 4.2.5
[Rita - 0:6:31]
It depends on the reaction of the students. If they have good English proficiency at the beginning
and can adapt to a high proportion of English use, I will continue doing it. If they feel stressed or
find it difficult to understand while doing exercises, I will reduce the proportion.

The examples above illustrate the fact that teachers with a maximal position are in
favor of the same attitudes as those with the virtual position: the more use of target
language, the better. As is shown in extract 4.2.4, it is suggested that more English input
in such an international school may bring more benefits to students’ development.
However, unlike the virtual position, those with the maximal position have accepted

51
the fact that using English only in the classroom is unrealistic because such a perfect
condition does not exist. In other words, sometimes they also deploy Chinese as a
linguistic resource for pedagogical purposes. In extract 4.2.5, Rita explains that she puts
the students’ understanding as the priority, with which the proportion of English in her
teaching changes. To put it simply, teachers with the maximal position are using
English in their classes to the maximal extent.

Optimal Position
This optimal position is held by teachers who believe that the judicious use of
different language resources is more beneficial than sticking to the target language only.
From their perspective, every linguistic resource of individuals is of vital importance in
facilitating social communication. In other words, those teachers are more than willing
to deploy students’ whole linguistic repertoire during the teaching process. When being
asked in the interviews to describe their choices of languages in their own science
classes, this group of teachers offered the following explanations.

Extract 4.2.6
[Fiona - 0:1:26]
I have never thought of the “switching pattern”, that is when I remind myself to use English or to
use Chinese... something like that, maybe I don't know what exactly the pattern is, because I haven't
thought about it.

Extract 4.2.7
[Fiona - 0:29:50]
However, in terms of logical thinking and cognition, there is not much difference between Chinese
and English in understanding this concept.

The two examples above are typical ones that demonstrate how teachers holding
maximal position think of their own translanguaging practices. In extract 4.2.6, T
particularly mentions that there is no deliberate use of English or Chinese in her own
teaching. Instead, she just naturally deploys the appropriate linguistic resources to make
meanings and facilitate students’ understanding. In extract 4.2.7, T further explains that
using different linguistic resources may cause little difference to students’ overall

52
understanding. Here, it can be argued that this group of teachers regard languages as
means rather than ends. To put it simply, teachers’ use of languages in the classroom
becomes something secondary, whereas students’ understanding and acquisition of
knowledge matter more. In addition, the teacher also mentions that different linguistic
resources have their own particular values, and there is no hierarchical level among
different languages. Extract 4.2.8 is one of the examples.

Extract 4.2.8
[Fiona - 0:31:20]
This joke is only funny when you say it in Chinese... Sometimes they can’t get it in English.

In this extract, T particularly gives the example that students may fail to understand
a joke told in English. Here, T illustrates that languages are culturally-embedded, and
one should take cultural backgrounds into consideration when using different linguistic
resources. In this sense, teachers like Fiona strongly contend that EMI science teachers
should employ English and Chinese both as valuable meaning-making resources for
different pedagogical purposes. Just as Doiz and Lasagabaster (2009) argue, teachers
who are positive about the optimal position are more “willing to embrace
translanguaging” (p. 159).

4.2.2 Similarities in Perceptions

Despite the fact that there are three distinct perceptions held by these EMI science
teachers when being asked to describe their translanguaging practices in the curriculum,
similarities exist when it comes to teachers’ preferences of medium of instruction.
Specifically, data analysis reveals that there are three teaching principles guiding
teachers’ choices of languages in their own classes. Those principles are all goal-
oriented and have, to a large extent, influenced the formation of individuals’ teaching
styles.

53
Comprehension-Based Principle
When it comes to the choices of using different languages, those EMI teachers
always put students’ comprehension of the content knowledge as the priority. As some
teachers mentioned in the interviews, it is important to frequently check students’
comprehension in the classes. For example, students, on most occasions, prefer to
receive new knowledge explicitly expressed and explained in the language that they are
familiar with. In other words, they often want to know the Chinese translation of a new
terminology, which may promote their own understanding of the knowledge on a
cognitive level. This point has also been corroborated in the follow-up interviews with
the students.

Extract 4.2.9
[Grace - 0:23:22]
You see, today I basically taught in English in the first half of my class. But students may be confused
if I still use English when they are doing tasks. Yes, sometimes they may not be able to understand
or to understand that well as it is in Chinese.

Extract 4.2.10
[Grace - 0:25:5]
If necessary, I will explain the problems to them in Chinese, yes, to make them understand it more
thoroughly. Because if I teach and explain something in English but they still can’t understand, then
it’s all in vain, right?

In extracts 4.2.9 and 4.2.10, the teacher mentions that using Chinese in the EMI
classrooms can make the science classes much easier to follow. If the students have not
received or totally understood the messages imparted in English, a blind seek for
English-only instruction is meaningless.

Extract 4.2.11
[Fiona - 0:31:20]
Either in Chinese or in some combination of English and Chinese, the way these contents are
conveyed, for example, these concepts and the principles of physics, won’t have any negative impact
on their entire knowledge system, since they have understood.

Some teachers like Fiona even put language uses at the bottom of the teaching
54
agenda, as is shown in extract 4.2.11. From her perspective, as long as students
understand the content knowledge in the EMI classes, actually the choice of languages
does not matter that much. As is also demonstrated in the observational data, teachers
sometimes tend to give a short and direct response in Chinese so as to explain to the
entire class the possible misunderstanding or confusion. Therefore, it can be argued that
teachers’ pedagogical practices are comprehension-based, which aims to promote
students’ overall understanding and enable student-centered learning.

Efficiency-Driven Principle
In the interviews, all the EMI science teachers have mentioned that their courses
are very goal-oriented which put much emphasis on efficiency and care much about
whether students can pass the exams to get their certificates. Additionally, they believe
that an immersion approach may ignore students’ learning outcomes. As such, the
teachers tend to employ linguistic resources that can help to achieve the pedagogic goals
more quickly.

Extract 4.2.12
[Rita - 0:2:11]
Teaching math in English exclusively is inefficient, because students cannot understand every part.
Although we may ask questions after lecturing, it is highly possible that they find it difficult or even
don’t understand at all when doing exercises. This means that they have difficulty understanding
English, so that the overall efficiency will be low.

Extract 4.2.13
[Zoe - 0:4:59]
There is an obvious difference in students’ performance. Some students are not sensitive to English.
They can only understand if you say a sentence in English and translate it immediately into Chinese.
But it is equivalent to repeating, which may be a waste of time.

Extract 4.2.14
[Fiona - 0:4:28]
Sometimes, I feel that the efficiency of describing something in Chinese and English is not the same.
For example, we can say numbers in Chinese very fast, but extremely slow in English. So when
talking about numbers, I choose the more efficient way. In this way, I can also convey concepts or
ideas more quickly... Our teaching goal is to help students get a high score, so efficiency is the
priority.

55
 In the three examples above, the teachers share a striking similarity in the belief
that an English-only approach in the science classes is both insufficient and
discouraging. Due to different levels of English proficiency among students, the time
teachers spend in delivering the subject matters differs a lot. Moreover, some teachers
regard repetitions in both English and Chinese as a waste of time in their teaching
schedules. Accordingly, teachers’ translanguaging practices in the actual science
classrooms are efficiency-driven, and such an approach is in a position to improve
interaction and learning experiences.

Activity-Centered Principle
Apart from the two principles mentioned above, there is another one that these EMI
teachers clearly state in their actual practices of pedagogical translanguaging. To put it
simply, teachers will adopt different linguistic and multisemiotic resources according
to the pedagogic activities that they are handling with. As discussed above in optimal
position, different linguistic resources have their own particular values. As a result, the
teachers may employ the most suitable resources according to different classroom
activities so as to fulfill the potentials therein to the largest extent.

Extract 4.2.15
[Rita - 0:7:40]
As for A-Level courses in high school, it depends on what kind of module it is. Actually, the study of
mathematics can be divided into many parts. For example, the teaching of pure mathematics
requires more use of Chinese. When it comes to professional terms, a larger proportion of English
use is preferred.

Extract 4.2.16
[Fiona - 0:0:46]
For example, I will use more English when it comes to terms, concepts, or explanations. But in
terms of giving examples or enlivening the classroom atmosphere, I prefer to use more Chinese,
something like this.

The two aforementioned examples illustrate that teachers have their own rules with
regard to the use of English/Chinese in teaching. Just as Rita mentioned in the interview,
“it depends on what kind of module it is” (extract 4.2.15), there is no one-size-fits-all

56
approach to teaching. To be specific, when teachers are introducing new terminologies,
they are in favor of using English; while talking about homework or enlivening the
atmosphere, they prefer to deliver it in Chinese. Therefore, it can be argued that these
EMI teachers’ translanguaging practices are activity-centered.
To conclude, those EMI teachers do not deny the positive functions of using
English as the medium of instruction. However, they have their own way of teaching
and managing the classes. Some teachers favor an English-only paradigm in teaching,
whereas others consider it merely an ideal. In general, there are three distinct positions
held by the teachers when it comes to translanguaging practices. Virtual position values
the monolingual way of teaching; maximal position is more flexible about using the
non-target languages but with a sense of guilt; optimal position emphasizes a judicious
use of all linguistic resources and is more willing to embrace translanguaging. It is also
worth noting that these three different attitudes are on a “continuum of perspectives”
(Macaro, 2001, 2005, 2009; Wang, 2019), as is shown in Figure 4.2. Although these
teachers differ in perceptions of pedagogical translanguaging, they share similarities in
terms of the teaching principles, which they consider as being comprehension-based,
efficiency-driven and activity-centered.

Figure 4. 2 Continuum of Teachers’ Perspectives on Translanguaging

4.3 Consistency and Divergence Between Practices and

Perceptions
Observational and interview data together have revealed EMI science teachers’
practices and perceptions of pedagogical translanguaging, through which the
consistency and divergence are discovered. To be specific, the pedagogical
translanguaging practices of teachers Zoe and Fiona are in line with their perceptions;
57
while those of Grace and Rita are not consistent with their self-reported beliefs. In
addition, the mediating factors between practices and perceptions are intertwined with
both individual and social backgrounds.

4.3.1 Consistency and Divergence

4.3.1.1 Consistency
Among the four participant teachers, Zoe and Fiona are consistent all along, and
their self-reported beliefs in pedagogical translanguaging can also be traced in their
classroom practices. These two teachers both hold optimal position and believe that
using multilinguistic resources at particular times could enhance students’ learning.
Accordingly, more translanguaging practices can be identified in their classroom
pedagogy.

Zoe’s optimal position & constructing fun with words

In the interviews, the teacher Zoe mainly contends that every linguistic code has
its unique values. Particularly, she believes that languages are culturally embedded so
that one cannot ignore the cultural imprint when employing them. In extracts 4.3.1 and
4.3.2, Zoe clearly states that an exclusive use of English in teaching may fail to involve
and inspire students, which also goes back against the student-centered principle. With
this belief, Zoe is fond of constructing fun through translanguaging in the real
classrooms. For example, she employs her lingual (e.g., intonation change), semiotic
(e.g., drawing), and gestural (e.g., drawing circles in the air) resources together to
enliven the classroom atmosphere (see more in 4.1.5).

Extract 4.3.1
[Zoe - 0:8:24]
Once, I met a math teacher who is genuinely humorous. If he gives the class in English only, however,
it will actually harm the interest of some students; that is, the atmosphere of the whole class will be
reduced a lot. Some students may find it strange to tell a joke in Chinese, or find it difficult to get it.
Then a class of 40 minutes may seem boring.

58
Extract 4.3.2
[Zoe - 0:11:26]
It’s not just about teachers’ jokes, but also about students’ personal knowledge, because they have
a wide imagination. While speaking Chinese, the students sometimes associate with more interesting
things. But when English is used, it doesn’t have the same effect at all... it’s like they have only
learned the language alone, without a deeper understanding of the culture in it, as you mention.

Fiona’s optimal position & bringing the outside in

In the follow-up interviews, the teacher Fiona mentions that she tries to fully
employ students’ whole resources, because languages are means rather than ends in
such science classes. In the extract 4.3.3, Fiona clearly states that bringing the outside
into the classrooms is beneficial to students’ overall learning. On the one hand, the use
of existing knowledge may make it easier for students to understand new knowledge.
On the other hand, this translanguaging approach may also arouse students’ learning
interests in the long run. With this belief, Fiona often gives explicit analogical examples
that are relevant to students’ daily life in her teaching practices. By doing so, Fiona
establishes a bridge between students’ out-of-school experiences and subject content.

Extract 4.3.3
[Fiona - 0:3:16]
For example, if teachers are explaining the principles of a concept that students are not very clear
about, students may find it hard to accept or internalize. But if they are given examples that are
related to their daily life, which they can associate with the concepts they know, it may be better for
them to absorb new knowledge. Students will listen carefully to those examples they are interested
in.

4.3.1.2 Divergence
Grace and Rita are the exceptions, whose pedagogical translanguaging practices
are not in line with their own perceptions. At first, these two teachers were both in the
virtual position because they were both in favor of an exclusive use of English in the
EMI science classrooms. As time went on, however, changes can be noticed in their
pedagogical practices.

59
Grace: making a compromise on her virtual position
Grace is a typical example showing a mismatch between her teaching beliefs and
practices. According to her own accounts, Grace has a firm belief in the English-only
policy. Nevertheless, she also deploys Chinese in her classes. In the follow-up
interviews, she states that she has recognized her own change but still values the
English-only policy from the bottom of her heart, as is demonstrated in the following
extracts. In extract 4.3.4, she clearly expresses her expectation that one day she can turn
back to the monolingual way of teaching. In extract 4.3.5, Grace still stands with the
virtual position by saying “I still hope that my students can use English more in the
classrooms”.

Extract 4.3.4
[Grace - 0:5:40]
Therefore, I have been thinking about this problem. If I lead a new class in the future, I may adjust
my teaching method, which means that I will give more English as input to those children in the
very beginning.

Extract 4.3.5
[Grace - 0:6:45]
That’s right. In fact, I’m for their good, so I create such a language environment for them. I hope
that they can listen more and practice more in this environment. Now the feedback students give to
me is either in English or in Chinese, but I still hope that there can be more English ones. I also
expect that they can go on like this step by step...

Rita: changing from virtual to maximal position with uncertainty

Rita is another typical example showing a huge change in her attitudes towards
pedagogical translanguaging. When she first came to G school, she supported the
virtual position and adopted the English-only teaching approach, as mentioned in
extract 4.3.6. Up to now, however, it seems that Rita fits the maximal position better
and acknowledges that using multilingual resources in teaching is more practical for
facilitating students’ learning and acquisition.

60
Extract 4.3.6
[Rita - 0:2:11]
At first, I thought that I should speak more English to students because they mean to go abroad in
the future. Students, especially those who just graduated from traditional middle schools in China,
hope that they can have more English input and quickly adapt to the international curriculum
environment. This is also the parents’ expectation. In the past few years, I sometimes gave classes
in English only. At that time, those students had studied like this for a few months, and then I found
that it was quite difficult for students... I continued teaching like this for about a semester before I
finally realized the problem. Since then, I’ve changed my teaching methods to the combination of
both Chinese and English.

As a matter of fact, Rita herself is not sure which position she is supposed to have,
and she looks forward to more professional suggestions. From virtual to maximal
position, Rita has shown a varying degree of guilt, which is also one of the features of
holding the maximal position. When being asked in the interviews whether she has any
difficulties in teaching at present, Rita expresses her uncertainty about the actual
pedagogical practices in such an EMI classroom. In the following extract 4.3.7, Rita
further explains her confusion. On the one hand, a mixed use of multilingual resources,
including both English and Chinese, seems to be more practical for beginners at this
stage; on the other hand, using English in a higher proportion may be more constructive
for students’ future studying abroad. Similarly, in extract 4.3.8, Rita says that “I’m
always in such a paradoxical condition”, and “I always have this question in mind”,
which to some extent reveals the divergence between her beliefs and practices.

Extract 4.3.7
[Rita - 0:11:25]
Q: As a teacher, do you have any difficulties in teaching at present?
A: To be honest, I really want to know the results of your research, and hope that you can give us a
clear answer to the question that which proportion of language use is the best. Sometimes, I’m not
really sure... I’m not sure whether, in the long run, the ratio between Chinese and English use will
truly help them in their future study. I’m actually quite confused at this point.

Extract 4.3.8
[Rita - 0:15:6]
I have always been in such a state of contradiction. Until now, I have been teaching for 3 to 4 years,
and based on the students who have already graduated, I think it is difficult to tell whether the
subject of mathematics has any influence on their English learning... It is hard to see whether our

61
math classes really have some good effects on their English learning. I have such confusion whether
increased use of English in science classes really does have a good influence? I’ve always been
bothered by this question.

4.3.2 Mediating Factors of Pedagogical Translanguaging

Through comparing teachers’ perceptions and practices of pedagogical
translanguaging, this research has revealed some contradictions, as demonstrated above.
As a whole, there are three main mediating factors reported in this study that enable or
constrain teachers’ translanguaging practices, as presented in Figure 4.3. More details
on the preliminary results of thematic analysis are included in the Appendices.

Figure 4. 3 Mediating Factors of Pedagogical Translanguaging

4.3.2.1 Social Community

The social community that these EMI teachers belong to has greatly mediated their
pedagogical practices and perceptions. This subsection involves several contextual
factors that are related to the social aspects in a broad sense, and Grace is a typical
example that has been largely influenced. To put it simply, Grace has made a
compromise on her original beliefs (virtual position) in pedagogical translanguaging
due to socially unsupportive conditions.

Parental Expectation
In the interviews, Grace mentions that her good intentions of providing more target
language inputs were not understood by students and she even received complaints
62
from students’ parents. Due to their grades-oriented expectation and misunderstanding,
Grace has to make a compromise to increase the proportion of Chinese use in teaching,
as is shown in the following extracts.

Extract 4.3.9
[Grace - 0:3:0]
I’m doing it for their good, but it was not accepted by them. I feel that my good intentions are all in
vain, because they do not understand, and even there are parents writing complaints directly to the
principal of the school.

Extract 4.3.10
[Grace - 0:4:27]
That’s right. Since then, I have started to increase the use of Chinese in my teaching step by step.

Extract 4.3.11
[Grace - 0:5:6]
If I were to lead a new class, I would never dare to do that again for fear of being complained.

Laissez-Faire Policy of School

Besides, the laissez-faire policy of G school also fails to provide enough supports
for Grace when she was in a dilemma of parents’ expectation and her own preferences
in language use. As mentioned in extract 4.3.12, there is no clear institutional rules that
specify teachers’ language use in G school. Generally speaking, much freedom is given
to teachers themselves when choosing the way of instruction. The school board, instead,
values students’ performance and achievements more. This point has also been
corroborated in the interviews with other teachers, who have all mentioned the exam-
oriented culture in G school. For example, in extract 4.3.13, the teacher expresses her
confusion and disappointment towards such an outcome-oriented instruction.

Extract 4.3.12
[Grace - 0:4:2]
Yeah, and then I talked about it with the principal of our school, and what he said was that he
doesn’t really care what language teachers use in teaching, as long as they can get the knowledge
across to the students.

63
Extract 4.3.13
[Fiona - 0:26:12]
I don’t know about other schools, but I think A-level curriculum as a whole tends to be exam-
oriented. The contents of it are much easier than those of the college entrance examination in China,
so nearly 70% to 80% of parents are willing to send their children here, actually out of a more
utilitarian purpose. Parents care more about grades... I don’t know whether this is the whole picture,
the pursuit of efficiency and results is more important than the process. I feel sad, and sometimes I
think it’s not supposed to be like this.

Teaching Faculty
Moreover, some of the teachers also mention that only a small number of teachers
in G school are adopting the English-only principle in teaching. In such a circumstance,
Grace argues that maybe she should also employ a mixed use of multilingual resources
in order to avoid being too abrupt and antipathetic for students to get accustomed to
(extract 4.3.14).

Extract 4.3.14
[Grace - 0:0:59]
First of all, this is the situation today, that there are only a few English teachers and Chinese
teachers in the school. As for teachers of science subjects, they tend to teach in Chinese. So, when
I teach in English only, students may feel that I’m estranged and awkward.

To conclude, owing to factors such as the linguistic environment in school, exam-

oriented culture, combined with the pressure coming from stakeholders, Grace finally
agreed to adjust her language uses in teaching, even though they are sometimes
contradictory to her own beliefs. As a consequence, the inconformity Grace
demonstrates between her attitudes towards pedagogical translanguaging and actual
practices is largely attributed to the unsupportive social community she is in.

4.3.2.2 Characteristics of Students

One of the salient themes that emerge from data analysis pertaining to the
application of pedagogical translanguaging is students’ characteristics, since teaching
is not a teacher’s monologue but is rather situated in a student-centered interactive
process. Consequently, students’ personalities, linguistic proficiency, learning styles

64
and needs all together will influence the way pedagogical translanguaging is
constructed and enacted. Changing from virtual position to maximal position, Rita is a
typical example influenced by this factor.

Linguistic Proficiency
According to these EMI teachers, their pedagogical practices will change according
to students’ proficiency level of the target language (English mainly). Once they find
that students have difficulty understanding and acquiring new knowledge in English,
teachers will make adjustments accordingly (e.g., extract 4.3.15 and extract 4.3.16).
This also conforms to their comprehension-based teaching principle (see more in 4.2.2).

Extract 4.3.15
[Rita - 0:3:35]
Yeah, it depends on the students. Sometimes if there are some international students in my class, I
will increase the use of English. Basically, it depends on the background of students.

Extract 4.3.16
[Rita - 0:6:31]
At present, I will look at the reaction of the students. If the majority of them have good command of
English and feel ok to follow at the beginning, I will keep a high English input. If they look stressful
and find it difficult to understand what they just learned, I will reduce the proportion.

Personalities and Learning Styles

The teacher Rita is now in charge of two groups of students. When being asked
whether there is any difference in her teaching between the two, Rita gives the
following answers. In extract 4.3.17, Rita highlights the role of students’ personalities
in determining the way of teachers’ use of pedagogical resources. For instance, when
facing students that are introverted and quiet, she will guide them to employ more
semiotic resources instead of linguistic ones; while facing learners that are outgoing
and highly active, she prefers to “bring the outside in” through translanguaging.
Likewise, in extract 4.3.18, teacher Fiona also mentions the significance of taking
students’ learning styles into consideration.

65
Extract 4.3.17
[Rita - 0:17:51]
Q: What about the performance of the students in these two groups?
A: One is slightly better. They do well in mathematics, and are more active. Besides, there is an
international student in their class, which makes them more receptive. By contrast, another group
is not so good, but not all of them. This group is quieter and more introverted, and students in it are
more willing to solve math problems spontaneously. They are self-driven in study, speaking less but
doing more. So I may do more but talk less in the second group while giving more jokes or something
in the first one.

Extract 4.3.18
[Fiona - 0:16:12]
Sometimes not only the students’ proficiency, but also their characteristics may influence what the
class is like. For example, some classes are more active and outgoing, which makes them more
inclusive... So maybe it’s not just about their performance, but also their styles.

To conclude, the characteristics of students will determine how pedagogical

translanguaging will be negotiated and applied in the EMI classrooms. Due to factors
such as students’ linguistic proficiency, personalities and learning styles, Rita’s
attitudes towards pedagogical translanguaging gradually change from the original
virtual position to maximal position, even though she still expresses a certain degree of
uncertainty.

4.3.2.3 Educational Backgrounds of Teachers

When further explaining the reasons for the differences in those EMI science
teachers’ practices and perceptions of pedagogical translanguaging, this study refers to
their educational backgrounds. Moll, Amanti, Neff, and Gonzalez (1992) use the term
funds of knowledge to conceptualize the accumulated knowledge teachers have in the
design of teaching materials. According to them, each individual possesses his own
bodies of knowledge and abilities that have been “historically accumulated and
culturally developed” (Moll, et al., 1992, p. 133). In this sense, teachers of different
educational backgrounds are speculated and expected to display different teaching
approaches in the EMI classrooms. Grace and Rita, for instance, with years of studying
abroad, possess funds of knowledge that are different from those who do not have
oversea experiences (Zoe and Fiona, for example).

66
 Grace and Zoe, two female teachers teaching the same subject (chemistry) but of
different educational backgrounds, have demonstrated totally different attitudes and
practices of pedagogical translanguaging in their classes. Grace, who has obtained both
the Bachelor and Master degree in the UK, stands with the virtual position and explicitly
expresses her difficulty in teaching chemistry in Chinese exclusively. In extract 4.3.19,
she mentions that due to her own learning experiences as an A-Level student, she is
accustomed to the English-only approach and is not able to only use Chinese for
teaching. In extract 4.3.20, Grace shared her stories with students who asked questions
that were beyond her funds of knowledge in the past. In order to avoid embarrassment
and maintain her authority as a teacher, Grace chose to do extra preparation for the
Chinese expression of technical terms.

Extract 4.3.19
[Grace - 0:8:47]
That’s right, because I myself once studied under the A-Level curriculum, so I am quite used to
learning in such a mode. We do have teachers who give lessons in Chinese only, but I may not get
used to teaching in this way. To be honest, sometimes I really don’t know the Chinese version of
some technical terms... Therefore, it would be very difficult for me to give a class in Chinese only. I
would not be able to do it.

Extract 4.3.20
[Grace - 0:9:59]
But some students will just ask you what the corresponding Chinese translation is, which forces me
to do extra preparation before the class. I might go to Baidu or Youdao dictionary to look up what
the Chinese meanings are. You see today, for example, I wrote the substituent on the blackboard,
which I would never do before. Because I have been asked by the students many times and unable
to give a direct response, which made me embarrassed.

By contrast, Zoe, who has obtained her bachelor’s degree in a Chinese university
and has no overseas studying experience, belongs to the optimal position and expresses
her recognition of educational backgrounds as the mediating factor of teachers’ funds
of knowledge. In extract 4.3.21, Zoe thinks that the English-only way of teaching
chemistry is time-consuming and inefficient for teachers like her. Besides, she also
holds the view that teachers who have studied overseas can easily handle such an
English-only class (extract 4.3.22). In summary, due to different educational

67
experiences, Grace and Zoe have constructed different funds of knowledge, which
further leads to their differences in lesson planning and opinions about pedagogical
translanguaging.

Extract 4.3.21
[Zoe - 0:19:21]
For example, there is a huge difference in the amount of time needed to prepare a lesson in English
only and in languages combined. Because teachers like us have to cover many knowledge parts a
semester, anyway, which is equivalent to a whole book. Then, I actually have to catch up with the
course progress. If I use English only all the time, of course, it may be my own problem, though
some teachers can do it, I cannot keep up with the teaching flow.

Extract 4.3.22
[Zoe - 0:20:14]
The kinds of teachers in international schools also vary a lot. Some went abroad to study when they
were young, so English is just like their mother tongue, which enables them to offer English input
quickly and accurately. I think there is no problems with teachers of this kind. However, teachers
like me who studied at home may find it stressful. As for me, I majored in chemistry not English, so
I have to make sure the teaching preparation and course progress will not be affected.

To conclude, when it comes to teachers’ practices of pedagogical translanguaging,

five features have been identified which are conducted mainly for two purposes:
deepening students’ understanding of new knowledge and enlivening the classroom
atmosphere. When it comes to teachers’ perceptions of pedagogical translanguaging,
there are three distinct positions. It is worth noting that although the different attitudes
held by teachers are on a continuum, they are not clear bounded entities. Although these
teachers differ in beliefs, they still share similarities in teaching principles. Moreover,
the consistency and divergence of EMI science teachers’ practices and perceptions are
identified, which also sheds light upon the influencing factors. In the next chapter, the
major research findings will be restated, and a group of previous studies will be referred
to so as to support the main claims of the present study.

68
 Chapter Five Discussion
With the purpose of exploring when, how, and why EMI science teachers establish
a translanguaging space in the classroom for pedagogic goals, this study investigates
the features of teachers’ pedagogical practices as well as their own attitudes through
classroom observation and interviews. This chapter offers an analysis of the major
results and relates the findings to theoretical and practical issues mentioned in previous
studies.

5.1 Features of Teachers’ Pedagogical Translanguaging

In response to the first research question, the sequential analysis of the classroom
observation has demonstrated that there are five strategies through which teachers
construct a translanguaging space for facilitating subject-specific learning and
promoting meaningful interactions. To be specific, translanguaging shifts enable both
teachers and students to build bridges among various meaning-making resources at
hand. In extract 4.1.1, the teacher Grace added an explanation about the technical terms
in Chinese, which started as spontaneous but with a pedagogical value. This finding
thus supports García and Li’s (2014) argument that education can build up a
translanguaging space in which teachers and students can “go between and beyond
socially constructed languages” to engage diverse meaning-making systems (p. 3).
Likewise, the strategy of using whole meaning-making repertoire also emphasizes the
significance of individuals’ multilingual and multisemiotic resources. These two
features above demonstrate how languages, from a translanguaging lens, should be used
in order to fulfill their potential. As is shown by the analysis, translanguaging as a
pedagogy can break through from the monolingual solitudes in language education,
which enables the dynamic activity flows in EMI classrooms (Lin & He, 2017).
In addition, the strategy of bringing the outside in further illustrates how to build
the translanguaging space, which incorporates the societal, the individual and the
psychological dimensions (Li, 2018). This feature was also observed in Tai and Li’s
(2020a) participants who recognize the value beyond the classroom contexts and

69
believe that integrating real-life knowledge through translanguaging can potentially
advance students’ learning (p. 30). As a consequence, it can be said that bringing the
outside in manages to develop individuals’ “multiliteracy” (Li, 2018), which centers on
the ability to integrate various meaning-making resources for the preparation of
subsequent creative and critical performance. Similar findings were also found in
previous studies, which conclude that the EMI classroom can be transformed into “a
lived experience” (Tai & Li, 2020a), where “connected learnings” are used to make
academic knowledge more relatable and free students from the isolating experience of
school learning (Teo, 2008).
From a translanguaging lens, language teaching and learning, by the very nature,
is a rich source of creativity and criticality. Such a predisposition to adopt available
semiotic resources to facilitate communication therefore attested to Li’s (2018) notion
of translanguaging instinct. Under the drive of translanguaging instinct, the teachers
construct fun with words to perform pedagogical practices creatively and critically. This
finding also aligns with García and Li’s (2014) argument that translanguaging can
create “new configurations of language practices” (p. 3). Such an instinct, as shown by
Zoe’s case, is an important component of teachers’ competence and can act as the
driving force for their improvisation (e.g., constructs fun to give feedback). By doing
so, the teachers not only managed to make lessons more engaging, but also aimed for a
better cognitive understanding from the students’ parts. As is evidenced, “playful talk”
can be utilized to lower students’ affective filter in EMI classrooms (Tai & Li, 2020b).
Another empirical support is also provided by Waring (2013), who argues that language
play can be used for “venturing out of the asymmetrical teacher-student roles” and
benefit the overall learning atmosphere (p. 207).
It is vital to note that each type of strategies emerging from this study has
illuminated the critical and creative aspects of pedagogical translanguaging. The
dynamic activities that transcend the boundaries separating named languages, language
varieties, and other semiotic systems are thus emphasized. Hopefully, the research
findings in the current study can, more or less, help form a supportive and interlocking
teaching matrix of these complex dynamic performances, which may in return further
70
guide in-service educators, especially EMI teachers, to perform well-planned and well-
received classroom practices. In this way chances are that we go beyond the awareness-
raising issue to the realization that individuals can better employ translanguaging as a
valuable pedagogy for classroom instruction.

5.2 Teacher Perceptions of Pedagogical Translanguaging

With regard to the second research question, different perceptions held by EMI
teachers concerning pedagogical translanguaging emerged from the analysis of
interview data. In the present study, those EMI teachers present a “continuum of
perspectives” on pedagogical translanguaging, as one extreme of the continuum
represents a pro-translanguaging attitude (optimal position), while another extreme
shows a pro-monolingual way of teaching (virtual position).
It is worth mentioning that the optimal position is the one most likely to help
teachers perform pedagogical translanguaging in the classroom. As seen in the analysis,
under the translanguaging instinct, both the teachers Fiona and Zoe bring their whole
repertoire into one coordinated and meaningful performance to enhance students’
learning. The finding also aligns with the existing literature that highlights teachers’
positive attitudes towards pedagogical translanguaging, through which they may
establish an environment where students are allowed and encouraged to “play with
languages” and “bring into the classroom the hybrid language practices that they were
experiencing” (Axelrod, 2017, p. 109).
Another interesting finding is that this study also identifies a mismatch between
teachers’ perceptions and practices (teachers Grace and Rita). Unlike Rita, Grace still
firmly believed that the English-only policy is the one that prepares students’ future
oversea studying. By contrast, Rita expressed her uncertainty about the actual
pedagogical practices in EMI classrooms: how and to what extent translanguaging can
actually scaffold students’ learning and acquisition of academic contents. Mixed
attitudes of such kind are also noticed in previous studies (e.g., Al-Bataineh &
Gallagher, 2018; Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2016), which argue that such paradoxical

71
attitudes towards translanguaging were largely attributed to the failure of differentiating
translanguaging and other bilingual practices. This failure, which may go unnoticed or
even develop as reluctance by teacher educators (as shown in the case of Grace), could
pose challenges to the full implementation of pedagogical translanguaging.
Findings of such kind are informative as they reveal the importance of fostering
the translanguaging instinct. This point was also highlighted in the study of Mbirimi-
Hungwe (2019), who argues that efforts should be made in order to familiarize teachers
with the idea of pedagogical translanguaging, through which they may become “central
agents” at a micro-level in teaching (p. 23). More importantly, blind confidence and
trust in pedagogical translanguaging only is by no means enough to bring it into reality.
As is argued, a positive view on translanguaging does not necessarily translate into
rigorous learner-centered teaching practices (Prilutskaya, 2021). Consequently, more
professional trainings for unprepared lecturers are needed to develop their capability of
doing translanguaging as a pedagogy. This viewpoint is also underpinned by Kao
(2022), who highlights the need to train teachers to conduct “strategic and dynamic”
use of translanguaging in their instruction (p. 19). By doing so, chances are that teachers
can enhance the translanguaging instinct and go beyond culturally defined language
boundaries to achieve effective communication and make content-specific knowledge
accessible to all students.

5.3 Mediating Factors of Pedagogical Translanguaging

In response to the third research question, the analysis of interview data has shed
light upon the possible mediating factors that enable or constrain teachers’
translanguaging practices: social community, characteristics of students, and
educational backgrounds of teachers. In general, such a qualitative design helps to
reveal the complexity of contexts, experiences, and behaviors among the particular
individuals. As is described, the act of translanguaging creates a social space for
language users to bring together different dimensions and make it a lived experience
(Li, 2018). In other words, when languages are brought into the translanguaging space,

72
this ever-evolving space gathers together multifaceted dimensions: personal history,
environment, attitudes, and beliefs, and generates new identities and practices.
Efforts should be made so as to provide a socially supportive space for EMI science
teachers to exercise autonomy in language use, which, as argued by Tao and Gao (2022),
may thus help “neutralize the negative impact of contextual constraints on their
professional practices” (p. 37). Specifically, the spreading exam-oriented culture is
further evidence of the unsupportive social community noted in G school. Teachers
such as Zoe and Fiona mentioned in their interviews that the exam-oriented culture and
ideologies at the level of school authorities have largely influenced the way
translanguaging is constructed and enacted. Such pressure from institutional and
contextual factors was also identified in previous studies, which was believed to
constrain teachers’ performance (Lin & Lo, 2017) and discourage the use of
translanguaging pedagogy (Yuvayapan, 2019).
Additionally, the concern most expressed in this study is teachers’ capability of
truly applying translanguaging as a pedagogy. In the current study, different EMI
teachers demonstrate varied pedagogical practices and perceptions, and some of their
attitudes even contradict the ideology of translanguaging. Behind such contradiction lie
the educational backgrounds of teachers, as individuals may draw on different funds of
knowledge to generate new configurations of language (Tai & Li, 2020a). For instance,
every translanguaging strategy those teachers employ is built upon their own prior
knowledge which are historically and culturally developed. This point was also
mentioned in research like that of Galante (2020) and Macaro, et al. (2018), which
conclude that teachers’ lack of preparation for and familiarity with translanguaging
pedagogy may pose challenges to the overall teaching and learning. Consequently, EMI
teachers need more purposeful and systematic trainings on pedagogical translanguaging
at a macro level. Just as Liu (2020) argues, pedagogical translanguaging can not only
be a naturally-occurring process, but also as “planned systematic scaffolding” that
engages both teachers and students in the dynamic flows of multilingual and
multimodal interactions (p. 169). Only when teachers’ funds of knowledge are prepared
for establishing a translanguaging space, can they be capable of fulfilling the greatest
73
potential of translanguaging instinct. Such a top-down change, along with the bottom-
up awareness-raising agenda mentioned above, is necessary for EMI science teachers
to regulate and refigure those mediating factors actively.

74
 Chapter Six Conclusion
This study presents the translanguaging classroom practices of four science
teachers in the Chinese mainland, demonstrating their strategic use of full linguistic
repertoire and varied attitudes. It also highlights the significant effects of some
mediating factors. By adopting a qualitative design, this study has made it possible to
see the promoting effects pedagogical translanguaging may serve and to disclose the
specific strategies of applying translanguaging as a practical pedagogy in the
secondary-level classrooms. This chapter summarizes the major findings and
implications of the current study. Then, research limitations are acknowledged, with
suggestions for future research being listed in the end.

6.1 Major Findings

Admit it or not, those EMI science teachers have employed pedagogical
translanguaging in various forms strategically, mainly for the purpose of deepening
knowledge comprehension or enlivening classroom atmosphere. Basically, five types
of translanguaging practices are identified, each illuminating teachers’ critical and
creative use of full linguistic repertoire. Translanguaging shifts has been employed to
make strategic shifts between different linguistic resources; bringing the outside in
manages to practicalize abstract new knowledge in relation to students’ life reality;
using whole meaning-making repertoire means applying different languages as the
scaffold; enhancing metalinguistic awareness helps students focus on specific aspects
of languages, while constructing fun with words centers on the entertaining function of
linguistic resources.
Despite the fact that some teachers never thought about the concept of
“translanguaging”, they still hold distinct attitudes towards pedagogical
translanguaging. Virtual position values the monolingual way of teaching; maximal
position is more flexible about using the non-target languages but with a sense of guilt;
optimal position emphasizes a judicious use of all linguistic resources and is more
willing to embrace translanguaging. Although these three perceptions are on a

75
“continuum of perspectives”, a shared sense of uncertainty about what is the “right
thing” to do somehow impedes those teachers’ teaching efficacy.
In addition, the mismatch between teachers’ beliefs and practices of pedagogical
translanguaging sheds light upon the influencing factors intertwined with both
individual and social backgrounds. This divergence also reveals the unsupportive social
community those teachers are in. Through a translanguaging lens, we are able to better
understand when, how and why EMI teachers establish a translanguaging space in
which classroom participants utilize their multilingual, multimodal, and multisensory
resources to negotiate subject-specific knowledge.

6.2 Implications of the Study

Both theoretical and practical implications have been derived from the present
study. First, theoretically, this study depicts a whole picture of how EMI teachers adopt
translanguaging practices with varied attitudes in order to embrace diverse resources
available in the classroom to make subject-specific knowledge accessible to all students.
As the importance of translanguaging is recognized, scholars have been recommending
teachers to incorporate translanguaging more often as a practical pedagogy in the EMI
classrooms (e.g., Li, 2018; Lin, 2018). The analysis of the present study, accordingly,
has identified and conceptualized the possible translanguaging strategies in different
situations, making it visible and actionable for teachers to actually put it into practice
in the future. Teachers, as “reflective practitioners and professional decision-makers”,
should be encouraged to develop localized strategies to maximize students’ learning
(McMillan & Rivers, 2011, p. 259).
Second, methodologically, this study highlights how adopting translanguaging as
the analytical lens may help us better understand it as a practical pedagogy that
overturns the monolingual ideology and responds to diverse learning needs in the EMI
classrooms. As is argued by Li (2018), translanguaging should not merely be a
descriptive label, but also “a new transdisciplinary research perspective” that
interrogates the traditional divides between meaning-making resources (p. 27). In this

76
way, translanguaging offers an emic insight into the critical and creative aspects of
individuals’ practices that bring together one’s social and cultural backgrounds into a
coordinated whole, which further augments our knowledge of the added value of
translanguaging in the 21st century.
Third, practically, this study calls for attention to the offering of professional
guidance and establishing of socially-supportive environment for EMI teachers like
those at G school. The findings of the present study send a clear message that
pedagogical translanguaging can be a valuable classroom practice, yet most EMI
teachers are unprepared for this paradigm shift. As is argued by García and Li (2014),
applying translanguaging requires metacognition and deeper thinking skills. Yuan and
Yang’s (2020) study also concurred this point by noting that not all teachers have the
sensitivity towards translanguaging, so collective exploration with language specialists
is of vital significance (p. 15). Since there is no top-down policy promoting the
application of translanguaging as a pedagogy, more supports from the school-level are
necessary for the maintenance of individuals’ translanguaging instincts. By doing so
chances are that those teachers become more capable of actively shifting their
translanguaging stances instead of merely taking it as an after-thought.

6.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Still, limitations should be acknowledged when discussing the contributions of this
research. For one thing, there are methodological limitations. Sometimes, blind spots
appeared in the videotaping as the teachers moved out of the camera or were covered
by the back of students, while the researcher tried best to note down the actual
happening with the assistance of field notes. For another, this study is restricted to four
female EMI science teachers from an international high school in the Chinese mainland.
Thus, the results above can only represent situations at G school instead of being one-
size-fits-all strategies as generalizable across universal contexts. Besides, though these
four participants are all EMI science teachers teaching the same grade at the same
school, there may be other variables (e.g., gender) out of consideration that can

77
potentially shape teachers’ translanguaging behaviors and attitudes. It should be further
noted that although this study has framed pedagogical translanguaging in a positive
light, the results are not the only but seemingly the more feasible interpretation from
the perspective of this study, and there may be new possibilities being adduced.
Although limited by the number of participants, the current study still contributes
to the literature on pedagogical translanguaging and EMI teaching in China, as
practitioners in diverse classrooms can benefit from the current research and implement
translanguaging according to their own professional contexts. More empirical studies
with a larger sample size and more data concerning the actual teaching and learning
outcomes would be needed, so as to further buttress those findings and arguments in
this study. Besides, future research examining how exactly those mediating factors
interact with each other will also be informative to develop pedagogical
translanguaging beyond a mere fantasy in China.

78
 References
Airey, J. (2016). CLIL and EAP (Content and Language Integrated Learning and
English for Academic Purposes). In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), Routledge
Handbook of English for Academic Purposes (pp. 71-83), Abingdon: Routledge.
Al-Bataineh, A., & Gallagher, K. (2018). Attitudes towards translanguaging: how
future teachers perceive the meshing of Arabic and English in Children’s
storybooks. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
24(3), 386-400.
Arcand, J., & Grin, F. (2013). Language in Economic Development: Is English Special
and is Linguistic Fragmentation Bad? In E. Erling & P. Seargeant (Eds.), English
and Development: Policy, Pedagogy and Globalization (pp. 243-266). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Axelrod, Y. (2017). “Ganchulinas” and “Rainbowli” Colors: Young Multilingual
Children Play with Language in Head Start Classroom. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 45, 103-110.
Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (3rd Edition).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (5th Edition).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
British Council. (2013). British Council Regional Policy Dialogue 2: The Role of
English in Higher Education: Issues, Policy and Practice. Online:
https://www.britishcouncil.org.br/sites/default/files/regionalpolicydialogue_emi
.pdf
Brouwer, C. E., & Wagner, J. (2004). Developmental issues in second language
conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 29-47.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the Classroom: Emerging Issues for
Research and Pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 1-28.

79
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017). Minority languages and sustainable translanguaging:
treat or opportunity? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
38(10), 901-912.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2020). Pedagogical translanguaging: An introduction. System,
92(3). doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102269
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2022). Pedagogical Translanguaging (Elements in Language
Teaching). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, X. M. [陈向明], (2001), 《教师如何作质的研究》 [How Teachers Do
Qualitative Research]. 北京: 教育科学出版社.
Cook, G. (2000). Language Play, Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 57(3), 402-423.
Cook, V. (2012). Multicompetence. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of
Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Costley, T., & Leung, C. (2020). Putting translanguaging into practice: A view from
England. System, 92, 1-13.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A
pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(i), 103-
115.
Creswell, J. (2002). Research Design: Qualitative Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (2nd Edition). SAGE publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Approaches (2nd ed.). SAGE publications, Inc.
Creswell, J., & Miller, D. (2000). Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry. Theory
Into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/Academic Language Proficiency, Linguistic
Interdependence, the Optimum Age Question and Some Other Matters. Working
Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121-129.
Dearden, J. (2015). English as medium of instruction —a growing global phenomenon.
London: British Council.
80
Dearden, J., & Macaro, E. (2016). Higher education teachers’ attitudes towards English
medium instruction: A three-country comparison. Studies in Second Language
Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 455-486.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practices of
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Handbook of
Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2016). Teachers’ Beliefs about Translanguaging
Practices. In C. Mazak & K. Carroll (Eds.), Translanguaging in Higher
Education: Beyond Monolingual Ideologies (pp. 157-176). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative
and Mixed Methodologies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Duff, P. (2007). Case Study Research in Applied Linguistics. New York: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Evans, S. (2009). The medium of instruction in Hong Kong revisited: Policy and
practice in the reformed Chinese and English streams. Research Papers in
Education, 24(3), 287-309.
Evans, S., & Morrison, B. (2011). Meeting the challenges of English-medium higher
education: The first-year experience in Hong Kong. English for Specific
Purposes, 30(3), 198-208.
Fallas-Escobar, C. (2020). EFL Instructors’ Ambivalent Ideological Stances Toward
Translanguaging: Collaborative Reflection on Language Ideologies. In Z. Tian,
L. Aghai, P. Sayer & J. L. Schissel (Eds.), Envisioning TESOL through a
Translanguaging Lens (pp. 329-344). Cham: Springer.
Feng, A. (2009). English in China: Convergence and divergence in policy and practice.
AILA Review, 22(1), 85-102.
Ford, C. (2012). Clarity in applied and interdisciplinary conversation analysis.
Discourse Studies, 14(4), 507-513.

81
Galante, A. (2020). Pedagogical translanguaging in a multilingual English program in
Canada: Student and teacher perspectives of challenges. System, 92,
doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102274
Gao, X. (2008). Shifting motivational discourses amongst mainland Chinese students
in an English medium tertiary institution in Hong Kong: A longitudinal inquiry.
Studies in Higher Education, 33(5), 599-614.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective.
Malden, Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell.
García, O. (2011). Educating New York’s bilingual children: Constructing a future
from the past. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
14(2), 133-153.
García, O. (2017). Translanguaging in Schools: Subiendo y Bajando, Bajando y
Subiendo as Afterword. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 256-
263.
García, O., Johnson, S. I., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The Translanguaging Classroom.
Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
García, O., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2017). Translanguaging in Bilingual Education. In O.
García, A. M. Y. Lin & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and Multilingual Education,
Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 117-130). Cham: Springer.
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2007). Data elicitation for second and foreign language
research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Han, Y. M. [韩艳梅], (2020), 跨言用研究的理论、实践与启示, 《西安外国语大学
学报》, (02), 26-32.
He, P., Lai, H., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Translanguaging in a Multimodal Mathematics
Presentation. In C. M. Mazak & K. S. Carroll (Eds.), Translanguaging in Higher
Education: Beyond Monolingual Ideologies (pp. 91-120). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.

82
Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2002). Analyzing interaction: Video, ethnography and
situated conduct. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative Research in Practice (pp. 99-121).
London: SAGE publications.
Hu, G., & Lei, J. (2014). English-medium instruction in Chinese higher education: A
case study. Higher Education, 67(5), 551-567.
Hu, G., Li, L., & Lei, J. (2014). English-medium instruction at a Chinese University:
Rhetoric and reality. Lang Policy, 13(1), 21-40.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction. In G. Lerner
(Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 14-31).
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kao, Yu-Ting. (2022). Exploring translanguaging in Taiwanese CLIL classes: an
analysis of teachers’ perceptions and practices. Language, Culture and
Curriculum. doi:10.1080/07908318.2022.2033762
Kramsch, C. (2015). Applied linguistics: A theory of the practice. Applied Linguistics,
36(4), 454-465.
Lemke, J., & Lin, A. (2022). Translanguaging and Flow: Towards an alternative
conceptual model. Educational Linguistics, 1(1). doi:10.1515/nmr-2022-0001
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012a). Translanguaging: Origins and development
from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7),
641-654.
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012b). Translanguaging: Developing its
conceptualization and contextualization. Educational Research and Evaluation,
18(7), 655-670.
Li, W. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of
identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43,
1222-1235.
Li, W. (2016). New Chinglish and the Post-Multilingualism Challenge:
Translanguaging ELF in China. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 5(1), 1-
25.

83
Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a Practical Theory of Language. Applied linguistics,
39(1), 9-30.
Li, W., & Shen, Q. [李嵬、沈骑], (2021), 超语实践理论的起源、发展与展望
[Translanguaging: Origins, Developments, and Future Directions], 《外国语》
(上海外国语大学学报), (04), 2-14.
Lin, A. M. Y. (2018). Theories of trans/languaging and trans-semiotizing: Implications
for content-based education classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 22(1), 5-16.
Lin, A. M. Y., & He, P. (2017). Translanguaging as Dynamic Activity Flows in CLIL
Classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 228-244.
Lin, A. M. Y., & Lo, Y. Y. (2017). Trans/languaging and the triadic dialogue in content
and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Language and Education,
31(1), 26-45.
Lin, A. M. Y., & Wu, Y. (2015). ‘May I speak Cantonese?’-Co-constructing a scientific
proof in an EFL junior secondary science classroom. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 289-305.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Liu, Y. (2020). Translanguaging and trans-semiotizing as planned systematic
scaffolding: examining feeling-meaning in CLIL classrooms. English Teaching
& Learning, 44(2), 149-173.
Lo, Y. Y., & Macaro, E. (2012). The medium of instruction and classroom interaction:
evidence from Hong Kong secondary schools. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 15(1), 29-52.
Lune, H., & Berg, B. (2012). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences.
Essex: Pearson.
Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language
classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal,
85(4), 531-548.
Macaro, E. (2005). Codeswitching in the L2 Classroom: A Communication and
Learning Strategy. In E. Llurda (Ed), Non-Native Language Teachers:
84
 Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession (pp. 63-84). New
York: Springer.
Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom:
Exploring “optimal” use. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First
Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning (pp. 35-49). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of
English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36-
76.
Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2012). Disinventing multilingualism: From monological
multilingualism to multilingua francas. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge & A.
Creese (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism (pp. 439-453). New
York, NY: Routledge.
May, S. (2014). The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual
Education. New York: Routledge.
Mbirimi-Hungwe, V. (2019). Stepping beyond linguistic boundaries in multilingual
science education: Lecturer’s perceptions of the use of translanguaging. Southern
African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 37(1), 15-26.
McMillan, B., & Rivers, D. (2011). The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward
“English only”. System, 39(2), 251-263.
Ministry of Education. (2005). Guidelines for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate
Teaching. Online:
http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A08/s7056/200501/t20050107_80315.html
Ministry of Education. (2011). English Curriculum Standards for Compulsory
Education. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press. [In Chinese.] Online:
http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/s8001/201112/t20111228_167340.html
Ministry of Education. (2017). English Curriculum Standards for Senior High Schools.
Beijing: Ministry of Education. [In Chinese.] Online:
http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/s8001/202006/t20200603_462199.html

85
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of Knowledge for
Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms.
Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction:
Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 51(1), 85-106.
Nambisan, K. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards and uses of translanguaging in
English language classrooms in Iowa. (Unpublished master thesis), Iowa State
University, Iowa, the USA.
Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2019). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 237-249.
Palmer, D., Martínez, R., Mateus, S., & Henderson, K. (2014). Reframing the debate
on Language Separation: Toward a Vision for Translanguaging Pedagogies in
the Dual Language Classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 757-772.
Phakiti, A. (2014). Experimental Research Methods in Language Learning. London:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York:
Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
Prilutskaya, M. (2021). Examining Pedagogical Translanguaging: A Systematic
Review of the Literature. Language, 6(4), 180.
Pun, J. K. H., & Tai, K. W. H. (2021). Doing science through translanguaging: a study
of translanguaging practices in secondary English as a medium of instruction
science laboratory sessions. International Journal of Science Education, 43(7),
1112-1139.
Qin, Y. L., & Wang, P. [秦永丽、王平], (2021), 国际超语研究动态与发展趋势预
判, 《外语界》, (02), 81-89.
Raja, F., Suparno, S., & Ngadiso, N. (2022). Teachers’ attitudes towards
translanguaging practice and its implication in Indonesian EFL classroom.
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 567-576.

86
Rampton, B. (2006). Language in Late Modernity: Interaction in an urban school.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sah, P. (2020). English medium instruction in South Asian's multilingual schools:
Unpacking the dynamics of ideological orientations, policy/practices, and
democratic questions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism. doi:10.1080/13670050.2020.1718591
Sah, P., & Li, G. (2018). English Medium Instruction (EMI) as Linguistic Capital in
Nepal: Promises and Realities. International Multilingual Research Journal,
12(2), 109-123.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, Agency and Collaboration in Advanced Second
Language Proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The
Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). London: Continuum.
Taguchi, N. (2014). English-medium instruction in the global society. International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(2), 89-98.
Tai, K. (2021). Translanguaging as Inclusive Pedagogical Practices in English-Medium
Instruction Science and Mathematics Classrooms for Linguistically and
Culturally Diverse Students. Research in Science Education, 52, 975-1012.
Tai, K. W. H., & Li, W. (2020a). Bringing the outside in: Connecting students’ out-of-
school knowledge and experience through translanguaging in Hong Kong
English medium instruction mathematics classes. System, 95, 1-32.
Tai, K. W. H., & Li, W. (2020b). Constructing Playful Talk through Translanguaging
in the English Medium Instruction Mathematics Classrooms. Applied Linguistics,
42(4), 607-640.
Tai, K. W. H., & Li, W. (2021). Co-Learning in Hong Kong English medium instruction
mathematics secondary classrooms: a translanguaging perspective. Language
and Education, 35(3), 241-267.

87
Tao, J., & Gao, X. (2021). Language Teacher Agency (Elements in Language
Teaching). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Have, P. ten. (1990). Methodological issues in conversation analysis. Bulletin of
Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 27(1), 23-51.
Teo, P. (2008). Outside In/Inside Out: Bridging the Gap in Literacy Education in
Singapore Classrooms. Language and Education, 22(6), 411-431.
Tollefson, J., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2014). Language Diversity and Language Policy in
Educational Access and Equity. Review of Research in Education, 38(1), 189-
214.
Tsui, A. (2008). Classroom Discourse: Approaches and Perspectives. In J. Cenoz & N.
Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 261-272).
Boston: Springer.
Van Lier, L. (1988). The Classroom and the Language Learner. New York: Longman.
Walkinshaw, I., Fenton-Smith, B., & Humphreys, P. (2017). EMI Issues and
Challenges in Asia-Pacific Higher Education: An Introduction. In B. Fenton-
Smith, P. Humphries & I. Walkinshaw (Eds.), English Medium Instruction in
Higher Education in Asia-Pacific: From policy to Pedagogy (pp. 1-18). Cham:
Springer.
Wang, D. P. (2019). Multilingualism and Translanguaging in Chinese Language
Classrooms. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wang, D. P., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2012). Code choice in the Chinese as a foreign
language classroom. Multilingualism Education, 2(3), 1-18.
Waring, H. Z. (2013). Doing Being Playful in the Second Language Classroom. Applied
linguistics, 34(2), 191-210.
Wen, Q. F. (2001). Applied Linguistics: Research Methods and Thesis Writing. Beijing:
Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
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.
88
Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Yuan, R. & Yang, M. (2020). Towards an understanding of translanguaging in EMI
teacher education classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 1-23.
Yuvayapan, F. (2019). Translanguaging in EFL classrooms: Teachers’ perceptions and
practices. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 678-694.
Zhao, Y., Zhang, Q. W., Xu, R., & Zhang, W. [赵焱、张旗伟、徐蕊、张玮], (2021),
超 语 及 认 同 建 构 作 为 双 语 者 的 学 习 手 段 [Translanguaging and Identity
Construction as a Resource for Learning in a Bilingual Classroom], 《现代外
语》, (02), 258-270.

89
 Appendices
Appendix A Interview Outline (phase I)

l What is your educational background starting from undergraduate?

l Were you once a student of the A-Level curriculum?
l What’s your previous working experiences before coming to G school?
l How long have you been working at G school?
l What’s your reason for choosing to work at G school?
l What’s the average level of the students in your class?

90
 Appendix B Interview Outline (phase II)

Personal teaching practices

l Based on your own teaching practices, what is the general amount of Chinese and
English used?
l What is the distribution of your language use?
l Are there any changes in your teaching behaviors?
l If yes, what are the possible factors that affect your language use?

Perceptions of pedagogical translanguaging

l What do you think is the appropriate distribution of language use in the A-Level
science class?
l As for different languages, do they function differently?
l What is your attitude towards the monolingual A-Level science class?
l What is your attitude towards students’ using Chinese in the class?
l Are there any challenges in terms of language use in your own teaching?
l Is there anything you would like to change about, if possible?

Teaching environment
l Does the school have any rules for the teaching language?
l As far as you know, is there any difference between you and your colleagues
(mathematics, physics, chemistry) in terms of language use?
l Is it acceptable for the students to have their science lessons in an English-only
way?

91
 Appendix C Transcription Convention

(Adapted from Jefferson, 2004 and Mondada, 2018)

Sequential and Timing Elements of the Interaction

[ beginning point of simultaneous speaking (of two or more people)

] End point of simultaneous speaking
= Talk by two speakers which is contiguous;
with no hearable pause in between
(0.3) The time (in tenth of a second) between utterances
(.) A micro-pause (one tenth of a second or less)

Paralinguistic Elements of Interaction

wor:d Sound extension of a word

word? Rising inflection (not necessarily a question)
word↑ Rising intonation
word↓ Falling intonation
hh Audible out-breaths
Word Talk with a stress; emphasized sound
>word< Talk that is spoken faster than surrounding talk
<word> Talk that is spoken slower than surrounding talk
$word$ Talk uttered in a “smile voice”

Other Conventions

((comment)) Researcher’s notes

# Indicating the exact number of images in the transcripts
+ Marks of a non-verbal action (e.g., pointing)

92
 Appendix D
Preliminary Results of Thematic Analysis of Interview Data

93
94
95
96