System 113 (2023) 102959

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Managing classroom misbehaviours in the Hong Kong English

Medium Instruction secondary classrooms: A
translanguaging perspective
Kevin W.H. Tai
Academic Unit of Teacher Education and Learning Leadership, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Studies in English-Medium-Instruction (EMI) classroom interaction have explored how content
Student misbehaviours teachers can utilise various resources to encourage student engagement and facilitate the teaching
Teacher control and learning processes. However, less attention has been paid in terms of how teachers manage
Translanguaging
unexpected student behaviours that transgress the classroom order and disrupt the flow of
English medium instruction
Hong Kong
classroom interaction. This article explores how EMI teachers contingently mobilise various
multilingual and multimodal resources and sociocultural knowledge to address the moments
when students produce socially unacceptable and inappropriate behaviour in regard to the
normative expectancies in the classrooms. The data of this study is obtained from a larger lin­
guistic ethnographic project in Hong Kong EMI secondary classrooms. Multimodal Conversation
Analysis is employed to analyse the classroom interaction data and the analysis is triangulated
with the video-stimulated-recall-interviews which are analysed with Interpretative Phenomeno­
logical Analysis. I argue that the EMI teachers construct a translanguaging space which affords
them to draw on multiple resources to address student misbehaviours that transgresses norms for
classroom participation. Such a safe space allows teachers to resume the forward progression of
classroom activity and ease the tension between the teachers’ authority and students’ partici­
pation in the classroom.

1. Introduction

The use of English as the medium-of-instruction has grown exponentially in recent years (Macaro et al., 2018).
English-Medium-Instruction (EMI) is a monolingual education policy which is defined as the ‘use of English to teach academic subjects
other than English itself in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English’ (Macaro,
2018: 19). Research on EMI classroom interaction has explored how and when teachers and students can draw on diverse resources to
facilitate the content and language learning processes (Tai & Li, 2020; 2021a; 2021b; 2021c; Lin & Lo, 2017) and encourage student
engagement (Tai, 2022a; 2022b). Specifically, classroom-based research has investigated the ways in which (1) teachers can do with
the languages in the student’s linguistic repertoire that are not the school’s language policy (e.g. Garcia & Li, 2014; Lin, 2019; Lin &
He, 2017), (2) how teachers draw on different multilingual and multimodal practices in order to bridge the gap between students’

Abbreviations: EMI, English Medium Instruction; MCA, Multimodal Conversation Analysis; IPA, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis; HK,
Hong Kong; CA, Conversation Analysis; CLIL, Content and Language Integrated Learning; SA, South Asian.
E-mail address: kevin.tai@hku.hk.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102959
Received 28 April 2022; Received in revised form 18 November 2022; Accepted 27 November 2022
Available online 16 December 2022
0346-251X/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

everyday life experience and the abstract academic knowledge for promoting the learning of academic knowledge (e.g. Tai & Li, 2020;
Tai, 2022a).
As EMI teachers are the ‘custodians of classroom order’, the ability in maintaining order is a pedagogical challenge for teachers and
much of that order is achieved through their control over the turn-taking in the classroom (Paoletti & Fele, 2004). Research on second
language (L2) classroom interaction has offered insights into how L2 teachers (1) manage competing voices (Waring, 2013a, 2013b),
(2) respond to student-initiated response which departs from the teacher’s agendas in ways that preserve order and validate student
participation concurrently (Tai & Brandt, 2018; Reddington, 2018; Waring, 2012; Waring et al., 2016) and (3) manage a student who
speaks all the time (i.e. hog the interactional floor) (Waring, 2013a, 2013b) (see section 4 for further discussion). However, less
attention has been paid in terms of how teachers maintain control in the EMI classroom and manage unexpected student misbehaviours
that transgress the classroom order and disrupt the flow of classroom tasks. Thus, investigating the pedagogical strategies to manage
students’ misbehaviours in EMI classrooms is a significant first step towards understanding how teachers can draw on different
multilingual and multimodal resources and various sociocultural knowledge to go beyond the monolingual education policy in their
efforts for maintaining the order of classroom interaction.
This study builds on and extends prior work on managing classroom order in L2 classrooms, offering an analytical account of (1)
how EMI teachers contingently mobilise various multilingual and multimodal resources and sociocultural knowledge to address the
moments when students produce socially unacceptable and inappropriate behaviour in regard to the normative expectancies in the
classrooms, and (2) how EMI teachers interpret their actions in managing student’s misbehaviours. The ethnographic data are
collected from a linguistic ethnography in Hong Kong (HK) EMI secondary mathematics and history classrooms, which involves the
researchers collecting field notes, ethnographic interviews with the teacher and students, classroom video recordings and video-
stimulated-recall-interviews with teachers. Multimodal Conversation Analysis (MCA) is employed to analyse the classroom interac­
tional data. The analyses of the classroom interactional data are triangulated with the video-stimulated-recall-interview data which are
analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) in order to make sense of the teachers’ reflections on their interactional
strategies. The findings of this study contribute to research on bi/multilingual education by offering an in-depth perspective on how
classroom misbehaviours can be addressed through translanguaging in a bi/multilingual classroom context that adopts a monolingual
language policy, such as EMI classrooms.

2. EMI in Hong Kong

HK is a former British colony and spent 155 years under the British rule. English was used to be the only official language in HK
from the early colonial days until 1974. English had a high status under the British rule, and it was considered as a colonial language by
the local HK citizens, except those who need to acquire it for working for the colonial government. HK people understand that
acquiring English is the key in order to maintain their competitiveness in a globalised world. Therefore, schools adopting EMI are
popular among students and their parents and therefore gaining a place to enter EMI schools is becoming more competitive. Whilst the
medium-of-instruction policies are broadly set for primary and university education, medium-of-instruction policy at the secondary
level has gone through extensive changes. This entails (1) the laissez-faire policy prior to 1994; (2) the compulsory Chinese-Medium-
Instruction policy during 1998–2010 which limited access to EMI education as the policy only allowed 114 secondary schools to
employ EMI to teach academic subjects while the remaining 307 schools had to employ Chinese-Medium-Instruction; and (3) the fine-
tuning medium-of-instruction policy since 2010. Under the current fine-tuning medium-of-instruction policy, individual secondary
schools are given flexibility in determining their own medium-of-instruction arrangement (Education Bureau, 2009). Therefore,
students’ English learning experience and their spoken English ability may vary drastically in different school settings, ranging from
adopting EMI in all subjects to EMI education in some subjects (e.g. Science, History), and to only using Chinese-Medium-Instruction
for content subject teaching. As a result, lots of secondary schools are teaching at least some subjects through EMI. A rough estimation
based on the Secondary School Profile in 2019–2020, around 30% of the secondary schools deploy EMI throughout all the grades and
approximately 40% deploy EMI for at least one academic subject.

3. Translanguaging in EMI classrooms

Translanguaging is a theoretical concept which refers to the process by which speakers draw on their full linguistic and semiotic
resources to make meaning (Li, 2018). It differs from code-switching by decentring the focus from the code to the speakers who are
constructing complex destructive practices. Translanguaging aims to transcend the boundaries between different named languages and
also between different modalities (e.g. speech, sign, gesture) (Li, 2018, 2020). Additionally, Li (2011) proposes the notion of ‘trans­
languaging space’ which is an interactional space created by and created for translanguaging. It is also a space for multilinguals to
‘bring together different dimensions of their personal history, experience and environment; their attitude, belief, and ideology; their
cognitive and physical capacity, into one coordinated and meaningful performance’ (Li, 2011: 1223). In other words, translanguaging
space aims to go beyond the boundaries between named languages and other semiotic resources to enable speakers to create various
meanings and new configurations of language practices.
There are a number of studies that investigate the construction of translanguaging spaces in EMI classrooms. Tai and Li (2020)

2
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

illustrate the ways an EMI mathematics teacher brings everyday life knowledge into the EMI classroom space which transforms the
classroom into a lived experience and broadens students’ perspectives. This allows the teacher and students to bring their diverse funds
of knowledge to the forefront in order to support the students’ learning of new academic knowledge. Alternatively, Tai and Li (2021a)
illuminate the potential of playful talk in transforming the EMI classroom into a translanguaging space, which allows the teacher to
bring in various linguistic and multimodal resources and different kinds of knowledge to perform a range of creative acts for facilitating
content learning and promoting meaning communication. Furthermore, Tai & Li, 2021b argue that translanguaging creates a space for
co-learning and co-learning allows the teacher and students to learn from each other, which facilitates equity in knowledge con­
struction and recognises students’ various knowledge in the classroom. Sah and Li (2020) analyse teachers’ and students’ trans­
languaging practices in Nepalese EMI classrooms. The authors argue that the teachers’ and students’ translanguaging practices
privilege the dominant national language (e.g. Nepali) and the minoritized students’ Indigenous languages (e.g. Newari) are being
excluded for promoting knowledge construction. The authors further argued that “unequal languaging practices create a discrimi­
natory learning space for linguistically minoritized children” (p.17) and not all forms of translanguaging can be considered as a
transformative pedagogic approach in supporting students’ learning processes.
The present study aims to contribute to the current literature on translanguaging and EMI teaching and learning by adopting
translanguaging as an analytical perspective to explore how teachers manage student behaviours that disrupt the flow of classroom
activities. This enables researchers to analyse how teachers manage unexpected or unplanned student misbehaviours in classroom
interactions contingently through mobilising different available resources. As argued by Li (2018; 2020), using translanguaging as an
analytical perspective allows researchers to go beyond identifying regular patterns of language use in social interactions. Researchers
are invited to focus on how speakers transgress the boundaries between named languages and use linguistic and semiotic repertoire
freely and flexibly in specific moments of social interactions (Tai, 2022b).

4. Managing student misbehaviours during classroom interactions

Student misbehaviour generally refers to any behaviours that affect the flow of academic performance in a specific context (Ding
et al., 2008). Several research studies have attempted to measure teachers’ perceptions of students’ misbehaviours in the classrooms in
order to find out which behaviours are perceived to be the most frequent and troublesome. Houghton et al. (1988) study secondary
school teachers’ perceptions of students’ behaviour problems in the United Kingdom. In their study, they define students’ disruptive
behaviour as ‘activity which (a) annoys, upsets or distresses teachers (b) is disruptive of good order in the classroom and causes trouble
and (c) leads teachers to comment continually’ (p. 299). The findings show that student problem behaviours including ‘talking out of
turn’, ‘hindering others’ and ‘idleness’ are commonly reported by teachers as the most frequent and troublesome student behaviours in
the classrooms. Wheldall and Merrett (1988) carry out a questionnaire with a sample of 198 primary school teachers in the United
Kingdom in 32 schools. The findings demonstrate that 51% of the teachers report that they spent too much time on maintaining the
classroom order. Moreover, ‘talking out of turn’ is reported as the most frequent (55% of the teachers’ choices) and troublesome (47%
of the teachers’ choices) misbehaviour. This is followed by ‘hindering other children’ as a troublesome (21% of the teachers’ choices)
and frequent (25% of the teachers’ choices) behaviour. Similarly, Wheldall and Beaman conduct a questionnaire of 161 Australian
primary school teachers and they have found similar results. 48% of Australian teachers believe that they spent more time on managing
classroom behaviour. ‘Talking out of turn’ is considered as the most frequent (57% of the teachers’ choices) and troublesome (49% of
the teachers’ choices) behaviour, followed by ‘hindering other children’ (18% and 14% respectively). These research findings are
consistent with the previous findings in the UK school contexts (e.g. Merrett and Wheldall, 1984; Wheldall & Merrett, 1988).
A considerable amount of research studies have been conducted to examine the extent to which teachers’ perceptions of student
misbehaviour are influenced by culture (e.g. Ho & Leung, 2002; Sun & Shek, 2012; Zhou & Li, 2015). For example, classroom
management strategies adopted by Chinese teachers in China are found to be influenced by several cultural factors, including the
hierarchical nature of the teacher-student relationship, and valuing collective interests more than individual interests. For instance,
influenced by the Chinese cultural practice of respecting collective interest over individualism (Hofstede, 1986), Chinese teachers are
expected to educate students to behave well in compliance with the benefits of the whole class. Students are expected to ‘feel an
obligation to show their conformity to the social group to which they belong’ (Hue & Li, 2008: 32). Chinese teachers typically adopt
several pedagogical approaches to promote students’ conformity in the classroom settings. For instance, students are asked to sit
quietly in their seats while waiting for the teacher to come to the classroom. When the teacher comes into the classroom, they are told
to stand out and bow to the teacher. During classroom teaching, students ‘should sit in lines and rows straight, listen to the teacher and
should not interrupt the teacher’s talk with questions’ (Zhao, 2007: 129–130). Hence, a Chinese class typically entails teacher-centred
pedagogical practices with limited interactions between teacher and students (Ho & Leung, 2002; Peng, 1993). Furthermore, hier­
archical teacher-student relationships also play a role in shaping Chinese teachers’ classroom management strategies. Since Chinese
teachers enjoy a higher social status than the students, the students are expected to show respect and obedience to their teachers. Due
to the cultural practices in China, Ding et al. (2008) have suggested that Chinese teachers tend to spend less time on managing their

3
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

students’ behaviours. The authors study 244 K-12 Chinese teachers’ perceptions of student classroom misbehaviour and they find a
lower percentage of teachers in China (65.6%) who feel that classroom management is an issue, in comparison to the studies that are
carried out in western countries.
Although there are studies on teachers’ perceptions being conducted in Hong Kong (Ho & Leung, 2002; Leung & Ho, 2001), this
could potentially represent a different context from mainland China, possibly because of the western influence in Hong Kong. Leung
and Ho (2001) and Ho and Leung (2002) have found that ‘talking out of turn’ is ranked as a frequent and troublesome behaviour by
both primary and secondary school teachers in Hong Kong, similar to the findings of the studies that are carried out in western
countries (e.g. Houghton et al., 1988; Wheldall & Merrett, 1988). This is followed by ‘non-attentiveness’ and ‘forgetfulness’, which are
two other typical features of students’ behaviours in Hong Kong. As there are limited studies that are conducted in the Hong Kong
classroom contexts, Sun and Shek (2012) specifically study the student behaviours of junior secondary students in Hong Kong
classrooms in order to add to the literature gap. The findings of the study are similar to Leung and Ho’s (2001) and Ho and Leung’s
(2002) findings and the authors demonstrate that the most common classroom misbehaviour is ‘talking out of turn’, followed by
‘non-attentiveness’. This reveals that the teachers expect students to be respectful, obedient, and well-disciplined in the classroom. On
the contrary, Ding et al. (2008) find out that ‘non-attentiveness’ is perceived as the most frequent and troublesome student behaviour
by Chinese teachers in China, while ‘talking out of turn’ is considered the second most frequent and third most troublesome. Ding et al.
argue that this is possibly because Chinese class sizes are larger (approximately 50–60 students per class), and students may easily be
disengaged from classroom learning. These findings represent some differences that can be expected across different cultures and
contexts.
Prior studies have been focusing on teachers’ perceptions of students’ behaviours but there is a lack of studies that explore how
teachers can handle students’ misbehaviours in real-time classroom interactions. One of the few studies that investigate this issue is by
Hazel and Mortensen (2017). The authors argue that when a classroom participant produces socially unacceptable or inappropriate
behaviour, it does not only attract attention, but it can result in moral evaluation from other classroom participants, which may
undermine that participant’s social status in the class. Hence, it is necessary for classroom participants to navigate the norms for
participation and engagement in the classroom in order to prevent transgressing the moral order of classroom participation. Waring
et al. (2016) also adopt CA to investigate an L2 teacher’s pedagogical challenges with getting a balance between managing control and
inviting student participation. The authors identify two ways for the English-as-a-second-language teacher to respond to
student-initiated responses that move away from the pedagogical trajectory, including responding to students’ responses with ironic
teasing and invoking learning orientation. The authors argue that ‘certain unexpected or disorderly learner contributions are managed
through the tactful use of teacher control in the language classroom’ (p.37). Thus, the practices that are presented in the analysis
enable the teacher to effectively restore classroom order, advance the teacher’s pedagogical agendas and facilitate language learning
opportunities for students. Similarly, Reddington (2018) conducts a CA analysis on how a teacher manages student participation in an
adult English-as-a-second-language classroom in the United States. Reddington illustrates practices that are employed by the teacher to
(1) engage students in extended talk and (2) end student participation. These research findings (e.g. Reddington, 2018; Waring et al.,
2016) reveal that teachers, as managers of classroom interaction, should not only engage in student talk but also disengage from
interactions with students in order to create an interactional space for both extended and even classroom participation.
Based on the review of the literature, it is noticeable that what is considered as a transgression of the classroom order can be
identified through the turn-by-turn sequential analysis. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of research that explores how L2 teachers can
manage students’ behaviours that deviate from the expected norms in the classroom. To my own knowledge, no research has been
carried out in EMI contexts which involves teachers using an L2 to teach content subjects. In order to fill in the research gap, this study
aims to adopt translanguaging as an analytical perspective to understand how the teacher manages students’ misbehaviour and
maintain the local rules for participation and engagement in situ at EMI classrooms.

5. Data and methods

5.1. Participating schools and students

According to school A’s and school B’s language policies, teachers are expected to teach their subjects in English. School A is a
prestigious secondary school in the New Territories, and it is a local EMI secondary school, which provides EMI education from
secondary one to six (excluding Chinese, liberal studies and Mandarin classes). Although the school’s mission statement states the aim
for developing students to be bi/multilinguals, the school language policy emphasises the need for teachers and students to use English
on the school campus for communicative purposes. Such a policy aims to create a rich and strong English learning environment for all
students. During the fieldwork, the first author observed the year 7 history class which had been taught by teacher A for over two
months. The class had 30 students and according to the teacher, students’ English proficiency levels were below average among their
cohort in the internal English examination. Since teacher A taught all year 7 history classes, he noticed that their general academic
performance was also below average. The year 7 students in this class were all 13-years-old. The choice of this school as the site of this

4
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

research is due to the fact that I was a former student of this school for three years and I have good knowledge about the organisational
structure of the school and the school curriculum. Since collecting ethnographic data requires in-depth observation of the teacher’s
translanguaging practices, sufficient familiarity and trust are necessary which allowed me to gain access to the classroom and conduct
in-depth interviews with the teacher.
School B is a typical school that offers education to a high concentration of South Asian (SA) students (approximately 80% of the SA
students). The choice of this school as the site of this research is due to the fact that this school has built up a strong reputation for
adopting EMI for providing education to SA students for an extensive period of time. The school principal is well-known for promoting
multicultural education at his school through giving public lectures and presenting research findings at academic conferences. The first
author was invited by the school principal to carry out ethnographic data collection at school B which can potentially offer new
perspectives to research on EMI classroom interactions. Although most of the students are SA, the school has recruited a small group of
local and mainland Chinese students. School B offers EMI classes to SA students in order to cater for the needs of this group of students.
The first author observed the year 10 EMI mathematics class which had been taught by teacher B for over a month. The students’
national backgrounds were diverse and there were thirty-eight students enrolled in the class: fourteen of them were Pakistani, eleven of
them were Nepalese, eight of them were Indian, three of them were Filipino, one of them was Yemeni and one of them was Russian. All
students in the class were 16-years-old. All students have received at least six years of primary education. SA students typically
attended primary schools where English was used as the medium-of-instruction. The SA students’ English proficiency levels were
deemed as satisfactory by the EMI teacher. Many of the SA students in the class have grown up in HK or migrated to HK as a child and
they could all understand or speak Cantonese.

5.2. Participating teachers

Two male teachers agreed to take part in this study. Teacher A (TA) has eight years of experience in teaching mathematics and
science through EMI. Currently, TA serves as the Heads of Mathematics and Science departments. The teacher was interested in the
concept of translanguaging and research on EMI mathematics education and he wished to learn more about it. Therefore, he was
willing to participate in this study when I initiated it. He is an L1 speaker of Urdu and Punjabi. Arabic, English, Cantonese and
Mandarin are his additional languages. He previously received EMI education when he attended early childhood, primary and sec­
ondary schools. Although English is his L2, he views English as his most proficient language, after Cantonese, Urdu and Punjabi. He
believes that he has limited language proficiency levels in Mandarin and Arabic. His bachelor’s degree in chemistry and a post-
graduate diploma of education in science education were obtained from top-ranked EMI universities in HK.
Teacher B (TB) has taught for more than twenty-one years in school A and he serves as Head of History at the school. TB was
selected as he was my mentor when I was a student and he was keen to be a research participant in order to learn more about
translanguaging pedagogy. TB is a native speaker of Cantonese and he can speak fluent English. He has a limited level of Mandarin/
Putonghua and Japanese proficiency. He attended an EMI school for his own secondary education. His bachelor’s degree in history and
postgraduate diploma of education were obtained at a prestigious EMI university in HK. He often attended professional development
programmes that were offered by the Education Bureau in order to enhance his knowledge of history pedagogy and special educational
needs.

5.3. Data collection

EMI mathematics and history classrooms were selected since mathematics and history have not been extensively scrutinised as
content subjects in EMI research. In reviewing the EMI and CLIL research, limited classroom discourse studies are found to investigate
the nature of EMI and CLIL history classrooms (Duff, 1995; Llinares & Morton, 2010; Morton & Jakonen, 2016) and mathematics
classrooms (Mahan et al., 2021; Tavares, 2015). Therefore, studying history and mathematics in EMI classrooms may potentially
provide a broader picture of the roles of translanguaging practices used within the broader humanities and sciences, technology,
engineering and mathematics disciplines. This can potentially offer new perspectives on aspects that have not been analysed before.
A total of two semi-structured interviews were carried out with teachers A and B in order to understand their perceptions of best
practices and their attitudes towards using multiple languages in the EMI history and mathematics classrooms. During classroom
observations, a total of eleven 30-min EMI history lessons taught by TA at school A and a total of eleven 40-min EMI mathematics
lessons taught by TB at school B were observed and video-recorded. One video camera was set up in classrooms in order to capture the
teachers’ and students’ behaviour simultaneously. Each ethnographic interview lasted for approximately 10 min and ethnographic
interviews were carried out while the first author was walking back to the staff room with the participating teachers. These ethno­
graphic interviews are meant to complement what we can observe in the EMI classrooms and provide the teachers with an opportunity
to reflect on their pedagogical practices and attitudes (Spradley, 1979).

5
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

Both TA and TB attended a 1-h video-stimulated-recall-interview which enables researchers to understand their pedagogical
practices and their interpretations of their practices. Before conducting the interviews, video-clips which reveal salient features of
teachers’ translanguaging practices were chosen by the first author as the stimulus. The teachers were invited to watch the selected
video-clips and explain why they employed translanguaging practices in particular classroom moments. This provides the teachers
with a chance to reflect on their own pedagogical practices and verify certain things that are not clear from the observation alone. In
the analysis, the interview data will be discussed after the analysis of each classroom interactional extract.

5.4. Combining Multimodal Conversation Analysis and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

MCA is deployed to analyse the classroom interaction data and address the first research question. MCA ‘focuses on how social
order is co-constructed by the members of a social group’ (Brouwer & Wagner, 2004: 30) through fine-grained analysis of social
interaction. It adopts an emic/participant-relevant approach (Markee & Kasper, 2004) which requires researchers not to pre-theorise
the relevance and importance of language-in-use. This enables researchers to explicate the detailed process of how social actions, such
as teaching and learning, are co-organised and achieved through talk-in-interaction. In other words, the identifications of the trans­
languaging instances are not in any sense defined a priori. This is because the instances are derived from the examination of the
classroom corpus. MCA allows researchers to analyse naturally-occurring interactions and every minute detail ‘is considered relevant
in uncovering participant orientations toward the interaction’ (Waring, 2008: 580). Moreover, screenshots from the video recordings
were included to reveal multimodal interactions in the EMI lessons. The data are transcribed using Jefferson’s (2004) and Mondada’s
(2018) transcription conventions (see Appendix).
IPA is used to analyse the video-stimulated-recall-interview data and respond to the second research question. This allows re­
searchers to investigate how EMI teachers make sense of their pedagogical practices at particular moments in the interaction. IPA
follows a dual interpretation process called “double hermeneutic”. This requires researchers to try to make sense of the participants
trying to make sense of their world (Smith et al., 2013). By doing so, it allows researchers to take an ‘insider’s perspective’ (Conrad,
1987) or the emic approach in order to understand the EMI teachers’ personal experience case-by-case. I conducted the IPA analysis
together and followed the analytical stages suggested by Smith et al. (2013), moving from a descriptive level to a more interpretative
level. In order to enhance interpretative validity, iterative coding with constant comparison was conducted. This process involves the
researcher constantly checking our sense-making against what the participating teachers have actually said in the interviews. The IPA
analysis is presented in a table with four columns in order to help readers to navigate how the researcher makes sense of the teachers
trying to make sense of their teaching. From left to right, the first column showcases the classroom interaction transcripts. The second
column presents the video-stimulated-recall interview transcripts. The third column reveals the teachers’ perspectives on their
pedagogical practices. Last, the fourth column illustrates the researcher’s interpretations of the teachers’ perspectives, which aligns
with IPA’s interpretation process.

6. Analysis

For reporting purposes, I selected the representative extracts instead of presenting all the transcribed interactional sequences. As
ten Have (1990) argues, representative extracts should be inter-related in order to explicate how a particular interactional phe­
nomenon recurrently occurred (by similar instances) or how the phenomenon is demonstrated in dissimilar ways (by deviant in­
stances). In this section, three classroom extracts are selected as representative cases that illustrate how TA (Extracts 1 and 2) and TB
(Extract 3) facilitate the creation of a translanguaging space for managing student behaviours contingently and maintaining classroom
discipline. The analysed extracts are inter-related to illustrate the typical instances of teachers’ translanguaging practices for managing
students’ misbehaviours (ten Have, 1990).

6.1. Extract 1

Prior to the extract, TA is guiding students to complete the mathematical questions which require using the remainder theorem to
look for the remainder. Before TA plans to move to the next question, student 15 (S15) is chatting to her friend behind her back and it
creates a disturbance for TA and other classmates. TA stops talking in order to wait for S15 to end her conversation. However, S15
continues with her chat and TA tilts his head and gazes at S15 during the 3.7-s pause (line 1). In this extract, TA treats such behaviour as
unacceptable and gives a short lecture to the student.

6
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

7
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

8
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

In lines 2–6, TA directly puts S15 on the spot and he initiates a question by asking S15 to ‘do the (0.2) thing there’ (line 6).
Particularly, TA extends his index and fingers, pointing to the ground (figures #1 and #2), in order to refer to the ‘thing’ that he
mentions. The students are laughing at the teacher in line 7 and student 5 comments that ‘oh he knows hahaha’ (line 8). In line 9,
student 10 imitates TA’s gesture (figure #3) and also comments that ‘sir you know’. It is obvious that the meaning of TA’s gesture in

9
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

Table 1
Video-stimulated-recall-interview (Extract 1).
Classroom Interaction Transcript Video Stimulated Recall Teacher’s Perspectives Analyst’s Interpretations of
Interview Excerpts the Teacher’s Perspectives

01 K: Yeah. So, do you mind

telling me what was going on
there? Um. Just briefly.

02 TA: I think it was just a TA refers to Long Chai The icon is an ethnic minority
couple of the students talking (image 1), who is a pop in Hong Kong. It is possibly
around over there. And then culture icon on Instagram. because of his ethnicity,
in order to get their attention He chooses to reference him students are interested in
I’m really again (trying to in the class in order to get following him on Instagram.
connect with them and) say student’s attention and get It can be argued that TA is
things that, you know, it’s the control of the classroom bringing the student’s
what normally teachers say, so that students can familiar knowledge of pop
because normally not the eventually focus on the culture into the classroom as a
best way you know to get mathematical topic. way to manage student’s
their attention. So, and then I behaviour.
realized that, then I few days
back. I think a guy called
Long Chai in IG he would just
randomly do this pose. I
think he saw. I saw someone
doing it. So just do it. So, he
was there is this guy in in in
um IG who would be the
same stuff over and over
again and Hong Kong MTR
station. It’s a really odd
position where in the middle
of the crowd. And then yeah
so, I just referenced him and
then yeah, once I referenced
him l got their attention. And
that was already a success.
So, the whole point was to
just connect with them and
let them know that I’m also
aware of this and it’s just a
really good segue into, you
know, getting the attention
back getting the control of
the classroom and then
focusing back into the topic
I’m, you know, sharing with
them. So yeah.
(continued on next page)

10
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

Table 1 (continued )
Classroom Interaction Transcript Video Stimulated Recall Teacher’s Perspectives Analyst’s Interpretations of
Interview Excerpts the Teacher’s Perspectives

03 K: okay. 點解你又會知道 The researcher is interested to

嗰班學生係會 like pay know why TA knows that the
attention to that person’s IG students are interested in this
account? ((tr. okay so why specific pop culture icon.
would you know the students
will pay attention to that
person’s IG account?))

04 TA: I think it’s really TA has an Instagram

common for kids. Because in account, and he is following
IG you know you see what’s several students in the class.
going on. And then people This enables him to know the
will re-post you know re current pop culture trends.
share the the video. So, when TA also admits that he is
I see it’s popular among that trying his luck by
aged students too because I referencing Long Chai in
have students following me order to manage student’s
too. At least l know what it behaviour.
looks like. So, it’s useful,
from time to time, er
sometimes you know on
track with what’s going on
outside. So yeah, I just use
this name and it works like a
miracle. I mean, sometimes it
works, sometimes it doesn’t.
So, if it doesn’t work, I’ll
share with what I saw.
05 K: yeah. So, the student The researcher is trying to
near the near the door. You make sense of the meaning of
know she was talking with the teacher’s gesture in 07 K:
her classmates. Um why oh 6 of the classroom
suddenly (pause) so l I kind interaction.
of still want to understand
why are you asking her to do
the fingering there. Is it
really just to draw her
attention back to the screen?
06 TA: Yeah. The yoyo. It’s
like, you know
07 K: oh
08 TA: it’s like um those Here, TA describes his
gang signs but it’s like, like a fingering gesture as a ‘yoyo’
cat. So, it’s like Spider Man and ‘Spider Man but without
but without the thumb. the thumb’.
09 K: yeah.
(continued on next page)

11
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

Table 1 (continued )
Classroom Interaction Transcript Video Stimulated Recall Teacher’s Perspectives Analyst’s Interpretations of
Interview Excerpts the Teacher’s Perspectives

10 TA: You know, it’s just um
I mean you’re talking right
now you’re talking about
this person and then why
don’t you come and perform
for us, you know, so often,
you know, I often use this
way of, you know, inviting
them to do things that
they’re interested in. It will
be too embarrassing, a bit, so
we’ll just zip it afterwards.
11 K: oh okay.
12 TA: So yeah, l often lied
about the things that l am
doing. And in this way, you
know, other students would
want to know what is
happening. So, I get their
attention too. Yeah
interesting.
TA attempts to draw on
students’ familiar
knowledge in order to invite
them to participate in the
classroom interaction.
Particularly, TA puts
emphasis when uttering the
word ‘inviting’.
TA reinforces his
pedagogical goal of getting
student’s attention.
However, why the teacher is
so sure that the students are
‘talking about this person’ (i.
e. Long Chai)?
It is possible that TA is
guessing that students like
S15 are talking about Long
Chai privately and he is trying
his luck by referencing him
for getting the student’s
attention.

line 6 is well-understood by the students and the students are surprised to learn that TA is familiar with such a gesture. TA then ac­
knowledges that he is fully aware of the pop culture that the students know (lines 10–14) and this leads to a series of turns that involves
the use of Tik Tok (lines 16–23).
TA wishes to close the sequence and moves on to the mathematical topic and he beckons his right hand repeatedly and continuously
asks students to ‘come back’ (line 25). However, the students are not ready to end the sequence as evidenced in the interaction. For
example, student 8 is attempting to imitate the voice of a pop culture icon by uttering ‘what’s up’ and appropriating the teacher’s
gestures in line 29 (figure #5). Student 4 also echoes S8’s utterance by repeating ‘$what’s up$’ with a smiley voice (line 30). It is
noticeable that the students’ utterances are examples of translanguaging as they appropriate the teacher’s gesture (e.g. student 8 in line
29) and imitate a phrase being uttered by a pop culture icon (lines 28 and 30) in a new interactional context. In lines 32–34, TA
acknowledges the students’ utterances by uttering ‘yeah’ repeatedly and he attempts to end the student’s conversation by asking them
to ‘come back’ to the mathematical content.
In this extract, TA’s attempt to draw on students’ familiar knowledge in order to deal with S15’s misbehaviour eventually opens up
a translanguaging space for playful talk (Tai & Li, 2021a). Such a translanguaging space also enables TA to ease the tension between
TA’s demands and the students’ disciplines. During the video-stimulated-recall-interview (Table 1), TA comments on the purpose of
bringing students’ knowledge of pop culture to manage student’s misbehaviour.
In the MCA analysis, it is unclear to the analyst the meaning of TA’s gesture in line 7 and why students are imitating TA’s gesture
that is apparently enacted by a pop culture icon. In the interview, TA explains that the gesture which looks like a ‘yoyo’ and ‘Spider
Man but without the thumb’ (line 9 of the interview) is a gesture that is enacted by a person called ‘Long Chai’ who is an ethnic
minority in HK and he posted videos that involve doing that gesture in different social settings, such as in the train. This is also
evidenced in Image 1 which depicts how Long Chai enacts the gesture in different public domains. It is possibly because of his ethnicity,
ethnic minority students in the class are interested in following him on Instagram. Since TA has an Instagram account, and he is
following several students in the class. This enables him to know the current pop culture trends and use ‘Long Chai’ as a reference in the
lesson in order to get students’ attention and control of the classroom so that students can eventually focus on the mathematical topic.
Although it can be argued that TA is not entirely sure about S15’s private conversation with her peers, the teacher is guessing that
S15 and her peers are talking about Long Chai privately and he is trying his luck by referencing him for drawing the student’s attention.
It is hoped that enacting Long Chai’s gesture can get students’ attention on the mathematical content. In the MCA analysis, it is
revealed that TA’s enactment of Long Chai’s gesture encourages students in engaging in humorous talk and enables TA in gaining
students’ attention. Therefore, it can be suggested that the creation of a translanguaging space for easing the tension between TA’s
authority and the students’ misbehaviour is achieved through TA’s effort in bringing the student’s familiar knowledge of pop culture
into the classroom as a way to manage student’s behaviour, gaining student’s attention and getting control of the classroom
interaction.

12
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

Image 1. Long Chai’s Instagram Profile.

13
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

6.2. Extract 2

Prior to the extract, TA is teaching students to solve exponential functions. When TA plans to move to a new example (line 1),
student 10’s (S10) phone is ringing. According to the school policy, students must turn their mobile phones into silent mode. If students
fail to do so, TA has the right to confiscate the students’ mobile phones. Hence, S10 has violated the school rule and in this extract, TA
initiates a side-sequence and uses playful talk to ease the tension between the student’s violation of school rules and TA’s authority.

14
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

15
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

16
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

17
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

In line 5, TA gazes at S10 while S10’s phone is continuously ringing. TA then verbally points out the existence of a phone ringing in
Cantonese and English: ‘咦phone喎 (oh phone!)’. This leads to students’ laughter in lines 8–9 while TA walks towards S10’s seat. In line
10, TA signals to S10 to give her mobile phone to the teacher, as signalled by his request in Cantonese and his beckoning gesture. After
confiscating S10’s phone (line 11), several students initiate further turns to discuss the day when S10 can collect her phone back.
Student 1 makes a statement by saying ‘sir she gets it on Monday’ and this comes as a surprise for S10 as shown by her use of high
intonation: ‘what↑ monday?’. Student 4 (S4) deliberately echoes S10’s utterance with high intonation and a smiley voice (line 19)
which is followed by his laughter.
In lines 21–23, TA takes control of the interactional floor, and he explains ‘a very simple rule’ for students. Student 10 ‘can get it
today’ if she comes to find the teacher after class (line 23). TA then initiates a new sequence by recounting an accident where he
confiscated a student’s phone, and he left the school early so the student could not get his phone back after school (lines 27–40). This
leads to students’ laughter and clapping in the class, which indicates that the teacher’s recount of past experiences is considered as
humorous (e.g. lines 38 and 43). TA reassures S10 that she will be able to receive her phone after school because the teacher will be
having lunch in the staff room (lines 42–50). When TA plans to draw students’ attention back to the mathematical topic and close the
sequence (line 54), TA suddenly extends the current sequence and asks S10 about the phone call: ‘oh whose call is it wasn’t it your
mum?’ (line 56). As S10 is unsure of the answer (line 58), TA dramatically utters a Cantonese token ‘aiya’ and moves his left arm
upward and then downward in order to display his disappointment. TA then playfully makes a joke and says that he should have asked
S10 to pick up (lines 60 and 64). By doing so, TA is constructing playful talk to create a humorous environment for students, and this is
signalled by students’ laughter in line 65.
Possibly because S10 feels embarrassed, she is being defensive by questioning TA’s playful talk, ‘what pick up?’ and asks TA and
students to shut up in Urdu, which is her home language (line 66). S4, who is not a speaker of Urdu, attempts to make fun of S10 by
accusing her ‘swearing’ (line 68). This leads to a defensive reply from S10 as she repeats her Urdu utterance, which means ‘shut up’,
and justifies that she is ‘not swearing’ (line 70). TA immediately soothes the situation by criticising S4, which is done through pointing
at S4 with his pen (figure #8) and verbally criticising him ‘stop pretending you know everything lah’ (line 71). This leads to a student’s
laughter in line 72 and TA attempts to close the sequence by drawing the student’s attention in line 76.
In the extract, TA’s management of S10’s violation of school rules is achieved through his initiation of a side sequence and the
construction of a playful talk through his use of Cantonese and English utterances. Such a translanguaging space is also co-constructed
by students in the class as some of the students are making fun of S10 (e.g. S4’s echoing of S10’s utterance with high intonation and
smiley voice in line 19) and S10’s personal defence which entails English and Urdu utterances (e.g. lines 66 and 70). During the video-
stimulated-recall-interview (Table 2), TA is invited to comment on the goals for him to engage in playful talk as a means of managing
classroom interactions.
TA first explains the school rules and that student’s mobile phones will be confiscated for three school days. This can explain why
student 15 tells TA that S10 can only collect her phone on Monday (line 12 in the classroom interaction). The interaction took place on
Thursday. However, TA allows students to ask him for the mobile phone if they can find him after school. Introducing such a simple

18
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

rule reflects TA’s understanding of the student’s personality traits since the students ‘care about their phone so much’. Particularly, he
shifts his footing and imitates S10’s voice: “it’s just a phone call. I forgot to do it”, which displays his understanding of the students’
reactions when their phones are being confiscated. In order to avoid intense confrontations with students, TA believes that it is
important for him to soothe the bitter feeling and negative taunting happening in the classroom so that a safe learning environment can
be created for students. This is exemplified in the teacher’s shift of footing as he voices out his reaction: “Oh. Who is this [the call]
from?”. It can be suggested that TA’s goal to initiate a conversation with S10 enables him to soften the blow on S10 and make her feel

Table 2
Video-stimulated-recall-interview (Extract 2).
Classroom Interaction Transcript Video Stimulated Recall Teacher’s Perspectives Analyst’s Interpretations of the
Interview Excerpts Teacher’s Perspectives

01 K: Okay. Can you explain to

me what was happening in the
classroom?
02 TA: I think I was talking to TA explains the school rules This can explain why student
student’s phone rang, and and student’s mobile phones 15 tells the teacher that S10
then so according to school will be confiscated for three can collect her phone on
rules. I have to collect the school days. Monday (line 12 in the
school for I mean their phone interaction). The interaction
for three school days, so she took place on Thursday.
has to give it to me. So, I just
walked up and got it.
03 TA: And then, and then I TA demonstrates his
sort of like, you know, they’re understanding of the student’s
really they care about their personality traits. That is why
phone so much so they would he has a simple rule which is
beg for it. So instead of them to ask students to find him
begging for it. I would just tell after school for the mobile
them, like it’s a simple rule phone.
$that I$ usually do is, I was
just for humour. I don’t really
actually ask them, but if
they’re interested I’ll tell
them.
04 TA: Okay. If you find me TA uses ‘hide and seek’ as an It is evidenced in the MCA
after school and you caught example to explain his simple analysis that TA shares his
me, I will give you back the rule. previous experience with his
phone. It’s like playing hide students in terms of collecting
and seek, essentially. So, and a student’s phone.
then I shared a story where
last few weeks actually
happened. The kid wanted his
phone back and he said, okay,
sir. I’ll tell you, having secret
agenda. Okay. And the next
thing you know, I actually left
early that day $and he kept
finding me$. So interesting
story to share with them.
05 K: Yeah, I also find it The researcher is interested to
interesting that you’re making understand the purpose for TA
an ironic comment. You know, to make an ironic comment in
you’re asking questions like lines 56 and 60 of the
who the phone call was from. interaction. Will that
And then you were saying embarrass S10?
that, whether it was from her
mum, right? So, what is the
purpose of, you know, for
doing this kind of ironic
comments at that moment?
(continued on next page)

19
K.W.H. Tai
Table 2 (continued )
Classroom Interaction Transcript
Video Stimulated Recall
Interview Excerpts
06 TA: I think because often
students hesitate, or they will
have this confrontation with
the teachers that no, it’s not
my fault. You know, it’s just a
phone call. I forgot to do it.
I’m not going to give you the
phone.
07 TA: So, in order for them to
have that not have that
thought, I would start making.
Oh. Who is it from? you know,
make them feel that I actually
care about them. But l actually
do not. But it’s just to make
them lower their guards, so I
can easily snoop in, you know,
I don’t want confrontations
with anyone.
08 TA: So, the fastest way to
deal with is use ironic
comments where you know
the students will laugh at,
whereas her she will feel a bit
more relaxed, and she will not
feel threatened that I am
forcefully taking the phone. It
is just part of my job. So, it’s
just a bit of um psychology
playing around here.
20
Teacher’s Perspectives
TA is predicting the student’s
reactions when their phones
are being confiscated.
TA justifies that he wants to
avoid intense confrontations
with students. It is important
for him to soothe the bitter
feeling and negative taunting
happening in the classroom in
order to create a safe learning
environment for students.
Through using ironic
comments, TA believes that he
can make students laugh and
make the target student (i.e.,
S10) to feel more relaxed and
feel non-threatened.
System 113 (2023) 102959
Analyst’s Interpretations of the
Teacher’s Perspectives
TA shifts his footing and
imitates a S10’s voice: “it’s just
a phone call. I forgot to do it”.
TA also voices out his
reaction: “Oh. Who is this
from?” This enables him to
initiate a conversation with
S10 and soften the blow on
S10.
TA believes that making ironic
comments can create a
humorous classroom
atmosphere and it can avoid
any bitterness and negative
taunting. This can also lighten
the blow on S10 and makes her
feel less threatened by the fact
that T has to forcefully take
away her phone.
(continued on next page)
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

Table 2 (continued )
Classroom Interaction Transcript Video Stimulated Recall Teacher’s Perspectives Analyst’s Interpretations of the
Interview Excerpts Teacher’s Perspectives

09 K: Very interesting. I think

that student was a little bit
angry and then she was
making, making a statement in
Urdu. And then, (S4) was
saying was accusing her as
swearing.

10 TA: But S4, you know, as
usual, he, he likes to
exaggerate things so obviously
I heard she said that. So that’s
why I just didn’t react to it.
Because if you react to it,
you’re giving them attention
on that just fuels the fire.
TA demonstrates his
understanding of S4’s
character (“he likes to
exaggerate things”).
S4’s habit of exaggerating
things is reflected in the MCA
when he accurses S10 for
swearing but in fact S10 is
saying ‘shut up’ in Urdu, which
is not considered as swearing.

11 TA: So, I just, you know,
play it off as cool ignore some
things that are not important.
So, you know, things can settle
as soon as possible, so I can
continue with my lesson haha.
TA understands that he needs
to avoid fuelling the fire and
he needs to ‘play it off as cool’
so that the student’s dispute
can be settled immediately,
and he can continue with his
mathematics lesson.
TA is able to foresee the
possible consequence for him
to react to S4 and S10’s
conversation. In order to avoid
creating further tension, TA
chooses to criticise S4 briefly
so that he can carry on with his
teaching.

less threatened by the fact that TA has to forcefully take away her phone.
Additionally, TA demonstrates his understanding of S4’s character (“he likes to exaggerate things”) and he foresees the conse­
quence of the irresponsible comments towards S10 that are made by several students. S4’s habit of exaggerating things is reflected in
the MCA when he accurses S10 for swearing but in fact, S10 is saying ‘shut up’ in Urdu, which is not considered as swearing. In order to
avoid the students creating further tension, TA chooses to criticise S4 briefly in the interaction so that the student’s dispute can be
settled immediately, and he can continue with his mathematics lesson. Therefore, it can be argued that the creation of a trans­
languaging space for managing the student’s violation of school rules is shaped by TA’s effort in avoiding bitterness and negative
taunting in the class and his pedagogical goal of redirecting students’ attention to the mathematical content.

21
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

6.3. Extract 3

Prior to the extract, TB is creating a fill-in-the-blanks exercise on the blackboard, and he wants to invite students to recall the duties
of the five different gods and goddesses in ancient Egypt. After writing, TB plans to invite students to come out and write the answers
on the blackboard. He does so by nominating the students’ class numbers. In the extract, it demonstrates how a translanguaging space
is constructed as TB deals with the students’ yelling and shouting at each other.

22
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

23
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

24
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

25
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

26
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

27
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

28
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

In lines 2–4, TB points at the blackboard (figures #9 and #10) and verbally invites students to come out and ‘show [him] the
answer’ (line 2) of the ‘five important gods and goddesses’ (line 4). TB then starts to nominate students to come out to the blackboard
by randomly choosing a student number (line 6). Between lines 8–16, TB receives input from students in terms of today’s date and
several students utter ‘twenty nine’ (lines 10 and 15) but in fact, the date is the twenty sixth. This is possibly because student 14’s class
number is 29 and he is considered as a popular classroom member among his peers. After a correct answer given by student 1 (line 18),
TB utters <twenty:> (line 20) and <six> (line 24) slowly as he writes down ‘26’ next to question 1 and circles around the number on
the blackboard (lines 20 and 24, figure #11). Ignoring student 7’s response (line 26), TB continues and nominates a student with a class
number of 27 to respond to the second question (line 27, figure #12).
In line 30, student 14 (S14) goes against the English-only policy and self-initiates a turn in Cantonese, ‘係唔係呀’ (is that right?)’ in
order to display his surprise. This is because S14’s class number is 29 and he is predicting himself to be asked to respond to question 4,
under the condition that TB follows the numerical order. TB then immediately utters < twenty eight > slowly as he writes down ‘28’ on
the blackboard next to question 3 (figure #13). Student 7 (S7) becomes excited, and he yells out ‘OKAY OKAY’ loudly (line 33) since his
class number is 31. It is assumed that TB will follow the numerical order and he will not be asked to come out and respond to any
questions. This is because the student with class number 30 will be expected to respond to the final question on the blackboard. In line
35, TB ignores S7’s loud voice and he slowly utters < twenty nine> and writes the number on the blackboard next to question 4 (figure
#14).
S14 then self-initiates another turn, and he yells out ‘WA:’ with a sound extension in order to indicate his surprise. He continues to
yell out ‘THIRTY ONE THIRTY ONE’ repeatedly and points at the blackboard (figure #15) in order to request TB to nominate S7 to
answer the final question. Such behaviour has caused disruption in the classroom and TB looks at S14 and shrugs simultaneously to
show his disapproval of S14’s behaviour (figure #15). While S14 is yelling, S7 also speaks in loud volume, ‘NO NEED ME’, in response
to S14’s comment to TB (line 37). In the subsequent interaction, S14 repeatedly yells out ‘THIRTY ONE’ and points at the blackboard in
line 39. S7 speaks aloud ‘NO NEED ME LAH’ (line 42), which includes the use of the Cantonese particle ‘lah’, to reinforce the
unnecessariness for him to come out to the blackboard. As TB slowly writes down ‘30’ on the blackboard (line 41), S14 and S7 are
simultaneously speaking and S14 repeatedly utters ‘ONE ONE ONE’ to request TB to change it to ‘31’. In line 44, TB confirms that the
student with class number 30 will answer question 5. This results in excitement from S7 as he sees this as a personal triumph. This is
evidenced in his utterances which are spoken in loud volume and followed by a burst of laughter, ‘NO NEED ME LAH HAHAHA’ (line
46). This is repeated again in line 56 as he integrates English and a Cantonese particle ‘yea’ as he speaks in a normal voice, ‘no need me
yea’.
It is noticeable that TB does not respond to S7’s and S14’s verbally disruptive behaviours in class. In lines 47–53, TB simply asks the
nominated students to come out and ‘show me the answer’ (line 50). This leads to laughter initiated by the researcher in line 51 and S7
in line 54. It seems that TB deliberately avoids reacting to S7’s and S14’s misbehaviours.
In this extract, it is evidenced that the translanguaging space is created by the students who are engaging in verbal fights using

29
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

Table 3
Video-stimulated-recall-interview (Extract 3).
Classroom Interaction Transcript Video Stimulated Teacher’s Analyst’s
Recall Interview Perspectives Interpretations of the
Excerpts Teacher’s
Perspectives

01 K: 我就係想問
你知唔知道當時發
生咗咩事 (tr. I
want to know
whether you
understand what it
is going on at that
moment?))

02 TB: 其實都係 TB is unsure why TB is unaware of the

random 㗎咋，諗 the students are fact that S14 and S7
住，諗住嗌一啲 excited about the do not wish to be
class number 出嚟 nominated class asked to respond to
寫一啲野姐，其實 numbers. the questions on the
都係隨意嘅啫，其 blackboard. In the
實我自己都唔記得 MCA analysis, it is
佢哋啲名，咁我咪 revealed that S7 sees
random寫啲class himself as a ‘winner’,
number 佢哋好似 in the sense that he is
好excited咁樣，唔 not being asked by
知道做乜，係囉， the teacher
我都係做一啲 eventually.
matching
exercise，起碼佢
哋都大約會知道呢
啲神嘅duties咁樣
囉
(tr. Actually it’s all
random. I was
planning to
nominate several
class numbers and
ask students to
come out and write
the answers on the
blackboard. It’s
very random and I
forgot some of
their names, so I
just randomly
wrote some class
numbers on the
blackboard. The
students seemed to
be very excited. I
don’t know why.
Yeah. It was just a
matching exercise.
At least they would
understand the
duties of the gods
and goddesses.)
03 K: 呢段片入邊 The researcher is
呢我哋就見到 unsure why the
(continued on next page)

30
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

Table 3 (continued )
Classroom Interaction Transcript Video Stimulated Teacher’s Analyst’s
Recall Interview Perspectives Interpretations of the
Excerpts Teacher’s
Perspectives

(NAME-S14) 喺度 teacher will allow

大嗌啦，我想知道 students to yell in the
嘅就係點解你會有 classroom. Such a
得啲同學喺課堂度 behaviour is
大嗌 considered as a
violation of classroom
rules at that school.
(tr. In the video,
we can see that
(NAME-S14) is
yelling loudly in
the class. I wanna
know why you will
allow students to
yell loudly in
class?)
04 TB: 哦，搞吓氣 TB’s pedagogical Possibly because of
氛囉其實 goal here is to COVID-19 pandemic,
Hahahaha ，有時 promote a positive students have been
隨意嘅啫，不過其 environment in the attending online class
實都係佢哋好低能 classroom. virtually for a long
嘅，係囉，咁起碼 period of time. Being
佢都可以叫下， in a physical
excited啲囉 classroom and
attending face-to-face
lessons give students
the opportunity to
engage in debates and
arguments directly
with their teachers
and peers.
(tr. Oh I just want TB demonstrates TB’s attitude of
to promote a his students’ playing it off as cool
positive characters as being encourages students
atmosphere in the naive, and he to violate the
classroom. allows the students classroom norms. In
Hahahaha. It’s to express their return, it is possible
very random and I feelings in the class that the students may
am chill about it. publicly. feel excited in
But some of the attending history
students are very class with the teacher
naïve. So now they in the future.
have the
opportunity to yell
aloud. It makes
students feel
excited.)

31
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

diverse linguistic, paralinguistic and multimodal resources, including English and Cantonese particles, loud voice, laughter and
pointing gestures. TB’s approaches in managing students’ misbehaviour are largely done through (1) gazing at S14 and shrugging and
(2) redirecting all students’ attention by asking nominated students to come out to the blackboard and answer the questions. During
the video-stimulated-recall-interview (Table 3), TB comments on the rationales for him to deal with students’ misbehaviours.
It is revealed that TB is unsure why the students are excited about the nominated class numbers. He thinks that it is a normal
matching task which aims to consolidate students’ knowledge of the duties of the five different gods and goddesses. It is possible that
TB is unaware of the fact that both S14 and S7 do not wish to be asked to respond to the questions on the blackboard. In the MCA
analysis, it is shown that S7 sees himself as a ‘winner’, in the sense that he is not being asked to respond to a question. Although it is
clear that S7 and S14 have violated the classroom rules at the school due to their verbal disruptive behaviours, TB does not give any
warnings to the students. As TB is aware of his students’ characters (i.e. being naïve and immature), he believes that allowing students
to express their feelings in the class publicly can create a positive atmosphere in the classroom. This is possibly because of the impact of
COVID-19 pandemic. Students have been attending online classes virtually for a long period of time. Hence, being in a physical
classroom and attending face-to-face lessons give students the opportunity to engage in debates and arguments directly with their
teachers and peers. It can be argued that TB’s attitude of playing it off as cool encourages students to violate the classroom norms. In
return, it is possible that the students may feel excited about attending history class with TB. Therefore, it can be suggested that
although the translanguaging space is craved out by students’ verbal disruptive behaviours, the creation of this space is facilitated by
TB’s pedagogical goal of creating a positive classroom atmosphere and TB’s attitude of softening the blow. Without TB’s facilitation, it
is possible that such a translanguaging space can be closed down if TB exercises his authority to maintain classroom discipline.

7. Discussion and conclusion

The principal aim of the study is to use translanguaging as an analytical approach in order to demonstrate (1) how EMI teachers
manage students’ misbehaviours contingently and (2) how the teachers interpret their actions in dealing with students’ violation of
classroom rules. In all extracts, the MCA analysis reveals that the teachers are engaging in translanguaging practices as they make use
of different linguistic resources with diverse paralinguistic (e.g. intonation and speed of the utterances) and semiotic resources (e.g.
gestures and eye gaze) in order to exercise tactful use of teacher control for managing the moments when students violate the
classroom order. In Extract 1, the students are having private conversations and TA gives a stern look to the students. As students fail to
notice TA’s gestures, TA utilises students’ familiar knowledge of a pop culture icon in order to draw their attention which consequently
opens up a translanguaging space for easing the tension between TA’s authority and students’ misbehaviours. In Extract 2, TA initiates
a side sequence to confiscate a student’s mobile phone. TA then engages in playful talk through translanguaging with students in order
to manage students’ reactions and prevent negative taunting in the class. In Extract 3, TB’s involvement in the interaction is minimal
and the translanguaging space is largely constructed by the students who are engaging in a playful debate employing different lin­
guistic and non-linguistic resources, such as loud voices, gestures and Cantonese and English utterances. The students’ verbal fight in
Extract 3 appears as violating the normative classroom norms, which is signalled by TB’s stern look and shrugging as signs of dis­
approving students’ behaviours. However, TB does not interfere with the interaction or exercise control to restore classroom order.
Rather, TB allows the students to engage in verbal fights and he subsequently redirects students back to the flow of the classroom
activity by giving explicit instructions to all students.
This article argues that EMI teachers can draw on diverse linguistic, paralinguistic, and multimodal resources to address student
behaviours which transgress norms for classroom participation. This facilitates the creation of a safe translanguaging space for
classroom participants to resume the forward progression of classroom activity. Such a translanguaging space can also be used to
maintain control and ease the tension between the teacher’s authority and students’ participation in the EMI classrooms. This is re­
flected in the video-stimulated-recall-interview data which illustrates that the construction of a translanguaging space is shaped by the
teachers’ attitude of lightning the blow (Table 1, 2 and 3), the teacher’s attitudes in avoiding bitterness and negative taunting from
other classmates (Table 2), and teachers’ pedagogical goals for redirecting students’ attention on the subject content (Tables 2 and 3).
These are the identified sociocultural factors that shape the teachers’ use of translanguaging practices in restoring classroom order and
encouraging students to realign with adherence to behavioural rules.
This article also demonstrates that EMI classroom participation is contingent on participants producing socially acceptable and
appropriate behaviour with respect to the normative rules for the organisation of classroom interactions. Often, classroom interaction
may not come with explicit sets of rules to which students can refer to. Therefore, what is considered as a transgression of the classroom
order or deviation from the normative expectancies can vary from class to class and across different classroom activities (Hazel &
Mortensen, 2017). This means that how the student behaviours are considered as inappropriate or unacceptable will depend on the
classroom members’ orientation to the interactional practices.
The findings of the study contribute to the research on classroom discourse in bi/multilingual classroom contexts and provide
pedagogical implications in several ways. Theoretically, the paper builds on the notion of ‘translanguaging space’ (Li, 2011) and
suggests that in addition to creating a translanguaging space for facilitating classroom participation and content and language learning
(e.g. Tai & Li, 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c; Allard, 2017; Tai, 2022a, 2022b; Tai & Wong, 2022; Garcia & Li, 2014; Lin, 2019; Lin & Lo,
2017), the construction of a translanguaging space enables the teachers to harness available resources to manage student mis­
behaviours contingently and resume the onward flow of the classroom activities. Methodologically, the findings how adopting
translanguaging as an analytical approach can help researchers to understand how teachers manage student behaviours contingently
and the order of classroom participation is worked out locally, which requires students to navigate the norms for participation and
engagement. Through identifying the translanguaging moments where classroom participants orient to the transgression of the local

32
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

order, it enables researchers and teachers to understand the intricacies for teachers to maintain control and resume classroom order so
that teachers can create a positive translanguaging space for students in bi/multilingual classroom contexts, such as the EMI class­
rooms. Furthermore, the study fills in the research gaps by exploring EMI classroom interactions beyond its traditional concerns, such
as methods, materials or balancing content and language learning. For example, Walsh’s framework Self-Evaluation of Teacher Talk is
designed for L2 teachers to reflect on ‘classroom interaction as a means of improving both teaching and learning’ (Walsh, 2011: 110).
The conventional discussions of teacher talk often entail initiating questions, offering feedback, co-constructing meaning, use of pace,
framing and employing multimodal resources (e.g. Tai & Brandt, 2018; Seedhouse, 2004; Walsh, 2011). However, there is less
attention on how teachers make interactive decisions spontaneously to manage students’ misbehaviours. This study is the first study
that uses translanguaging as an analytical perspective to explore this issue in an EMI classroom context. The study offers examples of
EMI teachers adopting translanguaging practices in managing student misbehaviours by (1) engaging in playful talk (Extracts 1 and 2)
and (2) relying on multimodal resources to cast a stern look and pause instruction (Extract 3) and (3) employing verbal cues to redirect
students to the content of the lesson (Extract 3). Since teachers are managers of classroom interaction, teachers need to manage
different scenarios of ‘chaos’ contingently. More empirical research is needed to develop a comprehensive understanding of how
teachers can deal with student misbehaviours knowledgeably through adopting effective classroom management strategies, rather
than intuitively and haphazardly (Waring, 2013a, 2013b).
The present study is limited to the context of EMI history and mathematics secondary classrooms in HK. Future research can
attempt to explore various classroom contexts in order to conduct cross-cultural comparisons regarding how different teachers from
different contexts manage different kinds of student behaviours. Moreover, the findings that are analysed here demonstrate what is
done, not necessarily what teachers should be done. The findings offer a basis for explicating the choices that EMI teachers make in
their own classroom contexts. It can also bring to light a variety of concerns that teachers need to manage on a moment-by-moment
basis in classroom interactions, such as classroom order, learning, student participation and progressivity. It is hoped that the research
study can offer a useful extension to the existing work on EMI classroom interaction and future research can adopt longitudinal
methods to understand how EMI teachers manage student behaviours over time and how teachers’ perceptions change as they obtain
more experience.

Author statement

Kevin W.H. Tai: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing,
Project administration, Funding acquisition.

Acknowledgement

First and foremost, I would like to thank the EMI mathematics and history teachers and students who participated in this study.
Thanks must also be given to Professor Yongyan Zheng and the anonymous reviewers who took time to give feedback on my work. The
work described in this paper was supported by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (Grant Reference: ES/P000592/1).

Appendix: MCA. transcription conventions (adapted from Jefferson, 2004 and Mondada, 2018)

Sequential and Timing Elements of the Interaction.

[ Beginning point of simultaneous speaking (of two of more people)

] End point of simultaneous speaking

¼ Talk by two speakers which is contiguous
OR (i.e. not overlapping, but with no hearable pause in between)
continuation of the same turn by the same speaker even though the turn is separated in the transcript
(0.2) The time (in tenths of a second) between utterances
(.) A micro-pause (one tenth of a second or less)

Paralinguistic Elements of Interaction.

wo:rd Sound extension of a word (more colons: longer

stretches)
word. Fall in tone (not necessarily the end of a sentence)
word, Continuing intonation (not necessarily
between clauses) rowhead
wor- An abrupt stop in articulation
word? Rising inflection (not necessarily a question)
(continued on next page)

33
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

(continued )
wo:rd Sound extension of a word (more colons: longer

word (underline) Emphasised word, part of word or sound

word↑ Rising intonation
word↓ Falling intonation
◦
word◦ Talk that is quieter than surrounding talk
hh Audible out-breaths
.hh Audible in-breaths
w(hh)ord Laughter within a word
>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.

(word) Approximations of what is heard

((comment)) Analyst’s notes

# Indicating the exact locations of the figures in the transcripts
þ Marks the onset of a non-verbal action (e.g. shift of gaze, pointing)
XX Inaudible utterances

References

Allard, E. (2017). Re-examining teacher translanguaging: An ecological perspective. Bilingual Research Journal, 40, 116–130.
Brouwer, C. E., & Wagner, J. (2004). Developmental issues in second language conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 29–47.
Conrad, P. (1987). The experience of illness: Recent and new directions. Research in the Sociology of Health Care, 6, 1–31.
Ding, M., Li, Y., & Kulm, G. (2008). Chinese teachers’ perceptions of students’ classroom misbehaviour. Educational Psychology, 28, 305–324.
Duff, P. (1995). An ethnography of communication in immersion classrooms in Hungary. Tesol Quarterly, 29, 505–537.
Education Bureau. (2009). Fine-tuning the medium of instruction for secondary schools. Hong Kong: Education Bureau Circular No. 6/2009. Government Printer.
Garcia, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hazel, S., & Mortensen, K. (2017). The classroom moral compass – participation, engagement and transgression in classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse, 8(3),
214–234.
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301–320.
Ho, C., & Leung, J. (2002). Disruptive classroom behaviours of secondary and primary school students. Educational Research Journal, 17, 219–233.
Houghton, S., Wheldall, K., & Merrett, F. (1988). Classroom behavior problems which secondary school teachers say they find most troublesome. British Educational
Research Journal, 14, 297–312.
Hue, M., & Li, W. (2008). Classroom management: Creating a positive learning environment. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
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.
Leung, J., & Ho, C. (2001). Disruptive behavior perceived by Hong Kong primary school teachers. Educational Research Journal, 16, 223–237.
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. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39, 9–30.
Li, W. (2020). Multilingual English users’ linguistic innovation. World Englishes, 39, 236–248.
Lin, A. M. Y. (2019). Theories of translanguaging and trans-semiotising: 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 and Education, 16, 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,
26–45.
Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (2010). Historical explanations as situated practice in content and language integrated learning. Classroom Discourse, 1(1), 65–84.
Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Mahan, K., Brevik, L., & Ødegaard, M. (2021). Characterizing CLIL teaching: New insights from a lower secondary classroom. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 24(3), 401–418.
Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 491–500.
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.
Morton, T., & Jakonen, T. (2016). Integration of language and content through languaging in CLIL classroom interaction: A conversation analysis perspective. In
T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 171–189). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Paoletti, I., & Fele, G. (2004). Order and disorder in the classroom. Pragmatics, 14(1), 69–85.
Peng, S. S. (1993). Fostering student discipline and effort: Approaches used in Chinese schools. Retrieved from ERIC database, 363562.
Reddington, E. (2018). Managing participation in the adult ESL classroom: Engagement and exit practices. Classroom Discourse, 9(2), 132–149.
Sah, P., & Li, G. (2020). Translanguaging or unequal languaging? Unfolding the plurilingual discourse of English medium instruction (EMI) in Nepal’s public schools.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25 (6): 2075-2094.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. London: Blackwell.
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2013). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method, and research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Sun, R., & Shek, D. (2012). Student classroom misbehavior: An exploratory study based on teachers’ perceptions. The Scientific World Journal, 1–8.

34
K.W.H. Tai System 113 (2023) 102959

Tai, K. W. H. (2022a). Translanguaging as Inclusive Pedagogical Practices in English Medium Instruction Science and Mathematics Classrooms for Linguistically and
Culturally Diverse Students. Research in Science Education, 52(3), 975–1012.
Tai, K. W. H. (2022b). A Translanguaging Perspective on Teacher Contingency in Hong Kong English Medium Instruction History Classrooms’. Applied Linguistics. https://doi.
org/10.1093/applin/amac039
Tai, K. W. H., & Brandt, A. (2018). Creating an Imaginary Context: Teacher’s Use of Embodied Enactments in Addressing a Learner’s Initiatives in a Beginner-Level
Adult ESOL Classroom. Classroom Discourse, 9(3), 244–266.
Tai, K. W. H., & Li, Wei. (2020). 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, Wei (2021a). Constructing Playful Talk through Translanguaging in the English Medium Instruction Mathematics Classrooms. Applied Linguistics,
42(4), 607–640.
Tai, K. W. H., & Li, Wei (2021b). Co-Learning in Hong Kong English Medium Instruction Mathematics Secondary Classrooms: A Translanguaging Perspective. Language
and Education, 35(3), 241–267.
Tai, K. W. H., & Li, Wei (2021c). The Affordances of iPad for Constructing a Technology-Mediated Space in Hong Kong English Medium Instruction Secondary
Classrooms: A Translanguaging View. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of Print.
Tai, K. W. H., & Wong, C. Y. (2022). Empowering students through the construction of a translanguaging space in an English as a first language classroom. Applied
Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amac069. Epub ahead of Print.
Tavares, N. J. (2015). How strategic use of L1 in an L2-medium mathematics classroom facilitates L2 interaction and comprehension. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 319–335.
ten Have, P. (1990). Methodological issues in conversation analysis. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 27, 23–51.
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Abingdon: Routledge.
Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4),
577–594.
Waring, H. Z. (2012). Any questions?": Investigating understanding-checks in the language classroom. Tesol Quarterly, 46(4), 722–752.
Waring, H. Z. (2013b). Managing stacy: A case study of turn-taking in the Language classroom. System, 41(3), 841–851.
Waring, H. Z. (2013a). Managing the competing voices in the language classroom. Discourse Processes, 50(5), 316–338.
Waring, H. Z., Reddington, E., & Tadic, N. (2016). Responding artfully to student-initiated departures in the adult ESL classroom. Linguistics and Education, 33, 28–39.
Wheldall, K., & Merrett, F. E. (1988). Which classroom behaviours do primary school teachers say they find most troublesome? Educational Review, 40, 13–17.
Zhao, Y. (2007). Cultural conflicts in an intercultural classroom discourse and interpretations from a cultural perspective. Intercultural Communication Studies, 16(1),
129–136.
Zhou, W., & Li, G. (2015). Chinese language teachers’ expectations and perceptions of American students’ behaviour: Exploring the nexus of cultural differences and
classroom management. System, 49, 17–27.

Kevin W. H. Tai is Assistant Professor of English Language Education at the Faculty of Education in The University of Hong Kong and Honorary Research Fellow at IOE,
UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society in University College London (UCL). Additionally, he is Academic and Career Tutor (Tutorial Fellow) at St John’s College, The
University of Hong Kong. In relation to his editorial positions, Kevin Tai is Associate Editor of The Language Learning Journal (ESCI-listed Journal; Routledge), Assistant
Editor of the International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (SSCI-listed Journal; Routledge) and Managing Guest Editor of Learning and Instruction (SSCI-
listed Journal; Elsevier). He has a PhD in Applied Linguistics from UCL and his doctoral research was fully funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council
(ESRC). His research interests include: language education policy, classroom discourse, translanguaging in multilingual contexts and qualitative research methods
(particularly Multimodal Conversation Analysis, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis and Linguistic Ethnography). Kevin Tai is a Fellow of the Royal Society of
Arts (FRSA) and an Associate Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (AFHEA).

35