https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7685-6356
Figures
Abstract
This study examines the perceptions and practices of translanguaging among pre-service English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers in Turkey, employing a mixed-method research design with a phenomenological framework. The sample consists of 401 pre-service EFL teachers from the Education Faculty’s English Language Teaching (ELT) Department at a state university during the 2024–2025 academic year. Data collection included a rigorously developed 28-item Likert-scale questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire, refined through factor analysis, explored various dimensions of translanguaging, including its perceived benefits, challenges, and usage contexts. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, while qualitative data were examined through thematic analysis. The results suggest that translanguaging is widely perceived as a valuable and natural pedagogical strategy, as it enhances learning by reducing language anxiety, fostering inclusivity, and promoting active participation. Its "natural" aspect lies in the alignment with learners’ spontaneous use of their full linguistic repertoire, facilitating smoother integration into the learning process. Translanguaging is shown to alleviate anxiety, build confidence, and stimulate classroom engagement. This research underscores the significance of integrating translanguaging in teacher education programs and highlights the need for further investigation into its diverse effects on language learning and teaching practices.
Citation: Ulum ÖG (2024) Breaking down linguistic barriers: The radical impact of translanguaging on pre-service EFL teachers’ perspectives in Turkey. PLoS ONE 19(12): e0315982. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315982
Editor: Mary Diane Clark, Lamar University, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Received: July 30, 2024; Accepted: December 3, 2024; Published: December 23, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Ömer Gökhan Ulum. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
In recent years, the concept of translanguaging has garnered significant attention in the field of language education [1–6]. Translanguaging, a strategy involving multiple languages within a classroom setting, allows students and teachers to draw on their full linguistic repertoire during lessons [1, 7, 8]. This approach recognizes and utilizes the languages students are already familiar with [9], such as Turkish, Azerbaijani, Kurdish, Arabic, and English, throughout various stages of instruction. The strategy of translanguaging in English lessons can be seen from multiple perspectives [10]. Leung and Valdés [4] argue that it is a natural and beneficial practice that supports language learning by reducing anxiety [11], increasing confidence [12], and facilitating comprehension [13]. On the other hand, translanguaging is also viewed as a consequence of inadequate English language proficiency, whether in terms of linguistic skills, speaking abilities, or confidence in using English exclusively [14]. The primary aim of this research is to explore the perceptions of pre-service English teachers regarding the use of translanguaging in English lessons. Specifically, the study will investigate whether translanguaging is perceived as a useful pedagogical tool or a necessity born out of linguistic deficiencies. Furthermore, the research will examine the potential benefits of translanguaging for enhancing participation, motivation, effective communication, creative thinking, and critical reflection among students.
The following research questions guide this investigation:
Main Research Question
How do various factors influence translanguaging among pre-service English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers in state university settings?
Sub-Research Questions
- To what extent do gender differences impact the utilization of translanguaging in EFL environments?
- How does the application of translanguaging vary across different classes within EFL settings?
- What are the general perceptions of pre-service EFL teachers at a state university regarding the translanguaging strategy in EFL contexts?
- How do pre-service EFL teachers at a state university perceive the application of translanguaging within specific EFL contexts?
- What are the perceived benefits of translanguaging according to pre-service EFL teachers at a state university?
2. Background of the study
The concept of translanguaging, initially developed within the context of bilingual education, has its origins in the work of Welsh scholars during the 1980s. Colin Baker is credited with coining the term translanguaging when he encountered the work of Cen Williams, a leader in Welsh language revitalization programs [15–17]. Originally applied to Welsh-English bilingual classrooms, translanguaging referred to the systematic use of both languages for different instructional purposes [18]. The practice allowed students to engage in a dynamic interchange between languages, with the aim of promoting deeper understanding and greater cognitive engagement through both languages. As translanguaging evolved, it began to challenge the traditional notion of language separation, which had long dominated bilingual education [19]. Instead of viewing languages as distinct and isolated entities, translanguaging emphasized the fluidity of language use, where speakers drew from their entire linguistic repertoire to communicate effectively. This shift in perspective led to the expansion of translanguaging beyond Welsh-English contexts, influencing multilingual classrooms globally [14]. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, translanguaging was further conceptualized by researchers such as García [20] and Otheguy, García, and Reid [21], who developed it into a robust sociolinguistic theory. This theory positioned translanguaging as a practice that not only facilitates communication but also serves as a form of resistance to monolingual ideologies, which often marginalize multilingual speakers. By recognizing the legitimacy of all linguistic resources, translanguaging has become a powerful pedagogical tool in advocating for language rights and equity in education. Furthermore, scholars like Canagarajah [22, 23] expanded translanguaging as an innovative teaching strategy, wherein both students and teachers strategically use multiple languages to foster deeper learning, encourage critical thinking, and bridge gaps between languages and cultures. This pedagogical shift reflects a growing awareness of the sociocultural and cognitive benefits of integrating multiple languages in the classroom, rather than enforcing strict language boundaries.
The history of translanguaging demonstrates its development from a practical tool in bilingual education to a comprehensive framework for understanding and utilizing multilingualism in educational settings. As a result, translanguaging is now widely recognized as a critical strategy for promoting inclusivity and engagement in diverse learning environments [15, 16, 24, 25]. Its application extends beyond language instruction, influencing policies and practices aimed at empowering multilingual students and fostering culturally responsive pedagogy.
Translanguaging, a concept rooted in bilingual education [1], has evolved as a critical pedagogical strategy in multilingual classrooms [26]. Originating from the work of Welsh scholars in the 1980s, translanguaging involves the fluid and dynamic use of multiple languages to facilitate learning and communication [15, 16, 18]. It challenges the traditional view of language separation [27, 28] and promotes the integration of students’ linguistic resources in a cohesive and meaningful manner [29, 30]. In the context of English language teaching, translanguaging has gained prominence as educators recognize the diverse linguistic backgrounds of their students [31, 32]. Turkey, characterized by its rich linguistic diversity, presents a unique landscape for exploring the implications of translanguaging in English language classrooms [33, 34]. For students who speak Turkish, Azerbaijani, Kurdish, and Arabic, English language instruction in Turkey provides a fertile ground for implementing and studying translanguaging practices [35]. The theoretical foundations of translanguaging are supported by several educational theories, including Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, which emphasizes the role of social interaction and cultural tools in learning [36, 37], and Cummins’ threshold hypothesis, which suggests that a certain level of proficiency in both languages is necessary for cognitive benefits to manifest [38, 39]. Translanguaging aligns with these theories by leveraging students’ existing linguistic competencies to enhance their learning experiences. Empirical studies on translanguaging have demonstrated its potential benefits in various educational settings [1, 6, 40]. For instance, research has shown that translanguaging can reduce language anxiety [41], increase student participation [42], and foster a deeper understanding of the subject matter [43]. It also allows students to express complex ideas and engage in higher-order thinking using their full linguistic repertoire [44]. Additionally, translanguaging has been found to support the maintenance and development of students’ home languages, contributing to their linguistic and cultural identity [29, 40, 45]. Despite its advantages, translanguaging presents challenges and raises concerns [46, 47]. Some educators and stakeholders worry that it might hinder the development of English proficiency, particularly if students rely too heavily on their first languages [48]. There are also concerns about the feasibility of implementing translanguaging practices in classrooms with varying levels of language proficiency among students [3].
In Turkey, the adoption of translanguaging in English language classrooms is influenced by several factors [34, 49, 50], including teachers’ beliefs [50, 51], instructional practices [52], and institutional policies [50, 52]. Teachers’ perceptions of translanguaging play a crucial role in its implementation [50, 53]. While some teachers view it as a valuable strategy to support learning [10, 50], others perceive it as a sign of linguistic deficiency or lack of confidence in using English [48, 54].
This study seeks to investigate these diverse perspectives and contribute to the ongoing discourse on translanguaging in English language education. By examining the perceptions of both teachers and students, the research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the role of translanguaging in English language classrooms in Turkey. The findings will offer insights into how translanguaging can be effectively integrated into language teaching practices, addressing its potential benefits and challenges. Ultimately, this study aims to inform educators, policymakers, and researchers about the practical implications of translanguaging, promoting its thoughtful and strategic use to enhance language learning outcomes and support the linguistic and cultural diversity of students in Turkey.
2.1 Significance of the study
The significance of this study on translanguaging in English language classrooms in Turkey is multifaceted, addressing several critical areas in language education and broader educational practices. First and foremost, this study contributes to understanding how translanguaging can enhance language learning. By leveraging students’ full linguistic repertoire, translanguaging can deepen comprehension, facilitate learning complex concepts, and promote critical thinking. This research will provide empirical evidence on the effectiveness of translanguaging in improving English proficiency, thus offering valuable insights for language educators seeking to adopt more inclusive and effective teaching strategies. In a country as linguistically diverse as Turkey, promoting multilingualism is essential. This study highlights the importance of maintaining and valuing students’ home languages while learning English. The findings will underscore the role of translanguaging in supporting linguistic diversity, helping educators foster an environment where multiple languages are seen as assets rather than barriers. This approach aligns with global educational trends that emphasize the value of multilingualism in fostering cognitive, social, and cultural development. Teacher perceptions and practices play a crucial role in successfully implementing translanguaging. By exploring the attitudes and beliefs of English teachers towards translanguaging, this study will identify the factors that influence their willingness and ability to integrate this strategy into their teaching. Understanding these factors will enable the development of targeted professional development programs and resources that support teachers in effectively utilizing translanguaging to enhance their instructional practices. Language anxiety is a significant barrier to language acquisition [55–59]. This study will examine how translanguaging can reduce anxiety and increase students’ confidence in using English. By providing a supportive environment where students can draw on their linguistic strengths, translanguaging can help mitigate the stress associated with learning a new language. The insights from this research will be valuable for educators and policymakers aiming to create more inclusive and supportive language learning environments. The findings of this study have important implications for educational policy. Policymakers will better understand the benefits and challenges of translanguaging, informing decisions related to language education curricula and instructional strategies. By highlighting the practical benefits of translanguaging, this study can advocate for policies that support multilingual education and recognize the linguistic rights of students. Finally, this study significantly contributes to the academic literature on translanguaging and multilingual education. It comprehensively analyses the perceptions and practices surrounding translanguaging in a specific context, enriching the global discourse on language education. The research findings will serve as a valuable resource for scholars, educators, and students interested in the intersections of language, culture, and education. In summary, this study is significant because it explores the potential of translanguaging to enhance language learning, support multilingualism, inform teacher practices, reduce language anxiety, and shape educational policies. By addressing these areas, the research aims to promote a more inclusive and effective approach to language education that values and leverages the linguistic diversity of students in Turkey.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research design
This study employs a mixed-method research design, integrating both quantitative and qualitative approaches to comprehensively understand the perceptions and practices surrounding translanguaging in English language classrooms. Specifically, the research follows a phenomenological approach to explore the lived experiences and perspectives of pre-service English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers at a state university in Turkey.
3.2 Participants
This study’s participants are 401 pre-service EFL teachers enrolled in the Education Faculty, English Language Teaching (ELT) Department at a state university in Turkey for the 2024–2025 academic year. The participants include 45 preparatory class students, 49 first-year students, 129 second-year students, 100 third-year students, and 78 fourth-year students. The sample comprises 243 female and 158 male participants, representing the student body differently. The present study has been reviewed by the Mersin University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee. The study was found to be ethically appropriate in the decision dated July 11, 2024, with Decision Number 249. The recruitment period for the data collection were between July 11–20, 2024. Additionally, written informed consent was provided by all participants. Participants were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses, and they were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences.
3.3 Data collection instruments
3.3.1 Questionnaire.
A questionnaire was developed to collect quantitative data on the perceptions of pre-service EFL teachers regarding translanguaging. Prior to its full implementation, the questionnaire was pilot tested with a sample of 30 pre-service EFL teachers to ensure clarity, reliability, and validity of the items. Based on the feedback from the pilot study, several items were revised for clarity, and a few ambiguous or redundant items were removed to improve the overall coherence and effectiveness of the instrument. The development of the questionnaire involved a rigorous process, including a factor analysis to ensure the reliability and validity of the instrument. The questionnaire addressed various aspects of translanguaging, such as its perceived benefits, challenges, and the contexts in which it is most frequently used. The factor analysis helped to identify key dimensions of translanguaging perceptions, which were then used to structure the questionnaire. The final version of the questionnaire consisted of 34 items, rated on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), covering themes such as naturalness, usefulness, anxiety reduction, confidence building, and perceived necessity of translanguaging.
The Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin value was computed to be 0.865 (X2 = 7394.731, df = 561, p < .001), indicating that the sample size was adequate for a factor analysis. Therefore, multiple-factor analyses were run on the data until no item was loaded into multiple factors, as indicated by a loading difference smaller than 0.10. As a result, items B27, B26, A17, A11, B21 and A12 were removed, finalizing the scale. As a result, items B27, B26, A17, A11, B21, and A12 were removed, finalizing the scale. The final group of items explained 71.052% of the variance in the data with 28 items and eight factors. The factors and their respective items are as follows: Factor 1 comprises items A7, A8, A2, A10, A9, and A1, with item loadings of 0.829, 0.761, 0.631, 0.597, 0.537, and 0.486, respectively. Factor 2 includes items C33, C34, C32, and C31, with loadings of 0.912, 0.839, 0.818, and 0.751. Factor 3 consists of items B24, B22, B23, and B25, with loadings of 0.947, 0.708, 0.675, and 0.606. Factor 4 contains items A14, A15, and A16, with loadings of 0.913, 0.892, and 0.696. Factor 5 comprises items B28, C30, B20, and C29, with loadings of 0.77, 0.744, 0.644, and 0.621. Factor 6 comprises items A4 and A3, with loadings of 0.986 and 0.727. Factor 7 includes items A6 and A5, with loadings of 0.859 and 0.792. Lastly, Factor 8 consists of items B18 and B19, with loadings of 0.992 and 0.714. These factors collectively explain the majority of the variance in the data, contributing to the robustness and reliability of the final scale. Factor loadings are presented below in Table 1.
The reliability coefficient for the scale was found to be .888. The coefficients were .747 for A, .816 for B and .864 for C. The data was also seen to have been normally distributed in the scale and all its subscales. The skewness and kurtosis values were between -.709 and .399, indicating normal distributions. These values are presented in Table 2.
Based on the normal distributions, gender-based means were compared using an independent samples t-test. For class comparisons, one-way ANOVAs were used with Tukey post hoc analysis. However, LSD posthoc analysis was used for the A subscale since the ANOVA was significant, but Tukey posthoc tests did not produce any significant difference across groups.
3.3.2 Semi-structured interviews.
To complement the quantitative data, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subset of 120 pre-service EFL teachers. The interviews were designed by the researcher and aimed to delve deeper into the phenomenological aspects of translanguaging. The semi-structured format allowed for flexibility in exploring participants’ experiences, attitudes, and practices related to translanguaging in their teaching. The interview questions were developed based on the questionnaire’s findings and the translanguaging literature. Key topics included the participants’ experiences with translanguaging, their perceived advantages and disadvantages of using multiple languages in the classroom, and specific instances where translanguaging was used effectively or ineffectively.
3.4 Data collection procedure
The data collection process was carried out in two phases:
3.4.1 Quantitative phase.
The questionnaire was distributed to 401 pre-service EFL teachers at the state university. Participants completed the questionnaire during scheduled class sessions to ensure a high response rate and the integrity of the data collection process.
3.4.2 Qualitative phase.
120 participants were selected for in-depth interviews following the quantitative phase. These participants were chosen based on their responses to the questionnaire, ensuring a diverse representation of perspectives. The interviews were conducted in a quiet and comfortable setting, each lasting approximately 25–30 minutes. All interviews were audio-recorded with the participant’s consent and subsequently transcribed for analysis.
3.5 Data analysis
3.5.1 Quantitative data.
The quantitative data from the questionnaire were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics provided an overview of the general trends and patterns in the participants’ perceptions of translanguaging. Factor analysis was used to confirm the underlying dimensions of the questionnaire items. Inferential statistics, such as t-tests and ANOVA, were employed to examine differences in perceptions based on demographic variables such as academic year, gender, and prior experience with multilingual education.
3.5.2 Qualitative data.
The qualitative data from the semi-structured interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. The transcribed interviews were coded and categorized into themes that emerged from the data. This process involved multiple rounds of coding to ensure the accuracy and depth of the analysis. To enhance the reliability of the coding process, inter-rater reliability was assessed by having two independent researchers code a subset of the interviews. The level of agreement between the coders was calculated using Cohen’s Kappa, which resulted in a value of 0.82, indicating a substantial level of agreement and high inter-rater reliability. The themes were then compared and contrasted with the quantitative findings to understand the participants’ perceptions and experiences with translanguaging comprehensively.
4. Findings and results
4.1 Questionnaire results
Gender comparisons are presented in Table 3.
All comparisons were significant according to the t-test results (p < .05). The results showed that the mean values for the male participants were significantly lower than those for the female participants in the scale and all its subscales. The descriptive results divided by classes and their ANOVA comparisons are given in Tables 4 and 5.
As seen in Tables 4 and 5, there were significant differences in the scale and all its subscales (p < .05). Post hoc tests showed that 4th-year participants had higher means than 3rd-year and 2nd-year participants in scale total and subscale A, 3rd-year participants in subscale B and all other participants in subscale C (p < .05). In addition, prep and 1st-year participants were seen to have significantly higher means than 2nd and 3rd-year participants in subscale A (p < .05). Table 6 below presents the beliefs of pre-service EFL teachers regarding translanguaging.
The descriptive statistics indicate that pre-service EFL teachers generally have a positive perception of translanguaging in English language classes. The highest agreement was observed for the view that translanguaging is a natural practice (mean = 3.9501, SD = 1.15651) and a beneficial strategy (mean = 3.7681, SD = 0.96363). Teachers also believe that translanguaging helps reduce anxiety (mean = 3.7307, SD = 1.01601) and boosts confidence (mean = 3.5137, SD = 1.16423) when using English. There is a positive attitude towards using different languages in the classroom (mean = 3.4464, SD = 1.15444), with support for preserving these languages (mean = 3.5212, SD = 1.11138) and viewing their use as a part of human rights (mean = 3.4489, SD = 1.15022). However, there is less agreement that translanguaging indicates deficiencies in English language skills, such as knowledge (mean = 3.1272, SD = 1.16029), speaking ability (mean = 3.2818, SD = 1.16529), confidence (mean = 3.0848, SD = 1.19908), and anxiety (mean = 3.2868, SD = 1.17900). Additionally, there is moderate agreement that translanguaging is necessary for learning English (mean = 3.2868, SD = 1.15544) and facilitates this process (mean = 3.3042, SD = 1.13455). The lowest agreement was for the perception that translanguaging disadvantages monolingual students (mean = 3.1247, SD = 1.19349). Table 7 below displays the usage of translanguaging strategies by pre-service EFL teachers in various instructional contexts.
The descriptive statistics for English teachers using translanguaging strategies in different instructional contexts reveal interesting insights. The highest agreement among the pre-service EFL teachers was for using translanguaging to give instructions (mean = 4.0748, SD = 0.99468) and to explain concepts (mean = 4.0599, SD = 0.93883). There was moderate agreement for using translanguaging to help students with sufficient academic achievement (mean = 3.4264, SD = 1.28460), to develop foreign language skills (mean = 3.3890, SD = 1.15900), and to explain topics (mean = 3.3666, SD = 1.39742). Similarly, teachers moderately agreed on using translanguaging to develop high-achieving students further (mean = 3.3541, SD = 1.18080) and to conduct research related to the topic (mean = 3.3142, SD = 1.22107). The lowest agreement was for using translanguaging to support students when they face difficulties (mean = 3.1621, SD = 1.31763). These results suggest that while translanguaging is highly valued for instructional clarity and student guidance, its use for supporting struggling students and enhancing academic performance is moderately beneficial. Table 8 below shows the benefits of translanguaging strategies in English learning contexts.
The descriptive statistics for the benefits of translanguaging strategies English learners use in various contexts indicate strong agreement on several aspects. The highest mean scores were observed for increasing participation (mean = 4.0150, SD = 1.01969) and motivation (mean = 4.0125, SD = 1.13681). Moderate agreement was found for using translanguaging in debates (mean = 3.7382, SD = 1.11524), ensuring effective communication (mean = 3.7207, SD = 1.13216), and fostering creative thinking (mean = 3.6833, SD = 1.14103). The lowest agreement was for using translanguaging to enhance critical and reflective thinking (mean = 3.4713, SD = 1.21441). These results suggest that translanguaging is particularly valued for boosting student participation and motivation. At the same time, its perceived effectiveness in promoting higher-order thinking skills is comparatively lower.
4.2 Interview results
The following table represents the various aspects of translanguaging perceived by pre-service English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers, including their general attitudes towards its practice, personal usage patterns, intentionality, and its impact on classroom environments and language acquisition. The data highlights translanguaging’s perceived benefits and challenges, offering a comprehensive overview of its influence on teaching practices and student outcomes. Table 9 below represents the related interview results.
The data reveals a strong alignment between quantitative and qualitative findings, highlighting the overall positive perception and intentional use of translanguaging among pre-service EFL teachers. An overwhelming 90% of interviewees consider translanguaging a natural and beneficial strategy, consistent with high mean scores on perceived benefits (e.g., A1, A2, A9). A significant 85% use translanguaging to facilitate understanding and flow, aligning with high usage scores (e.g., B17, B22), while 80% employ it intentionally to reduce anxiety and boost confidence, mirroring related questionnaire items (e.g., A9, A10). Situationally, 91.7% use translanguaging when grappling with grammar, vocabulary, or complex concepts. Positive classroom contributions, including increased participation and comfort, were noted by 87.5%, aligning with benefits items (C24, C23). 83.3% acknowledged substantial benefits for language acquisition, resonating with related items (A9, A10, C24). However, 70.8% expressed concerns about over-reliance on native languages potentially impacting English proficiency, reflecting concerns noted in items (A3 and A5). Additionally, 90% believe using different languages enriches the classroom environment and aids cultural understanding, and 88.3% see significant contributions to cultural awareness, aligning with questionnaire findings (C23, C27). Finally, 90.8% view translanguaging as crucial for promoting multiculturalism and multilingualism, consistent with high scores on related benefits (C24, C23, C27). Below are sample student sentences for each theme to help illustrate their perspectives:
4.2.1 Perception of translanguaging practice.
Students expressed a variety of opinions on the usefulness of translanguaging in their learning. While some viewed it as a natural and helpful tool for comprehending complex topics, others found it either unnecessary or less effective for their learning preferences:
I find translanguaging a very natural and helpful part of my learning. It makes it easier to understand complex topics.
For me, translanguaging is okay but only sometimes necessary. I can get by without it.
I do not see much benefit in using different languages in class. I prefer sticking to English.
This range of perspectives highlights the diverse ways in which students perceive the value of translanguaging, with some viewing it as integral, while others find it dispensable.
4.2.2 Personal use of translanguaging.
When discussing their personal use of translanguaging, students varied in how frequently they relied on this practice. While some used it regularly to deepen their understanding, others preferred sticking to English unless they encountered a specific challenge:
I regularly use translanguaging in my studies to make sure I better grasp the meaning of new concepts.
I use it only when I am stuck. Otherwise, I try to stick to English.
I prefer to use only English in my classes, as I feel it is more effective.
These reflections show that translanguaging is a personalized strategy, with some students making it a central part of their learning, while others reserve it for specific circumstances.
4.2.3 Intentionality of translanguaging.
The intentionality behind translanguaging use was another key theme. For some students, it is a conscious strategy to manage anxiety and improve confidence, while for others, it occurs more spontaneously without deliberate intention:
I intentionally use translanguaging to ease my anxiety and boost my confidence in speaking English.
Sometimes I use translanguaging without thinking about it, but other times I do it intentionally to help with my learning.
I use different languages unconsciously whenever it happens during my learning process.
This mix of intentional and unintentional use underscores the varying levels of awareness students bring to their use of translanguaging as a learning aid.
4.2.4 Situations for translanguaging.
Students also identified particular situations in which they were more likely to engage in translanguaging. These tended to involve challenging aspects of language learning, such as complex grammar rules or unfamiliar vocabulary:
I mostly use translanguaging when dealing with difficult grammar rules or unfamiliar vocabulary.
I only use translanguaging if I have to, usually in particular situations.
I rarely use translanguaging unless necessary for understanding something.
These responses suggest that translanguaging is often reserved for moments when students face difficulties in their language learning process, highlighting its role as a support mechanism.
4.2.5 Classroom environment contributions.
Students’ opinions on the effect of translanguaging on the classroom environment were mixed. Some found that it improved participation and comfort, while others did not notice a significant difference or felt that it could detract from the focus of the class:
Translanguaging has improved my class participation and made me feel more comfortable expressing myself.
I do not notice much difference in the classroom environment when translanguaging is used.
In my experience, translanguaging sometimes makes the classroom environment less focused.
These contrasting views indicate that while some students perceive translanguaging as fostering a more inclusive classroom atmosphere, others feel that it does not have a meaningful impact on the overall class dynamics.
4.2.6 Language acquisition contributions.
Regarding language acquisition, some students credited translanguaging with helping them understand English more effectively, while others felt its contributions were minimal:
Using translanguaging has greatly helped my understanding of English and made me feel more confident.
Translanguaging helps with my language learning, but not as much as I had hoped.
I do not feel that translanguaging contributes much to my language acquisition.
These differing viewpoints suggest that while translanguaging can be a valuable tool for some learners, its perceived effectiveness in language acquisition varies significantly.
4.2.7 Possible disadvantages of translanguaging.
Some participants raised concerns about potential downsides to translanguaging, such as the risk of over-reliance on multiple languages or the possibility of confusing them. However, others saw no real disadvantages:
I worry that relying on translanguaging too much might weaken my English skills over time.
There are a few disadvantages, like potentially confusing the languages or relying on them too much.
I do not see any real disadvantages in using translanguaging.
These responses highlight both the perceived risks and the lack of concern for potential negative effects, underscoring that students’ experiences with translanguaging are diverse.
4.2.8 Use of different languages in English classes.
The use of multiple languages in English classes elicited a range of opinions from students. Some found it enriching and inclusive, while others felt neutral or questioned its benefits:
Incorporating different languages in our English classes has made the environment richer and more inclusive.
I feel neutral about using other languages in class; it does not make much difference to me.
Using different languages does not seem to benefit my learning experience in English
These mixed responses suggest that the effectiveness of using multiple languages in English classes is highly context-dependent and varies from learner to learner.
4.2.9 Classroom and cultural contributions of multilingualism.
Many students acknowledged the broader cultural contributions of multilingualism, particularly in helping them understand and respect different cultures. However, the perceived impact of multilingualism was not universally felt:
Multilingualism has significantly helped me understand and respect different cultures better.
There are some benefits to multilingualism, but they are not as impactful as I expected.
I do not see how multilingualism contributes much to my understanding of other cultures.
This variation in perceptions indicates that while multilingualism can enhance cultural understanding for some, its benefits are not universally recognized by all learners.
4.2.10 Impact on promoting multiculturalism and multilingualism.
Finally, students reflected on the impact of translanguaging in promoting multiculturalism and multilingualism. While some saw clear benefits, others were less convinced of its impact:
Translanguaging has played a major role in improving my communication skills and understanding of different cultures.
It has some impact on multiculturalism and multilingualism, but not as much as I would have liked.
I have not noticed much of an impact on promoting multiculturalism or multilingualism from translanguaging.
These responses show that while translanguaging is viewed as a potential tool for fostering multicultural and multilingual competencies, its perceived influence varies among students. Table 10 below presents a comparison of the questionnaire and interview findings.
The comparison underscores a strong alignment between the quantitative and qualitative findings in the study on translanguaging practices among pre-service EFL teachers. The questionnaire and interview data consistently reveal positive perceptions of translanguaging as a beneficial and natural strategy in English language classrooms. The agreement on the intentional use of translanguaging to reduce anxiety and boost confidence and its significant contributions to participation, motivation, and understanding is evident across both datasets. Additionally, concerns about over-reliance on native languages and its potential impact on English proficiency are reflected in both sources. The qualitative interviews provide detailed contexts that complement the broader categories captured in the quantitative data, reinforcing the overall coherence and depth of the study’s findings on the role and impact of translanguaging in fostering a multilingual and culturally rich classroom environment.
5. Discussion
This study explored pre-service EFL teachers’ perceptions of, and attitudes towards, translanguaging strategies, their reported usage of these strategies in various instructional contexts, and the perceived benefits of translanguaging for English learners. The results provide valuable insights into how translanguaging is perceived and utilized in language education, while also comparing these findings with existing literature.
The analysis revealed gender differences in perceptions of translanguaging, with female participants generally holding more favorable views than their male counterparts across the scale and all its subscales. Several factors may contribute to these differences. First, research suggests that women often adopt more collaborative and inclusive communication styles [60, 61], which might align with translanguaging practices promoting the use of multiple languages for understanding and learning [10]. This could explain why female pre-service teachers might be more receptive to translanguaging.
Second, language anxiety and confidence levels vary by gender [62]. Female participants may view translanguaging as a tool that reduces anxiety and increases confidence, as reflected in their more positive perceptions [56]. Third, differences in educational experiences and exposure to multilingual education might influence perceptions [63, 64]. If female students have had more positive experiences or greater encouragement in using multiple languages, they may perceive translanguaging more favorably [65, 66].
Furthermore, teaching philosophies may differ by gender, with female teachers often emphasizing empathy and inclusivity in their approaches [67]. Translanguaging, as an inclusive strategy accommodating diverse linguistic backgrounds [68], might resonate more with female educators’ beliefs. Additionally, cultural and social factors shape gendered attitudes towards language teaching [69], as gender roles and expectations within specific cultural contexts may influence how male and female teachers perceive and value translanguaging [50, 70]. Pedagogical beliefs further play a role, as female teachers tend to favor progressive teaching methods that emphasize student-centered learning and incorporating linguistic diversity in classrooms [71–73].
Significant differences in perceptions of translanguaging across academic year groups were also observed. Fourth-year students demonstrated more favorable views, likely due to their greater exposure to pedagogical theories and practical teaching experiences [74]. Senior students have more opportunities to apply theoretical knowledge in real classroom settings [75], possibly influencing their positive views, as they may have witnessed the benefits of translanguaging firsthand.
Meanwhile, third and second-year students are in a phase of balancing theoretical knowledge with initial practical experiences, which may explain their more cautious views on translanguaging [76]. As these students navigate more challenging coursework and practical teaching assignments, they may be more critical of the complexities involved in translanguaging [77].
Preparatory and first-year students, with their enthusiasm and open-mindedness, displayed positive views [78], but their perspectives may reflect idealistic views of language teaching methodologies, as they have not yet encountered the practical challenges faced by more experienced students [79, 80].
5.1 General perceptions and benefits of translanguaging
The data indicate that pre-service EFL teachers generally hold positive views of translanguaging, perceiving it as both a natural practice (mean = 3.9501, SD = 1.15651) and a beneficial strategy (mean = 3.7681, SD = 0.96363) for language learning. This is consistent with García and Wei’s [81] assertion that translanguaging reflects the multilingual realities of learners. Additionally, pre-service teachers reported that translanguaging aids in reducing anxiety (mean = 3.7307, SD = 1.01601) and boosting confidence (mean = 3.5137, SD = 1.16423), aligning with research that highlights the role of translanguaging in creating more inclusive and supportive classroom environments [20, 50]. However, it is important to note that these findings reflect teachers’ beliefs rather than direct evidence of anxiety reduction in students, an area that requires further empirical investigation.
There was, however, less agreement regarding whether translanguaging indicates deficiencies in English skills (knowledge mean = 3.1272, SD = 1.16029; speaking ability mean = 3.2818, SD = 1.16529; confidence mean = 3.0848, SD = 1.19908). This contrasts with traditional views that considered translanguaging a sign of language inadequacy [82]. Recent studies argue that translanguaging is better viewed as a strategic choice rather than a deficiency [83], aligning with the positive perceptions in this study.
Pre-service EFL teachers valued translanguaging for giving instructions (mean = 4.0748, SD = 0.99468) and explaining concepts (mean = 4.0599, SD = 0.93883). These findings align with Lewis, Jones, and Baker’s [16] assertion that translanguaging enhances instructional clarity. While moderate agreement was found regarding the role of translanguaging in assisting academic achievement (mean = 3.4264, SD = 1.28460) and developing foreign language skills (mean = 3.3890, SD = 1.15900), its effectiveness may vary by context, as noted by Creese and Blackledge (2010).
The lower agreement on the use of translanguaging to support students facing difficulties (mean = 3.1621, SD = 1.31763) highlights a gap between theoretical benefits and practical application. Poza [84] found similar results, indicating that while advocated in theory, translanguaging’s application in supporting struggling students is inconsistent and warrants further exploration.
5.2 Impact on participation and motivation
The benefits of translanguaging were strongly endorsed for increasing participation (mean = 4.0150, SD = 1.01969) and boosting motivation (mean = 4.0125, SD = 1.13681), consistent with MacSwan’s [85] research, which emphasizes translanguaging’s role in enhancing learner engagement. Moderate agreement was also found for translanguaging’s effectiveness in debates (mean = 3.7382, SD = 1.11524), ensuring effective communication (mean = 3.7207, SD = 1.13216), and fostering creative thinking (mean = 3.6833, SD = 1.14103). These results support Garcia’s [20] view on translanguaging’s capacity to facilitate clearer communication and support creative processes.
However, the lower agreement on its role in enhancing critical and reflective thinking (mean = 3.4713, SD = 1.21441) suggests that while translanguaging supports participation and motivation, its impact on higher-order thinking skills may be less direct. Baker’s [86] research similarly indicates that the cognitive benefits of translanguaging require further investigation to fully understand its potential.
Overall, the study reveals a positive perception of translanguaging among pre-service EFL teachers, with high value placed on its role in instruction and learner engagement. These findings are consistent with recent literature acknowledging translanguaging as a beneficial pedagogical strategy. However, the moderate to lower agreement on certain aspects, such as its impact on struggling students and higher-order thinking skills, suggests areas for further research. Future studies could explore these dimensions in greater depth to better understand the full scope of translanguaging’s benefits and applications in diverse educational contexts.
6. Conclusion
The findings of this study highlight the generally positive perception of translanguaging among pre-service EFL teachers, demonstrating its recognized benefits in facilitating language learning, reducing anxiety, and boosting confidence. The significant gender differences, with female participants showing more favourable views, suggest possible influences from collaborative communication styles and different levels of language anxiety. Additionally, the variations in perceptions across academic year groups indicate that more experienced students value translanguaging more highly, likely due to greater exposure to practical teaching contexts. Despite these positive perceptions, there is moderate agreement on using translanguaging to support struggling students and enhance higher-order thinking skills, indicating areas for further exploration. This study underscores the importance of continuous engagement with innovative teaching strategies like translanguaging in teacher education programs. It also suggests the need for more in-depth research into its varied impacts on language learning.
7. Implications
The findings of this study have significant implications for English language education and teacher training programs. The positive perceptions of translanguaging among pre-service EFL teachers underscore its potential as a valuable pedagogical strategy that can enhance language learning by reducing anxiety, increasing confidence, and fostering greater classroom participation. This suggests that integrating translanguaging practices into teacher training programs could better prepare future educators to support multilingual classrooms effectively. Additionally, the concerns about over-reliance on native languages and its potential impact on English proficiency highlight the need for balanced approaches in translanguaging practices. Educational policymakers and curriculum developers should consider these insights when designing language teaching frameworks and providing professional development opportunities. Furthermore, the positive contributions of translanguaging to cultural understanding and multiculturalism emphasize its role in promoting inclusive education and respect for diverse linguistic backgrounds. Overall, this study advocates for the thoughtful implementation of translanguaging strategies to maximize their benefits while addressing potential challenges, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness of language education in multilingual contexts.
References
- 1. Bonacina-Pugh F, da Costa Cabral I, Huang J. Translanguaging in education. Language Teaching. 2021; 54(4): 439–471.
- 2. Fang F, Zhang LJ, Sah P K. Translanguaging in language teaching and learning: Current practices and future directions. RELC Journal. 2022; 53(2): 305–312.
- 3. Liu Y, Fang F. Translanguaging theory and practice: How stakeholders perceive translanguaging as a practical theory of language. RELC Journal. 2022; 53(2): 391–399.
- 4. Leung C, Valdés G. Translanguaging and the transdisciplinary framework for language teaching and learning in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal. 2019; 103(2): 348–370. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45172005
- 5. Makarova I, Duarte J, Huilcán MI. Experts’ views on the contribution of language awareness and translanguaging for minority language education. Language Awareness. 2023; 32(1): 74–93.
- 6. Prilutskaya M. Examining pedagogical translanguaging: A systematic review of the literature. Languages. 2021; 6(4): 180.
- 7.
García O, Kleyn T. Translanguaging theory in education. In: García O, Kleyn T, editors. Translanguaging with multilingual students. New York: Routledge; 2016. pp. 9–33.
- 8. Nagy T. On translanguaging and its role in foreign language teaching. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica. 2018; 10(2): 41–53. Available from: https://sciendo.com/pdf/10.2478/ausp-2018-0012
- 9. García O, Seltzer K. The translanguaging current in language education. Flerspråkighet Som Resurs. 2016; 31: 19–30.
- 10. Ticheloven A, Blom E, Leseman P, McMonagle S. Translanguaging challenges in multilingual classrooms: scholar, teacher and student perspectives. International Journal of Multilingualism. 2021; 18(3): 491–514.
- 11. Back M, Han M, Weng SC. Emotional scaffolding for emergent multilingual learners through translanguaging: Case stories. Language and Education. 2020; 34(5): 387–406.
- 12. Song J, Howard D, Olazabal-Arias W. Translanguaging as a strategy for supporting multilingual learners’ social-emotional learning. Education Sciences. 2022; 12(7): 475.
- 13. Makalela L. Translanguaging as a vehicle for epistemic access: Cases for reading comprehension and multilingual interactions. Per Linguam: A Journal of Language Learning. 2015; 31(1): 15–29. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC170988
- 14. Jaspers J. The transformative limits of translanguaging. Language & Communication. 2018; 58: 1–10.
- 15. Lewis G, Jones B, Baker, C. Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation. 2012; 18(7): 641–654.
- 16. Lewis G., Jones B, Baker C. Translanguaging: Developing its conceptualisation and contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation. 2012; 18(7): 655–670.
- 17. Zhang L J. Deepening the understanding of translanguaging as a practical theory of language: A conversation with Professor Li Wei. RELC Journal. 2022; 53(3): 739–746.
- 18. Jones B. Translanguaging in bilingual schools in Wales. Journal of Language, Identity & Education. 2017; 16(4): 199–215.
- 19. García O, Lin AM. Translanguaging in bilingual education. Bilingual and Multilingual Education. 2017; 117–130.
- 20.
García O. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. 1st ed. Malden/Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell; 2009.
- 21. Otheguy R, García O, Reid W. Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review. 2015; 6(3): 281–307.
- 22. Canagarajah S. Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal. 2011; 95(3): 401–417.
- 23. Canagarajah S. Challenges in decolonizing linguistics: The politics of enregisterment and the divergent uptakes of translingualism. Educational Linguistics. 2022; 1(1): 25–55.
- 24.
García O, Aponte GY, Le K. Primary bilingual classrooms: Translations and translanguaging. In: Laviosa S, González-Davies M, editors. The Routledge handbook of translation and education. New York: Routledge; 2019. pp. 81–94.
- 25. MacSwan J, Rolstad K. (Un)grounded language ideologies: A brief history of translanguaging theory. International Journal of Bilingualism. 2024; 28(4): 719–743.
- 26. Creese A, Blackledge A. Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal. 2010; 94(1): 103–115.
- 27. Jonsson C. Translanguaging and ideology: Moving away from a monolingual norm. New Perspectives on Translanguaging and Education. 2017; 108: 20–37.
- 28. Palmer DK, Martínez RA, Mateus SG, Henderson K. Reframing the debate on language separation: Toward a vision for translanguaging pedagogies in the dual language classroom. The Modern Language Journal. 2014; 98(3): 757–772.
- 29. Cenoz J, Gorter D. Pedagogical translanguaging: An introduction. System. 2020; 92: 102269.
- 30. Sobkowiak P. Translanguaging practices in the EFL classroom-the Polish context. Linguistics and Education. 2022; 69: 101020.
- 31. Barahona M. The potential of translanguaging as a core teaching practice in an EFL context. System. 2020; 95: 102368.
- 32. Ossa PM, Proctor CP. Translanguaging to understand language. Tesol Quarterly. 2021; 55(3): 766–794.
- 33. Ataş U. Translanguaging in English-medium instruction (EMI): Examining English literature content classrooms. Turkish Journal of Education. 2023; 12(3): 142–157.
- 34. Yilmaz T. Translanguaging as a pedagogy for equity of language minoritized students. International Journal of Multilingualism. 2021; 18(3): 435–454.
- 35. Koçer P. Translanguaging pedagogy: An integrative review study questioning its potential benefits and main concerns. The Literacy Trek. 2023; 9(3): 29–48.
- 36. Duarte J. Translanguaging in mainstream education: A sociocultural approach. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2019; 22(2): 150–164.
- 37. Smith H, Robertson L. SCT and translanguaging-to-learn: proposed conceptual integration. Language and Sociocultural Theory. 2020; 6(2): 213–233.
- 38. Villacañas de Castro LS. The pedagogical turn in the research on cross-language transfer: Re-thinking the Language Interdependence and the Language Threshold Hypotheses. Tejuelo (Trujillo). 2016; 23: 201–227.
- 39.
Cummins J. Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical analysis of theoretical concepts. 19th ed. Bristol: Multilingual Matters; 2021.
- 40. Carstens A. Translanguaging as a vehicle for L2 acquisition and L1 development: students’ perceptions. Language Matters. 2016; 47(2): 203–222.
- 41. Nursanti RR. Classroom strategies through translanguaging for multilingualism students. English Learning Innovation. 2021; 2(1): 17–27.
- 42. Shawaqfeh AT, Khasawneh AJ, Khasawneh YJA, Khasawneh MAS. Unlocking Linguistic Diversity: Translanguaging in Jordanian Classrooms and Its Impact on Student Engagement and Academic Achievement. Migration Letters. 2024; 21(S2): 479–491. Available from: https://migrationletters.com/index.php/ml/article/view/6634
- 43. Robillos RJ. Implementing translanguaging with pedagogical approach in an English as a foreign language (EFL) listening classroom. International Journal of Instruction. 2023; 16(2): 623–642. Available from: https://e-iji.net/ats/index.php/pub/article/view/160
- 44. Khair AU, Rosmayanti V, Firman A. Translanguaging pedagogy in promoting higher order thinking skill (HOTS) in Indonesian higher education. Asian EFL Journal. 2020; 27(2.3): 259–287.
- 45. Holdway J, Hitchcock CH. Exploring ideological becoming in professional development for teachers of multilingual learners: Perspectives on translanguaging in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2018; 75: 60–70.
- 46. Galante A. Pedagogical translanguaging in a multilingual English program in Canada: Student and teacher perspectives of challenges. System. 2020; 92: 102274.
- 47. Vaish V. Challenges and directions in implementing translanguaging pedagogy for low achieving students. Classroom Discourse. 2019; 10(3–4): 274–289.
- 48. Fang F, Liu Y. Using all English is not always meaningful: Stakeholders’ perspectives on the use of and attitudes towards translanguaging at a Chinese university. Lingua. 2020; 247: 102959.
- 49. Karabulut A, Dollar YK. The use of translanguaging pedagogy in writing classes of Turkish EFL learners. Participatory Educational Research. 2022; 9(6): 41–65.
- 50. Yuvayapan F. Translanguaging in EFL classrooms: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2019; 15(2): 678–694.
- 51. Öztürk E, Müller O, Brown E. Bilingualism in the Classroom: Exploring Teachers’ Beliefs, Attitudes, and Practices. Research Studies in English Language Teaching and Learning. 2023; 1(1): 35–43.
- 52. Genc E, Yüksel D, Curle S. Lecturers’ Translanguaging Practices in English-taught Classes in Turkey. Journal of Multilingual Theories and Practices. 2023; 4: 8–31.
- 53. Yasar Y., M, & Dikilitas K. (2022). Translanguaging in the development of EFL learners’ foreign language skills in Turkish context. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 16(2), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2021.1892698
- 54. Mwinda N, Van der Walt C. From English-only to translanguaging strategies: exploring possibilities. Per Linguam: A Journal of Language Learning. 2015; 31(3): 100–118. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC189592
- 55. Aichhorn N, Puck J. I just don’t feel comfortable speaking English: Foreign language anxiety as a catalyst for spoken-language barriers in MNCs. International Business Review. 2017; 26(4): 749–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.01.004
- 56. Dryden S, Tankosić A, Dovchin S. Foreign language anxiety and translanguaging as an emotionally safe space: Migrant English as a foreign language learners in Australia. System. 2021; 101: 102593.
- 57. Horwitz E. Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 2001; 21: 112–126.
- 58. Foreign Horwitz E. K. and second language anxiety. Language Teaching. 2010; 43(2): 154–167.
- 59. Wang P. Relooking at the roles of translanguaging in English as a Foreign Language classes for multilingual learners: Practices and implications. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022; 13: 850649. pmid:35747679
- 60.
Peck JJ. Women and promotion: The influence of communication style. In: Barrett M, Davidson MJ, editors. Gender and communication at work. New York: Routledge; 2016. pp. 50–66.
- 61. Wood JT, Inman CC. In a different mode: Masculine styles of communicating closeness. Journal of Applied Communication Research. 1993; 21(3): 279–295.
- 62. Geckin V. Do gender differences affect foreign language anxiety and preferences for oral corrective feedback? Journal of Theoretical Educational Science. 2020; 13(3): 591–608.
- 63. Brown AV. Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal. 2009; 93(1). 46–60.
- 64. Orcasitas-Vicandi M, Leonet O. The study of language learning in multilingual education: students’ perceptions of their language learning experience in Basque, Spanish and English. International Journal of Multilingualism. 2022; 19(1): 124–141.
- 65. Al-Bataineh A, Gallagher K. Attitudes towards translanguaging: How future teachers perceive the meshing of Arabic and English in children’s storybooks. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2021; 24(3): 386–400.
- 66. Gorter D, Arocena E. Teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism in a course on translanguaging. System. 2020; 92: 102272.
- 67. Demetriou H, Wilson E, Winterbottom M. The role of emotion in teaching: Are there differences between male and female newly qualified teachers’ approaches to teaching? Educational Studies. 2009; 35(4): 449–473.
- 68. Beatty L, Acar S, Cheatham GA. Translanguaging in inclusive classrooms: Learning with children and families. Young Exceptional Children. 2021; 24(3): 154–169.
- 69. Jabeen F, Shah SK. The role of culture in ELT: Learners’ attitude towards the teaching of target language culture. European Journal of Social Sciences. 2011; 23(4): 604–613. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/download/31673330/socio-1.pdf
- 70. Sato E. Constructing Women’s Language and Shifting Gender Identity through Intralingual Translanguaging. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 2018; 8(10): 1261–1269.
- 71. Perrillo J. Beyond “progressive” reform: Bodies, discipline, and the construction of the professional teacher in interwar America. History of Education Quarterly. 2004; 44(3): 337–363.
- 72. Baeten M, Dochy F, Struyven K, Parmentier E, Vanderbruggen A. Student-centred learning environments: an investigation into student teachers’ instructional preferences and approaches to learning. Learning Environments Research. 2016; 19: 43–62.
- 73. Keiler LS. Teachers’ roles and identities in student-centered classrooms. International Journal of STEM Education. 2018; 5: 1–20. pmid:30631724
- 74. Escobar CF. Translanguaging by design in EFL classrooms. Classroom Discourse. 2019; 10(3–4): 290–305.
- 75. Brundiers K, Wiek A, Redman CL. Real‐world learning opportunities in sustainability: from the classroom into the real world. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2010; 11(4): 308–324.
- 76. Watzke JL. Foreign language pedagogical knowledge: Toward a developmental theory of beginning teacher practices. The Modern Language Journal. 2007; 91(1): 63–82.
- 77. Walsh C, Larsen C, Parry D. Academic tutors at the frontline of student support in a cohort of students succeeding in higher education. Educational Studies. 2009; 35(4): 405–424.
- 78.
Erickson BL, Peters CB, Strommer DW. Teaching first-year college students. 1st ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
- 79. Rust FOC. The first year of teaching: It’s not what they expected. Teaching and Teacher Education. 1994; 10(2): 205–217.
- 80.
García O, Wei L. Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. 1st ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2014.
- 81. Warford MK, Reeves J. Falling into it: Novice TESOL teacher thinking. Teachers and Teaching. 2003; 9(1): 47–65.
- 82. Cummins J. The emergence of translanguaging pedagogy: A dialogue between theory and practice. Journal of Multilingual Education Research. 2019; 9(13): 19–36. Available from: https://fordham.bepress.com/jmer/vol9/iss1/13
- 83. Hornberger NH, Link H. Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual classrooms: A biliteracy lens. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2012; 15(3): 261–278.
- 84. Poza L. Translanguaging: Definitions, implications, and further needs in burgeoning inquiry. Berkeley Review of Education. 2017; 6(2): 101–128.
- 85. MacSwan J. A Multilingual perspective on translanguaging. American Educational Research Journal. 2017; 54: 167–201.
- 86.
Baker C. Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. 5th ed. Bristol: Multilingual Matters; 2011.