Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1350
https://doi.org/10.69639/arandu.v13i3.2477
Translanguaging in English Language Teaching: A Review of
Pedagogical Applications, Benefits, and Challenges
Translanguaging en la enseñanza del inglés: una revisión de sus aplicaciones
pedagógicas, beneficios y desafíos
Claudio Federico Malo Toledo
claudio.malot@ug.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5862-9395
Universidad de Guayaquil
Guayaquil – Ecuador
Johanna Valeria Cortaza Viteri
johanna.cortazav@ug.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4609-7163
Universidad de Guayaquil
Guayaquil – Ecuador
Juan Pablo Espinoza Morales
juan.espinozamo@ug.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7692-3799
Universidad de Guayaquil
Guayaquil – Ecuador
Daniella Francesca Alvarado Pignataro
daniella.alvaradop@ug.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2737-1114
Universidad de Guayaquil
Guayaquil – Ecuador
Artículo recibido: 10 julio 2026- Aceptado para publicación:16 agosto 2026
Conflictos de intereses: Ninguno que declarar.
ABSTRACT
English language teaching has traditionally reflected monolingual approaches that privilege the
exclusive or predominant use of the target language. In contrast, translanguaging recognizes
learners’ existing linguistic repertoires as resources that can strategically support comprehension,
interaction, and language learning. This review analyzes the scientific literature on
translanguaging in English language teaching, focusing on its conceptualization, pedagogical
applications, documented benefits, and main challenges. The study reviews publications mainly
from 2016 to 2026 and draws on sources identified through Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC,
Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Wiley Online Library, Cambridge Core, SAGE Journals, MDPI,
Taylor & Francis Online, SpringerLink, JSTOR, and Dialnet. After applying the inclusion and
exclusion criteria, the review retained 41 sources covering students and teachers across different
educational levels and organized them through thematic categorization. The analysis shows that
translanguaging contributes to content comprehension, vocabulary and grammar learning,
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1351
reading, writing, collaborative interaction, and metalinguistic reflection. The literature also
reports greater participation, confidence, inclusion, reduced anxiety, and recognition of learners’
linguistic identities. At the same time, English-only policies, monolingual ideologies, insufficient
teacher preparation, possible overreliance on the first language, and methodological limitations
remain important challenges. The review concludes that translanguaging should not replace
English instruction; rather, teachers can use it strategically when it responds to specific learning
objectives, learner needs, and classroom contexts.
Keywords: translanguaging, English language teaching, linguistic repertoire, multilingual
pedagogy, language learning
RESUMEN
La enseñanza del inglés ha reflejado tradicionalmente enfoques monolingües que privilegian el
uso exclusivo o predominante de la lengua meta. En contraste, el translanguaging reconoce los
repertorios lingüísticos previos de los estudiantes como recursos que pueden apoyar
estratégicamente la comprensión, la interacción y el aprendizaje de lenguas. Esta revisión analiza
la literatura científica sobre translanguaging en la enseñanza del inglés, con énfasis en su
conceptualización, aplicaciones pedagógicas, beneficios reportados y principales desafíos. El
estudio revisa publicaciones comprendidas principalmente entre 2016 y 2026 y considera fuentes
identificadas en Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Wiley Online
Library, Cambridge Core, SAGE Journals, MDPI, Taylor & Francis Online, SpringerLink,
JSTOR y Dialnet. Tras aplicar los criterios de inclusión y exclusión, la revisión conservó 41
fuentes que abarcan estudiantes y docentes de distintos niveles educativos y las organizó mediante
una categorización temática. Los hallazgos muestran que el translanguaging apoya la
comprensión de contenidos, el aprendizaje de vocabulario y gramática, la lectura, la escritura, la
interacción colaborativa y la reflexión metalingüística. La literatura también reporta mayor
participación, confianza, inclusión, reducción de la ansiedad y reconocimiento de las identidades
lingüísticas de los estudiantes. Al mismo tiempo, las políticas de uso exclusivo del inglés en el
aula (English-only), las ideologías monolingües, la formación docente insuficiente, la posible
dependencia excesiva de la primera lengua y las limitaciones metodológicas continúan siendo
desafíos relevantes. La revisión concluye que el translanguaging no debe sustituir la enseñanza
del inglés; más bien, puede utilizarse estratégicamente cuando responde a objetivos de
aprendizaje, necesidades del estudiante y contextos específicos de aula.
Palabras clave: translanguaging, enseñanza del inglés, repertorio lingüístico, pedagogía
multilingüe, aprendizaje de lenguas
Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo
licencia Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.
reading, writing, collaborative interaction, and metalinguistic reflection. The literature also
reports greater participation, confidence, inclusion, reduced anxiety, and recognition of learners’
linguistic identities. At the same time, English-only policies, monolingual ideologies, insufficient
teacher preparation, possible overreliance on the first language, and methodological limitations
remain important challenges. The review concludes that translanguaging should not replace
English instruction; rather, teachers can use it strategically when it responds to specific learning
objectives, learner needs, and classroom contexts.
Keywords: translanguaging, English language teaching, linguistic repertoire, multilingual
pedagogy, language learning
RESUMEN
La enseñanza del inglés ha reflejado tradicionalmente enfoques monolingües que privilegian el
uso exclusivo o predominante de la lengua meta. En contraste, el translanguaging reconoce los
repertorios lingüísticos previos de los estudiantes como recursos que pueden apoyar
estratégicamente la comprensión, la interacción y el aprendizaje de lenguas. Esta revisión analiza
la literatura científica sobre translanguaging en la enseñanza del inglés, con énfasis en su
conceptualización, aplicaciones pedagógicas, beneficios reportados y principales desafíos. El
estudio revisa publicaciones comprendidas principalmente entre 2016 y 2026 y considera fuentes
identificadas en Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Wiley Online
Library, Cambridge Core, SAGE Journals, MDPI, Taylor & Francis Online, SpringerLink,
JSTOR y Dialnet. Tras aplicar los criterios de inclusión y exclusión, la revisión conservó 41
fuentes que abarcan estudiantes y docentes de distintos niveles educativos y las organizó mediante
una categorización temática. Los hallazgos muestran que el translanguaging apoya la
comprensión de contenidos, el aprendizaje de vocabulario y gramática, la lectura, la escritura, la
interacción colaborativa y la reflexión metalingüística. La literatura también reporta mayor
participación, confianza, inclusión, reducción de la ansiedad y reconocimiento de las identidades
lingüísticas de los estudiantes. Al mismo tiempo, las políticas de uso exclusivo del inglés en el
aula (English-only), las ideologías monolingües, la formación docente insuficiente, la posible
dependencia excesiva de la primera lengua y las limitaciones metodológicas continúan siendo
desafíos relevantes. La revisión concluye que el translanguaging no debe sustituir la enseñanza
del inglés; más bien, puede utilizarse estratégicamente cuando responde a objetivos de
aprendizaje, necesidades del estudiante y contextos específicos de aula.
Palabras clave: translanguaging, enseñanza del inglés, repertorio lingüístico, pedagogía
multilingüe, aprendizaje de lenguas
Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo
licencia Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1352
INTRODUCTION
For decades, English language teaching has been strongly influenced by monolingual
orientations that privilege extensive, and in some contexts exclusive, use of the target language
in the classroom. This orientation can be associated with a long-standing belief that greater
exposure to English necessarily creates better conditions for language acquisition, whereas
recourse to learners’ first language may interfere with target-language development. Such
assumptions remain visible in contemporary English-only policies and classroom expectations
across different EFL and ESL settings, even when teachers themselves recognize the practical
value of drawing on students’ existing linguistic resources (Yuvayapan, 2019; Zhang & Chan,
2021; Jiang et al., 2022; Tannenbaum et al., 2026). However, multilingual approaches to language
education increasingly question the need to maintain strict boundaries between languages and
challenge the view that learners’ previously acquired linguistic knowledge necessarily constitutes
an obstacle to learning English.
The influence of a learner’s first language should not be understood exclusively in terms
of negative interference. Existing linguistic knowledge can function as a cognitive and
communicative resource through which learners interpret unfamiliar information and activate
prior knowledge (Zuo & Walsh, 2023), while cross-linguistic comparisons can help establish
relationships between languages (Zhang & Chan, 2021). Research conducted in EFL and ESL
classrooms has documented the strategic use of students’ linguistic repertoires for explaining
vocabulary and grammatical structures (Jing & Kitis, 2024), as well as for clarifying instructions,
supporting classroom interaction, and managing classroom communication (De Los Reyes, 2018;
Yuvayapan, 2019). These practices indicate a shift from viewing learners’ other languages
primarily as sources of interference toward considering them as potential pedagogical resources.
Nevertheless, such a shift does not imply that greater use of the first language automatically leads
to better language learning outcomes; instead, its value appears to depend on the purpose, manner,
frequency, and context in which multilingual resources are employed.
Within this broader multilingual turn, translanguaging has emerged as an influential
approach for understanding and organizing the linguistic practices of bi/multilingual learners.
Initially associated with the planned alternation of languages for pedagogical purposes, the
concept has subsequently developed into a broader understanding of how multilingual speakers
mobilize their linguistic and semiotic repertoires for communication, learning, and knowledge
construction (Poza, 2017; Li, 2018; Li & Lin, 2019). Within this framework, multilingual
speakers are not understood simply as individuals who alternate between completely separate
linguistic systems; they strategically draw on available resources to make meaning according to
the demands of a particular interaction. This conceptualization distinguishes translanguaging
from a narrow understanding of code-switching, while differentiating it from multilingualism as
INTRODUCTION
For decades, English language teaching has been strongly influenced by monolingual
orientations that privilege extensive, and in some contexts exclusive, use of the target language
in the classroom. This orientation can be associated with a long-standing belief that greater
exposure to English necessarily creates better conditions for language acquisition, whereas
recourse to learners’ first language may interfere with target-language development. Such
assumptions remain visible in contemporary English-only policies and classroom expectations
across different EFL and ESL settings, even when teachers themselves recognize the practical
value of drawing on students’ existing linguistic resources (Yuvayapan, 2019; Zhang & Chan,
2021; Jiang et al., 2022; Tannenbaum et al., 2026). However, multilingual approaches to language
education increasingly question the need to maintain strict boundaries between languages and
challenge the view that learners’ previously acquired linguistic knowledge necessarily constitutes
an obstacle to learning English.
The influence of a learner’s first language should not be understood exclusively in terms
of negative interference. Existing linguistic knowledge can function as a cognitive and
communicative resource through which learners interpret unfamiliar information and activate
prior knowledge (Zuo & Walsh, 2023), while cross-linguistic comparisons can help establish
relationships between languages (Zhang & Chan, 2021). Research conducted in EFL and ESL
classrooms has documented the strategic use of students’ linguistic repertoires for explaining
vocabulary and grammatical structures (Jing & Kitis, 2024), as well as for clarifying instructions,
supporting classroom interaction, and managing classroom communication (De Los Reyes, 2018;
Yuvayapan, 2019). These practices indicate a shift from viewing learners’ other languages
primarily as sources of interference toward considering them as potential pedagogical resources.
Nevertheless, such a shift does not imply that greater use of the first language automatically leads
to better language learning outcomes; instead, its value appears to depend on the purpose, manner,
frequency, and context in which multilingual resources are employed.
Within this broader multilingual turn, translanguaging has emerged as an influential
approach for understanding and organizing the linguistic practices of bi/multilingual learners.
Initially associated with the planned alternation of languages for pedagogical purposes, the
concept has subsequently developed into a broader understanding of how multilingual speakers
mobilize their linguistic and semiotic repertoires for communication, learning, and knowledge
construction (Poza, 2017; Li, 2018; Li & Lin, 2019). Within this framework, multilingual
speakers are not understood simply as individuals who alternate between completely separate
linguistic systems; they strategically draw on available resources to make meaning according to
the demands of a particular interaction. This conceptualization distinguishes translanguaging
from a narrow understanding of code-switching, while differentiating it from multilingualism as
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1353
a broader social or individual condition. Furthermore, the distinction between spontaneous
translanguaging and pedagogical translanguaging is particularly relevant to language education,
since the latter refers to intentionally designed instructional practices through which two or more
languages are incorporated to facilitate linguistic or academic development (Zhang & Chan, 2021;
Huang & Chalmers, 2023; Tannenbaum et al., 2026).
In English language teaching, translanguaging has attracted increasing attention as a
pedagogical approach through which learners’ existing linguistic resources can contribute to
different aspects of classroom learning. Research has explored its use in areas such as
comprehension, interaction, vocabulary and grammar instruction, reading, writing, and
metalinguistic reflection (Zhang & Chan, 2021; Kim & Weng, 2022). At the same time, its
implementation continues to generate debate because of monolingual expectations, concerns
about excessive reliance on the first language, and differences across educational contexts (Huang
& Chalmers, 2023; Tannenbaum et al., 2026).
Despite growing interest in translanguaging, research does not present a completely
uniform picture of its pedagogical effectiveness. While many studies report positive outcomes
related to classroom access, participation, and learner engagement, conclusions concerning
measurable language development remain less conclusive (Qureshi & Aljanadbah, 2022; Huang
& Chalmers, 2023). This variation highlights the need for a critical review that examines the
advantages of translanguaging while considering its conceptual boundaries, implementation
conditions, and limitations.
Accordingly, this review aims to analyze the scientific literature on translanguaging in
English language teaching, with particular attention to its conceptual foundations, pedagogical
applications, reported benefits, and implementation challenges.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study employed a bibliographic review design with a qualitative and thematic
approach. The review focused primarily on publications from 2016 to 2026, a period selected to
capture the growing development of pedagogical translanguaging and its application in English
language education. Earlier seminal works were considered when necessary to establish the
conceptual foundations of translanguaging; however, these publications were used as theoretical
references rather than as part of the main empirical corpus.
The literature search was conducted across multiple academic databases and publishing
platforms, including Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Wiley
Online Library, Cambridge Core, SAGE Journals, MDPI, Taylor & Francis Online, SpringerLink,
JSTOR, and Dialnet, together with selected university repositories. Scopus, Web of Science, and
ERIC constituted the principal sources for identifying indexed research, while Google Scholar
and publisher databases were used to complement the search and locate full-text versions, book
a broader social or individual condition. Furthermore, the distinction between spontaneous
translanguaging and pedagogical translanguaging is particularly relevant to language education,
since the latter refers to intentionally designed instructional practices through which two or more
languages are incorporated to facilitate linguistic or academic development (Zhang & Chan, 2021;
Huang & Chalmers, 2023; Tannenbaum et al., 2026).
In English language teaching, translanguaging has attracted increasing attention as a
pedagogical approach through which learners’ existing linguistic resources can contribute to
different aspects of classroom learning. Research has explored its use in areas such as
comprehension, interaction, vocabulary and grammar instruction, reading, writing, and
metalinguistic reflection (Zhang & Chan, 2021; Kim & Weng, 2022). At the same time, its
implementation continues to generate debate because of monolingual expectations, concerns
about excessive reliance on the first language, and differences across educational contexts (Huang
& Chalmers, 2023; Tannenbaum et al., 2026).
Despite growing interest in translanguaging, research does not present a completely
uniform picture of its pedagogical effectiveness. While many studies report positive outcomes
related to classroom access, participation, and learner engagement, conclusions concerning
measurable language development remain less conclusive (Qureshi & Aljanadbah, 2022; Huang
& Chalmers, 2023). This variation highlights the need for a critical review that examines the
advantages of translanguaging while considering its conceptual boundaries, implementation
conditions, and limitations.
Accordingly, this review aims to analyze the scientific literature on translanguaging in
English language teaching, with particular attention to its conceptual foundations, pedagogical
applications, reported benefits, and implementation challenges.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study employed a bibliographic review design with a qualitative and thematic
approach. The review focused primarily on publications from 2016 to 2026, a period selected to
capture the growing development of pedagogical translanguaging and its application in English
language education. Earlier seminal works were considered when necessary to establish the
conceptual foundations of translanguaging; however, these publications were used as theoretical
references rather than as part of the main empirical corpus.
The literature search was conducted across multiple academic databases and publishing
platforms, including Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Wiley
Online Library, Cambridge Core, SAGE Journals, MDPI, Taylor & Francis Online, SpringerLink,
JSTOR, and Dialnet, together with selected university repositories. Scopus, Web of Science, and
ERIC constituted the principal sources for identifying indexed research, while Google Scholar
and publisher databases were used to complement the search and locate full-text versions, book
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1354
chapters, and other relevant academic publications. Searches were conducted in English and
Spanish using combinations of terms such as translanguaging, pedagogical translanguaging,
translinguismo, and translenguaje, together with descriptors including English language teaching,
ELT, EFL, ESL, English as a foreign language, English as a second language, classroom, teacher
practices, benefits, challenges, and systematic review. Boolean operators were employed to
combine the search terms, and filters related to education, linguistics, applied linguistics, and
document type were applied when available.
The inclusion criteria comprised peer-reviewed empirical studies employing qualitative,
quantitative, or mixed-method designs in ELT, EFL, ESL, and closely related EMI or CLIL
contexts; systematic and narrative reviews addressing translanguaging in language education;
theoretical and conceptual publications directly related to translanguaging and pedagogical
translanguaging; academic book chapters directly connected to English language education; and
classroom-based case studies or action research in which translanguaging constituted a central
pedagogical or analytical component. Publications written in English or Spanish were considered.
In contrast, master's and doctoral theses, conference abstracts and proceedings without a complete
peer-reviewed version, non-academic publications, duplicate records, and studies in which
translanguaging was only marginally addressed were excluded. Studies focused exclusively on
other subject areas or on multilingual education without a sufficiently clear connection to English
language teaching were not considered part of the primary evidence, although selected
publications were retained as complementary sources when they provided relevant theoretical or
pedagogical perspectives.
The selection process was conducted progressively. An initial broad search identified
approximately 150 potentially suitable records. These publications were first screened according
to their titles and abstracts to determine their connection to translanguaging and English language
education. Studies that appeared to meet the scope of the review were subsequently examined in
greater detail to verify that translanguaging constituted a central theoretical, pedagogical, or
empirical component and that each publication satisfied the established inclusion criteria.
Duplicate publications and studies with only a marginal connection to the research objective were
excluded during this process. Following the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria,
the final corpus consisted of 41 sources, including empirical studies, systematic or narrative
reviews, theoretical and conceptual contributions, academic book chapters, and selected
complementary studies pertinent to the analysis of translanguaging in English language education.
The selected literature was analyzed through thematic categorization. Information from
each source was organized according to four main analytical dimensions: (1) conceptualization
of translanguaging, including its relationship with code-switching, multilingualism, and
pedagogical translanguaging; (2) pedagogical applications in English language teaching; (3)
reported benefits; and (4) challenges and limitations. Within these dimensions, recurrent themes
chapters, and other relevant academic publications. Searches were conducted in English and
Spanish using combinations of terms such as translanguaging, pedagogical translanguaging,
translinguismo, and translenguaje, together with descriptors including English language teaching,
ELT, EFL, ESL, English as a foreign language, English as a second language, classroom, teacher
practices, benefits, challenges, and systematic review. Boolean operators were employed to
combine the search terms, and filters related to education, linguistics, applied linguistics, and
document type were applied when available.
The inclusion criteria comprised peer-reviewed empirical studies employing qualitative,
quantitative, or mixed-method designs in ELT, EFL, ESL, and closely related EMI or CLIL
contexts; systematic and narrative reviews addressing translanguaging in language education;
theoretical and conceptual publications directly related to translanguaging and pedagogical
translanguaging; academic book chapters directly connected to English language education; and
classroom-based case studies or action research in which translanguaging constituted a central
pedagogical or analytical component. Publications written in English or Spanish were considered.
In contrast, master's and doctoral theses, conference abstracts and proceedings without a complete
peer-reviewed version, non-academic publications, duplicate records, and studies in which
translanguaging was only marginally addressed were excluded. Studies focused exclusively on
other subject areas or on multilingual education without a sufficiently clear connection to English
language teaching were not considered part of the primary evidence, although selected
publications were retained as complementary sources when they provided relevant theoretical or
pedagogical perspectives.
The selection process was conducted progressively. An initial broad search identified
approximately 150 potentially suitable records. These publications were first screened according
to their titles and abstracts to determine their connection to translanguaging and English language
education. Studies that appeared to meet the scope of the review were subsequently examined in
greater detail to verify that translanguaging constituted a central theoretical, pedagogical, or
empirical component and that each publication satisfied the established inclusion criteria.
Duplicate publications and studies with only a marginal connection to the research objective were
excluded during this process. Following the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria,
the final corpus consisted of 41 sources, including empirical studies, systematic or narrative
reviews, theoretical and conceptual contributions, academic book chapters, and selected
complementary studies pertinent to the analysis of translanguaging in English language education.
The selected literature was analyzed through thematic categorization. Information from
each source was organized according to four main analytical dimensions: (1) conceptualization
of translanguaging, including its relationship with code-switching, multilingualism, and
pedagogical translanguaging; (2) pedagogical applications in English language teaching; (3)
reported benefits; and (4) challenges and limitations. Within these dimensions, recurrent themes
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1355
were identified and compared across the literature, including scaffolding, translation, vocabulary
and grammar instruction, activation of prior knowledge, collaborative interaction, reading and
writing support, metalinguistic reflection, classroom management, participation, confidence,
motivation, inclusion, linguistic identity, English-only policies, monolingual ideologies, teacher
preparation, excessive reliance on the first language, linguistic diversity, and assessment.
Particular attention was given to both convergent and divergent results in order to provide a
critical synthesis of the literature without assuming that translanguaging produces uniform effects
across educational contexts.
RESULTS
Conceptualization of Translanguaging
Understanding translanguaging requires moving beyond the idea that bi/multilingual
speakers possess two or more completely independent linguistic systems that are activated
separately. In translanguaging theory, speakers draw on the linguistic and semiotic resources
available in their repertoire to understand information, construct meaning, communicate ideas,
and participate in social interaction. Li (2022) further develops this perspective by proposing
translanguaging as an analytical lens for examining how individuals construct meaning through
integrated linguistic, semiotic, and experiential resources. Thus, the central issue is not simply
which named language, English, Spanish, Arabic, Mandarin, or another, is being used at a
particular moment, but how the speaker mobilizes available resources to accomplish a
communicative or cognitive purpose (Poza, 2017; Li, 2018; Li & Lin, 2019). In this sense,
translanguaging offers a way of understanding multilingual communication and, in educational
contexts, treats learners’ existing linguistic knowledge as part of the learning process, without
assuming that it must be excluded.
A simple way to understand this concept is to consider what may occur when a learner
encounters new information in English. The learner does not necessarily process that information
exclusively through English. Previous knowledge developed through another language may help
interpret a new word, establish a conceptual connection, compare grammatical structures,
formulate an idea, or verify whether a message has been understood. A student may, for instance,
read information in English, relate its meaning to concepts already known through the first
language, discuss the idea with a classmate using resources from both languages, and
subsequently produce an answer in English. The key issue is not the mechanical alternation
between two languages, but how learners use their available linguistic resources to construct
meaning and knowledge (Li, 2018; Fang et al., 2022).
Translanguaging recognizes that learning an additional language does not require learners to
disregard what they already know linguistically; this previous knowledge may become a resource
through which new knowledge is interpreted and developed.
were identified and compared across the literature, including scaffolding, translation, vocabulary
and grammar instruction, activation of prior knowledge, collaborative interaction, reading and
writing support, metalinguistic reflection, classroom management, participation, confidence,
motivation, inclusion, linguistic identity, English-only policies, monolingual ideologies, teacher
preparation, excessive reliance on the first language, linguistic diversity, and assessment.
Particular attention was given to both convergent and divergent results in order to provide a
critical synthesis of the literature without assuming that translanguaging produces uniform effects
across educational contexts.
RESULTS
Conceptualization of Translanguaging
Understanding translanguaging requires moving beyond the idea that bi/multilingual
speakers possess two or more completely independent linguistic systems that are activated
separately. In translanguaging theory, speakers draw on the linguistic and semiotic resources
available in their repertoire to understand information, construct meaning, communicate ideas,
and participate in social interaction. Li (2022) further develops this perspective by proposing
translanguaging as an analytical lens for examining how individuals construct meaning through
integrated linguistic, semiotic, and experiential resources. Thus, the central issue is not simply
which named language, English, Spanish, Arabic, Mandarin, or another, is being used at a
particular moment, but how the speaker mobilizes available resources to accomplish a
communicative or cognitive purpose (Poza, 2017; Li, 2018; Li & Lin, 2019). In this sense,
translanguaging offers a way of understanding multilingual communication and, in educational
contexts, treats learners’ existing linguistic knowledge as part of the learning process, without
assuming that it must be excluded.
A simple way to understand this concept is to consider what may occur when a learner
encounters new information in English. The learner does not necessarily process that information
exclusively through English. Previous knowledge developed through another language may help
interpret a new word, establish a conceptual connection, compare grammatical structures,
formulate an idea, or verify whether a message has been understood. A student may, for instance,
read information in English, relate its meaning to concepts already known through the first
language, discuss the idea with a classmate using resources from both languages, and
subsequently produce an answer in English. The key issue is not the mechanical alternation
between two languages, but how learners use their available linguistic resources to construct
meaning and knowledge (Li, 2018; Fang et al., 2022).
Translanguaging recognizes that learning an additional language does not require learners to
disregard what they already know linguistically; this previous knowledge may become a resource
through which new knowledge is interpreted and developed.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1356
This understanding helps clarify why translanguaging should not be reduced to the simple
use of the first language in an English classroom. Allowing a student to translate an isolated word
into Spanish, for example, may constitute one multilingual practice, but it does not by itself
capture the broader meaning of translanguaging. The concept encompasses the flexible use of
linguistic resources together with other meaning-making resources, such as gestures, images,
written texts, visual representations, and contextual cues (Li, 2018; Fang et al., 2022).
Translanguaging is not limited to moving from one language to another; it involves the broader
process through which bi/multilingual individuals integrate the resources available to them to
understand, express, negotiate, and construct meaning. Makalela (2019) extends this idea through
Ubuntu, emphasizing the interconnectedness of linguistic resources and challenging rigid
boundaries between named languages in classroom communication.
This characteristic is fundamental for distinguishing translanguaging from code-
switching. Although both may be observable when a speaker uses elements conventionally
associated with more than one named language, the theoretical principles underlying them are
different. Code-switching traditionally describes alternation between identifiable linguistic codes,
such as changing from English to Spanish during an interaction. Translanguaging, in contrast,
places greater emphasis on the speaker's integrated communicative repertoire and questions the
assumption that multilingual communication must always be interpreted as movement between
completely independent linguistic systems (Poza, 2017; Li, 2018). The difference is not simply
whether two languages appear in the same conversation. Translanguaging focuses on how
speakers combine available resources to accomplish communicative, cognitive, and social
purposes. This broader understanding is relevant in education because it shifts attention from
controlling language boundaries to understanding what learners are actually doing with their
linguistic resources while learning.
Translanguaging should be distinguished from multilingualism. Multilingualism
generally describes the presence or use of multiple languages within an individual, community,
institution, or society; translanguaging concerns the dynamic manner in which those resources
are mobilized in communication and meaning-making. A classroom may be multilingual because
its students speak several languages while continuing to operate under a strict English-only policy.
The presence of multiple languages does not automatically constitute translanguaging pedagogy.
What matters is whether learners’ linguistic repertoires are recognized, activated, or deliberately
incorporated as resources within the learning process (Li & Lin, 2019; Fang et al., 2022).
A further distinction becomes necessary when translanguaging is examined specifically
within the classroom. The literature differentiates between spontaneous translanguaging and
pedagogical translanguaging. Spontaneous translanguaging emerges naturally during interaction.
Students may resort to different linguistic resources when helping a classmate, resolving a
misunderstanding, searching for an appropriate expression, or attempting to understand an
This understanding helps clarify why translanguaging should not be reduced to the simple
use of the first language in an English classroom. Allowing a student to translate an isolated word
into Spanish, for example, may constitute one multilingual practice, but it does not by itself
capture the broader meaning of translanguaging. The concept encompasses the flexible use of
linguistic resources together with other meaning-making resources, such as gestures, images,
written texts, visual representations, and contextual cues (Li, 2018; Fang et al., 2022).
Translanguaging is not limited to moving from one language to another; it involves the broader
process through which bi/multilingual individuals integrate the resources available to them to
understand, express, negotiate, and construct meaning. Makalela (2019) extends this idea through
Ubuntu, emphasizing the interconnectedness of linguistic resources and challenging rigid
boundaries between named languages in classroom communication.
This characteristic is fundamental for distinguishing translanguaging from code-
switching. Although both may be observable when a speaker uses elements conventionally
associated with more than one named language, the theoretical principles underlying them are
different. Code-switching traditionally describes alternation between identifiable linguistic codes,
such as changing from English to Spanish during an interaction. Translanguaging, in contrast,
places greater emphasis on the speaker's integrated communicative repertoire and questions the
assumption that multilingual communication must always be interpreted as movement between
completely independent linguistic systems (Poza, 2017; Li, 2018). The difference is not simply
whether two languages appear in the same conversation. Translanguaging focuses on how
speakers combine available resources to accomplish communicative, cognitive, and social
purposes. This broader understanding is relevant in education because it shifts attention from
controlling language boundaries to understanding what learners are actually doing with their
linguistic resources while learning.
Translanguaging should be distinguished from multilingualism. Multilingualism
generally describes the presence or use of multiple languages within an individual, community,
institution, or society; translanguaging concerns the dynamic manner in which those resources
are mobilized in communication and meaning-making. A classroom may be multilingual because
its students speak several languages while continuing to operate under a strict English-only policy.
The presence of multiple languages does not automatically constitute translanguaging pedagogy.
What matters is whether learners’ linguistic repertoires are recognized, activated, or deliberately
incorporated as resources within the learning process (Li & Lin, 2019; Fang et al., 2022).
A further distinction becomes necessary when translanguaging is examined specifically
within the classroom. The literature differentiates between spontaneous translanguaging and
pedagogical translanguaging. Spontaneous translanguaging emerges naturally during interaction.
Students may resort to different linguistic resources when helping a classmate, resolving a
misunderstanding, searching for an appropriate expression, or attempting to understand an
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1357
unfamiliar concept. Pedagogical translanguaging, however, involves intentional instructional
decisions through which teachers create opportunities for learners to mobilize more than one part
of their linguistic repertoire in pursuit of a learning objective (Zhang & Chan, 2021; Huang &
Chalmers, 2023). The distinction is important because pedagogical translanguaging does not
mean simply permitting unrestricted use of the first language. It involves making deliberate
decisions about when, why, and for what learning purpose multilingual resources should be
incorporated.
In practical terms, pedagogical translanguaging may involve asking learners to activate
prior knowledge through their first language before engaging with new English content,
comparing lexical or grammatical features across languages, discussing a complex idea
collaboratively before producing an English response, or strategically using translation to clarify
meaning (Zhang & Chan, 2021; Huang & Chalmers, 2023). The objective, then, is not to replace
English with another language, nor to reduce learners' exposure to the target language
indiscriminately.
Different linguistic resources are used strategically as bridges that may facilitate access
to English when learners need additional assistance to understand, process, or communicate new
knowledge. This distinction is essential because translanguaging should not be interpreted as
opposition to target-language learning; its pedagogical premise is that resources already available
to learners can, under appropriate conditions, contribute to that learning process.
The concept consequently changes the question traditionally posed about first-language
use in English instruction. The focus is no longer exclusively on whether the first language should
or should not be permitted; translanguaging encourages educators to examine how linguistic
resources are being used, what pedagogical purpose they serve, and whether their use contributes
to the intended learning objective. This does not assume that every bi/multilingual practice is
beneficial or that increased first-language use necessarily produces better English learning. It
provides a basis for examining the strategic and purposeful use of learners' repertoires. To
understand how this principle has been implemented in English language classrooms, it is
necessary to move from conceptualization to practice. The following section examines the
pedagogical applications of translanguaging in English language teaching.
Pedagogical Applications of Translanguaging in ELT
The pedagogical use of translanguaging in English language teaching involves the
purposeful incorporation of learners’ bi/multilingual resources into classroom activities to
facilitate comprehension, interaction, and language development. Teachers make deliberate
decisions about when other linguistic resources may facilitate access to meaning and when
learners should return to or produce the target language. In this sense, translanguaging functions
as an instructional resource that connects what learners already know with the linguistic and
conceptual demands of new content (Zhang & Chan, 2021; Kim & Weng, 2022).
unfamiliar concept. Pedagogical translanguaging, however, involves intentional instructional
decisions through which teachers create opportunities for learners to mobilize more than one part
of their linguistic repertoire in pursuit of a learning objective (Zhang & Chan, 2021; Huang &
Chalmers, 2023). The distinction is important because pedagogical translanguaging does not
mean simply permitting unrestricted use of the first language. It involves making deliberate
decisions about when, why, and for what learning purpose multilingual resources should be
incorporated.
In practical terms, pedagogical translanguaging may involve asking learners to activate
prior knowledge through their first language before engaging with new English content,
comparing lexical or grammatical features across languages, discussing a complex idea
collaboratively before producing an English response, or strategically using translation to clarify
meaning (Zhang & Chan, 2021; Huang & Chalmers, 2023). The objective, then, is not to replace
English with another language, nor to reduce learners' exposure to the target language
indiscriminately.
Different linguistic resources are used strategically as bridges that may facilitate access
to English when learners need additional assistance to understand, process, or communicate new
knowledge. This distinction is essential because translanguaging should not be interpreted as
opposition to target-language learning; its pedagogical premise is that resources already available
to learners can, under appropriate conditions, contribute to that learning process.
The concept consequently changes the question traditionally posed about first-language
use in English instruction. The focus is no longer exclusively on whether the first language should
or should not be permitted; translanguaging encourages educators to examine how linguistic
resources are being used, what pedagogical purpose they serve, and whether their use contributes
to the intended learning objective. This does not assume that every bi/multilingual practice is
beneficial or that increased first-language use necessarily produces better English learning. It
provides a basis for examining the strategic and purposeful use of learners' repertoires. To
understand how this principle has been implemented in English language classrooms, it is
necessary to move from conceptualization to practice. The following section examines the
pedagogical applications of translanguaging in English language teaching.
Pedagogical Applications of Translanguaging in ELT
The pedagogical use of translanguaging in English language teaching involves the
purposeful incorporation of learners’ bi/multilingual resources into classroom activities to
facilitate comprehension, interaction, and language development. Teachers make deliberate
decisions about when other linguistic resources may facilitate access to meaning and when
learners should return to or produce the target language. In this sense, translanguaging functions
as an instructional resource that connects what learners already know with the linguistic and
conceptual demands of new content (Zhang & Chan, 2021; Kim & Weng, 2022).
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1358
One of its most frequent applications is scaffolding comprehension. When learners
encounter unfamiliar vocabulary, grammatical structures, instructions, or complex concepts in
English, the teacher may strategically draw on the first language to clarify meaning before
continuing the activity in English (Yuvayapan, 2019; Jing & Kitis, 2024). This support may
include brief explanations, translations of key terms, comparisons between languages, or
clarification of task instructions (Zhang & Chan, 2021). De Los Reyes (2018) documented the
use of learners’ linguistic resources for instructional scaffolding and classroom communication
in an ESL context. The pedagogical principle is not to translate everything that is presented in
English, but to identify moments in which comprehension difficulties may prevent learners from
progressing with the task.
Translanguaging is used to facilitate vocabulary and grammar learning. Teachers may
encourage learners to compare words, expressions, grammatical patterns, or sentence structures
across languages in order to identify similarities and differences (Zhang & Chan, 2021). For
example, students can relate a new English word to a cognate in another language or use
multilingual resources to reflect on vocabulary and meaning (Ollerhead, 2018). These practices
can transform the first language from a simple translation tool into a resource for metalinguistic
reflection. Guo and Feng (2025) identify cross-linguistic explanation and scaffolding among the
strategies used in pedagogical translanguaging, allowing learners to connect English with
linguistic knowledge they already possess. Prado Pereira (2024) extends this discussion by
highlighting the use of cognates and metalinguistic reflection as additional pedagogical
possibilities.
Reading comprehension is an important area in which translanguaging can be applied.
Learners may read a text in English while using another language to discuss difficult passages,
summarize sections, annotate ideas, clarify vocabulary, or activate background knowledge before
returning to the English text. Qureshi and Aljanadbah (2022), for instance, examined practices
that included first-language glosses, paragraph summaries, and peer discussion during L2 reading.
Carroll and Sambolín Morales (2016) documented the use of learners’ first language during
literature-based activities, where students could discuss and reflect on English texts through
flexible use of Spanish and English. Comparable practices have been observed in other contexts,
where learners draw on their linguistic repertoires to process information before demonstrating
comprehension through English. In this sequence, learners move from initial comprehension
toward target-language performance: another language assists the processing of meaning, while
English remains central to the final learning objective.
In writing activities, translanguaging can be incorporated during planning, idea
generation, drafting, peer interaction, and revision. Huang and Chalmers (2023) report practices
in which learners use their first language to discuss and plan ideas before producing written work
in English. Learners may compare expressions across languages, use bilingual resources to solve
One of its most frequent applications is scaffolding comprehension. When learners
encounter unfamiliar vocabulary, grammatical structures, instructions, or complex concepts in
English, the teacher may strategically draw on the first language to clarify meaning before
continuing the activity in English (Yuvayapan, 2019; Jing & Kitis, 2024). This support may
include brief explanations, translations of key terms, comparisons between languages, or
clarification of task instructions (Zhang & Chan, 2021). De Los Reyes (2018) documented the
use of learners’ linguistic resources for instructional scaffolding and classroom communication
in an ESL context. The pedagogical principle is not to translate everything that is presented in
English, but to identify moments in which comprehension difficulties may prevent learners from
progressing with the task.
Translanguaging is used to facilitate vocabulary and grammar learning. Teachers may
encourage learners to compare words, expressions, grammatical patterns, or sentence structures
across languages in order to identify similarities and differences (Zhang & Chan, 2021). For
example, students can relate a new English word to a cognate in another language or use
multilingual resources to reflect on vocabulary and meaning (Ollerhead, 2018). These practices
can transform the first language from a simple translation tool into a resource for metalinguistic
reflection. Guo and Feng (2025) identify cross-linguistic explanation and scaffolding among the
strategies used in pedagogical translanguaging, allowing learners to connect English with
linguistic knowledge they already possess. Prado Pereira (2024) extends this discussion by
highlighting the use of cognates and metalinguistic reflection as additional pedagogical
possibilities.
Reading comprehension is an important area in which translanguaging can be applied.
Learners may read a text in English while using another language to discuss difficult passages,
summarize sections, annotate ideas, clarify vocabulary, or activate background knowledge before
returning to the English text. Qureshi and Aljanadbah (2022), for instance, examined practices
that included first-language glosses, paragraph summaries, and peer discussion during L2 reading.
Carroll and Sambolín Morales (2016) documented the use of learners’ first language during
literature-based activities, where students could discuss and reflect on English texts through
flexible use of Spanish and English. Comparable practices have been observed in other contexts,
where learners draw on their linguistic repertoires to process information before demonstrating
comprehension through English. In this sequence, learners move from initial comprehension
toward target-language performance: another language assists the processing of meaning, while
English remains central to the final learning objective.
In writing activities, translanguaging can be incorporated during planning, idea
generation, drafting, peer interaction, and revision. Huang and Chalmers (2023) report practices
in which learners use their first language to discuss and plan ideas before producing written work
in English. Learners may compare expressions across languages, use bilingual resources to solve
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1359
lexical difficulties, or provide peer feedback through more than one language, practices identified
in the review by Kim and Weng (2022). This becomes important when linguistic limitations in
English restrict learners’ ability to demonstrate the conceptual knowledge they already possess.
Translanguaging can provide an intermediate space in which learners develop their ideas before
reformulating them in the target language, without having to simplify their thoughts because they
cannot yet express them fully in English.
Collaborative interaction represents an important area of application. During pair or
group work, learners may use different linguistic resources to negotiate meaning, explain
instructions to one another, solve problems, or prepare an English response. Peer translanguaging
can operate as a form of collaborative scaffolding, particularly when one learner is able to help
another understand vocabulary or a concept that remains unclear in English (Rasman, 2018; van
Viegen, 2020; Miftakh et al., 2025). Nevertheless, the educational purpose remains important.
The teacher should structure the task so that multilingual interaction contributes to participation
or subsequent production in English.
Translanguaging appears in classroom management and teacher-student interaction. De
Los Reyes (2018) documented the use of learners’ linguistic resources for lesson presentation,
elicitation, behavior management, and maintaining classroom focus. Yuvayapan (2019) identified
the use of the first language for instructions, classroom management, and rapport. Jing and Kitis
(2024) described translanguaging in managerial classroom functions, including the organization
of activities and the facilitation of routine interaction. These uses differ from more explicitly
instructional applications because their primary objective is not always linguistic learning itself,
but the creation of conditions that allow teaching and learning to proceed effectively.
An important dimension of translanguaging is the use of multimodal and semiotic
resources. Translanguaging is not restricted to spoken movement between languages; it may
involve the coordinated use of written language, images, gestures, visual representations, and
other semiotic resources in the construction of meaning (Li, 2018; Fang et al., 2022). In classroom
contexts, Ollerhead (2018) documented the use of word walls, cognates, bilingual resources,
images, and digital tools to assist multilingual learners. Wu and Lin (2019) showed how linguistic
resources could operate together with gestures and visual representations to support meaning-
making in a CLIL classroom. These practices illustrate how translanguaging can involve more
than verbal language by incorporating multiple resources that contribute to comprehension and
participation.
These applications indicate that pedagogical translanguaging is better understood as a
planned and purposeful instructional process than as random switching between English and
another language (Zhang & Chan, 2021; Huang & Chalmers, 2023). Its use may occur at different
stages of a learning task depending on the instructional objective. For example, learners may
activate prior knowledge through another language before engaging with new English content,
lexical difficulties, or provide peer feedback through more than one language, practices identified
in the review by Kim and Weng (2022). This becomes important when linguistic limitations in
English restrict learners’ ability to demonstrate the conceptual knowledge they already possess.
Translanguaging can provide an intermediate space in which learners develop their ideas before
reformulating them in the target language, without having to simplify their thoughts because they
cannot yet express them fully in English.
Collaborative interaction represents an important area of application. During pair or
group work, learners may use different linguistic resources to negotiate meaning, explain
instructions to one another, solve problems, or prepare an English response. Peer translanguaging
can operate as a form of collaborative scaffolding, particularly when one learner is able to help
another understand vocabulary or a concept that remains unclear in English (Rasman, 2018; van
Viegen, 2020; Miftakh et al., 2025). Nevertheless, the educational purpose remains important.
The teacher should structure the task so that multilingual interaction contributes to participation
or subsequent production in English.
Translanguaging appears in classroom management and teacher-student interaction. De
Los Reyes (2018) documented the use of learners’ linguistic resources for lesson presentation,
elicitation, behavior management, and maintaining classroom focus. Yuvayapan (2019) identified
the use of the first language for instructions, classroom management, and rapport. Jing and Kitis
(2024) described translanguaging in managerial classroom functions, including the organization
of activities and the facilitation of routine interaction. These uses differ from more explicitly
instructional applications because their primary objective is not always linguistic learning itself,
but the creation of conditions that allow teaching and learning to proceed effectively.
An important dimension of translanguaging is the use of multimodal and semiotic
resources. Translanguaging is not restricted to spoken movement between languages; it may
involve the coordinated use of written language, images, gestures, visual representations, and
other semiotic resources in the construction of meaning (Li, 2018; Fang et al., 2022). In classroom
contexts, Ollerhead (2018) documented the use of word walls, cognates, bilingual resources,
images, and digital tools to assist multilingual learners. Wu and Lin (2019) showed how linguistic
resources could operate together with gestures and visual representations to support meaning-
making in a CLIL classroom. These practices illustrate how translanguaging can involve more
than verbal language by incorporating multiple resources that contribute to comprehension and
participation.
These applications indicate that pedagogical translanguaging is better understood as a
planned and purposeful instructional process than as random switching between English and
another language (Zhang & Chan, 2021; Huang & Chalmers, 2023). Its use may occur at different
stages of a learning task depending on the instructional objective. For example, learners may
activate prior knowledge through another language before engaging with new English content,
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1360
receive multilingual assistance while processing a complex task, and subsequently produce an
oral or written response in English. In practice, the pedagogical value of translanguaging lies not
simply in the amount of first-language use, but in the function that such use performs within the
learning process. This allows multilingual resources to function as strategic tools within a clearly
defined learning sequence.
Reported Benefits of Translanguaging
Several benefits have been associated with translanguaging in English language teaching,
particularly in relation to comprehension, participation, affective engagement, metalinguistic
awareness, and inclusion. Nevertheless, the consistency of these outcomes varies across studies.
Their interpretation requires caution, since many studies rely on qualitative observations, learner
perceptions, or relatively small classroom samples. For this reason, these benefits should be
understood as context-dependent rather than as universally established effects.
One of the most commonly observed outcomes is improved comprehension. Learners
often demonstrate greater access to difficult content when they are able to draw on previously
developed linguistic knowledge. Van Viegen (2020) found that multilingual resources facilitated
access to curriculum content among learners from refugee backgrounds, while Miftakh et al.
(2025) noted that students perceived translanguaging as helpful for understanding explanations
and classroom content. Portolés and Martí (2017) showed that translanguaging helped young
learners mediate comprehension and co-construct meaning during early English learning. Such
patterns indicate that translanguaging may reduce comprehension barriers when learners are still
developing sufficient proficiency to process complex information exclusively through English.
Translanguaging has also been associated with increased participation and interaction.
Rasman (2018) observed that translanguaging facilitated peer negotiation of meaning and
collaborative participation in an Indonesian EFL classroom. Jiang et al. (2022) found generally
positive student attitudes toward teachers’ translanguaging practices and noted that teacher use of
multilingual resources was related to students’ own classroom use. These results indicate that
translanguaging may create more opportunities for learners to contribute, especially when limited
English proficiency would otherwise restrict participation.
The literature reports important affective benefits. Miftakh et al. (2025) found
associations between translanguaging and increased confidence, greater participation, and
reduced anxiety. Ulum (2024), working with preservice EFL teachers, similarly identified
positive perceptions related to confidence, motivation, inclusion, and lower levels of linguistic
pressure. This matters because anxiety and fear of making mistakes can strongly limit classroom
participation. Translanguaging may provide learners with a greater sense of security when
expressing ideas that they are not yet able to formulate entirely in English.
Translanguaging may contribute to the development of metalinguistic awareness.
Ollerhead (2018) documented how learners benefited from comparing linguistic forms and using
receive multilingual assistance while processing a complex task, and subsequently produce an
oral or written response in English. In practice, the pedagogical value of translanguaging lies not
simply in the amount of first-language use, but in the function that such use performs within the
learning process. This allows multilingual resources to function as strategic tools within a clearly
defined learning sequence.
Reported Benefits of Translanguaging
Several benefits have been associated with translanguaging in English language teaching,
particularly in relation to comprehension, participation, affective engagement, metalinguistic
awareness, and inclusion. Nevertheless, the consistency of these outcomes varies across studies.
Their interpretation requires caution, since many studies rely on qualitative observations, learner
perceptions, or relatively small classroom samples. For this reason, these benefits should be
understood as context-dependent rather than as universally established effects.
One of the most commonly observed outcomes is improved comprehension. Learners
often demonstrate greater access to difficult content when they are able to draw on previously
developed linguistic knowledge. Van Viegen (2020) found that multilingual resources facilitated
access to curriculum content among learners from refugee backgrounds, while Miftakh et al.
(2025) noted that students perceived translanguaging as helpful for understanding explanations
and classroom content. Portolés and Martí (2017) showed that translanguaging helped young
learners mediate comprehension and co-construct meaning during early English learning. Such
patterns indicate that translanguaging may reduce comprehension barriers when learners are still
developing sufficient proficiency to process complex information exclusively through English.
Translanguaging has also been associated with increased participation and interaction.
Rasman (2018) observed that translanguaging facilitated peer negotiation of meaning and
collaborative participation in an Indonesian EFL classroom. Jiang et al. (2022) found generally
positive student attitudes toward teachers’ translanguaging practices and noted that teacher use of
multilingual resources was related to students’ own classroom use. These results indicate that
translanguaging may create more opportunities for learners to contribute, especially when limited
English proficiency would otherwise restrict participation.
The literature reports important affective benefits. Miftakh et al. (2025) found
associations between translanguaging and increased confidence, greater participation, and
reduced anxiety. Ulum (2024), working with preservice EFL teachers, similarly identified
positive perceptions related to confidence, motivation, inclusion, and lower levels of linguistic
pressure. This matters because anxiety and fear of making mistakes can strongly limit classroom
participation. Translanguaging may provide learners with a greater sense of security when
expressing ideas that they are not yet able to formulate entirely in English.
Translanguaging may contribute to the development of metalinguistic awareness.
Ollerhead (2018) documented how learners benefited from comparing linguistic forms and using
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1361
cognates and multilingual resources to reflect on vocabulary and meaning. Zhang and Chan
(2021) found that cross-linguistic comparison was useful in relation to vocabulary and grammar.
This cross-linguistic comparison can help learners notice similarities and differences between
languages while developing a clearer understanding of how English relates to their existing
linguistic knowledge.
Translanguaging may also contribute to inclusion and the recognition of linguistic
identity. Fallas Escobar (2019) showed that translanguaging practices could provide learners with
greater freedom of expression and reinforce the recognition of bilingual identities in EFL
contexts. Van Viegen (2020) associated multilingual classroom practices with belonging,
engagement, and more equitable access to learning. Steinhagen and Said (2021) found that
allowing students to draw on Arabic and English in higher education could strengthen linguistic
pride and provide a greater sense of empowerment when engaging with academically demanding
content. In this context, translanguaging may contribute to linguistic development while helping
create learning environments in which students’ previous linguistic experiences are treated as
legitimate educational resources.
Positive effects on motivation and engagement have been observed. Ortega (2019) found
that the use of multilingual resources enabled learners to participate more actively in discussions
and engage with meaningful classroom topics. Ulum (2024) identified broadly favorable
perceptions of translanguaging among future English teachers. Learners may participate more
actively when classroom communication allows them to draw on familiar linguistic resources to
express complex ideas and stay engaged in the task.
Despite these advantages, conclusions regarding measurable language-learning outcomes
remain less definitive. Qureshi and Aljanadbah (2022), for example, did not find a significant
advantage of translanguaging over an English-only condition in L2 reading comprehension.
Huang and Chalmers (2023) concluded that the methodological quality of much of the available
intervention research limits strong claims about the causal effectiveness of pedagogical
translanguaging. These results call for caution when linking positive classroom experiences with
long-term English proficiency.
The benefits most consistently observed involve access, participation, confidence,
metalinguistic awareness, inclusion, and engagement. Their extent appears to depend on factors
such as learner proficiency, instructional goals, teacher decision-making, and the way
translanguaging is integrated into classroom practice.
Challenges and Limitations of Translanguaging
Despite the pedagogical potential associated with translanguaging, its implementation in
English language teaching is not without difficulties. One of the most persistent challenges is the
influence of English-only policies and monolingual ideologies. In many educational contexts,
English is still treated as the only legitimate language of instruction, while the use of learners’
cognates and multilingual resources to reflect on vocabulary and meaning. Zhang and Chan
(2021) found that cross-linguistic comparison was useful in relation to vocabulary and grammar.
This cross-linguistic comparison can help learners notice similarities and differences between
languages while developing a clearer understanding of how English relates to their existing
linguistic knowledge.
Translanguaging may also contribute to inclusion and the recognition of linguistic
identity. Fallas Escobar (2019) showed that translanguaging practices could provide learners with
greater freedom of expression and reinforce the recognition of bilingual identities in EFL
contexts. Van Viegen (2020) associated multilingual classroom practices with belonging,
engagement, and more equitable access to learning. Steinhagen and Said (2021) found that
allowing students to draw on Arabic and English in higher education could strengthen linguistic
pride and provide a greater sense of empowerment when engaging with academically demanding
content. In this context, translanguaging may contribute to linguistic development while helping
create learning environments in which students’ previous linguistic experiences are treated as
legitimate educational resources.
Positive effects on motivation and engagement have been observed. Ortega (2019) found
that the use of multilingual resources enabled learners to participate more actively in discussions
and engage with meaningful classroom topics. Ulum (2024) identified broadly favorable
perceptions of translanguaging among future English teachers. Learners may participate more
actively when classroom communication allows them to draw on familiar linguistic resources to
express complex ideas and stay engaged in the task.
Despite these advantages, conclusions regarding measurable language-learning outcomes
remain less definitive. Qureshi and Aljanadbah (2022), for example, did not find a significant
advantage of translanguaging over an English-only condition in L2 reading comprehension.
Huang and Chalmers (2023) concluded that the methodological quality of much of the available
intervention research limits strong claims about the causal effectiveness of pedagogical
translanguaging. These results call for caution when linking positive classroom experiences with
long-term English proficiency.
The benefits most consistently observed involve access, participation, confidence,
metalinguistic awareness, inclusion, and engagement. Their extent appears to depend on factors
such as learner proficiency, instructional goals, teacher decision-making, and the way
translanguaging is integrated into classroom practice.
Challenges and Limitations of Translanguaging
Despite the pedagogical potential associated with translanguaging, its implementation in
English language teaching is not without difficulties. One of the most persistent challenges is the
influence of English-only policies and monolingual ideologies. In many educational contexts,
English is still treated as the only legitimate language of instruction, while the use of learners’
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1362
other languages may be interpreted as a sign of insufficient proficiency or ineffective teaching.
Allard (2017) showed how teachers’ translanguaging practices could be constrained by
institutional expectations and by the belief that students should rely exclusively on English.
Yuvayapan (2019) similarly identified a gap between teachers’ relatively positive perceptions of
translanguaging and their actual classroom practices, partly because monolingual expectations
continued to shape instructional decisions.
A related concern is the possibility of excessive reliance on the first language.
Translanguaging is intended to provide strategic assistance, but its effectiveness may be reduced
if learners consistently avoid using English whenever they experience difficulty. Ulum (2024)
found that a considerable proportion of preservice EFL teachers expressed concern that excessive
dependence on the native language could limit learners’ engagement with English. Huang and
Chalmers (2023) raise a related concern regarding reduced target-language exposure when
translanguaging is not carefully managed. The central issue is not simply whether another
language should be used, but how much guidance is appropriate and at what point learners should
be encouraged to return to the target language.
Teacher preparation represents a significant limitation. Effective pedagogical
translanguaging requires more than the spontaneous translation of difficult words or explanations.
Teachers need to understand when bi/multilingual assistance is pedagogically justified, how to
design activities that connect linguistic repertoires with learning objectives, and how to prevent
the first language from becoming a substitute for engagement with English. Tannenbaum et al.
(2026) found that most of the teachers in their study had received no formal training in
translanguaging, despite incorporating multilingual practices into their instruction. Carroll and
van den Hoven (2017) similarly showed that institutional expectations and monolingual
ideologies could restrict teachers’ use of multilingual resources even when such practices were
considered pedagogically useful. Kim and Weng (2022) likewise identified limited teacher
knowledge and preparation as recurring obstacles to systematic implementation.
The linguistic composition of the classroom may complicate translanguaging pedagogy.
In some contexts, teachers and learners share the same first language, making multilingual
interaction relatively straightforward. In more linguistically diverse classrooms, students may
possess different home languages that the teacher does not speak. Vaish (2019) showed that
linguistic diversity can make the implementation of translanguaging considerably more complex
when learners have different levels of proficiency in their home languages or when certain
languages occupy higher social status than others. Jonsson (2019) further illustrates this
challenge, showing how teachers’ limited access to students’ linguistic repertoires can constrain
opportunities for meaningful cross-linguistic interaction. In such settings, relying heavily on one
shared language may unintentionally advantage some students while excluding others.
other languages may be interpreted as a sign of insufficient proficiency or ineffective teaching.
Allard (2017) showed how teachers’ translanguaging practices could be constrained by
institutional expectations and by the belief that students should rely exclusively on English.
Yuvayapan (2019) similarly identified a gap between teachers’ relatively positive perceptions of
translanguaging and their actual classroom practices, partly because monolingual expectations
continued to shape instructional decisions.
A related concern is the possibility of excessive reliance on the first language.
Translanguaging is intended to provide strategic assistance, but its effectiveness may be reduced
if learners consistently avoid using English whenever they experience difficulty. Ulum (2024)
found that a considerable proportion of preservice EFL teachers expressed concern that excessive
dependence on the native language could limit learners’ engagement with English. Huang and
Chalmers (2023) raise a related concern regarding reduced target-language exposure when
translanguaging is not carefully managed. The central issue is not simply whether another
language should be used, but how much guidance is appropriate and at what point learners should
be encouraged to return to the target language.
Teacher preparation represents a significant limitation. Effective pedagogical
translanguaging requires more than the spontaneous translation of difficult words or explanations.
Teachers need to understand when bi/multilingual assistance is pedagogically justified, how to
design activities that connect linguistic repertoires with learning objectives, and how to prevent
the first language from becoming a substitute for engagement with English. Tannenbaum et al.
(2026) found that most of the teachers in their study had received no formal training in
translanguaging, despite incorporating multilingual practices into their instruction. Carroll and
van den Hoven (2017) similarly showed that institutional expectations and monolingual
ideologies could restrict teachers’ use of multilingual resources even when such practices were
considered pedagogically useful. Kim and Weng (2022) likewise identified limited teacher
knowledge and preparation as recurring obstacles to systematic implementation.
The linguistic composition of the classroom may complicate translanguaging pedagogy.
In some contexts, teachers and learners share the same first language, making multilingual
interaction relatively straightforward. In more linguistically diverse classrooms, students may
possess different home languages that the teacher does not speak. Vaish (2019) showed that
linguistic diversity can make the implementation of translanguaging considerably more complex
when learners have different levels of proficiency in their home languages or when certain
languages occupy higher social status than others. Jonsson (2019) further illustrates this
challenge, showing how teachers’ limited access to students’ linguistic repertoires can constrain
opportunities for meaningful cross-linguistic interaction. In such settings, relying heavily on one
shared language may unintentionally advantage some students while excluding others.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1363
In addition, classroom interaction and control can complicate the implementation of
translanguaging. Translanguaging can expand opportunities for participation, but it does not
automatically create more equitable or learner-centered interaction. Rabbidge (2019) found that
bi/multilingual practices could coexist with highly teacher-directed classroom structures, meaning
that students’ use of additional linguistic resources did not necessarily produce greater
interactional freedom. Gynne (2019) also documented forms of language policing in multilingual
educational settings, including concerns among teachers about losing control when students used
languages that the teacher could not understand. The effectiveness of translanguaging depends on
the languages used, as well as on how classroom participation is organized and how the teacher
guides interaction.
The relationship between translanguaging and assessment presents an additional
challenge. In classroom instruction, learners may use their broader linguistic repertoires to
facilitate comprehension, organize ideas, or prepare a response, but this does not necessarily
imply that assessment should be conducted in another language. When the objective is to evaluate
English proficiency, learners are still expected to demonstrate their knowledge and skills through
the target language. Kim and Weng (2022) note that difficulties may arise when multilingual
resources are used during instruction but assessment practices remain strictly monolingual. These
difficulties may become more pronounced when teachers are not given clear guidance on how to
distinguish between assistance during learning and actual target-language performance. This
creates a need for careful alignment between instructional practices and assessment objectives, so
that translanguaging can function as a pedagogical resource without obscuring what is actually
being evaluated.
There are also important limitations in the existing research base. A considerable amount
of translanguaging research relies on qualitative case studies, classroom observations, interviews,
and self-reported perceptions. These approaches provide valuable information about classroom
processes and participants’ experiences, but they do not always allow researchers to determine
whether translanguaging directly causes measurable improvements in English proficiency. Huang
and Chalmers (2023) found substantial methodological weaknesses and a high risk of bias in
several intervention studies included in their systematic review. Qureshi and Aljanadbah (2022),
moreover, did not identify a significant advantage for translanguaging in their comparison of L2
reading comprehension conditions. This limitation points to the need for stronger longitudinal,
experimental, and mixed-method research to establish more clearly when translanguaging
produces measurable language-learning gains.
A balanced position is warranted: translanguaging should not be rejected simply because
it introduces other languages into the English classroom, nor should it be used without clear limits
or pedagogical purpose. Probyn (2019) cautions that translanguaging alone is not sufficient to
guarantee effective learning, since its effectiveness depends on the quality of classroom
In addition, classroom interaction and control can complicate the implementation of
translanguaging. Translanguaging can expand opportunities for participation, but it does not
automatically create more equitable or learner-centered interaction. Rabbidge (2019) found that
bi/multilingual practices could coexist with highly teacher-directed classroom structures, meaning
that students’ use of additional linguistic resources did not necessarily produce greater
interactional freedom. Gynne (2019) also documented forms of language policing in multilingual
educational settings, including concerns among teachers about losing control when students used
languages that the teacher could not understand. The effectiveness of translanguaging depends on
the languages used, as well as on how classroom participation is organized and how the teacher
guides interaction.
The relationship between translanguaging and assessment presents an additional
challenge. In classroom instruction, learners may use their broader linguistic repertoires to
facilitate comprehension, organize ideas, or prepare a response, but this does not necessarily
imply that assessment should be conducted in another language. When the objective is to evaluate
English proficiency, learners are still expected to demonstrate their knowledge and skills through
the target language. Kim and Weng (2022) note that difficulties may arise when multilingual
resources are used during instruction but assessment practices remain strictly monolingual. These
difficulties may become more pronounced when teachers are not given clear guidance on how to
distinguish between assistance during learning and actual target-language performance. This
creates a need for careful alignment between instructional practices and assessment objectives, so
that translanguaging can function as a pedagogical resource without obscuring what is actually
being evaluated.
There are also important limitations in the existing research base. A considerable amount
of translanguaging research relies on qualitative case studies, classroom observations, interviews,
and self-reported perceptions. These approaches provide valuable information about classroom
processes and participants’ experiences, but they do not always allow researchers to determine
whether translanguaging directly causes measurable improvements in English proficiency. Huang
and Chalmers (2023) found substantial methodological weaknesses and a high risk of bias in
several intervention studies included in their systematic review. Qureshi and Aljanadbah (2022),
moreover, did not identify a significant advantage for translanguaging in their comparison of L2
reading comprehension conditions. This limitation points to the need for stronger longitudinal,
experimental, and mixed-method research to establish more clearly when translanguaging
produces measurable language-learning gains.
A balanced position is warranted: translanguaging should not be rejected simply because
it introduces other languages into the English classroom, nor should it be used without clear limits
or pedagogical purpose. Probyn (2019) cautions that translanguaging alone is not sufficient to
guarantee effective learning, since its effectiveness depends on the quality of classroom
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1364
interaction and the way disciplinary knowledge is constructed. Its implementation requires
pedagogical judgment, appropriate teacher preparation, sensitivity to learners’ linguistic diversity,
and clear alignment with instructional objectives. The central issue is not whether translanguaging
is inherently beneficial or detrimental, but under what conditions, for which learners, and for
which purposes it can contribute effectively to English language teaching. This question provides
an important basis for the broader interpretation developed in the following discussion.
DISCUSSION
Translanguaging has gained relevance in English language teaching because it challenges
the assumption that effective learning requires a strict separation between the target language and
learners’ existing linguistic resources. A recurring pattern is that teachers and students use
translanguaging to facilitate comprehension, interaction, and access to classroom content, even in
contexts where monolingual expectations remain influential. Yuvayapan (2019) illustrates this
tension, showing that teachers may hold relatively favorable views toward translanguaging while
still limiting its use because of monolingual institutional expectations. A similar tension is visible
in Allard (2017), where multilingual practices were shaped by an educational environment that
continued to privilege English as the legitimate language of instruction. This positions
translanguaging as more than a simple classroom technique, linking it to a broader discussion
about how languages are valued and regulated in language education. Hurst and Mona (2017)
frame translanguaging as a socially responsive pedagogy that can recognize learners’ linguistic
identities and broaden access to academic participation.
One of the main contributions of translanguaging lies in its ability to connect new English
input with knowledge that learners have already developed through other languages. This is
especially important when students encounter linguistic or conceptual demands that exceed their
current proficiency in English. Zhang and Chan (2021) documented how cross-linguistic
comparisons could facilitate vocabulary and grammar learning, while Ollerhead (2018) showed
how multilingual and multimodal resources could contribute to vocabulary development and
metalinguistic awareness. Lu et al. (2025) identified explanation, cognitive functions, and
metalinguistic understanding among the recurrent uses of translanguaging across EMI and CLIL
classrooms. The first language and other known languages do not necessarily function as
obstacles to English learning. Dillon et al. (2021) provide a useful example from an EMI higher-
education context, where dual-language instruction showed particular potential for intermediate-
level students when processing academic content in English. Under appropriate conditions, they
may instead provide a cognitive bridge that helps learners interpret, organize, and eventually
express new knowledge through English.
Nevertheless, the literature makes clear that translanguaging should not be equated with
unrestricted first-language use. Its effectiveness appears to depend largely on purpose and design.
interaction and the way disciplinary knowledge is constructed. Its implementation requires
pedagogical judgment, appropriate teacher preparation, sensitivity to learners’ linguistic diversity,
and clear alignment with instructional objectives. The central issue is not whether translanguaging
is inherently beneficial or detrimental, but under what conditions, for which learners, and for
which purposes it can contribute effectively to English language teaching. This question provides
an important basis for the broader interpretation developed in the following discussion.
DISCUSSION
Translanguaging has gained relevance in English language teaching because it challenges
the assumption that effective learning requires a strict separation between the target language and
learners’ existing linguistic resources. A recurring pattern is that teachers and students use
translanguaging to facilitate comprehension, interaction, and access to classroom content, even in
contexts where monolingual expectations remain influential. Yuvayapan (2019) illustrates this
tension, showing that teachers may hold relatively favorable views toward translanguaging while
still limiting its use because of monolingual institutional expectations. A similar tension is visible
in Allard (2017), where multilingual practices were shaped by an educational environment that
continued to privilege English as the legitimate language of instruction. This positions
translanguaging as more than a simple classroom technique, linking it to a broader discussion
about how languages are valued and regulated in language education. Hurst and Mona (2017)
frame translanguaging as a socially responsive pedagogy that can recognize learners’ linguistic
identities and broaden access to academic participation.
One of the main contributions of translanguaging lies in its ability to connect new English
input with knowledge that learners have already developed through other languages. This is
especially important when students encounter linguistic or conceptual demands that exceed their
current proficiency in English. Zhang and Chan (2021) documented how cross-linguistic
comparisons could facilitate vocabulary and grammar learning, while Ollerhead (2018) showed
how multilingual and multimodal resources could contribute to vocabulary development and
metalinguistic awareness. Lu et al. (2025) identified explanation, cognitive functions, and
metalinguistic understanding among the recurrent uses of translanguaging across EMI and CLIL
classrooms. The first language and other known languages do not necessarily function as
obstacles to English learning. Dillon et al. (2021) provide a useful example from an EMI higher-
education context, where dual-language instruction showed particular potential for intermediate-
level students when processing academic content in English. Under appropriate conditions, they
may instead provide a cognitive bridge that helps learners interpret, organize, and eventually
express new knowledge through English.
Nevertheless, the literature makes clear that translanguaging should not be equated with
unrestricted first-language use. Its effectiveness appears to depend largely on purpose and design.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1365
When multilingual resources are used strategically to clarify meaning, activate prior knowledge,
organize ideas, or prepare learners for target-language production, they can facilitate the learning
process without necessarily replacing English. Huang and Chalmers (2023) emphasize the
importance of distinguishing planned pedagogical translanguaging from spontaneous classroom
language use, while Kim and Weng (2022) show that translation, bilingual discussion,
scaffolding, and multilingual reflection are most meaningful when they are connected to clear
instructional objectives. This distinction is central because it shifts the debate away from the
simplistic question of whether the L1 should be permitted and toward a more pedagogically
relevant question: what function does its use serve in a particular learning sequence?
An important distinction emerges between pedagogical and affective benefits and
measurable gains in language proficiency. Many classroom studies report greater participation,
confidence, engagement, comprehension, or reduced anxiety when learners are able to draw on
their broader linguistic repertoires. Miftakh et al. (2025), for instance, identified positive student
perceptions related to comprehension, confidence, participation, and lower anxiety. Ulum (2024)
found broadly favorable attitudes among preservice EFL teachers, particularly regarding
inclusion, motivation, and emotional well-being. These outcomes are pedagogically important
because learners who understand classroom content and feel more able to participate may have
better conditions for learning. Nevertheless, such benefits should not automatically be interpreted
as indicators of greater language proficiency.
Positive pedagogical and affective outcomes are commonly observed, but long-term
gains in English proficiency remain less conclusive. This does not diminish the pedagogical value
of translanguaging; its contribution appears more clearly in access to learning, participation, and
classroom engagement than in consistently measurable proficiency gains (Qureshi & Aljanadbah,
2022; Huang & Chalmers, 2023).
The effectiveness of translanguaging varies according to learner proficiency, age,
educational level, linguistic background, teacher beliefs, institutional policies, and classroom
composition. Vaish (2019) demonstrates that linguistic diversity may complicate implementation
when students do not share the same home language or when the teacher cannot access all of the
linguistic resources present in the classroom. Caruso (2018) found that multilingual practices
could facilitate academic content processing while generating resistance or uncertainty among
learners, illustrating how their effectiveness may depend on both linguistic and attitudinal factors.
Rabbidge (2019), meanwhile, shows that translanguaging does not automatically transform
classroom interaction; multilingual practices can still occur within highly teacher-controlled
structures. Consequently, the mere presence of more than one language in the classroom should
not be regarded as an indication of effective translanguaging pedagogy. The organization of the
activity and its instructional purpose remain decisive.
When multilingual resources are used strategically to clarify meaning, activate prior knowledge,
organize ideas, or prepare learners for target-language production, they can facilitate the learning
process without necessarily replacing English. Huang and Chalmers (2023) emphasize the
importance of distinguishing planned pedagogical translanguaging from spontaneous classroom
language use, while Kim and Weng (2022) show that translation, bilingual discussion,
scaffolding, and multilingual reflection are most meaningful when they are connected to clear
instructional objectives. This distinction is central because it shifts the debate away from the
simplistic question of whether the L1 should be permitted and toward a more pedagogically
relevant question: what function does its use serve in a particular learning sequence?
An important distinction emerges between pedagogical and affective benefits and
measurable gains in language proficiency. Many classroom studies report greater participation,
confidence, engagement, comprehension, or reduced anxiety when learners are able to draw on
their broader linguistic repertoires. Miftakh et al. (2025), for instance, identified positive student
perceptions related to comprehension, confidence, participation, and lower anxiety. Ulum (2024)
found broadly favorable attitudes among preservice EFL teachers, particularly regarding
inclusion, motivation, and emotional well-being. These outcomes are pedagogically important
because learners who understand classroom content and feel more able to participate may have
better conditions for learning. Nevertheless, such benefits should not automatically be interpreted
as indicators of greater language proficiency.
Positive pedagogical and affective outcomes are commonly observed, but long-term
gains in English proficiency remain less conclusive. This does not diminish the pedagogical value
of translanguaging; its contribution appears more clearly in access to learning, participation, and
classroom engagement than in consistently measurable proficiency gains (Qureshi & Aljanadbah,
2022; Huang & Chalmers, 2023).
The effectiveness of translanguaging varies according to learner proficiency, age,
educational level, linguistic background, teacher beliefs, institutional policies, and classroom
composition. Vaish (2019) demonstrates that linguistic diversity may complicate implementation
when students do not share the same home language or when the teacher cannot access all of the
linguistic resources present in the classroom. Caruso (2018) found that multilingual practices
could facilitate academic content processing while generating resistance or uncertainty among
learners, illustrating how their effectiveness may depend on both linguistic and attitudinal factors.
Rabbidge (2019), meanwhile, shows that translanguaging does not automatically transform
classroom interaction; multilingual practices can still occur within highly teacher-controlled
structures. Consequently, the mere presence of more than one language in the classroom should
not be regarded as an indication of effective translanguaging pedagogy. The organization of the
activity and its instructional purpose remain decisive.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1366
Teacher preparation remains an important factor in the effective use of translanguaging.
Tannenbaum et al. (2026) found that a large proportion of teachers had received no formal
preparation in translanguaging, despite using multilingual practices in their classrooms. This
highlights the need for teachers to make informed decisions about when and how learners’
linguistic resources can be incorporated in relation to specific learning objectives.
Translanguaging is best understood not as an alternative to English instruction, but as a
strategic resource within it. Its effectiveness depends on purposeful use linked to clear learning
objectives, without assuming that the first language is always detrimental or that any multilingual
practice is automatically beneficial (Kim & Weng, 2022; Huang & Chalmers, 2023). Prada (2019)
shows that translanguaging may influence how learners understand and value their own linguistic
practices, indicating that its implications extend beyond immediate classroom performance to
learners’ attitudes toward language and identity. This shifts the debate from whether other
languages should be excluded to how they can contribute to learning without displacing the
central role of English.
On this basis, the most defensible position is neither strictly monolingual nor
unrestrictedly multilingual. English remains the principal target of instruction, while learners’
other linguistic resources can be used selectively to facilitate understanding, engagement, and
progression toward more complex English performance (Zhang & Chan, 2021; Tannenbaum et
al., 2026). Translanguaging can be considered a flexible pedagogical resource rather than a
replacement for target-language instruction.
CONCLUSION
This review presents translanguaging as a pedagogical approach that allows learners to
use the languages they already know as resources for learning English. It enables learners to draw
on prior linguistic knowledge when this facilitates access to meaning, interaction, and
participation in classroom tasks (Kim & Weng, 2022; Huang & Chalmers, 2023).
Its pedagogical value depends largely on how and why these language resources are
incorporated into instruction. Planned use, teacher preparation, and professional judgment are
important for ensuring that translanguaging responds to specific learning objectives rather than
becoming an automatic response to difficulty (Zhang & Chan, 2021; Tannenbaum et al., 2026).
A central implication of the review is that the opposition between English-only
instruction and unrestricted use of the first language is too simplistic. A more balanced position
recognizes English as the principal target of instruction while allowing learners’ other linguistic
resources to be incorporated selectively when they respond to specific pedagogical needs. In this
way, linguistic diversity can be understood not as a barrier to be suppressed, but as a resource that
can be pedagogically managed.
Teacher preparation remains an important factor in the effective use of translanguaging.
Tannenbaum et al. (2026) found that a large proportion of teachers had received no formal
preparation in translanguaging, despite using multilingual practices in their classrooms. This
highlights the need for teachers to make informed decisions about when and how learners’
linguistic resources can be incorporated in relation to specific learning objectives.
Translanguaging is best understood not as an alternative to English instruction, but as a
strategic resource within it. Its effectiveness depends on purposeful use linked to clear learning
objectives, without assuming that the first language is always detrimental or that any multilingual
practice is automatically beneficial (Kim & Weng, 2022; Huang & Chalmers, 2023). Prada (2019)
shows that translanguaging may influence how learners understand and value their own linguistic
practices, indicating that its implications extend beyond immediate classroom performance to
learners’ attitudes toward language and identity. This shifts the debate from whether other
languages should be excluded to how they can contribute to learning without displacing the
central role of English.
On this basis, the most defensible position is neither strictly monolingual nor
unrestrictedly multilingual. English remains the principal target of instruction, while learners’
other linguistic resources can be used selectively to facilitate understanding, engagement, and
progression toward more complex English performance (Zhang & Chan, 2021; Tannenbaum et
al., 2026). Translanguaging can be considered a flexible pedagogical resource rather than a
replacement for target-language instruction.
CONCLUSION
This review presents translanguaging as a pedagogical approach that allows learners to
use the languages they already know as resources for learning English. It enables learners to draw
on prior linguistic knowledge when this facilitates access to meaning, interaction, and
participation in classroom tasks (Kim & Weng, 2022; Huang & Chalmers, 2023).
Its pedagogical value depends largely on how and why these language resources are
incorporated into instruction. Planned use, teacher preparation, and professional judgment are
important for ensuring that translanguaging responds to specific learning objectives rather than
becoming an automatic response to difficulty (Zhang & Chan, 2021; Tannenbaum et al., 2026).
A central implication of the review is that the opposition between English-only
instruction and unrestricted use of the first language is too simplistic. A more balanced position
recognizes English as the principal target of instruction while allowing learners’ other linguistic
resources to be incorporated selectively when they respond to specific pedagogical needs. In this
way, linguistic diversity can be understood not as a barrier to be suppressed, but as a resource that
can be pedagogically managed.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1367
At the same time, the effectiveness of translanguaging should not be generalized across
contexts, and caution is required when considering sustained gains in English proficiency
(Qureshi & Aljanadbah, 2022; Huang & Chalmers, 2023). Future research should employ
stronger longitudinal and comparative designs, with particular attention to measurable language
development, teacher preparation, assessment, and contextual variation.
Ultimately, the contribution of translanguaging to English language teaching lies in
shifting the question from whether learners’ other languages should be excluded to how they can
be used responsibly and purposefully in the learning process. Teachers should remain open to
pedagogical practices that respond to learners’ needs while drawing on research, professional
judgment, and classroom experience. Translanguaging thus encourages a more flexible and
reflective approach to language instruction while maintaining English development as the central
pedagogical objective.
At the same time, the effectiveness of translanguaging should not be generalized across
contexts, and caution is required when considering sustained gains in English proficiency
(Qureshi & Aljanadbah, 2022; Huang & Chalmers, 2023). Future research should employ
stronger longitudinal and comparative designs, with particular attention to measurable language
development, teacher preparation, assessment, and contextual variation.
Ultimately, the contribution of translanguaging to English language teaching lies in
shifting the question from whether learners’ other languages should be excluded to how they can
be used responsibly and purposefully in the learning process. Teachers should remain open to
pedagogical practices that respond to learners’ needs while drawing on research, professional
judgment, and classroom experience. Translanguaging thus encourages a more flexible and
reflective approach to language instruction while maintaining English development as the central
pedagogical objective.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1368
REFERENCES
Allard, E. C. (2017). Re-examining teacher translanguaging: An ecological perspective. Bilin-
gual Research Journal, 40(2), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2017.1306597
Carroll, K. S., & Sambolín Morales, A. N. (2016). Using university students’ L1 as a resource:
Translanguaging in a Puerto Rican ESL classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 39(3-4),
248-262.
Carroll, K. S., & van den Hoven, M. (2017). Translanguaging within higher education in the
United Arab Emirates. Translanguaging in higher education: Beyond monolingual
ideologies, 141-156.
Caruso, E. (2018). Translanguaging in higher education: Using several languages for the analy-
sis of academic content in the teaching and learning process. CercleS, 8(1), 65–90.
https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2018-0004
De Los Reyes, R. A. (2018). Translanguaging in third grade multilingual ESL classrooms in
Mindanao, Philippines. International Journal of Multilingualism, 16(3), 302–316.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2018.1472268
Dillon, A., Chell, G., Moussa-Inaty, J., Gallagher, K., & Grey, I. (2021). English Medium
Instruction and the potential of translanguaging practices in higher education. Translation
and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts, 7(2), 153-176.
Fallas Escobar, C. (2019). Translanguaging by Design in EFL Classrooms. Classroom Dis-
course, 10(3-4), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1628789
Fang, F., Zhang, L. J., & Sah, P. K. (2022). Translanguaging in Language Teaching and Learn-
ing: Current Practices and Future Directions. RELC Journal, 53(2), 305–312.
Guo, Z., & Feng, Q. (2025). Exploring scaffolding strategies within pedagogical translanguag-
ing in EFL classrooms. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language (TESL-
EJ), 29(3).
Gynne, A. (2019). ‘English or Swedish please, no Dari!’ – (trans)languaging and language po-
licing in upper secondary school’s language introduction programme in Sweden. Class-
room Discourse, 10(3-4), 347–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1628791
Huang, X., & Chalmers, H. (2023). Implementation and Effects of Pedagogical Translanguag-ing
in EFL Classrooms: A Systematic Review. Languages, 8(3), 194.
https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030194
Hurst, E., & Mona, M. (2017). “Translanguaging” as a socially just pedagogy. Education as
Change, 21(2), 126–148. https://doi.org/10.17159/1947-9417/2017/2015
Jiang, Z. W., Zhang, L. J., & Mohamed, N. (2022). Researching Translanguaging as a Feasible
Pedagogical Practice: Evidence from Chinese English-as-a-Foreign-Language Students’
Perceptions. RELC Journal, 53(2), 371–390.
REFERENCES
Allard, E. C. (2017). Re-examining teacher translanguaging: An ecological perspective. Bilin-
gual Research Journal, 40(2), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2017.1306597
Carroll, K. S., & Sambolín Morales, A. N. (2016). Using university students’ L1 as a resource:
Translanguaging in a Puerto Rican ESL classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 39(3-4),
248-262.
Carroll, K. S., & van den Hoven, M. (2017). Translanguaging within higher education in the
United Arab Emirates. Translanguaging in higher education: Beyond monolingual
ideologies, 141-156.
Caruso, E. (2018). Translanguaging in higher education: Using several languages for the analy-
sis of academic content in the teaching and learning process. CercleS, 8(1), 65–90.
https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2018-0004
De Los Reyes, R. A. (2018). Translanguaging in third grade multilingual ESL classrooms in
Mindanao, Philippines. International Journal of Multilingualism, 16(3), 302–316.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2018.1472268
Dillon, A., Chell, G., Moussa-Inaty, J., Gallagher, K., & Grey, I. (2021). English Medium
Instruction and the potential of translanguaging practices in higher education. Translation
and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts, 7(2), 153-176.
Fallas Escobar, C. (2019). Translanguaging by Design in EFL Classrooms. Classroom Dis-
course, 10(3-4), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1628789
Fang, F., Zhang, L. J., & Sah, P. K. (2022). Translanguaging in Language Teaching and Learn-
ing: Current Practices and Future Directions. RELC Journal, 53(2), 305–312.
Guo, Z., & Feng, Q. (2025). Exploring scaffolding strategies within pedagogical translanguag-
ing in EFL classrooms. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language (TESL-
EJ), 29(3).
Gynne, A. (2019). ‘English or Swedish please, no Dari!’ – (trans)languaging and language po-
licing in upper secondary school’s language introduction programme in Sweden. Class-
room Discourse, 10(3-4), 347–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1628791
Huang, X., & Chalmers, H. (2023). Implementation and Effects of Pedagogical Translanguag-ing
in EFL Classrooms: A Systematic Review. Languages, 8(3), 194.
https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030194
Hurst, E., & Mona, M. (2017). “Translanguaging” as a socially just pedagogy. Education as
Change, 21(2), 126–148. https://doi.org/10.17159/1947-9417/2017/2015
Jiang, Z. W., Zhang, L. J., & Mohamed, N. (2022). Researching Translanguaging as a Feasible
Pedagogical Practice: Evidence from Chinese English-as-a-Foreign-Language Students’
Perceptions. RELC Journal, 53(2), 371–390.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1369
Jing, Y., & Kitis, E. D. (2024). Pedagogical translanguaging in the primary-school English-L2
class: a case-study in the Chinese context. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 45(10), 4517–4532. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2173213
Jonsson, C. (2019). ‘What is it called in Spanish?’: Parallel Monolingualisms and translingual
classroom talk. Classroom Discourse, 10(3-4), 323–346.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1631197
Kim, G. J. Y., & Weng, Z. (2022). A Systematic Review on Pedagogical Translanguaging in
TESOL. TESL-EJ, 26(3), n3.
Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–
30. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx039
Li, W. (2022). Translanguaging as method. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 1(1),
100026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2022.100026
Li, W., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2019). Translanguaging classroom discourse: pushing limits, breaking
boundaries. Classroom Discourse, 10(3-4), 209–215.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1635032
Lu, C., Gu, M. M., & Lee, J. C.-K. (2025). A systematic review of research on translanguaging
in EMI and CLIL classrooms. International Journal of Multilingualism, 22(2), 1033–
1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2023.2256775
Makalela, L. (2019). Uncovering the universals of ubuntu translanguaging in classroom
discourses. Classroom Discourse, 10(3-4), 237–251.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1631198
Miftakh, F., Yanto, E. S., & Harjadi, A. F. (2025). Translanguaging in Indonesian EFL
classrooms: Pedagogical insights and student perspectives. The Qualitative Report,
30(11), 4679-4702. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2025.6687
Ollerhead, S. (2018). Teaching across semiotic modes with multilingual learners: translanguaging
in an Australian classroom. Language and Education, 33(2), 106–122.
Ortega, Y. (2019). “Teacher, ¿Puedo Hablar en Español?” A Reflection on Plurilingualism and
Translanguaging Practices in EFL. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional
Development, 21(2), 155-170. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v21n2.74091
Portolés, L., & Martí, O. (2017). Translanguaging as a teaching resource in early language
learning of English as an additional language (EAL). Bellaterra Journal of Teaching &
Learning Language & Literature, 10(1), 61-77.
Poza, L. (2017). Translanguaging: Definitions, Implications, and Further Needs in Burgeoning
Inquiry. Berkeley Review of Education, 6(2), 101–128.
Prada, J. (2019). Exploring the role of translanguaging in linguistic ideological and attitudinal
reconfigurations in the Spanish classroom for heritage speakers. Classroom Discourse,
10(3-4), 306–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1628793
Jing, Y., & Kitis, E. D. (2024). Pedagogical translanguaging in the primary-school English-L2
class: a case-study in the Chinese context. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 45(10), 4517–4532. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2173213
Jonsson, C. (2019). ‘What is it called in Spanish?’: Parallel Monolingualisms and translingual
classroom talk. Classroom Discourse, 10(3-4), 323–346.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1631197
Kim, G. J. Y., & Weng, Z. (2022). A Systematic Review on Pedagogical Translanguaging in
TESOL. TESL-EJ, 26(3), n3.
Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–
30. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx039
Li, W. (2022). Translanguaging as method. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 1(1),
100026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2022.100026
Li, W., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2019). Translanguaging classroom discourse: pushing limits, breaking
boundaries. Classroom Discourse, 10(3-4), 209–215.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1635032
Lu, C., Gu, M. M., & Lee, J. C.-K. (2025). A systematic review of research on translanguaging
in EMI and CLIL classrooms. International Journal of Multilingualism, 22(2), 1033–
1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2023.2256775
Makalela, L. (2019). Uncovering the universals of ubuntu translanguaging in classroom
discourses. Classroom Discourse, 10(3-4), 237–251.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1631198
Miftakh, F., Yanto, E. S., & Harjadi, A. F. (2025). Translanguaging in Indonesian EFL
classrooms: Pedagogical insights and student perspectives. The Qualitative Report,
30(11), 4679-4702. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2025.6687
Ollerhead, S. (2018). Teaching across semiotic modes with multilingual learners: translanguaging
in an Australian classroom. Language and Education, 33(2), 106–122.
Ortega, Y. (2019). “Teacher, ¿Puedo Hablar en Español?” A Reflection on Plurilingualism and
Translanguaging Practices in EFL. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional
Development, 21(2), 155-170. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v21n2.74091
Portolés, L., & Martí, O. (2017). Translanguaging as a teaching resource in early language
learning of English as an additional language (EAL). Bellaterra Journal of Teaching &
Learning Language & Literature, 10(1), 61-77.
Poza, L. (2017). Translanguaging: Definitions, Implications, and Further Needs in Burgeoning
Inquiry. Berkeley Review of Education, 6(2), 101–128.
Prada, J. (2019). Exploring the role of translanguaging in linguistic ideological and attitudinal
reconfigurations in the Spanish classroom for heritage speakers. Classroom Discourse,
10(3-4), 306–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1628793
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1370
Prado Pereira, A. (2024). Pedagogical translanguaging: revisión bibliográfica sistemática de una
nueva teoría didáctica y su aplicación en las aulas de Educación Primaria. Didáctica.
Lengua y Literatura, 36(Núm. especial), 191-200. https://dx.doi.org/10.5209/dill.98421
Probyn, M. (2019). Pedagogical translanguaging and the construction of science knowledge in a
multilingual South African classroom: challenging monoglossic/post-colonial orthodox-
ies. Classroom Discourse, 10(3-4), 216–236.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1628792
Qureshi, M. A., & Aljanadbah, A. (2022). Translanguaging and reading comprehension in a
second language. International Multilingual Research Journal, 16(4), 247-257.
Rabbidge, M. (2019). The effects of translanguaging on participation in EFL classrooms. The
Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(4), 1305-1322.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.4.15.1305
Rasman. (2018). To translanguage or not to translanguage? The multilingual practice in an In-
donesian EFL classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(3), 687-694.,
Steinhagen, T. G., & Said, F. (2021). " We should not bury our language by our hands": Crafting
creative translanguaging spaces in higher education in the UAE. Applied linguistics
research and good practices for multicultural and multilingual classrooms, 169-183.
Tannenbaum, M., Haim, O., & Shohamy, E. (2026). Incorporating translanguaging in English
instruction: teachers’ beliefs, practices, and influencing factors. International Multilin-
gual Research Journal, 20(1), 1–18.
Ulum, Ö. G. (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
Vaish, V. (2019). Challenges and directions in implementing translanguaging pedagogy for low
achieving students. Classroom Discourse, 10(3-4), 274–289.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1628790
van Viegen, S. (2020). Translanguaging for and as learning with youth from refugee back-
grounds. Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 60-76.
https://doi.org/10.29140/ajal.v3n1.300
Wu, Y., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2019). Translanguaging and trans-semiotising in a CLIL biology class
in Hong Kong: whole-body sense-making in the flow of knowledge co-making. Class-
room Discourse, 10(3-4), 252–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1629322
Yuvayapan, F. (2019). Translanguaging in EFL classrooms: Teachers’ perceptions and practic-
es. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 678-694
Zhang, R., & Chan, B. H.-S. (2021). Pedagogical translanguaging in a trilingual context: the case
of two EFL classrooms in a Xinjiang university. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2021.1978383
Prado Pereira, A. (2024). Pedagogical translanguaging: revisión bibliográfica sistemática de una
nueva teoría didáctica y su aplicación en las aulas de Educación Primaria. Didáctica.
Lengua y Literatura, 36(Núm. especial), 191-200. https://dx.doi.org/10.5209/dill.98421
Probyn, M. (2019). Pedagogical translanguaging and the construction of science knowledge in a
multilingual South African classroom: challenging monoglossic/post-colonial orthodox-
ies. Classroom Discourse, 10(3-4), 216–236.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1628792
Qureshi, M. A., & Aljanadbah, A. (2022). Translanguaging and reading comprehension in a
second language. International Multilingual Research Journal, 16(4), 247-257.
Rabbidge, M. (2019). The effects of translanguaging on participation in EFL classrooms. The
Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(4), 1305-1322.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.4.15.1305
Rasman. (2018). To translanguage or not to translanguage? The multilingual practice in an In-
donesian EFL classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(3), 687-694.,
Steinhagen, T. G., & Said, F. (2021). " We should not bury our language by our hands": Crafting
creative translanguaging spaces in higher education in the UAE. Applied linguistics
research and good practices for multicultural and multilingual classrooms, 169-183.
Tannenbaum, M., Haim, O., & Shohamy, E. (2026). Incorporating translanguaging in English
instruction: teachers’ beliefs, practices, and influencing factors. International Multilin-
gual Research Journal, 20(1), 1–18.
Ulum, Ö. G. (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
Vaish, V. (2019). Challenges and directions in implementing translanguaging pedagogy for low
achieving students. Classroom Discourse, 10(3-4), 274–289.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1628790
van Viegen, S. (2020). Translanguaging for and as learning with youth from refugee back-
grounds. Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 60-76.
https://doi.org/10.29140/ajal.v3n1.300
Wu, Y., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2019). Translanguaging and trans-semiotising in a CLIL biology class
in Hong Kong: whole-body sense-making in the flow of knowledge co-making. Class-
room Discourse, 10(3-4), 252–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1629322
Yuvayapan, F. (2019). Translanguaging in EFL classrooms: Teachers’ perceptions and practic-
es. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 678-694
Zhang, R., & Chan, B. H.-S. (2021). Pedagogical translanguaging in a trilingual context: the case
of two EFL classrooms in a Xinjiang university. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2021.1978383
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 1371
Zuo, M., & Walsh, S. (2023). Translation in EFL teacher talk in Chinese universities: a
translanguaging perspective. Classroom Discourse, 14(2), 128–146.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2021.1960873
Zuo, M., & Walsh, S. (2023). Translation in EFL teacher talk in Chinese universities: a
translanguaging perspective. Classroom Discourse, 14(2), 128–146.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2021.1960873