The utilisation of translanguaging for learning and teaching in multilingual primary classrooms

Abstract

This article reports on the outcome of utilising a multilingual strategy that promotes translanguaging to support primary grade learners and the enablers and constraints of the implementation of such strategies. Purposive sampling was used to select two schools. Grade 5 and 6 learners ( N = 162) and their teachers ( N = 3) participated in the study. Qualitative research approach was employed and data was collected using classroom observations, semi-structured interviews, document analysis and storyboards. Data was analysed thematically and categorised. It was found that the enablers of translanguaging included a non-threatening and safe environment. Teachers’ positive attitude, the accessibility of the translated materials and the learners’ sense of pride due to acknowledgement and use of their home languages during lessons. The constraints included inadequate resources, limited lesson time, complexity of some of the home languages, limited experience of the teachers using a multilingual approach and existing socio-economic factors. Future longitudinal research is required to explore the impact of the strategy on the academic performance of the learners.

Full text

Margaret Funke Omidire* and Sameera Ayob
The utilisation of translanguaging for
learning and teaching in multilingual
primary classrooms
https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2020-0072
Received April 29, 2020; accepted December 7, 2020; published online December 24, 2020
Abstract: This article reports on the outcome of utilising a multilingual strategy
that promotes translanguaging to support primary grade learners and the enablers
and constraints of the implementation of such strategies. Purposive sampling was
used to select two schools. Grade 5 and 6 learners (N= 162) and their teachers
(N= 3) participated in the study. Qualitative research approach was employed and
data was collected using classroom observations, semi-structured interviews,
document analysis and storyboards. Data was analysed thematically and cat-
egorised. It was found that the enablers of translanguaging included a non-
threatening and safe environment. Teachers’positive attitude, the accessibility of
the translated materials and the learners’sense of pride due to acknowledgement
and use of their home languages during lessons. The constraints included inad-
equate resources, limited lesson time, complexity of some of the home languages,
limited experience of the teachers using a multilingual approach and existing
socio-economic factors. Future longitudinal research is required to explore the
impact of the strategy on the academic performance of the learners.
Keywords: first langauge; multilingual classrooms; teaching and learning;
translanguaging
1 Introduction
Multilingual classrooms are becoming common globally. Unfortunately, mono-
lingual language-in-education policies still prevail resulting in language
continuing to be a barrier to learning for many learners (Makalela 2018a). In South
*Corresponding author: Margaret Funke Omidire, Department of Educational Psychology,
University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, E-mail: funke.omidire@up.ac.za. https://orcid.
org/0000-0002-5784-7734
Sameera Ayob, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South
Africa
Multilingua 2022; 41(1): 105–129
Open Access. © 2020 Margaret Funke Omidire and Sameera Ayob, published by De Gruyter.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Africa, which is the context of this study, the issues of language policies and
practices, as well as the predominant socio-economic challenges are contributing
factors affecting learners and teachers in multilingual classrooms. Proactive
evidence-based support is needed to assist learners, teachers and schools with
ways in which to rise above the challenges created by the lack of proficiency in the
language of instruction.
Including the home language (L1) to enhance learning and providing support
to learners in multilingual classrooms has gained momentum. Studies by García
and Wei (2014), Makalela (2015b), and Mgijima and Makalela (2016) support the
idea of integrating L1 into the learning environment and advocate for attempts to
move away from imposed monolingual orientations in situations where multilin-
gualism is widespread. The orientations that imposed a one language, one nation
and one classroom ideology on multilingual learners, shifted towards building on
multiple repertoires of languages to overlap. On a global platform the assimilation
of multilingual practices in classrooms has shown encouraging academic
achievement for learners (Blackledge and Creese 2010; Turner 2017; Vaish and
Subhan 2015). More specifically “the concept of translanguaging has emerged
giving space to the dynamic practices of multilingual people all over the world”
(Garcia 2019, p. 370). Omidire (2019b, p. 4) endorses translanguaging “as a legit-
imate pedagogical approach involving the use of one language as a scaffold for
language development and learning in another”. Duarte’s (2019) study suggest
that translanguaging strategies have provided learners and teachers in multilin-
gual classrooms with flexible ways to utilize multiple languages to communicate,
yet there is very little known on the execution of this approach in multilingual
classrooms to enhance knowledge.
2 The role of L1 in education
Current research has shown the importance of the L1 as a resource for learning and
is considered a good way to compensate for the challenges experienced by
multilingual learners (Oihana et al. 2020; Omidire 2019b). Tian and Macaro (2012)
maintain that learners who receive input in their L1 benefit more than learners who
do not. Similarly, Cummins (2009) regards L1 as a foundation upon which new
knowledge can be built. The use of L1 can have implications for learning because if
learners cannot understand what is taught in the language of instruction, they will
experience difficulties in progressing to the next level. Omidire (2019b, p. 5) states
that “for learning to take place, there needs to be interaction between learners in
the classroom and this could be facilitated by promoting the use of home lan-
guages to engage and make connections that lead to high-level comprehension”.
106 Omidire and Ayob

The argument presented here is that L1 needs a space in the educational envi-
ronment so that learners can scaffold their learning (Hillman et al. 2019; Moody et
al. 2019; Omidire 2019b, Smith et al. 2020). This is achieved by understanding the
content being taught through their L1 (Makalela 2015b) and by allowing learners to
navigate their learning through not relying fully on L1 but rather using it as a
mediator to accommodate their learning experience (Daniel et al. 2019; Hillman
et al. 2019; Makalela 2015a).
Oihana et al. (2020), Hurst and Mona (2017), and Ferreira-Meyers and Horne
(2017) explain that the choice of language in education is still marginalised
because L1s in schools are seen as drawbacks. These scholars elaborate that
learners do not feel confident because they struggle to speak fluently in English.
Additionally, findings from the study of Hurst (2016) elaborate that these learners
feel sad that they have to relinquish their L1 and that their L1 is considered inferior.
Meanwhile Lwanga-Lumu (2020) and Rivera and Mazak (2017) agree that inte-
grating L1 could potentially lead to a greater sense of ownership within the
learning process and foster a stronger sense of identity.
3 Teachers position in multilingual classrooms
Catalano and Hamann (2016) assert that English overpoweringly dominates the
curriculum, despite the inherent diverse languages of the learners. This identifies the
core problem of L1 being side-lined (Makalela 2018b) which compels the learners in
classrooms to conform the use of English, limiting the flexibility in their choice of
language (Makalela 2015b), restricting diversity, choice and suppressing ability.
Oihana et al. (2020) encourage teachers to integrate multiple languages and move
away from boundaries which tend to avoid using L1. Similarly, teachers’position in
South African multilingual classrooms is multifaceted. Furthermore, Ticheloven
et al. (2019) argue that teachers experiences become even more intricate in multi-
lingual classrooms when learners speak languages that teachers are not familiar
with. Omidire (2019b) emphasizes that teachers need to be flexible and open-minded
of including L1 into classrooms as potential approaches to language teaching.
Teachers are significant role players in the classrooms and should adopt an
accommodating approach to alter their teaching methods to scaffold the process of
learning. García et al. (2017) position their thoughts on translanguaging from an
educational perspective, and brought forth three components of translanguaging
to be managed by teachers to enable and restructure translanguaging pedagogy.
These include: stance, design and shifts. These scholars describe a teacher’sstance
as their beliefs and ideologies about emergent bilingual students and their lan-
guage practices, in spite of the named language or variety. Design refers to how
Utilisation of translanguaing in multilingual classes 107

teachers set up affordances as they construct learning experiences for emergent
bilinguals and shifts, would mean the moves a teacher makes in response to their
learners (García et al. 2017).
Kleyn and García (2019) deliberate that the teacher’s stance must include him/
her being cognisant of L1 of the learners and accept it as a resource to be used for
learning, to eradicate past structures of hierarchy and power. These scholars
explain design as how a teacher sets up facilities to support translanguaging in the
classroom, and lastly, ‘shift’places the needs of the learner as being important, it is
this shift in mindset that allows the teacher to adapt to flexible strategies to pro-
mote learning and understanding (Kleyn and García 2019). Similarly, García and
Leiva (2014) and Velasco and García (2014) advocate that a teacher must shift
teaching practices towards accepting the intrinsic worth of dynamic language
practices in education by liberating it.
4 Movement towards translanguaging
Translanguaging originated from the studies of Cen Williams (1994, 1996), a
leading scholar in the 1980s, who used the term trawsieithu to describe a language
practice that implied the planned and systematic use of two languages within the
same lesson (Nagy 2018). Translanguaging seems to be a more flexible approach
that allows multilingual learners to shuttle between languages in an innate
manner (Phipps 2019). Translanguaging described by Garcia (2019, pp. 370–371)
“is to educate all learners, regardless of their language practices, to maximize the
meaning making, creativity and criticality of their educational experience”. Gar-
cia’s (2009a, 2019) extensive work on translanguaging has expanded greatly where
scholars in the field have used her initial discourse and embraced it as a novel way
to support learners in multilingual classroom settings. Furthermore, Cenoz and
Gorter (2017) distinguish between spontaneous translanguaging and pedagogical
translanguaging, where spontaneous translanguaging is the use of languages both
inside and outside school, while pedagogical translanguaging refers to the
designed instructional strategies that integrate two or more languages. While
education is a long-term process which impacts learners and educational out-
comes throughout life (Bialystok 2018), Hillman et al. (2019, p. 43) points out that
“teachers often use the students’L1 to build relationships, cultivate a shared
identity, and create a positive classroom climate”. The value of learners’L1 is
identified as an asset in education and has been influential on a global platform as
a foundation for learning and development of knowledge (Omidire 2019b; Lasa-
gabaster and García 2014). Similarly, Oihana et al. (2020) endorse that pedagogical
translanguaging utilises a learners whole multilingual repertoire, and is regarded
108 Omidire and Ayob

as a resource. Growing appeals from researchers (Childs 2016; Ferreira-Meyers and
Horne 2017; Mwinda and van der Walt 2015) maintain that South Africans have
been disadvantaged by linguistic dominance, where L1 is not recognized as the
preferred language of instruction, despite being important for developing aca-
demic knowledge, critical and creative thinking, and confident identities (Ferreira-
Meyers and Horne 2017; Natri and Räsänen 2015). Owen-Smith (2010) reaffirms the
value of L1 as being a way for learners to be given the opportunity to perform to the
best of their ability and reach their full potential.
Garcia (2009b) has broadened the concept to include multiple discursive
language practices a multilingual person engages in at school, the street and
beyond to formulate and express thoughts to make sense of the world. In line with
Cenoz and Gorter’s (2017) view on pedagogical translanguaging, it is appropriate to
deduce that translanguaging creates a space for the use of two or more languages
inside one lesson with the aim to support learners to learn and understand through
interactional communication with the teacher and their peers.
4.1 Enablers and constraints for utilising translanguaging
Baker (2011) identifies four educational advantages of translanguaging. This in-
cludes: to promote a deeper and fuller understanding of translanguaging as a sup-
port strategy; to help the development of parallel language; to facilitate home-school
links and co-operation and to help the integration of fluent speakers with early
learners. Furthermore, Garcia et al. (2017) highlights that translanguaging can create
a classroom environment where learners challenge linguistic hierarchies; and
simultaneously allow learners to feel like valued members of the classroom com-
munity, enabling them to use all of their resources to participate fully in class ac-
tivities. Canagarajah (2011) and Paxton (2009) support this approach in that it will
give learners a voice to better position, improve and organise future pedagogical
practices that can contribute to equality in education. Supporting teachers in
multilingual classrooms by adopting strategies to enable learners to maximise their
opportunities to learn (Omidire 2019b) has become a priority.
García and Wei (2014) articulate that even though it is important to put the
minority language alongside the majority language, ensuring it has a place in
powerful domains. It is important to preserve a space, not a rigid or static place, in
which the minority language does not compete with the majority language. Strauss
(2016) draws attentionto the majority ofparents who would ratherhave their children
be taughtthrough the medium of English, discarding L1 as a resource within African
languages. Meanwhile Madiba (2012) and Jaspers (2018) indicate that trans-
languaging is not beneficial to some learners who find it as not being liberating.
Utilisation of translanguaing in multilingual classes 109

Omidire (2019a) additionally expressed that the constraints of trans-
languaging practices include teachers not having sufficient training to deal with
second language learning, nor can they adjust the curriculum to support their
teaching due to time constraints especially in large classrooms (Khong and Saito
2013). Teachers find it difficult to include support strategies for their learners as
there are insufficient resources at many of the schools (Balfour et al. 2008) which
influence learners’schooling.
The conceptual framework utilised in our study was Lev Vygotsky’s (1962)
Socio Cultural Theory (SCT), highlighting concepts like mediation, zone of prox-
imal development (ZPD) and scaffolding. Furthermore, Kretzman and McKnight’s
(1993) assets-based approach highlighting resources, abilities, skills and assets
within the framework of positive psychology were recognized as foundational base
for the study. The ZPD, scaffolding, and mediation allow learners to learn under
guidance and in collaboration with peers for guided assistance provided to support
the learners’current competence complementing and building on their existing
abilities (Cole and Cole 2001). Once the learners familiarize themselves with the
content, and begin to link L1 to fill in the gaps in L2, there is mastery of task as
stimulated by Vygotsky (1962). Mediated learning is guided by technological
processes like translated audio recordings of learners L1 which puts trans-
languaging theory into practice by implementing multiple languages to inform
learning. Furthermore, the social context is important as it enables a space which
encourages dialogue between the teacher and the learner, as well as between the
learners to ascertain collaboration, communication, and constructing knowledge
in multilingual classrooms. The asset-based approach illuminates L1 as an asset to
be used for learners to make meaning of content learnt in the classroom,
encouraging more than one language to be practiced inside multilingual class-
rooms promoting translanguaging in practice.
5 The purpose of the study
The purpose of this study was to explore the enablers and constraints of using
learners’home languages as a support strategy to facilitate learning and teaching
within multilingual classrooms and thereby developing both L1 and the English
language within the framework of additive multilingualism. The study sought to
gain a comprehensive understanding of how teachers manage translanguaging in
their classrooms and how learners in multilingual classrooms learn by using L1 to
facilitate the learning process. The research question guiding the study was: What
are the enablers and constraints of using translanguaging in primary school
classes?
110 Omidire and Ayob

To answer this research question, a qualitative approach was applied to be
able to find out what happened in classrooms in terms of how teachers and
learners approached the use of multiple languages during lessons and simulta-
neously observed their attitudes, skills and experiences.
5.1 Setting and participant selection
Two schools located in Gauteng, South Africa were selected. Each school was
selected on the basis that it met the criteria for inclusion such as being multi-
lingual, accessibility and majority of the learners have IsiZulu and Sepedi (also
known as Sesotho) as their L1 and the language of instruction is English. Two
grades from each school (Grades 5 and 6) and two classes per grade. A total of
three teachers and 162 learners participated. Table 1 highlights the participants
details. Learners from both schools come from communities with high levels of
poverty and unemployment. Most learners L1s are either isiZulu or Sepedi,
however some learners come from neighbouring African countries and these
learners and some teachers have a different L1. Language proficiency is a sig-
nificant challenge and most learners struggle to communicate in English.
Additional challenging features included: overcrowded classrooms of more
than 40 learners per classrooms, inadequate infrastructure and classroom
resources.
Table :Details of learners.
School A School B
Two Grades Two Grades
Grade Grade Grade Grade 
Grade

Grade

Grade

Grade

No. of learners

No. of learners

No. of learners

No. of learners

Total number of learners =  Total number of learners = 
Ls spoken by majority of the learners
English, Sepedi, isiZulu English, Sepedi,
isiZulu, isiXhosa
English, Sepedi English, Sepedi,
isiZulu, Urdu
Additional Ls spoken by a few learners
isiZulu, Venda, Xitsonga isiZulu, Venda,
Urdu
Shona, isiNdebele isiXhosa
Utilisation of translanguaing in multilingual classes 111

5.2 Data collection methods
Semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, teachers’observation feed-
back sheet and storyboards were used as data collection methods. Semi-structured
interviews were conducted by one of the researchers at both schools before and
after the data-collection process. The initial semi-structured interviews were with
the school principals, the head of departments and the three teachers involved in
the study to understand the current practices and common challenges in multi-
lingual classrooms, the strategies used to cater for these learners, followed by their
perception of translanguaging as a practice and its effectiveness and/or ineffec-
tiveness thereof. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Classroom obser-
vations were conducted using video and audio recording equipment bin an
unobtrusive way in order not to disrupt regular classroom activity. The recordings
were supplemented by observational notes taken by the researchers. Observations
included aspects such as: how the lessons were conducted, how the multiple
languages were simultaneously included in the lesson, the teachers’techniques,
the learners’reactions and participation during the lessons being conducted.
Teachers additionally used their observations sheets to capture how they
perceived the learners in both the regular and the support implementation class-
rooms, to reduce any unintentional bias on the side of the researchers (Nieu-
wenhuis 2010). The storyboard was included to understand how the learners
experienced multiple languages and their experiences listening to comprehension
texts in their L1. Guillemin (2004) explains that drawings encourage collaborative
meaning-making by giving voice to what the drawing was intended to convey. An
inductive thematic analysis interpreted the raw data gathered and was prepared
using transcription (Hayes 2011), and coded to define significant themes and
subthemes.
5.3 Strategy implemented
The strategy involved introducing and integrating learners home languages (in
this case Sepedi and isiZulu) to the teaching and learning process in addition to
English which was the language of instruction, Passages/stories from the learners’
English textbooks were translated into isiZulu and Sepedi. These translations were
then audio recorded and printed. This meant that an English passage was trans-
lated by translators, printed as a hard copy and was pre-recorded in the specific L1s
of the learners. The translated audio recordings were played during the lesson and
hard copies of the translated texts in multiple languages (English, Sepedi, isiZulu)
112 Omidire and Ayob

were accessible to all learners during the lesson. This promoted the idea of the
same learning content being presented in multiple languages simultaneously.
The outline of the data collection process followed both the regular and the
support implementation class on Table 2.
6 Findings
6.1 Enablers of translanguaging
We found that the enablers of using translanguaing identified by the participants
included, a non-threatening and safe environment, teachers’positive attitude towards
translanguaging, the availability of translated audio recordings as a resource and
valuing L1 in the classroom facilitates better understanding as projected from the
interviews, observations and storyboards of the individual learners.
6.1.1 A non-threatening and safe environment
The research demonstrated that providing multiple languages into one lesson plan
worked well and was met with phrases and words like “benefited the learners”,
Table :Data collection process.
Support implementation classroom Regular classroom
Utilizing the English period at school
Choosing a comprehension text from the prescribed book (English)
Translating the text into both Sepedi and IsiZulu and having it
pre-audio recorded.
Text in English, printing translated IsiZulu and Sepedi text Text in English only.
Hand out the English, IsiZulu and Sepedi (translated texts)
to the learners.
Hand out only the English text to
the learners.
The teacher teaches the class by either reading or asking the learners to read the text in English
The translated audio recordings of the English text are
played in both Sepedi and IsiZulu
The learners are encouraged to look at the translated
text handouts in front of them, and listen to the translated
audio recording being played.
The teacher then asks the learners to answer the questions that follow
in the prescribed book by writing them down on worksheets provided.
Utilisation of translanguaing in multilingual classes 113

“enjoyment”, and “better understanding”when translanguaging was taking place
which is in line with Wei’s (2011) observation centred in the process of learning and
teaching to incorporate making meaning. From the teachers’observation sheets
and the transcripts of semi-structured interview, they reported that the learners felt
included when they heard their L1’s being used in the classroom which supported
them positively in that there was more engagement during the lesson, they were
able to understand the meanings of words they previously did not know, and that
they seemed comfortable while the support strategy was being implemented. This
is in line with Garcia et al. (2017) where they stress that translanguaging enables
learners to feel accepted into the classroom community which in turn promotes the
use of all their resources to participate fully. Mgijima and Makalela’s (2016) work
illustrated the positive effects of what enables translanguaging to be effective,
these included meaning making created by learners, the safe environment within
which learners could experiment with their L1 and L2 language in a non-
threatening way, as well as collaboration and association amongst the learners. By
including learners from similar contextual backgrounds together with the same
L1’s, into a classroom space with teachers they know created a non-threatening
environment which enabled translanguaging as a practice to take place. A similar
view is reiterated from Leask (2019), who accepts that enabling language learning
in multilingual classrooms requires a specific social environment, school culture,
and an instructional classroom to integrate and support learners by creating
innovative ways for them to achieve academically.
A Storyboard from a learner articulated the following:
–“I enjoyed listening to the story in Sepedi more better”
–“I feel more free and I was like I am home listening to my mother telling me a
story”
The learner drew a picture of a mother reading a story to a child in a bubble to
demonstrate the strong link to feelings being elicited when L1 is brought into the
classroom. Storyboard 1 below associated it to his/her home as quoted, “I felt I was
at home”and additionally accentuated the need for more tranlanguaging lessons
to support his/her understanding as quoted:
–“Yes, I would like more lessons because I understand”
6.1.2 Teachers positive attitude towards translanguaging
The teachers facilitated the classroom by probing the learners with questions related
to the comprehension texts. Bialystok (2018) and Ismaili (2015) maintain that teachers
in diverse linguistic settings need to have a positive attitude to create a harmonious
classroom environment. Storyboard 2 identified the teacher as a role model.
114 Omidire and Ayob

–“I felt very happy to hear an English story and change it to Zulu language”
–“Yes, because it’s my home language and I really love stories with Zulu
language”
The teacher’s engagement of interacting with the learners during the lesson
enabled the translanguaging support strategy to meet its outcome. This led to
teachers concurring that translanguaging strategies impact the classrooms posi-
tively because the learners were able to scaffold their learning by using L1 which is
already a resource in their life world and apply it to them formulating direct links of
understanding content being taught in the classroom. In line with one of Sarker’s
(2019) processes which meaningfully scaffold learners’experiences.
6.1.3 The availability of translated audio recordings as a resource
The teachers’observations in relation to the translated audio recordings allowed
most learners to simultaneously follow the story and this was captured when the
learners concurrently continued to turn the pages to follow the story. This act
describing translanguaging as “the planned and systematic use of two languages
within the same lesson”(Nagy 2018, p. 42) is captured. The audio recordings
provided a platform which enabled better understanding and generated more
confident learners, in line with Wei’s (2011) study which reiterated the benefits of
translanguaging of developing confidence amongst learners. Simultaneously the
inclusion of L1 in this study is viewed as an asset. L1 as a resource in the
Storyboard 1: Demonstration of attitude.
Utilisation of translanguaing in multilingual classes 115

environment, and as a resource to support learners gain in-depth understanding,
aligns with Eloff and Ebersöhn’s (2001) view. This view additionally correlates with
Scanlan (2007) who correspondingly associates the asset-based perspective to
language learning making a claim that L1 should be recognized as a fundamental
strength.
“So, I think it would be very nice if the CD can have the Sepedi or the Zulu and other languages in
there so when they doing the listening and speaking assessment, it plays in all the languages that
would work better”
The translated audio recordings provided a scaffold between the teacher and the
learner and this mediated a process of learning and teaching to take place where
language barriers exist in line with Vygotsky’s (1962) approach of including
mediation and scaffolding. The use of technology facilitated the translanguaging
practice. Mays (2019) encouraged technology as a resource in diverse settings for
learning and teaching to take place. Furthermore, Mays (2019b, p. 141) additionally
states that technology can “be used during the process of teaching and learning to
address barriers to learning”. Research confirms that L1 needs a space in the
educational environment so that learners can scaffold their learning (Hillman et al.
2019) by firstly understanding the content being taught to them through their L1
(Omidire 2019b), and secondly allowing learners to navigate their learning by not
relying fully on L1 but rather using it as a mediator to accommodate their learning
experience (Hillman et al. 2019; Omidire 2019b). This rationale is featured from the
findings of this study where multiple languages afforded a more holistic approach
to learning and teaching.
6.1.4 Valuing L1 in the classroom facilitates better understanding
–“But I saw learners understand because when that person was speaking in Zulu
they were having their story in front of them (neh), they were able to turn around
the pages”(IHD,
1
line 67–69)
–“Same time all of them turned the page, it means they were following.”(IHD, line
71–72)
–“Big difference. Home language facilitated better understanding”(OSH
2
3,
Box 6, p.2)
–“The learners enjoyed listening to the audio in their home language.”(OSH3,
Box 10, p.3)
1Information obtained during an interview with the Head of department.
2Observation sheets from teacher 1, 2 and 3.
116 Omidire and Ayob

During the interviews and from the observation sheets it was clear that L1 allowed
learners to understand better because they were simultaneously involved in the
process of listening to multiple languages which enhanced their understanding.
Tian and Macaro (2012) confirm that learners who receive input in their L1 benefit
more than learners who only receive input in one language. Similarly, Gorter and
Cenoz (2017) and Omidire (2019b) extend their view on translanguaging as a way to
accommodate comprehension skills, which ideally provide translations of the
tasks and allow learners to answer content questions in the language in which they
feel most comfortable. Refer to Storyboard 2.
Similarly Storyboard 2 quotes the following:
–“Yes, because I like my home language more than English”
–“I felt happy because now I know what does dove mean in my home language”
–“I liked when the teacher Played the radio and listening to a man who were
reading Topo’s story in my home language”
During the semi-structured interview, the teachers reported that learners were
more engaged in the lessons because L1 guided their understanding by code
switching certain words while multiple languages were included, this view echoed
from Cummins (2009) who reiterates L1 as a foundation upon which new
Storyboard 2: Understanding content
better in L1.
Utilisation of translanguaing in multilingual classes 117

knowledge is built, and Gobincgca (2013) who acknowledged that when L1 was
phased in to the education system in South Africa and maintained for 8 years as the
primary language of learning, resulted in an improvement of the matriculation
results of black learners. Meanwhile Sayer (2013) motivates for L1 and insists on
teachers to recognize and utilize learners L1 as teaching tools in line with the
translanguaging approach. From the field notes, and teachers interview tran-
scripts, the learners who experienced translanguaging were more involved and
engaged in the lessons, and seemed to show more understanding as they raised
their hands to answer questions related to the lessons, and they additionally
showed more interest in the classroom when compared to the control class where
there was no L1 present. The above ties in with Atkinson et al.’s (2000), view that
SCT creates a learning environment made up of interaction between teachers,
learners and tasks to make available opportunities for learners to build their own
understanding during interaction with others. Similar findings emerged from
Rivera and Mazak (2016) who shared that by integrating L1, learners enhanced
greater sense of ownership within the learning process and fostered a stronger
sense of identity. Similarly, Omidire (2019b) linked L1 inclusion to learners
improved self-esteem, self-efficacy and enablement.
Furthermore, translanguaging practice was observed by the teachers who
reported during the semi-structured interviews and in their observation sheets that
the learners were listening to the lesson orally and following the text visually
leading them to answer the questions related to the comprehension text and
seemed to have a better understanding of the text. This correlates with the views of
Lewis et al. (2012) and Mgijima and Makalela (2016) who express translanguaging
as the intentional alternating of the language of input and output during a lesson,
to allow learners to think and express their ideas in either language in which they
feel comfortable. Translanguaging strategies had a positive effect on the learners
as they experienced being in a safe environment, and L1 facilitated better under-
standing, and teachers’enthusiasm facilitated a smooth administration of the
support strategy. This ideally falls in line with Baker’s (2011) educational
advantages.
6.2 Constraints of using translanguaging
The constraints identified during the interviews, observation sheets from the
teachers, storyboards and field notes include, language complexities, participants’
views related to L1; limited resources and time constraints; teachers insufficient
training to teach in multilingual classrooms and existing socio-economic factors.
118 Omidire and Ayob

6.2.1 Language complexities and contrary views related to L1
From the teachers’observation sheets and from a few learners’storyboards, the
translated recordings of IsiZulu posed with some difficulties when it was translated
from English, where some difficult words were present. “No, my home language is
kind of difficult sometimes to understand”(Excerpt from a storyboard)
Similar findings were outlined by Mgijima and Makalela’s (2016) study, where
scholars similarly expressed that another L1 in Africa, namely IsiXhosa also being
complicated and did not simplify the learners understanding completely. Some
learner’s viewpoints from the storyboards elicited contradictory views where on
the one hand they appreciated L1 to be incorporated into classrooms but at the
same time expressed that they also understood the content in English. “I felt very
happy. Other people they don’t feel happy because they don’t like their home lan-
guage”(Excerpt from a storyboard)
Strauss (2016) draws attention to this view by identifying parents’views of
adopting an approach to rather have their children be taught through the medium
of English, and eliminating L1 entirely as a resource within African languages. This
type of scepticism was documented by Parmegiani and Rudwick (2014). Their
argument is voiced through a different angle explaining that learners were not
comfortable using their L1 in an academic setting due to the lack of opportunity in
their schooling years which did not allow them to develop strong academic literacy
skills in their L1. Similar findings resonated from García and Wei (2014) who assert
that the minority language does not compete with the majority language and that
some parents seem to want their children to learn in an English language school
from Grade 1 (Nel et al. 2012), resulting in language challenges due to English not
being their L1 (Rossi and Stuart 2007). Additionally, past historic ideologies found
that parents in rural areas requested the school to teach their children in English,
because they viewed it as the only common language spoken by most South
Africans (Moodley et al. 2017).
It would seem that previous language policies have rippled into the downfall
for many learners who are firstly very reliant on their L1, and secondly, L1 falls
away from Grade 4 onwards when English is embraced as the language of learning
and teaching in public schools which affects learning outcomes as displayed in the
findings above (Makaleka 2018a). This causes learners to experience a lack of
understanding of learning content because L1 is not included in their classrooms
any longer, impacting learning outcomes.
A small percentage of learners displayed in their storyboards that they felt left
out during the support strategies, and this was also reported in the interview where
one teacher said that they experienced boredom, because their particular L1 was
Utilisation of translanguaing in multilingual classes 119

not translated and audio recorded. “I felt bored, because I am not a Zulu and Sepedi,
I want it in Venda”.(Excerpt from a storyboard)
–There are two or three that don’t understand any of the languages because they
are from Zimbabwe or Pakistan or something like that but majority of the
learners are from here and they understand. (IT1, line 150–153)
This aligns with Ngcobo et al. (2016) who expressed that such learners who are not
proficient in African languages in class may feel left out.
6.2.2 Limited resources and time constraints
The lack of resources at both research sites shared commonalities during the
interviews, field notes and from the observation sheets of having overcrowded
classrooms resulting in a shortage of furniture like tables and chairs, and a
shortage of teachers. Additionally, educational resources such as not having a
curriculum to cater for multilingualism, as well as not having enough dictionaries
for the learners to utilize during the English lessons, impeded on the learning and
teaching practices. Furthermore, financial constraints leading to the government
and the respective departments responsible for funding basic resources to the
schools was questioned at both research sites by the school principal, HOD and the
teachers in separate discussions.
–“It is good to teach in multilingualism but takes more time and needs more
resources.”(OSH3, Box 15, p. 4)
–“It is a good venture though time consuming and expensive.”(OSH3, Box 32, p. 8)
–“It’s good but a lot of translation has to be done, and might be very expensive.”
(OSH3, Box 40, p. 10)
–“…another problem is that they don’t have dictionaries like we are overcrowded
so you can’t have all the dictionaries for 103 learners the learners who are not shy
will come and ask mam explain me this word, most of the time I don’t like to
explain.”(IHD, line 135–140)
Mokolo (2014), Myende (2014), and Gobingca (2013) shed light that many schools in
township areas are often characterized as being under-resourced and not having
basic facilities such as sufficient classrooms, or facilities such as electricity and
water. These schools often lack furniture like desks and chairs for the learners,
classrooms are overcrowded and the teacher: learner ratio is concerning. This
concern is predominant in literature where similar trajectories are identified from
the works of Ebersöhn, et al. (2017) who explains the limited access to adequate
120 Omidire and Ayob

electricity, transportation and education as significant challenges which affect
learning outcomes and is substantially identified in my study.
Moreover, educational resources to support multilingualism seemed like a
distant concern in these schools, despite the urgent need campaigned from the
teachers to include educational resources like English text books with translated
CD’s in the different L1’s to scaffold learning, and providing additional resources
like translated L1’s. Recommendations to adjusting the curriculum to include
diverse languages was motivated from the school principal to the teachers in the
classrooms realizing the urgency of such support strategies to accommodate
learners in multilingual classrooms. This is in line with (Makalela 2015b) view of an
overwhelming and dominating curriculum. However, during the semi-structured
interviews, teachers are mindful that such initiatives are extremely time
consuming and expensive especially when one has to translate all learning content
and the country already have impeding financial constraints. There is agreement in
research that most schools are under-resourced and are not equipped to cater for
learners in multilingual classrooms (Rassool and Edwards 2010).
The inclusion of translanguaging support strategies were linked to time con-
straints, in line with Palmer (2009) who addresses time constraints as schools
adhering to traditional language boundaries and segmenting language lessons to
certain times a day. The teachers’view of including multiple languages to guide
the learning experiences can impact on the assessment criteria stipulated by the
department of education (which does not cater for multilingual learning) which
creates a sense of apprehension where they cannot meet deadlines. Teachers need
more support and better preparation to make meaningful changes in multilingual
classrooms.
Omidire (2019a) agrees with this study and reinforces that teachers do not have
sufficient training to deal with second language learning nor can they adjust the
curriculum in support of their teaching due to time constraints especially in large
classrooms (Khong and Saito 2013). Additionally, teachers find it difficult to
include support strategies for their learners as there are insufficient resources at
many of the schools (Balfour et al. 2008) which influence learners’schooling in line
with similar findings documented in my study.
6.2.3 Teachers insufficient training to teach in multilingual classrooms
It is apparent from the semi-structured interviews that all the teachers involved in
multilingual classrooms are aware of the literacy challenges learners are currently
experiencing within the South African context. However, they are even more
frustrated by the fact that they are unable to provide these learners with knowledge
and skills which seem to be out of their depth and capabilities. Nagy (2018)
Utilisation of translanguaing in multilingual classes 121

similarly states that teachers are challenged when they have to utilize multiple
languages in the classroom to promote learning on the basis that they have only
been trained according to monolingual language norms that discard the use of
other languages in class.
–“very difficult, so if the teacher is able to parallel teach, and know the language,
obviously you need re-skilling and up-skilling of teachers.”(IP,
3
line 170–171,
p. 6)
–“It is a good idea but an expensive exercise to African governments which are
already poor.”(OSH3, Box 48, p. 12)
–“…and I don’t know if our government has that type of money”(IP, line 173. p. 6)
The school principal acknowledged that for multilingualism to be accepted at
schools and given the educational benefits of guided support, requires “reskilling
and upskilling of teachers”. Teacher training is imperative and recognized as a
need by the school principal, who subsequently rationalized that the school
governing body lack funds to initiate training for teachers. In line with this view,
Naiker et al. (2014) agree that the school principal’s leadership is an important
resource for any school and the school principal should establish partnerships
with the teachers by mentoring them and providing support. Similarly, Myende
and Chikoko (2014), confirm that such partnerships allow teachers to be regarded
as assets. On that note, the assets recognized in a school according to Ebersöhn
and Eloff (2006) are the leadership capacity in teachers, learners, parents as well as
books, videos, audiotapes, furniture, blackboards, as well as the peer group
support of diverse learners with different L1’s.
On that insight, Nel and Müller (2010) recommend that teachers should receive
training to equip them to teach English as a second language, as well as general
support to teach the learners effectively. Wu (2018) additionally states that school
policy makers and administrators should take action, such as adjusting policies
properly, supporting teachers’professional development, and establishing a
comfortable and positive environment where learners and teachers may feel less
anxiety and become more confident.
It would seem that learning and teaching in multilingual settings needs a shift
in focus within the academic sphere to accommodate diversity. Omidire (2019a)
summarizes the teachers’position in multilingual classrooms by stating
that many teachers are ill prepared to deal with learners who speak English as a second
language. Teachers have insufficient training to handle second language learning and to
3Interview with school principal.
122 Omidire and Ayob

adjust the curriculum in support of their teaching. To teach second language learners
properly, more time is needed to work effectively with them. (p. 8)
Teacher training is not sufficiently recognized in African schools.
6.2.4 Existing socio-economic factors
South Africa has a multitude of socio-economic challenges coupled with poverty
and unemployment (Spaull 2013), overcrowded classrooms, as well as teachers
whose L1 is different from that of the learners (Ticheloven et al. 2019). The teachers
identified socio-economic factors impeding on learning. Below are some excerpts:
“yes, township areas they come from far places, it’s not only Atteridgeville, it’s really far like
Shoshanguwe and they leave early, they leave like at 4am in the morning, they here by 6am, half
six by then they tired, they hungry, and I think that also plays an important part in their
development.”(IT,
4
1 line 314–318)
–and another challenge is that our children come from they come from squatter
camps there is no electricity and they will tell you did not have electricity to do
homework or to study all those excuses so we intervene 30 min before school
knocks off to at least try to help them I will give them revision and take them to the
library to help them study, to do intervention.”(IHD, line 240–249)
–“On an average there are 42 learners in a classroom.”(IP, line 57, p.4)
–“…some of the challenges overcrowding, so sometimes it’s difficult to give in-
dividual attention for the learners”(IT3, line 26–27)
Cognisant to these challenges, the teachers support the idea of embracing trans-
languaging as a support strategy to guide the learners to develop literacy skills by
acknowledging the need for L1 to be included into the school curriculum, in line
with the asset-based approach which identifies with the challenges faced in the
educational sphere. Myende (2014) similarly, suggests that to overcome these
problems, schools need to develop strategies such as assessing their existing as-
sets and mobilising them accordingly.
6.3 Significance and limitations
Insights into the use of translanguaging to inform our knowledge of learning and
teaching in multilingual classrooms is possible when one can identify the enablers
4Interview with teacher 1, 2 and 3.
Utilisation of translanguaing in multilingual classes 123

and the constraints of using translanguaging to support learning in primary school
classes. Understanding the experiences of the learners and the teachers in multi-
lingual contexts and determining the teachers’perceptions regarding the use of
translanguaging as a support strategy for learning in multilingual contexts is
necessary. Findings from this study outline the positive impact of translanguaging.
Learners involved in the study indicated a need for more translanguaging lessons
and acknowledged that translanguaging informed their understanding. In addi-
tion, most learners experienced positive feelings associated with L1 when L1 was
included in the lesson. There was agreement amongst both the learners and the
teachers regarding the use of the translated audio recordings. Firstly, the re-
cordings facilitated the use of L1 in the classroom. Secondly, the translated audio
recordings took the place of guided mediation and added value to the trans-
languaging approach. Lastly, the translated audio recordings provided support
and were recognised as a valuable resource for both the learners and the teachers.
The limitations of the study included the inability of the researchers to include
more than two languages. This resulted in a couple of learners per class who felt
excluded in the experience and process because their L1s was not part included in
the translated texts. In addition, there was limited time for the lessons.
7 Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to explore the enablers and constraints of using
learners’home languages as a support strategy to facilitate learning and teaching
within multilingual classrooms and thereby developing both L1 and the English
language within the framework of additive multilingualism. The study sought to
gain a comprehensive understanding of how teachers manage the process of
translanguaging in their classrooms.
Cultural and linguistic diversity is commonplace in South African classrooms
leading to language challenges for learners torn between their L1 and the language
of instruction in the classrooms. This study used translanguaging as an approach
to understand the enablers and constraints of using multiple languages for
learning in primary school classes. Findings from this study suggest that the en-
ablers were, a non-threatening environment that supported the learners and made
them feel accepted. In addition, the teachers’positive attitudes towards trans-
languaging made the support strategy easier to administer and learners more
receptive to exploring new strategies. Furthermore, the availability of the trans-
lated audio recordings of learners’L1s as a resource and the inclusion of L1 in the
lessons enabled the success of the lessons as indicated by the learners and their
teachers. The constraints of using translanguaging to support learning and
124 Omidire and Ayob

teaching practices in multilingual classrooms included the extent of language
complexities and contrary views relating to L1. The findings also show that the lack
of resources in schools and lesson time constraints are considered a hinderance to
the implementation of translanguaging as a support strategy in primary classes. It
was also noted that insufficient training to teach in multilingual classrooms and
existing socio-economic factors also constitute constraints.
A recommendation emanating from the findings of this study is that significant
investment in pre-service teacher education to raise awareness on the importance
of integrating learners’L1s into lessons is required. The importance of learning in a
non-threatening positive environment and creating the right attitude towards
learners’home languages and culture have to be incorporated into the training.
Teachers’attitudes matter. The training should further focus on effective pedagogy
for teaching linguistically diversity learners and providing teachers with tech-
niques for working in multilingual classrooms. Directed teachers’professional
development programmes have to be initiated to support in-service teachers’
multilingual contexts. Policy should focus on a dynamic and transformative pro-
cess of structuring the different L1’s through technological processes by building
on their existing methods. Where they currently provide CDs of the learning con-
tent in their textbooks, they can extend this practice by translating all learning
content into the different L1’s and provide learners with ways in which to access
this. By using simple tools like ear phones where learners can listen to learning
content in the language of their choice can create opportunities of being accom-
modated in a multilingual world. Future research should be longitudinal and focus
on the impact of translanguging on learners’achievement over time across the
curriculum.
References
Atkinson, Robert K., Sharon J. Derry, Alexander Renkl & Donald W. Wortham. 2000. Learning from
examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of
Educational Research 70(2). 181–214.
Baker, Colin. 2011. Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism, 5th ed. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Balfour, Robert, Claudia Mitchell & Relebohile Moletsane. 2008. Troubling contexts: Toward a
generative theory of rurality as education research. Journal of Rural and Community
Development 3(3). 100–111.
Bialystok, Ellen. 2018. Bilingual education for young children: Review of the effects and
consequences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 21(6).
666–679.
Blackledge, Adrian & Angela Creese. 2010. Multilingualism: A critical perspective. London:
Continuum.
Utilisation of translanguaing in multilingual classes 125

Canagarajah, Suresh. 2011. Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and
pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review 2. 1–27.
Catalano, Theresa & Edmund T. Hamann. 2016. Multilingual pedagogies and pre-service teachers:
Implementing language as a “resource”orientation in teacher education programs. Bilingual
Research Journal 39(3-4). 263–278.
Cenoz, Jasone & Durk Gorter. 2017. Minority languages and sustainable translanguaging: Threat
or opportunity? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 38(10). 901–912.
Childs, Margie. 2016. Reflecting on translanguaging in multilingual classrooms: Harnessing the
power of poetry and photography. Educational Research for Social Change 5(1). 22–40.
Cole, Michael & Sheila R. Cole. 2001. The development of children, 4th ed. New York: Scientific
American Books.
Cummins, Jim. 2009. Multilingualism in the English-language classroom: Pedagogical
considerations. Tesol Quarterly 43(2). 317–321.
Duarte, Joan 2019. Translanguaging in mainstream education: A sociocultural approach.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22(2). 150–164.
Ebersöhn, Lesel & Irma Eloff. 2006. Identifying asset-based trends in sustainable programmes
which support vulnerable children. South African Journal of Education 26(3). 457–472.
Ebersöhn, Lesel, Tilda Loots, Ruth Mampane, Funke Omidire & Marlize Malan-Van Rooyen. 2017.
Age-old care and support practices in Southern Africa functioning robustly as sophisticated
social technology interventions. Journal of Community Psychology 45. 727–747.
Eloff, Irma & Liesel Ebersöhn. 2001. The implications of an assets-based approach to early
intervention. Perspectives in Education 19(3). 147–156.
Ferreira-Meyers, Karen Aline Francoise & Fiona Horne. 2017. Multilingualism and the language
curriculum in South Africa: Contextualising French within the local language ecology.
Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 51. 23–40.
García, Ofelia. 2009a. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Garcia, Ofelia. 2009b. Emergent bilinguals and TESOL: What’s in a name? Tesol Quarterly 43(2).
322–326.
García, Ofelia. 2019. Translanguaging: A coda to the code? Classroom Discourse 10(3-4). 369–373.
García, Ofelia & Camila Leiva. 2014. Theorizing and enacting translanguaging for social justice. In
A. Blackledge & A. Creese (eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy, 199–216.
Netherlands: Springer, Volume 20 of the series Educational Linguistics.
García, Ofelia & Li Wei. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
García, Ofelia, Susana Ibarra Johnson & Kate Seltzer. 2017. The translanguaging classroom:
Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
Gobingca, Zameka. 2013. Strategies employed by primary school teachers to support non-
IsiXhosa speaking learners in Mthatha Education District. Alice, Eastern Cape: University of
Fort Hare Master’s dissertation.
Gorter, Durk & Jasone Cenoz. 2017. Language education policy and multilingual assessment.
Language and Education 31. 231–248.
Guillemin, Marilys. 2004. Understanding illness: Using drawings as a research method.
Qualitative Health Research 14(2). 272–289.
Hayes, Nicky. 2011. Doing psychological research. New York: Open University Press.
126 Omidire and Ayob

Hillman, Sara, Keith M. Graham & Zohreh R. Eslami. 2019. Teachers’translanguaging ideologies
and practices at an international branch campus in Qatar. English Teaching & Learning 43(1).
41–63.
Ismaili, Merita. 2015. Teaching English in a multilingual setting. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences 199. 189–195.
Jaspers, Jürgen. 2018. The transformative limits of translanguaging. Language & Communication
58. 1–10.
Khong, Thi Diem Hang & Eisuku Saito. 2013. Challenges confronting teachers of English language
learners. Educational Review 66(2). 210–225.
Kleyn, Tatyana & Ofelia García. 2019. Translanguaging as an act of transformation restructuring
teaching and learning for emergent bilingual students. In L. C. de Oliveira (ed.), The
Handbook of TESOL in K-12,70–82. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Kretzmann, John P. & John L. McKnight. 1993. Building communities from the inside out: A path
towards finding and mobilizing community assets. Chicago: ACTA Publications.
Lasagabaster, David & Ofelia García. 2014. Translanguaging: Towards a dynamic model of
bilingualism at school. Cultura y Educación 26(3). 557–572.
Leask, Marisa Claudia. 2019. Enablers of teaching language for learning in multilingual
classrooms. In M. F. Omidire (ed.), Multilingualism in the classroom: Teaching and learning
in a challenging context. Cape Town: Juta & Co.
Lewis, Gwyn, Bryn Jones & Colin Baker. 2012. Translanguaging: Developing its conceptualisation
and contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation 18(7). 655–670.
Lwanga-Lumu, Joy Christine. 2020. Intercultural Communicative Component (ICC) in the English
Second Language (EL2) Curricula: Trends and challenges of transformation in South Africa
(SA) and the global world. Journal of Intercultural Communication 20(1). 1–16.
Madiba, Mbulungeni. 2012. Language and academic achievement: Perspectives on the potential
role of indigenous African languages as lingua Academia. Per Linguam 28(2). 15–27.
Makalela, Leketi. 2015a. Translanguaging as a vehicle for epistemic access: Cases for reading
comprehension and multilingual interactions. Per Linguam 31(1). 15–29.
Makalela, Leketi. 2015b. Breaking African language boundaries: Student teachers’reflections on
translanguaging practices. Language Matters 46(2). 275–292.
Makalela, Leketi (ed.). 2018a. Shifting lenses: Multilanguaging, decolonization and education in
the global South. Cape Town: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS).
Makalela, Leketi. 2018b. Community elders’narrative accounts of ubuntu translanguaging:
Learning and teaching in African education. International Review of Education 64(6).
823–843.
Mays, Tony John. 2019. Using technology as a resource for teaching and learning in multilingual
classrooms. In M. F. Omidire (ed.), Multilingualism in the classroom: Teaching and learning
in a challenging context. Cape Town: Juta & Co.
Mgijima, Vukile Desmond & Leketi Makalela. 2016. The effects of translanguaging on the bi-
literate inferencing strategies of fourth grade learners. Perspectives in Education 34(3).
86–93.
Mokolo, Mokgalakane Frans. 2014. An investigation into patterns of translanguaging in
classrooms in the foundation phase in a primary school in the Limpopo province. South
Africa: University of Limpopo Master’s dissertation.
Moodley, Pathmanathan, Alta Kritzinger & Bhme Vinck. 2017. Comparison of educational
facilitation approaches for Grade R English additional language learning in Mpumalanga.
South African Journal of Education 34(2). 1–17.
Utilisation of translanguaing in multilingual classes 127

Moody, Stephanie, Mahjabin Chowdhury & Zohreh Eslami. 2019. Graduate students’perceptions
of translanguaging. English Teaching and Learning 43. 85–103.
Mwinda, Nangura & Christa Van der Walt. 2015. From ‘English-only’to translanguaging strategies:
Exploring possibilities. Per Linguam: Journal of Language and Learning 31(3). 100–118.
Myende, Phumlani Erasmus. 2014. Improving academic performance in a rural school through the
use of an asset-based approach as a management strategy. Bloemfontein, South Africa:
University of the Free State Unpublished Ph.D. thesis.
Myende, Phumlani Erasmus & Vitallis Chikoko. 2014. School-University partnership in a South
African rural context: Possibilities for an asset-based approach. Journal of Human Ecology
46(3). 249–259.
Nagy, Tünde. 2018. On translanguaging and its role in foreign language teaching. Acta
Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica 10(2). 41–53.
Naiker, Inbanathan, Vitallis Chikoko & Siphiwe Eric Mthiyane. 2014. Does mentorship add value to
in-service leadership development for school principals? Evidence from South Africa. The
Anthropologist 17. 421–431.
Natri, Teija & Anne Räsänen. 2015. Developing a conceptual framework: The case of MAGICC. In
J. Jalkanen, E. Jokinen & P. Taalas (eds.), Voices of pedagogical development –expanding,
enhancing and exploring higher education language learning,85–102.Dublin: Research-
publishing.net.
Nel, Norma & Helēne Müller. 2010. The impact of teachers’limited English proficiency on English
second language learners in South African schools. South African Journal of Education 30(4).
635–650.
Nel, Norma, Mirna Nel & A. Hugo. 2012. Inclusive education: The necessity of providing support to
all learners. In M. N. Nel & A. Hugo (eds.), Learner support in a diverse classroom,3–24.
Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Ngcobo, Sandiso, Nobuhle Ndaba, Bulelwa Nyangiwe, Njabulo Mpungose & Rafiq Jamal. 2016.
Translanguaging as an approach to address language inequality in South African higher
education: Summary writing skills development. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning
4(2). 10–27.
Nieuwenhuis, Jan. 2010. Introducing qualitative research. In K. Maree (ed.), First steps in research.
Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Oihana, Leonet, Jasone Cenoz & Durk Gorter. 2020. Developing morphological awareness across
languages: Translanguaging pedagogies in third language acquisition. Language Awareness
29(1). 41–59.
Omidire, Margaret Funke. 2019a. Experiencing language challenges in a rural school: Implications
for learners’life aspirations. Early Child Development and Care (ECDC), Special Issue. 1–19.
Omidire, Margaret Funke. 2019b. Embracing multilingualism as a reality in classrooms: An
introduction. In M. F. Omidire (ed.), Multilingualism in the classroom: Teaching and learning
in a challenging context. Cape Town: Juta & Co.
Owen-Smith, Margie. 2010. The language challenge in the classroom: A serious shift in thinking
and action is needed. Focus 56. 31–37.
Palmer, Deborah K. 2009. Code-switching and symbolic power in a second-grade two-way
classroom: A teacher’s motivation system gone awry. Bilingual Research Journal 32(1).
42–59.
Parmegiani, Andrea & Stephani Rudwick. 2014. IsiZulu-English bilingualisation at the University of
KwaZulu-Natal: An exploration of students’attitudes. In L. Hibbert & C. van der Walt (eds.),
128 Omidire and Ayob

Multilingual universities in South Africa: Reflecting society in higher education, 107–122. UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Paxton, Moragh Isobel Jane. 2009. It’s easy to learn when you using your home language but with
English you need to start learning language before you get to the concept: Bilingual concept
development in an English medium university in South Africa. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 30(4). 345–359.
Phipps, Alison. 2019. Decolonising multilingualism: Struggles to decreate. Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Rassool, Naz & Viv Edwards. 2010. Multilingualism in African schools: Constraints and
possibilities. Language and Education 24(4). 277–281.
Rivera, Adrian J. & Catherine M. Mazak. 2017. Analyzing student perceptions on translanguaging:
A case study of a Puerto Rican university classroom. HOW Journal 24(1). 122–138.
Rossi, June & Anita Stuart. 2007. The evaluation of an intervention programme for reception
learners who experience barriers to learning and development. South African Journal of
Education 27(1). 139–154.
Sarker, Mohammad Faysal. 2019. Zone of proximal development. International Journal of
Advancements in Research & Technology 8(1). 27–46.
Sayer, Peter. 2013. Translanguaging, TexMex, and bilingual pedagogy: Emergent bilinguals
learning through the vernacular. Tesol Quarterly 47. 63–88.
Scanlan, Martin. 2007. An asset-based approach to linguistic diversity. Focus on Teacher
Education 7(3). 3–5, 7.
Spaull, Nicholas. 2013. South Africa’s education crisis: The quality of education in South Africa
1995–2011. Johannesburg, South Africa: Centre for Development and Enterprise.
Strauss, Stuart. 2016. Code-switching and translanguaging inside and outside the classroom: Bi-/
multilingual practices of high school learners in a rural Afrikaans-setting. South Africa:
University of Stellenbosch Master’s dissertation.
Tian, Lili & Ernesto Macaro. 2012. Comparing the effect of teacher code switching with English –
only explanations on the vocabulary acquisition of Chinese university students. Language
Teaching Research 16(3). 367–391.
Ticheloven, Anouk, Elma Blom, Paul Leseman & Sarah McMonagle. 2019. Translanguaging
challenges in multilingual classrooms: Scholar, teacher and student perspectives.
International Journal of Multilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2019.1686002.
Turner, Marianne. 2017. Integrating content and language in institutionally monolingual settings:
Teacher positioning and differentiation. Bilingual Research Journal 40(1). 70–80.
Vaish, Vaniti & Aidil Subhan. 2015. Translanguaging in a reading class. International Journal of
Multilingualism 12(3). 338–357.
Velasco, Patricia & Ofelia García. 2014. Translanguaging and the writing of bilingual learners.
Bilingual Research Journal 37(1). 6–23.
Vygotsky, Lev. 1962. Thought and language (1934). Trans Eugenia Hanfmann & Gertrude Vokar.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wei, Li. 2011. Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities
by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics 43(5). 1222–1235.
Williams, Cen. 1994. An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual
secondary education. Bangor, UK: University of Wales Unpublished doctoral thesis.
Wu, Sipeng. 2018. Using the first language in the second language classroom. New Zealand:
University of Victoria Master’s dissertation.
Utilisation of translanguaing in multilingual classes 129