Pedagogical Translanguaging as A Practice in the ESL or EFL Classrooms: A Scoping Review

Over the years, there has been a rise in awareness of translanguaging among bilingual students and teachers. Nevertheless, thus far, little study has reviewed the implementation of the pedagogical practice of translanguaging in the context of English as a second or foreign language (ESL/EFL) classrooms. Therefore, this review focuses on synthesising existing research that was conducted between 2018 and 2022. This review aims to outline the characteristics of existing empirical studies on pedagogical translanguaging in ESL/EFL classrooms. This scoping review was guided by the PRISMA for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR). The five-stage framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley was utilised as the basis for this scoping review. A total of 50 empirical studies between 2018 and 2022 were retrieved from four electronic databases: Google Scholar, Scopus, Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC), and Web of Science (WoS). The articles were reviewed and descriptively analysed. The findings indicated that the studies were predominantly conducted in Asia ( n =40; 80%), while the research focus of most of the studies was on translanguaging practice in the classroom ( n =27; 54%). Based on the pattern of previous studies, the review presented several recommendations for future research. The limitations of this review were also discussed.


Introduction
For decades, language selection and use, particularly in English classes, have been highly controversial.In accordance with this, a traditional notion such as an "English-only" policy has been a widely debated issue among monolinguists, where the medium of instruction and communication is English.It is believed that students will learn the language faster with more exposure to the target language (Auerbach, 1993).Notably, though decades have passed, such monolingual ideologies have yet ceased to exist and are still predominant in language practice and policy (Li, 2018).For instance, several studies resonate with Auerbach's view, where the findings revealed that many participants favoured the policy and believed that an "English-only" environment would provide more exposure to the target language (TL), thus improving students' English skills (Kani & İğsen, 2022;Sahan et al., 2022).On another note, a study by Akbar and Taqi (2020) revealed that an "English-only speaking zone" was set up at the setting of the study and students were required to converse only in English.A similar situation was observed by Mohammad Rafi and Morgan (2021), where "English please" signs were found on classroom walls.Clearly, these instances depict the monolingual ideology in both settings where an "English-only" policy is still being implemented regardless of the paradigm shift in language teaching.In contrast to the view of monolingualism, bilingual education emphasises on using two languages as mediums of instruction, the mother tongue and English (Andersson & Boyer, 1970).Therefore, both languages must be used in delivering curriculum content to be deemed bilingual education.As stated by Cummins (2007), when it comes to fostering high levels of second language (L2) competence, the first language (L1) is not the enemy; rather, it may serve as a foundation to build more accomplished performance in the L2.Omidire and Ayob (2022) supported this notion, as they found that the inclusion of L1 enabled lessons to be successful.This drives the need for teachers, primarily, to change their practice of inhibiting their students from using their L1 in L2 learning.In regard to this, several studies were conducted with the primary aim of investigating the role of L1 in L2 lessons (Jong & Zhang, 2021;Taşçı & Ataç, 2020;Wong, 2020;Yildiz & Yesilyurt, 2016;Yusri et al., 2022;Yüzlü & Atay, 2020).These studies revealed that by using L1 in teaching L2, teaching and learning experiences were positively enhanced.Though many of the participants perceived it positively, certain participants in some of the studies expressed their concern that L1 may dominate the English classes and hinder the students' exposure to L2 (Yildiz & Yesilyurt, 2016;Yusri et al., 2022).When it comes to English language teaching (ELT), one of the linguistic resources commonly used by students and teachers is code-switching.Code-switching (CS), an approach that has been widely used by teachers, is the act of alternating between two languages (Shay, 2015).However, such language behaviour is only possible in instances where the teachers and students speak the same languages (Lo, 2015).Thus, to be able to code-switch, the speakers need to have two separate linguistic systems so they can alternate between the two languages or use them simultaneously.Algharabali et al. (2015) and Bhatti et al. (2018) found that CS is a favourable linguistic behaviour.In retrospect of this, the participants codeswitched to enhance understanding of difficult concepts, vocabulary, and grammar.In addition, in investigating the perception and practice of code-switching, the findings by Zainil (2019) also echoed Bhatti et al. (2018), where she also found that code-switching enables teachers to build rapport with their students.Zainil also revealed that the participants did not realise the frequency of their code-switch as it occurs spontaneously.Hence, when it comes to code-switching, it is important to self-reflect and ask, "How much is too much?"On the contrary to CS, translanguaging has emerged as a reformed approach for ELT in ESL that shifts from monolingual teaching strategies and instead embraces a more comprehensive utilisation of diverse linguistic resources.It is the linguistic behaviour of bilinguals that is dynamic in one integrated linguistic system (García & Lin, 2017).Cen Williams first coined the term "translanguaging", which refers to the practice of switching back and forth between English and Welsh (Baker, 2011).Following that, he defined it in English as "the process of making meaning, shaping experiences, gaining understanding and knowledge through the use of two languages" (p.288).Therefore, this indicates that translanguaging goes beyond the concept of CS, since it does not only relate to the alternation of languages but rather to the construction and use of the speakers' language repertoire (García & Wei, 2014).As such, bilinguals or multilinguals were regarded as having only one linguistic repertoire from which they strategically chose aspects, depending on the context, to communicate effectively.Therefore, in practicing translanguaging, students will be able to internalize information in one language and proceed to process and apply the information in the other language.In light of this, this emphasises the need to explore the concept and approach of translanguaging and how it can be implemented in ESL/EFL classrooms.In relation to the paradigm shift, the conventional views of language and bilingualism were able to be transformed through translanguaging (García & Wei, 2014).For that reason, bilingual teachers and students are becoming more aware of the concept of translanguaging.For instance, Williams suggested that teachers should maximize both students' and teachers' linguistic resources instead of viewing them negatively.In doing so, students' home language, or L1, should always be valued in their language learning and recognised as one of the resources.In light of this, teachers should take into account all students' languaging in developing new knowledge.Nonetheless, in order to implement such pedagogical practice, an understanding of its concept needs to be developed.As stated by Cenoz and Gorter (2020), translanguaging practices are planned and systematically designed by the teacher.In accordance with that, Lewis et al. (2012) stated that teacher-directed translanguaging, which is one of the models of translanguaging, consists of activities that are meticulously designed and organised by the teachers.In particular, teachers could select suitable and appropriate materials and guide their students throughout the activities.In improving language and content competences, pedagogical translanguaging is an alternative to the traditional approach that focuses on multilingualism (Cenoz and Gorter, 2021).Pedagogical translanguaging is referred to as "instructional strategies which integrate two or more languages" (Cenoz & Gorter, 2020, p. 2).Eminently, the primary purpose of the approach is to develop multilingualism and multiliteracy (Cenoz & Gorter, 2020, 2022).Pedagogical translanguaging, as emphasised by Cenoz and Gorter (2021), surpasses the traditional method of translanguaging as it incorporates activities that integrate other aspects and components of the full linguistic repertoire.In addition, Cenoz and Gorter (2021) also added that the prior knowledge of the students is considered essential because it can support them in developing their language skills.Therefore, teachers should activate their students' prior knowledge and build on what they already know to develop their multilingual competence.Thus, these characteristics of translanguaging are consistent with socio-cultural theory and the notion of the Zone of Proximal Development by Vygotsky.Issues that relate to teaching approaches in ELT are widely discussed in ESL and EFL classrooms.With that said, studies were conducted to examine pedagogical translanguaging in English language classes, and the findings indicated that there is a need to further explore this practice (Anderson & Lightfoot, 2021;Caldas, 2019;Canagarajah, 2011;Zein, 2022).For instance, Omidire and Ayob (2022) revealed that in the implementation of translanguaging, the shortage of resources and time restrictions are seen as the main obstacles.They also found that a supportive atmosphere that did not make the pupils feel threatened led to a greater sense of acceptance among the students.Clearly, this demonstrates the necessity for more research to be conducted in order to provide educators with guidance on how to incorporate this strategy into their ELT.On that note, Liu et al. (2020) and Wang and Curdt-Christiansen (2019) stated that more study into the efficacy of pedagogical translanguaging as a method for teaching and learning is needed.This indicates that there is a need to further investigate how pedagogical translanguaging affects students' language competence.Thus, Cenoz and Gorter (2021) urge that it is essential to corroborate the findings in diverse situations due to the paucity of research comparing the outcomes produced by groups using translanguaging pedagogies.This again emphasises the significance and need of further research in this area.Despite the growing body of research on the implementation of pedagogical translanguaging, reviews on this topic are still relatively limited.Therefore, in order to systematically map the research that has been done in this area and to identify any existing gaps in knowledge, a scoping review was conducted (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005;Peters et al., 2020;Tricco et al., 2018).The purpose of this review is to synthesise the selected literatures to fill the knowledge gap specifically about how and why pedagogical translanguaging practice is implemented in the context of ESL/EFL classrooms by looking into the nature and characteristics of existing research.It is hoped that this review will serve as a guide primarily for both preservice and inservice teachers, ESL educators, and researchers in the field of ESL on the implementation of pedagogical translanguaging in ESL/EFL classrooms.Moreover, this review is intended to direct future research by highlighting the aspects of study that are underexplored.Thus, this scoping review primarily aims to outline the characteristics of existing empirical research on pedagogical practices of translanguaging in ESL/EFL classrooms.

Methods
This study was conducted according to the scoping review framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) to identify and map relevant literature in the field of interest.This review aims to outline the characteristics of existing empirical research on pedagogical translanguaging in ESL/EFL classrooms.Five framework stages were involved in this scoping review: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarising, and reporting the results.Furthermore, this review paper adheres to the method of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) procedures in the process of selecting relevant articles (Tricco et al., 2018).

Stage 1: Identifying the research question
In guiding the way that search strategies are built for this scoping review, constructing the research question served as the starting point (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005).Two research questions were developed for the purpose of this review: (1) What are the characteristics of the empirical study that has been carried out between 2018 and 2022 on pedagogical translanguaging practices within ESL/EFL classrooms?(2) What is the research focus of existing research on pedagogical translanguaging in ESL/EFL classrooms?The general concept of "pedagogical translanguaging" served as a guiding principle for this study to achieve extensive coverage by ensuring that a broad approach was maintained.Stage 2: Identifying relevant studies In this stage, relevant articles were retrieved from four main electronic databases: Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), and Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC).These databases were chosen for their comprehensive coverage of journal articles that are retrievable online.The search strategy for this study included a search string of keywords related to translanguaging pedagogy or practices and ESL/EFL with the Boolean operators AND and OR.The research articles were limited to those that contained all the following terms in their title and abstract: "translanguaging pedagogy", "translanguaging practices", "English as a second language (or ESL)", and "English as a foreign language (or EFL)".These keyword searches yielded a total of 272 records, including some duplicate articles that were detected through multiple searches.The details of the search string used in this study for each database are presented in Table 1.

Stage 3: Study selection: Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Based on the keyword searches, a total of 272 records were generated.The identified articles were exported and uploaded into Zotero, a reference management software, and duplicate records were removed.In this stage, Peters et al. (2020) recommended that study selection be conducted in two phases: review of titles and abstracts; and the full-text retrieval of relevant articles.After removing the duplicates, 155 records remained for title and abstract screening.Based on the title and abstracts, an additional 82 records were excluded, leaving 73 full-text articles to be retrieved and assessed for eligibility.Table 2 shows the inclusion and exclusion criteria set for this review.The full text screening proceeded with 73 selected articles assessed in detail by the reviewers.After reviewing the 73 retrieved articles, 50 articles met the eligibility criteria and were selected for this review.Reasons for the exclusion of sources of evidence that do not meet the inclusion criteria will be recorded and reported in the scoping review.The results of the search and the study inclusion process were reported and presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram (as shown in Figure 1).The nature of data analysis in scoping reviews is generally descriptive or narrative, as the intention of this type of review is not to synthesise the outcomes of the included articles (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005;Peters et al., 2020).As such, the data analysis for this scoping review included a narrative summary of the studies and descriptive measures, i.e., frequency counts and percentages.At this stage, the retrieved articles were grouped and summarised in the spreadsheet developed in Microsoft Excel.

Results and discussion
Following the eligibility assessment of the retrieved articles, 73 articles were screened, and 23 articles were excluded from the review for the following reasons: 3 were not available to be retrieved, 6 were not primary research with empirical data, and 14 were not relevant to the context of interest.In total, 50 articles remained and were considered eligible to be extracted and reviewed in this study.The articles were published in various countries across the region between 2018 and 2022.A summary of the extracted results of the studies conducted between 2018 and 2022 will be presented in the descriptive characteristics.A detailed summary of the 50 empirical studies is presented in the Appendix.

Descriptive analysis of the studies
The distribution of the types of research designs employed in the selected articles from 2018 to 2022 is illustrated in Figure 2. The trend shows a tremendous increment of published articles observed in the year past 2021.Table 3 presents the descriptive characteristics of the studies included in this review.From the review, it is found that the vast majority of the studies were predominantly conducted in Asia (n=40; 80%), where English is spoken and taught as an ESL or EFL.In particular, these studies were from Asian countries, i.e., China (n=10), Indonesia (n=10), Turkey (n=5), Malaysia (n=4), India (n=2), Pakistan (n=2), Thailand (n=1), Philippines (n=1), Japan (n=1), Korea (n=1), Kuwait (n=1), Saudi Arabia (n=1), and Israel (n=1).The rest of the studies were from four other continents: North America, i.e., Canada (n=1), Costa Rica (n=1), and the United States of America (n=2); South America, i.e., Chile (n=2); Africa, i.e., South Africa (n=1) and Algeria (n=1); and Europe, i.e., Spain (n=1) and Poland (n=1).However, none of the studies included in this review were conducted in any part of Australia.From this, it can be inferred that there are limited studies conducted on continents other than Asia.
As seen in Table 3, the majority of the studies employed qualitative design (n=33; 66%), where case study, ethnography, or discourse analysis were utilised.12 studies selected mixed methods design with the approach of experimental, exploratory, explanatory, or convergent.The remainder of the studies were quantitative in nature (n=5; 10%) with the approach of survey or experimental.In addition, numerous methodological approaches were identified through this review.In the majority of the studies, multiple methods of data collection techniques were largely used (n=38; 76%).These methods include a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods such as classroom observation, semi-structured interviews, questionnaires or surveys, document analysis, or field notes.In reference to the focus of the research, the majority of the studies focused on translanguaging practice in the classroom (n=27; 54%), whereas the least focus was on task-based language production (n=2; 4%).
In terms of the level of education, it is found that half of the studies were conducted at the university level (n=25; 50%).Whereas one third of the studies were conducted at secondary level (n=16; 32%) and the remainder were conducted at primary level (n=9; 18%).From the review, three types of samples were identified.It is found that most of the studies focused on teachers (n=22; 44%), while the remaining studies focused on students (n=16; 32%) and both teachers and students (n=12; 24%).This indicates that students and teachers at the university level are more readily accessible for the researchers.Moreover, the sample size also differed, where it can be seen that the vast majority of the studies involved sample size of less than 10 participants (n=16; 32%) or sample size of 10 to 40 participants (n=17; 34%).This was reflected in the nature of the research designs employed in the studies, as a majority of the studies employed a qualitative or mixed methods approach.

Focus of the study
Following the charting and analysis of the data, four research focuses were identified.The focus of existing studies on pedagogical translanguaging in ESL/EFL classrooms is divided into four areas: (1) translanguaging practice in the classroom; (2) perceptions of translanguaging; (3) translanguaging and students' academic performance; (4) translanguaging in task-based language production.
In terms of the role of teachers, they were viewed as mediators in facilitating students' use of translanguaging by eliciting and affirming students' responses (De Los Reyes, 2019).In line with García and Wei (2014), teachers, as facilitators, should be able to set up activities that maximize learning through translanguaging.Essentially, studies found that there is a need for translanguaging spaces that are supportive and inclusive for learners (Fallas Escobar, 2019;Guo, 2022;Rajendram, 2021;Rasman, 2018;Wang, 2022).For instance, Menken and Sánchez (2019) found that multilingual literacy practices could be incorporated into classrooms by providing multilingual materials, visually displaying students' L1, and developing a multilingual linguistic landscape.As such, teachers should encourage students to engage with multiliteracies to further enhance their learning (Syahrin, 2021).This clearly indicates that translanguaging pedagogy is more than a teaching approach.

Perceptions of translanguaging
Out of the 50 selected articles, 10 studies focused on investigating teachers' perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs in regards to translanguaging.Most of the studies revealed a positive outlook in embracing the practice (Putrawan et al., 2022;Raja et al., 2022a;Stihi, 2021;Yusri et al., 2022).Nonetheless, a number of the studies revealed that, though the teachers perceived it positively, they expressed difficulties in employing it in their practice due to the pressure and expectations of their institutions (Burton & Rajendram, 2019;Sobkowiak, 2022;Cai & Fang, 2022;Yuvayapan, 2019).Meanwhile, only a study by Fang and Liu (2020) focused on the perceptions of both students and teachers, and they found that in terms of translanguaging pedagogy, the teachers had mixed attitudes while the students had neutralto-positive attitudes.Not only that, despite their support in embracing the approach, some teachers continue to hold a monolingual mindset, hence preventing them from completely adopting the translanguaging perspective.Subsequently, three studies looking at how students perceived translanguaging in the classroom found that they generally had positive perceptions in its implementation (Aoyama, 2020;Jiang et al., 2022;Karabulut & Dollar, 2022).However, in contrast to these studies, Raja et al. (2022b) found that most students perceived negatively in terms of students-directed translanguaging as they strongly perceived that only English should be used in the EFL class.Similarly, Kwihangana (2021) also revealed that, though the students acknowledged that translanguaging is beneficial, they feared that such practice might jeopardize their effort in mastering the L2.Hence, an English-only class is more preferable.Clearly, in accordance with these studies, Rasman (2018) also found that a monoglossic mindset is strongly ingrained in minds and beliefs of the students.

Translanguaging and student's academic performance
Three studies investigating the translanguaging impact on learners' performance and language learning revealed positive findings, implying that translanguaging is an effective pedagogical approach (Elashhab, 2020;Yuzlu & Dikilitas, 2022a;Akbar & Taqi, 2020).For instance, a quasi-experimental study by Yuzlu and Dikilitas (2022a) revealed significantly higher scores in the experimental group compared to the control group on both the pre-test and post-test.Thus, this study indicated that translanguaging instruction had a significant impact on the experimental group's linguistic abilities.However, in spite of the fact that translanguaging is efficient in enhancing understanding and achieving higher levels of knowledge processing, Akbar and Taqi (2020) found no significant effect of the practice on students' language proficiency, indicating there is a need to further investigate this matter in a longitudinal study.On the contrary, Llanes and Cots (2022) conducted an experimental study comparing the improvement of language proficiency in translanguaging and monolingual groups, which revealed that translanguaging practices positively affect the proficiency of L2.Notably, on both the pre-test and post-test, the translanguaging group showed improvement over the monolingual group in terms of performance on oral and written tasks.This again emphasises that pedagogical translanguaging could be an alternative approach to L2 learning.Moreover, Sun and Zhang (2022) conducted a study examining the efficacy of translanguaging in online peer feedback (OPF).The result showed that translanguaging in OPF significantly improved L2 writing performance.Hence, such results suggested that translanguaging provides an environment better suited to L2 writing performance.

Translanguaging in task-based language production
From the review, two studies focus on students' task-based language production.Wang and Li ( 2022) conducted an exploratory study investigating how translanguaging in oral corrective feedback affects students' production of written tasks.The students were required to complete three writing tasks in six weeks.With the written feedback from peers and oral and written feedback from the tutor, the students revised the relevant parts accordingly.The findings revealed that the interaction between L1 and L2 indicated a process of meaning construction and understanding of target languages.Hence, with the aid of the L1 repertoire, students were able to establish a bridge to the target words.Evidently, this asserts that students' learning is maximised when they are not prevented from drawing on the linguistic abilities they already possess but rather encouraged to do so.Another exploratory study by Yuzlu and Dikilitas (2022c) explored the way EFL students develop criticality while taking a course that was driven by translanguaging pedagogy.The study required the students to carry out presentations, conduct debates, and write reflective papers.In these activities, they drew upon their whole linguistic repertoires for their four language skills.In addition, the teacher provided reading materials in multiple languages in order to facilitate translanguaging during the course.From these studies, it could be deduced that creating space and providing resources for translanguaging are essential in supporting students in fully utilising their linguistic repertoire.Thus, this urges teachers to create a multilingual learning environment in maximising the academic potentials of their students' (Wang & Li, 2022;Yuzlu & Dikilitas, 2022c).For instance, bilingual or multilingual resources should be readily accessible for the students in their classrooms.

Conclusion and implications for research
This review was conducted with the intention of outlining the characteristics of empirical research on pedagogical practices of translanguaging in ESL/EFL classrooms.Overall, this review strengthens the notion that monolingual ideology is still rooted in both students' and teachers' minds.In addition, the findings from this review revealed that most studies focus on the practice of pedagogical translanguaging in the classroom, specifically looking into the purpose or functions of the practice.The review has also shown that translanguaging pedagogy indeed has potential for enhancing students' L2 learning.Thus, the findings of this review will be of interest to ESL educators, particularly preservice and in-service ESL teachers, and policymakers to help guide them in understanding how to implement pedagogical translanguaging effectively in similar classroom contexts.This review will also provide insights to ESL educators and researchers on the teachers' role in practicing this approach in ELT for ESL.This advocates further research to determine what strategies and tools may be effective in its implementation.Nonetheless, this scoping review is not without its limitations.To begin with, the quality of the articles included was not rated, as the critical appraisal step is typically omitted in scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018).Hence, a critical appraisal of the quality of the selected articles was not conducted.Moreover, a total of 50 studies from 21 countries across the continents were examined.Yet, the majority of the reviewed studies were based in Asia, accounting for approximately half of the total, namely in Indonesia (n=10; 20%) and China (n=10; 20%).Consequently, this may have resulted in an overrepresentation of these two countries.Notably, limited studies were conducted in Malaysia, with only 1% of the total reviewed articles.Hence, this necessitates that future research from other continents to expand the research on pedagogical translanguaging and contribute to the corpus of knowledge.
The studies selected were limited to the search terms used, databases selected, timeline of the papers published, and types of literature.Therefore, other potential articles may have been overlooked.Notwithstanding these limitations, the study recommends that future researchers examine other studies within a longer timeline of publication and utilise more electronic databases.Moreover, the practice of translanguaging in the classroom was found to be the focus of over half of the studies (n=27; 54%).Therefore, limited research was conducted on such practices, focusing on their impact on academic performance and taskbased language production.In regard with this, there is a definite need for more studies in the future to look into aspects of pedagogical translanguaging other than the perceptions and practice.Hence, future researchers are urged to further investigate the impact of pedagogical translanguaging on students' academic performance and language production.

Appendix. Summary of information from the selected articles
Author

Stage 4 :Figure 1 .
Figure 1.PRISMA-ScR 2020 flow diagram of included articles Stage 5: Collating, summarising, and reporting the resultsThe nature of data analysis in scoping reviews is generally descriptive or narrative, as the intention of this type of review is not to synthesise the outcomes of the included articles(Arksey & O'Malley, 2005;Peters et al., 2020).As such, the data analysis for this scoping review included a narrative summary of the studies and descriptive measures, i.e., frequency counts and percentages.At this stage, the retrieved articles were grouped and summarised in the spreadsheet developed in Microsoft Excel.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Research design employed in studies from 2018 to 2022

Table 2 .
Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Table 3 .
Descriptive characteristics of the studies