November 2025 – Volume 29, Number 3
https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29115a3
Ziyue Guo
University of Western Ontario, Canada
<zguo349
uwo.ca>
Qiuhua Feng
University of Hong Kong, China
<qiuhuafehku.edu>
Abstract
Despite the acknowledged effectiveness of translanguaging as scaffolding in language education, research on how specific scaffolding strategies are integrated into pedagogical translanguaging in English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) classrooms remains limited. This article bridges this gap by uncovering how scaffolding strategies are manifested within teachers’ pedagogical translanguaging across 1-12 and higher education settings in Chinese EFL classrooms. Under the scaffolding strategy analytical framework, a deductive analysis was conducted on 13 empirical studies on pedagogical translanguaging in Chinese EFL classrooms, sourced from Scopus, ProQuest Education Journals, EBSCOhost, ERIC, and Google Scholar. Nine key scaffolding strategies are manifested within teachers’ pedagogical translanguaging practices: modeling, contextualizing, schema building, explaining, eliciting, comprehension check, providing feedback, re-presenting text, and developing metacognition. Results indicate that 1-12 classrooms rely more on teacher-led translanguaging scaffolding, focusing on comprehension support, engagement, and foundational language development, while higher education settings apply translanguaging more strategically, fostering critical thinking, contrastive linguistic analysis, and academic autonomy. This study highlights how translanguaging enhances traditional scaffolding strategies, offering a more flexible, responsive, and inclusive approach to language teaching and learning. The findings have implications for the conceptual understanding of scaffolding strategies enhanced by pedagogical translanguaging, suggesting directions for future research and teaching practices in linguistically diverse settings worldwide.
Keywords: Pedagogical Translanguaging, Scaffolding Strategies, English as a Foreign Language, Chinese Classrooms
Research Background and Focus
In today’s world of increasing super-diversity (Vertovec, 2007), teaching strategies, especially in the context of language education, should be critically attuned to this constantly evolving world and responsive to changes in language educational paradigms (Pennycook, 2022). The field of language learning and teaching has experienced a marked evolution, shifting from monolingualism to linear bilingualism and, ultimately, progressing toward dynamic bilingualism (García & Sylvan, 2011). The dynamic bilingualism model embraces a dynamic bilingual approach, with translanguaging emerging as a crucial pedagogical approach in language education (García & Kleyn, 2016). Translanguaging as a pedagogy acknowledges bi/multilingual students’ holistic semiotic resources (e.g., linguistic, multimodal), supporting students in interpreting complex content, make meaning and enhancing their overall learning outcomes (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021; Flores & Schissel, 2014; García & Li, 2014). Thus, the framework of translanguaging can provide fresh perspectives on traditional English teaching, enabling teaching to be more responsive and relevant in dynamic bi/multilingual linguistic classrooms (García & Sylvan, 2011).
As one of the most widely used approaches in traditional English teaching, scaffolding enables teachers to provide dialogic, contingent, and graduated mediation (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994) to engage students in the construction of language complexity. In recent years, mounting research (e.g., Dahlberg, 2017; Feller, 2021; Schall-Leckrone, 2022; Setyaningrum et al., 2022) has notably demonstrated the effectiveness of translanguaging as scaffolding employed by educators to pedagogically promote students’ deeper understanding of linguistic knowledge and advance their language learning. Pedagogical translanguaging by educators may involve some specific scaffolding strategies tailored to achieve particular learning and teaching goals, thereby fostering a more inclusive and effective learning environment.
China, home to the largest group of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners globally, offers a uniquely large-scale and linguistically diverse context for exploring translanguaging and scaffolding strategies. With approximately 400 million English learners (He & Li, 2009; R. Wei & Su, 2012), China represents a critical case for examining multilingual pedagogy. Since 2001, English education has been mandatory in China’s national curriculum starting from the third grade (Ministry of Education (MoE), 2001). The English curriculum evolves through the various educational stages, from primary to high school education, emphasizing grammatical structure, reading, writing, and listening skills. English remains central in the education system, being one of three mandatory subjects in the National College Entrance Examination (Gaokao), taken by over 13.35 million students in 2025 (China Daily, 2025). English remains a focus in higher education too, where English language skills are essential for both entry and completion of studies. Chinese university students, regardless of their chosen field of study, must take English classes. This includes a general English curriculum for students not majoring in English and more specialized courses for those pursuing degrees in English or English education (Bolton & Graddol, 2012). This emphasis on English, alongside China’s multilingual reality, creates a compelling environment for studying the interplay between translanguaging and scaffolding.
There is a prevailing perception in China that achieving native-like proficiency in English requires immersion in a monolingual English environment (Hartshorne et al., 2018). While the Chinese government does not officially mandate an English-only policy, the belief in “maximum English exposure” (Krashen, 1985) is widely embraced by stakeholders, including policymakers, educators, students, and their parents (Fang & Liu, 2020). This ideology stems from the notion that increased English input allows students to cognitively “live” in the language and, as some suggest, “think in English” (Guo, 2023). However, the realities of Chinese EFL classrooms present a stark contrast to this monolingual framework. Students bring rich linguistic repertoires, including Mandarin and regional dialects, into the classroom. Teachers and students frequently engage in translanguaging practices—alternating fluidly between English, Mandarin, and dialects—for explanation, meaning-making, and communication (e.g., Xia, 2022; Zhang & Chan, 2022; Zhou, 2023). This contrast between the monolingual framework and the multilingual reality of classrooms highlights the need to explore how translanguaging is used to scaffold learning.
Despite the growing adoption of translanguaging pedagogy in Chinese EFL classrooms, research explicitly linking translanguaging and scaffolding remains scarce. Specifically, no studies have analyzed what and how specific scaffolding strategies that teachers apply within pedagogical translanguaging to enhance language learners’ learning outcomes in the context of EFL classrooms in China, particularly across different educational levels. To address this gap, this study systematically reviews existing empirical research on pedagogical translanguaging in Chinese EFL classrooms, analyzing how teachers integrate scaffolding strategies into translanguaging moments to support students’ language learning in both 1-12 education and higher education settings.
Guided by the research questions:
- How specific scaffolding strategies are employed within pedagogical translanguaging practices in Chinese EFL classrooms?
- How do the applications of specific translanguaging-integrated scaffolding strategies differ between 1-12 and higher education settings?
This study aims to provide a structured analysis of translanguaging-integrated scaffolding strategies, offering insights into how these strategies function across different educational levels and contribute to effective language learning practices in Chinese EFL classrooms. By systematically categorizing scaffolding strategies within translanguaging pedagogy, this study enhances our understanding of how these two frameworks interact and complement each other. Furthermore, the findings have broader implications for English language teaching in other multilingual contexts, providing a foundation for adapting translanguaging-informed scaffolding strategies to diverse educational settings worldwide.
Conceptual Backgrounds
Translanguaging: A Paradigm Shift in Bilingualism
Translanguaging, as elucidated by Baker and Wright (2018), originated from the Welsh term ‘trawsieithu’. Initially Introduced by Cen Williams in the 1990s, it served as a pedagogical strategy to encourage language alternation, such as reading in one language (e.g., English) and writing in another (e.g., Welsh). Translanguaging is defined as “the process of making meaning, shaping experiences, gaining understanding and knowledge through the use of two languages”, when initially brought into the English language by Baker (2011, p. 288). Various scholars have expanded the definitions of translanguaging to encompass (1) the complex language practices of bi/multilingual individuals and (2) pedagogical practices that leverage the fluid language dynamics of bi/multilingual communities (e.g., Canagarajah, 2011; García & Li, 2014; Lewis et al., 2012). While each scholar defines it somewhat differently, translanguaging reflects an epistemological shift away from the understanding of language and bilingualism in the 20th century, that was, the “static, homogeneous, and monolithic” view (García & Sylvan, 2011, p. 385). Translanguaging, underpinning the dynamic bilingualism model (García & Li, 2014), acknowledges the fluid and dynamic nature of bilingual language use from a holistic view, emphasizing the interconnectedness of linguistic resources rather than treating them as separate entities and regarding bilingualism as dual/parallel monolingualism (Lin et al., 2020).
One key illustration of this epistemological shift is the transition from code-switching/mixing to translanguaging. Code-switching, traditionally viewed as alternating between languages for communicative or instructional purposes, has been used as a scaffolding strategy in language learning (García & Lin, 2016). While both involve language alternation and occurring both spontaneously and through pedagogical planning, code-switching is based on a monoglossic framework that treats bilingualism as separate linguistic systems, whereas translanguaging embraces a holistic, heteroglossic perspective that transcends named language boundaries (García & Lin, 2016; Goodman & Tastanbek, 2020). Unlike code-switching, which highlights linguistic differences and proficiency hierarchies, translanguaging positions language as a dynamic resource for meaning making and identity development in classrooms (Goodman & Tastanbek, 2020). Moreover, translanguaging extends beyond language use, foregrounding the role of multimodality (e.g., gestures, postures, and visuals) in constructing meaning across social contexts (García & Li, 2014; García & Otheguy, 2020). This perspective highlights how language and other semiotic resources interact fluidly, further challenging traditional monoglossic ideologies and fostering a more inclusive and integrative approach to learning.
Lin et al. (2020) presents a concrete example in science classrooms, where explicit instruction of L2 English scientific terms is often preceded by whole-body sense-making through L1. From a traditional perspective, this might be considered code-switching or L1 supporting L2 development. However, translanguaging reframes this interaction as a multilingual and multimodal process where L1, L2 and semiotic resources (e.g., gestures, visuals) co-construct scientific meaning, fostering deeper comprehension and engagement with academic content. In these instances, the so-called L1 cannot be abstracted as a distinct linguistic code within a traditional framework but rather operates as an integrated meaning-making resource.
Translanguaging as Pedagogy
García and Li (2014) describe translanguaging pedagogies as approaches that acknowledge and validate bi/multilinguals’ dynamic language practices and identities, supporting the development of their language repertoires, content comprehension and empowering their identities. Lewis et al. (2012), along with Cenoz and Gorter (2017), differentiate between two types of translanguaging in educational settings: teacher-directed (or pedagogical) and pupil-directed (or spontaneous). On the one hand, teacher-directed (Lewis et al., 2012), or pedagogical translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017), refers to translanguaging activities intentionally planned and structured by educators to enhance students’ language learning in the classroom. This approach involves scaffolding for emergent bilinguals and providing translanguaging cues to assist more proficient bilingual students (Lewis et al., 2012). On the other hand, pupil-directed (Lewis et al., 2012) or spontaneous translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017) occurs when bi/multilingual students unconsciously employ their language repertoires in communication. Rather than viewing these two types as a strict dichotomy, Cenoz and Gorter (2017) argue that educators can leverage some instances of spontaneous translanguaging moments to serve pedagogical functions, integrating them into structured learning experiences.
Translanguaging as Scaffolding
Scaffolding, rooted in Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory and his concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), allows teachers to provide students with a support structure to reach the next learning stage. Vygotsky emphasizes that learning is a social process accomplished through teacher-student interaction, where teachers guide students in grasping abstract concepts. According to Lewis et al. (2012), translanguaging serves as a form of scaffolding, offering linguistic support that can be gradually withdrawn as learners gain proficiency. This perspective aligns translanguaging with traditional scaffolding principles, emphasizing its role in facilitating comprehension and learning within the classroom. However, Canagarajah (2011), building on García (2009), conceptualizes translanguaging not as a temporary support mechanism but as an inherent and natural multilingual practice. He defines it as “the ability of multilingual speakers to shuttle between languages, treating the diverse languages that form their repertoire as an integrated system” (García, 2009, p. 401). While this perspective moves beyond the notion of scaffolding, it does not necessarily contradict it. In this study, translanguaging is understood as both an organic multilingual practice and a pedagogical scaffolding strategy—one that supports learners by leveraging their full linguistic repertoire while also functioning as a dynamic and adaptive approach to language learning.
Several studies have drawn direct connections between scaffolding and translanguaging, demonstrating its effectiveness in fostering student engagement and academic achievement. One of the critical ways translanguaging scaffold learning is by enhancing participation and classroom dialogue. Cui and Pacheco (2023) examine how a monolingual teacher in a multilingual classroom employs collaborative scaffolding within a translanguaging pedagogy, encouraging students to draw from their entire linguistic repertoires. Pacheco et al. (2019) identify translanguaging as not only a scaffold to new content and language but as a scaffold to support student participation in activities from pre-service teachers’ teaching experiences. Swanwick (2016) extends this perspective to deaf education, illustrating how translanguaging facilitates dialogic support, enriches classroom communication and scaffold learning.
Beyond fostering classroom interaction, translanguaging also plays a crucial role in language and literacy development. Cheung and Yang (2024) highlight translanguaging provides cognitive and emotional scaffolding for non-Cantonese-speaking students in Chinese writing classrooms, helping them develop metalinguistic awareness and critical thinking skills. In early childhood education, Schall-Leckrone (2022) documents how multimodal translanguaging, integrating gestures, drawings, and bilingual interaction, scaffolds young learners’ literacy and sense-making. Similarly, Dahlberg (2017) shows that translanguaging in English-language classrooms in Sweden provided critical scaffolding structures for adult multilingual students, facilitating their deeper engagement with English learning.
In content-based instruction, translanguaging has been employed as a structured scaffolding strategy to support complex academic learning. Liu (2020) highlights its role in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), where planned translanguaging and trans-semiotizing scaffold students’ engagement with subject matter. Setyaningrum et al. (2022) explores its use in online CLIL instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic, showing how planned translanguaging scaffold young learners navigate content in both their L1 and English. Moving beyond general scaffolding, Moraczewska (2024) demonstrates how bilingual subject instruction in Norway strategically integrates translanguaging and specific scaffolding strategies to facilitate both content and language learning.
While these studies establish connections between scaffolding and translanguaging in student learning, they provide limited insight into how specific scaffolding strategies are embedded within teachers’ translanguaging practices. A deeper examination of which scaffolding strategies teachers employ and how they are implemented is necessary to further understand the pedagogical role of translanguaging in structured language support.
Scaffolding Strategies
Derived from the essence of effective scaffolding, the scaffolding strategy refers to the strategic individualized support from instructors to language learners (Van Der Stuyf, 2002). These strategies allow instructors to provide support at varying levels and gradually release it during the moment-by-moment interaction while students are actively engaged in tasks (e.g., Michell & Sharpe, 2005; O’Connor et al., 2005).
In second-language classrooms, a variety of scaffolding strategies have emerged. For example, Walqui’s (2006) comprehensive typology of instructional scaffolding strategies encompasses six key strategies: modeling, bridging, contextualizing, schema building, re-presenting text, and developing metacognition. In addition to Walqui’s typology, other scaffolding strategies, such as explaining, comprehension checks, and questioning, are commonly used to strengthen students’ understanding of academic content and linguistic features (Lee, 2001; Wood et al., 1976). When students struggle to acquire language concepts, teachers can employ strategies, such as eliciting, reducing choices, and co-participating, to assist students in completing tasks (Norris & Hoffman, 1990). As students advance to a higher level of learning, teachers can apply scaffolding strategies like generalizing, reformulation, reasoning, and predicting to deepen their understanding of the newly acquired knowledge and promote independent learning (Pentimonti & Justice, 2010).
In the global context of EFL classrooms, the existing research shows that instructors widely use scaffolding strategies to promote students’ learning autonomy and engagement in constructing linguistic meaning. For example, in Singapore, Ng and Cheung (2018) highlight a case in which primary EFL teachers implement Walqui’s six instructional scaffolding strategies to mediate students’ construction of a narrative writing. The findings demonstrate that these strategies offer teachers a means to explicitly achieve lesson outcomes, enabling students to develop an awareness of what was being studied, why it was being studied, and what was expected of them, ultimately fostering a high level of independent writing. In Indonesia, Fajrin, Sunra, and Hasriani (2024) note that the Indonesian teacher employs modeling, questioning, and feedback during tasks such as storytelling and short drama to actively engage middle school EFL students with complex vocabulary and grammatical structures.
At the university level, similar trends are observed in other EFL contexts. Rezaee et al. (2018) illustrate that the use of teacher modeling and bridging as scaffolding strategies significantly enhances students’ language learning strategies, including memory, cognition, metacognition, and comprehension in Iran. Similarly, Amerian et al. (2014) describe a teaching episode at an Iranian university in which the teacher employs reformulation and questioning to support EFL students’ writing development. These two scaffolding strategies engage students in meaning negotiation by rephrasing their original utterances to expand writing ideas and posing questions that prompt them to clarify their points through specific examples during brainstorming.
While these studies provide valuable insights into the application of scaffolding strategies in EFL instruction, few explore how these strategies intersect with translanguaging practices. That is, the integration of students’ full linguistic repertoires—across languages—as part of the scaffolding process remains underexamined. Addressing this gap, this paper will primarily focus on the scaffolding aspect of pedagogical translanguaging, exploring how specific scaffolding strategies are integrated into teachers’ pedagogical translanguaging practices in Chinese EFL classrooms. These scaffolding strategies provide a valuable framework for analyzing how translanguaging functions as a structured support system, facilitating comprehension, engagement, and linguistic development.
Methodology
This paper utilized the systematic review method (Ortega, 2015) to examine empirical research on pedagogical translanguaging in Chinese EFL classrooms. Literature synthesis primarily focuses on the research context in 1-12 (i.e., primary and secondary levels) and higher education. By examining 1-12 and higher education in EFL classrooms, the review explores how scaffolding strategies evolve as EFL learners progress from foundational to proficient stages of English learning, reflecting a continuum in which different scaffolding needs arise at different stages. As such, 1–12 education primarily focuses on developing EFL learners’ foundational English competencies, whereas higher education tends to emphasize academic English and discipline-specific language use (DiCerbo et al., 2014). Scrutinizing translanguaging patterns and insights within scaffolding in both contexts fosters a richer understanding of how translanguaging scaffolding strategies can differentiate instruction (e.g., Feller, 2022) to address the varying linguistic and cognitive demands of EFL learners.
Searching and Screening Process
The review process involved four iterative rounds of literature searching and screening of relevant articles about pedagogical translanguaging in Chinese EFL classrooms, followed by meticulous analysis using a deductive approach based on the analytical framework of scaffolding strategies (refer to table 4). In round 1, an expansive search was conducted across research databases, utilizing a specific set of guiding keywords: “Translanguaging” AND (EFL or “English as a foreign language”) AND (China or Chinese) AND (Pedagogy or Pedagogies or Pedagogical) AND (Scaffolding or scaffolding strategies). Databases used in the search included Scopus, ProQuest Education Journals, EBSCOhost, ERIC and Google Scholar. To maximize the retrieval of relevant articles, searches were performed both with and without the keywords “Scaffolding” or “Scaffolding Strategies,” selecting records that yielded the highest number of relevant articles in each database. Since this research focuses on EFL education in China, we conducted a search for peer-reviewed empirical studies published in both Chinese and English to ensure a comprehensive review of relevant literature. However, despite the inclusion of Chinese-language sources in our search, all retrieved articles were published in English, with no Chinese-language empirical studies. We limited our search to studies conducted in mainland China, excluding other regions such as Hong Kong and Macau to ensure consistency in the educational context. Articles were restricted to those published post the year of 2015, given the marked rise in studies undertaken by scholars of applied linguistics and language education on the subject of translanguaging in Chinese classrooms since this period (e.g., Lin & He, 2017). The initial search resulted in a total of 87 articles from the selected databases. Also, given this study’s focus on real-world classroom translanguaging practices, we included only those studies in which both teachers and students were research participants, ensuring alignment with our investigation of translanguaging practices in authentic instructional contexts.
Table1. Inclusion Criteria
| Research must have been published in peer-reviewed journals. |
| Research must have been reported in English or Chinese. |
| Research must have been reported as empirical research to explore pedagogical translanguaging in English language teaching classrooms in Mainland China. |
| Research must have been published from 2015 to 2025. |
| Teachers and students are among the research participants. |
Round 2 of the process involved removing duplicate articles from the initial pool of research gathered, resulting in a refined total of 42 unique articles. Round 3 consisted of a preliminary analysis of the articles based on their titles and abstracts. Articles that did not meet the predetermined inclusion criteria (refer to Table 1) were excluded, reducing the number to 30 studies. Round 4 involved a thorough reading of the full texts of the remaining articles. Those that did not meet the inclusion criteria upon closer examination were subsequently removed, culminating in a final selection of 13 articles—seven focusing on 1-12 education (refer to Table 2) and six examining higher education settings (refer to Table 3).
Table 2. Contexts and Participants of the Selected Articles (1-12 grades)
| No. Selected Articles | Research Settings | Participants |
| 1. Greenier et al. (2023) | Chinese EFL primary schools in four different cities, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Rongchang, Chongqing in China | 10 primary EFL teachers and approximately 430 to 630 primary students |
| 2. Guo (2023) | Three EFL classrooms in Chinese Primary School | 3 teachers and 35 Chinese primary school students |
| 3. Jing and Kitis (2023) | An EFL primary classroom in Dandong, Liaoning | 1 teacher and 40 primary school students |
| 4. P. Wang (2022) | Neidi XinJiang junior high EFL class in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region | 4 teachers and 197 junior high school students |
| 5. F. Wang and Ai (2024) | EFL courses in secondary schools in China | 89 pre-service teachers and unspecified numbers of secondary students |
| 6. Xia (2022) | An EFL course of a Chinese high school in Mengyin, Shandong | 1 teacher and 52 second-year high school students |
| 7. Zhou (2023) | High school EFL classroom in Shanghai | 1 teacher and 40 high school students |
Table 3. Contexts and Participants of the Selected Articles in Higher Education
| No. Selected Articles | Research Settings | Participants |
| 1. Li and Wang (2024) | 16-week writing tutorials for first-year college students’ English writing at a university in central China | 1 teacher and 24 undergraduate students |
| 2. Y. Wang and Li (2022) | An EFL writing course of a comprehensive university in Central China | 1 teacher and 12 first-year undergraduate students |
| 3. Q. Yang et al. (2023) | An EFL writing course of a comprehensive university in Southwestern China | 1 teacher and 21 undergraduate students |
| 4. R. Zhang and Chan (2022) | Two EFL courses in a Xinjiang University in China | 2 Uyghur teachers and unspecified numbers of undergraduate students |
| 5. Y. Zhang and Jocuns (2022) | EFL Chinese Private University | 1 teacher and 28 second-year undergraduate students |
| 6. Zuo and Walsh (2023) | Three Teaching sessions in two Chinese EFL Universities in an East Coastal City and a Southwest City | 3 teachers and unspecified numbers of undergraduate students |
Data Analysis
The data analysis process was divided into four phases, beginning with establishing an analytical framework of scaffolding strategies and creating a matrix to categorize these strategies (as shown in Table 4). Subsequently, instances of pedagogical translanguaging in the selected articles were deductively analyzed using this framework. These analyses underwent secondary review and discussion to ensure consensus among the researchers. Finally, the identified instances of translanguaging were synthesized and classified into their respective scaffolding strategy categories within the matrix. The following provides a detailed account of each step in this process.
In step 1, to establish an analytical framework of scaffolding strategies, a review of prominent scaffolding strategies in EFL language classrooms was conducted (e.g., Mahan, 2020; McNeil, 2012; Veeramuthu et al., 2011; Walqui, 2006; Wright, 2016). This step was necessary due to the absence of an existing framework that explicitly categorizes translanguaging-integrated scaffolding strategies. We found that selected studies categorized translanguaging practices based on classroom functions rather than scaffolding strategies. For instance, Jing and Kitis (2023) classified their findings under “translanguaging in managerial mode,” “translanguaging in materials mode,” and “translanguaging in skills and systems mode” (pp. 7–10). Similarly, Q. Yang et al. (2023) categorized translanguaging under broader educational benefits, such as “Improving EFL learners’ critical thinking,” “Benefiting EFL learners’ content comprehension,” and “Promoting EFL learners’ effective communication” (pp. 57–61). While these studies acknowledge the pedagogical value of translanguaging, they offer limited insight into how specific scaffolding strategies are operationalized within these practices.
Table 4. Analytical Framework
| Scaffolding Strategies | Original Definitions |
| Modeling | Give task instructions and provide clear examples of what is requested of students for imitation (Walqui, 2006). |
| Contextualizing | Engage students in sensory-rich and situation-dependent contexts to make academic concepts more accessible (Walqui, 2006). |
| Schema Building | Interconnect students’ pre-existing structures of meaning with new information (Walqui, 2006). |
| Bridging | Activate students’ prior knowledge and personal experience about the target topic (Walqui, 2006). |
| Eliciting | Prompt learners’ thoughts, ideas, or responses during the learning process (e.g., Beck, 1995; Pentimonti & Justice, 2010; Siegel et al., 2014). |
| Explaining | Provide more detailed information or clarification by the teacher (van de Pol et al., 2010). |
| Comprehension Check | Provide an informative assessment to ensure that students have grasped the information that has been taught (Fisher & Frey, 2014; Long, 1980; Lee, 2001). |
| Providing Feedback | Provide feedback regarding the student’s performance to the student him/herself (Pentimonti & Justice, 2010). |
| Re-presenting Text | Engage students in tasks designed to help them understand English concepts by transitioning from one genre to another through a variety of activities (Walqui, 2006). |
| Developing Metacognition | “Foster metacognition and, along with it, learner autonomy through the explicit teaching of strategies” (Walqui, 2006, p. 176). |
To address this gap, we adopted Walqui’s (2006) scaffolding framework, which encompasses six scaffolding strategies: modeling, bridging, schema building, contextualizing, re-presenting text, and developing metacognition. To enrich this model, four additional scaffolding strategies were integrated: providing feedback, explaining, eliciting, and comprehension checks. This expanded framework allowed us to reclassify translanguaging practices into a structured pedagogical framework, ensuring a more systematic and instructional-focused analysis. The final analytical framework we used in our study comprises 10 distinct scaffolding strategies, each accompanied by its original definition, as summarized in Table 4 above.
For step 2, a deductive analysis approach was taken based on the established analytical framework (Cohen et al., 2018). Instances of translanguaging moments from each article, based on student-teacher interaction episodes and practice descriptions, were analyzed and coded to identify how they aligned with the predefined scaffolding strategies within the framework. Following the analysis, the results underwent rigorous review and discussions to resolve any discrepancies in interpretations. Consensus was achieved on all interpretation results by both researchers before proceeding to the final phase of analysis.
In the final analysis phase, translanguaging instances coded across all articles were aggregated and mapped to their “belonging” scaffolding strategy categories in the framework matrix. A detailed comparative analysis was then conducted to ensure consistency in interpretation. During this process, it was noted that certain strategies overlapped; in such cases, only the more suitable strategy within the translanguaging context was selected for presentation in the findings. To illustrate, both ‘bridging’ and ‘schema-building’ strategies aim to leverage and activate students’ existing knowledge to support English language acquisition (Gonulal & Loewen, 2018). The ‘schema-building’ strategy, which is more oriented towards cognitive and conceptual abilities (Carrell, 1984), was deemed more suitable within the translanguaging context due to translanguaging spotlights bilinguals’ cognitive and complex practices (Rajendram, 2023). Therefore, schema-building was chosen over bridging for presentation in the finding section.
Findings
To answer how teachers’ translanguaging pedagogies in the context of EFL grade 1–12 and university classrooms incorporate specific scaffolding strategies to facilitate classroom learning and teaching, the findings are organized and presented according to nine scaffolding strategies: modeling, contextualizing, schema building, explaining, eliciting, comprehension checks, providing feedback, re-presenting text, and developing metacognition. Each scaffolding strategy is presented as a thematic section, beginning with its original definition and an overview of its key aspects. Relevant examples of pedagogical translanguaging practices illustrate how each strategy is applied in both 1-12 and university instruction. Each section concludes with a brief comparative summary, highlighting the differences in scaffolding applications between 1-12 and higher education settings.
Modeling
The strategy of modeling involves teachers giving task instructions and clear examples for students to imitate, allowing students to work independently or collaboratively in groups. A typical modeling procedure starts with teachers providing a preliminary outline of what students need to do for the task, and then demonstrating each step, providing students with a clear model of the expected outcome (Walqui, 2006). Reviewed research underscores that pedagogical translanguaging can enrich the modeling strategy by vividly illustrating task instructions through multiple languages, thereby supporting students in understanding task requirements effectively.
In the context of 1-12, Guo (2023) illustrates a scenario where a primary teacher employs translanguaging to clarify an exercise instruction in a workbook, translating “Match” to “连线” in Chinese when a student expresses confusion. Furthermore, Greenier et al. (2023) note that primary school teachers often translanguage between Chinese and English to deliver instructions for new or complex classroom activities, such as games, ensuring students fully understand their tasks. P. Wang (2022) documents that a high school teacher translanguages between English and Chinese to give clear instructions about a group discussion task on the meaning of the phrase ‘status quo’. These instances demonstrate that the fluid languaging naturally enables students to comprehend the task requirements, facilitating effective peer collaboration.
However, in the context of higher education, Zuo and Walsh (2023) provide an example of a teacher translanguages between English and Chinese to deliver task instructions. The teacher initially uses English to ask students to infer the passage content based on the title. When students struggle to understand and respond as expected, the teacher offers linguistic support by translating key terms, such as “infer” into the Chinese equivalent “推断,” and rephrasing the instruction in Chinese to help students better comprehend the instructions for the reading activity.
In summary, in 1-12 classrooms, translanguaging serves as a direct instructional scaffold to ensure comprehension of task instructions, whereas in higher education, it is used more selectively for communication repair and meaning negotiation, facilitating higher-order thinking and deeper task understanding.
Contextualizing
Language acquisition is intricately tied to context, often drawing from specific situations to enhance learning. According to Walqui (2006), contextualizing involves immersing students in sensory-rich and situation-dependent contexts to make academic concepts more accessible. Reviewed research reveals that teachers effectively employ multilingual and multimodal resources (e.g., visuals and gestures) within pedagogical translanguaging to implement the strategy of contextualizing.
In the context of 1-12, teachers often use visual aids to assist students in vocabulary learning. For instance, Jing and Kitis (2023) describe a primary school English classroom where a teacher uses pictures and mimics the action of dancing to explain the English phrase “lion dance,” a traditional Chinese ritual during the spring festival. This approach integrates cultural context into language learning through visual aids. In secondary EFL instructions, Zhou (2023) also reports that high-school teachers leverage visual aids like pictures, emojis and physical mime as translanguaging pedagogies to contextualize new words encountered in reading. In addition, P. Wang (2022) demonstrates that high teachers would like to create the translanguaging space by providing multiple resources (e.g., languages, videos, audio, images, and multilingual texts) to contextualize the learning content and generate fruitful discussions.
In the EFL university context, Y. Zhang and Jocuns (2022) describe a scenario in which a teacher enhances students’ understanding of English literature on Greek philosophers by playing a short video clip and providing a voiceover in Chinese to explain its content. By integrating visual and auditory elements—such as subtitles, voiceovers, and video—students reinforce their newly acquired knowledge and gain confidence in reading complex texts through multimodal contextualization.
In summary, translanguaging pedagogies, particularly through their integration of multimodal approaches, can provide students with multidimensional contextualization. In 1-12 education, translanguaging-integrated contextualization simplifies content and makes learning more interactive and accessible, while in higher education, it supports deeper conceptual engagement and academic literacy, equipping students with higher-order analytical skills through multimodal integration.
Schema Building
Schema building enables students to construct their knowledge system by creating interconnected clusters of meaning, known as schemas. This process underscores the pivotal role that educators play in assisting learners to integrate new information into existing structures of meaning via various activities (Walqui, 2006). Reviewed studies show that translanguaging pedagogy can play a crucial role in schema building by seamlessly integrating students’ established semantics, phonics, syntax, literacy skills and culture knowledge from their existing languages with new English language elements. This approach establishes a bridge between students’ prior knowledge and new content, facilitating more efficient acquisition of the target language.
1–12 grade EFL teachers tend to draw upon students’ Chinese semantics knowledge to provide equivalent Chinese for target English phrases and sentences, helping students better understand them. Xia (2022) documents several examples of this practice in a high school classroom. For instance, to help students understand “May I take your order?”, teachers provided its Chinese equivalent “哎，您现在点菜吗?” with a special rising tone. Similarly, when teaching the concept of perseverance, teachers draw on Chinese proverbs such as “不积小流，无以成江海” (“With no small streams, there will be no rivers or oceans”) and “锲而不舍”(“Perseverance”). Similarly, F. Wang and Ai (2024) highlight a case in which EFL teachers use Chinese character structure “和” (“harmony”) to retrieve schemas that help secondary students negotiate the meaning of English sentences and the vocabulary word ‘harmony.’ In addition to Mandarin Chinese, Zhou (2023) provides an example of a scenario in a high school classroom where students’ knowledge of Shanghainese (a Chinese dialect) is associated with new English vocabulary. In the realm of phonics, Xia (2022) further demonstrates the case where high school educators effectively employ Chinese pinyin—a phonetic system students have developed through their Chinese language education—to help students grasp the international phonetic alphabet.
Beyond linguistic knowledge, teachers also integrate cultural knowledge from students’ L1 into EFL instruction. Jing and Kitis (2023) document how primary teachers draw on students’ knowledge of Chinese culture to facilitate the acquisition of new lexical content in English (e.g., lion dance). F. Wang and Ai (2024) highlight during an English reading lesson on environmental protection, the high school teacher introduces the traditional Chinese proverb “天地与我并生, 而万物与我为一” (“Heaven, Earth, and I were produced together, and all things and I are one”). This approach leverages students’ cultural empathy for Chinese traditions, fostering a deeper emotional connection to the topic and enhancing their motivation to protect the natural environment.
In the context of university EFL, educators use contrastive analysis between students’ existing languages and English to teach grammar and vocabulary, drawing on their existing syntax and semantic knowledge from their existing languages. For example, R. Zhang and Chan (2022) illustrate how translanguaging facilitates schema construction in grammar instruction by guiding students to compare English (students’ L3) imperatives with their equivalents in Uyghur (students’ L1), thus integrating new English grammatical structures into their existing Uyghur linguistic schemas. They also demonstrate how translanguaging can scaffold schema development, aiding students in understanding English homonymy, antonyms, and synonyms by drawing parallels with their native Uyghur and Mandarin (students’ L2) languages.
Translanguaging pedagogies can tap into students’ Chinese literacy knowledge to support English literacy acquisition in university EFL classrooms. Y. Zhang and Jocuns (2022) reveal in their study on a university EFL reading course how translanguaging takes advantage of students’ Chinese reading skills to enhance their English reading capabilities. Using a contrastive analysis between Chinese and English, students draw upon their foundational Chinese reading and summarizing skills to delineate the steps for summarizing an English passage. This process exemplifies the creation of interconnected clusters of meaning between Chinese and English literacy.
Beyond activating students’ prior knowledge, research indicates that teachers use multimodal and multilingual resources to help students develop content background knowledge, priming them to approach main learning content with their schema ready for new connections (Walqui, 2006). As highlighted by Y. Zhang and Jocuns (2022), in a pedagogical translanguaging instance in a EFL university classroom, the teacher presented a video clip featuring four Greek philosophers: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Diogenes, accompanied by Chinese subtitles and further elucidated with a voiceover in Chinese. This foundational understanding prepared students to confidently engage with subsequent complex English readings, fostering new connections and deeper comprehension.
In summary, EFL instructors in grade 1–12 often tap into students’ pre-existing linguistic knowledge, particularly semantics, to facilitate English learning. They primarily rely on providing direct Chinese meanings to create schemas. In contrast, in higher education, instructors adopt a more analytical approach, encouraging students to compare linguistic structures between languages. Additionally, university-level educators place greater emphasis on English literacy development by drawing on students’ existing L1 literacy knowledge.
Eliciting
Eliciting involves prompting learners’ thoughts or responses during the learning process, as described by scholars such as Beck (1995), Pentimonti and Justice (2010), and Siegel et al. (2014). The most common eliciting strategy used to scaffold students is asking questions and posting statements to encourage their further elaboration (McNeil, 2012; C. C. R. Yang, 2010). Reviewed research indicates that teachers’ pedagogical translanguaging practices frequently incorporate eliciting strategies, often posing questions in multilingual ways to prompt students to expand their thoughts in a translanguaging manner. As teachers consistently elicit students’ elaboration in their comfortable languages, students evidently increase their engagement in reply to teachers’ questions and statements.
In a primary school setting, Jing and Kitis (2023) demonstrate that the teacher translanguages between English and Chinese to ask reading comprehension questions and elicit students in identifying relevant sentences describing the characters’ actions in the text. Notably, the teacher uses Chinese when students remain silent in response to English questions.
In university EFL classrooms, translanguaging-integrated elicitation strategies extend beyond comprehension to foster deeper analytical engagement. Y. Zhang and Jocuns (2022) highlight a classroom episode in which the teacher translanguages between Chinese and English to prompt students to describe the underdeveloped village mentioned in a reading passage. The teacher elicits students to provide more detailed responses and construct a thorough description of the village leveraging their languages. Y. Zhang and Jocuns also describe teachers translanguage between English and Chinese to progressively ask students questions about the English summarizing strategy, eliciting their responses in steps toward English summarization. Similarly, Q. Yang et al. (2023) document that the EFL instructor flexibly uses both English and Chinese to elicit students’ critical thinking and brainstorming before writing construction. For example, the instructor prompts students by asking, “比如说中文你要说的是什么呢?” (“Can you give an example of what you want to express in Chinese?”), helping them articulate their ideas before transferring them into English.
Overall, in 1-12 education, translanguaging-integrated elicitation serves as a supportive mechanism to bridge gaps in understanding and encourage participation. In higher education, it functions as a cognitive tool to enhance analytical thinking, develop academic skills, and support complex reasoning.
Explaining
Explaining refers to “the provision of more detailed information or clarification by the teacher” (van de Pol et al., 2010, p. 277). In English language teaching, where learners often struggle to break down complex linguistic features, explaining becomes a crucial scaffolding strategy (van de Pol et al., 2010). Reviewed research shows teachers’ pedagogical translanguaging can entail the scaffolding strategy of explaining, leveraging multimodal and multilingual methods to enhance students’ English language understanding.
In the 1-12 context, Guo (2023) underscores an interaction in an EFL primary classroom where a teacher translanguages between English and Chinese to present a “mother and baby” metaphor, clarifying grammar rules related to “be” verbs. The teacher refers to the general “be” as the “mother,” and “am,” “is,” and “are” as its “babies.” Guo also illustrates that the teacher translanguages between English and Chinese to explain that when a word begin with a vowel sound, “the” should be pronounced as [ði] rather than [ðə]. Zhou (2023), a high school teacher uses a Mandarin translation, “三角墙,” and a chalk drawing as visual aids to clarify the meaning of the new word “gable.” Similarly, P. Wang (2022) illustrates that when the high school EFL teacher explains English vocabularies, she/he habitually provides students with Chinese equivalents for target terms, such as “status quo” (“现状”), to aid comprehension.
In higher education, translanguaging-integrated explaining shifts toward contrastive linguistic analysis and independent student engagement. R. Zhang and Chan (2022) describe how teachers use Chinese (students’ L2) to explain English imperative sentences and subject–verb agreement structures while providing comparable examples in Uyghur (students’ L1) and English (students’ L3). This translanguaging practice encourages students to break down English grammatical rules effectively. For vocabulary teaching, they also exemplify how teachers translanguage across languages to explain English words with similarities to students’ existing languages and to explain the usage of antonyms.
Chinese explanations usually are integrated when university teachers anticipate comprehension difficulties or wish to emphasize key points in English. For instance, Zuo and Walsh (2023) observe that after presenting English statements, teachers immediately provide Chinese explanations of their literal meanings, helping to enhance discourse flow and comprehension. Similarly, Q. Yang et al. (2023) demonstrate an EFL writing teacher incorporating Chinese translations of “autobiography” and “autoethnography” while primarily using English to explain these key concepts in writing. Y. Zhang and Jocuns (2022) depict a teacher explaining to students about summarizing and paraphrasing English reading materials, using both English and Chinese—particularly leveraging Chinese to emphasize critical points.
In summary, the translanguaging-integrated explaining strategy in 1-12 primarily focused on simplification, ensuring that students grasp foundational linguistic concepts through direct translations, metaphors, and visual aids. In contrast, higher education employs a more interactive and analytical explaining approach, where translanguaging is used to deepen understanding through contrastive analysis and discourse-level processing with complex linguistic structures.
Comprehension Check
Comprehension check is a strategy where teachers pose questions as informative assessments (Fisher & Frey, 2014) to ensure students have grasped taught information (Long, 1980; Lee, 2001). Reviewed studies highlight pedagogical translanguaging enriches the comprehension check strategy by allowing students to use their comfortable languages in demonstrating their understanding of key concepts.
In the context of 1–12 education, translanguaging-integrated comprehension check strategies are frequently observed in vocabulary instruction. A recurring pattern emerges in teachers’ translanguaging practices, where questions are formulated in a translanguaging manner (e.g., “How do you say something in Chinese/English?”) to check students’ understanding about the targeted vocabulary and direct students’ attention to the target language point. For example, Xia (2022) documents a classroom interaction where a teacher asks students, “What’s the meaning of the word ‘launching’?” while referring to the word in a reading passage, students respond with the Chinese equivalent “发射”of “launching,” demonstrating their understanding. Similarly, translanguaging-integrated comprehension checks extend beyond vocabulary meaning to pronunciation. Guo (2023) documents how the primary teachers use translanguaging to assess students’ understanding of the pronunciation of the letter combination “ar” and to monitor their level of engagement in learning.
In EFL university writing courses, R. Zhang and Chan (2022) describe a university classroom scenario where, following a lecture on the grammatical collocation of “be,” the instructor verifies comprehension by asking students to demonstrate the usage of English verbs like “be” (i.e., various forms of be) and underlying grammatical rules (e.g., subject-verb agreement) using their existing languages (e.g., Uyghur, Chinese). Similarly, Q. Yang et al. (2023) illustrate how a writing instructor allows students to clarify the differences between the new terms “autobiography” and “autoethnography” in their comfortable languages after the instructor elaborates on both new terms. Li and Wang (2024) describe the practice in which the teacher uses a bilingual questioning approach to assess the student’s understanding of word choice in an L2 writing task. The teacher alternates between English and Chinese to check whether “strong” can appropriately modify “development level,” prompting the student to reflect on their intended meaning.
In summary, in 1-12 education, translanguaging-integrated comprehension check strategies focus on reinforcing foundational vocabulary and pronunciation through direct, structured teacher-led questioning. In higher education, comprehension checks serve a more analytical and reflective function, helping students engage in contrastive analysis, refine their writing, and critically evaluate their language use.
Providing Feedback
According to Pentimonti and Justice (2010), the strategy of providing feedback involves teachers offering meaningful feedback on the student’s learning performance to extend their thinking. By using multiple languages, teachers can provide feedback from general (e.g., phrases) to specific (e.g., oral corrective feedback), enhancing students’ understanding of their performance.
In 1-12 setting, Greenier et al. (2023) illustrate that primary EFL teachers typically begin with general feedback in English, such as “well done,” “good job,” and “wonderful,” before offering detailed feedback in Chinese to deepen students’ comprehension of their learning performance. They further demonstrate that teachers encourage students to use the languages from their repertoire to provide peer feedback on content and activities in the primary classrooms. Translanguaging during peer feedback not only fosters critical thinking by enabling reflection on peers’ performance but also enhances student participation and collaboration. This approach creates more opportunities for students to serve as learning resources for each other through peer mediation. Similarly, Guo (2023) illustrates a case where a primary school teacher translanguages between English and Chinese to provide positive feedback when students struggle to express their thoughts due to unfamiliar English vocabulary. Jing and Kitis (2023) report that the primary school teacher uses multilingual utterances to provide form-focused feedback by elucidating how “month” should be turned into its plural form after the question “how many,” particularly when students hesitate to grasp the emphasis on the plural usage.
In EFL undergraduate instructions, Y. Wang and Li (2022) exemplify how teachers use pedagogical translanguaging to give specific feedback on Chinese EFL undergraduate students’ argumentative writing performance in oral corrective feedback. When scaffolding students in drafting argumentative writing, teachers utilize dynamic multilingual practices to provide metalinguistic cues, explicit corrections, and to recast linguistic features including textual coherence, sentence structure and grammar points. Similarly, Li and Wang (2024) demonstrate that the EFL university instructor provides multilingual oral corrective feedback as mediational tools to prompt students to correctly comprehend grammatical or syntactical rules and improve their logical expression during the process of drafting argumentative essays.
In summary, in 1-12 education, translanguaging-integrated feedback focuses on encouragement, comprehension, and peer collaboration, ensuring students grasp fundamental language concepts through direct explanations and multilingual languages. In contrast, higher education feedback is more analytical and writing-focused, using translanguaging to facilitate metalinguistic reflection, syntactical refinement, and self-regulated learning.
Re-presenting Text
According to Walqui (2006), the strategy of re-presenting text engages students in a variety of activities aimed at understanding English concepts by transitioning between different genres. Reviewed studies demonstrate that pedagogical translanguaging significantly enriches this strategy by incorporating multiple languages across sequenced activities. This holistic approach facilitates deeper understanding and proficiency in English, moving students from scaffolded support in their existing languages to confident production in English.
In high school EFL courses, P. Wang (2022) provides an example of how multilingual learners employ different languages (i.e., Uyghur, Chinese, English) at various stages of the learning process. Specifically, teachers motivate students to employ their languages to extract information from the Internet. Students then discuss the content in their comfortable languages, culminating in a written assignment in English. This multilingual approach supports students in navigating complex English concepts, fostering comprehension and enabling them to produce English output effectively.
In a university-level EFL course, Q. Yang et al. (2023) detail how translanguaging activities demonstrate this re-presenting strategy. Activities are structured in three phases: In the pre-comprehension phase, EFL students work in groups, using any language of their choice to discuss the content. During the comprehension phase, the students read the content in English, translate it into Chinese, and explain and raise questions in either language within their groups. The final stage, post-comprehension, involves an assessment of understanding primarily in English, facilitated by the teacher. This method allows students to represent their comprehension through a sequence of tasks while translanguaging between languages. Y. Zhang and Jocuns (2022) illuminate a teaching episode in which an EFL university teacher improves students’ L2 reading skills by building on L1 reading skills in a consecutive teaching and learning sequence. This sequence allows students to summarize a Chinese passage in Chinese, conduct a contrastive analysis of summarizing between English and Chinese, summarize an English passage in Chinese, and finally and summarize an English passage in English.
In summary, in 1-12 education, translanguaging-integrated representing text strategy serve as a scaffolding tool for comprehension and meaning-making, allowing students to use multiple languages fluidly before producing content in English. In contrast, in higher education, these strategies are more structured and analytical.
Developing Metacognition
According to Walqui (2006), effective instruction for language learners should promote their metacognition and learner autonomy “through the explicit teaching of strategies, plans of attack that enable learners to successfully approach academic task” (p. 176). Reviewed research shows that teachers’ pedagogical translanguaging practices incorporate scaffolding strategies that nurture students’ metacognitive and metalinguistic awareness. These strategies cultivate a metacognitive understanding of language and encourage reflection on language learning strategies by leveraging their existing linguistic resources.
Translanguaging-integrated metacognitive development strategies play a crucial role in fostering autonomous learning in language acquisition. In a primary classroom, Greenier et al. (2023) found that prompting students to write self-reflections in Chinese about what they had learned in English class served as a self-assessment, helping them develop metacognitive awareness and fostering autonomy in their language learning journey. In contrast, in higher education, students demonstrate autonomy by strategically using Chinese references, glossaries, and notes to localize themes, address linguistic complexities, and refine reading strategies. While initially guided by instructors, they gradually transition to independent learning, reinforcing both language proficiency and content comprehension (Y. Zhang & Jocuns, 2022).
Translanguaging practices also enhance students’ metalinguistic awareness (García & Li, 2014). Metalinguistic awareness, a key component of metacognition, involves the ability to reflect on and manipulate linguistic structures (Nagy & Anderson, 1995). Research indicates that Chinese EFL educators strategically develop students’ metalinguistic awareness by drawing comparisons between newly introduced English linguistic elements and those from the students’ existing languages. In 1-12, Xia (2022) illustrates the practice that teachers use Chinese pinyin to support English phonetic acquisition, while F. Wang and Ai (2024) show that teachers guide students in comparing East Asian and Western perspectives on nature to enrich English reading lessons on environmental protection. In higher education, R. Zhang and Chan (2022) highlight how instructors contrast similar-sounding English and Uyghur words with different meanings, as well as imperative sentence structures across languages. Similarly, Y. Zhang and Jocuns (2022) demonstrate the practice that university teachers guide students in applying Chinese summarizing strategies to process English texts through contrastive analysis.
To sum up, in 1-12 education, translanguaging-integrated metacognitive awareness strategies are teacher-guided and focus on structured reflection and foundational linguistic awareness. In higher education, translanguaging is applied strategically and independently, supporting contrastive analysis, reading refinement, and academic autonomy. This shift from teacher-led support to student-driven learning reflects the increasing cognitive demands and self-regulation expected at the university level.
Discussion
This study provides a systematic review of translanguaging practices in Chinese EFL classrooms through the lens of scaffolding strategies, highlighting how teachers utilize students’ multilingual and multi-semiotic resources to support language learning. The findings reveal that translanguaging serves as a dynamic scaffolding tool, integrating strategies such as modeling, schema building, eliciting, and metacognitive development to enhance comprehension and engagement. Additionally, this review examines variations in translanguaging scaffolding across 1-12 and higher education, demonstrating how these strategies adapt to different cognitive and linguistic demands.
Key Translanguaging-Integrated Scaffolding Strategies
In response to RQ 1: how specific scaffolding strategies are employed within pedagogical translanguaging practices in Chinese EFL classrooms, several key scaffolding strategies emerge from the pedagogical translanguaging practices in Chinese EFL classrooms.
Translanguaging-integrated modeling plays a foundational role, as teachers use multiple languages to provide comprehensive task instructions and examples, ensuring students fully grasp task requirements. Contextualizing enhances comprehension and engagement by integrating multimodal and multilingual scaffolding, such as visual aids, body languages, L1 and additional languages (Ln) support. Schema building facilitates connections between students’ prior linguistic and cultural knowledge, reinforcing their ability to apply existing knowledge to English learning. Eliciting actively engages students by multilingually prompting them to elaborate on their ideas using languages from their linguistic repertoire, while explaining strengthens understanding of complex linguistic structures through multilingual and multimodal explanations. Comprehension checks function as formative assessments, enabling teachers to gauge students’ understanding by prompting them to express concepts in their most comfortable language. Providing feedback further supports learning by transitioning from general reinforcement to specific multilingual corrections to enhance students’ awareness of their performance. Re-presenting text allows students to process English content through multiple linguistic resources before producing English output, deepening their engagement with academic discourse. Finally, developing metacognition through explicit strategy instruction, structured reflection, and contrastive analysis fosters learner autonomy, metalinguistic awareness, and academic literacy. By drawing on their full linguistic repertoire, students become more strategic and independent in regulating their learning. Together, these translanguaging-integrated scaffolding strategies form a supportive pedagogical framework that promotes comprehension, critical thinking, and language development in Chinese EFL classrooms.
Translanguaging-Integrated Scaffolding Strategies in 1-12 Education and Higher Education
In response to RQ2: How do the applications of specific translanguaging-integrated scaffolding strategies differ between 1-12 and higher education settings?, this review highlights significant variations in instructional focus, cognitive engagement, scaffolding structure, and learner autonomy across these educational levels.
In 1-12 education, translanguaging-integrated scaffolding is primarily teacher-led, emphasizing simplification, comprehension support, and foundational language development. Teachers use translanguaging as a scaffolding tool to clarify concepts, encourage participation, and build students’ linguistic confidence, ensuring accessibility to new content. In contrast, in higher education, translanguaging is employed more strategically, serving as a tool for critical thinking, contrastive linguistic analysis, and academic autonomy. Rather than relying on teacher-led scaffolding, university students are encouraged to engage actively in self-regulated learning, using translanguaging to analyze linguistic structures, navigate complex academic discourse, and refine their metacognitive awareness. This transition from teacher-driven to student-driven scaffolding reflects the increasing cognitive and linguistic demands of higher education, where translanguaging serves as a resource for deeper analytical engagement rather than just comprehension support.
Translanguaging as a Dynamic Pedagogical Approach in Chinese EFL Classrooms
Both code-switching and translanguaging are employed as strategies to facilitate language learning in Chinese EFL classrooms. All the reviewed articles in this study predominantly adopt a translanguaging perspective, embracing a heteroglossic approach that views language as a fluid, integrated resource rather than a set of separate linguistic systems. Translanguaging challenges the assumption of distinct language boundaries by treating full linguistic and semiotic resources—including L1, Ln, local dialects, English, multimodal expressions, and cultural knowledge—as an integrated meaning-making system. Rather than merely allowing language alternation, translanguaging actively leverages students’ entire linguistic repertoires to enhance comprehension, engagement, and cognitive flexibility.
Although Mandarin is the official language in education under national language policy (Y. Wang & Phillion, 2009), empirical research suggests that some teachers strategically mobilize a diverse range of linguistic and semiotic resources to enhance learning. These include students’ local dialects, national language and additional languages, multimodal expressions, cultural knowledge, and prosodic features such as Chinese intonation, all of which serve as scaffolding tools to support comprehension and engagement. For instance, R. Zhang and Chan (2022) describes a translanguaging practice in a Xinjiang EFL classroom where the teacher explains grammatical concepts in Mandarin while incorporating English and Uyghur to contextualize specific examples. This allows students to access their existing linguistic resources, bridging grammar understanding between languages. Similarly, Zhou (2023) highlights how teachers and students maneuver interchangeably between English, Mandarin, and Shanghainese —a regional Chinese dialect—during classroom discourse.
Beyond lexical choices, translanguaging also incorporates intonation, multimodal cues, and culturally embedded expressions to facilitate comprehension. Xia (2022) provides an example where a teacher translates a phrase into Chinese but modifies its prosody and structure to align with natural Chinese conversational patterns. By adding the modal particle “哎” (“ai”) with a rising tone—commonly used to initiate questions in Mandarin—the teacher enhances the interpretability of the translation, making it more intuitive for students. Xia highlights non-verbal cues such as pauses, gestures, and facial expressions are integrated into translanguaging-based instruction, reinforcing students’ comprehension beyond mere language switching. Jing and Kitis (2023) describe a lesson where a teacher explains the term “lion dance” by first showing a picture, using students’ L1 (“舞狮 ”), and physically mimicking the lion dance movements to aid conceptual understanding. This example illustrates that translanguaging is not merely about switching between languages but also about leveraging cultural knowledge and multimodal semiotics to scaffold meaning in a way that is linguistically, culturally, and cognitively accessible.
The extent to which translanguaging is implemented in Chinese EFL classrooms can be analyzed through the weak versus strong translanguaging (García & Lin, 2016). Weak translanguaging acknowledges national and institutional language boundaries while strategically incorporating L1 to support L2 learning. For instance, teachers may switch between Mandarin and English to clarify grammar rules, explain difficult vocabulary, or check comprehension. However, strong translanguaging challenges language boundaries entirely, viewing bilingual speakers as possessing a single, dynamic linguistic system (García & Li, 2014). Strong translanguaging not only includes linguistic alternation but also integrates semiotic resources such as gestures, cultural references, and visual aids to enhance meaning-making. Though some reviewed practices align with strong translanguaging, most teachers’ strategies still reflect a weak translanguaging approach, where linguistic boundaries are partially recognized but strategically blurred to enhance comprehension and optimize learning outcomes.
Strategic Integration of Spontaneous Translanguaging in Chinese EFL Classrooms
In Chinese EFL classrooms, translanguaging occurs in both structured pedagogical activities and spontaneous student interactions. Pedagogical translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017), involves planned and intentional instructional strategies designed to scaffold language learning. These include using Mandarin for grammar explanations, and multimodal resources such as gestures and visual aids to facilitate comprehension and engagement. At the same time, spontaneous translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017) frequently occurs when students naturally draw from their linguistic repertoire to communicate, clarify, or express ideas. Rather than treating these moments as off-task behaviors, educators can strategically integrate them into the class pedagogically as the teachable moment. For instance, Zhou (2023) describes an EFL classroom where a student, unable to find an appropriate term in English or Mandarin, introduces the Shanghainese word, which the teacher then incorporates into a multilingual discussion. Similarly, Xia (2022) highlights how teachers embrace students’ use of culturally embedded Chinese expressions and gestures to reinforce English vocabulary learning.
By bridging the gap between planned and spontaneous translanguaging, teachers create fluid, dynamic learning environments that not only support linguistic development but also foster confidence and agency in multilingual students. This strategic integration ensures that translanguaging moments serve as pedagogical tools, allowing students to navigate between languages flexibly and purposefully.
Multilayered Scaffolding Strategies in Translanguaging Tasks
When coding the data, reviewed articles indicate that multiple scaffolding strategies are often simultaneously involved in teachers’ translanguaging pedagogies to progressively enhance students’ learning in a multilayered manner. Taking R. Zhang and Chan (2022) as an example, multiple scaffolding strategies—schema building, elicitation, and metacognition—coexist to facilitate vocabulary learning. Instead of directly explaining the meaning of the English word “magazine,” the teacher encourages students to compare it with a similar-sounding word in their mother tongue (Uyghur: “magizin”), activating their prior linguistic knowledge and reinforcing schema building. At the same time, the teacher elicits student responses by prompting them to identify the relationship between the Uyghur and English words, engaging them in active meaning negotiation. This interactive approach fosters metacognitive awareness, as students reflect on how phonetic similarities between languages can sometimes correspond with meaning (as in “radio/radiyul”) but in other cases diverge (as in “magazine/magizin”). This underlines the effectiveness of deploying several scaffolding strategies within a single translanguaging task to achieve a more comprehensive teaching and learning goals.
Translanguaging Scaffolding in the Context of China’s EFL Education
The reviewed articles reflect the linguistic realities of Chinese EFL classrooms (Fang & Liu, 2020), where translanguaging naturally emerges as a scaffolding tool despite the prevailing monolingual English-immersion ideology. While maximum English exposure is often viewed as essential for developing proficiency (Krashen, 1985), the multilingual nature of Chinese classrooms necessitates translanguaging as a practical and pedagogical strategy. This review demonstrates that teachers integrate translanguaging to scaffold language learning effectively, employing specific scaffolding strategies to bridge the gap between English instruction and students’ existing linguistic knowledge.
Given China’s large-scale EFL education system, where English is a core subject from primary school to university (MoE, 2001; Bolton & Graddol, 2012), translanguaging scaffolding plays a critical role in adapting instruction to students’ diverse linguistic backgrounds. This study underscores the disconnect between monolingual assumptions (Hartshorne et al., 2018) and actual classroom practices, highlighting the importance of recognizing and formalizing translanguaging as a legitimate scaffolding approach in Chinese EFL education.
Limitations
This study is subject to several limitations that warrant consideration. First, a limitation of this study lies in the limited availability of prior research that explicitly examines translanguaging practices through the lens of scaffolding strategies. As such, our ability to draw direct comparisons with existing literature is constrained. Most existing studies tend to frame translanguaging in terms of its general pedagogical functions or learner outcomes, rather than situating it within the specific scaffolding strategies. This lack of precedent highlights both a gap in the literature and the exploratory nature of our analytical approach.
Second, the process of reclassifying translanguaging practices into specific scaffolding strategies may entail an inherent degree of interpretive judgment. While we took rigorous measures to ensure analytical reliability—including independent coding by both researchers, iterative discussions, and full consensus on all categorizations—the potential for subjectivity in qualitative analysis cannot be entirely eliminated. Although this collaborative coding process enhances the credibility of our findings, we acknowledge that the interpretive nature of reclassification may influence how specific classroom translanguaging practices are positioned within the scaffolding practices framework.
Third, we found that the thirteen selected journal articles predominantly feature observational research. According to Grieve (2021), “an observational approach to linguistics involves describing how language varies naturally—for example, across languages, dialects, registers, and speakers” (p. 1346). Observational studies, on the one hand, offer deeper insights into teacher-student and student-student dynamics by capturing social, pedagogical, and cultural norms in naturally occurring language classrooms (Loewen, 2018). On the other hand, they have limitations in controlling variables, making it difficult to establish cause-effect relationships or assess the impact of interventions (Grieve, 2021). Consequently, the findings of this review may limit the ability to draw definitive conclusions regarding the effectiveness of scaffolding strategies within pedagogical translanguaging practices.
Finally, the scope of this study is limited to the Chinese EFL context, which may not fully represent translanguaging pedagogies in other educational settings. The findings may not be directly generalizable to ESL (English as a Second Language), CLIL environments or multilingual classrooms where English is a dominant language. However, despite this contextual focus, the insights drawn from this study offer valuable implications for a wider range of educational contexts, including bilingual and multilingual learning environments. The study’s framework and findings on translanguaging-integrated scaffolding strategies can inform teaching practices beyond EFL, particularly in settings where language diversity and multimodal meaning-making play a central role in instruction.
Implications and Future Research
This study carries significant implications for both theoretical understandings, and teaching practices. Theoretically, our findings enrich the conceptualization of scaffolding strategies by examining them through the lens of translanguaging, which adds new meanings on traditional scaffolding approaches. While traditional scaffolding strategies are effective, they often operate within a monolingual framework. By incorporating translanguaging, these strategies become more responsive and relevant to the linguistic realities of bi/multilingual students (García & Sylvan, 2011). This adaptability is crucial in a dynamically evolving educational landscape (Pennycook, 2022), where understanding and addressing diverse linguistic backgrounds are increasingly essential. Also, the systematic categorization of scaffolding strategies within translanguaging pedagogy enhances our understanding of how these two frameworks interact and complement each other.
At the pedagogical level, this research offers valuable insights into teaching practices in both 1-12 and higher education contexts across diverse linguistic settings. As educators design translanguaging pedagogies in class teaching, they can consider how these pedagogies embody scaffolding strategies to achieve specific goals in language teaching and learning. The findings from our study can provide language teachers with a practical toolbox for designing lesson plans and learning activities using translanguaging-enriched scaffolding strategies. By adopting these strategies, educators can more effectively facilitate comprehension, foster engagement, and promote learner autonomy (Van Der Stuyf, 2002). Importantly, these strategies are pedagogically flexible and can be adapted to a wide range of instructional contexts and language policies. For instance, in regions with strict monolingual mandates—such as Singapore—teachers might implement scaffolding strategies like modeling, contextualizing, and explaining through multimodal means (e.g., images, gestures, or culturally relevant examples) while minimizing overt use of additional languages. In contrast, multilingual classrooms such as in Southeast Asia may allow more explicit incorporation of students’ home languages to support metacognitive development, collaborative learning and deeper conceptual understanding. This adaptability underscores the framework’s relevance to a broad range of educational settings, including EFL, ESL, CLIL, and bi/multilingual language programs.
Several promising avenues can be explored to further investigate the intersection of scaffolding strategies and pedagogical translanguaging. First, more empirical studies are needed to examine how teachers integrate scaffolding strategies within translanguaging pedagogy across diverse English learning contexts. By conducting classroom-based research, scholars can gain deeper insights into how translanguaging-integrated scaffolding is implemented in real-world instructional settings, uncovering effective techniques that support language acquisition and student engagement. Second, while the reviewed journal articles predominantly employ ethnographic case studies—using tools such as classroom observation, semi-structured interviews, and fieldnotes collected over periods ranging from one to four months—these methods, although valuable for generating thick, context-rich descriptions (W. Wang & Curdt-Christiansen, 2019; Wei, 2019), often lack a focus on evaluating the effectiveness of translanguaging in achieving specific scaffolding goals. Future research should incorporate mixed-methods or longitudinal designs to assess the impact of these strategies on measurable student outcomes, such as gains in language proficiency or disciplinary understanding. Third, researchers should broaden the geographical and sociolinguistic scope of inquiry. Investigating how translanguaging-informed scaffolding operates in EFL classrooms beyond China—such as in Southeast Asia and Latin America, where translanguaging research is expanding—can illuminate how educators adapt these strategies to different language policies, classroom norms, and learner demographics. By addressing these areas, future research can further refine the theoretical and practical applications of translanguaging-integrated scaffolding strategies, fostering more inclusive, adaptive, and effective language learning practices across diverse educational settings.
About the Authors
Ziyue Guo is a Ph.D. candidate in Applied Linguistics at the Faculty of Education, University of Western Ontario, Canada. She has taught EFL in China, ESL in the United States, and teacher education courses in Canadian higher education. Her research interests include translanguaging, language identity and ideology, and qualitative research methodologies. ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3119-6726.
Qiuhua Feng is a research assistant in the Faculty of Education at the University of Hong Kong. She has experience researching teacher education with the use of multimodality in Chinese EFL and Hong Kong EMI school contexts. Her main research interests include (1) Digital Multimodal Composing (DMC) and (2) English Language Teaching (ELT), and (3) Teacher Education. ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6267-7517.
To Cite this Article
Guo, Z. & Feng, Q. (2025). Exploring scaffolding strategies within pedagogical translanguaging in EFL classrooms. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 29(3). https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29115a3
References
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483. https://doi.org/10.2307/328585
Amerian, M., Ahmadian, M., & Mehri, E. (2014). Sociocultural Theory in Practice: The Effect of Teacher, Class, and Peer Scaffolding on the Writing Development of EFL Learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(5), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.5p.1
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Vol. 79). Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C., & Wright, W. (2018). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (6th ed.). Multilingual matters.
Beck, J. S. (1995). Cognitive Behavior Therapy: Basics and Beyond. Guilford Press.
Bolton, K., & Graddol, D. (2012). English in China today: The Current Popularity of English in China is Unprecedented, and has been Fuelled by the Recent Political and Social Development of Chinese Society. English Today, 28(3), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078412000223
Canagarajah, A. S. (2011). Codemeshing in Academic Writing: Identifying Teachable Strategies of Translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01207.x
Carrell, P. L. (1984). Schema Theory and ESL Reading: Classroom Implications and Applications. The Modern Language Journal, 68(4), 332-343. https://doi.org/10.2307/328181
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017). Minority Languages and Sustainable Translanguaging: Threat or Opportunity? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(10), 901-912. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1284855
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2021). Pedagogical Translanguaging. Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009029384
Cheung, K. C. C., & Yang, R. (2024). Translanguaging as Scaffolding in Chinese Writing Classrooms: Perceptions and Practices of Non-Cantonese-Speaking Students in Hong Kong Secondary Schools. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12674
China Daily. (2025). China’s national college entrance exam begins. www.chinadaily.com.cn. Retrieved June 19, 2025, from https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202506/07/WS6843eeb4a310a04af22c3bec.html
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8th Ed.). Routledge.
Cui, Y., & Pacheco, M. B. (2023). Meaning-making and Collaboration: Teacher Scaffolds within a Translanguaging Pedagogy. Journal of World Languages, 9(3), 371-399. https://doi.org/10.1515/jwl-2023-0021
Dahlberg, A. (2017). Translanguaging as a Scaffolding Structure in a Multilingual Group Studying English in Sweden [Bachelor’s dissertation, University of Gavle]. DiVA Theses Database.
DiCerbo, P. A., Anstrom, K. A., Baker, L. L., & Rivera, C. (2014). A Review of the Literature on Teaching Academic English to English Language Learners. Review of educational research, 84(3), 446-482. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314532695
Fajrin, M. F., Sunra, L., & Hasriani, G. (2024). Scaffolding in English Classroom: A Case Study on the Teaching of English Language to Eight-Year Students. EduLine: Journal of Education and Learning Innovation, 4(3),455–463. https://doi.org/10.35877/454RI.eduline3007
Fang, F., & Liu, Y. (2020). ‘Using all English is not Always Meaningful’: Stakeholders’ Perspectives on the Use of and Attitudes towards Translanguaging at a Chinese University. Lingua, 247, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102959
Feller, P. N. (2022). Translanguaging and Scaffolding as Pedagogical Strategies in a Primary Bilingual Classroom. Classroom Discourse 13(3), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2021.1954960
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Checking for Understanding: Formative Assessment Techniques for Your Classroom. ASCD. https://files.ascd.org/staticfiles/ascd/pdf/siteASCD/publications/books/checking-for-understanding-2nd-sample-chapters.pdf
Flores, N., & Schissel, J. L. (2014). Dynamic Bilingualism as the Norm: Envisioning a Heteroglossic Approach to Standards-based Reform. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 454-479. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.182
García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.
García, O., & Kleyn, T. (2016). Translanguaging with Multilingual Students: Learning from Classroom Moments. Routledge.
García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765
García, O., & Lin, A. (2016). Translanguaging and Bilingual Education. In O. García, A. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 117–130). Springer.
García, O., & Otheguy, R. (2018). Interrogating the Language Gap of Young Bilingual and Bidialectal Students. In E. J. Johnson (Ed.), Critical Perspectives of the Language Gap (pp.53–66). Routledge.
García, O., & Sylvan, C. E. (2011). Pedagogies and Practices in Multilingual Classrooms: Singularities in Pluralities. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01208.x
Gonulal, T., & Loewen, S. (2018). Scaffolding Technique. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0180
Goodman, B., & Tastanbek, S. (2020). Making the Shift from a Codeswitching to a Translanguaging Lens in English Language Teacher Education. TESOL Quarterly, 55(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.571
*Greenier, V., Liu, X., & Xiao, Y. (2023). Creative Translanguaging in Formative Assessment: Chinese Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices in the Primary EFL Classroom. Applied Linguistics Review 15(5), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2023-0085
Grieve, J. (2021). Observation, Experimentation, and Replication in Linguistics. Linguistics, 59(5), 1343-1356. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0094
*Guo, H. (2023). Chinese Primary School Students’ Translanguaging in EFL Classrooms: What is it and Why is It Needed? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00644-7
Hartshorne, J. K., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Pinker, S. (2018). A Critical Period for Second Language Acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 Million English Speakers. Cognition, 177(1), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.007
He, D., & Li, D. C. S. (2009). Language Attitudes and Linguistic Features in the “China English” Debate. World Englishes, 28(1), 70–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971x.2008.01570.x
*Jing, Y., & Kitis, E. D. (2023). Pedagogical Translanguaging in the Primary-school English-L2 Class: A Case-Study in the Chinese Context. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2173213
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implication. Longman.
Lee, L. (2001). Online Interaction: Negotiation of Meaning and Strategies used among Learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13(2), 232-244. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344001000829a
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Developing its Conceptualisation and Contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 655–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2012.718490
*Li, D., & Wang, Y. (2024). Translanguaging as a Mediational Tool in the Process of Feedback in Second Language Writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 47(1), 121-136. https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2024-0108
Lin, A. M., & He, P. (2017). Translanguaging as Dynamic Activity Flows in CLIL Classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 228-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2017.1328283
Lin, A. M. Y., Wu, Y., & Lemke, J. L. (2020). ‘It Takes a Village to Research a Village’:Conversations with Jay Lemke on Contemporary Issues in Translanguaging. In S. Lau and S. Van Viegen Stille (Eds.) (2020). Critical Plurilingual Pedagogies: Struggling toward Equity Rather than Equality (pp. 47-74). Springer.
Liu, Y. (2020). Translanguaging and Trans-semiotizing as Planned Systematic Scaffolding: Examining Feeling-meaning in CLIL Classrooms. English Teaching & Learning, 44(2), 149-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-020-00057-z
Loewen, S. (2018). Instructed Second Language Acquisition. In A. Phakiti, P. De Costa, L. Plonsky, S. Starfield (Eds). The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology. (pp. 663-680). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_29
Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In Winitz, H. (ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259-278.
Mahan, K. R. (2020). The Comprehending Teacher: Scaffolding in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). The Language Learning Journal, 50(1), 74-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1705879
McNeil, L. (2012). Using Talk to Scaffold Referential Questions for English Language Learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 396-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.005
Michell, M., & Sharpe, T. (2005). Collective Instructional Scaffolding in English as a Second Language Classrooms. Prospect, 20(1), 31-58.
Ministry of Education (MoE). (2001). 关于积极推进小学开设英语课程的指导意见 [Guidelines for Promoting English Language Instruction in Primary Schools]. Retrieved December 6, 2023, http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/s7054/200101/t20010120_166075.html
Moraczewska, A. (2024). Pedagogical Translanguaging for Epistemic Inclusion: Scaffolding Strategies in Bilingual Subject Instruction in Norway. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12661
Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1995). Metalinguistic Awareness and Literacy Acquisition in Different Languages. Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report; no. 618. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED391147.pdf
Ng, C. H., & Cheung, Y. L. (2018). Mediation in a Socio-cognitive Approach to Writing for Elementary Students: Instructional Scaffolding. Education Sciences, 8(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030092
Norris, J. A., & Hoffman, P. R. (1990). Language Intervention within Naturalistic Environments. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 21(2), 72-84. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461.2102.72
O’Connor, R. E., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vadasy, P. F. (2005). Ladders to Literacy. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Ortega, L. (2015). Research synthesis. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: A Practical Resource (pp. 225-244). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Pacheco, M. B., Kang, H. S., & Hurd, E. (2019). Scaffolds, Signs, and Bridges: Language Ideologies and Translanguaging in Student-Teaching Experiences. Bilingual Research Journal, 42(2), 194-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2019.1596179
Pennycook, A. (2022). Critical Applied Linguistics in the 2020s. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 19(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2022.2030232
Pentimonti, J. M., & Justice, L. M. (2010). Teachers’ use of Scaffolding Strategies During Read Alouds in the Preschool Classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 241-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-009-0348-6
Rajendram, S. (2023). Translanguaging as an Agentive Pedagogy for Multilingual Learners: Affordances and Constraints. International Journal of Multilingualism, 20(2), 595-622. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2021.1898619
Rezaee, A. A., Farahani, A. A. K., & Mubarak, L. A. (2018). Scaffolding and EFL Learners’ Use of Language Learning Strategies in the Iraqi Language Teaching Context. Teaching English Language, 12(2), 89-116. https://doi.org/10.22132/tel.2018.75382
Schall-Leckrone, L. (2022). Multimodality and Translanguaging as Scaffolding: Sense-Making in a Bilingual Kindergarten. In L. C. de Oliveira & R. Westerlund (Eds.), Scaffolding for Multilingual Learners in Elementary and Secondary Schools (pp. 134-146). Routledge.
Setyaningrum, R. W., Setiawan, S., & Anam, S. U. (2022). Translanguaging as a Scaffolded Practice in a Primary School Content and Language Integrated Learning Context During the COVID-19 Pandemic. European Journal of Educational Research, 11(4), 2043-2055. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.11.4.2043
Siegel, M. A., Menon, D., Sinha, S., Promyod, N., Wissehr, C., & Halverson, K. L. (2014). Equitable Written Assessments for English Language Learners: How Scaffolding Helps. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(6), 681-708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9392-1
Swanwick, R. (2016). 28 Scaffolding Learning Through Classroom Talk: The Role of Translanguaging. In M. Marschark & E. Patricia (Eds). The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies in Language (pp. 420-430). Oxford Library of Psychology.
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in Teacher–Student Interaction: A Decade of Research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
Van Der Stuyf, R. R. (2002). Scaffolding as a Teaching Strategy. Adolescent Learning and Development, 52(3), 5-18.
Veeramuthu, A., Veerappan, L., Suan, W. A., & Sulaiman, T. (2011). The Effect of Scaffolding Technique in Journal Writing Among Second Language Learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 934-940. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.4.934-940
Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its Implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701599465
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding Instruction for English Language Learners: A Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050608668639
*Wang, F., & Ai, B. (2024). Towards Necessities and Challenges of Implementing Translanguaging Pedagogy in Secondary EFL Education in China. Language Teaching Research, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241306
*Wang, P. (2022). Relooking at the Roles of Translanguaging in English as a Foreign Language Classes for Multilingual Learners: Practices and Implications. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 850649. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.850649
Wang, W., & Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2019). Translanguaging in a Chinese–English Bilingual Education Programme: A University-classroom Ethnography. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(3), 322-337. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1526254
*Wang, Y., & Li, D. (2022). Translanguaging Pedagogy in Tutor’s Oral Corrective Feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ Argumentative Writing. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language eEducation, 7(33), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00170-5
Wang, Y., & Phillion, J. (2009). Minority Language Policy and Practice in China: The Need for Multicultural Education. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 11(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v11i1.138
Wei, L. (2019). Ethnography: Origins, Features, Account Ability, and Criticality. In J. Mckinley & R. Heath (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. (pp. 154-164). Routledge.
Wei, R., & Su, J. (2012). The Statistics of English in China: An Analysis of the Best Available Data from Government Sources. English Today, 28(3), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078412000235
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Wright, B. M. (2016). Display and Referential Questions: Effects on Student Responses. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 15(4), 160-189. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.388
*Xia, L. (2022). Translanguaging as a Pedagogical Practice in a Chinese EFL Classroom. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 31, 109-137.
Yang, C. C. R. (2010). Teacher Questions in Second Language Classrooms: An Investigation of Three Case Studies. Asian EFL Journal, 12(1), 181-201.
*Yang, Q., Yang, S., & Shi, W. (2023). Translanguaging Pedagogies in EFL Writing Education. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.58304/ijts.20230105
*Zhang, R., & Chan, B. H.-S. (2022). Pedagogical Translanguaging in a Trilingual Context: The Case of Two EFL Classrooms in a Xinjiang University. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(8), 2805–2816. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2021.1978383
*Zhang, Y., & Jocuns, A. (2022). From Natural Translanguaging to Planned Translanguaging: Developing Classroom Translanguaging as Pedagogy in a Private University in China. Arab World English Journal, 13(1), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol13no1.20
*Zhou, X. (2023). Engaging in Pedagogical Translanguaging in a Shanghai EFL High School Class. ELT Journal, 77(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccab054
*Zuo, M., & Walsh, S. (2023). Translation in EFL Teacher Talk in Chinese Universities: A Translanguaging Perspective. Classroom Discourse, 14(2), 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2021.1960873
| Copyright of articles rests with the authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately. Editor’s Note: The HTML version contains no page numbers. Please use the PDF version of this article for citations. |