International Journal of Human Research and Social Science Studies

This study determined the perceptions of Technical-Vocational (Tech-Voc) instructors and students regarding the beneficiality of translanguaging in classroom instruction across the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains. A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was employed, consisting of a descriptive survey followed by focus group discussions (FGDs) to validate and explain the quantitative findings. The participants included 50 Tech-Voc instructors and 1,156 students enrolled in the Bachelor in Automotive Technology and Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology programs. Quantitative data were analyzed using frequency counts, while qualitative data were examined through thematic analysis. Results revealed that instructors overwhelmingly perceived translanguaging as highly beneficial, with 100% strongly agreeing that it enhances students’ reasoning skills, decision-making, active participation in practical activities, enjoyment of learning, and attentiveness during class discussions. Similarly, students reported highly positive perceptions, particularly in learning independently (f = 1,138), comprehending concepts and facts (f = 1,121), reflecting on their learning (f = 1,106), measuring and weighing materials accurately (f = 1,039), and finding learning natural and interesting (f = 1,071). Qualitative findings generated five themes: enhanced comprehension of technical concepts, improved critical thinking and problem-solving skills, greater participation and performance in practical tasks, increased confidence and classroom engagement, and affirmation of linguistic and cultural identity. The study concludes that translanguaging is an effective pedagogical strategy that supports holistic learner development and promotes a more inclusive, engaging, and meaningful learning environment in Tech-Voc classrooms.

classroom engagement, learner development, multilingual instruction, technical-vocational education, translanguaging

1. Bernardo, A. S. (2022). Language Teaching: Development, Structure, and Sociology of English in the Philippines. In Philippine English (1st ed., pp. 283–296). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429427824-29
2. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
3. Bravo-Sotelo, K. P. (2020). Exploring the Tagalog-English Code-Switching types used for mathematics classroom instruction. IAFOR Journal of Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.8.1.03
4. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2(2011), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110239331.1
5. Carstens, A. (2016). Translanguaging as a vehicle for L2 acquisition and L1 development: students’ perceptions. Language Matters, 47(2), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10228195.2016.1153135
6. Cummins, J. (2019). The Emergence of Translanguaging Pedagogy: A Dialogue between Theory and Practice. Fordham Research Commons. https://fordham.bepress.com/jmer/vol9/iss1/13
7. Dahalan, F., Alias, N., & Shaharom, M. S. N. (2023). Gamification and Game Based Learning for Vocational Education and Training: A Systematic Literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 29(2), 1279–1317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11548-w
8. Dixon, K., & Peake, K. (2008). “Straight for English”: Using school language policy to resist multilingualism. Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham), 7(1), 73–90. https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/27087237
9. Dobinson, T., Dryden, S., Dovchin, S., Gong, Q., & Mercieca, P. (2023). Translanguaging and “English only” at universities. TESOL Quarterly, 58(1), 307–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3232
10. Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2018). What teachers need to know about language. In Channel View Publications eBooks (pp. 8–51). https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.22730499.5
11. Jewitt, C. (2014). The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis (2nd Edition). In Routledge eBooks. http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/18336/
12. Kani, Z. G., & İğsen, H. (2022). Bilingual English teachers’ perspectives on “English-only” policies in an EFL setting. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 17(1), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2022.248.7
13. Kurtz, S., Silverman, J., Draper, J., Van Dalen, J., & Platt, F. W. (2017). Teaching and learning communication skills in medicine. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315378398
14. Lin, S. H., & Leung, A. H. (2023). ESL classroom interactions in a translanguaging space. Applied Linguistics Review, 15(6), 2397–2425. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0202
15. MacSwan, J. (2022). Multilingual Perspectives on Translanguaging. In Multilingual Matters eBooks. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800415690
16. Miller, K. (2020). Effectively enabling translanguaging in the classroom. Digital Commons - Hamline (Hamline University). https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_cp/515
17. Morell, T. (2018). Multimodal competence and effective interactive lecturing. System, 77, 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.12.006
18. Munirah, M., Thaba, A., & Yusuf, A. B. (2021). Translanguaging in the communicative practice of buyers and sellers in traditional market. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v11i2.36029
19. Purwati, D., Fathirma’ruf, F., Lakehu, A., & Taufik, T. (2024). Investigating Indonesian EFL preservice teachers’ digital technological awareness and their challenges in EFL learning: A case study. Journal on English as a Foreign Language, 14(1), 152–178. https://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v14i1.7625
20. Rivera, A. J., & Mazak, C. M. (2017). Analyzing student perceptions on translanguaging: A case study of a Puerto Rican University classroom. HOW, 24(1), 122–138. https://doi.org/10.19183/how.24.1.312
21. Tarrayo, V. N., Hernandez, P. J. S., & Claustro, J. M. a. S. (2019). Teachers and research practices: Perspectives from English language educators in a Philippine university. ˜the œAustralian Journal of Teacher Education, 45(12), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.202v45n12.5
22. Tupas, R. (2014). Inequalities of multilingualism: challenges to mother tongue-based multilingual education. Language and Education, 29(2), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2014.977295
23. Van Leeuwen, T. (2014). Critical discourse analysis and multimodality. University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark), 281–297. https://portal.findresearcher.sdu.dk/da/publications/d69047b5-f9e9-4b59-bb0a-a80f11546d70
24. Velasco, P., & García, O. (2014). Translanguaging and the writing of bilingual learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 37(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2014.893270
25. Wildeman, E., Koopman, M., & Beijaard, D. (2022). Fostering subject teachers’ integrated language teaching in technical vocational education: Results of a professional development program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 112, 103626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103626
26. Yildiz, Y., & Celik, B. (2020). The use of scaffolding techniques in language learning: Extending the level of understanding. International Journal of Social Sciences and Educational Studies, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v7i3p148