International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation (IJLLT)

ISSN: 2617-0299 (Online); ISSN: 2708-0099 (Print)

DOI: 10.32996/ijllt
Journal Homepage: www.al-kindipublisher.com/index.php/ijllt

Translanguaging in Multilingual English Language Teaching in the Philippines: A

Systematic Literature Review
Tranie Balderrama Gatil
Post Graduate Student, Graduate School, Samar State University, Catbalogan City, Samar, Philippines
Corresponding Author: Tranie Balderrama Gatil, E-mail: [email protected]

ARTICLE INFORMATION ABSTRACT

Received: November 14, 2020 The debate on language preference in English language teaching in a multilingual
Accepted: January 08, 2021 setting has stirred the traditional monolingual “English Only Policy” in the Philippines.
Volume: 4 As a result, the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) was
Issue: 1 institutionalized in 2009. The question still lies as to the multilingual teaching
DOI: 10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.1.6 practices employed in the Philippine schools. This study was conducted in order to
review the translanguaging strategies of teachers in teaching English in the
KEYWORDS Philippines. It utilized the qualitative approach using systematic literature review. 14
papers were initially examined using 4 inclusion and exclusion criteria. 7 papers have
Translanguaging, systematic qualified and selected as samples. The findings of the literature review showed that:
literature review, Multilingualism 1.) Both natural and official translanguaging are employed in ELT and 2.)
Translanguaging bridges the linguistic gap of learner’s L1, L2 and the target language,
which in common in a linguistically diverse country such the Philippines. Future
researches may look at building a theoretical framework of translanguaging as a
language teaching pedagogy in mainstream education.

1. Introduction 1
In which medium should the English language be taught? Does allowing students to use their first language negatively affect
language learning? How is multilingualism applied in the Philippine education setting? How does multilingualism affect
language learning?

There is a strong reason to challenge the rigid monolingual ‘English Only Please’ policy in English as second language
classrooms – with both academic and psychological implications. A multilingual English language classroom facilitates
contextualized, interactive, inclusive, and positive learning experience in ESL learners. Teaching in a student's second language,
rather than their mother tongue, has been linked to educational under-achievement, poor literacy development and high
dropout rates (eg. Benson, 2005b; Lewis & Lockheed, 2006; Pinnock, 2009; Rosenthal, Baker, & Ginsburg, 1983).

Aside from underachievement, globalization, mobility, and a variety of other factors pushed today’s classroom to move towards
embracing linguistic diversity. A body of research has studied the ways that teachers and schools adapt to their increasingly
multilingual and multicultural student bodies (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010; Garcia & Sylvan, 2011; Janzen, 2008; Lucas, Villegas, &
Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008) and the ways teachers can make use of the students’ mother tongue – its linguistic and cultural
resources to heighten learning (Catalano, Kiramba & Viesca, 2020).

The Philippines, with its 180 languages and counting is a country of cultural and linguistic diversity (Lewis, Simons, & Fennig,
2013, p. 25). It is not appalling to observe students to have a minimum of two languages to switch to and fro, excluding the
target language – mother tongue and Filipino. We Filipinos are exposed daily to a multitude of languages. We are exposed to
the local dialect in our community, to Filipino in television and in most digital media, and English in the classroom setting.
Learning a second language should not leave out the vast linguistic asset of the students’ L1. Experts highly support this
incorporation of languages in learning English (Cook, 2001 and 2005; Creese and Blackledge, 2010; Macaro, 2005). When

Published by Al-Kindi Center for Research and Development. Copyright (c)

the author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license

Page | 52
 IJLLT 4(1):52-57

students enter the classroom, they bring with them this rich linguistic repertoire of their mother tongues and strategically use
them in acquiring and learning a second or third language (Carroll and Morales 2016).

The inclusion of students’ L1 means that literacy and content can be taught meaningfully from day one, and that this knowledge
can then be transferred across into the L2, according to Cummins’ (1979) interdependence theory. Studies by Thomas and Collier
(1997; 2002) support this assertion reporting that “only those language minority students who had 5-6 years of strong cognitive
and academic development in their L1— as well as through L2— did well in Grade 11 assessments”. Furthermore, Thomas and
Collier (1997; 2002) showed that language development, fluency and literacy in both L1 and L2 is developed, despite lesser
exclusive L2 use. This agrees with Krashen’s (1981) linguistic theory on acquisition, which holds that “language acquisition, first or
second, occurs when comprehension of real messages occurs, and when the acquirer is not 'on the defensive’.

Aside from educational benefits, significant behavioral and affective effects were observed from multilingualism. These include
increased participation and teacher-student interaction (eg. Baker, 2001; Benson, 2006), increased self-esteem and confidence in
students (eg. Dutcher, 1995; UNESCO, 2006), and greater involvement and support on the part of parents and communities
(Dutcher, 2004). These positive effects of multilingualism on the behavioral aspect leverage positive scholastic performances of
students in English language learning.

Teachers might ask themselves, “what is the best way to teach English with full use of student’s L1 and L2?” An approach that is
becoming popular on the multilingual English teaching is called translanguaging. Otheguy, Garcia, and Reid (2015) defines
translanguaging as “the deployment of a speaker’s full linguistic repertoire without regard for watchful adherence to the socially
and politically defined boundaries of named (and usually national and state) languages,” (p. 281). It is important to consider the
use of translanguaging in the classroom. If ESL learners feel demotivated and left out in a rigid monolingual classroom, it is just
right to find alternatives that will not marginalize learners.

While MTB-MLE imposes the inclusion of regional dialects as medium of instruction for primary grade teaching, translanguaging
is a pedagogical practice which allows students to switch languages in completing an activity or during an interaction (Williams,
2002).

1.1. MTB-MLE Implementation in the Philippines

The Philippine Department of Education institutionalized Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education in 2009. This was a huge
step in acknowledging the learners’ L1 in early childhood or primary education. The MTB-MLE officially included 12 local
languages which are Tagalog, Kapampangan, Pangasinense, Iloko, Bikol, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Waray, Tausug, Maguindanaoan,
Maranao, and Chabacano to leverage primary education. This has seen positive impacts considering the criticisms of mono- and
bilingual education practiced before.

Bilingualism is nothing new in the Philippine education. Bilingual Education Program has been established since 1974. It
institutionalized the use of both English and Filipino in English. Indeed, Filipino is the national language of the Philippines and
the lingua franca throughout the archipelago, regional dialects remain the mother tongue of more than half of the population.

It is a slap to other languages that, with this rich linguistic resource, the secondary education still adheres to monolingualism. If
you are at school, passing through the corridors and in the hallways, you can read a lot of the dominant language in signs,
posters, announcements, etc. This is what constitutes the linguistic landscape (Landry and Bourhis, 1997). We can readily assert
that English reigns supreme as the official language in education.

Albeit, MTB-MLE is not the legal backbone of multilingual secondary-level ESL classroom. the 2012 MTB-MLE policy (Department
of Education, 2012) resembles BEP, especially where teaching and learning of languages are concerned: English and Filipino
should be taught in English and Filipino, However, students’ mother tongues are considered as auxiliary languages essential in
learning English. DEPED explicitly enforces English as the medium of instruction in the country as Secondary level students are
expected to speak and understand basic English. Still, on lived experiences, English teachers are considerate enough to make use
of students’ L1 in the English classroom.

Skutnabb-Kangas (1990) coined the term “submersion” to describe a child made to study a language apart from his mother
tongue (p. 105). Submersion in education affects both the quality and inclusivity of education programs. In the formal instruction
setting, students tend to shy away from interaction due to discomfort in using the target, which is imposed as the exclusive
language in the classroom.

Page | 53
Translanguaging in Multilingual English Language Teaching in the Philippines: A Systematic Literature Review

A pool of researchers mentioned that students whose home/mother tongue is not used inside the classroom generally have
lower levels of achievement and attainment relative to their peers (Bamgbose, 2004; Lewis & Lockheed, 2006; Rong &Grant,
1992; Rosenthal, et al., 1983). These students may acquire the grammatical competence but are likely to fail in communicative
competence.

1.2. Translanguaging
Hornberger & Link (2012) describes this as a widely recognized practice across educational context in an increasing globalized
world, was first used in Welsh by Cen William (Garcia, 2009). Williams (2002) defines translanguaging as pedagogical practices
where students hear or read a lesson, a passage in a book, or a section of text in one language and develop their work in
another (P.342). In other words, translanguaging allows students to shift from one language to another as they do reading (a
receptive activity) and writing (a productive activity) in existing researches. Translanguaging is comparable in code switching
inside the classroom. Students are given the leeway to switch L1, L2, and L3 during interactions inside the classroom.

In context, translanguaging allows ‘language learning and language use work together. People learn the language as they use
them. They decode the other’s grammar as they interact, make inferences about the other’s language system, and take them into
account as they formulate their own utterances’ (Camagarajah & Wurr, 2011). This could be observed among learners of
linguistic background (Waray, Cebuano, Tagalog, and English). These students eventually pick up linguistic codes from these
different languages through casual and meaningful interaction, and occasionally mixing some features from each other. This
solidifies that language may not be observed, but it already constantly developing as multilinguals utilize them in discourse.
Reyes (2018) demonstrated translanguaging in multilingual 3rd grades in Mindanao as crucial in ESL classroom. Through
translanguaging, the teacher-participants were able presenting the lesson (Khosa, 2012), conducting class discussions (Wang
2005), and managing learners’ behaviors (Macaro, 1997; Břenková, 2007).

Reyes (2018) concludes that it is through nuanced understanding and purposeful accommodation of learners’ languages and
language practices that the translanguaging can help multilingual learners play active roles in ESL classroom, primarily in
fulfilling their communicative functions that are helpful in learning English, which is indispensible to succeed in today’s highly
globalized world.

1.3. Statement of the Problem

With the mentioned implications, this paper aimed to review and examine multilingual practices, particularly translanguaging
strategies, in the English language classrooms in the Philippines. Specifically, this review was employed with the question:
1. What are the translanguaging practices of teachers in English language teaching in the Philippines ?

2. Methodology
This study employed the qualitative approach using the systematic literature review (SLR) which was conducted to “identify,
select and critically appraise research to answer a clearly formulated question” (Dewey & Drahota, 2016).The existing material
surveyed directly in this review was gathered and selected with the following inclusion and exclusion criteria: 1. Literature and
studies shall be exclusive from the implementation of MTB-MLE in 2009 up to the present; 2. Literature and studies are focused
on multilingual practices in Basic and Higher Education; 3. Literature and studies are conducted among English language learners
and teachers and; 4. Literature and studies conducted in the Philippines. Of the 14 initial related literature, 7 have qualified under
the criteria above. All studies were carefully reviewed and analyzed to pull relevant themes regarding the translanguaging
strategies of teachers in teaching English in the Philippines.

3. Results and Discussion

Author/s Title of Study Findings Recommendation
Lartec, et. al. (2014) Strategies and Teachers used translation of the Increase administrators and
problems encountered by TL to the mother tongue, teachers’ awareness and
teachers implementing mother multilingual teaching, and lingua improving MTB-MLE policy
tongue-based instruction in franca in instruction. “These in a multicultural and multilingual
a multilingual classroom innovative strategies help the setting.
students attain maximum
learning and build firm
foundations, valuing and
developing oral and written skills
that children bring to school
without rushing literacy.”
Reyes (2018) Translanguaging in multilingual Translanguaging is crucial in Consideration of learner’s
Page | 54
 IJLLT 4(1):52-57

third grade ESL classrooms in mediating the communicative contexts in teaching and learning
Mindanao, Philippines functions. “Through of English to facilitate learner’s
translanguaging, the teacher- active roles in learning.
participants were able to present
their lessons, conduct classroom
discussions, enhance students’
understanding, and manage
students’ behaviors more
effectively and efficiently; and the
student-participants, in turn, were
able to participate in classroom
discussions and demonstrate
their knowledge and
understanding substantially.”
Parba (2018) Teacher’s shifting ideologies and Both teachers and students use Engagement of pre- and in-
teaching practices in Philippine translanguaging in order to service teachers to MTB-MLE
mother tongue classrooms negotiate and resist language seminars and ideological
standardization and idealization conversations on multilingual
as a result of MTB-MLE education.
implementation.
Lopez, Coady & Grail (2019) Rural indigenous experiences in Students in the rural area lacks Establishing of bridging practice
mother tongue education in the access to educational in transitioning from mother
Philippines: counter-stories of opportunities to learn English tongue to L2 (Filipino) and L3
resistance compared to mainstream (English).
students.
Teachers constantly adjust
teaching practices by
incorporating Engliush with
mother tongue and employing
literal translations.
Harder, Sowa, & Punjabi (2019) Language Usage Study in Bahasa More teachers were comfortable Bringing in volunteers from the
Sug, Chavacano, Magindanawn, in speaker the school mother community who speak the MT to
and Meranaw Mother Tongue tongue than the individual support the teacher.
Schools Findings Report mother tongues of the learners. Class sectioning according to the
Lack of TLMs for other MTs mother tongue spoken.
(Meranaw, Nahasa Sug, and
Magindanawn)
Perfecto (2020) English language teaching and Teachers used various
bridging in mother tongue-based translanguaging strategies luke
multilingual education direct translation, code-switching,
metalinguistic comparison-
contrast and metalinguistic
explanation.
Belvis & Guttierez (2019) Amorphous language as The article argued that The paper proposed
alternative model for multilingual amorphous language model can amorphous language as an
education in the account for language practices of alternative model to serial
Philippines. Cogent Education a multilingual classroom. monolingualism and contributes
to the theorisation of
translanguaging as a tactic in a
language classroom.

In this systematic review, two thematic points were taken – Mother tongue-based multilingual education and translanguaging in
English language teaching. The implementation of MTB-MLE as a medium of instruction in the Philippines opened
translanguaging practices as the translated strategy in utilizing students’ mother tongues, L2, and L3 simultaneously in classroom
interaction, either planned or spontaneous. Majority of the studies found translanguaging as a vital strategy in successful MTB-
MLE. Translanguaging is crucial in mediating the communicative functions (Reyes, 2018). Perfecto (2020) further identifies
translanguaging strategies that allow for more efficient teaching and learning and more active participation from the students in
the language learning activities. Belvis and Gutierrez (2019) even proposes the amorphous language as alternative model which
seeks to theorize translanguaging as a tactic in the language classroom. Lartec, et. Al. (2014), Lopez, Coady, & Grail (2019), and
Harden, Sowa & Punjabi (2019) found similar problems in the implementation of mother-tongue in the Philippines – lack of

Page | 55
Translanguaging in Multilingual English Language Teaching in the Philippines: A Systematic Literature Review

mother-tongue teaching and learning material and lack of teacher training as the major hurdles in implementing MTB-MLE in
the classroom.
To sum up, based on the literature review presented here, the MTB-MLE as a medium of instruction offshoots translanguaging as
the strategy in implementation in the multilingual classroom. Academically, MTB-MLE rakes in positive effects especially in
negotiation of meaning, fostering student-teacher interaction, embracing diversity, and in slowly removing the stigma of serial
monolingualism.

4. Conclusion
This paper reviewed how multilingualism is exercised in the English language classrooms – though translanguaging. The paper
found natural and official translanguaging as commonly used practices in multilingual English language teaching. Natural
translanguaging occurs spontaneously during classroom interactions in order to enhance understanding and participation while
official translanguaging happens in a designed activity where teachers allow for use of L1, L2, and L3 to complete the task
(Williams, 2012). According to Garcia and Wei (2014, p. 227), ‘adopting a translanguaging lens means that there can be no way
of educating children inclusively without recognizing their diverse language and meaning-making practices as a resource to
learn’. Translanguaging is necessary in bridging the linguistic gap of learner’s L1, L2 and the target language – which is a staple
in a linguistically diverse country such as Philippines. Translanguaging greatly aids in presenting the lesson (Khosa, 2012),
conducting class discussions (Wang 2005), and managing learners’ behaviors (Macaro, 1997; Břenková, 2007). The existing
literature and studies reviewed focused mostly on translanguaging in mother-tongue based classrooms which is in kinder to G3
level and secondary level, missing out on higher education translanguaging practices. Translanguaging, as reviewed in the
literature and studies is seen as a support to avoid disruptions in learning momentum during classroom discussion.
Translanguaging in the language classrooms is growing in practice but needs to be established as a teaching pedagogy. Further
research may look at translanguaging practices in higher education and building a theoretical framework of translanguaging as a
language teaching pedagogy in mainstream education in the Philippine context.

References
[1] Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (3rd ed.). Multilingual Matters
[2] Bamgbose, A. (2004). Sauce for the Goose, Sauce for the Gander: Why an African Child Should be Taught in an African Language. In J.
Pfaffe (Ed.), Making Multilingual Education a Reality for All (pp. 18-36). Zomba, Malawi: University of Malawi, Centre for Language
Studies
[3] Belvis, C., Morauda-Gutierrez, M. R., & Lin, T. B. (2019). Amorphous language as alternative model for multilingual education in the
Philippines. Cogent Education, 6(1). DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2019.1695998
[4] Benson, C. (2005b). Girls, educational equity and mother tongue. Bangkok: UNESCO.
[5] Benson, C. (2006). Language, education and (dis)empowerment – The important role of local languages in educational development. In L.
Dahlström & J. Mannberg (Eds.), Critical Educational Visions and Practices in neo-liberal times. Global South Network Publisher.
[6] Břenková, R. (2007). Teachers’ usage of the mother tongue versus English at the level of young learners (Unpublished master’s thesis).
Masaryk University, Brno.
[7] Canagarajah, S., & Wurr, A. (2011). Multilingual communication and language acquisition: New research directions. The Reading Matrix,
11(1), 1-15.
[8] Catalano, T., Kiramba, L. K., Viesca, K. M. (2020). Transformative interviewing and the experiences of multilingual learners not labeled “ELL” in
US schools. Bilingual Research Journal. DOI: 10.1080/152335882.2020.1738287.
[9] Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? Modern Language
Journal, 94(i), 103
[10] Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research,
49(2), 222-251.
[11] Department of Education. (2009). Order No. 74, s. 2009. Institutionalizing mother tongue-based multilingual education (MLE). Retrieved
from http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/DO%20No.%2074,%20s%202009.pdf
[12] Duarte, J. (2018). Translanguaging in the context of mainstream multilingual education. International Journal of Multilingualism. DOI:
10:1080/14790718.2018.1512607
[13] Dutcher, N. (1995). The use of first and second languages in education. A review of international experience Pacific Island Discussion Paper
Series No.1. World Bank.
[14] Dutcher, N. (2004). Expanding educational opportunity in linguistically diverse societies (2nd ed.)
[15] Filmore, N. (2014). Mother-Tongue Based Multilingual Education Policy and Implementation in the Philippines: A Grounded Theory Case
Study Retrieved from: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18044.39043
[16] García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective.
[17] García, O., & Sylvan, C. E. (2011). Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms: Singularities in pluralities. The Modern Language
Journal, 95(3), 385-400. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41262374
[18] García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging, bilingualism, and bilingual education. In W. Wright, S. Boun, & O. García (Eds.), The handbook
of bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 223–240).

Page | 56
 IJLLT 4(1):52-57

[19] Harden, K., Sowa, P. & Punjabi, M. (2019). Language Usage Study in Bahasa Sug, Chavacano, Magindanawn, and Meranaw Mother Tongue
Schools Findings Report. USAID.
[20] Hornberger, N. H., & Link, H. (2012). Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual classrooms: A biliteracy lens. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 261–278.
[21] Kamwangamalu, N. (2010). Multilingualism and codeswitching in education. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and
language education (pp. 116–142).
[22] Khosa, M. (2012). Mother tongue education: A case study of grade three children (Unpublished master’s thesis).
[23] Krashen, S. D. (1981). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.
[24] Landry, R. & Bourhis, R. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An impirical study. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology. DOI: 10.1177/0261927X970161002.
[25] Lartec, L., Belisario A., Bendanillo, J., Binas-o, H., Bucang, N., Cammangay, J.L. (2014). Strategies and problems encountered by teachers
implementing mother tongue-based instruction in a multilingual classroom. The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning. Vol. 1. Winter
2014.
[26] Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research
and Evaluation, 18(7), 641-654.
[27] Lewis, M., & Lockheed, M. (2006). Inexcusable Absence: Why 60 Million Girls Still Aren’t in School and What to do About it.
[28] Lewis, M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2013). Ethnologue: Languages of the World (Seventeenth ed.).
[29] Li, W. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of
Pragmatics, 43,1222-1235.
[30] Lopez, M. P., Coady, M. & Grail A. (2019). Rural indigenous experiences in mother tongue education in the Philippines: counter-stories of
resistance. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies.
[31] Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy.
[32] Otheguy, R., Garcia, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics.
Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307.
[33] Parba, J. (2018). Teacher’s shifting ideologies and teaching practices in Philippine mother tongue classrooms.
[34] Perfecto, M. R. (2020). English language teaching and bridging in mother tongue-based multilingual education. DOI:
10.1080/14790718.2020.1716771.
[35] Pinnock, H. (2009). Language and education, the missing link: How the language used in schools threatens the achievement of Education for
All: Save the Children and the CfBT Education Trust.
[36] Probyn, M. (2015). Pedagogical translanguaging: bridging discourses in South African science classrooms.
[37] Reyes, R. (2018). Translanguaging in multilingual third grade ESL classrooms in Mindanao, Philippines. International Journal of
Multilingualism. DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2018.1472268.
[38] Rosenthal, A. S., Baker, K., & Ginsburg, A. (1983). The Effect of Language Background on Achievement Level and Learning Among
Elementary School Students. Sociology of Education, 56 (4), 157 - 169.
[39] Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1990). Language, Literacy and Minorities.
[40] Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students.
[41] Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students' long-term academic
achievement. Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.
[42] Tupas, R. & Lorente, B. (2014). A ‘New’ Politics of Language in the Philippines: Bilingual Education and the New Challenge of the Mother
Tongues. DOI: 10.1057/9781137455536_9.
[43] UNESCO. (2006). Challenges of implementing free primary education in Kenya: Assessment report.Nairobi: UNESCO.
[44] Wang, J. (2005). Mother tongue in the English language classroom: A case of one school. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 2(4), 17-39.
[45] Williams, C. (2002). Ennill iaith: Astudiaeth o sefyllfa drochi yn 11–16 oed [A language gained: A study of language immersion at 11–16
years of age]. Bangor: School of Education. http:// www. bangor.ac.uk/addysg/publications/ Ennill_Iaith.pdf
[46] Williams, C. (2012). The national immersion scheme guidance for teachers on subject language threshold: Accelerating the process of
reaching the threshold.

Page | 57