Grappling with Translanguaging as TESOL Teacher Educators: A Collaborative Self-Study

Abstract

As multilingual, transnational TESOL teacher educators, we recognize the transformative potential of translanguaging in preparing teachers for culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms in the United States. In response, we have intentionally integrated translanguaging into our teacher education courses, striving for curricular reform and ideological shifts within TESOL preparation. This collaborative self-study examines our experiences as we navigate the theoretical, pedagogical, and institutional complexities of promoting translanguaging in higher education. Through structured reflections and analysis of teaching artifacts, we identified three key themes. First, engaging with translanguaging prompted ideological reorientations, allowing us to critically reflect on our linguistic identities and challenge deeply rooted monolingual ideologies. Second, our efforts to implement translanguaging revealed pedagogical tensions—particularly in moving beyond viewing it as scaffolding and in addressing the translanguaging and code-switching debate—which required adaptive strategies. Third, collaborative dialogue served as a catalyst for professional growth, fostering a community of practice that enabled us to refine our approaches and advocate for translanguaging more effectively. This study contributes to TESOL teacher education by offering insights into the lived experiences of teacher educators, highlighting key challenges and possibilities in translanguaging integration, and underscoring the need for sustained professional learning communities to support faculty and teachers in enacting translanguaging in diverse educational contexts.

1. Introduction

Translanguaging has emerged as a transformative theoretical and pedagogical framework, reshaping how we understand language and engage with multilingual learners (García & Li, 2014). It challenges monolingual ideologies by recognizing language as fluid and dynamic, enabling learners to draw from their full communicative repertoires (García & Kleyn, 2016). Across diverse educational settings—including English as a Second Language (ESL), English as a Foreign Language (EFL), and English Medium Instruction (EMI) environments—research affirms its benefits for language and content learning, as well as multilingual identity development (e.g., Hamman-Ortiz et al., 2025; Tian & Li, 2024). More than a pedagogy, translanguaging carries sociopolitical significance, offering ways to challenge institutionalized monolingualism and language hierarchies through multilingual, multimodal, and community-rooted practices (Li, 2018, 2024; Li & García, 2022).

While teacher engagement with translanguaging in coursework and K–12 settings has been widely studied (e.g., Deroo & Ponzio, 2019; Wong et al., 2023), limited research explores how TESOL teacher educators themselves grapple with its integration in their own teaching. This gap matters—teacher educators significantly shape the ideologies and practices of future teachers. Recent work by Yuan and Yang (2023) and Yuan et al. (2025) in EMI contexts has begun addressing this, yet more research is needed on how faculty navigate translanguaging in TESOL teacher preparation.

This study responds to that gap by examining our experiences as multilingual, transnational TESOL teacher educators working in distinct institutional and demographic contexts. Zhongfeng teaches at public U.S. universities with largely multilingual teaching candidates, while Cathy works at a private East Coast institution with predominantly White, monolingual, female students. Across our settings, we prepare pre- and in-service teachers to meaningfully engage with translanguaging and cultivate inclusive learning spaces for emergent multilingual learners (EMLs).

To examine our own practices, we undertook a collaborative self-study (Bullock & Ritter, 2011), a methodology rooted in structured reflection, dialogue, and analysis. It is particularly suited to exploring evolving concepts like translanguaging, allowing us to interrogate our beliefs, pedagogical decisions, and the sociopolitical contexts that shape our work. Our inquiry is guided by two research questions: (1) How do we, as TESOL teacher educators, navigate and incorporate translanguaging in our courses? (2) What insights have emerged from our collaborative self-study, and how can these inform improvements in TESOL teacher education?

This study offers three key contributions. First, it critically examines the lived experiences of TESOL teacher educators navigating translanguaging, highlighting ideological and institutional tensions that influence how it is taken up in teacher preparation. Second, it provides practical strategies for fostering ideological clarity, rethinking instructional design, and embedding translanguaging meaningfully across coursework and fieldwork. Finally, it contributes to discussions of teacher educator identity and agency by showing how collaborative self-study can support professional growth and help resist monoglossic ideologies in TESOL spaces.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Translanguaging in Education

Over the past decade, translanguaging has gained prominence in applied linguistics and TESOL, driven by the field’s “multilingual turn” (May, 2014). Defined by Otheguy et al. (2015) as the flexible use of a speaker’s full linguistic repertoire beyond named language boundaries, translanguaging challenges the ideology of fixed, separate languages (García et al., 2017; Li, 2011). As a pedagogy, it enhances critical thinking and fosters creative engagement by encouraging learners to draw on all their linguistic resources (Cenoz & Gorter, 2022a). It supports EMLs in making meaning through softening language boundaries and positioning their languages as assets (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021, 2022a), promoting inclusion and challenging monolingual norms (Gorter & Arocena, 2020; Li, 2024).

Research has shown how educators strategically use pedagogical translanguaging (e.g., Liu et al., 2020; Wong, 2024a), though its implementation is often hindered by monolingual ideologies (Cenoz & Gorter, 2022b; Vaish, 2019), institutional constraints (Holdway & Hitchcock, 2018), and limited teacher preparation (Wong, 2024c; Canagarajah, 2011). To address this, scholars call for translanguaging to be integrated into teacher education and professional development (PD) (Tian, 2020; Wong, 2024b, 2024c; Wong et al., 2023), encouraging teachers to adopt a translanguaging stance, design, and shifts (García et al., 2017).

2.2. Translanguaging in Teacher Education

2.2.1. Teacher Engagement with Translanguaging

Studies on teacher learning show that PD workshops (Cenoz & Santos, 2020) and coursework (Tian & Zhang-Wu, 2022; Wong, 2024c; Wong et al., 2023) help educators shift toward asset-based views of multilingualism. For example, Wong et al. (2023) found that coursework and field observations supported teachers in becoming advocates for translanguaging. However, challenges remain. Some educators continue to view translanguaging through a monoglossic lens, reinforcing language separation (Aleksić & García, 2022), and others report confusion or lack of structure for incorporating it into practice (Wong, 2024b). Scholars suggest embedding translanguaging across teacher preparation—rather than treating it as a stand-alone topic—can foster more integrated, asset-oriented approaches (Snyder & Fenner, 2021; Tian & Zhang-Wu, 2022). Research confirms that this approach enriches pedagogical repertoires and supports EMLs’ academic and linguistic growth (Wong, 2024a, 2024c).

2.2.2. TESOL Faculty Engagement with Translanguaging

While teacher engagement has been well documented, fewer studies examine TESOL faculty’s integration of translanguaging. Faculty bring evolving understandings shaped by experience, which should be recognized as valid (Andrei et al., 2020; Deroo et al., 2022; Musanti, 2023; Wong, 2024c). Using self-study, Musanti (2023) showed how structured reflection helped align her pedagogical stance with translanguaging practices. Similarly, Deroo et al. (2022) found that reflexive inquiry allowed faculty to identify missed opportunities and redesign instruction more intentionally.

A persistent challenge is the distinction between translanguaging and code-switching. Whereas code-switching has traditionally been defined as the alternation between separate language systems (Myers-Scotton, 1993; Poplack, 1980), translanguaging views multilingual meaning-making as fluid, rejecting the notion of fixed linguistic boundaries (Otheguy et al., 2015). While the theoretical distinction is important, it can be pedagogically limiting if treated as a binary. Rather than centering debates around terminology, teacher educators can support teachers in critically examining the purposes, power dynamics, and learning opportunities embedded in multilingual classroom practices (Tian & Zhang-Wu, 2022).

Ultimately, research underscores the need for faculty PD that supports translanguaging through reflection and collaboration. Practices such as self-study, peer observation, and learning communities can help teacher educators deepen their engagement and better prepare teachers for multilingual classrooms (Wong, 2024a). However, more research is needed on how faculty navigate institutional constraints and support EMLs through translanguaging pedagogies.

3. Methodology

We employed a collaborative self-study research design (Bullock & Ritter, 2011), to closely examine our experiences as TESOL teacher educators integrating translanguaging into coursework. Self-study is a well-established methodology in teacher education, supporting reflective and intentional inquiry into one’s own practice (Hamilton & Pinnegar, 2013; LaBoskey, 2004). It encourages educators to examine assumptions and refine pedagogies (Loughran, 2007). Our collaborative design draws on the co-construction of knowledge through dialogue (Kitchen, 2023; Ngunjiri et al., 2010; Samaras, 2011), enabling deeper engagement with our positionalities, teaching decisions, and institutional contexts.

Unlike individual self-studies, collaborative self-study facilitates joint meaning-making (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009). Through peer dialogue, we aimed to uncover ideological and pedagogical tensions and reflect on our enactment of translanguaging.

3.1. Positionality

Our positionalities as multilingual, transnational TESOL teacher educators deeply informed this collaborative self-study, shaping our engagement with translanguaging pedagogy and our research approach. As the sole TESOL faculty at our respective New Jersey institutions, we used this study to critically reflect on our pedagogical practices, navigate institutional constraints, and refine our translanguaging approaches.

Zhongfeng, originally from Northeast China, completed his undergraduate studies in South China and advanced degrees in the U.S. His multilingual repertoire—Mandarin, a regional dialect, English, and Cantonese—informs his strong orientation toward translanguaging. At the time of this study, he was in his first year as a TESOL faculty member at a Minority-Serving Institution (MSI), where most students were bi/multilingual and from minoritized backgrounds. Previously, he taught for three years at a Texas institution during the pandemic, focusing on preparing K–12 pre- and in-service teachers and embedding translanguaging into bilingual education and TESOL coursework.

Cathy, a multilingual speaker of Cantonese, English, and Mandarin, was raised in Hong Kong, where English instruction was grammar-based and Cantonese dominated. Limited exposure to communicative English created challenges when she arrived in the U.S. for college. During graduate studies, she began learning Mandarin and questioning monolingual ideologies in TESOL. At the time of this study, she had spent over a decade at a private liberal arts college preparing predominantly White, monolingual pre-service teachers. Institutional resistance to translanguaging and deficit views on bilingualism pushed her to explore pedagogical strategies grounded in linguistic justice.

Our divergent linguistic paths, institutional contexts, and teaching experiences informed this self-study as both a methodology and a reflective practice. Though united in our commitment to translanguaging as a transformative pedagogy, we brought distinct challenges and questions into this work. Drawing on Creese et al. (2015), we practiced critical reflexivity throughout, tracing ideological shifts, pedagogical negotiations, and moments of reimagining translanguaging in teacher education. This involved examining our biases, assumptions, and the broader tensions shaping our work.

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

Between May and June 2024, we collected qualitative data documenting our experiences. The core dataset consisted of four rounds of recorded dialogue (approx. 6.5 h total), guided by pre-set prompts (see Appendix A), which focused on our practices, challenges, and evolving reflections. We also analyzed teaching artifacts—syllabi, assignments, and lesson plans—to examine how translanguaging was embedded in our curriculum. To support ongoing reflection, we maintained individual and shared written memos to capture shifts in thinking and emerging questions.

Data analysis followed constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006), allowing themes to emerge inductively while supporting critical reflection. In this study, grounded theory was used as an analytic approach to guide theme development rather than to generate a formal theoretical model. Our multi-phase process included:

• • Initial coding: Line-by-line coding of transcriptions to identify patterns and points of tension.
  • Focused coding: Grouping codes into broader categories (e.g., ideological shifts, pedagogical dilemmas, translanguaging strategies). For example, segments of dialogue in which we reflected on tensions between translanguaging and English-only expectations were initially coded as “monolingual ideology” and “instructional tension.” These codes were subsequently grouped under the broader category of “pedagogical tensions,” which informed the development of the theme of translanguaging as an ideological and pedagogical negotiation. This process illustrates how we moved from descriptive codes to more interpretive thematic categories through iterative analysis.
  • Comparative analysis: Cross-referencing coded data with artifacts and memos to refine insights.
  • Synthesis: Integrating findings into three overarching themes: translanguaging as ideological reorientation, pedagogical tensions and adaptive strategies, and collaborative dialogue as professional growth.

This process was iterative in that coding and category development were revisited multiple times across phases of analysis. It was triangulated through the comparison of multiple data sources, including dialogue transcripts, teaching artifacts, and reflective memos, to ensure that findings were grounded in diverse forms of evidence and to enhance credibility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To further support trustworthiness, we engaged in ongoing peer debriefing through collaborative dialogue and maintained analytic memos to document emerging interpretations. Although no external participants were involved, we followed ethical practices aligned with self-study research, including transparency in coding decisions and sustained collaborative reflection. These measures supported the overall rigor of our methodology.

4. Findings

The findings from this collaborative self-study, where we grappled with translanguaging as TESOL teacher educators, reveal three interrelated themes identified through our focused coding process: (1) translanguaging as an ideological reorientation, (2) pedagogical tensions and adaptive strategies, and (3) collaborative dialogue as a catalyst for growth. These themes reflect how we navigated key complexities, negotiated constraints, and refined our approaches through iterative reflection and dialogue. Across these themes, the constraints we encountered could be understood as ideological, pedagogical, and institutional, shaping how translanguaging was interpreted, enacted, and sustained in our contexts.

4.1. Translanguaging as an Ideological Reorientation

Our discussions revealed that adopting translanguaging required a fundamental shift in our language ideologies. Initially, we engaged with translanguaging through theoretical frameworks, but our self-study process prompted us to critically examine how monolingual ideologies had shaped our teaching and linguistic identities.

We began by sharing our individual journeys toward discovering an interest in translanguaging. Cathy, who earned her PhD in 2010, did not encounter translanguaging until around 2019, after becoming a faculty member for a few years. She remarked, “I had never heard the term translanguaging during my graduate studies. It was all about communicative language teaching then. Suddenly, translanguaging seemed to be everywhere.” Initially, she was skeptical, partly due to her grounding in communicative language teaching (CLT). However, her curiosity led her to explore the concept further through readings and attending professional conferences. On the other hand, Zhongfeng was introduced to translanguaging during his first year of a PhD program in 2016. His engagement with the concept deepened as he conducted a literature review, including works from the CUNY-NYSIEB project (e.g., García & Kleyn, 2016).

Despite the differences in our initial encounters, we both found empowerment in the concept of translanguaging. This framework not only affirmed our identities as transnational multilingual speakers but also helped us alleviate insecurities about not sounding like native speakers. In particular, Cathy shared,

And then, once I really delved into it [translanguaging], especially through Cenoz and Gorter’s (2021) book, I was struck by the element [the flexible use of one’s full linguistic repertoire] they discussed. I thought, “Wow, I agree; this is very interesting. These are things I’ve been doing, and it really resonates with me as a multilingual speaker.” Finally, I no longer feel ashamed about speaking multiple languages; in fact, I take pride in it. The concept of native speakerism had a strong hold on me—if I didn’t sound like a native speaker, I was reluctant to speak up in public.

Furthermore, the idea of leveraging one’s full communicative repertoire in meaning making allowed us to reframe our past language-learning experiences without guilt, challenging the myth of the target language-only approach. For instance, Zhongfeng reflected on his experience as an EFL learner, where he used Chinese to make sense of English word pronunciations and grammar. He shared, “At that time, I felt like using Chinese was wrong because it was supposed to be an English-only environment. But now, I realize those hybrid, multilingual spaces were helpful. Looking back, it all makes sense, and I no longer feel I did something wrong.”

Through this reorientation, we sought to disrupt the dominance of monolingual ideologies in TESOL by integrating translanguaging into our courses beyond isolated activities. For example, translanguaging was embedded across course components (readings, discussions, assignments, and assessments), supporting teachers in developing their understanding and designing instruction that leverages EMLs’ linguistic resources. However, this was not without challenges. Cathy reflected on her internal conflict between advocating for translanguaging professionally and grappling with monolingual ideologies in her personal life, particularly when teaching her own children: “I keep preaching about translanguaging and how powerful it is! I have good examples, but when it comes to my children, why do I still have that monolingual ideology and native speakerism? So, that’s the challenge; it’s complex.” Zhongfeng similarly acknowledged the broader systemic forces shaping how translanguaging is understood and applied. He noted: “And I really believe translanguaging will continue to be a contentious subject. … [Because] even within translanguaging scholars, we don’t see things the same.” These varied perspectives reflect the dynamic and evolving nature of translanguaging, reinforcing the need for continued critical engagement with its pedagogical and ideological implications.

4.2. Pedagogical Tensions and Adaptive Strategies

While committed to integrating and implementing translanguaging in our TESOL courses, we encountered pedagogical tensions that required ongoing adaptation. These tensions emerged from competing ideologies, institutional constraints, and the evolving needs of our students. Through iterative reflection, we identified three major tensions: (1) conceptualizing translanguaging beyond scaffolding, (2) navigating the translanguaging and code-switching debate, and (3) ensuring meaningful application through teacher preparation. Below, we discuss each of these tensions and the strategies we employed to address them.

4.2.1. Translanguaging Beyond a Scaffold for English Development

A key challenge was shifting teachers’ perspectives on translanguaging from a temporary scaffold for academic English learning to a sustained pedagogical practice that affirms multilingual identities. Many of our students, particularly those in K-12 ESL certification programs, initially viewed translanguaging as a bridge to English proficiency rather than a framework for fostering dynamic multilingual engagement. Zhongfeng noted, “Students often saw translanguaging as useful for scaffolding English learning but resisted the idea that it should be a long-term instructional approach.”

This perception reflects the persistent dominance of monolingual instructional models that position multilingualism as an interim support rather than a legitimate means of learning. To challenge this assumption, we embedded research-based discussions and reflective activities throughout our courses, guiding teachers to critically examine their own beliefs about language learning. For instance, Cathy structured her TESOL methods course to address these misconceptions early on:

When I introduced translanguaging, some teachers assumed it simply meant providing translation or using students’ home languages as a stepping stone to English. I asked them to reflect on whether bilingual students should be expected to “grow out” of their home languages in academic settings. This led to important discussions about why multilingualism is often viewed as temporary rather than an ongoing cognitive and social resource.

To reinforce these discussions, we designed assignments that required teachers to actively engage with translanguaging as a pedagogical framework rather than a support strategy. In Zhongfeng’s course, teachers created lesson plans that integrated translanguaging, including requirements to incorporate multiple languages or modalities, justify their instructional choices, and reflect on how these practices supported EMLs. Cathy’s students, many of whom had little experience working in multilingual classrooms, developed reflective teaching statements articulating how they could implement translanguaging in diverse educational settings. By requiring teachers to apply these concepts in tangible ways, we saw a shift in how they conceptualized translanguaging—not as a transitional aid but as an approach that fosters deeper learning and linguistic equity.

Through sustained engagement with translanguaging across course discussions, assignments, and reflections, our teachers began to recognize its value beyond English acquisition. As their perspectives evolved, they were better equipped to integrate translanguaging not just as a scaffolding tool but as a fundamental principle for supporting EMLs in meaningful and lasting ways.

4.2.2. Negotiating the Translanguaging and Code-Switching Debate

Another recurring challenge in our courses was addressing the complex relationship between translanguaging and code-switching, particularly given ongoing theoretical debates in the field (e.g., MacSwan, 2017, 2022; Otheguy et al., 2015, 2019). Many teachers were already familiar with the term code-switching and initially equated it with translanguaging, viewing both as interchangeable linguistic practices. However, we wanted them to critically examine the ideological and pedagogical implications of these concepts and understand how translanguaging extends beyond externally imposed language boundaries.

Zhongfeng emphasized the importance of balancing theoretical clarity with practical application, explaining, “When working with teachers, the focus is more on translating theory into practice rather than engaging in deep theoretical debates, as we might in doctoral seminars.” To bridge this gap, we incorporated activities where teachers applied these concepts to real classroom planning and instruction. In one assignment, Zhongfeng’s students developed lesson plans that explicitly integrated translanguaging practices, ensuring that EMLs could engage with content in flexible and dynamic ways. They then reflected on how these strategies differed from traditional code-switching, realizing that translanguaging is more than simply alternating between two languages. Instead, it embraces diverse semiotic, linguistic, and cultural resources to foster meaningful educational experiences.

For her undergraduate “Introduction to Bilingual Education” course, Cathy strategically introduced code-switching as a starting point to help students grasp the broader scope of translanguaging. She explained, “I used code-switching as background knowledge because I was pretty sure that all of them have, or many of them have, heard about the term. So that’s why I start from there.” By comparing the two, she guided teachers to see that translanguaging builds upon and extends beyond code-switching, deeply connecting to individuals’ identity, cognition, and agency (Li, 2018).

Through lesson planning, structured reflections, and discussions, teachers gained a more nuanced understanding of how translanguaging differs from code-switching. For instance, in their lesson plans and reflections, many moved beyond describing language alternation to articulating how multiple linguistic and semiotic resources could be integrated to support meaning-making and participation. These activities provided conceptual and pedagogical clarity while equipping teachers with concrete strategies to foster multilingual engagement and affirm EMLs’ linguistic and cultural identities.

4.2.3. Ensuring Meaningful Application Through Teacher Preparation

The third persistent challenge we encountered was ensuring that teachers could meaningfully apply translanguaging in their instructional designs. While many developed a strong theoretical understanding, they struggled with translating it into concrete lesson planning and classroom practice, particularly within monolingual institutional structures. To address this, we implemented three key strategies that supported teachers in bridging theory with practice.

First, we embedded translanguaging into lesson planning by requiring teachers to design lessons that intentionally incorporated translanguaging strategies, such as using multilingual texts, encouraging cross-linguistic discussion, incorporating multimodal representations, and designing tasks that allow flexible language use for meaning-making. Our approaches, however, differed based on the experience levels of our students. Zhongfeng’s graduate students, many of whom were in-service teachers, engaged in micro-teaching demonstrations where they tested and refined their translanguaging strategies through recorded sessions. These were followed by peer debriefing sessions, enabling teachers to analyze translanguaging in action, reflect on their implementation, and receive constructive feedback. In contrast, Cathy’s undergraduate students, who had less classroom experience, developed scaffolded unit plans with a stronger emphasis on justifying their instructional decisions. Rather than engaging in micro-teaching, they reflected on how translanguaging could fit within their specific school contexts, helping them develop a clearer rationale for integrating multilingual practices.

Second, we integrated fieldwork and classroom observations to reinforce theoretical learning with practical models. In Zhongfeng’s program in Texas, pandemic-related disruptions limited students’ ability to conduct in-person observations, so they recorded simulated lessons at home, teaching imagined audiences. Although this was an imperfect substitute for real classroom engagement, it allowed them to critically assess their translanguaging implementation and refine their instructional techniques through self-reflection. Meanwhile, Cathy partnered with a local multilingual district, enabling students to observe translanguaging in practice. These observations helped solidify their understanding, as they witnessed firsthand how translanguaging unfolded in classroom settings. As Cathy noted, “From my students’ reflections, they actually witnessed what we talk about in class in the field placement, and that makes translanguaging a lot more convincing to them.”

Finally, we sought to model translanguaging in our own instruction, challenging the monolingual norms of higher education. For example, Zhongfeng implemented multilingual check-ins, where students could express themselves in their preferred language, fostering an inclusive linguistic environment. Cathy emphasized multimodal composition, shifting beyond traditional essays to include video reflections, audio responses, and visual storytelling. This approach allowed both monolingual and multilingual students to engage meaningfully with course content using their full communicative repertoires. By practicing translanguaging ourselves, we demonstrated that it is not merely a theoretical concept but a viable and necessary pedagogical practice.

4.3. Collaborative Dialogue as a Catalyst for Growth

Last but not least, our self-study underscored the critical role of collaborative dialogue in deepening our understanding and refining our translanguaging pedagogies. In this study, we conceptualize collaborative dialogue as structured, reflective conversations between teacher educators that support critical inquiry, co-construction of knowledge, and pedagogical refinement. As the sole ESL/bilingual education faculty members at our institutions, we often experienced professional isolation in advocating for translanguaging. These dialogues created a community of practice, fostering intellectual exchange, emotional support, and pedagogical innovation. Through iterative discussions, we examined ideological tensions, questioned assumptions, and co-constructed strategies to strengthen translanguaging integration. More than passive exchanges, these dialogues became active meaning-making processes that shaped our evolving identities as TESOL teacher educators.

4.3.1. Bridging Translanguaging with Broader Theoretical Frameworks

One major area of growth involved repositioning translanguaging within broader theories of language acquisition and pedagogy. Zhongfeng noted:

I truly valued the new ideas for integrating translanguaging into my courses. For instance, your [Cathy’s] approach of connecting translanguaging with SLA theories—like Krashen’s input (i + 1) hypothesis and Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD)—was enlightening. Translanguaging can make the “+1” more comprehensible in Krashen’s input hypothesis or serve as a scaffolding strategy in Vygotsky’s ZPD. For example, a teacher might allow students to discuss a complex concept using multiple languages before producing an English response, enabling them to access prior knowledge and make the target input more comprehensible while gradually extending their language use.

This insight led him to re-examine his course design, ensuring that translanguaging was framed not just as an isolated instructional tool, but as an integrated theoretical and pedagogical approach that connects with existing SLA principles. These discussions helped us articulate translanguaging as a dynamic, research-based practice rather than an abstract theoretical construct.

Beyond theoretical connections, our conversations also encouraged critical self-reflection on how translanguaging intersected with larger societal ideologies. Zhongfeng appreciated the reassurance that he was not alone in grappling with native-speakerism and institutional monolingual norms—issues that continued to shape his students’ perspectives despite his efforts to promote multilingual justice.

4.3.2. Challenging Assumptions and Refining Pedagogical Practices

For Cathy, these collaborative reflections prompted deeper interrogation of her teaching methods: “I’m committed to intentional teaching, but our conversation made me question whether my methods truly address the diverse needs of my students.” Working with both undergraduates and graduate students in general education and TESOL programs, she realized that her examples and scenarios often reflected familiar narratives. These discussions pushed her to diversify the instructional materials and case studies she presented, ensuring that students engaged with multilingual realities that resonated with their lived experiences. She also considered adapting some of Zhongfeng’s assignments and activities to make them more contextually relevant to her students’ diverse backgrounds.

This aspect of our self-study underscored that collaborative dialogue was not merely an intellectual exercise but a site of pedagogical transformation. We challenged each other’s perspectives, refined our teaching strategies, and ultimately became more intentional in the ways we positioned translanguaging in our courses.

4.3.3. Creating Sustainable Spaces for Teacher Educator Collaboration

Recognizing the impact of our self-study, we both expressed a strong desire for sustained opportunities for TESOL teacher educators to engage in similar reflexive dialogues. As institutional silos and monolingual ideologies persist, we identified the need for structured platforms where teacher educators can continuously exchange ideas, share challenges, and collaboratively explore solutions. Zhongfeng proposed: “I envision creating a dedicated translanguaging conference or community for regular scholarly exchanges.” He also suggested establishing a translanguaging lab or cross-institutional partnerships to centralize resources, share translanguaging activities, and develop pedagogical materials that bridge theory and practice.

Similarly, Cathy emphasized the need for a sustainable forum for teacher educators, stating: “Right now, these exchanges often require individual outreach, which can be limiting. A dedicated space would greatly enhance professional development among teacher education faculty.” These discussions reaffirmed that collaborative dialogue is not just a site of knowledge-sharing, but a powerful mechanism for sustaining and expanding translanguaging praxis. By cultivating professional communities that foster inquiry, reflection, and action, teacher educators can continue to challenge monolingual norms and advocate for multilingual justice in teacher preparation programs.

5. Discussion and Implications

Through our collaborative self-study, we examined how translanguaging can be meaningfully integrated into TESOL teacher education, addressing ideological reorientation, pedagogical tensions, and the role of collaborative dialogue in professional growth. While translanguaging is widely acknowledged in applied linguistics and language education (Hamman-Ortiz et al., 2025), its implementation in teacher education remains complex, requiring ideological shifts and sustained support. Our study contributes to ongoing conversations on TESOL faculty engagement with translanguaging (Musanti, 2023; Tian, 2020), underscoring the need for institutional change to better support this work. Building on these findings, this section addresses RQ2 by synthesizing the insights generated through our collaborative self-study and examining their implications for TESOL teacher education.

A major challenge we encountered was the ideological shift needed to embrace translanguaging as both pedagogy and sociopolitical stance. As in previous studies (Gorter & Arocena, 2020; Wong, 2024c), monolingual ideologies shaped both our beliefs and our students’ understandings. Many initially viewed translanguaging as synonymous with translation or as a temporary scaffold for English acquisition (Aleksić & García, 2022). Our findings affirm the importance of explicitly addressing how translanguaging challenges dominant language ideologies and functions as a legitimate, critical learning practice (Bartolomé, 2000; Wong, 2024b). Through reflection on our linguistic identities and teaching, we recognized translanguaging not as a technique, but as a perspective that disrupts language hierarchies and affirms EMLs’ full repertoires.

Our study also illuminates conceptual tensions between translanguaging and code-switching (MacSwan, 2017; Otheguy et al., 2019). Many teachers initially conflated the two, but deeper engagement helped them understand translanguaging’s broader ideological dimensions. Echoing calls for ideological clarity in teacher preparation (Tian & Zhang-Wu, 2022; Wong, 2024b), we emphasize that educators must directly engage these distinctions and center sociopolitical implications. Structured reflections and lesson-planning tasks enabled teachers to see how translanguaging fosters agency, equity, and justice in diverse classrooms.

Even with ideological growth, lesson design posed challenges—confirming that teachers often struggle with application due to institutional barriers and lack of models (Wong et al., 2023). We addressed this by incorporating micro-teaching, scaffolded planning, and observations, aligning with research supporting experiential learning (Tian, 2020; Wong, 2024c). Translanguaging should be integrated across coursework, not siloed, ensuring sustained opportunities for teachers to apply and reflect on their practice. Requiring articulation of the translanguaging stance and instructional shifts (García et al., 2017) helped move theory into practice.

Across our analysis, these constraints operated at multiple levels—ideological (e.g., monolingual norms and native-speakerism), pedagogical (e.g., uncertainty around implementation), and institutional (e.g., program structures and expectations)—highlighting the need for coordinated responses across these domains.

A key contribution of this study is recognizing collaborative dialogue among TESOL faculty as vital for sustaining translanguaging. Self-study and reflexive inquiry (Deroo et al., 2022; Musanti, 2023) allowed us to critically examine our pedagogy. Given the isolation that many TESOL faculty experience, we advocate for structured professional learning communities and translanguaging-focused development networks to support cross-institutional collaboration beyond resources like CUNY-NYSIEB.

While this study provides valuable insights into translanguaging in TESOL teacher education, we recognize areas for further exploration. As a self-study, our findings are deeply situated within our specific teaching contexts, offering rich, reflective perspectives rather than broad generalizability. Nonetheless, this situated lens underscores the need for research across TESOL programs to examine how translanguaging is enacted in different institutional contexts. Future work should explore how teachers sustain and adapt these pedagogies after completing their teacher education programs, particularly under dominant monolingual policies (Holdway & Hitchcock, 2018). Greater engagement with research on teacher educator identity and agency (Banegas & Gerlach, 2021) could further illuminate faculty roles in advancing translanguaging.

In addition, this study centers on our experiences as teacher educators and does not include direct data from teachers. While this focus may limit the inclusion of learner perspectives, it allows for an in-depth examination of teacher educator agency, decision-making, and pedagogical reasoning—areas that remain underexplored in translanguaging research. Future studies could build on this work by incorporating pre- and in-service teachers’ perspectives through interviews, reflective artifacts, or classroom-based data.

At the same time, several insights may extend beyond these contexts. In particular, the importance of ideological reorientation, the need to move beyond viewing translanguaging as a scaffold, and the value of sustained collaborative dialogue among teacher educators are likely relevant across diverse TESOL and teacher education contexts. However, certain aspects of our findings, such as the experience of professional isolation as sole TESOL faculty and the specific institutional constraints we encountered, are more context-dependent and may manifest differently in other settings.

Ultimately, this study affirms that translanguaging is not a static methodology but an evolving, context-sensitive pedagogy that requires continuous critical reflection. By documenting our challenges, adaptations, and collaborative learning processes, we contribute to broader discussions on TESOL faculty engagement with translanguaging, multilingual justice, and teacher education reform. Sustained institutional efforts are needed to support teacher educators in dismantling monolingual norms, integrating translanguaging across curricula, and fostering equitable learning environments for EMLs.