Abstract
Metacognitive regulation—specifically planning, monitoring, and evaluation—is essential for effective foreign language learning. However, English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instruction in Latin America rarely leverages learners’ linguistic repertoires to support higher-order processes. Translanguaging may serve as a potential scaffold for metacognitive engagement, but its cognitive mechanisms and pedagogical implications remain relatively under-theorized in regional EFL scholarship. This perspective article examines two guiding questions: (1) How can translanguaging function as a metacognitive strategy that enhances learners’ planning, monitoring, and evaluation processes? (2) What contextual, pedagogical, and policy-related factors influence the positioning of translanguaging as a metacognitive strategy in Latin American EFL classrooms, and what instructional patterns emerge from this analysis? Drawing on research published between 2015 and 2025, the article integrates sociocultural and metacognitive theory to propose a conceptual reframing in which translanguaging may function as a deliberate regulatory tool that can support learners in externalizing thinking, comparing meanings, and evaluating understanding. The analysis highlights insights and empirical evidence regarding vocabulary retention, reading comprehension, collaborative knowledge construction, and leaners’ autonomy. The analysis also suggests the presence of policy-level ambiguities regarding the role of learners’ linguistic repertoires in EFL instruction. Based on this analysis, the paper proposes pathways for practice, including bilingual learning objectives, prewriting in L1, translanguaging circles, and scaffolded content language integrated learning (CLIL) approaches. This article argues for rethinking EFL pedagogy through a metacognitive lens and calls for policy frameworks that acknowledge learners’ full linguistic repertoires as resources for language learning.
1 Introduction
For decades, monolingual approaches have significantly influenced the teaching of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Although the “English-only” model seeks to maximize exposure, it may often disregard learners’ cognitive and sociolinguistic realities, particularly in Latin America, where bilingual and multilingual practices shape everyday communication. Translanguaging—defined as the purposeful use of learners’ complete linguistic repertoires (; )—could provide much more than a mere pedagogical tool for bridging languages. It could act as a potential metacognitive scaffold strategy enabling learners to take charge of their own language learning journeys. By developing students’ abilities to plan, monitor, and evaluate their linguistic decisions across multiple languages, translanguaging can support self-regulated learning and deepen awareness of language systems as meaning-making resources (; ).
Recent studies have underscored this metacognitive lens. reported that bilingual readers facing difficulties in a foreign language tend to use translanguaging to plan and improve their comprehension strategies. and observed that written production and reading fluency in both L1 and English can transfer metacognitive strategies across languages, creating a cross-linguistic support system. documented practical gains in listening and writing as students tracked their understanding and self-corrected. Similarly, argued that translanguaging extends beyond code-switching, reflecting teacher beliefs and learner strategies that empower critical reflection on language use. Collectively, these studies from different EFL worldwide contexts suggest that translanguaging may provide learners with opportunities to observe, reflect on, and refine their own learning processes, making it a plausible scaffold for autonomy.
Despite the growing body of research on translanguaging in EFL contexts, most studies have approached this practice through sociolinguistic, affective, or equity-oriented lenses, often emphasizing identity, inclusion, or participation. However, its pedagogical interpretation in classroom contexts remains conceptually uneven. In several discussions within Latin American scholarship, translanguaging is frequently associated with code-switching or grammar translation methods, while practical constraints such as limited professional development opportunities, institutional resistance, and tensions with standardized assessment frameworks are also reported (; ; ; ; ). As a result, its potential role in supporting higher-order thinking and self-regulated learning remains relatively under-theorized in EFL contexts.
In response to this conceptual gap, this perspective article proposes a reframing of translanguaging as a metacognitive scaffold grounded in sociocultural theory. Rather than treating language alternation as a spontaneous practice, the article conceptualizes translanguaging as a strategic regulatory resource that can support learners in externalizing thinking, comparing meanings across languages, and evaluating linguistic performance in EFL learning. This reframing prompts two main questions:
How can translanguaging function as a metacognitive scaffold in EFL instruction within Latin American contexts, specifically in relation to learners’ planning, monitoring, and evaluation processes?
What contextual, pedagogical, and policy-related factors shape and constrain the positioning of translanguaging as a metacognitive strategy in Latin American EFL classrooms, and what instructional pathways emerge from this analysis?
1.1 Article type and approach
This paper is a perspective article. It offers a conceptual synthesis of studies published between 2015 and 2024 to explore how translanguaging can function as a metacognitive scaffold in EFL education, with particular attention to the Latin American context. Rather than following a systematic review protocol, the article integrates theoretical and pedagogical perspectives to argue that translanguaging could engage core metacognitive processes—such as planning, monitoring, and evaluation—while addressing regional barriers to implementation. This conceptual orientation allows the paper to bridge cognitive theory, classroom practice, and policy interpretation, thereby proposing feasible pedagogical pathways for EFL classrooms.
The selection of sources was guided by explicit conceptual criteria. Studies were included if they (a) addressed translanguaging as a pedagogical, cognitive, or sociocultural practice in EFL or multilingual education; (b) engaged explicitly or implicitly with metacognitive processes or self-regulated learning; and (c) offered insights relevant to classroom practice or educational policy. Priority was given to empirical studies conducted in Latin American EFL contexts; however, selected international studies were also incorporated when they provided strong theoretical or empirical frameworks that inform the regional discussion. Along the same line, policy documents were drawn from official national education frameworks in Latin America addressing bilingualism, intercultural education, or foreign language instruction.
This synthesis process involved identifying patterns across studies regarding how translanguaging supports learners’ cognitive regulation, as well as examining tensions between classroom practices and policy orientations. Through this process, this perspective article reframes translanguaging as a deliberate metacognitive strategy rather than as incidental language alteration, thereby bridging theory, pedagogy, and policy.
The concept of translanguaging has been interpreted in different ways within the scholarly literature. Early work framed translanguaging primarily as a sociolinguistic practice, reflecting the fluid use of speakers’ full linguistic repertoires in multilingual contexts. More recent discussions have also emphasized pedagogical translanguaging, referring to the intentional use of multiple languages in classroom interaction to support comprehension, participation, and meaning-making (; ; ). Although these perspectives are related, they are not conceptually identical and they do not necessarily attribute the same cognitive functions to translanguaging. In particular, the relationship between translanguaging and metacognitive regulation has not been uniformly conceptualized across the field. Rather than assuming consensus on this issue, the present article adopts a focused conceptual position.
In particular, this perspective article examines translanguaging through the lens of metacognitive regulation in foreign language learning. From this viewpoint, translanguaging is considered not only a sociolinguistic practice or a classroom strategy but also a potential cognitive scaffold that can support learners’ planning, monitoring and evaluation processes during language learning tasks. The argument advanced here therefore represents a conceptual interpretation grounded in sociocultural and metacognitive theory, contributing to the ongoing discussion about how multilingual resources can support higher-order learning processes in EFL education.
1.2 Conceptualizing L1 in multilingual learning contexts
In discussions of foreign language learning, the term L1 is often used to denote a learners’ first or native language. However, in many contemporary educational contexts, this notion is not always straightforward. Learners frequently navigate multilingual environments in which more than one language plays a role in everyday communication, schooling, and identity formation ().
In Latin American contexts, for example, students may draw on Spanish, Indigenous languages, regional varieties, or other linguistic resources in addition to English as a foreign language. In such situations, identifying a single language as the learner's “L1” can oversimplify the complex linguistic repertoires that individuals bring to the classroom ().
For this reason, the present article adopts a broader interpretation of L1. Rather than referring exclusively to a fixed mother tongue, L1 is understood here as the learner's prior linguistic repertoire or the most accessible linguistic resources that support cognition and learning. These resources may include one or more languages depending on the sociolinguistic context. In multilingual environments, therefore, L1 should not be interpreted as a singular or static native language, but as part of a broader repertoire of linguistic resources that learners mobilize across contexts. This interpretation aligns with contemporary perspectives on multilingualism that conceptualize linguistic repertoires as dynamic, integrated, and context-dependent rather than as strictly separated language systems ().
2 Translanguaging and metacognition
2.1 Metacognition: a theoretical overview
Flavell (1979, as cited in ) introduced the concept of metacognition as the awareness and regulation of one's own cognitive processes, emphasizing the ability to plan, monitor, and evaluate one's thinking. Brown's (1985) distinction between metacognitive knowledge—what learners know about their cognition—and metacognitive regulation—how they control it (as discussed in ) further expands this framework. Within language learning, these processes allow learners to make conscious decisions about how they approach comprehension, communication, and production tasks. revision of Bloom's taxonomy further identifies metacognition as a higher-order skill, integrating reflection and adaptation, which are essential for autonomy in EFL contexts. In this sense, metacognition provides the cognitive foundation for learners to become self-regulated, reflective users of language, rather than passive recipients of input.
Recent studies (; ; ; ) have reinforced this view, demonstrating that learners who consciously plan and monitor their strategies across language tasks show higher levels of awareness and academic performance. These processes of reflection and self-regulation are crucial for foreign language learning, as they enable learners to track progress and modify approaches according to context and need. However, not all strategic behavior automatically constitutes metacognitive engagement. Metacognition involves intentional and conscious regulation, meaning that learners must be aware of their choices and able to justify why they use a particular strategy. This distinction becomes fundamental for understanding the connection between translanguaging and metacognition. While learners may alternate languages naturally to retrieve vocabulary or clarify meaning, such behaviors do not necessarily involve reflective control. Metacognitive regulation occurs only when cross-linguistic choices are deliberate, goal-oriented, and linked to planning, monitoring, or evaluation.
For this reason, this perspective article conceptualizes metacognitive translanguaging as meeting three criteria: conscious deliberation: learners intentionally use their L1 to support a linguistic or cognitive goal in English; monitoring and comparison: learners use language alternation to check comprehension, test hypotheses, or adjust emerging errors; and regulatory purpose: translanguaging contributes to planning ideas, verifying meaning, or evaluating performance.
By clarifying these criteria, translanguaging establishes its foundation as a possible metacognitive scaffold strategy rather than a spontaneous, automatic linguistic response. The following sections build on this distinction to explain how translanguaging functions as a mediational tool that supports higher-order thinking in EFL instruction.
2.2 Translanguaging as cognitive mediation
This article focuses primarily on pedagogical translanguaging as a classroom-oriented dimension of the broader translanguaging construct. Translanguaging, originally introduced by Williams (1994, as cited in ), is understood primarily through a pedagogical and sociocultural perspective. Rather than referring simply to alternation between languages, it is interpreted as the strategic use of learners’ available linguistic resources to facilitate meaning-making and support the development of new linguistic knowledge ().
Within this framework, translanguaging it is suggested to be a mediational tool that may enable learners to move between external and internal forms of reasoning. When students use their L1 to articulate preliminary ideas, clarify concepts, or test hypotheses before expressing themselves in English, they externalize cognitive processes that might otherwise remain implicit. This cycle mirrors Vygotsky's theory that complex cognition develops first on the social plane (through interaction, explanation, and reformulation) and later becomes internalized as self-regulation. Thus, translanguaging supports learners’ progression through the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) by allowing them to draw on familiar linguistic resources to accomplish tasks that would be more difficult in L2 alone.
Empirical evidence supports this cognitive role. found that learners use translanguaging to organize ideas, regulate comprehension, and maintain engagement in meaning-making tasks, reinforcing behaviors that illustrate how language alternation externalizes thought. observed that learners transfer metacognitive strategies between L1 and L2 writing activities, generating cross-linguistic scaffolds that improve comprehension and structure. Similarly, documented how translanguaging enhances self-monitoring during listening and writing, enabling learners to verbalize uncertainties in L1 before adjusting responses in L2. In this sense, by allowing learners to articulate, negotiate, and refine ideas across languages, translanguaging could operate as a mediational tool that bridges conceptual gaps and supports internalization. This interpretation strengthens the connection between sociocultural theory and metacognition, laying the groundwork for conceptualizing it as a possible metacognitive scaffold in EFL learning.
2.3 Integrating both theories: translanguaging as a metacognitive scaffold
When examining the discussed approach through the metacognitive theory, translanguaging may be understood not only as cognitive mediation but also as a tool for deliberate planning, monitoring, and evaluation. These processes align directly with Flavell’s (1979) and Brown's (1985) conceptualizations of metacognitive regulation, in which learners consciously guide their learning through intentional decision-making. However, translanguaging becomes metacognitive only when language alternation is used strategically rather than automatically. From a Vygotskian perspective, this approach externalizes cognitive processes by allowing learners to articulate their reasoning from L1 to English before internalizing new linguistic structures or concepts. Therefore, when combined with metacognitive regulation, translanguaging may provide learners with both the cognitive tools and the strategic awareness necessary to manage their learning experience.
Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual relationship between translanguaging, metacognitive regulation, and self-regulated language learning in EFL contexts. Drawing on sociocultural theory and metacognitive frameworks proposed by Flavell (1979) and Brown (1985), the model suggests that learners’ linguistic repertoires may be strategically mobilized through translanguaging to support planning, monitoring, and evaluating processes. Through these metacognitive cycles, learners may externalize reasoning, compare meanings across languages, and gradually internalize new linguistic structures, fostering self-regulated language learning.
Figure 1
2.3.1 Planning
Learners use their L1 to organize ideas, recall prior knowledge, and predict vocabulary before expressing themselves in English. This stage activates foresight and cognitive control, helping learners set linguistic goals (). Planning through L1 helps students organize conceptual understanding, design approaches to tasks, and clarify intentions before engaging in English production.
2.3.2 Monitoring
During production or comprehension tasks, students’ alternate languages to verify meaning, test hypotheses, or self-correct, thereby maintaining cognitive equilibrium (;). These actions represent conscious monitoring rather than spontaneous language alternation.
2.3.3 Evaluation
After completing a task, learners compare outputs across languages, reflecting on grammatical accuracy, clarity, and expression to assess their progress (; ). This reflective contrast enables learners to refine future strategies and deepen metalinguistic awareness.
These deliberate actions could transform translanguaging into a metacognitive scaffold (; ), since the interaction between linguistic systems may enhance metalinguistic awareness, allowing learners to monitor and refine thought processes. Therefore, translanguaging may not be interference, but it could be a pedagogical strategy that externalizes cognition, enabling learners to “think about their thinking” while engaging in EFL tasks.
In practical classroom terms, when students alternate between L1 and English to clarify ideas, compare structures, or generate arguments, they are not merely translating; they are exercising higher-order thinking. This reflection promotes self-regulation, deepens comprehension, and accelerates language development. Consequently, translanguaging may serve as a reflective process through which learners plan, monitor, and evaluate their progress by fulfilling the same functions defined by metacognitive theory. This theoretical convergence suggests that translanguaging, far from hindering English language acquisition, could enhance it through conscious regulation and reflection.
By grounding translanguaging within metacognitive and sociocultural theory, it is suggested that this practice may structure thought and foster awareness rather than linguistic confusion. The following section expands on this framework by illustrating how these theoretical principles translate into practice, highlighting the cognitive benefits of translanguaging in EFL instruction, specifically in vocabulary retention, comprehension, and collaborative knowledge construction.
3 Cognitive benefits and pathways of implementation in EFL contexts
3.1 Comprehension and retention
Vygotsky (1997, as cited in ) argued that vocabulary development shapes cognition, as words function as tools for organizing thought. In EFL contexts where exposure to English is limited, vocabulary acquisition becomes more effective when learners are able to build meaningful associations between their existing linguistic knowledge and new language input (, p. 8). Translanguaging and the ZPD (Figure 2) may be connected to a significant extent here: By activating prior knowledge in L1 with the teacher's guidance, learners bridge what they already know with new linguistic content. Consequently, using these two conceptual foundations allows learners to activate their knowledge to make meaning, retain new words, and develop deeper understanding (from Vygotsky's Theory of Cognitive Development by , Simply Psychology. Licensed under CC by 4.0).
Figure 2
Figure 2 illustrates this dynamic through the ZPD, highlighting how learners progress when supported by mediational tools. Translanguaging, in this sense, could operate as one such tool to promote deeper connections and facilitate durable learning; however, its impact may vary depending on instructional design and the extent wherein teachers guide the process strategically. Hence, the metacognitive value lies in the intentional use of L1 to clarify uncertainty, anticipate lexical needs, or verify semantic distinctions that respond to planning and monitoring within the metacognitive theory.
Research on second language acquisition shows that learners who connect new vocabulary in the target language with their existent knowledge are more likely to retain and accurately use those words. For example, reported that bilingual learners develop stronger foundations that support the acquisition process by fostering the development of cross-linguistic associations. In this sense, words function as cognitive tools that allow learners to organize and expand their thinking; therefore, new lexical items can only be fully acquired when they connect meaningfully with learners’ existing repertoire. These actions support metacognitive regulation, strengthen internalization, and promote long-term vocabulary retention.
3.2 Increased participation and collaborative knowledge construction
Pedagogical translanguaging also promotes multidirectional interaction and collaborative learning, allowing learners to build and comprehend knowledge altogether. Grounded in Vygotsky's sociocultural theory (1997), learning is seen as a socially mediated process in which knowledge is coconstructed through dialogue and interaction. Within this framework, participation means more than just speaking in a second language; it involves negotiation of meaning based on context, dialogue, and collaboration. These processes enables students to internalize linguistic and cognitive strategies, leading to a scaffold process of knowledge construction (; ; ).
Similarly, collaborative knowledge construction is most visible when students coengage in tasks such as group projects, pair discussions, or even problem-solving contexts. In such settings, students test their knowledge, clarify concepts, and most importantly scaffold each other's understanding. in their study about the perspective of multilingualism, illustrate how learners, working together to build meaning, perform at higher levels than they could individually. This interaction shows a clear negotiation of meaning, which occurs when students check comprehension, reformulate utterances, or even ask for clarification—processes that lead to deeper internalization of linguistic forms and communicative strategies. The principle of translanguaging, as a pedagogical scaffolding strategy rather than treating languages as separate systems, views language as an integrated resource for communication and knowledge construction. Empirical studies conducted in Latin American EFL contexts demonstrate that when teachers alternated strategically between English and students’ dominant languages, learners are able to access specialized academic discourse while maintaining cognitive support mechanisms (; ; ). These findings align with the influential international theoretical perspective on translanguaging as a sociocultural and pedagogical practice ().
Taken together, the evidence suggests that translanguaging supports language learning through both individual reflection and collective regulation. By engaging learners in individual and collaborative language acquisition processes, the metacognition cycle is activated—enhancing comprehension, vocabulary retention, and collaborative reasoning. This leads to a more autonomous and confident learner profile. These benefits and pathways of implementation underline that the integration of translanguaging practices into EFL contexts does not reduce English language exposure; rather, it amplifies the depth and quality of learning by connecting cognitive, linguistic, and social dimensions.
Overall, these examples show that translanguaging is far more than switching between languages; it is a way to bring students’ full linguistic and cultural backgrounds into the classroom. When teachers use strategies like bilingual objectives, prewriting in L1, peer collaboration, identity texts, or content language integrated learning (CLIL) sequencing, students feel more confident, participate more actively, and connect new knowledge with what they already know. Evidence from Ecuador, Colombia, and Chile makes it clear that these approaches not only support comprehension and writing but also affirm cultural identity and reduce the anxiety that often comes with learning English. In this sense, translanguaging becomes a practical and powerful tool for rethinking how EFL is taught in Latin America.
4 Limitations
4.1 Policy frameworks in Latin American contexts
Although multilingual and intercultural education frameworks have expanded across Latin America, references to translanguaging as a metacognitive construct remain largely absent from official policy discourse. This observation does not necessarily imply that policy documents determine classroom practices; rather, it highlights a conceptual gap between multilingual principles articulated at the policy level and the pedagogical frameworks typically associated with English language instruction. In many Latin American countries, bilingual education policies have historically focused on the recognition and preservation of Indigenous languages and the promotion of intercultural education. While these initiatives represent important advances in the recognition of linguistic diversity, they rarely address how learners’ broader linguistic repertoires may be intentionally mobilized to support foreign language learning processes.
For example, policies such as Peru's and Ecuador's , as well as more recent frameworks such as the Modelo de Servicio Educativo Intercultural Bilingüe (MOSEIB, 2018) and the Orientaciones Pedagógicas del Modelo del Sistema de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe (MOSEIB, 2019), provide national guidance for intercultural bilingual education. Similar patterns can be observed in other countries in the region, such as Bolivia (), Paraguay (), and Mexico (; INEE, 2019). Likewise, in Chile (MINEDUC, 2023; ), institutional structures formally recognize intercultural and bilingual education initiatives.
As illustrated in Table 1, these policy frameworks tend to recognize linguistic diversity at the systemic level, but they rarely provide explicit pedagogical guidance regarding how learners’ linguistic repertoires might be strategically mobilized in EFL classrooms. In this sense, translanguaging has emerged primarily within pedagogical and research discussions, rather than within the formal language of educational policy.
Table 1
| Country | Policies | Scope | Relevance to translanguaging (Indirect) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peru | Modelo de Servicio Educativo Intercultural Bilingüe (MOSEIB, 2018) | National model for Indigenous Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE) | Recognizes Indigenous languages and Spanish as instructional languages but provides no pedagogical guidelines for translanguaging or cross-linguistic scaffolding. Any relevance is limited to the acknowledgment of multilingual learning ecologies, not to explicit EFL instruction. |
| Ecuador | Orientaciones Pedagógicas del Modelo del Sistema de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe (MOSEIB, 2019) | National guidelines for Indigenous Bilingual Education System (SEIB) | Encourages bilingual instruction in Indigenous programs but does not articulate translanguaging or describe metacognitive or cross-linguistic strategies for English learning. Its relevance is indirect and limited to the recognition of linguistic diversity. |
| Bolivia | Ley de la Educación “Avelino Siñani–Elizardo Pérez” (Law 070, 2010) | National law establishing intracultural, intercultural, and plurilingual education | Positions the system as plurilingual, yet does not describe translanguaging as pedagogy. Official instructional materials (e.g., Texto de Aprendizaje 2025—Lengua Extranjera) adopt a strict L2-only approach, offering no guidance for leveraging L1 as a cognitive scaffold in EFL. |
| Paraguay | Ley N.° 4251/2010 de Lenguas | National bilingual language rights law | Recognizes Guaraní–Spanish bilingualism at the societal level but does not include pedagogical models for translanguaging or foreign language instruction. Relevance is indirect through normalization of bilingualism, not instructional design. |
| Chile | Programa de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe (MINEDUC, 2023) | Intercultural and Indigenous language program | Provides intercultural and Indigenous language curriculum, but English instruction remains monolingual. Does not describe translanguaging strategies or cross-linguistic scaffolding. |
| Mexico | Políticas y fundamentos de la Educación Intercultural Bilingüe en México (INEE, 2019) | Federal guidelines for Indigenous/intercultural education | Establishes bilingual educational structures but lacks explicit translanguaging guidelines and contains no pedagogical references to L1–L2 integration in EFL contexts. Relevance is indirect through multilingual policy goals. |
Education policies in Latin America and their indirect relevance to translanguaging.
Compiled by the authors from policy portals and official documents.
This limited policy articulation may contribute to interpretive ambiguity in educational practice. For instance, flexible language use in classrooms may sometimes be understood simply as translation or incidental code-switching rather than as a structured cognitive or pedagogical strategy (; ). From this perspective, the issue is not necessarily the absence of multilingual awareness in policy frameworks, but the limited conceptual guidance regarding how multilingual resources can be intentionally integrated into foreign language instruction.
Overall, the limited presence of translanguaging in official policy discourse may create interpretative ambiguity regarding the pedagogical role of learners’ linguistic resources in EFL instruction. When policy frameworks do not explicitly distinguish between spontaneous language mixing and intentional pedagogical use, multilingual practices in the classroom may be understood in different ways.
Despite these limitations, empirical and theoretical works have consistently shown that translanguaging can strengthen metacognitive control in EFL learning. Using the strategy correctly could allow students to be engaged in strategic reflection, monitoring, and evaluation of metacognitive scaffolding. Far from being a deficiency, this pedagogical strategy could consciously mobilize students’ repertoires, creating more effective learning pathways for language acquisition. Therefore, the challenge is not that policies ignore linguistic diversity, but that they stop short of translating this recognition into concrete, classroom-ready guidance. Teacher training should reposition translanguaging from language mixing to a metacognitive strategy. Within this context, translanguaging may be interpreted as a pedagogical response emerging primarily from classroom practice and educational research rather than from formal policy frameworks.
4.2 English-Only approach
Despite the expansion of multilingual and intercultural education frameworks in the region, classroom practices in many contexts continue to operate under a predominantly monolingual orientation. In particular, the persistence of the English-only approach in several EFL settings has been widely discussed in the literature as a pedagogical tradition that prioritizes exclusive exposure to the target language. While this approach has historically been justified as a way to maximize exposure to English language, it may not always reflect the cognitive and sociolinguistic realities of multilingual learners. The English-only approach, long embedded in many EFL systems, could constitute a central pedagogical limitation restricting to certain extent learners’ cognitive engagement and the depth of language learning. By discouraging the use of L1, this approach suppresses the activation of key metacognitive processes foundational to self-regulated learning (Flavell, 1979; Brown, 1985, as cited in ). Research on language learning strategies suggests that strictly monolingual instructional environments can increase cognitive load when learners have to process unfamiliar linguistic input without drawing on existing conceptual knowledge, resulting in shallow comprehension and reduced opportunities for strategic decision-making (; ; ). In such contexts, learners may have fewer opportunities to articulate emerging understanding or to check interpretations using familiar linguistic resources, which can limit the development of deliberate monitoring and evaluation strategies. From the perspective of translanguaging and metacognitive theory, languages are not viewed as completely separate systems but as interconnected components of a speaker's broader linguistic repertoire (). When learners are able to draw on these resources during learning activities, they may engage in cross-linguistic comparison, clarification of meaning, and reflective language use—processes that support deeper conceptual understanding.
Within this framework, translanguaging does not replace exposure to the target language; rather, it functions as a complementary scaffold strategy that may allow learners to mobilize their existing linguistic resources in order to clarify meaning, build conceptual connections, and regulate their learning processes.
At the same time, institutional expectations and assessment practices also contribute to the persistence of monolingual systems. In some contexts, teachers may feel compelled to suppress translanguaging to comply with standardized testing expectations, even when such suppression may contradict learners’ cognitive needs. As a result, English-only instruction becomes not merely a methodological constraint but a conceptual limitation that prevents students from mobilizing the linguistic resources necessary for planning, monitoring, and evaluating their learning.
Collectively, these considerations suggest the need to reconsider how multilingual resources are positioned within EFL instruction. Reframing language teaching through a metacognitive lens may allow educators to view learners’ linguistic repertoires not as obstacles to target language acquisition, but as cognitive resources that support reflection, comprehension, and strategic language use. Within this perspective, translanguaging can function as a deliberate scaffold that supports self-regulation and higher order thinking in EFL learning environments.
5 Conclusion
This perspective article has argued that translanguaging—when conceptualized as a metacognitive scaffold—provides a powerful alternative to the “English-Only Approach” paradigm that has long shaped EFL instruction in Latin American classrooms. By integrating sociocultural mediation with metacognitive theory, the article suggests that translanguaging may be a strategic process through which students plan, monitor, and evaluate their thinking across languages.
Addressing the first research question, the conceptual synthesis presented in this article suggests how translanguaging can be theorized as a metacognitive regulatory tool rather than as incidental language alternation. Drawing on prior research, the discussion illustrates how translanguaging could activate the core components of metacognition and self-regulated learning. Learners use their L1 to plan organization (), monitor comprehension through cross-linguistic checks (; ), and evaluate linguistic performance by comparing structures and meanings (; ).These practices not only validate learners’ language but also provide a possible pathway for improving language acquisition in contexts where the exposure to English outside the classroom remains limited. Evidence drawn from regional and international studies has emphasized how translanguaging could enhance vocabulary development, deepen comprehension, and promote collaborative knowledge construction.
Regarding the second research question, the analysis identifies a set of contextual, pedagogical, and policy-related factors that shape and constrain the positioning of translanguaging in Latin American EFL education. While translanguaging has been widely examined in terms of identity, equity, or affective factors, its explicit connection to metacognitive regulation has received limited theorization within Latin American EFL scholarships. This article addresses that gap by clarifying the conditions under which translanguaging becomes reflective rather than automatic, and by defining criteria for identifying metacognition in classroom interaction. In doing so, it offers a theoretical framework that positions learners’ linguistic package as tools for higher-order thinking and self-regulated learning. Moreover, although multilingualism is recognized in several national frameworks, policies do not articulate how learners’ linguistic repertoires should be used to support cognitive development in second language acquisition. As shown through the analysis of policies, bilingual rights do not translate into explicit cross-linguistic pedagogies for EFL instruction. Moreover, the dominance of the English-only approach is sustained by multiple factors, including teachers' limited pedagogical practice and misconceptions, institutional resistance, and assessment pressures (; ; ). These conditions limit the integration of translanguaging as a metacognitive strategy. Hence, the central barrier is not the recognition of the linguistic diversity, but the lack of explicit pedagogical guidance to operationalize it in EFL settings.
Translanguaging should not be reduced to sporadic code-switching or a mere grammar translation practice, but it must be recognized as a metacognitive scaffold with the potential to reshape EFL education. By integrating this technique into classroom practices, educators can simultaneously advance linguistic proficiency and foster self-regulation by empowering students to go through their contextual realities. Finally, this article contributes to the field by reframing translanguaging as a cognitive, pedagogical, and policy-relevant strategy in EFL education.
Future research should build on this reframing by empirically examining how this approach supports learner's metacognitive development across modalities, disciplines, and proficiency levels. Particular attention is needed to how students transfer metacognitive strategies across languages, how teachers can design tasks that promote socially shared regulation, and how digital and CLIL-based learning environments may enhance or constrain cross-linguistic reflection. Moreover, context-specific studies across regions beyond Latin America can offer insights into how translanguaging-based metacognitive scaffolding adapts to diverse linguistic ecologies.
By foregrounding translanguaging as a metacognitive scaffold practice, this article contributes to rethinking EFL instructions through a lens that values language backgrounds as essentials tools for meaning-making, autonomy, and academic growth. Such reframing invites educators, policymakers, and researchers to envision language learning not as the suppression of linguistic resources but as their strategic mobilization—opening pathways toward more equitable, cognitively informed, and empowering approaches to foreign language education. While translanguaging offers promising pedagogical possibilities, its implementation requires careful consideration of local contexts, teacher preparation, and institutional expectations.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Author contributions
AC: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. NC: Data curation, Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AbbasovaA. A. (2020). The role of translanguaging in shaping an inclusive learning environment. ELMİ İŞ (Beynəlxalq Elmi Jurnal), 53, 190–192. 10.36719/AEM/2007-2020/53/190-192
2
AlvarezC.DaríoH. (2020). Translanguaging in the EFL Classroom: Its Usage, Purpose, Advantages, and Disadvantages as Perceived by a Group of EFL Learners and Their Educator. Winnipeg: UNIANDES. Available online at:https://hdl.handle.net/1992/43843(Accessed November 14, 2025).
3
AndersonL.KrathwohlD.AirasianP.CruikshankK.MayerR.PintrichP.et al (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. 1st ed. New York: Longman. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235465787_A_Taxonomy_for_Learning_Teaching_and_Assessing_A_Revision_of_Bloom’s_Taxonomy_of_Educational_Objectives
4
ArellanoR.HatossA. (2023). Caught Between a Bilingual Policy and Monolingual English Practices in Chile: Opportunities and Challenges of Translanguaging. Singapore: Springer. 191–206. 10.1007/978-981-19-9350-3_13
5
BarahonaM. (2020). The potential of translanguaging as a core teaching practice in an EFL context. System95, 102368. 10.1016/j.system.2020.102368
6
CervantesF.SierraJ.SupoE.AreZ.YauriF. (2025). Estrategias metacognitivas en el aprendizaje del inglés como lengua extranjera en educación superior: una revisión de literatura. Revista Espacios.46 (5), 10.48082/espacios-a25v46n05p23
7
ContehJ. (2018). Translanguaging. ELT J.72 (4), 445–446. 10.1093/elt/ccy034
8
CrespoN. M. (2000). La metacognición: las diferentes vertientes de una teoría. Revista Signos.33 (48), 97–115. 10.4067/S0718-09342000004800008
9
DíazD. G.ChongE. D.GrandaG. A.JordánR. C. (2023). The use of metacognition as a way to improve the learning process in EFL students. Ciencia Latina Rev. Científica. Multidisciplinar.7 (3), 3837–3851. 10.37811/cl_rcm.v7i3.6446
10
DuarteJ. (2019). Translanguaging in mainstream education: a sociocultural approach. Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling.22 (2), 150–164. 10.1080/13670050.2016.1231774
11
GarcíaO.KleifgenJ. A. (2020). Translanguaging and literacies. Read. Res. Q.55 (4), 553–571. 10.1002/rrq.286
12
Law-070 (Norma Law N. 070; LEY DE LA EDUCACIÓN “AVELINO SIÑANI - ELIZARDO PÉREZ,” p. 39) (2010). Ministerio de Educación Bolivia. Available online at:https://siteal.iiep.unesco.org/sites/default/files/sit_accion_files/ley_70-2010.pdf
13
LeonetO.ArocenaE.SaraguetaE. (2025). Young bilingual students’ use of metacognitive strategies to overcome comprehension difficulties when Reading in the foreign language. Literacy59 (2), 135–150. 10.1111/lit.12383
14
Ley No 5031 (n.d.). Baccn. Available online at:https://www.bacn.gov.py/leyes-paraguayas/2676/implementa-el-idioma-ingles-en-la-malla-curricular-de-la-educacion-publica-desde-el-preescolar-hasta-el-tercero-de-la-media (Accessed November 14, 2025)
15
LinA. M. Y. (2019). Theories of trans/languaging and trans-semiotizing: implications for content-based education classrooms. Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling.22 (1), 5–16. 10.1080/13670050.2018.1515175
16
LiuY.FangF. (2022). Translanguaging theory and practice: how stakeholders perceive translanguaging as a practical theory of language. RELC Journal53 (2), 391–399. 10.1177/0033688220939222
17
LoncarL.FiskumC. (2025). Detached self-observation as a developmental catalyst: theoretical insights from dynamical systems thinking, cultural mediation, and contemplative practice. Front. Psychol.16, 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1659774
18
McleodS. (2025). Vygotsky’s Theory of Cognitive Development. 2–9. 10.5281/zenodo.15680745
19
Modelo de Servicio Educativo Intercultural Bilingüe. Lima: MSEIB (Ministerio de Educación del Perú) (2025). Available online at:https://www.gob.pe/39448-educacion-intercultural-bilingue-eib-modelo-de-servicio-educativo-intercultural-bilingue-mseib
20
MoralesJ.SchisselJ. L.López-GoparM. (2020). “Pedagogical sismo: translanguaging approaches for English language instruction and assessment in oaxaca, Mexico,” in Envisioning TESOL Through a Translanguaging Lens: Global Perspectives, eds. TianZ.AghaiL.SayerP.SchisselJ. L. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 161–183. 10.1007/978-3-030-47031-9_8
21
MoritzS.LysakerP. H. (2018). Metacognition—what did James H. Flavell really say and the implications for the conceptualization and design of metacognitive interventions. Schizophr. Res.201, 20–26. 10.1016/j.schres.2018.06.001
22
MOSEIB (Acuerdo Ministerial Nos. 0440–13; Modelo del Sistema de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe, p. 60) (2013). Ministerio de Educación. Available online at:https://educacion.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/03/MOSEIB.pdf
23
National English Strategy (2014). Ministerio de Educación. Santiago: Ministerio de Educacion. Available online at:https://www.economia.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/140307-Documento-Estrategia-Nacional-de-Ingl%C3%A9s-2014-2030.pdf(Accessed November 14, 2025).
24
OrtegaY. (2019). “Teacher, ¿puedo hablar en español?” A reflection on plurilingualism and translanguaging practices in EFL. Prof. Iss. Teach. Prof. Dev.21 (2), 155–170. 10.15446/profile.v21n2.74091
25
Pánchez-JiménezT. (2021). The use of TransLanguage to improve oral reading proficiency in a foreign language classroom. Rev. Cátedra4 (3), 57–75. 10.29166/catedra.v4i3.3041
26
PRONI (technical sheet No. S270; p. 6) (2024). Subsecretaría de Educación Básica Mexico. Available online at:https://educacionbasica.sep.gob.mx/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-DGGEyET-Ficha-Tecnica-PRONI.pdf
27
RobillosR. J. (2023). Exploring translanguaging during metacognitive strategy use on L2 listening and writing skills. J. Lang. Educ.9 (3), 110–128. 10.17323/jle.2023.14329
28
Ubaque-CasallasD. F. (2023). Using translanguaging to decolonize English language teaching in Colombia: a narrative inquiry. Íkala Rev. Lenguaje Cult.28 (3), 1–17. 10.17533/udea.ikala.348890
29
UyaguariT.delR. U.RomeroP. E. A.FrancoL. B. M.BlacioC. E. E.CobosG. N. G.et al (2025). Desafíos del aprendizaje inclusivo en la educación intercultural bilingüe en Ecuador: challenges of inclusive learning in intercultural bilingual education in Ecuador. Rev. Multidisc. Estud. Gen.4 (2), 999–1020. 10.70577/reg.v4i2.132
30
VogelS.GarcíaO. (2017). Translanguaging. Publications and Research. Available online at:https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_pubs/402
31
WangZ.ShenB.ChenY.FangF. (2025). (PDF) unpacking teachers’ beliefs about translanguaging in language learning: a qualitative meta-synthesis. ResearchGate22, 10.1080/14790718.2025.2463539
32
WheelerS. (2015). Learning Theories for the Digital Age. Keynote presentation. Available online at: https://www.ial.edu.sg/getmedia/1c2658eb-a21f-4e3c-a597-ff9ab49b8055/Keynote5_Steve-Wheeler.pdf (Accessed November 14, 2025).
33
XinS.PingW.QinY. (2024). Twenty years’development of translanguaging: a bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Multiling.21 (1), 210-215 / 220-221. 10.1080/14790718.2021.2007933
34
YuvayapanF. (2019). Translanguaging in EFL classrooms: teachers’ perceptions and practices. J. Lang Linguistic Stud.15 (2), 678–694. 10.17263/jlls.586811
35
Zayas-MartínezF.Estrada-ChichónJ. L.Segura-CaballeroN. (2024). Pre-service CLIL teachers’ conceptions on bilingual education: impact of initial training on the development of their teaching skills. Educ. Sci.14 (12), 1331. 10.3390/educsci14121331
36
ZhangQ.OsborneC.LinX. (2024). Translanguaging learning strategies (TLS): a novel proposal from learning Chinese. Chin Lang Disc.15 (2), 218–243. 10.1075/cld.24005.zha
Summary
Keywords
EFL instruction, English-only approach, Latin America, learners' autonomy, metacognition, multilingual education policy, policies, reframing
Citation
Contreras Falcones A and Cevallos Polanco N (2026) Translanguaging as a metacognitive scaffold strategy: reframing EFL instruction. Front. Educ. 11:1712765. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1712765
Received
25 September 2025
Revised
10 March 2026
Accepted
19 March 2026
Published
21 May 2026
Volume
11 - 2026
Edited by
Ingrid Gogolin, University of Hamburg, Germany
Reviewed by
Mohamad Almashour, The University of Jordan, Jordan
Irina Usanova, University of Hamburg, Germany
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Contreras Falcones and Cevallos Polanco.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Alexis Contreras Falcones alexiscontreras@uees.edu.ec
ORCID Alexis Contreras Falcones orcid.org/0009-0007-3958-0953 Norman Cevallos Polanco orcid.org/0000-0002-7700-6115
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.