INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education  
Bilingual Pedagogy and Learner Engagement in Grammar  
Instruction in Rural Junior High Schools in Ghana: Implications for  
Language Policy Implementation  
Joshua Kwabena Nbiba Bintul1, Anthony Adawu2  
1Department of English Education, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana  
2Department of English Education, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana  
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0692  
Received: 10 November 2025; Accepted: 16 November 2025; Published: 25 November 2025  
ABSTRACT  
Although Ghana’s language-in-education policy mandates the exclusive use of Ghanaian languages up to Basic  
3 and English-only instruction from Basic 4 upward, classroom realities in rural junior high schools reveal a  
striking mismatch between policy prescriptions and pedagogical practice. Despite the formal monolingual  
orientation of the policy, many teachers continue to draw on learners’ L1 as a practical resource for explaining  
grammatical concepts and enhancing comprehension. Guided by Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis, this study  
explored how bilingual pedagogy influences learner engagement in grammar instruction and the implications  
for language policy implementation in rural Ghanaian junior high schools. The study employed qualitative case  
study design, involving twelve purposively selected English teachers from rural schools in the Oti and Volta  
Regions. Data was gathered through interviews, classroom observations, and document analysis, and analyzed  
thematically using Braun and Clarke’s framework. Findings showed that teachers employed translanguaging,  
code-switching, and comparative grammar explanations to foster comprehension and participation, yet these  
practices remain unofficial and unstable due to policy ambiguity, institutional pressure for English-only  
instruction, and insufficient preparation in bilingual pedagogies. The study concludes that bilingual pedagogy  
enhances learner engagement by promoting conscious linguistic noticing but remains hindered by unclear policy  
direction and lack of teacher training. It recommends operationalizing Ghana’s policy to legitimize and support  
bilingual classroom practices.  
Key Words: Bilingual Pedagogy, English-only Instruction, Language-in-Education, Introduction, Language  
Policy, Learner Engagement  
INTRODUCTION  
Language lies at the heart of education, shaping not only how learners access knowledge but also how they  
construct meaning and identity. In multilingual societies like Ghana, where over 80 indigenous languages coexist  
alongside English, bilingual pedagogy has become central to equitable and meaningful learning (Opoku-  
Amankwa et al., 2015; UNESCO, 2020). The effective implementation of bilingual instruction at the junior high  
school level is crucial, as this stage bridges basic literacy and advanced academic discourse. Yet, despite decades  
of advocacy for mother-tongue-based formal education, the language-in-education policy only permits the use  
of mother-tongue in formal instruction only at the lower primary school level. This English-only policy does not  
permit the many rural schools still struggle to actualize bilingual pedagogies that foster genuine learner  
engagement and comprehension (Ansah, 2014; Dankwa-Apawu et al., 2025).  
Our observations and discussions with teachers in rural districts of Oti and Volta Regions, as well as other areas  
of Ghana, reveal that while teachers recognize the importance of the mother tongue in facilitating understanding  
and engagement, the English-only instruction policy prevents them from using other languages for instruction  
in multilingual Ghanaian communities. This mismatch between policy and practice undermines learner  
participation and conceptual understanding. Learners, particularly in rural settings where English exposure is  
Page 9134  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education  
limited often become passive recipients rather than active participants in lessons (Anim, 2023; Opoku-  
Amankwa, 2009). Their disengagement is not merely linguistic but cognitive and affective, as comprehension  
difficulties in English inhibit classroom interaction and confidence (Yevudey, 2017).  
Teacher beliefs about language use, including what languages should be used, when, and for what purposes,  
strongly influence their pedagogical decisions (Garcia & Lin, 2017). Those who view bilingualism as a  
transitional tool tend to minimize local language use, whereas teachers who embrace it as a cognitive and cultural  
resource adopt more flexible, translanguaging practices that scaffold understanding and engagement (Neupane,  
2025; Niazi, 2022). However, Ghana’s English-dominant assessment regime, English-only policy, and parental  
attitudes toward English as the language of success often constrain teachers’ agency to fully implement bilingual  
strategies (Ansah & Agyeman, 2015; Bisilki, 2025). Consequently, classroom discourse frequently reflects  
policy rhetoric rather than pedagogical reality.  
In this context, exploring how bilingual pedagogy intersects with learner engagement is essential to  
understanding the deeper implications of Ghana’s language-in-education policy. The present study argues that  
bilingual instruction should not merely be seen as a medium choice but as a pedagogical strategy that enables  
learners to notice linguistic forms, negotiate meaning, and develop metalinguistic awareness through interaction  
in both languages. Therefore, this study seeks to uncover how teachers conceptualize and practice bilingual  
pedagogy in rural junior high schools and how such practices shape learner engagement in multilingual  
classrooms.  
Statement of the Problem  
Despite Ghana’s long-standing language-in-education policy, actual classroom practices in some junior high  
school in rural communities remain inconsistent with policy intentions. The official language-in-education  
policy mandates the use of Ghanaian languages as mediums of instruction in the early years, with a transition to  
English-only by upper primary and beyond. However, in rural junior high schools, teachers often struggle to  
implement the English-only policy meaningfully (Ansah, 2014; Bretuo, 2021). Classroom observations and  
empirical studies suggest that some teachers resort to unofficial and policy-inconsistent uses of L1, often through  
brief code-switching, translation, or comparative grammar explanations (Adawu & Bintul, 2025; Yevudey,  
2017). However, these L1 insertions are typically sporadic, improvised, and pedagogically unstructured,  
reflecting teachers’ attempts to navigate the limitations imposed by the policy rather than deliberate bilingual  
instructional design (Ansah & Agyeman, 2015). As a result, the use of L1 in junior high schools operates as a  
survival strategy rather than a recognized pedagogical tool.  
The problem, therefore, is not only one of language choice but of pedagogical enactment and learner  
participation. Learners in these contexts are frequently disengaged from classroom discourse because instruction  
in English-only exceeds their comprehension threshold, while local language use is stigmatized or underutilized.  
Thus, the potential instructional benefits of complementary L1 use within English-medium classrooms remain  
largely unactualized in practice (Macaro et al., 2020).  
Previous research (e.g., Anim, 2023; Ansah & Agyeman, 2015; Owoo, 2024) has emphasized the policy-  
practice gap, yet little is known about how bilingual pedagogies influence learner engagement and how teachers’  
beliefs and classroom realities mediate this relationship.  
A systematic investigation into teachers’ bilingual pedagogical practices and their impact on engagement is  
therefore timely. Without such understanding, language policy implementation risks remaining a struggle since  
it is codified in documents but disconnected from learners’ linguistic realities and teachers’ instructional  
challenges.  
Purpose of the Study  
The purpose of this study was to examine how bilingual pedagogy influences learner engagement in grammar  
instruction in selected rural junior high schools in Ghana and to explore the implications of these practices for  
effective language policy implementation.  
Page 9135  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education  
Research Questions  
The study addressed the following research questions:  
How do bilingual pedagogical practices influence learner engagement in English grammar instruction?  
What implications may these bilingual pedagogical practices have for language policy implementation in rural  
junior high schools in Ghana?  
Theoretical Framework  
This study is grounded in Schmidt’s (1990) Noticing Hypothesis, which posits that conscious awareness of  
linguistic input “noticing” is a necessary condition for language learning. According to Schmidt, learners must  
first notice specific language forms and functions in input before these can become intake and be internalized  
for use. The theory thus bridges cognition and pedagogy, emphasizing that instruction must create opportunities  
for learners to attend consciously to language in meaningful contexts (Ellis, 2015; Leow, 2018).  
In the context of bilingual pedagogical practices, the Noticing Hypothesis underscores the role of language  
alternation (e.g., translanguaging, code-switching) as a cognitive tool that enables learners to compare linguistic  
systems, clarify meaning, and make form-function connections (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021). When teachers  
deliberately draw learners’ attention to correspondences between English and Ghanaian languages, they facilitate  
metalinguistic awareness (Agbozo, 2015; Kwaukumey, 2023). Conversely, monolingual English instruction in  
linguistically complex classrooms limits opportunities for noticing and constrains engagement, as learners  
struggle to connect new input with existing linguistic knowledge (Wei & Garcia, 2022).  
Within rural Ghanaian classrooms, Schmidt’s hypothesis provides a useful analytical lens for examining how  
bilingual instruction mediates attention, understanding, and participation. Teachers’ strategic use of the mother  
tongue can help learners notice the gap between their current linguistic competence and target forms in English,  
thereby deepening engagement through active meaning negotiation. This framework also enables the researchers  
to interrogate how teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and contextual realities shape the use of bilingual techniques  
that promote noticing. Ultimately, by situating bilingual pedagogy within the Noticing Hypothesis, this study  
views learner engagement not as passive participation but as an active cognitive process in which awareness,  
interaction, and bilingual mediation converge to support effective language learning and policy realization.  
Conceptualizing Bilingual Pedagogy in Multilingual Contexts  
In attempting to conceptualize bilingual pedagogy within multilingual spaces such as Ghana, it becomes evident  
that scholarship has gradually shifted from viewing bilingualism as a remedial linguistic strategy to recognizing  
it as an epistemic resource. While García and Lin (2017) and Liu and Fang (2018) foreground bilingual pedagogy  
as deliberate instructional use of two languages to scaffold learning, the critical question is how such conceptual  
frames translate into classroom practice where power, ideology, and assessment pressures intersect. The earlier  
deficit-based belief that indigenous languages merely “support” eventual English mastery is increasingly  
challenged by scholars like Cummins (2021), who argues that bilingualism strengthens cognitive processes  
necessary for academic performance. However, the persistent dominance of English-only policy in most of  
education in Ghanaian schools suggests that Cummins’s theoretical ideal is seldom realized in practice.  
Contemporary discussions on translanguaging, championed by Canagarajah (2020) and Wei and García (2021),  
further expand bilingual pedagogy into a flexible repertoire-based practice that empowers learners to mobilize  
all linguistic resources for meaning-making. Yet, a critical tension emerges: although translanguaging promises  
learner agency, Ghanaian classrooms often remain constrained by monolingual ideologies that privilege English  
as the sole marker of progress and modernity (Agyekum, 2018). This ideological imbalance restricts teachers’  
agency, compelling many to adopt bilingual strategies informally rather than as intentional pedagogical practices  
(Adika, 2012). Adika’s (2012) work, which draws on qualitative classroom observations in Ghanaian basic  
schools, highlights that teachers’ bilingual practices are largely ad hoc, serving translation rather than conceptual  
development.  
Page 9136  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education  
From a constructivist standpoint, Opoku-Amankwa et al. (2015) and UNESCO (2021) demonstrate that learners  
build deeper understanding when instruction activates prior linguistic knowledge. Their findings, based on  
empirical classroom-based research in Ghana and cross-national comparative analyses, reveal that bilingual  
scaffolding promotes conceptual clarity, especially in literacy-related tasks. Nonetheless, this potential remains  
limited by rigid curriculum structures that prioritize content coverage and examination performance over  
dialogic interaction (Yevudey, 2017). Yevudey’s (2017) ethnographic study in rural Ghanaian classrooms found  
that teachers’ attempts at bilingual engagement were often curtailed by curriculum pacing demands and  
inadequate institutional support. Thus, the conceptualization of bilingual pedagogy in this study moves beyond  
describing language alternation to interrogating how sociolinguistic hierarchies and curriculum pressures shape  
the legitimacy and enactment of bilingual teaching.  
Teachers’ Beliefs and Knowledge about Bilingual Instruction  
Teachers’ beliefs form a critical mediating layer between policy expectations and actual classroom practices.  
Borg (2015) rightly argues that teacher cognition exerts a stronger influence on instructional decisions than  
prescriptive policy documents. This claim is evident in Ghanaian research, where teachers often express  
ambivalence toward using local languages for instruction. Asare (2022), through a mixed-methods study  
involving surveys and lesson observations across four Ghanaian regions, found that teachers acknowledged the  
usefulness of bilingual support but remained reluctant to adopt it systematically due to examination-driven  
pressures. Bretuo (2021), in a qualitative case study conducted in rural Ghana, similarly notes that teachers  
interpret bilingualism as potentially beneficial but not aligned with the assessment culture that privileges  
English-only performance.  
A persistent issue is the inadequate preparation of teachers for bilingual pedagogy. Yakubu (2020), drawing on  
interviews with teacher educators and pre-service teachers in Northern Ghana, explains that teacher training  
programs prioritize English proficiency but neglect strategies for integrating Ghanaian languages into  
instruction. This structural omission leaves teachers theoretically aware of bilingual benefits but practically  
underprepared, echoing Adika’s (2012) earlier findings that many teachers lack the discourse management skills  
needed to facilitate bilingual classroom interactions.  
Moreover, teachers’ beliefs are not formed in isolation; they are embedded within broader socio-political and  
institutional structures. Bamgbose (2000) illustrates, through a pan-African policy analysis, that English  
dominance persists because societal attitudes equate English with opportunity and upward mobility. Bretuo’s  
(2021) observations affirm that such ideologies trickle down into rural classrooms, shaping teachers’ reluctance  
to employ bilingual strategies even when evidence supports their effectiveness. However, comparative work by  
Heugh and Mohamed (2020) and Plüddemann (2018), based on empirical studies in South Africa and  
multilingual African contexts, demonstrates that sustained professional development and policy alignment can  
shift teacher beliefs, enabling more consistent bilingual practice. These studies collectively suggest that without  
institutional reinforcement, teacher awareness alone is insufficient for meaningful pedagogical transformation.  
Bilingual Pedagogy and Learner Engagement  
Learner engagement is widely acknowledged as central to effective bilingual pedagogy, yet its realization  
depends on how teachers mediate linguistic access. Wei and García (2022) argue that when learners can draw  
freely on their linguistic repertoires, they demonstrate increased confidence and deeper comprehension. Their  
work, grounded in classroom-based qualitative analyses, highlights the cognitive and affective benefits of  
translanguaging. In Ghana, however, rural learners often internalize classroom silence and disengagement as a  
response to English-only instruction (Yevudey, 2017). Yevudey’s (2017) ethnography found that learners  
participated more actively when allowed to discuss tasks in local languages before responding in English.  
Empirical studies conducted in Ghana provide further support. Opoku-Amankwa et al. (2015), using mixed  
methods across urban and rural basic schools, found that bilingual group discussions fostered equitable  
participation and enhanced comprehension. Bronteng (2018), through classroom discourse analysis in junior  
high schools, similarly concluded that translanguaging promoted conceptual understanding by enabling learners  
to connect new content to familiar linguistic frames. Yet, these positive outcomes depend heavily on teachers’  
Page 9137  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education  
willingness to legitimize learners’ linguistic resources. Asare (2022) warns that monolingual classroom norms  
silence learners who lack proficiency in English, reducing engagement to superficial repetition rather than  
genuine meaning-making.  
Cognitively, Ellis (2015) and Loewen (2020) argue that bilingual engagement enhances metalinguistic  
awareness because it draws learners’ attention to linguistic contrasts across languages. These conceptual insights  
resonate with observed classroom outcomes: bilingual engagement is not merely behavioral but fundamentally  
cognitive. However, policy environments often fail to support these practices. UNESCO (2020) underscores that  
without appropriate materials, teacher training, and assessment models that value bilingual participation, learner  
engagement remains fragile. Thus, engagement becomes both a pedagogical indicator and a policy barometer,  
revealing the extent to which bilingual ideals translate into classroom realities.  
Language Policy Implementation and the Rural Classroom Context  
Language policy in Ghana has historically oscillated between promoting local languages and entrenching  
English as the de facto instructional medium (Klu & Asare, 2018). The 2019 Standard-Based curriculum’s  
language-in-education policy, for instance, mandates the predominant use of Ghanaian languages at the lower  
primary level and a transition to English-only instruction from upper primary onwards (Asare, 2022; Odoom,  
2025). Odoom (2025), in a policy-implementation study using document analysis and interviews with district  
education officers, highlights that while policy texts advocate bilingual instruction, schools lack resources and  
supervisory structures to enforce these provisions. Rural schools are most affected: they experience acute  
shortages of bilingual materials, limited teacher training, and diverse linguistic populations that complicate the  
selection of a dominant local language (Adika, 2012; Yevudey, 2017).  
These realities reflect what Ricento (2015) terms the “politics of practicality,” where policy ideals yield to  
systemic constraints. Laviosa and Davies (2020), in their comparative analysis of sub-Saharan language-in-  
education reforms, argue that top-down policy approaches frequently overlook the lived complexities of rural  
classrooms. Their critique aligns with Ghanaian evidence showing that teachers at the junior high schools usually  
abandon bilingual education since the English-only policy does not permit its usage (Asare, 2022; Yevudey,  
2017). In this case, teachers are out of sync with assessment standards, resource availability, and community  
expectations.  
Yet, despite policy ambiguities, teachers in rural settings often innovate. Yevudey (2017) documents how some  
rural teachers create informal translanguaging spaces, such as bilingual group discussions and storytelling  
sessions, to enhance participation. These context-responsive strategies demonstrate teacher agency in navigating  
competing curricular and linguistic demands. Nonetheless, they remain informal adaptations rather than  
institutionalized practice, highlighting a significant policy-practice gap. By positioning rural classrooms as  
critical sites where bilingual pedagogy is enacted, negotiated, or resisted, this study foregrounds the complex  
interplay of teacher agency, learner engagement, and policy structure in shaping language education in  
multilingual Ghana.  
METHODOLOGY  
This study adopted a qualitative research approach to explore how bilingual pedagogy influences learner  
engagement in rural junior high schools in Ghana. We found the qualitative research approach most appropriate  
because it facilitates a close interrogation of the social, linguistic, and pedagogical realities that unfold naturally  
within classrooms. As Creswell and Poth (2016) assert, qualitative inquiry privileges depth and meaning,  
enabling the researcher to capture lived experiences in ways that quantitative approaches often cannot.  
Qualitative inquiry enables a deep exploration of the fluid negotiations, power dynamics, and belief systems that  
shape teachers’ language practices. Given that our interest lay in understanding how bilingual pedagogy  
influences learner engagement in grammar instruction and its possible implications for policy implementation,  
a qualitative stance offered the interpretive flexibility required for this investigation.  
A case study design was employed to examine bilingual pedagogy and learner engagement across selected rural  
junior high schools. Following Yin (2018), we viewed case study methodology as appropriate where contextual  
Page 9138  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education  
conditions are inseparable from the phenomenon. Each selected school was treated as a bounded case, allowing  
for careful comparison of how sociolinguistic realities shape pedagogical decisions. This approach aligned with  
the interpretivist orientation of the study, which, as Tisdell et al. (2025) maintain, seeks to enlighten processes  
and meanings rather than to generalize across populations.  
The study was conducted across ten junior high schools in some rural communities in the Oti and Volta Regions  
of Ghana, contexts where bilingual pedagogy is both most urgent and most constrained. These sociocultural  
contexts present linguistic diversities. The dominant languages spoken in these research contexts include Ewe,  
Konkomba, Nchumuru, Krachi, among others. Through purposive sampling, twelve English language teachers  
were selected based on their involvement in grammar and literacy teaching and their experience working with  
linguistically diverse learners. This sampling approach ensured that participants could articulate informed  
reflections on their pedagogical reasoning and the challenges of balancing English and local language use.  
Data was developed through semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and document analysis. The  
semi-structured interviews elicited teachers’ beliefs, motivations, and interpretations of bilingual instruction,  
while observations enabled us to witness spontaneous bilingual practices and learner engagement patterns that  
might otherwise remain unnoticed. Document analysis provided additional contextual grounding and allowed  
cross-validation of teacher accounts.  
Data analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2019) six-phase thematic analysis, a systematic yet flexible approach  
that enabled the researchers to move from raw textual data to patterned meanings grounded in teachers’ lived  
experiences. The analysis began with familiarization, during which the researchers repeatedly read interview  
transcripts, observation notes, and document records while taking reflexive notes on emerging ideas. In the  
second phase, initial codes were generated manually, capturing meaningful features such as “use of L1 to clarify  
grammar,” “policy uncertainty,” and “learner confusion during English-only instruction.” The third phase  
involved searching for themes, where related codes were clustered into broader categories, such as bilingual  
pedagogy as a cognitive scaffold, ambivalence due to policy pressure and fear of being judged, and pragmatic  
orientation to bilingual use.  
During the fourth phase, the themes were reviewed, checked against the coded extracts and the entire data corpus,  
and refined by collapsing overlapping categories and removing weak or unsupported patterns. In the fifth phase,  
themes were defined and named, ensuring that each theme captured a coherent story. For example, the theme  
“Teachers’ Beliefs about Bilingual Pedagogy and Learner Engagement”” was sharpened to reflect teachers’  
deliberate use of Ghanaian languages to support comprehension rather than simple translation. Finally, in the  
sixth phase, the findings were written up, weaving together analytic claims with vivid excerpts from the data to  
produce an interpretation that was both empirically grounded and theoretically informed. This iterative process  
ensured analytical rigor and allowed the researcher’s interpretive voice to remain present throughout the analysis.  
To improve analytic transparency, coding was conducted in iterative cycles, beginning with open inductive  
coding to capture emerging patterns and followed by deductive coding guided by Schmidt’s (1990) Noticing  
Hypothesis. Rather than relying solely on researcher intuition, we maintained an audit trail that documented  
coding decisions, category refinements, and analytic reflections. To enhance coding reliability, 20% of the data  
was independently reviewed by a peer qualitative researcher, and areas of divergence were reconciled through  
discussion to ensure interpretive consistency.  
Multiple strategies were integrated to enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings. Triangulation  
across interviews, observations, and documents allowed convergence of evidence and helped mitigate single-  
source bias. Member checking was conducted by sharing preliminary themes with six participating teachers.  
This enabled them to verify the accuracy of interpretations and challenge any misrepresentations of their  
perspectives. In one instance, a teacher questioned the initial theme that suggested teachers “rarely” used L1;  
she clarified that although policy restrictions limited explicit use, brief explanatory code-switching occurred  
regularly during the teaching of difficult grammatical structures, prompting a refinement of the theme to capture  
this nuance. We also kept a reflexive journal throughout fieldwork, documenting how our positionality  
influenced data interpretation. Consistent with Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) principles, engagement in schools  
helped to build rapport and produce more authentic, context-sensitive insights.  
Page 9139  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education  
LIMITATION OF THE STUDY  
Although the qualitative case study design generated rich, context-specific insights, the sample size may restrict  
its generalizability. The reliance on self-reported data in interviews may have introduced selective recall or social  
desirability bias. Despite triangulation, classroom observations were limited to specific periods (two lessons of  
each teacher) and may not fully capture teachers’ wider bilingual practices. Additionally, the study’s focus on  
English teachers excluded other subject teachers whose perspectives may enrich understanding.  
RESULTS  
This section presents the results of the study on how bilingual pedagogy influences learner engagement in  
selected rural junior high schools in Ghana and the implications for language policy implementation. The  
analysis is guided by Schmidt’s (1990) Noticing Hypothesis, which posits that conscious awareness of linguistic  
input—“noticing”—is a prerequisite for language acquisition. In this theoretical framing, learner engagement is  
viewed as an active cognitive process in which bilingual practices (such as translanguaging and code-switching)  
help students attend to, compare, and internalize linguistic forms and meanings  
To provide a coherent overview of the major insights that emerged from the data, Table 1 presents a thematic  
summary map that consolidates the findings generated through Braun and Clarke’s (2019) six-phase thematic  
analysis. The table is organized to guide the reader through the logical progression of themes, beginning with  
teachers’ underlying beliefs about bilingual pedagogy, moving through the actual classroom enactment of these  
practices, and ending with the broader pedagogical implications for language policy implementation in rural  
junior high schools.  
Each theme is broken down into sub-themes that highlight patterns across interviews, classroom observations,  
and document analysis. The table also integrates brief summaries of findings, identifies the sources of evidence  
supporting each pattern, and includes illustrative excerpts or observed behaviors that ground each theme in the  
lived realities of teachers and learners. In this way, the table functions as a visual synthesis of the analytical  
narrative, enabling readers to engage with the thematic structure of the study while appreciating how bilingual  
strategies shape learner engagement in multilingual rural classrooms.  
Table 1 Thematic Summary Table (Thematic Map)  
How Bilingual Pedagogy Influences Learner Engagement in Rural JHS Classrooms in Ghana  
Main Theme  
Sub-Themes  
Summary of Findings  
Source of  
Evidence  
Illustrative Excerpts /  
Observed Behaviours  
1. Teachers’  
Beliefs about  
1.1 Bilingual  
pedagogy as a  
Most teachers believe  
bilingual instruction  
Interview Data  
Teacher 03: “When I  
speak English alone, some  
of them just stare at me.  
But when I explain it in  
Ewe or Nchumuru, you  
see their faces light up,  
and then they begin to  
respond.”  
Bilingual Pedagogy cognitive scaffold improves comprehension  
and Learner  
Engagement  
and encourages  
participation. They view  
L1 as a bridge to meaning  
and a tool that helps  
learners “notice”  
linguistic patterns.  
1.2 Ambivalence Some teachers hesitate to Interview Data  
Teacher 07: “The  
headteacher sometimes  
warns us not to use the  
local language too  
much… So I only use it  
when I have no choice.”  
due to policy  
pressure and fear  
of being judged  
use L1 because they fear  
administrative  
disapproval or perceive  
bilingual teaching as  
“unprofessional” or  
“lazy.”  
Page 9140  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education  
1.3 Pragmatic  
orientation to  
bilingual use  
Teachers balance their  
beliefs with perceived  
policy expectations,  
leading to inconsistent  
implementation and  
Researcher  
Interpretation;  
Interview Data  
Teachers expressed  
uncertainty about “how  
much L1 is allowed,”  
despite its clear benefits  
for comprehension.  
limited sustained noticing  
opportunities.  
2. Classroom  
Enactment of  
Bilingual Practices  
and Opportunities  
for Noticing  
2.1 Translational  
bilingualism  
(surface  
Teachers translate key  
vocabulary and  
instructions. This aids  
understanding but leads  
to mechanical  
participation and minimal  
metalinguistic awareness.  
Teachers fluidly alternate  
between languages,  
prompting learners to  
compare structures across  
languages. This leads to  
heightened noticing and  
meaningful participation.  
Classroom  
Observation  
Observation Note:  
“Students were able to  
give correct forms but  
could not explain why.  
Engagement appeared  
mechanical.”  
comprehension)  
2.2 Interactive  
translanguaging  
(deep noticing and  
engagement)  
Classroom  
Observation  
Teacher 05 (during  
lesson): “In English, we  
say He goes, but in Ewe  
we don’t add -s. So why  
do we add -s in English?”  
Student A: “Because  
English verbs change with  
the person.”  
2.3 Monolingual  
dominance  
English-only instruction  
results in low  
Classroom  
Observation;  
Observation Note:  
“Many students remained  
(limited  
participation, confusion, Interview Data silent… teacher repeated  
engagement)  
and minimal noticing.  
Teachers follow policy  
expectations at the  
expense of  
explanations without  
switching.” Teacher 09:  
“Sometimes I see they  
don’t understand, but I  
keep using English  
comprehension.  
because that’s what the  
syllabus expects.”  
3. Pedagogical  
Implications for  
Language Policy  
Implementation in  
Rural Schools  
3.1 Policy–practice Policy promotes mother-  
Document  
Analysis;  
Interview Data  
Teacher 11: “We are told  
to use the local  
contradictions  
tongue support, yet JHS  
textbooks, exams, and  
supervision remain fully  
English-based. Teachers  
receive conflicting  
language… but the  
textbooks, exams, and  
supervision are all in  
English. It’s confusing.”  
messages from school  
leaders.  
3.2 Teacher  
improvisation  
despite system  
constraints  
Teachers use localized  
bilingual strategies  
Classroom  
Observation;  
Interview Data  
Teacher 04: “When they  
discuss in their language  
first, they understand  
better. Then when I ask  
them to say it in English,  
they are more confident.”  
(group discussions,  
bilingual summaries, L1  
collaborative work) to  
compensate for resource  
gaps.  
3.3 Lack of  
institutional  
support for  
Approved lesson notes  
are entirely in English; no  
policy documents provide  
Document  
Analysis  
Document review: No  
official materials  
referenced bilingual  
practice beyond the early  
primary level.  
bilingual pedagogy operational guidance for  
bilingual teaching at the  
JHS level.  
Page 9141  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education  
Table 1 above provides a structured summary of the core themes that emerged from the data analysis. It organizes  
the findings into major thematic categories, each supported by specific sub-themes and representative participant  
evidence. The structure demonstrates how raw data was condensed, grouped, and interpreted to generate  
coherent analytical themes aligned with the research questions. Overall, the table functions as a visual synthesis  
of patterns in the dataset, showing clear links between participant experiences, recurrent issues, and the broader  
conceptual themes developed during the coding process.  
Data from semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and document analysis were analyzed  
thematically. Three key themes emerged:  
Teachers’ beliefs about bilingual pedagogy and learner engagement.  
Classroom enactment of bilingual practices and opportunities for noticing.  
Pedagogical implications for language policy implementation in rural schools.  
Teachers’ Beliefs about Bilingual Pedagogy and Learner Engagement  
Analysis of interview data revealed that most teachers viewed bilingual pedagogy as a practical tool for  
facilitating comprehension and participation, especially in linguistically diverse classrooms. Teachers frequently  
justified their use of Ghanaian languages as a bridge to meaning rather than as an alternative medium of  
instruction. As Teacher 03 explained:  
“When I speak English alone, some of them just stare at me. But when I explain it in Ewe or Nchumuru, you see  
their faces light up, and then they begin to respond Teacher 12 also noted:  
“If I introduce a grammar lesson using only English, most of the students go quiet. But immediately I switch to  
Konkomba to clarify a point, they start nodding and smiling, and even start asking questions. You can literally  
see their confidence come back.”  
This belief aligns with Schmidt’s argument that noticing arises from meaningful input—learners must  
understand what they hear in order to attend consciously to form. Teachers therefore perceived the use of the  
local language as a cognitive scaffold, enabling students to grasp English structures through comparative  
understanding.  
However, a smaller group of teachers expressed ambivalence toward bilingual pedagogy, citing policy ambiguity  
and fear of being perceived as “lazy.” As Teacher 07 remarked:  
“The headteacher sometimes warns us not to use the local language too much. They say we must help pupils  
improve their English. So I only use it when I have no choice.”  
Such comments illustrate the policy-practice tension identified in the problem statement: teachers operate within  
conflicting expectations since the policy frowns on local language use, yet learners in rural communities  
sometimes do not understand some concepts teachers explain in English. This contradiction constrains teachers’  
confidence to deploy bilingual methods strategically, even when pedagogically justified.  
From the researchers’ perspective, these beliefs reveal a pragmatic orientation toward bilingual pedagogy:  
teachers value it as a tool for learner engagement but remain uncertain about its legitimacy within the policy  
framework. This uncertainty partially undermines the conditions for systematic noticing, as teachers’  
inconsistent language choices may limit sustained learner attention to cross-linguistic features.  
Classroom Enactment of Bilingual Practices and Opportunities for Noticing  
Observation data revealed three dominant classroom practices related to bilingual instruction:  
(1) Translational bilingualism,  
Page 9142  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education  
(2) Interactive translanguaging, and  
(3) Monolingual dominance with minimal L1 support  
In translational bilingualism, teachers used the local language primarily to translate difficult vocabulary or  
instructions. For instance, in Teacher 02’s grammar lesson on simple past tense, the instruction “Change the verb  
into its past form.”  
Learners repeated the examples but showed minimal participation beyond choral repetition. Observation notes  
recorded: “Students were able to give correct forms but could not explain why. Engagement appeared  
mechanical.”  
This pattern reflects what Schmidt (1990) describes as input without conscious noticing, indicating how learners  
perceive linguistic forms but do not process them deeply. Translational bilingualism therefore supports surface  
comprehension but not metalinguistic awareness.  
In contrast, interactive translanguaging fostered richer learner engagement. In Teacher 05’s class, while teaching  
subject-verb agreement, the teacher alternated fluidly between English and Ewe:  
Teacher: “In English, we say He goes, but in Ewe we don’t add -s. So why do we add -s in English?”  
Student A: “Because English verbs change with the person.”  
Teacher: “Exactly! You have noticed something important.”  
In teacher 09’s class, while teaching phrases, the teacher also alternated fluidly between English and Konkomba:  
Teacher: “In English language, we add –s to some plural nouns but in Konkomba the form changes. Why do  
you think those changes do not occur in English language?”  
Student C: “Some English nouns are regular whilst others are irregular.”  
Teacher: “That’s correct! You have noticed it very well.”  
Here, the teacher explicitly prompted cross-linguistic comparison, leading students to verbalize grammatical  
reasoning. Observation notes described the atmosphere as “interactive and participatory,” with several learners  
contributing examples from both languages. This exemplifies Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis in action because  
learners consciously attended to linguistic differences, bridging comprehension and form-focused awareness  
Finally, classrooms dominated by monolingual English instruction exhibited low engagement and limited  
noticing opportunities. In Teacher 09’s observed class, English-only explanations led to visible disengagement:  
Teacher 09 admitted:  
“Sometimes I see they don’t understand, but I keep using English because that’s what the syllabus expects.”  
Observation note: “Many students remained silent, some looking confused; teacher repeated explanations  
without switching or simplifying.”  
This finding underscores the cognitive and affective costs of rigid monolingualism in multilingual settings since  
students cannot notice or internalize linguistic input they do not understand. Within Schmidt’s framework, such  
instruction restricts learners’ capacity to transform input into intake, thus weakening engagement and retention.  
From the researcher’s interpretation, effective bilingual pedagogy occurs not merely when two languages are  
used, but when their interplay creates moments of metalinguistic reflection. These findings suggest that learner  
engagement is highest when bilingual practices are intentional, dialogic, and cognitively contrastive, rather than  
purely translational.  
Page 9143  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education  
Pedagogical Implications for Language Policy Implementation  
Teachers’ bilingual practices revealed a clear policy-practice gap between language policy intentions and  
classroom realities. Although Ghana’s language-in-education policy mandates the use of the mother-tongue for  
instruction only at the lower primary level, it requires English-only instruction from upper primary throughout  
junior high school. Consequently, no explicit guidelines exist to support bilingual mother-tongue-assisted  
instruction at the junior high level. As Teacher 11 lamented:  
“Even though we are not permitted to use the local language in teaching, we use it to help learners. Because it is  
not acceptable here, we do not have the materials to compliment what we do.  
Document analysis confirmed this as no official documents provided guidance on how teachers at the junior  
high school level might incorporate Ghanaian languages pedagogically. This policy gap reinforces what Adika  
(2012) describes as “policy inertia”, a situation in which policy dictates exists, but their practical implications  
for classroom instructions remain undefined and unsupported.  
Nevertheless, the study found that teachers’ improvisational bilingual practices, though informal, often enhanced  
learner engagement and conceptual understanding. At one observed school in Nkwanta North, Teacher 04 used  
bilingual group discussions during a reading comprehension lesson. Students summarized the passage in their  
mother tongue before presenting key ideas in English. The teacher explained:  
“When they first explain the grammar rules in their own language, they grasp the concept more clearly. Then  
when I ask them to express the same rules in English, they apply the grammar with more confidence”  
This mirrors Schmidt’s (1990) argument that awareness is heightened when learners reprocess input through  
multiple linguistic codes. These linguistic codes (multiple language use) served as a mediational tool linking  
comprehension (L1) and production (L2), thereby fulfilling both cognitive and affective dimensions of  
engagement.  
From the researchers’ standpoint, these findings highlight the disconnect between macro-level policy and micro-  
level practice. While teachers’ localized bilingual innovations promote engagement and noticing, the absence of  
institutional recognition and pedagogical support limits sustainability. Effective policy implementation therefore  
requires reframing bilingual pedagogy not as remedial translation but as an evidence-based strategy for fostering  
conscious language learning.  
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS  
The findings of this study reveal that bilingual pedagogical practices significantly enhance learner engagement  
in rural Ghanaian junior high schools by creating opportunities for conscious noticing of linguistic forms and  
meanings. This section discusses the findings in relation to Schmidt’s (1990) Noticing Hypothesis, previous  
empirical studies, and the broader sociolinguistic and policy context of English language teaching in Ghana.  
Bilingual Pedagogy and Learner Engagement  
The study demonstrated that learners engaged more actively when teachers used bilingual strategies such as  
translanguaging, code-switching, and comparative grammar explanations. This observation supports Schmidt’s  
(1990) contention that language acquisition depends on the learner’s conscious awareness of linguistic input. By  
mediating between English and the local language, teachers enabled learners to draw explicit attention to form-  
function relationships, thereby transforming input into intake.  
These findings are consistent with Mateus (2014), who found that bilingual instruction enhances comprehension,  
confidence, and metalinguistic awareness among second-language learners. Similarly, Yevudey (2017) reported  
that in Ghanaian classrooms, strategic use of local languages facilitates deeper conceptual understanding and  
learner participation, particularly in resource-constrained rural schools. The present study adds to this discourse  
by illustrating how these bilingual practices directly stimulate noticing.  
Page 9144  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education  
Furthermore, the study’s finding that interactive translanguaging fosters higher engagement than literal  
translation corroborates Canagarajah’s (2011) argument that translanguaging is not simply a communicative  
convenience but a pedagogical strategy that develops linguistic reflexivity. Translanguaging, in this context, is  
a core component of bilingual pedagogy, which enables teachers to leverage learners’ first language (L1)  
alongside English (L2) to scaffold understanding, facilitate noticing and bridge comprehension gaps. When  
learners compare and contrast linguistic systems, they are better able to recognize grammatical patterns, as  
shown in this study’s observed lessons on tense and subject-verb agreement. Thus, bilingual pedagogy in rural  
Ghanaian classrooms operates as a cognitive bridge, connecting comprehension and grammatical awareness  
through purposeful language alternation  
Policy Constraint and Classroom Practice  
The data also revealed that teachers’ beliefs and practices are shaped by a policy-practice tension. While national  
policy permits the use of Ghanaian languages for instruction only in the lower primary level, it mandates English-  
only instruction from basic 4 onwards, creating ambiguity for teachers at junior high school level (Adika, 2012).  
Teachers in this study expressed uncertainty about the legitimacy of bilingual practices beyond the lower primary  
level, often citing fear of administrative sanctions. This mirrors the findings of Henderson (2017), who observed  
that unclear policy directives and inconsistent supervision discourage teachers from fully integrating bilingual  
methods even when pedagogically beneficial.  
Within Schmidt’s (1990) theoretical lens, such policy ambiguity restricts conditions for sustained noticing. When  
teachers oscillate between monolingual and bilingual instruction due to institutional pressure, learners  
experience fragmented linguistic exposure, limiting their ability to consciously process form-function  
connections. Consequently, the study underscores the need for a coherent policy framework that explicitly  
endorses bilingual pedagogies as tools for cognitive engagement and language learning rather than as  
compensatory strategies for linguistic weakness.  
Teachers’ Professional Agency and Contextual Adaptation  
A notable insight from the study is teachers’ remarkable pedagogical creativity in navigating resource  
constraints. Despite inadequate materials and lack of formal training in bilingual methods, teachers devised  
improvisational strategies to facilitate noticing. This aligns with Adawu and Bintul (2025) and Schwartz et al.  
(2019), who argue that teachers in low-resource settings exercise professional agency by adapting instruction to  
contextual realities.  
The findings also resonate with Johnson (2019) and Octika (2024), who maintain that effective bilingual teaching  
depends less on the quantity of resources and more on teachers’ ability to scaffold learning through meaningful  
interaction. In this study, teachers’ bilingual scaffolding helped learners connect new English forms to familiar  
linguistic structures in their first language, thereby reinforcing noticing and retention.  
These results suggest that empowering teachers through targeted professional development could amplify the  
cognitive and motivational benefits of bilingual pedagogy. Training programs that focus on cross-linguistic  
comparison and the emphasis that language alternation is deliberate for learning purposes. This would help  
teachers move beyond spontaneous code-switching toward more systematic noticing-oriented instruction.  
Theoretical and Pedagogical Implications  
Theoretically, the study extends Schmidt’s (1990) Noticing Hypothesis by illustrating how noticing operates  
within bilingual rather than monolingual learning environments. The data show that noticing is not confined to  
the perception of isolated English forms but occurs dynamically across languages as learners compare meanings,  
structures, and functions. This aligns with Vaghela (2024) and Tuimebayeva et al. (2020), who argue that  
multilingual awareness fosters deeper cognitive processing and promotes sustainable L2 development.  
Pedagogically, the findings suggest that bilingual practices should be institutionalized rather than improvised.  
Teachers’ spontaneous alternations between languages are valuable but insufficient without deliberate planning  
and reflection. Systematic bilingual strategies, such as guided contrastive tasks, bilingual glossaries, and  
Page 9145  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education  
metalinguistic reflection activities, can transform bilingual classrooms into noticing-rich environments.  
Moreover, curriculum designers and policymakers must view bilingual pedagogy as a legitimate component of  
grammar and language instruction, especially in junior high schools rural contexts.  
Finally, from a sociolinguistic perspective, the study reinforces the need to reframe bilingualism as an asset  
rather than a barrier in Ghanaian education. As Owoo (2024), Agbozo (2015) and Chen (2020) note that learners’  
local languages embody rich cognitive and cultural capital that can enhance English learning when pedagogically  
harnessed. The present study confirms that when teachers leverage bilingualism purposefully, learners not only  
engage more deeply but also internalize grammatical rules more effectively.  
CONCLUSION  
This study demonstrates that bilingual pedagogy enhances learner engagement by activating metalinguistic  
noticing. Teachers’ alternation between English and Ghanaian languages in the selected classrooms allowed  
learners to connect meaning, form, and function, deepening both understanding and participation in grammar  
instruction. However, the persistence of monolingual instructional norms undermines these gains since there is  
lack of policy on bilingual pedagogy in English education.  
Theoretically, the findings affirm Schmidt’s (1990) claim that awareness mediates acquisition. Pedagogically,  
they underscore the need for teacher training that emphasizes intentional bilingual strategies as cognitive  
scaffolds for language learning. Policy-wise, Ghana’s language-in-education framework must move beyond  
declarative statements toward context-responsive implementation models that legitimize and support bilingual  
classroom practices in rural schools. Overall, implementing bilingual pedagogical practices in English education  
stands to enhance learners’ comprehension, grammatical awareness, and active participation, which fosters more  
meaningful and equitable language learning outcomes. It also empowers teachers to bridge policy and practice  
effectively, ultimately contributing to improved academic performance and language confidence in multilingual  
classroom contexts.  
REFERENCES  
1. Adawu, A. & Bintul, J. K. N. (2025). An exploration of the strategies ESL teachers use in teaching  
English grammar in selected rural Ghanaian junior high schools. International Journal of Language and  
Literary Studies. 7(6).288-305. http://doi.org/10.36892/ijlls.v7i6.2385  
2. Adika, G. S. K. (2012). English in Ghana: Growth, tensions, and trends. International Journal of  
Language, Translation and Intercultural Communication, 1(1), 151-166.  
3. Agbozo, G. E. (2015). Language choice in Ghanaian classrooms: Linguistic realities and  
perceptions (Master's thesis, NTNU).  
4. Agyekum, K. (2018). Linguistic imperialism and language decolonisation in Africa through  
documentation and preservation. African Linguistics on the Prairie, 3, 87-104.  
5. Anim, C. A. (2023). Language policy in education, practice and attitude in Ghanaian classrooms, A case  
Study of three selected schools in the Ningo Prampram district (Doctoral dissertation, University Of  
Ghana).  
6. Ansah, G. N. (2014). Re-examining the fluctuations in language in-education policies in post-  
independence Ghana. Multilingual Education, 4(1), 12.  
7. Ansah, M. A., & Agyeman, N. A. (2015). Ghana language-in-education policy: The survival of two  
South Guan minority dialects. Per Linguam: a Journal of Language Learning= Per Linguam: Tydskrif  
vir Taalaanleer, 31(1), 89-104.  
8. Asare, P. (2022). Negotiating multilingualism at Anum, Asamankese (Doctoral dissertation, University  
Of Ghana).  
9. Bamgboṣe, A. (2000). Language and exclusion: The consequences of language policies in Africa (Vol.  
12). LIT Verlag Münster.  
10. Bisilki, A. K. (2025). Online linguistic landscaping and indigenous languages in multilingual  
Ghana. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1-26.  
11. Borg, S. (2015). Teacher cognition and language education.  
Page 9146  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education  
12. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport,  
Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589-597.  
13. Bretuo, P. (2021). Using language to improve learning: teachers’ and students’ perspectives on the  
implementation of bilingual education in Ghana. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 34(3), 257-272.  
14. Bronteng, J. E. (2018). A study of Ghanaian kindergarten teachers' use of bilingual and translanguaging  
practices. University of South Florida..  
15. Canagarajah, A. S. (2020). Transnational literacy autobiographies as translingual writing. New York,  
NY: Routledge.  
16. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and  
pedagogy. Applied linguistics review, 2(2011).  
17. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2021). Pedagogical translanguaging. Cambridge University Press.  
18. Chen, J. (2020). A marginalized third space: English language learners' cultural capital. Mextesol  
Journal, 44(4), n4.  
19. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five  
approaches. Sage publications.  
20. Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical analysis of theoretical  
concepts (Vol. 19). Multilingual Matters.  
21. Dankwa-Apawu, D., Agbetsoamedo, Y., & Rescue, E. (2025). Enacting translanguaging in a Ghanaian  
multilingual classroom: Code choices in minority language classrooms. Language Policy in Africa, 1(1),  
92-116.  
22. Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press.  
23. García, O., & Lin, A. M. (2017). Translanguaging in bilingual education. Bilingual and Multilingual  
Education, 117-130.  
24. Henderson, K. I. (2017). Teacher language ideologies mediating classroom-level language policy in the  
implementation of dual language bilingual education. Linguistics and Education, 42, 21-33.  
25. Heugh, K., & Mohamed, N. (2020). Approaches to language in education for migrants and refugees in  
the Asia-Pacific Region. UNESCO, Bangkok  
26. Johnson, E. M. (2019). Choosing and using interactional scaffolds: How teachers’ moment-to-moment  
supports can generate and sustain emergent bilinguals’ engagement with challenging English  
texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 53(3), 245-269.  
27. Klu, K. E., & Ansre, M. A. (2018). An overview of the language-in-education policy in Ghana: Emerging  
issues. The Social Sciences, 13(3), 596-601.  
28. Kwawukumey, G. K. (2023). Language ideologies and practices in Ghana's English language education:  
A critical analysis of golden English and national literacy acceleration program formative report. Illinois  
State University.  
29. Laviosa, S., & Davies, M. G. (Eds.). (2020). The Routledge handbook of translation and education.  
London: Routledge.  
30. Leow, R. P. (2018). Noticing hypothesis. The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching, 1(7).  
31. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.  
32. Liu, Y., & Fang, F. (2022). Translanguaging theory and practice: How stakeholders perceive  
translanguaging as a practical theory of language. RELC journal, 53(2), 391-399.  
33. Loewen, S. (2020). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. Routledge.  
34. Macaro, E., Tian, L., & Chu, L. (2020). First and second language use in English medium instruction  
contexts. Language Teaching Research, 24(3), 382-402.  
35. Mateus, S. G. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism, and education. Bilingual Research  
Journal, 37(3), 366-369  
36. Neupane, P. P. (2025). Teachers’ experience on translanguaging in teaching English: A narrative  
inquiry (Doctoral dissertation, Kathmandu University School of Education).  
37. Niazi, S. (2022). Teacher'views, challenges, and strategies towards pupils' bilingualism and  
translanguaging.  
38. Octika, Y. (2024). Instructional strategies in bilingual classrooms: A classroom observation study at  
Xikou bilingual elementary school Taiwan. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan dan Kearifan Lokal, 4(6), 864-879.  
39. Odoom, M. (2025). Climate change education in the basic education curriculum, Ghana (Doctoral  
dissertation).  
Page 9147  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education  
40. Opoku-Amankwa, K. (2009). English-only language-in-education policy in multilingual classrooms in  
Ghana. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 22(2), 121-135.  
41. Opoku-Amankwa, K., Edu-Buandoh, D. F., & Brew-Hammond, A. (2015). Publishing for mother  
tongue-based bilingual education in Ghana: Politics and consequences. Language and Education, 29(1),  
1-14.  
42. Owoo, M. A. N. (2024). Language Policy as Personal Experience: A Southern Perspective of Language  
Policy via Ghana’s Practice of Medium of Instruction Policies (Doctoral dissertation, University of  
Toronto (Canada)).  
43. Plüddemann, P. (2018). Unlocking the grid: Language-in-education policy realisation in post-apartheid  
South Africa. In C. Kerfoot & A Simon-Vandenbergen (Eds.) Language in epistemic access: Mobilizing  
Multilingualism and Literacy Development. (pp. 10-23). Routledge.  
44. Ricento, T. (Ed.). (2015). Language policy and political economy: English in a global context. Oxford  
University Press.  
45. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning1. Applied  
Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.  
46. Schwartz, K., Cappella, E., & Aber, J. L. (2019). Teachers’ lives in context: A framework for  
understanding barriers to high-quality teaching within resource deprived settings. Journal of Research on  
Educational Effectiveness, 12(1), 160-190.  
47. Tisdell, E. J., Merriam, S. B., & Stuckey-Peyrot, H. L. (2025). Qualitative research: A guide to design  
and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.  
48. Tuimebayeva, G., Shagrayeva, B., Kerimbayeva, K., Shertayeva, N., Bitemirova, A., & Abdurazova, P.  
(2024). Developing multilingual competence in future educators: Approaches, challenges, and best  
practices. Open Education Studies, 6(1), 20240020.  
49. UNESCO. (2020). Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education-all means all.  
United Nations.  
50. Vaghela, C. (2024). Bilingualism: A potential approach for enhancing sustainable development and  
boosting students’ cognitive abilities. Cahiers Magellanes-NS, 6(1), 1726-1736.  
51. Wei, L., & García, O. (2022). Not a first language but one repertoire: Translanguaging as a decolonizing  
project. RELC Journal, 53(2), 313-324.  
52. Yakubu, J. R. (2020). Teacher Preparation towards Reading Instruction: A Case Study from  
Ghana (Master's thesis, Biola University).  
53. Yevudey, E. (2017). Bilingual practices in Ghanaian primary schools: Implications for curriculum design  
and educational practice (Doctoral dissertation, Aston University).  
54. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (Vol. 6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  
Page 9148  
www.rsisinternational.org