TRANSLANGUAGING AS A PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGY TO IMPLEMENT MULTILINGUAL LANGUAGE POLICY AT A SOUTH AFRICAN UNIVERSITY By MOTAUNG BRAKPAN LETSELA BA, Sociology and English Literature, Linguistics (UFS), Postgraduate Diploma Higher Education Studies (UFS) Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the degree of Master of Arts In the School of Higher Education Studies Faculty of Education at the University of Free State Bloemfontein Campus November 2021 Supervisor: Dr. Cias Tsotetsi “Prescription of the correct cure is dependent on a rigorous analysis of the reality.” Ngugi wa Thiong’o DECLARATION I, Letsela Brakpan Motaung, herewith submit this thesis, Translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy to implement multilingual language policy at a South African university, for a master’s degree qualification in Higher Education Studies at the University of Free State. I further state and confirm that the thesis is my own independent work and that I have not previously submitted it for a qualification at another higher education institution. I hereby cede copyright of the thesis to the University of Free State. The foregoing notwithstanding, I hereby declare that all royalties as regards intellectual property that were and could have been developed during the course and in connection with this study, will accrue to the University of the Free State. November 2021 Signature Date ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I can safely utter that without the support of various individuals – this study could not have been a success. Firstly – let me thank ‘Modimo oa Thaba Sione’ for the strength and guidance throughout this journey. I sincerely thank Dr. Cias T. Tsotetsi for guiding me and creating time out of his fully booked schedule to attend to my many requests for consultations. Thank you for being my source of hope eternal and for instilling in me the belief that completion of this thesis was doable and possible. I thank Dr. Moodiela Mathobela whom, without his contribution and support, this study would have not seen the light of day. A word of thanks to my editors for diligently going through the work to ensure that it aligns with the language standards befitting a Masters thesis. A word of gratitude goes out to Dr. Munene Mwaniki for encouragement during the course of my Masters studies and for challenging me to do more and to remain resolute in the pursuit of social justice in (South) African higher education. Let me also take this opportunity to thank my Manager: Mrs. Evodia Mohoanyane for her support and encouragement. Thank you! Lastly – to all that have contributed differently thank you! ii | P a g e DEDICATION My Father Sello Joseph Motaung Thank you for spending your last cent on my education in my undergraduate studies. You have shown me that you can do anything for us to get the education we need. Your guidance on the path to truth and honesty are the principles which enabled me to achieve this qualification. My Mother Maria Mapaseka Motaung Thank you for allowing my dad to pay my fees, and for making sure that I have everything I need for my education. In the same fashion, thank you for your teachings on humility and prayer. I would have not done this without your prayers. My Wife Dr. Melissa Makgetla I would love to thank you for the support since I started this journey. I have not been home at some point, but you were patient with me. You have demonstrated what true love and support is. My Daughter Malesedi Thank you, my beautiful daughter. My Son Sello Joseph Jnr. Thank you, my handsome son. And To all my brothers and sisters* George, Mokiba, Mosebetsi, Sekoboto, Mopedinyana, Mampho, Mathakane, Puseletso le Mpho. This thesis is dedicated to you all x | P a g e LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CSP - Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy DHET – Department of Higher Education and Training EMI - English Medium of Instruction HEI’s – Higher Education Institutions IAL - Indigenous African Languages LPHE - Language Policy for Higher Education NMU - Nelson Mandela University OLP - Orientations in Language Planning RU - Rhodes University SU - Stellenbosch University UCT - University of Cape Town UFS – University of the Free State UKZN - University of Kwa-Zulu Natal UP - University of Pretoria UWC - University of Western Cape xi | P a g e ABSTRACT South African institutions of higher learning continue to grapple with the practical implementation of language policies. Universities have amended their policies to adhere to the language policy for higher education and others have shown progress in their implementation strategies. However, a recent report from the minister of DHET has shown that universities have not implemented their language policies as guided by the constitution and other promulgated policies in higher education terrain. In tandem, in recent times, translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy has been gaining momentum in the higher education space. Various studies have reported its benefits and limitations in the education sector. Against the foregoing policy and pedagogy backdrop, this study explored the use of translanguaging as an alternative pedagogical strategy to implement multilingual language policy in undergraduate tutorials. Tutors and students were invited to participate in this study. The theoretical approaches which guided the study were Orientations in Language Planning and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy. Data was generated through semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. Data analysis was done through thematic analysis. Findings indicate that translanguaging as pedagogical strategy has the potential to leverage implementation of multilingual language policy, when deployed strategically, this implies the necessity to assess the on current challenges and future of multilingual practices. Findings further show that translanguaging assists both tutors and students to make sense of their learning and understanding of the content, promotion of indigenous languages, decolonization and student engagement within tutorials. The study concluded that translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy create a space for both tutors and tutees to use their linguistic repertoires in a multilingual classroom. In addition, translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy is helpful in responding to the contemporary multilingual language policy conundrums in higher education. In conclusion, the study recommends ways in which translanguaging could be employed to implement multilingual language policy in the tutorials within the higher education space in South Africa, and possibly elsewhere. Keywords: translanguaging, multilingual language policy, South African University, undergraduate tutoring xii | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 1.1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Theoretical frameworks… ..................................................................................... 4 1.3. Research problem ........................................................................................ 6 1.4. Research question ....................................................................................... 6 1.5. Research sub-questions .............................................................................. 6 1.6. Research aim ........................................................................................................... 6 1.7. Research objectives……………………………………………………………….7 1.8. Research paradigm .................................................................................................. 7 1.9. Research approach and methods………………………………………………...8 1.9.1. Data generation .............................................................................................. 9 1.9.2. Selection of participants ............................................................................... 9 1.9.3. Data analysis ....................................................................................... 10 1.10. Trustworthiness of the study ................................................................................. 10 1.11. Value of research .................................................................................................. 11 1.12. Ethical considerations ........................................................................................... 12 1.13. Operational concepts ............................................................................................ 12 1.14. Layout of chapters ................................................................................................. 15 1.15. Chapter summary .................................................................................................. 16 CHAPTER 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 17 2.2. Theoretical frameworks .............................................................................................. 17 2.3. Origins of orientations in language planning (OLP) ............................................... 19 2.3.1. Language as a problem ............................................................................. 20 2.3.2. Language as a right ...................................................................................... 21 2.3.3. Language as a resource ............................................................................. …...21 xiii | P a g e 2.4. Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy……………………………………………………...22 2.5. Related Literature……………………………………………………………………...24 2.5.1. Multilingual Language Policy Practice in the Global North.………...…...…24 2.5.2. Multilingual Language Policy Practice in the Global South…………...……29 2.5.3. Multilingual Practice in Undergraduate Classrooms at South African Higher Education Institutions…………………………………………………...…...…33 2.6. Language Policy of the University of the Free State………………………………38 2.6.1. University of the Free State Language Policy Background…………...….38 2.6.2. Policy Statement……………………………………………………...……….39 2.6.3. Implementation………………………………………………………...………40 2.6.4. Monitoring and revision………………………………………….…………...41 2.7. Challenges Hindering the Implementation of Multilingual Language Policies in Higher Education…………………………………………………………………...….41 2.7.1. English Language Hegemony in Higher Education…………………...…...41 2.7.2. English only Medium of Instruction Policies…………………………………44 2.7.3. Globalization……………………………………………………………….……48 2.7.4. Lack of resources, political will and policy knowledge……………...……....50 2.7.5. Negative attitudes towards indigenous languages………………….…….…52 2.7.6. Linguistic diversity in higher education…………………………………….…55 2.8. Translanguaginng Practices in a Multilingual Higher Education Classrooms: Intersecting ideologies from global North and global South…………………….…58 2.8.1. Translanguaging practices in the global north……………………………....59 2.8.2. Translanguaging practices in the global south…………………………...….65 2.9. Chapter Summary………………………………………………………………….…...71 xiv | P a g e CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………………………………………72 3.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………….………72 3.2. Research Approach………………………………………...…………………….………...72 3.3. Case Study Design……………………………………………………………….………...73 3.4. Research Paradigm……………………………………………………………….……….74 3.4.1. Social Constructivist……………………………………………………….…….74 3.5. Methodology section……………………………………………………………...…………74 3.5.1. Data Generation Instruments……………………………………………………74 3.5.2. Semi-Structured Interviews……………...……………………………………….75 3.5.3. Focus Group Interviews…………………….……………………………...…….76 3.5.4. Language used during research ....................................................................... ...77 3.5.5. Recording instruments ......................................................................................... 78 3.6. Research site ................................................................................................................... 78 3.7. Data generation ................................................................................................................ 79 3.7.4. Sample ................................................................................................................ 79 3.7.5. Purposive sampling………. ............................................................................... 79 3.7.6. Convenience sampling ............................................................................. .79 3.7.7. Research participants .............................................................................. .80 3.8. Role of the researcher…………………………………………………………………...81 3.9. Data analysis ....................................................................................................... ...81 3.10. Trustworthiness of the study ............................................................................... ...82 3.11. Strengths and limitations of the study ………………………………………….…....84 3.11.1. Strenth of the study ………………………………………………….………...84 3.11.2. Limitations to the study……………………….…………………………...…...85 3.11.3. Limitations to the execution of the study…………………………....................................................................…...……85 3.12. Ethical considerations……………………………………………………………………85 3.13. Chapter summary………………………………………………………………...……….86 xv | P a g e CHAPTER 4: Data Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation ..................................... 87 4.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 87 4.2. UFS Language Policy Enactment in the Multilingual Tutorials .................................. 88 4.2.1. Perceptions on facilitation of multilingual tutorials in indigenous South African Languages ............................................................................................. 88 4.2.2. Perceptions on facilitation of multilingual tutorials using English only……...91 4.3. Analysing challenges of implementing multilingual language policy in the undergraduate tutorials: .......................................................................................................... ….94 4.3.1. Lack of UFS language policy knowledge or awareness .................................... 94 4.3.2. Marginalization of linguistic of diversity in the undergraduate multilingual tutorial classroom ......................................................................................................... 96 4.3.3. Negative attitudes towards indigenous languages ......................................... 99 4.3.4. Lack of Resources .................................................................................................... 102 4.3.5. Tribalism a persisting threat to linguistic diversity ........................................... 105 4.3.6. Use of English as medium of instruction in the tutorials ................................. 108 4.4. Translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy to implement multilingual language policy: ...................................................................................................................................... …111 4.4.1. Providing workshops on university language policy to tutors and tutees………………………………………………………………………….……......112 4.4.2. Training tutors on the use of translanguaging in facilitating multilingual tutorials ……………………………………………………………………………………114 4.4.3. Promoting deployment of diverse languages in the multilingual tutorials ....... ...117 4.4.4. Using translanguaging in the tutorials during group discussions ….…………...120 4.4.5. Utilising translanguaging as a strategy to epistemic access .......... and construction .............................................................................................................. 124 4.5. Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... ……127 xvi | P a g e CHAPTER 5: Findings, Recommendations, and Conclusion……………… ..... ……129 5.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... …….129 5.2. Study background ................................................................................................................. 129 5.3. Problem statement ................................................................................................................ 130 5.4. Research question, aim, and objectives ........................................................................... 131 5.5. Reflecting on lessons from learned from global north and south ................................. 131 5.6. Multilingual practices in the undergraduate tutorials ....................................................... 132 5.7. Challenges of implementing multilingual language policy in the undergraduate tutorials…………………………………………………………………………………………...133 5.7.1. Lack of University of the Free State language policy knowledge or awareness………………………………...……………………………………………………….133 5.7.2. Linguistic diversity in the undergraduate multilingual tutorial classroom………. 134 5.7.3. Attitudes towards indigenous languages ................................................................. 135 5.7.4. Inadequate resources ................................................................................................ 136 5.7.5. Tribalism ....................................................................................................................... 138 5.7.6. English as a medium of instruction in the tutorials……………........…………….139 5.8. Recommended ways that translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy can be used to implement multilingual language policy in the undergraduate tutorials……………140 5.8.1. Providing workshops on university language policy to tutors and tutees …………………………………………………………………………………………....140 5.8.2. Training tutors on the use of translanguaging in facilitating multilingual tutorials ............................................................................................................................. 141 5.8.3. Promoting deployment of diverse languages in the multilingual tutorials……….................................................................................................................. 144 5.8.4. Using translanguaging in the tutorials during group discussions ................ 145 xvii | P a g e 5.8.5 Utilizing translanguaging as a strategy to epistemic access and construction ......................................................................................... 147 5.9. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 148 Reference List.......................................................................................................... 149 Appendices .............................................................................................................. 171 Appendix A: Ethical Clearance ............................................................................................ 171 Appendix B: Language Editor Certificate .......................................................................... 172 Appendix C: Consent ............................................................................................................ 173 Appendix D: Interview invite for tutors ...................................................................... 174 Appendix E: Focus Group Interview invite for students ............................................. 175 Appendix F: Focus Group Interview Schedule… ....................................................... 176 Appendix G: Semi-structured Interview Schedule ............................................................ 178 Appendix H: Turninit Report… ............................................................................................. 180 xviii | P a g e CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 1.1. Introduction South Africa’s institutions of higher learning have been faced with the challenge of implementing multilingual language policies (Mayaba, Ralarala, & Angu, 2018, DHET, 2015; DHET, 2018). Few universities have shown progress in implementing these language policies, i.e. University of Kwa-Zulu Natal (UKZN) and Rhodes University. However, it remains a mammoth task for some higher education institutions to plan, revise, review and implement their multilingual language policies in order to recognize indigenous languages (Badat, 2016; Butler-Adam, 2016; CHE, 2016; Hendricks, 2018; Soler et al., 2017; Odeyemi, 2018). This has led to discourses and debates on the recognition of the indigenous languages in teaching and learning spaces (Godsell, Lepere, Mafoko & Nase, 2017). In Chapter 1, Section 6 (1) to (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (RSA, 1996), official languages are Sesotho, Sepedi, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, isiNdebele, isiXhosa, isiZulu, and English. However, the language of teaching and learning remains English, despite a lack of proficiency in English by most students who are multilingual. Characterization of students as ‘multilingual’ in this case is premised on the notion of students’ proficiency in more than one language. In seeking to address the recognition of indigenous languages in teaching and learning, higher education institutions globally saw the emergence of studies regarding multilingualism (Amaya & Reyes, 2012; Janssens, Mamadouh & Maracz, 2013; Liu, 2016; Brutt-Griffler, 2017). In the same breath, addressing language policy disparities in higher education institutions (HEIs), in 2002 the ministry of education promulgated LPHE (Language Policy in Higher Education), which was meant to address apartheid inequities. Moreover, LPHE (DoE, 2002) stated that the challenge at the time was to ensure that there is concurrent development of multilingual spaces in higher education where alllanguages are recognized in academia, thereby ensuring that language is not a barrier to access and success. 1 | P a g e Regardless of constitutional and policy provisions, in particular Section 29 (2) (RSA,1996) which clearly states that, “Everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably practicable”, little or no effort has been invested by higher education institutions in South Africa to realize this noble educational provision. However, the White Paper (DoE, 2013) demonstrates that there is a consistent death of indigenous languages in academic space, which is a serious threat to linguistic diversity and its concomitant benefits in educational spaces. Also, findings that emerged from consultations that led to the Revised Language Policy for Higher Education (DHET, 2017:11) indicate that higher education institutions have shown “apathy and sluggishness” particularly in implementation and promotion of multilingualism to practically advance the status of indigenous languages. Furthermore, it is reported that since the end of apartheid, HEI’s have not effectively dealt with the recognition of indigenous languages (Kaschula & Maseko, 2014; Drummond, 2016). Consequently, South Africa’s institutions of higher learning remain largely monolingual in their teaching and learning, which appears to be a challenge to those who are not proficient in the language of teaching and learning (Thonus, 2014). This is despite a notable view that HEI’s are located in a multilingual society, which in turn affects the teaching and learning process. The challenges posed by monolingual practices to multilingual students in higher education institutions are widely reported including language proficiency, academic performance, learners’ engagement and understanding of content (Madiba, 2012; Moore, 2016; Makalela, 2016). Students end up tapping into their language repertoires to help them overcome these quagmires (Wolff, 2017). On the #movements that included matters related to language politics in higher education terrain, Mwaniki, Van Reenen and Makalela (2018) have argued that; This is a brand of language politics, i.e. the sociolinguistics of protests, that goes beyond the traditional (and somewhat normalised) realm of the analogous relationship between language and the nation(-state) and language as a marker of ethnic identity on to the realm of language as a terrain, marker and means to 2 | P a g e (re)affirm core progressive constructs such as human dignity, (social) justice, diversity, fluid and multiple identities, fraternity, equality and egalitarianism, among others. It is against this latter background, that I explore translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy to promote multilingualism. In this regard, Baker (2011:288) alluded that “translanguaging is the process of making meaning, shaping experience, gaining understanding and knowledge through the use of two languages.” It is therefore under these circumstances that the focus of this study sought what Duarte (2018) proposed that translanguaging could be used as a pedagogical framework to acknowledge other languages and minimize the separation of languages to increase the feasibility of content understanding for students (Ahmed & Hassan, 2015). Therefore, translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy can be employed and utilized to advance the practical promotion of multilingualism in higher education, in particular at the University of the Free State tutorial classroom spaces. The benefits of translanguaging are widely reported in higher education research. They include higher self-efficacy, self-directed learning, deeper and meaningful learning, cognitive development, social interaction, promotes indigenous languages (Baker 2011, Velasco & Garcia, 2014; Beres, 2014; Makalela, 2015; Canagarajah, 2016; Garcia & Wei, 2014). Charamba and Zano (2019) findings posit that translanguaging in a multilingual chemistry classroom had a statistically significant difference in the academic performance in-between two cohorts’ post-test. Students were allowed to use their home languages during a chemistry class. Moreover, various studies have confirmed that when students use their indigenous languages, they develop both cognitively and affectively (cf. 2.8; 2.81, and 2.8.2). In this instance, translanguaging appeared to be useful for constructing ‘technical terms’ in indigenous languages. (Makalela, 2016; Carstens, 2016; Garcia & Otheguy, 2019). On the same breath, critics of translanguaging have also shown that translangauging is not a panacea for all multilingual infirmities, hence translanguaging has been seen to be not so useful in informal settings (Kubota, 2014; Bagaswi, 2017). In the context of this study, the UFS has taken steps in amending its language policy to be more inclusive. In doing so, translanguaging has been perceived to be one of the 3 | P a g e pedagogical strategies that can be developed and deployed to advance the status of indigenous languages. Therefore, according to UFS language policy (2016:2) multilingualism means the use of a combination of Afrikaans, English, isiZulu, and Sesotho for different purposes according to each campus’ needs. Tutorials will be conducted simultaneously in English, Afrikaans and a third language (e.g. Sesotho, IsiZulu). Multilingual study resources will be provided in the context of tutorials in order to support epistemological access for all students. In content and purpose, the UFS language policy seeks to promote multilingualism in the university in order to meet the objectives of transformation and equity in line with LPHE of 2002, LPHE of 2018, National Language Framework, Use of Official Languages Act and Section 6 and 9 of the Constitution. Given these factors, translangauging seems to be one of the alternative pedagogical strategies that can be explored to ameliorate the teaching and learning dilemma experienced by multilingual students in a South African higher education context such as the UFS. Against this background, this study aims to explore translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy to implement multilingual language policy with a focus on undergraduate tutoring. 1.2. Theoretical frameworks Translanguaging in this study is focused on addressing challenges of implementing multilingual language policy and as a socially just pedagogical strategy of addressing past inequities of realizing reparations for the marginalized multilingual students in higher education institutions (Hurst & Mona, 2017). To guide and strengthen the theoretical underpinnings of this study, two theoretical frameworks namely, Orientations in Language Planning and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy were adopted (cf. 2.3: 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3. and 2.4). This study follows orientations in the language planning framework, which consist of three orientations. Within this framework, an ‘orientation’ is described as “complex of dispositions towards language and its role, and toward languages and their role in society” (Ruiz, 1984). The three orientations in language planning are: language as a right; 4 | P a g e language as a problem; and language as a resource (Ruiz, 1984). Language as a right emphasizes on right not to be separated or discriminated based on language; language as a problem entails that language of teaching and learning in this study is problematized in terms of its implications towards multilingual students; and language as a resource maintains that languages can be perceived as repertoires in which one can benefit from (De Jong, Li, Zafar, & Wu, 2016; Macias, 2016). This theoretical framework is relevant to this study since it contends that language can be observed as a right, as a problem or a resource, and it guides and shapes the goal of the study, which is to explore translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy to implement multilingual language policy at a South African university. In addition, the Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy framework will also be deployed in this study. It is a resource pedagogy that advances for and values multilingualism and multiculturalism in the classroom (Ladson-Billings ,1995, Paris, 2012). Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy was used to comprehend multilingual language policy that is explicit on the promotion of multilingualism in the classroom (cf. 2.4). Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy in this study provided the theoretical tools that helped in understanding how translingual practices, especially within educational settings bolster, perpetuate, foster, sustain linguistic and cultural diversity (Paris, 2012). It further helped in understanding the hybridity of culture by explicitly addressing the questions of “equity and social justice”. This framework helped the researcher to understand the implementation of multilingual language policy in linguistically and culturally diverse tutoring classrooms (Michener, Sengupta-Irving, Proctor & Silverman, 2015) because the focus of Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy is disrupting the status-quo of monolingual and monocultural classrooms and embracing linguistic and cultural diversity resources that students bring in the classroom (cf. 2.4, Tally-Matthews & Wiggan, 2018). When applied to a culturally diverse setting such as South Africa, Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy would maintain that indigenous South African languages and cultures of the students in classroom need to be sustained. 5 | P a g e 1.3. Research problem Translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy has the potential to address the implementation of multilingual language policy that higher education institutions have grappled with for many years. The lack of multilingual language policy implementation has delayed the promotion of multilingualism and perpetuated the structural demise of indigenous languages in HEI’s (DHET, 2020:11). This necessitates the importance of exploring translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy to implement multilingual language policy in South African higher education. 1.4. Research question How can translanguaging be used as a pedagogical strategy to implement multilingual language policy in South African higher education especially in undergraduate tutorial settings? 1.5. Research sub-questions To respond to the main research question, the study was guided by the following research sub-questions, (i) What lessons are reported in the literature on multilingual (classroom) practices globally? (ii) What is the UFS approach (es) to multilingual practice in the undergraduate tutorials? (iii) What are the challenges hindering the implementation of multilingual language policy at the UFS? (iv) How can the UFS respond to the challenges of implementing multilingual language policy using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy? 1.6. Research Aim To explore the use of translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy to implement multilingual language policy in the undergraduate tutorials, with a specific focus on the UFS. 6 | P a g e 1.7. Research Objectives The specific objectives of the study are: i. To determine lessons reported in the literature on multilingual (classroom) practices from globally. ii. To identify and describe the UFS approach to multilingual (classroom) practice in the undergraduate tutorials. iii. To explore and report challenges hindering the implementation of multilingual language policy at the UFS. iv. To propose strategies on how the UFS can respond to the challenges of implementing its multilingual language policy using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy. 1.8. Research Paradigm McGregor and Murnane (2010: 419) explain that a paradigm is a “set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitute a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them.” In another viewpoint, Cresswell (1998) states that a paradigm is a rudimentary set of beliefs that directs the researcher’s inquiry. For Morgan (2007), a paradigm presents ways of experiencing and contemplating about the world. This involves beliefs in relation to morals, values and aesthetics. In addition, Lincoln and Guba (1985) posited that a paradigm is comprised of four fundamentals, that is, ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology. Paradigm interpretation as an epistemological standpoint is rooted in the meaning of epistemology that relates to what does it mean to know and how can we come to know? Kivunja and Kuyini (2017: 30) state that ‘researchers who are guided by either stance are directed by that position to ask research questions and also answer them in a particular way.’ In the Social Constructivist paradigm, a researcher understands that the social world cannot be seen from only a single view but rather that realities are socially constructed (cf. 3.4, 3.4.1). Within the constructivist paradigm, it is also important to acknowledge the context in which the knowledge is constructed. Creswell (2014: 8) confirms the active role of researchers in knowledge construction by indicating that: 7 | P a g e Constructivists believe that individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work. Individuals develop subjective meanings of their experiences- meanings directed towards certain objects or things. These meanings are varied and multiple, leading the researcher to look for complexity of views rather than narrow the meanings into a few categories or ideas. The study used Social Constructivism as a lens to look at how tutors and tutees perceive multilingual language policy and its implementation using translanguaging. In so doing, I was furnishing my interest in developing an understanding of how tutors and tutees construct their understanding of how they were prepared to implement multilingual language policy (cf. 3.4, 3.4.1). This is justified by Cresswell (2014:8) who intimates that researchers need to “rely on the participants’ views of the situation being studied”. 1.9. Research methodology The study followed a qualitative approach (cf. 3.2). It was selected because the subject of study is a social phenomenon (tutorial programme). Stake (1995) describes qualitative case study as a “study of the particularity and complexity of a single case, coming to understand its activity within important circumstances”. In addition, a qualitative case study is a research method that assists in exploring a phenomenon that is within a particular context using different data sources, and it explores through different lenses to unveil multiple facets of the phenomenon (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Rashid, Rashid, Warraich, Sabir, & Waseem, 2019). In this regard, the explored case is that of undergraduate tutoring. In addition, Cresswell (2013) defines qualitative case study as “exploration of a bounded system” which involves in-depth data generation process. Furthermore, data is generated from different sources, and it has its specific way of sampling and analyzing data (cf. 3.5, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, and 3.5.3) This study sought to understand and interpret tutors’ and students’ views on the successful implementation of multilingual language policy using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy. Therefore, the used case study design that is intrinsic, which is located at the UFS at the Centre for Teaching and Learning (CTL) and 8 | P a g e specific unit (Tutoring) (Stake, 1995). A case study is important when the researcher needs to understand and make meaning of a phenomenon in-depth. The case study methodology adopted for the study was -pivotal in understanding the phenomenon of multilingual language policy implementation (cf. 3.3). 1.9.1. Data Generation The data generation methods adopted for this study were semi-structured and focus group interviews. These two methods assisted the researcher to be nearer to the participants, as well as allowing them to form part of knowledge generation. According to Merriam (2009), interviews are used when the researcher wants to know something that cannot be reported through observation. A semi-structured interview is a discourse that entails intent and structure. It is very attentive to the ‘questioning and listening approach’ to attain authenticated knowledge (cf. 3.5.2). This method is appropriate for this study as the purpose is to delve into the perspectives and experiences of the participants (Kvale, 1996:11; DeJonckheere & Vaughn, 2019). It is further deployed in this study due to the nature of its flexibility and permits interviews to be focused on the phenomenon under study (Merriam, 2009; Jamshed, 2014). This method is used to allow the participants’ responses to emerging during the interviews and it further enables the participants in this study to form part of knowledge generation (Monyela, 2017). According to Anderson (1990) focus group, interview may be defined as “a group comprised of individuals with certain characteristics who focus discussion on a given issue or topic” (cf. 3.5.3). Focus groups consist of six to twelve participants who are invited by the researcher. In this study, focus groups primarily assist the researcher to comprehend the challenges of implementing multilingual language policy from the views or perceptions of participants (Khan & Manderson,1992; Nyumba, Wilson, Derrick, & Mukherjee, 2018). They are aimed at generating “high-quality” data in a social context (Patton, 2002). 1.9.2. Selection of Participants The selection of participants in the study was limited to the selected tutors, students in the four faculties namely: Faculty of Education, Faculty of Humanities, Faculty of Economics and Management Science, and Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences 9 | P a g e (University of the Free State, QwaQwa Campus). Therefore, convenience (Freedman, 2004:1) and purposive sampling (Etikan, Musa & Alkassim, 2016) are employed in this study to generate data to explore how a South African university implements multilingual language policy using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy in the tutorials (Gentels et al., 2015). According to Farrokhi and Hamidabad (2012) and Etikan et al., (2016) in convenience sampling, the researcher selects participants that can be easily accessed, which in this case study is undertaken at the university where the researcher is located (cf. 3.7.3). To increase the credibility of the results, purposive random sampling was employed in this study (cf. 3.7.2.). A total of eight tutors were selected using convenience sampling because the researcher is located within a tutorial programme which made the tutors be easily accessible. For all the tutors’, semi-structured interviews were conducted. However, purposive sampling was adopted for selecting sixteen tutees. Thereafter, focus group discussions were conducted with the tutees in which only twelve tutees participated (cf. 3.5.3). The rationale for only twelve tutees was that two tutors withdrew from participating in the study, and the other two were not available for the focus group discussion. 1.9.3. Data Analysis In this study, data is analyzed through thematic analysis (cf. 3.10). Thematic analysis is a systematic way of identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017). To make sense of participants ‘responses, the researcher employs five stages of thematic analysis; namely, generating original codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, describing and identifying themes and producing the report (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis is a flexible and useful research tool that can provide both rich and detailed complex data (Clarke & Braun, 2013). This study adopts the inductive analysis approach (Boyatzis, 1998) since the study seeks to explore a social phenomenon from a qualitative perspective. 1.10. Trustworthiness of the study In qualitative research, quality criteria refer to trustworthiness (cf. 3.11). This points to whether the findings can be trusted. To respond to the latter question, Lincoln and Guba 10 | P a g e (1985) propose quality criteria in qualitative research that consist of transferability, credibility, confirmability, and dependability for examining trustworthiness (cf. 3.11, a, and b). This criterion represents the researcher’s efforts to ensure that they provide enough contextual data about their research so that readers of their findings can relate those findings to their contexts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Korstjens & Moser, 2018). Credibility refers to the extent to which data and data analysis are believable, trustworthy, or authentic (Guba, 1981; Connelly, 2016). Confirmability refers to the extent to which the findings of your research project can be confirmed by others in the field. The overriding goal of this criterion is to ensure that your biases are minimized and preferably eliminated, from contaminating the results of the data analyzed (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). Guba (1981) explains that this criterion refers to the ability to observe the same outcome or finding under similar circumstances. According to Lauckner, Paterson, and Krupa (2012) trustworthiness of a particular study relies on the expansiveness of which empirical findings from research reflect directly the phenomenon that is being studied. The findings of this study are trustworthy when weighted against the deployed frameworks. In this study, I ascertained that by employing procedures such as member checking and peer briefing. This was done to ensure that what the participants said during the interviews or focus groups discussion is not misconstrued, but accurately captures their experiences. 1.11. Value of research The researcher hopes that this research will add value to initiatives aimed at addressing the plethora of challenges for multilingual language policy and implementation in higher education in South Africa and possibly elsewhere. The study is likely to contribute to the existing body of knowledge in language policy implementation in HEIs. Furthermore, the proposed strategy stands to benefit students and tutors through understanding translanguaging as a developing concept that can be deployed as a pedagogical strategy 11 | P a g e for learning. Lastly, insights from the study can benefit policymakers through better comprehension of how translanguaging could be used to implement multilingual language policy in higher education. 1.12. Ethical considerations Ethical clearance was obtained from the GHREC committee (See appendix A). Consent forms were distributed to the participants before the study commences (See appendix C) in line with insights from Rhodes, Bowie & Hergen, 2003:71; Fleming & Zegwaard, 2018. Participants were protected from any harm during the study. They were entitled to privacy throughout the study (cf. 3.13). The following rights were considered in the study when dealing with the participants as outlined by Seliger & Shohamy, 1989; Barbie, 2014: - The right of the participant to privacy - The right of the participant to remain anonymous - The right of participants to confidentiality Hence, in this study, the details of the participants remained anonymous throughout the study. The data generated will be securely kept for five years and after that, it will be disposed of. 1.13. Operational concepts 1.13.1. Translanguaging Translanguaging is a term coined by Cen Williams (1994) in Wales (Baker, 2011). It is a pedagogical practice where students receive information through the ‘medium of one language (i.e., English) and provide feedback through the ‘medium of a different language’ (i.e., Sesotho or IsiZulu, etc.). There are different definitions of translanguaging. Baker (2011:288) alluded that “translanguaging is the process of making meaning, shaping experience, gaining understanding and knowledge through the use of two languages.” 12 | P a g e Moreover, Sembiante (2016) and Anwaruddin (2018) stated that translanguaging could be defined as how multilingual speakers learn from their ‘linguistic repertoire’ for communication in various situations. However, the meaning of trans-languaging has expanded beyond pedagogy, to refer to all approaches, which bi/multilingual employ to valorize understanding, acquire knowledge, creation of meaning-making worlds through the utilization of their languages. In terms of the functionality of translanguaging, Garcia (2009) proposes that translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy concurrently promotes the use of student linguistic repertoires to aid them in the academic journey and language development. 1.13.2. Pedagogy According to Alexander (2003:3), “pedagogy is the act of teaching together with its attendant discourse. It is what one needs to know, and the skills one needs to command to make and justify the many kinds of decisions of which teaching is constituted.” Therefore, this study drew from the latter definition to fully comprehend the skills tutors need to command in a multilingual tutorial to ascertain effective tutoring. 1.13.3. Multilingualism According to the Language Policy for Higher Education (DHET, 2020), multilingualism is “the effective use and promotion of multiple languages either by an individual speaker or by a community of speakers.” Aronin (2018) argues that there are two forms of multilingualism – these are individual multilingualism and societal multilingualism. Individual multilingualism is defined within the parameters of the individual capability to master and appropriately use multiple languages. On the other hand, societal multilingualism refers to the use of several languages in various circumstances and contexts within the community or groups. It also involves issues of multilingual language policies and practices (Aronin, 2018:2). This study adopts the definition of LPHE. This study also deems multilingualism as the ability of the students and tutors to use multiple languages within classrooms. 13 | P a g e 1.13.4. Multilingual Language Policy The multilingual language policy is a concept that voices out the balancing or appreciation of the other languages that exist within the societal space. For example, in higher education contexts, multilingual language policy is borne out of the past disparities of language in education balkanization or marginalization. Therefore, the birth of multilingual language policy seeks to redress experiences of language policy marginalization, with a view of entrenching a more inclusive policy (DHET, 2020). In this study, the working definition is that of viewing the multilingual language policy as the policy that strives to include the languages that were previously excluded in the process of teaching and learning in the university. 1.13.5. Undergraduate Tutoring This concept refers to the process of teaching and learning that occurs among the peers of a similar age cohort but differs in knowledge accumulated. During this type of tutoring, different roles are performed by the students and their tutors, students undertake the role of being a tutee – and a tutor plays a role of facilitating the discussion during the tutorials to maintain levels of engagement (Johns, 2019; UFS, 2019). However, for this study, I use the concept to pronounce a site at which the research is conducted. Since the tutees and tutors are participants in this study, undergraduate tutoring is the site where multilingual language policy practice is envisaged. 1.13.6. Indigenous African Languages Indigenous African Languages (IAL) are various languages that are native to a region or a country and spoken by indigenous people in the African continent. There are a plethora of indigenous African languages on the continent. However, it is worth noting that the applicability of this term is confined by the context of this study. Therefore, in this study, this concept is deployed to refer to the languages that have been systematically marginalized in the context of the South African education system. These languages are 14 | P a g e afforded a status of existence by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Therefore, the working definition that will be adopted for this study is the one contained in the report on the use of indigenous languages in higher education (which states that indigenous languages are “African languages of the Southern Bantu language family” (DHET, 2015). However, the researcher is aware of varying definitions of indigenous languages that are in existence. 1.13.7. Higher Education Institutions In Chapter 1: Higher Education Act of 1997 (RSA, 1997), ‘higher education institutions’ refers to institutions that are in the provision of part-time, full-time, and distance learning. 1.14. Layout of chapters In Chapter 1, the introduction and background of the study, research aim, and question, objectives, and research questions, ethical considerations, and significance of the study are provided. Chapter 2 provides insight on challenges hindering the implementation of the multilingual language policy in universities. This is done by rigorously consulting recent literature from different perspectives, firstly, from the practices in the Global North and Global South, secondly, in the historical South African context, and lastly, at the University of the Free State. The literature review was done in conjunction with the theoretical frameworks that guided this study. Chapter 3 offers the research design and methodology. Chapter 4 provides data presentation, analysis, and interpretation using thematic analysis. In Chapter 5, the researcher provides summaries of the findings on the implementation of the multilingual language policy. Remarks on the implications of the study are also provided. 15 | P a g e 1.15. Chapter summary The chapter presented the background of the study and provided an overview of the literature relating to the problem under research. A succinct description of the research problem and research question was provided. The aim of the study objectives was explained. Two theoretical approaches, OLP and CSP as the theoretical frameworks that informed the study were both briefly described (cf. 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, and 2.4). The philosophical worldview from which the study is conceptualized, namely Social Constructivism/Interpretivism are briefly discussed (cf. 3.4, and 3.4.1). The qualitative case study research approach was explained and so was a brief description of Thematic Analysis which was the method employed to analyze data (cf. 3.10). The chapter also briefly discussed the value of research, the ethical considerations, and the limitations of the study (cf. 3.11, 3.12: 3.12.1, 3.12.2, 3.12.3. and 3.13). Lastly, a layout of all the subsequent chapters of the study was provided (cf. 1.14). The following chapter provides a detailed discussion on theoretical framework and literature review on multilingual language policy and translangauging practices in higher education institutions. 16 | P a g e CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW ON MULTILINGUAL LANGUAGE POLICY AND TRANSLANGUAGING PRACTICES IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS 2.1. Introduction The study sought to explore translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy to implement multilingual language policy at a South African university. How language policy is currently formulated, and implementation plans thereof. Within this broad framework, this chapter outlines the theoretical framework that underpins the study (cf. 2.3; 2.4). This process is achieved by discussing their principal ideologies and thoroughly considering their deficiencies and limitations. The selection of the framework is further substantiated regarding historical setting, objectives, nature of reality, the position of the researcher, and the co-researchers who are participants in this study. The concepts used are described and explained in-depth. The related literature is thoroughly reviewed to utilize enhanced language planning practices emanating from other institutions of higher learning (cf. 2.5; 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3). Overall, therefore, the discussion in the chapter seeks to capture the current university language policy background (cf. 2.6: 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.6.4) and provision of global, continental, and local experiences on the implementation of multilingual language policies in higher education (cf. 2.7:2.7.1, 2.7.2,2.7.3, 2.7.4, 2.7.5, 2.7.6, 2.7.7). 2.2. Theoretical Frameworks In every research or study, it is necessary to use or develop a lens on which the study will rely. On this basis, I use the theoretical framework, which is defined as a structure comprised of theories that are labeling, explaining, predicting, and comprehending phenomena under study (Eisenhart, 1991). I also support that the theoretical framework orientates and explains the necessity of the phenomenon under study (Gabriel, 2013). In this study, the role of the theoretical framework was/is to link the researcher with prior knowledge or lived experiences of the tutors and students (Labaree, 2013). It allows the 17 | P a g e researcher to ‘intellectually’ change from labeling observed phenomenon to generalizing about the overarching aspects concerning that phenomenon. The researcher must select a theoretical framework that expresses their study since it gives a standpoint and route of the study. Given this background, the researcher is conscious of the point that the translanguaging framework exists and might have played a central role in this study. For example, Wang (2019) argues that translanguaging might be applied as both an analytical framework and a theoretical framework that permits researchers to rethink and illustrate conglomerate approaches in the classroom setup that enables students to employ their full linguistic repertoires. However, I decided to use these two frameworks to capture the holistic experiences of the participants. In addition, both frameworks were able to fill the gap the translanguaging framework possesses, but also these two frameworks traverse beyond pedagogical approaches as they include seeing language from cultural, problem, right and resource which translanguaging is limited in provision of this paradigm shift in the conceptualization of the study. In this study, two theoretical frameworks were deployed to achieve the aim and objectives of the study. The two theoretical frameworks are Orientations in Language Planning (OLP) and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP). The integration of these two frameworks allows me to go beyond “dominant approaches” which suffocate and problematize language planning and policy formulation that undergirds monolingual ideologies. This approach is not an anomaly in social science research. Rather it enables the researcher to have a balanced theoretical underpinning. The goal of the study is to respond to the hiatus of sluggish implementation of multilingual language policy in higher education. In addition, a study of this nature reverts to issues relating to language and cultural exclusion by the systemic repressions that advance monolingual ideologies. To attend to this, the two theoretical approaches assist in constructing meaning out of the participants' lived realities. The two theoretical frameworks are discussed in detail in the following subsections. 18 | P a g e 2.3. Orientations in Language Planning Orientations in Language Planning (OLP) was developed by Ruiz (1984). Within the framework ‘Orientation’ is described as a “complex of dispositions towards language and its role, and toward languages and their role in society” (Ruiz, 1984:16). This framework comprises three orientations: language as a right, language as a problem, and language as a resource. This framework emerged when language planning was going through some changes in bilingual education. It was advocated for the linguistic diversity of minority language speakers. Further, the emergence of this framework was due to contention on the meaning of ‘problem’ at a time when scholars in language planning and policy were viewing language problems from a societal point of view (Hult & Hornberger, 2016). Lo-Bianco and Slaughter (2016) note that language planning researchers when conducting a study; whether about policy formation or policy situation, sought to identify the scope of language and communication factors involved. It is under this auspice that this theoretical framework was deployed to facilitate multilingual language policy implementation since it considers the theoretical basis of the constitution and language policy of the institution under study. In this regard, this theoretical framework integrates the rudiments of discourse and ideology contained in the constitution. The theoretical framework also provided a foundation for language policy planning and implementation and considers all variables that need to be accounted for in language policy implementation, particularly in the context of South Africa. This theoretical framework is embodied with constructed optimal strategies and methodologies, which can be applied in implementing multilingual language policy. In this regard, this study borrowed insights from this theoretical framework Orientation in Language Planning (OLP) to make policy implementation a participatory process that sought to solicit insights from the participants in the study. The theoretical framework seeks to recognize multilingual language policy and the implementation of a realizable practice. This study adopts and relies on Ruiz's (1984) framework for understanding the experiences of participants on the implementation of multilingual language policy at the South African university. 19 | P a g e The three tenets of orientations in language planning (OLP): language as a problem, language as a right, and language as a resource, were used in this study to comprehend the contextual conception of language planning and implementation in higher education. The following section entails and justifies the position of how these three tenets were applicable in this study. 2.3.1. Language as a problem Language as a problem entails that language of teaching and learning in this study is problematized in terms of its implications towards multilingual students. This orientation consists of values that emerge from monolingual ideologies and the assimilationist mindset (Ruiz, 1984; Hornberger, 1990; Evans & Hornberger, 2005). The teaching and learning process remains to be structured in a monolingual setup. In this study, I observe language as a problem, as indigenous African languages remain unused in a space of teaching and learning due to different reasons stated by various institutions of higher learning. Ruiz (1984) posits that indigenous languages are not perceived as assets, but rather as inhibitors that need to be evaded. He further notes that linguistic diversity is framed from a deficit notion that does not realize the indigenous languages. Instead, they are problematized as liabilities. Therefore, I contest that monolingual language policies continue to dominate the teaching and learning spaces. Moreover, they do not assist or play a key role in nation-building, but instead, they further inoculate negative perceptions regarding indigenous languages. As Ruiz (2010) stated, monolingual language policies are aimed at detracting multilingualism in society and are in favor of advancing the dominant status of English. This finding is consistent with the empirical data as evidence from the experiences of the tutors and tutees. I am also in accord with Petrovic (2005) and Horner, NeCamp, and Donahue (2011), who posit that monolingual language policies are maintained due to the social hierarchy that exists in a society. 20 | P a g e 2.3.2. Language as a right In this orientation, language is perceived as a basic human right (Ruiz, 1984;). This theory maintains that every individual is entitled by the legally promulgated acts and policies to utilize and learn in their languages (Ruiz, 1984). It postulates the ideology that every human being is permitted to engage in all spheres through his or her language. Language of learning and teaching should not be used as a tool to discriminate or to push away indigenous languages to the periphery. In South Africa, indigenous languages as a legal or constitutional right are recorded as either individual or group right. Herein in this study, this framework is relevant due to its nuances when it comes to responding to questions of why indigenous languages as legally bound are undervalued during the learning and teaching process. Ruiz (1984) pronounced that in the language as a right discourse, the purpose is to give indigenous language speakers “linguistic flexibility” to access their civil rights It is, therefore, in this study, the theoretical framework provides practical thinking of responding to challenges of implementing multilingual language policy without detracting but admiring and recognizing the rights of individuals and groups within the language policy (Greer, 2015; McNelly, 2015; Wright & Boun, 2015). 2.3.3. Language as a resource Language as a resource maintains that languages can be perceived as repertoires from which one can benefit (Ruiz, 1984; De Jong, Li, Zafar & Wu, 2016; Macias, 2016, Daly & Sharma, 2018). Language as a resource orientation has posed that it is lethal to position other languages as having more economic and political vitality than others (Ruiz, 1984; Ricento, 2005). It contends that every language is important to its speakers, and it should not be perceived from a deficit thinking and perspective. Instead, they deserve to be regarded as tools of engagement in learning and teaching. However, language policies have created a separationist mentality to allow English a dominant status at the expense of indigenous languages. Advancing indigenous languages other than English and Afrikaans may effectively “build linguistic resources” for economic and political r e a s o n s and the promotion of multilingualism in higher education (Ruiz, 1984; Wright, 21 | P a g e 2004; Palmer, Zuniga & Henderson, 2015). Having discussed Orientation in Language Planning in the above sections, the next section presents Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy. 2.4. Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy Building on Ruiz’s notions of Orientations in Language Planning (OLP) framework, I deploy Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (Paris, 2012) as a supplementary theoretical framework in this study. It is necessary to put forth that Orientation in Language Planning has limitations like any other theoretical framework, this implies that it does not carry an element of culture and pedagogy. It solely depicts views or ideologies of how languages could be seen from a different vantage point. Thus, opens a hiatus to be filled by Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy, which aids in this study in the competing discourses concerning the implementation of multilingual language policy in higher education. Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy posits that there is an urgent need to rethink the learning environment as a space where diverse and heterogeneous practices are not only appreciated but also sustained (Paris, 2012). This framework further demands and applies a critical and emancipatory objective to reimagine the oppressive systems towards students in teaching and learning (Paris & Alim, 2014). Moreover, it argues that HEIs should create spaces that sustain cultural ways that students bring in the classroom. Cultural values and indigenous rights can be protected by multilingual education which may develop language policies that respect and equate the status of marginalized languages with the dominant language (Kaya & Seleti, 2013; Faltis, 2014). This is simply because ‘humans affect culture and culture and language affect humans’ (Zeydanlioglu, 2012). Furthermore, to understand and to be understood is a process accomplished through language, which is a prerequisite of the learning and teaching procedures that are important in education (Cenoz & Gorter, 2008; Hornberger, 1991). It is, therefore, necessary to point out that culturally sustaining pedagogy embodies these pertinent aspects of respecting and treating cultural values and linguistic diversity carried by the students in the classroom. Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy advances linguistic and cultural agility. Culturally 22 | P a g e Sustaining Pedagogy realizes multiculturalism and multilingualism for students and tutors. Therefore, in this study, this framework is deemed relevant due to its chief ideologies of appreciating and advancing the practical promotion and sustaining of multilingualism in the classroom during teaching and learning (Paris & Alim, 2017). It is necessary to acknowledge that students’ languages and cultural diversity are evident in South African higher education institutions, and they need to be equally sustained (Bucholtz, Casillas & Jin Sook, 2017; Charamba and Zano, 2017). Moreover, Du Buisson (2017:155) cautions that there is an evident correlation between “thought, culture, and language,” and depriving another language impedes its speakers from emancipating themselves through freedom of thought. It is therefore imperative to sustain pedagogical practices that are avid to empowering and advocating for linguistically diverse cultures brought in by students in the classrooms, as language and culture are interwoven (Du Buisson, 2017:156). Even though monolingual practices and cultural subjugation in South African higher education cannot be separated from the historically pejorative episodes and contemporary structures of linguistic power, which endorse language domination and exclusion of indigenous languages and students’ cultural habits they bring alongside in the classrooms. It is on this basis, I contend the necessity for the recognition, inclusion, and practical implementation of multilingual language policy using theories and approaches that comprised with comprehensive multifaceted ways of addressing classroom cultural and linguistic diversity, injustices, and injuries incurred by the students in HEIs (cf. 1.1). Therefore, the selection of this framework to assist in curating a space for linguistic diversity and fathoming the need of using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy in a culturally and linguistically diverse tutorial. In addition, I contend that quest for multilingualism in higher education is feasible through using a plethora of means such as translanguaging. Therefore, Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy is crucial in ensuring that multilingual language policy implementation becomes a realizable and achievable outcome in this study. It must also be noted that I heavily rely on this theoretical framework to explore ways of surety to implement multilingual language policy using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy in the undergraduate tutorial classrooms. The 23 | P a g e following section provides a recount of the relevant and related literature concerning the implementation of multilingual language policy and the use of translanguaging in a multilingual classroom. 2.5. Related Literature In this section, I cover literature that is relevant and recent which will help me a great deal in understanding reasons, rationale, and furthering or strengthening my argument moving forward. The approach to this section will be arranged in a way that the global, continental and national approaches are satisfied. The first part will cover the multilingual practices in the global north, which will consist of the following countries, the United States of America, Australia, Spain, and the Netherlands. The second part will focus on the global south which includes, Nigeria, Kenya, and Cameroon. The third part will focus on the national level in South Africa, and then lastly, the site where the study is undertaken. 2.5.1. Multilingual language policy practice in the global north The last twenty years have witnessed exponential growth in linguistic diversity in universities globally, further entrenching the idea of a multilingual university. Multilingual practice in higher education institutions contains a monumental set of benefits for students, as well as for the university community. The benefits range from entrenchment of strong cognitive capabilities, thinking creatively, and organized knowledge. Furthermore, multilingualism ought to be advanced in undergraduate multilingual classrooms, which is motivating students to utilize their mother tongue during the class discussion to successfully facilitate a grasp of content and make sense of the content they are learning. The European Union Commission's (2014:3) invites member states to “Adopt and improve measures aimed at promoting multilingualism and enhancing the quality and efficiency of language learning and teaching, including by teaching at least two languages in addition to the main language(s) of instruction from an early age and by exploring the potential of innovative approaches to the development of language competences” this position is clear on the development of multilingualism and multilingual 24 | P a g e policy in all spectrums social, political, cultural, and educational. Historically, in the United States of America, there has been an emergence of bilingualism programs for students for whom English is not their native language (Bybee, Henderson, & Hinohosa, 2014; Moore, 2021). However, there is the continuation of linguistic racism towards black students through exhibited racial monolingual language policy that discriminates the efforts to realize the existence of the oppressed students' voices that harms their identity, linguistic violence, dehumanization, and marginalization of black students’ languages (Baker-Bell, 2020). In accordance, Jones (2021) argues for anti-racist ways to disrupt the systems that support the oppression of the students' cultures, languages, and approaches to learning. In this regard, Greer (2015) conducted a qualitative interpretivism study in the African American community by examining language ideologies on blackness and bilingualism. Her findings reveal that the language ideologies are perceived from white and black bilingualism, “Whiteness is understood as a set of practices, beliefs, and characteristics that have been socially constructed to represent the Anglo group in power.” on the other hand, Black bilingualism is perceived about “Language is power. He who knows the most language knows the most power. People who are not seeking power... power doesn’t resonate with them... Black people haven’t been taught to see themselves as powerful. Language is a vehicle by which people can gain power, but we got to get them to see that. It’s a behavior that has to be learned.” Therefore, the researcher believes that the latter excerpt is a clarion call for change in perception of languages as problems. Rather, they need to be seen as resources that embody powerful instruments to release oneself from monolingual practices. Participants who were Spanish minority, speakers unveiled that they perceived their language as valuable and enabling them to interact within the societal domains such as education, economic, political, cultural, and social (Greer,2015: 22). In addition, participants also realized an opportunity to develop their Spanish-English bilingualism in responding to the enforcement of English-only ideologies. This finding demystifies the notion that more than two languages cannot co-exist in a classroom. Furthermore, Brutt-Griffler (2017:222) exhorts that multilingualism should be 25 | P a g e perceived as a resource, rather than a predicament to be overcome. He further argues that the ultimate objective of teaching and learning should be to open and assist students to put into practice their knowledge. The direct approach to make this a possible practice will be to appeal to their multilingual adeptness to aid them to learn more. There is an argument that the linguistic injustice in American education is deeply entrenched in its history – it can be recorded from its European colonization of North America (Chang- Bacon, 2021). For example, prevention of students from speaking their home languages was a normal practice – this approach was typically applied by the colonizers for the colonized to imbibe, assimilate, and mimic tactics of mastering subjects in English as an official language (Spring, 2016). To critique these atrocious practices of monolinguals, Woods (2017) posit an argument for the construction of “comprehensive language policies in multilingual classrooms” this study, prevails the ambiguous effects of language policies has on students. In the lenient monolingual classroom, he found that teachers were working around a monolingual structure to ascertain that student have the necessary resources to progress in that type of classroom. However, in a strict monolingual classroom, participants reported that their teacher banished some students who were speaking Spanish, with the assumption that they were talking badly about her or other students – participants also felt “power dynamics” between them and other students because they were embarrassed by the teacher who had pronounced that English is important than Spanish. This, therefore, suggests that monolingual policies do not grant students freedom of expression in the classroom. Instead, bilingual language policies are regarded to have an essence to give students freedom of expression. In addition, it affords students with linguistic independence and development in learning the second language in the bilingual classroom (Woods, 2017: 25 – 30). Thus, the researcher would put forth that the study demonstrates that monolingual policies exclude students from being themselves, which is catastrophic in feeling alienated from the learning process. Furthermore, the element of language power- privilege dynamic is at play to English-speaking students, and it is sustained in this type of setup – this practice is eluding social justice that is deeply warranted in the education system. On the other hand, bilingual language policies permit students to express 26 | P a g e themselves freely without being judged or prejudiced by the teachers or other students. Regarding Spain, Salaberri-Ramiro and Sánchez-Pérez (2017) share the same sentiments that training programs for teachers are important in the implementation of multilingualism. Still, in Spain, Doiz, Lasagabaster, and Sierra’s (2014:352) findings between students, teaching, and administrative staff showed differing viewpoints regarding English medium instruction and multilingualism. Students reported that learning in English would negatively affect their academic performance, and the continuation of English would further diminish the status of Basque. In contrast, both teaching and administrative staff share the same sentiments that learning in English would benefit the university by stating scientific and research reasons. The contrasting viewpoints of both students, teaching and administrative staff are calling for concern since the direct benefactors are the students. The focus, in this case, should be on how the students are coping with English since they proclaim that it affects their academic performance. The middle ground needs to be found to balance the differing views of the teaching and academic staff. It is somewhat obvious that the lecturing staff will not bring in any concerns with English, simply because they are expected to publish in journals and teach in English, they are bounded by the university policy. In this regard dehumanizes the direct beneficiaries which in this case are students - as for administrative staff, they are also regulated by the university policy which enforces the use of English to maintain the status and functions of the university. In Australia, Burne's (2020) research comprised of ten academics at the metropolitan university who came from different fields of study. Interviews were used and audio recorded to capture the reflections of the academics. In her findings, participants reported that students who come from disadvantaged or underrepresented milieu tend to be at ‘risk’ of being excluded due to languages. This is regardless of the cognitive advantages reported on the use of multilingualism (Lin & Lei, 2020). Despite all these differing views, I believe that there is a need to develop a common understanding amongst the three stakeholders to ensure that no one is left behind. In Turkey, Aydin and Dogan (2019: 212) who assessed the attitudes of the teachers towards heritage-language education, indicated that eighty-six teachers reported that multilingual students developed competencies in the understanding of linguistic structure compared to monolingual 27 | P a g e students when the heritage-language education was used. Duarte and van der Ploeg (2019) conducted a study at the University of Groningen, in The Netherlands, where they interviewed Dutch-speaking lecturers and plurilingual lecturers and students within the English medium of instruction classroom. Their findings indicate that Dutch lecturers reported that they don’t encourage the use of languages other than English as they don’t feel comfortable as it is not officially permitted. One lecturer clarified that faculty language policy is not in line with her point of view mentioning that she would have liked to employ other languages, however, it is not optional to do so. On the other hand, most plurilingual lecturers reported that it is not their responsibility to police as to which languages are used by the students, others claim that they support bilingual language practices because they are in line with the subjects they are teaching. On the aspect of inclusion and exclusion, both Dutch and plurilingual lecturers share the same concerns that if students use their languages instead of English, such a practice would pose a threat to those students because they might be excluded, which will be a discriminatory practice and has an ‘ethical side’ in it. For example, they argued exclusion where there is a larger group of students sharing a common language (Dutch or German). But one lecturer provides his approach in class that he does not put German students together and Dutch students with Dutch students, he tries to mix them so that they engage each other using their languages. Despite that, this strategy is not allowed in-class discussions. Moreover, their findings demonstrated that both Dutch and plurilingual lecturers reported four benefits of plurilingual practices in class; firstly, broadening academic opportunities, secondly, social benefits, thirdly, plurilingual practices as a means of overcoming language barriers, and lastly, benefits of the international classroom” (Duarte & van der Ploeg, 2019:277-279). 28 | P a g e 2.5.2. Multilingual language policy practice in the global south In the Global South, which according to Dados and Connell (2012:12) “refers broadly to the regions of Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. It is one of a family of terms, including “Third World” and “Periphery,” that denote regions outside Europe and North America, mostly (though not all) low-income and often politically or culturally marginalized. The use of the phrase Global South marks a shift from a central focus on development or cultural difference toward an emphasis on geopolitical relations of power.” For example, in a more intricate context, Kazakhstan, before multilingual language policy introduction, there was intensive research done to benchmark with the countries that have already implemented this policy. Moreover, one of the lessons reported was in higher education institutions with an orientation in three languages namely, Kazakh, English, and Russian. Furthermore, training of the teachers was considered essential in the development of multilingual education (Aubakirova, Mandel, & Benkei-Kovacs, 2019). The resultant situation in Kazakhstan is multilingualism is practiced in higher education, even though it is regarded to be at an infancy stage. For this study, the focus is on Africa where there is a contestation of language policy in education. This contestation predates colonial times wherein Britain, France, Germany, Portugal, Italy, and Belgium partitioned the continent into colonial territories (Crystal, 2003). As such African indigenous languages had to wrestle with English and French dominance in education. However, according to Wa Thiongo (1978), people's development has been deprived by the colonial regime through language suppression, and even the post-colonial successors have continued to embark on the latter. That said, many countries have gained their political independence from the former colonial masters – whose intention to demise linguistic and cultural diversity of the continent continues to see its contours across the continent education system – were dominant languages of learning and teaching in the multilingual societies remains to be English and French. This is despite the available evidence of debilitating student academic performance in tertiary education – this does not only affect student performance, but language is a natural resource that can be utilized for socio-economic growth (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). Albeit Amfo and Anderson (2019:333) argue that: 29 | P a g e “Africa still struggles with the process of unearthing its head from the proverbial sand into which it is buried, concerning acknowledging that multilingualism, if properly harnessed, is a blessing rather than a curse” Many countries have promulgated policies and amended their constitutions to have African indigenous languages accorded recognition status by developing multilingual language policies in education. These policies are called in different names, for example, in Nigeria, it is called National Policy on Education, Language Policy in Education. However, there is a mismatch between the language policy implementation and constitutional precepts. For example, Nigeria, like any other African country, is multilingual, with its National Policy on Education is crystal clear on the preservation and protection of indigenous languages. The National Policy on Education (2004) highlights that: (a) In addition to appreciating the importance of language in the educational process, and as a means of preserving the people’s culture, the government considers it to be in the interest of national unity that each child should be encouraged to learn one of the three major languages other than his mother tongue. In this connection, the government considers the three major languages in Nigeria to be Hausa, Igbo, and Yoruba. (b) The medium of instruction in pre-primary schools should be the language of the immediate community in a multinational, school, English may be used as the medium of instruction, but the language of the immediate community should be taught in the spoken form. (c) Government will see to it that the medium of instruction in the primary school is initially the mother tongue or the language of the immediate community and at a later stage English. (d) Apart from functional literacy and effective communication, numeracy should be included as aspects of the curricula on which emphasis should be placed. Where Arabic is the medium of instruction in religion and moral instructions, it will continue to be used. 30 | P a g e The same National Policy on Education further encourages and recognizes the utilization of indigenous languages. With that said, English in Nigeria continues to dominate like in any other African country. Speakers of other languages have shown their concerns with only three indigenous languages being officialized. This has delayed the implementation of a multilingual language policy. English has been awarded a status of prerequisite to school admission, which has also permeated to university entrance. This approach can be seen as being linguistically discriminatory, the majority of the students are excluded from accessing knowledge-creation spaces such as universities because their languages are marginalized and not utilized as languages of pedagogy (Anyanwu, Okecha & Omo- Ojugo, 2013:5; Adebile, 2011). The same practice can be witnessed in Cameroon, where Adebile (2011:3) states that there is also a lack of effort to show practical promotion and to advance the use of indigenous languages. It appears that the indigenous language was holding a prestigious status in pre-colonialism. However, in a post-colonial Cameroon, only two languages (English and French) enjoy the status of being official. Despite the constitutional obligation coded in Article 1, Paragraph 3 in the 1996 January 18 Constitution, which clearly states that: The official languages of the Republic of Cameroon shall be English and French, both languages having the same status. The state shall guarantee the promotion of bilingualism throughout the country. It shall endeavour to protect and promote national languages. Consequently, indigenous languages remain unused in the education terrain. According to Nocus, Guimard, and Florin (2015) majority of students in Cameroon do not only have proficiency challenges, but they also exit school due to the inability to grasp what they are taught. According to Henry (2018:23) findings, show that the benefits of bilingualism do not only range in cognitive ability, but also sustain and foster cultural interest from the speakers of the indigenous languages. Findings in the study project suggest that in the classroom where students were taught in their mother tongue, they appeared to have 31 | P a g e gained socio-political and cultural benefits. Kouga’s (2010:6) study using questionnaires and observations indicates that language use in the classroom was either French or English, and lecturers who were teaching in French never attempted to summarize their sessions in English. In contrast, English lecturers were articulately summarizing their sessions in French. Even though there is a language competency mismatch between teachers, lecturers, and languages spoken by students, which impedes the practical implementation of multilingual language policy (Amfo & Anderson, 2019:3). Other scholars such as Atindogbe and Dissake (2017) reported that the incompetency of the lecturer in a particular language might contribute negatively towards student success. In the same study, students were reported to have encountered learning deficiencies such as language barrier, linguistic insecurity, and subject content. In this study, students decided to code-switch due to an inadequate understanding of the terminologies in the course. Jean and Laure (2016) identified that some of the limitations in implementing bilingualism/multilingualism in universities are due to the dishonesty of language policy implementation, where two languages are supposed to be used, but in practice, only one is used. In the case of Kenya, Sibomana (2015:49) avers that quality education is highly compromised where English as the medium of instruction is used; particularly in societies where proficiency level is inadequate. In Uganda, Namyalo and Nakaziya (2015:422) posit that the challenges of implementing linguistic rights in Uganda emanate from different ideologies, politics, and perceptions of the community regarding language diversity. In addition, in Uganda language pluralism is widely perceived as a problem instead of a resource. Indigenous African languages of the students whose growth is based on their development have been effectively deprived by the colonial regimes. Conversely, it appears that even in the post-colonial epoch, successors are continuing with the process of language policy and planning that aptly enforce students to abdicate their home languages in the classrooms. This continuation is prevalent in most of the African countries that were colonized. Brock-Utne (2017:62) avers that indigenous African languages as a medium of instruction are not deployed at either institution of higher 32 | P a g e learning or secondary education. This is despite a significant number of speakers of Kiswahili and Hausa, who are not employed as a medium of instruction at tertiary institutions. This is contradictory and problematic in its formulation as the vast majority of people learn through a language of minority (English) while the constitution promotes their indigenous languages that are systematically and deliberately marginalized by institutions of higher learning. 2.5.3. Multilingual practice in undergraduate at South African higher education institutions It can be argued that similar to other countries like the USA, China, and Spain, there is a gradual shift in South African institutions of higher learning about the implementation of multilingualism. The seriousness of implementation of multilingual language policy is visible even though the courts in South Africa, as it has been observed, other organizations have taken to court language policies of certain universities to sustain cultural and linguistic practice code of the other (Afrikaans) language. Alas, the constitutional court judgments thus far have been reliant on the constitution and not ignoring Section 29 (2) of the constitution which state; Everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably practicable. To ensure the effective access to, and implementation of, this right, the state must consider all reasonable educational alternatives, including single medium institutions, taking into account. a. equity b. practicability; and c. the need to redress the results of past racially discriminatory laws and practices. The language policy implementation in South African Higher Education terrain has been unfortunate and repellent towards the precepts and values of constitutional democracy 33 | P a g e and the fundamental human right of the students. Consequently, students are suffering from atrocities inoculated by this systemic struggle of balkanization of linguistic and cultural diversity in the classrooms during teaching and learning. Hornberger & Vaish (2009) in exploring strains in echoing multilingual language policy to a classroom linguistic practice in three countries, which are India, South Africa, and Singapore established the following: In India, their findings indicated that the mathematics teacher used Hindi to explain multiplication to the learners; she then continues to draw from both English and Hindi to contextualize and decontextualize content. In Singapore, the teacher was using English consistently so that she does discriminate against other groups by only using Tamil, instead, she used English throughout, although students were using Singlish, the teacher allowed them because it is difficult to create interactive discussions in that set-up. The teacher opted to circumvent those difficulties by opening a space for Singlish. In South Africa, the teachers supported the students’ mother tongue, despite the dominance of English. The learners were allowed to tap into their vernacular languages to contextualize things. On this basis, I can conclude that the pedagogical practices in three scenarios by teachers indicate hybrid multilingual practices in the classrooms. These practices may be equated to the recently developed and theorized theory of translanguaging. There are reports from studies that indicate promising development concerning advancing multilingualism (Madiba, 2014; Makalela, 2014; Maseko, 2014). The example can be made from some of these institutions of higher learning, such as the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal (UKZN), the language policy of this institution protract the planning in the promotion of multilingualism; this is evident in the following sections of the language policy (UKZN Language Policy, 2006:3) which states that; 5. The promotion of multilingualism in institutional policies and practices 5.1 The University shall use a similar approach to that proposed for the study of isiZulu and English in clause 4 above to encourage the development and study of other languages, in particular those spoken on 34 | P a g e the African continent, and necessary for the promotion of international trade and tourism, as well as academic and cultural contact. 5.2 The University recognizes its role in the promotion of multilingualism for social, cultural, intellectual, and economic development. This includes other official and other indigenous languages as well as the heritage and foreign languages. This institution has shown practical progress in addressing multilingualism in its classrooms through its policy where all students are offered IsiZulu (Mayaba et al., 2018). The University of Cape Town (UCT) language policy also in its preamble alludes that “the language policy of the University takes as its starting point the need to prepare students to participate fully in a multilingual society, where multilingual proficiency and awareness are essential” (UCT Langauge Policy Draft, 2013). In addition, Rhodes University (RU), English remains a medium of instruction for research, teaching, and learning, but they have both introduced isiXhosa. Besides, the University of Pretoria (UP Language Policy, 2010:2) states that… Tuition programmes can be presented either in Afrikaans or in English or in both these languages of tuition, provided that there is a demand for instruction in the language(s) concerned and that such programmes are academically and economically justifiable. The abovementioned precept is that the language policy at the University of Pretoria still prioritizes English and Afrikaans as they are granted a tuition status. Whereas African languages are not afforded space to be utilized in the university classrooms – this is an indication that students who are speakers of African languages are marginalized from accessing and creating knowledge. The benefits of learning in the mother tongue cannot be ignored, in this case, English and Afrikaans speaking students are benefiting from this policy which undermines the use of African languages as languages of tuition. At the Stellenbosch University (SU), the promotion of multilingualism can be seen from the preservation of Afrikaans while IsiXhosa is being given little attention by introducing it in selected not all the academic programs. The latter appears to be contradictory to the 35 | P a g e actual practices. This is evident in the policy precepts that highlight the following (SU Language Policy, 2016:9); 7.5 Promotion of multilingualism The Language Centre, the faculties, the language departments, support services, and management bodies are co-responsible for the advancement of multilingualism at SU. 7.5.1 SU incentivizes innovative multilingual practices by providing institutional funding for, for example, expanding teaching in more than one language in faculties; conducting research; sharing best multilingual practices; ICT-enhanced learning strategies; and discipline-specific academic literacy initiatives. Mkhize & Balfour (2017) postulates that at SU Afrikaans is a medium of instruction, but there is a shift towards multilingual education, where in particular, isiXhosa has been introduced in selected programs. Moreover, Mkhize (2018) conducted a study at a historically Afrikaans institution and put forward an argument that language is critically important in addressing epistemic access, success, and social justice issues in higher education. He argues that language of instruction can help marginalized students who are speakers of indigenous languages to gain understanding and be in a position of knowledge construction and that will further help them succeed in their studies. In addition, Kaschula (2016:200) states, “universities are yet to seriously consider language question as part of a deeper transformative voice.” He continues to argue that multilingual voice is non-existent in tertiary institutions. However, Afrikaans continues to be used as a medium of instruction alongside English. I also share the same sentiments with this scholar, the above-quoted language policies are sufficient evidence that demonstrates the continuation of the status quo at the universities. It is under these circumstances that I am undertaking this study to understand the contrasting views regarding multilingual language policy implementation at the university. Hence, this study focuses on the implementation of multilingual language policy using trans-languaging as a pedagogical strategy in tutorial classrooms. Childs (2016) undertook a study at Nelson Mandela University and found that tertiary 36 | P a g e students who are using their home languages during learning and teaching had educational benefits. Furthermore, she notes that languages are an important scaffold and resource for students as observed in her findings (Childs, 2016:30). In addition, Leach (2015:8) reporting on a multilingual tutorials study at Cape Peninsula University, indicated that many students posited that home language helped them to engage in the discussions during tutorials. This is an indication that tutorials are amicable and safe spaces that can be used to promote diverse languages brought by students. It is also worth noting that many multilingual language policies in South Africa have not found a space to breathe – this is due to the disclaimers that are presented that it is an onerous task to implement that policy at the university. Furthermore, Nomlomo and Katiya (2018) also reported similar findings in the study that was conducted at the University of Western Cape; the study was focused on the experiences of the first-entering students enrolled in engineering courses. Their findings demonstrate that students reported cognitive benefits of deepening their understanding of the course from using multilingual glossaries, which helped them to increase their academic performance (Nomlomo & Katiya, 2018:84-87). For, Madiba (2018) undertook a study to explore how students use isiXhosa to complement English in first-year economic tutorials at a multilingual university. Findings from students demonstrated the use of translanguaging during their tutorials, even though the study's aim was not to assess the use of translanguaging and students were not aware of this pedagogical practice (Madiba, 2018:513). By doing so, the learning of the students was maximized during the tutorials that were dealing with the difficult concept that could render to low levels of student engagement during the tutorials. These findings are fundamental in substantiating the unplanned use of translanguaging in undergraduate tutorials in a multilingual university. It is also imperative to take in cognizant the benefits posited from using translanguaging that increased the level of learning for students. Moreover, Batyi (2016) conducted the study at the same institution with a group of twenty- eight students who were doing enrolled in Tourism Management, this cohort of students participated in the Communication tutorial which was piloted by the Centre for Teaching, Learning, and Media to assess the efficacy of multilingual glossaries. Findings from pre- and post-test indicate that students improved their academic writing, which positively 37 | P a g e impacted their academic performance. According to Cummins (1991), communication is enabled through clear understandable language that is through home language. Averting students from using their indigenous languages or from attaining mother tongue education that is taught through the second language without adequate proficiency, their language, culture, and ethnicity are also denied (IIhan & Aydin, 2015). The English- medium instruction-based policies are doing exactly that, which is denying the marginalized students access to their languages, culture, and ethnicity. 2.6. Language Policy of the University of the Free State (UFS) In this section, I intend to present the language policy of the University of the Free State. Firstly, I provide the background setting of the language policy. Secondly, I briefly offer the policy statement and implementation plans. Lastly, I discuss monitoring and evaluation of the language policy. 2.6.1. University of the Free State language policy background The language policy of the University of the Free State has undergone phases of amendments since its inception. This was attempted to adhere to the Language Policy for Higher Education (DoE, 2002; DHET, 2015; DHET, 2018) call that promulgated that institutions of higher learning need to critically engage, review and amend their language policies to address the injustices that transpired during the apartheid period. In addition, it is imperative to note that after 1994, the university used parallel mediums in teaching and learning which could be noted as English and Afrikaans. The UFS Language Policy (2003), continued to sustain the parallel medium of instruction. However, the university decided to later again amend its policy to adhere to the Constitution and Language Policy for Higher Education (2002). As Tollefson (1995:2) put forward, “language policies are both an outcome of power struggles and an arena for those struggles”. In 2016, the university published a new language policy that was amended to address multilingualism in its premises. Although this newly amended language policy received some resistance from the other interest groups – who withhold believe that the changing of the language policy will “entrench segregation, increase reciprocal tensions and work 38 | P a g e against national cohesion” (Afriforum, 2017: online). This saw the contestation of the university and interest groups who demanded that the language policy not be considered as an official document. This multilingual language policy was envisaged to be implemented in phases particularly in the classrooms that consist of the linguistically and culturally diverse student population. Moreover, one of the spaces that were identified as sites where this multilingual language policy would be piloted was in the undergraduate tutorials where the study is situated. 2.6.2. Policy statement The language policy stipulates how the policy will be implemented and identified platforms where the policy will be implemented. Furthermore, the policy proffers the definition of multilingualism in the context of the geographical locations of its three campuses, which is defined as “a linguistic capacity that extends across more than two languages. Multilingualism can be individual, i.e. a person who can use more than one, but preferably more than two languages; and social multilingualism, that is the use of more than once, but preferably more than two languages in social transactions in a given community. In the case of the UFS, multilingualism means the use of a combination of Afrikaans, English, isiZulu, and Sesotho for different purposes according to each campus's needs.” (UFS Language Policy, 2016:2). Part four of the UFS language policy; contains commitments, principles, and definitions that are; 4.1 English becomes the primary medium of instruction at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels on all three campuses. 4.2 Multilingualism is supported among other activities by an expanded tutorial system specially designed for first-year students. Tutorials take place in English, Afrikaans, and Sesotho in the same class on the Bloemfontein campus and English, Sesotho, and isiZulu on the Qwaqwa Campus. 4.3 In particular professional programmes such as teacher education and training of students in theology who wish to enter the ministry in traditional Afrikaans speaking churches, where there is a clear market need, the parallel medium English-Afrikaans and Sesotho/isiZulu continues. This arrangement must not undermine the values of inclusivity and diversity endorsed by the UFS. 39 | P a g e 4.4 The primary formal language of the UFS administration will be English with sufficient flexibility for the eventual practice of multilingualism across UFS. 4.5 Formal student life interactions should be in English, while multilingualism is encouraged in all social interactions. 2.6.3. Implementation According to De Groff and Cargo (2009) implementation of policy is the process where the nevertheless, tutorials at the University of the Free State have been in the past conducted in English and Afrikaans. This means that students who were not fluent in either of these two languages, experienced exclusion and were alienated from the learning and teaching process. However, the university approach to multilingual practice in the undergraduate tutorials is clear as envisaged in the following paragraphs of the policy part on implementation: 5.1.2 Multilingual study resources will be provided in the context of tutorials to support epistemological access for all students. 5.1.5 Undergraduate programmes offered in English will include as part of their contact time at first‐ and second‐year level tutorials in Afrikaans, English, and Sesotho/isiZulu depending on the campus needs (UFS Language Policy, 2016:3). From this excerpt, it is worth noting that the university has indicated willingness to redress social injustices of the past apartheid system, which used segregationist policies to marginalize and oppress linguistic and cultural diversity that is carried by the students. To unpack the findings of other studies on multilingual tutorials, de Buisson (2017) provided a reflective study on multilingual tutorials at the University of the Free State, in particular the Department of Philosophy. He alluded that in philosophy tutorials, he allowed students to group themselves according to “their native languages, or languages they prefer”. He further asserts that students in class “tended to form English, Afrikaans, Sesotho and isiZulu groups”. 40 | P a g e 2.6.4. Monitoring and revision In South Africa, universities are required to develop or revise their language policies to ensure alignment with the Language Policy for Higher Education published in 2020. According to Language Policy for Higher Education (DHET, 2020) language policies should be supported through implementation plans that need to undergo review and monitor progress. To accede to this plan, the UFS language policy clearly states how the revision and monitoring will be completed and the responsible committee for the monitoring and implementation of the language policy (UFS, 2016:4). Monitoring and evaluation of the language policy are critical in the process of policy development. Therefore, Dresang and Huddlestone (2009) sustain that when the policy is in place, the management or administrators must inquire whether the policy has been implemented effectively or not. 2.7. Challenges hindering the implementation of multilingual language policies in higher education In this section, as alluded to earlier, I will be articulating using different academic sources to outline challenges hindering the successful implementation of multilingual language policies in higher education. I reviewed the past two decades and recent literature to provide background about the challenges of multilingual language policy in university classrooms. Thereafter, these challenges are further explicated to verify and validate claims cited earlier. 2.7.1. English language hegemony in higher education According to Lull (1995:1) hegemony is defined as “power or dominance that one social group hold over another”. He further asserts that hegemony is beyond social power, it is a mechanism that could be used for attaining and sustaining power. Moreover, Hall (1977:333) suggests that hegemony is “framing all competing definitions of reality within dominant class’s range, bringing all alternatives within their horizons of thought. The dominant class sets limits-mental and structural within which subaltern classes live and make sense of their subordination in such a way as to sustain the dominance of those ruling over them”. English as a language of instruction in higher education has gained hegemonic status. This is amid the existing ‘linguistic diversity that is prominent in the institutions of higher learning. In many countries, particularly in Africa, English was 41 | P a g e imposed in societies that had their diverse languages through the system of colonization (Mazrui & Mazrui, 1998). Moreover, Altbach (2007:2) corroborates that colonialism created an impetus for the permeation of English, and other European languages in the early 18th century to places that include North America, South Asia, Australasia, the Caribbean, and ultimately Africa. English as a language of the elite has been widely linked with progress in many societies around the world, while indigenous languages are perceived as not important and present backwardness. These language ideologies are perpetuated in third world countries, which suffered from a catastrophic mental subjugation under colonialism (Tupas, 2015:120). The imposition of English in these countries implies that their languages would not be in use especially for teaching and learning purposes, and the universities would remain monolingual, even in a multilingual society. Consequently, the continuation of the implementation of monolingual practices was codified in language policies, which did not recognize the languages of the marginalized (Alexander, 2012). Kaya and Seleti, (2013) citing Fanon (1952) and Ngugi wa Thiongo (1986) state that these two activists construct cognitive colonization as an enterprise that includes disrobing the colonized their ‘ancestral culture and language’ by substituting it with their European culture and language. This systematic method is achieved especially in higher education institutions through using pedagogies that support English that dominated and advanced intellectual discourse. Therefore, the effects of English hegemony are extremely detrimental to the practical implementation of multilingual language policies in SA HEIs. The universities in South Africa have not made any progress in implementing their multilingual language policies. This includes the university under study. However, what is prominent in its policy is the recognition of multilingualism. To be able to accede that recognizing multilingualism in education policy will catalyze their implementation process. However, reality demonstrates the opposite. It is pivotal to note that, this situation is not unique to South Africa only. Even in Asian, European, American, and African countries, they are consistently wrestling with the implementation of multilingual language policies. To balance my argument in this study, I use one of the South African universities that are geographically located in a rural area as a case study. This study is not only limited to 42 | P a g e other African countries but is also includes studies that have been conducted elsewhere in countries such as the USA, China, and Spain. These studies, l proffer, offer insights as to what are the real implications of English hegemony in implementing multilingual language policy. Nigeria, like any other African country, is multilingual, even its constitution is clear on the preservation and protection of indigenous languages. The same constitution further encourages and recognizes the utilization of indigenous languages. With that said, English in Nigeria continues to dominate like in any other African country. Speakers of other languages have shown their concerns with only three indigenous languages being officialized. This has delayed the implementation of a multilingual language policy. English has been awarded a status of prerequisite to school admission, which has also permeated to university entrance. This approach can be seen as discriminatory, as the majority of students are excluded from accessing knowledge-creation spaces such as universities (Anyanwu, Okecha & Omo-Ojugo, 2013:5; Adebile, 2011). “The key challenge is that the inherited formal education systems have remained culturally and linguistically alien to the majority of the populations in Africa; many Africans are not convinced about the usefulness of education, which was designed to satisfy colonial, missionary and postcolonial purposes”- (Ramoupi, 2014:55). In the case of South Africa, Kaschula (2016:201) states that the advancement of African indigenous languages is impeded by the “neo-colonial, silence, oppressed voice and attitude of the students who embrace the hegemony of English no matter what intellectual cost to themselves”. I am following the sentiments that embracing African indigenous languages is fundamental to a practical transformation of HEIs, as these languages are key in disseminating their epistemologies. Ndebele and Ndimande-Hlongwa (2019:92) state that the higher education terrain in South Africa is characterized by multilingualism. However, they continue to argue that English as a language of instruction continues to dominate in the space of learning and teaching. In some cases, Batyi (2014:6) noted that both staff and students revealed that they were not aware of the multilingual language 43 | P a g e policy at her university. Also, Nudelman (2015:80-81) in examining language policies of four institutions of South Africa, University of Cape Town, Rhodes University, Wits University, and North West University, findings across these examined institutions is that English remains the language of dominance, as the assessments and language of teaching and learning in English. The case of South Africa when it comes to official languages of instruction is quite different in that it has Afrikaans, which also remain in the core functions of other universities. Kaya, Kamwendo, and Ruhubirwa (2016:126) note that the detractors towards the development of indigenous languages in HEIs are due to the hegemonic status of English within the HEIs. Furthermore, the primary reason for the promotion of the indigenous languages in HEIs is to precisely enable the continent to impart global knowledge through their practices. In SA HEIs, the lack of the implementation of multilingual policies has also been visible in decolonization discourses – because of the ideological dispositions that are carried out within higher education institutions. For example, Hlatshwayo and Siziba (2014) allude that at North West University, English remains the language of instruction despite available substantive evidence which shows that there is a high failure rate for the first entering students. English in this university has continued to dominate in teaching and learning. 2.7.2. English only medium of instruction policies (EMI) English as a medium of instruction policies is widely reported to be emerging globally. For example, in China, the emergence of English medium instruction encourages the use of English. English hegemony in China has permeated throughout the school curriculum and is being used as an indicator of capability selection and means of quality evaluation of institutions of higher learning (Wang, 2015:38). In China, English is a mandatory course for all undergraduates in higher education institutions. In China’s higher education system, there is a rapid increase in the phenomenon of English Medium Instruction (EMI), which has gained momentum on the policy level. As it is known, its advocacy is often 44 | P a g e based on monolingual instruction strategies that deprive the use of other languages in the institutions of higher learning classrooms. This practice deliberately neglects o t h e r languages for various reasons. These reasons could therefore be viewed as follows: internationalization, creating or constructing an international curriculum, attracting foreign students, and sustaining knowledge hierarchy (Tsou & Kao, 2017; Lin, 2020). For example, Taiwan has developed language policies to support the utilization of English as a medium of instruction, with the majority of the institutions using English-only policies. Though EMI has received a positive outlook, there are, however, growing concerns about its catastrophic effect on the learning and well- being of the students. This is in addition to other social concerns of access and equality. In China, there is a juxtaposition in language policies compared to other higher education institutions globally. The emerging language policies are advocating for English Medium Instructions (EMI) instead of multilingualism. In the USA, oppressive language policies have been implemented in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts, which have led to exorcising bilingual education despite a large number of Latin students (De Los Rios & Seltzer, 2017:60). This behavior of disregarding bilingual education implies a persisting strategy of sustaining monolingual ideologies and practices. The recourse is detrimental to the cultural and linguistic rights of indigenous students coming from families that are not using English as a language of communication. In Spain, Fernandez-Costale's (2017) findings study to assess students’ experiences on the implementation of bilingual qualification and the effect these programmes might have on their language competence in English. The student reported having been satisfied with studying in English. They further show that studying in English does not hinder any learning process and they believe that they gain more as equal as their counterparts learning in Spanish (Fernandez-Costales, 2017:54). Also, in the same study, participants studying in English proclaim that it improves their curriculum knowledge and performance providing them with opportunities in the labor market, and this is their motivation to enroll in the bilingual programmes. However, in the Arabic context, Albakri's (2017) study at Oman University, explored the perceptions of students in the implementation of English Medium of Instruction (EMI) policy at a public higher education institution and its impact on learning experiences and 45 | P a g e academic performance. Students revealed that the challenges they faced with English, is with their lecturers for they lack linguistic competence and that in effect compromise their comprehension of the content. Another finding is that students felt that it is better to be taught by the lecturer of their origin because this helped them to ask the question when they don’t understand difficult concepts, this created a comfortable rapport between them and their lecturer who is Arabic. They would ask a question in Arabic and receive feedback in Arabic, they claim that this pedagogic strategy assisted them to clarify any uncertainties, other than the lecturer who will respond in English (ibid, 139). It is also evident that in the EMI programme, there was a low level of engagement between students and lecturer, the interaction was based on checking student understanding, even in that students will collectively respond whilst others keep silent throughout (ibid..144). Another finding is that the EMI policy had a negative psychological impact on students because they reported that they felt embarrassed and humiliated in class when they don’t understand (ibid…151). In most cases, lecturers or teachers hold a core belief that a lack of proficiency in English reflects students being cognitively inept. It is widely reported that teachers or lecturers particularly in Asia, do not possess the adequate linguistic capability to teach English (Barnard, 2015), however, this is not unique in Asia; even in Europe, the same case is evident (Wilkinson, 2015). The linguistic and pedagogic inept of lecturers is problematic concerning the implementation of the English Medium of Instruction policy. Tsuchiya and Murrillo (2015) in the study conducted in Japan and Spain universities, when students were asked about the pros and cons of being taught in English. They listed the following, English is important for the careers, lack of skills to comprehend English to understand the content, risk of learning in their first language, and teachers without adequate English skills to teach. In Spain, students believe that English is imperative because it will secure job opportunities for them. However, in Japan, contrasting the findings in Spain, students prefer to learn in Japanese, because it is hard for them to engage in English. Jenkins and Wingate (2015) conducted a study in the UK, their study aimed to attain an understanding of both international students' and lecturers' perceptions towards English language practices and policies at their university. Their findings from students indicate that they felt disadvantaged by the monolingual practices, and this further negatively affected their 46 | P a g e participation in classroom engagement. On the other hand, lecturers felt that the students were obligated to acculturate language practices. There was also a contrasting view from the lecturers, as others thought that western-based tests placed a great challenge to students. Some experienced low self-esteem, and lack of motivation. Jenkins & Wingate (2015:3) citing Lillis and Scott (2007:13) state that in the UK more attention needs to be paid to the current practices, the rationale is so that both linguistic and cultural resources students bring to university classroom may be utilized and legalized. In Africa, Brock-Utne (2012:498) stipulates that in the African continent students are missing out due to the usage of English. She further states, “they drop out of school, have to repeat grades, and lose their self-confidence”. Despite these findings, English language policies continue to be implemented across the world. Moreover, Makombe (2015) conducted a systematic literature review on the mediation of learning in English in both Africa and Asia; he has shown that the adoption of English in many countries relies on political and economic reasons other than an empirically informed decision. He references the Rwandan case as an example of the imposition of English due to the influence of politics behind the shift from French to English medium of instruction. This is therefore an indication that English ceases to exist and is exerted by monetary capital from the previous colonizers towards the colonized developing countries. In addition, socio-economic and political consideration is often taken into cognizant when choosing a language and affording it official, semi-official, and administrative status to be civilized in different fields including education confirm the veracity of the recounts (Jean de Dieu, 2020). According to Luck and Magxaki (2019) who undertook a study at one of the Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) in South Africa whose purpose was to explore and examine contradictions and complexities of language in the Life Orientation subject in class, they established that a lack of student’s performance in Life Skills was due to lack of proficiency in English. Another lecturer pointed out that they could not understand questions clearly, and this was observed in the examination papers, while others stated that English plays a role in student performance. In responding to the challenge, lecturers allowed students to use their languages when interacting during the 47 | P a g e discussions while remaining aware that English remains the official language in class. However, there were contradicting views from students. 70% of the students reported that they did not experience any intricacies with expressing themselves in the language of instruction (Luck & Magxaki, 2019:102-104). This contradiction from the students might have been affected by the different variables, or the fear to expose themselves to the researchers that they are not fluent in English, whereas the academic performance and people who are always engaging them in a class state otherwise. This, therefore, call for more research to understand the rationale behind the denialism of students towards a lack of proficiency in the English language. South Africa is a multilingual society. The eleven official languages affirm this. From basic education, learners are taught in their mother tongue until grade 4, and they continue to uptake English as a medium of instruction onwards, regardless of mediocre learners’ performance. The study conducted by Madiba (2012) showed a significant link between the language of learning and performance. Moreover, the apartheid spatial planning continues to permeate the education system, learners that are attending schools in rural areas are required to learn the content in English. The ongoing literature has corroborated that the English-medium of instruction policy contains grave ‘pedagogical challenges’ which might be addressed through other means of teaching strategies. 2.7.3. Globalization Globalization which is an intricate phenomenon Bakhtiari, 2011 citing UNDP in Human Development Report (1999) describes “globalization as the increasing interdependence of the world’s inhabitants, on an economic, technological, cultural, as well as political level.” It has reconfigured how people view the world. Like any other period, it has ushered in a myriad of challenges in education, particularly in language policy development and its effective implementation. The spread of English around the world has risen exponentially with third world countries relying on English for their social, economic, and political development. Access to tertiary education is based on proficiency in English, which disadvantages the indigenous language speakers, which are reported to have no social capital (Magwa, 2015). Therefore, Phillipson (1992) contemplates that the 48 | P a g e permeation of English globally as a ‘linguistic imperialism’ that culturally deprives the global south by eradicating its linguistic ecology. Although, Fishman (1998) argues otherwise from Phillipson, who does not perceive the permeation of English as a linguistic effect of globalization. He posits that “for all the vitriol generated by grand-scale globalization, it is the growth of regional interaction that touches the widest array of regional languages. These interactions promote the spread of regional languages”. Despite the argument put forth by Fishman (1998), I agree with Phillipson (1992), as this can be observed in many African countries where African indigenous languages are slowly being eroded by the same ‘linguistic imperialism’ of English through multilingual language policies that are not functionally implemented in either primary, secondary and tertiary education. Also, South Africa is not exempt from this conundrum. From basic to higher education, English is used, although in basic education it only begins from grade four, thereafter, the introduction of English takes place. Despite the newly revised Language in Policy for Higher Education (DHET, 2018) findings which categorically demonstrate the sluggishness of higher education institutions in implementing their multilingual language policy. English has permeated teaching and learning pedagogies across the globe due to globalization. Doiz et al., (2014:355) findings indicated that advancing multilingualism in this globalized world is significant in developing intellectual, human, and social capital. Worldwide there has been notable progress regarding multilingualism, where there is the coexistence of various languages alongside each other (Li, 2018:14). Lasagabaster (2015) examined the impact of internalization on language policy and the amount of freedom higher education institutions withhold when it comes to making internal decisions. He also reports that in European universities the status of English as a lingua franca is impeding the practical implementation of multilingual language policy. The widespread English medium instruction programmes in European tertiary institutions may be attributed to four driving forces. First, English is perceived as a language that provides access to knowledge and dissemination of that knowledge. Secondly, universities attract both students and academics internationally. Thirdly, it creates employment opportunities since it is a language required by the global and national 49 | P a g e market from graduates. Lastly, English plays a key role in the promotion of the institutions in the university world rankings. 2.7.4. Lack of resources, political will, and policy knowledge In the Asian context, a recent study by Kosonen (2016) highlights that Asia is a continent comprised of multilingual countries. This implies that most Asian countries are multilingual, which results in having a significant number of minority languages. To valorize this preceding study, According to Bulusan (2019:242-243) uses a systematic literature review as an approach to the implementation of the language policy regarding the support of minority languages in Asia. In his findings, he noted that the meagreness of resources that includes learning material, allocation of budget, and lack of trained staff to supervise facilitation are some of the factors that act as a deterrence to the actual advocacy of minority languages. Also, Coluzzi, (2011) and Groff, (2017) reported similar findings in their studies. In addition, the deficiency of policy implementation monitoring in higher education institutions has prevailed to be one of the challenges as well (Kangira, 2016). In addition, Kaschula (2016:202) confirms that the lack of monitoring the expediency of multilingual language policies might be attributed to the lack of implementation in HEIs, which compromises adherence to the constitutional and legislative provisions. In India, the implementation of multilingual practices in the classroom is not attributed to a lack of motivation from the students and ability, rather it stems from curricular conundrums, environmental and pedagogical challenges (Groff, 2017). In a study conducted in Nepal, which is a multilingual country, lack of language policy awareness was cited as a challenge to implement multilingual language policy. The students and teachers thought English and Nepali were more valued and respected. It was concluded that language policies are imperative on social, political, and economic conditions – therefore language policy and practice need to be inclusive in approach, by using a top-down and bottom-up approach in developing the policy (Kandel, 2020). 50 | P a g e In South Africa, different reasons have been provided by many scholars regarding the lack of the implementation of multilingualism as described in the constitution. For example, Coetzee-van Rooy (2018:21) states that there are ‘plethora of reasons for the failure to implement meaningful multilingual language-in-education policies in South Africa are raised by policy researchers.’ She identifies the following main reasons: (i) the inability to overcome the language influences of colonization and apartheid; (ii) the dominance of English that inhibits the development of African languages in high-status domains; (iii) lack of political will to implement multilingual language-in-education policies; and (v) a lack of specific language plans, which deters the implementation of multilingual l language-in-education policies (Coetzee-van Rooy, 2018: 21). Furthermore, Elias and Lucas (2016:7) argue that there are no efforts shown by ‘political and policymakers’ to adhere to the requirements of the constitution. This study also reveals that when black students are protesting in higher education regarding matters of language, they only target Afrikaans to be removed, but English to remain. In this regard, language is used to subjugate the marginalized from acquiring necessary and relevant competencies as demanded by the labour. This is perpetuated by the monolingual language policies that give preference to either English or Afrikaans. Therefore, the structure of the language policies that exist in higher education institutions still resemble the ones from apartheid, and the only difference is that the contemporary ones are including indigenous languages. I will, therefore, like to put it forward that there is a lack of transformation in higher education institutions, particularly in the language of instruction discourse. Elias and Lucas (2016:7) continue to suggest that students should be reimbursed for enrolling in African languages. I vehemently like to argue against this type of thinking, simply because the constitution accords all eleven languages an equal status, even in HEIs it is a fundamental human right to learn through a language of your choice, especially mother tongue. In the study conducted by Turner and Wildsmith-Cromarty (2014), when examining the challenges of implementing multilingual policies in five universities, they found that only two out of five universities have made strides in developing spaces such as tutorials, where multilingualism policy will be implemented. The remaining universities were using the constitutional caveat ‘reasonably practical’ to 51 | P a g e the reason for their lack of progress in policy implementation. This is regardless of constitutional provisions that state, “[e]everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably practicable”, as, the status quo of apartheid remains unshaken. The same trend of debilitating African languages appears in higher education with only one or two languages (English and Afrikaans) used in higher education during the teaching and learning process. The utilization of these languages was due to the discriminatory apartheid policies (Ndimande-Hlongwa & Ndebele, 2017). 2.7.5. Negative attitudes towards indigenous languages According to Ryan et al., as cited in Kircher (2016:241), attitudes towards language are briefly defined as “affective, cognitive, or conative index of evaluative reactions toward different languages or their speakers”. Attitudes can be viewed as a “range of different behaviors, including the decision of which language (s) to learn, which language (s) to use as one’s main means of communication” (Kircher, 2016:241). They can contribute to either language maintenance or language change. Galloway as cited in Muthanna & Miao, (2015) notes that there several factors that might be attributed to attitudes towards languages by students, stereotypes regarding language, use, and knowledge of target language. These attitudes affect how indigenous language speakers and language learners learn. In Spain, Etxebarrieta, Pérez-Izaguirre, and Langarika-Rocafort, (2020) on teachers' perceptions on students' attitudes toward the teaching of Basque in education. Teachers reported that the reason why students have a negative attitude towards the Basque language is the pronouncements they get from home, they also stated that friends and media influenced the Basque language. Although, scant studies are exploring the language attitudes in the recently emerging body of translanguaging literature. As for the intention of this study which sought to and solicits the lived experiences of the undergraduate tutors and students in the university classrooms –about the implementation of the multilingual language policy using translanguaging. Several studies deem negative attitudes towards African languages as impediments towards the practical implementation of multilingual language policies in higher education institutions (Magwa, 2015; Ramachandran & Rauh, 2016; Sawula, 52 | P a g e 2017) For example, Ndebele and Ndimande-Hlongwa (2019:96) conducted a study at the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal in a faculty of humanities to identify what impedes the practical promotion of indigenous African languages. The academics that were interviewed, indicated that a negative attitude towards indigenous languages is one of the hindrances to the advancement of indigenous African languages. They further state that students use English over their indigenous languages when they converse. This finding from the lecturers needs to be further investigated as to why the students perceive their languages in this manner. In the same vein, Mutasa (2015:55) argues that lecturers who were teaching content not relating to languages, but mathematics, history, geography, and accounting showed a grave negative attitude towards indigenous languages. He adds using his previous research finding in which one of the content lecturers said, “those who want to learn in African languages should register in departments of African Languages” (Mutasa 2015:15). The interviews with students also confirm disregard toward indigenous languages, (ibid...54) Findings indicate that the fellow student implicating that “it is a waste of human potential” belittled students studying African languages. This situation is not unique to South Africa, but also in France, for example, Lefebvre's (2012:67) study conducted in the French context on students’ attitudes toward multilingualism found that students had negative attitudes towards the French language due to ‘peer shaming’. This evidence shows that the same African students hold a different worldview about indigenous languages – indicating a disregard towards the indigenous languages. This confirms the account of the same views in Malawi where Kamwendo (2010:278) points out, “it is not uncommon to find students of African languages at the university being laughed at”. This is not surprising, as it has become a normal practice for some lecturers to disregard the implementation of indigenous languages. This is the example of such deviant behaviour towards indigenous languages – which perpetuates the narrative of viewing indigenous languages of the students as not important. It is within these circumstances where Frantz Fanon's well-known concept of a zone of non-being is applicable in the sense that, the languages of the students are not treated with respect – instead they are relegated to the zone of non-existence which demeans the cultural and 53 | P a g e linguistic resources they bring in the classrooms. The negative attitudes towards the indigenous languages have dire implications for the successful implementation of the multilingual language policy. It is my core belief that for the implementation to take place there is a need to alter how these important languages are perceived by both lecturers and students (Hlatshwayo & Siziba, 2014). Schlettwein's (2015) study was conducted at two universities located in the Western Cape Province, focusing on the attitude of multilingual students towards their languages and other languages. The finding indicates that 15% of Xhosa speakers towards the Xhosa language clearly articulated that it is a ‘waste of time’ to sustain the existence of Xhosa and only 85% disagree. In the same vein, Xhosa students' attitudes towards English, show that 92% of the participants appear to admire English, and the remaining 8% are neutral about language. Attitudes of Afrikaans speaking students towards Afrikaans present a different view compared to Xhosa speaking students, where 97% indicated that they like Afrikaans only 3% remained neutral. Furthermore, 93% of the students disagree that sustaining Afrikaans is a ‘waste of time’ only 3% is agreeing with the statement. Unlike, Afrikaans participants, there seems to be a serious problem with Xhosa students’ attitude towards their language. This may be attributed to the colonial and apartheid psychological remnants which ought to construct and protract African indigenous languages as unnecessary but glorifying the status of the former colonizers' languages. Gordon and Harvey (2019) examined attitudes towards the medium of instruction at various levels in the South African education system. This examination was for the period between 2003 and 2016. The findings indicate that a large part of the population prefers English as a medium of instruction at all levels of education. This is an indication that people are not conscious of the benefit carried by the African languages in education. Students' exposition to the confines on the usage of English medium of instruction and subjection to the routine of monolingual practices in the multilingual classrooms, results in students disowning their indigenous languages which form part of their culture and identity. The impact of disowning indigenous languages has been felt throughout the education system, as students must wrestle with the behemoth task of learning English 54 | P a g e as a subject and as a spoken language. The majority of students in the South African higher system are emanating from previously marginalized areas, which poses threats to student access to tertiary education. Because of this type of background, these students need a form of academic support that is scarce in under-resourced basic education. 2.7.6. Linguistic diversity in higher education Higher education institutions in both global South and North consist of a student population that has linguistic diversity, ethnic and cultural heterogeneity (Garska & O’Brien, 2019; Madiba, 2018). Even so, Clarke (2020) noted that language option in tertiary education is linked with epistemic production and can be understood as advocating and sustaining the hegemony of certain groups. This implies that the preferential treatment of certain languages over the others in the university language policy directly affects which epistemologies are constructed. According to the Mcllwraith (2012) report from the British Council have shown that the main concern is the language policy that enforces ‘linguistic diversity. This is believed that this policy will cause instability and negatively affect ‘national unity. Moreover, it will be an obstacle to economic and social development. Even though no evidence seems to suggest economic growth correlates negatively with linguistic and cultural diversity. On the opposite, there are indicators that economic development is feasible as more people directly contribute to developing products for diverse linguistic needs. Moreover, there is extensive evidence suggesting that students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds experience poorer educational outcomes than their peers (Terry & Irving, 2010) To provide the context of South Africa, Zikode (2017) evaluated the implementation of the language policy in selected South African universities, particularly the implementation of African languages as a medium of instruction. This qualitative study used interviews, secondary sources, and case studies to grasp how policy is implemented, challenges faced by the universities and government to ascertain the implementation of the language policy, and advancement and deployment of the indigenous languages in tertiary institutions. The findings of the study reported that there are different challenges for each university, but one of the university’s conundrums is student linguistic diversity – even 55 | P a g e though the African language is considered the third official in the institutional language policy, there is no clear development because the language does not reflect student demographics. Moreover, Mbolo (2018) conducted a qualitative case study at the University of Witwatersrand, looking at how is language diversity policy, as a transformative instrument, interpreted and implemented in higher education institutions. Findings from this study had contradictory views; other participants embrace the use of indigenous languages in doing so the university will truly reflect different people from diverse backgrounds who are linguistically diverse. This will make the learning process ‘smoother’ for those who are not proficient in English, it enables them to express themselves. However, other participants put forward that implementation of indigenous languages will not be possible due to the diversity at the institution. On the other hand, participants also felt that their linguistic rights are compromised by other black students because they want to be taught in their indigenous languages, they feel oppressed by other black students because they cannot speak indigenous languages fluently or mix them with English. Lastly, participants agree to the development of the indigenous languages on the condition that it will be effectively implemented but also not limited to only two languages like isiZulu and Sesotho – as this could lead to issues of tribalism that directly feed into the existing tensions on race and ethnic divide. In Germany, Bredtmann, Otten, and Vonnahme (2021) found that linguistic diversity impeded social integration in non-native speakers. Even though the findings of the latter study were in basic education but their relevance in line with Mbolos’ findings sought to create a foundation to understand the influence of linguistic diversity in education. Preece, Griffin, Hao, and Utemuratova (2018) show that while tertiary institutions in anglophone set up have shown consideration of cultural diversity of the student populace – they are uncertain on how to approach the linguistic diversity that is brought by culturally diverse student populace. In addition, they turn to perceive linguistic diversity from language deficit and a problem point of view. This is quite prominent in the latter findings of both studies. However, also eminent is the linguistic power dynamics that exist at the institution. This case is not unique, as Clarke (2020) shows similar findings in the context 56 | P a g e of Finland and Swedish, where the participants indicated that there is no value positioned in their languages. Therefore, it can be argued that English has created tension between language diversity and language dominance (Liyanage, 2018). The contestation between languages reveals that languages are placed as a problem or resource, and this is a policy problem (Kallvist & Hult, 2020). Despite the notions or contrasts that appear in the latter studies, Somlata (2020) argues, “the linguistic diversity in the universities of South Africa is a valuable resource that requires a multilingual approach in all academic domains in recognition of the linguistic repertoires of students for inclusion, education equity, access, and success”. Moreover, Makhanya and Zibane (2020:7) found that the participants did not see linguistic diversity as a problem for the development of the indigenous languages – however, universities must embrace linguistic diversity. Even though they do not show how this could be achieved, which perpetuates the status quo of language dominance and linguicide on part of the indigenous languages. In a study conducted by Ngcobo & Barnes (2021) a hybrid method approach to investigate the views of students at one of the universities in South Africa on the use of the language of learning and teaching. To elicit data from the participant, individual interviews and focus groups were used. In their findings, both positive and negative perceptions were reported on the use of the African home language as a medium of instruction. On the positive side, If African languages were used by UNISA students, they would be able to express themselves better. (2) Students can understand information clearly. (3) African languages can help to explain difficult words. (4) Using African languages at UNISA will help a lot. (5) African languages can improve teaching and learning at UNISA. (6) African languages will help students to understand difficult English words. (7) African languages will help learners improve. (8) African languages will help students to understand difficult questions. (9) It is a good idea to use African languages at UNISA. (10) The question paper can be written in an African language. (11) Using African languages at UNISA can improve the pass rate. (12) Using African languages at UNISA can increase student intake thus increasing access(13) It is possible to use African languages in various subjects as it is done in most public schools in rural areas. 57 | P a g e On the negative side, student’s believe that it is will be costly to use all African languages at university; African languages are difficult; lack of economic value; translation from English to an African language is a problem; African languages are poorly developed; there will be confusion if African languages are used at university, and using African languages may lead to low pass rate (Ngcobo & Barnes 2021:91) In my view, this literature paints a broad picture of the challenges perceived concerning linguistic diversity to implement multilingualism in education. Despite the contrasting views from students in the tutorials and lecturers' reflections – it is a necessity to recount and engage this literature under its status – which appears to suggest that linguistic diversity impedes the successful realization of multilingualism. Of course, in some parts optimism around the use of indigenous languages as languages of learning and teaching supersede negative perceptions held by the student. However, this does not imply that reasons and rationale furnished by those who argue otherwise need not be dissuaded. On this basis, this literature will be tested against empirical findings of this study to assess and examine its substance and correlation or divergence. 2.8. Translanguaging practices in a multilingual higher education classroom: intersecting ideologies from the global north and the global south In this section of the study, the researcher will be intersecting the ideologies from both the global North and global South. In doing so, the researcher traverses the translanguaging pedagogical practices in different education systems. In this part, the researcher also visited, re-visited the literature of translanguaging in contemporary times, as it is a developing concept in the higher education space. This is exemplified in a classroom where translanguaging includes ‘pedagogical code-switching and translation’ which are different features of cognitive adeptness that are required to process speaking, reading, writing, listening, or reading in an array of languages. 58 | P a g e 2.8.1. Translanguaging practices in the global north Translanguaging studies in higher education are fairly recent and meager. Even in the global North, there are few studies. For example, Rivera and Mazak (2017) analysed student perceptions on translanguaging at a Puerto Rican university in a psychology undergraduate classroom. Students were asked if it is appropriate for the instructors to use translanguaging within the classroom, and their responses indicated that students deemed it appropriate. The major finding in this study also shows that students perceived translanguaging as a tool to clarify difficult concepts. Other researchers, Rodriquez, Musani, and Cavazos’s (2021) study in the United States of America found that instructors employed translanguaging pedagogy to purposefully and intentionally leverage student linguistic diversity and to create a space where students are enabled to use their languages. For, Canagarajah (2011) translanguaging for multilingual students is an innate practice, although it is often prohibited and occurs covertly. He argues that teachers prefer to employ full linguistic resources for their students for learning. Moreover, when using translanguaging as a pedagogical practice, students can deploy their entire linguistic repertoires when facilitating content learning. In this manner, students have the platform to experience their multilingual identities, create linguistic consciousness, metalinguistic capabilities (Sahr, 2020; Kleemann, 2021; Goodman & Tastanbek, 2021; Mazak & Herbas-Donoso, 2015; Allard, 2017). Sanchez, Garcia, and Solorza (2017) have suggested that translanguaging in the USA context is one of the pedagogical strategies that has surfaced to counteract educational language policies that have strictly alienated languages and encourage that heterogeneity of language praxis of bi/multilingual, which should be portrayed by pedagogies in the twenty-first century. In the same USA context, Flores and Garcia (2017) posit that translanguaging can be used for multiple reasons not only to support bilinguals’ content and language learning but to also provide them a voice in an educational system that is highly dominated by monolingual language policies and monoglossic beliefs, thereby including their perplex “unitary linguistic repertoire and identities”. 59 | P a g e Furthermore, Velasco and Garcia (2014) indicated that translanguaging approaches develop higher self-efficacy; and bi/multilingual students self-regulate their learning process. Beres’ (2014) study indicates that students interact in deeper and meaningful learning when receptive and productive languages are different. Canagarajah (2016) also stated that ‘trans-lingual orientation’ creates a link among languages that generate new linguistic notions and their implications in the current universal interaction spaces where languages interchange. In the academic discourse, their inevitable amount of mystification regarding translanguaging as an umbrella term for both multimodal and multilingual practices will imply substituting terms such as code-switching, code-meshing, code-mixing, and crossing. On the other hand, translanguaging pundits put forth that the term is contending with other terms, such as translingual practices, flexible bilingualism, multilanguage, polylanguaging, and heteroglossia (Li, 2018:1). Chang (2019) conducted a study on translingual practices in higher education in Taiwan. The participants in this study were eighteen lecturers coming from various disciplines. His findings were very contrasting to the language policy that advocates for English Medium Instruction (EMI), noting that Taiwanese students attended the majority of the classes. Taiwanese was minimally deployed and was reserved for out-of-class discussions. One of the participants uttered that he was using translanguaging to help students better comprehend the content. Therefore, multilingual practice in Chinese universities is advocated by the language policies that enforce multilingual education. Brock-Utne (2017:62) states that translanguaging is regarded as one of the strategies that are used by teachers to cope in multilingual spaces or classrooms. Garcia and Li (2014) contends that education can be regarded as a translanguaging space, where teachers and student’s go-between and beyond socially constructed language and educational systems, structures, and practices to engage diverse multiple meaning- making systems and subjectivities, to generate a new configuration of languages and education practices and to challenge and transform conventional understanding and structure. In so doing, orders of discourse shift, and the voices of others come to the 60 | P a g e forefront, relating translanguaging to criticality, critical pedagogy, social justice, and the linguistic human rights agenda. Translanguaging has been reported that helped to maximize the students and teachers’ linguistic resources in the process of problem-solving and knowledge creation (Li, 2018:15), in addition, translanguaging has been proven to be an effective pedagogical practice in different educational contexts where the medium of instruction is not the same as languages of the students (Li,2018:15). Translanguaging pundits note that its praxis emancipates both learner and teacher, transforms power- relations, and it positions the process of learning and teaching on creating meaning, social justice, valorizing experience, and developing identity, language, and academic development (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; Garcia & Alvin, 2019; Cenoz & Gorter, 2020; Paudel, 2021). Champlin's (2016) findings concur that translanguaging permits students to use their full linguistic repertoires. Rivera and Mazak (2016) found that it is daunting for students to tend to assume the responsibility of separating languages and treating them as unique to escape from this type of ordeal ideology. Ultimately, their, findings were that translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy can be used to improve understanding of difficult academic texts. Translanguaging in various contexts is perceived as a resource wherein bi/multilingual students tap into their language repertoires for different objectives during the teaching and learning process. Li (2018:23) postulates that translanguaging perceives multilingualism as a resource for being creative and critical, as it is comprised of conflict, competition, policies, and practices to historical and contemporary contexts. In the classroom, translanguaging has “the potential to release ways of speaking of subaltern groups that have been previously fixed within static language identities and hierarchical language arrangements and that are constrained by modern colonial world system” (Garcia, Flores, & Woodley, 2012:48; Duarte, 2020). This is because translanguaging is boundless, thought processing is not defined by space, position, race, gender, or age. However, translanguaging is using idiolect that is individual linguistic repertoire, without being discarded by social and political language names and labels. Wei and Garcia (2017:3) note that translanguaging as a pedagogical practice does not simply advance deep learning, but also promotes marginalized languages about the already predominant 61 | P a g e monolingual practices. Caruso (2018:67) cites Baker (2001) it confirms the pedagogical practice and use of translanguaging opportunities in the educational arena. There are four listed advantages amongst others are the following: • It promotes a deeper and fuller understanding of the subject matter; • It may help the development of the weaker language; • It may facilitate home-school links and co-operation; • It may help the integration of fluent speakers with early learners. Caruso (2018) took a study at the University of Algarve in Portugal, in the undergraduate class. The focus of this study was on translingual practices at this tertiary institution. The teacher (Professor) allowed students to make use of their language when interacting during the lesson. When students were asked about the use of various languages in the university courses. They reported that they support the use of different languages – the rationale being that it valorizes personal characteristics, it aids in understanding, prevents misconceptions, and facilitates the inclusion of all various students, through a ‘language- comfort approach’ (Caruso, 2018:86). From this finding, we can extract that translingual practices are appreciated and regarded as important by students in their education. Furthermore, the use of translanguaging in this study is reported to have permitted equity in the class, and inclusion of all students. As they argue that monolingual, practices would have advantaged a particular cohort in the class and alienated others. As Otheguy, Garcia, and Reid (2015) point out, translanguaging transformative sites grant students the opportunity to employ their “full linguistic repertoire without regard for watchful adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named (and usually national and state) languages”. This implies that translangauging goes beyond the socio-political ideologies that contest for the separatism of languages in the multilingual classroom. More so, cognitive benefits of disrupting language walls that are socially and politically negotiated through the implementation of effective monolingual systems are reported. Sanchez, Garcia, and Solorza (2018) suggest two-pronged 62 | P a g e translanguaging spaces that are deemed transformative in realizing the spaces where bilingualism is constructed. First, it is a translanguaging documentation space – which advances students to utilize aptly their linguistic repertoires during teaching and learning to enable teachers to assess students’ prior knowledge and their process of knowledge acquisition. They further contend that the nature of this space does not only authenticates translanguaging practices in education but allows teachers to examine students holistically. Secondly, there is a translanguaging transformative space - which supports students to become agents in their choices of features, rather than being warranted to use certain features associated with preferred language, the students in this regard are at liberty to make their choices (Helot & Garcia, 2020). Therefore, students have the opportunity to construct the transformative capacity of language to create meaning for themselves and their lives in general without being coerced or detracted by the need to adhere to language policy in education. For example, Garcia (2019) contends that translanguaging tries to provide expression to all, redress power differences and in doing so, stimulate the creativity of speakers of different languages. I fully support this notion, as creativity in teaching and learning is pivotal – using language that students understand makes it simpler for them to comprehend the learning materials. Even, Panagiotopoulou and Rosen (2018) argue that translanguaging gives students of the subaltern languages to fragment “monoglossic hegemony” and is also important in enacting translanguaging as an asset to multilingual students. So, redressing the power differences and disrupting monolingual ideologies using translanguaging is critical in the space which does not allow students to epistemic access. The researcher argues that this process of redressing power dynamics in multilingual space helps students to reclaim the status of their marginalized languages. In developing translanguaging further, Garcia, Johnson, and Seltzer (2017) have proposed that teachers in education need to construct a ‘translanguaging stance’ before designing or practicing various pedagogical practices. In response to the latter, Garcia (2020:16) defines translanguaging stance as “grounded in uncovering the colonial difference and how language, bilingualism, and multilingualism have been used, and continue to be 63 | P a g e used, to minorities and racialize conquered and colonized populations”. This necessitates the role played by translanguaging in the multilingual classroom in emancipating students from the shackles of monolingual practices. The reclaiming of self through translanguaging is a critical journey for the subaltern to find space for their marginalized languages through the continuous system that favour colonial languages. Furthermore, Garcia and Kleifgen (2019) propose that translanguaging design is in five parts in which teachers can engage. They report that it is essential that teachers in this process roleplay as co-learner. One, translanguaging affordances – in this part, teachers give bilingual or multilingual students multiple technological resources. Two, translanguaging co-labor – for this part, teachers allow bilingual or multilingual students to work collaboratively, in this they perform ways that move them beyond meaning making an individual practice. Working collaboratively and labouring in groups all students' voices are considered and acknowledged in the process of knowledge construction. The process of meaning-making shifts from focusing on an individual to a socially constructed one. Three, translanguaging production – in this instance teachers make students use translanguaging when they engaged in written, gestural, and spoken as meaningful resources to produce new meaning. Moreover, teachers encourage students to have discourse in a multilingual written text, spoken and to write and read in different languages. Allowing students to translanguage in education legitimizes translanguaging practice as a tool for knowledge production. Four, translanguaging assessment - teachers design assessments to assess multilingual students' literacy at closer proximity. Multilingual students are encouraged to demonstrate their prior knowledge by employing their full repertoires despite whether they are legitimized in education. Five, translanguaging reflection – this last stage provides a space where “critical multilingual awareness” is activated. Teachers permit students to reflect their bilingualism on their meaning-making resources in comparison to the repertoires of others. “Teachers involve students in cross-linguistic comparisons, acknowledging the components of named language(s) as an important sociopolitical reality that also needs attention and reflection, while also empowering students to deploy their repertoire of meaning-making resources 64 | P a g e to do literacy” Garcia and Kleifgen (2019:14). I hold a view that the above design of translanguaging could afford universities to alter their perceptions around the implementation of the multilingual language policy. There is also a need to train teachers or tutors on how to effectively utilize translanguaging in multilingual classrooms. Furthermore, Garcia and Hesson (2015:233) state that translanguaging must be advocated from the top. This implies that managers, principals, vice-rectors, policymakers, etc. should lead the process of codifying translanguaging as a formal strategy in the classroom and not the other way round. In addition, Conteh (2018) corroborates that translanguaging is surrounded by difficulties and arguments in research, particularly in policy and practice. He contends that other scholars inquire about the necessity of translanguaging, whereas interrelated concepts of code-switching and mixing offer a lens through which to comprehend bi/multilingual language usage. 2.8.2. Translanguaging practices in the global south In this section, the researcher avers that like the global North, translanguaging pedagogy in the global South is a fairly new area of research that is receiving attention in both primary and higher education premises. There are developing studies in this area of interest – in this regard, the researcher articulates studies that have been conducted in the past decade including the recently published studies on translanguaging practices in the global south. The countries that I focus on in this part of the study are Kenya, Botswana, and South Africa. As there are emerging studies on this topic. In Kenya, According to Kiramba (2016), Kenya is a multilingual country like many African countries, it has sixty-eight languages that are in existence, and forty-two are deemed indigenous. Moreso, Kiramba (2016) further makes the point that the implementation of translanguaging has exponentially increased student interaction and epistemic construction between Kenyan students in multilingual classrooms. With that said, Mwaniki (2016) provides insights on translanguaging in both the Kenyan and South African education systems. By the education system, He meant, primary, secondary, and university education. In this, he entails using snapshots, from two African countries that 65 | P a g e possess similar medium of instruction policy. For Kenya, He insinuates that the practice of translanguaging has been long practiced even before the inception of the concept, he foretells that teachers will tap into their language repertoires so that their learners to benefit from them. Moreover, Kiramba and Oloo, (2019) corroborate the findings reported by the latter study of Mwaniki in Kenya. Their findings confirm that teachers in multilingual classrooms in Kenya employ indigenous languages to teach students. They further argue translingual strategies in multilingual classrooms need to be appreciated, to ameliorate the plight of monolingual practices particularly in remote set up to offer students an opportunity to tap into their available linguistic repertoires to activate epistemic access (Kiramba & Oloo, 2019:16). Also, they put forward that translanguaging practices in multilingual classrooms mediate access to learning. Translingual practice in multilingual classrooms is a ‘pedagogical strategy that scaffolds multilingual students and might be an efficacious approach to address modern predicaments of teaching in linguistically diverse or multilingual classrooms in education (Kiramba, 2016). This implies that translingual practices in the Kenyan context are prominent due to its multilingual classrooms; there is substantive evidence that supports the use of translanguaging in multilingual classrooms. In Botswana, there are scant studies on translanguaging pedagogy in higher education. For example, Bagaswi, (2017) critiques Botswana language in education policy using translanguaging to demystify upheld notions regarding multilingualism, bilingualism, and boundaries of language. She posits that translanguaging provides comprehension of multilingualism/bilingualism and its various features. Furthermore, it also paves a way in which language planning and language policy can be advanced. Moreover, translanguaging would not function in environments where the aim is to alienate languages and maintain the status quo for ‘preservation and development’ purposes (Bagwasi, 2017). In South Africa, Wildsmith-Cromarty and Balfour (2019) argue that South African multilingual society renders the ‘development and implementation of language policy intricate particularly in education. This is the case where non-indigenous languages play 66 | P a g e a central role. Even, in the South African higher education multilingual classrooms, languages continue to be alienated from each other and perceived as “fixed entities” (Makalela, 2016) instead of “fluid entities”. This is despite the different policies that are clear on the position of multilingualism in South Africa. In reporting about the best practices of translanguaging, Madiba and Mabiletja (2008) showed that in urban schools, students shuttle between languages to make meaning out of what they are learning. However, translanguaging is distinctive from code-switching. It does not only imply alternating between languages, but instead, its foci are on language users’ elucidation and utilization of original and perplex interlinked ‘discursive practices’ which cannot be done using a monolithic approach but construct and refer to other language repertoires to create meaning. Makalela (2014a) has revealed that the translanguaging framework can fit well in a multilingual country like South Africa. He further asserts that employing a translanguaging framework, which advances shuttling between languages as normal in the current setup of society. He poignantly states that translanguaging “would be a reorientation of multilingual education toward African value system of Ubuntu.” Makalela (2014b:2) further proclaims that translanguaging is an impetus for reclaiming “social justice” to the communities in which languages were relegated to the periphery of hierarchy. He also highlights that it provides apprehension of reimagining of the multilingualism in South Africa to shelter ‘fluid discursive resources’ where mutual relationships are encouraged over self-reliance. In addition, Carsten’s (2016) research was conducted at a university where the language of instruction was Afrikaans and English. In her study, she pointed out that students reported positive responses regarding the use of translanguaging, by assisting them to comprehend ‘the bigger picture of the concept of waste management (ibid…211). Also indicated that they were able to express their understanding. Translanguaging ‘created a safe space for meaning making’ (ibid…213) as 70% of the students demonstrated that translanguaging improved their English skills. These implications that translanguaging play two key fundamental roles; that are, helping students to acquire skills in the second language, but also, important in the development of the first languages in the context of higher education. In the study conducted by Makalela (2015), findings at both one primary 67 | P a g e school and one higher education institution context indicated that multilingual students cognitively and socially benefit from tapping into their languages. According to Mwaniki (2016:206), translanguaging strategy is helpful in “clarifying linguistics concepts that are taught or learned”. He reports that during lectures or tutorials plenary students will come together to discuss matters concerning course materials in the first language and they will later report back using English. Ngcobo, Ndaba, Nyangiwe, Mpungose, and Jamal’s (2016:19) findings show that students moving across languages in an attempt to create meaning out of daunting concepts in both languages (IsiZulu and English), reported that this process of shuttling between languages helped them improve their vocabulary in both languages. The students acknowledged that they transferred. They also noted that translanguaging was a good strategy to approach the content in both writing and reading. In addition, the translanguaging approach contributes to both collaborative and self- regulated learning. Hungwe (2019) conducted a study in a multilingual undergraduate class in South African university – and he posits that when students were given leverage to tap into their pre- existing linguistically and culturally diverse to help them understand and make meaning of the subject matter. This implies that the cultural and linguistic milieu of the students aided them to comprehend the background and meaning of the content that was discussed. Hungwe, findings also showed that students were not proficient in English, which made him employ translanguaging in the multilingual undergraduate classroom. Hungwe also notes that students who decided to use English for their discussion failed to make meaning and understanding, in comparison to those who opted to use their languages who were able to understand and make sense of the content. Moreover, Makalela (2019) corroborates that “complex language blends that we see translangauging as both a resource for deeper meaning-making and an outcome of meaning-making process”. He argues that teachers in his study use local languages when greeting their learners and this approach assists in building rapport between learners and teachers. This implies that learners will experience a sense of belonging among different dialects. He also makes a finding that translanguaging unveiled “deeper comprehension 68 | P a g e of meaning” which will not be instantaneously possible for monolingual speakers Makalela, (2019:246). Madiba (2018) conducted a study at the University of Cape Town in first-year economics tutorials – students were asked to provide and discuss definitions in isiXhosa, however, the findings indicate that they used translanguaging, even though they were not explicitly informed to translanguage. The objective was to ‘assess how students use isiXhosa as a complement to English’. Translanguaging helps in developing a deeper comprehension of the concepts that were discussed. In conclusion, translanguaging pedagogy was demonstrated as an alternative for constructing authentic multilingual universities in ‘institutional language policies and language practices’ (Madiba, 2018:515). In addition, Probyn (2019) put forward that translanguaging pedagogy and multilingualism in the science classroom though had a salient role in scaffolding learning of science. Another research conducted by Ngubane, Ntombela, and Govender (2020) on translanguaging pedagogy in English writing classrooms prevails that this strategy helps to achieve several things amongst others are - encourage student involvement, and valorizing understanding and learning, as teachers employ translanguaging to make students contribute in the discussions. Another finding is that translanguaging helps students to create an understanding of the content they are learning and verify if indeed students understood the content (Ngubane et al, 2020: 5- 7). Like many strategies, translanguaging also has challenges, for example, Mbirimi- Hungwe, Hungwe, and Seeletse (2020) confirm that in the instance where the students are grouped in large classes with pre-existing languages – the predicament to the success of translanguaging is diversity. Despite the demonstrated shortcomings, Motlhaka (2021) undertook a study in a Bachelor of Environment Science degree programme at the University of Limpopo. In this study, ten first entering students were interviewed through a metacognitive reflection. Findings reveal that participants deem the translanguaging approach offered them an opportunity to interact amongst each other and to challenge each other’s ideas using Sepedi and English confidently. The study also found that translanguaging gives more ‘language practice opportunities, improves the quality of the talk, creates a positive learning climate, promotes social interaction, and allows for critical thinking’ (Motlhaka, 2021:2689). 69 | P a g e In conclusion, it is found that translanguaging allows for an exchange of various views due to a ‘low-anxiety environment that permits ‘negotiation of meaning’ that emanates from diverse perspectives in the discussions – which in turn empowers student understanding of critical concepts. Mbirimi-Hungwe (2021) did research on the use of translanguaging for understanding subject concepts at a South African university. The participants in this study were first-year medical students who took part in focus group discussions. The findings from this study have shown that translanguaging was useful in improving studying comprehension. Also concluded that lecturers must venture into students’ linguistic resources to valorize their comprehension of subject concepts. Flowing from the studies on translanguaging, causation melancholy in teaching and learning appeases to have been conquered. Viewed in this manner, translanguaging can be a response to the Language Policy of Higher Education and Ministerial Report for the Development of African Languages as Medium of Instruction in Higher Education, these documents sought to advance the empowerment of student’s indigenous languages as the language of instruction (DHET, 2015; DHET, 2020). In addition, adherence to Section 29 (2) of the Constitution and Higher Education ACT of 1997 states that higher education institutions referred to as 'tertiary institutions' language policy need to design in line with the LPHE. However, after 26 years of post-apartheid higher education institutions have demonstrated almost no progress in implementing the language policy. Even, the recent language policy (DHET, 2018) put more pressure on universities to adhere to the constitutional imperatives. Based on the available abundant literature, I am convinced that translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy can be potent in the successful implementation of multilingual language policy. It is therefore essential that the researcher put forth a viewpoint that there is a dearth of both research literature and pedagogical strategies confirming the necessity of translanguaging in the higher education tutorials spaces. Hence, in accord with Omodan and Dube (2020) in their research that makes a call to change teaching pedagogies in a 70 | P a g e higher education institution, they suggest that the Eurocentric models of pedagogy need to be revisited by ensuring that Afrocentric pedagogical practices are realized within the universities. In their research, they recommend that “propound all-inclusive law that will inculcate the spirit of multilingualism that could enhance the learning” (Omodan & Dube, 2020: 24), this is a clear indication that translanguaging pedagogy that deems linguistic and diversity of the students at the forefront is significant in being constituted or granted official status in the higher education classrooms. 2.9. Chapter Summary In this chapter, my goal was to provide a comprehensive literature review to ascertain and augment other studies conducted elsewhere regarding the topic concerned. I looked at the different universities' approaches to multilingual practices from a global North to the global South lens. Furthermore, I surveyed the challenges that are prominently featured from the literature that hinder the practical implementation of the multilingual language policy globally. Lastly, I delved into how translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy is applied in the context of multilingual classrooms from a global North and South perspective. In closing, the following chapter is regarding the research methods that were undertaken to generate data from the participants. 71 | P a g e CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1. Introduction This chapter highlights the aim of the study, research questions and discusses in detail the research design and methodology couching this study. It further describes sampling approaches and data generation techniques, as well as substantively providing reasons for the chosen methodological procedures, in alignment with the theoretical framework anchoring this study. It concludes by presenting how data was analyzed, biographical data of participants, quality criteria, limitations of the study, and ethical clearance procedures followed to conduct the study. This study aimed to explore the implementation of multilingual language policy using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy at a South African university in undergraduate tutorials (cf. 1.6). The research questions guiding this study (cf. 1.4. and 1.5.) were formulated. 3.2. Research Approach In this study, the researcher explored how translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy can be used to implement a multilingual language policy. In doing so, the researcher deployed a qualitative research approach. In describing qualitative research, Cresswell (2012) notes that qualitative research is a social inquiry process that aims to explore and understand the social problem. This qualitative approach is befitting this study other than the hybrid method provided by the nature of my study. Qualitative research is focused on an array of individual experiences to understand the cause of those experiences. This qualitative study is conducted because the researcher needs to interpret and understand in detail the lived experiences of the tutors and undergraduate students in the tutorial classroom concerning multilingual practices in their undergraduate tutorials. Therefore, this can only be achieved by engaging the participants (tutors and students) directly and 72 | P a g e permitting them to share their experiences without being deterred by our expectations or what I have learned from literature. The nature of this study is somewhat critical because it elicits power relations in terms of the language of teaching and learning in the undergraduate tutorials. Hence, in this qualitative research, participants are empowered to tell their stories. In doing so, the researcher attentively listened to their voices and ensured that the power relationships that are apparent between participants and the researcher are mitigated. In qualitative research, the researcher studies the phenomenon from its natural setting and “attempt to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Cresswell, 2012; Denzin & Lincolin, 2011:3). 3.3. Case Study Design According to Stake (1995) “case study is the study of the particularity and complexity of a single case, coming to understand its activity within important circumstances”. In addition, a case study as described by Cresswell (2007) is a design in which the h researcher explores a real-life, current bounded case system or multiple bounded systems over time. For this study, the researcher employed an intrinsic case system. A case study might be comprised to demonstrate a unique case that has an unusual interest in and of itself and requires to be described in detail. Or the intent of the case study design may be to understand a specific issue, problem, or concern in this case it will implementation of multilingual language policy in undergraduate tutoring (Stake, 1995). Therefore, a case study provides an in-depth comprehension of a case. To achieve this, the researcher collects many forms of qualitative data, starting from interviews, observations, documents, and audiovisual materials. Despite the array of options of qualitative data, the researcher used semi-structured and focus group interviews to understand the in-depth of the phenomena. The researcher was conscious that basing methods of data collection on one source will not be adequate for me to deeply understand the problem. To limit the unit of analysis in this study bounded system was utilized to just one campus/university. If the study was not bounded then all universities in South Africa would have been used as multiple case studies, which in this case was not practical. Therefore, Merriam (1998) endorses that researchers can use multiple case studies that are opposing in nature to have variability across cases. 73 | P a g e 3.4. Research Paradigm 3.4.1. Social Constructivist This study adopts social constructivism as a paradigm in which the study seeks to understand the world in which tutors and tutees exist and assumptions held by them regarding the implementation of the multilingual language policy using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy. The researcher heavily depended on the perceptions of the participants in the context that is being studied. Therefore, the researcher agrees with Winch, (1958) who argues that language is entrenched in the social form of life, therein, a reference to a way social practice assists the researcher to describe and decipher meaning. Gergen (1994) who put forward that “knowledge is the product of social process” extends this argument. According to Crotty (1998), humans interact in their world and create meaning based on their ‘historical and social perspectives. Therefore, in this study, the researcher seeks to understand the context of the tutors and tutees’ by generating and interpreting data. In addition, Cresswell (2009) posits that researchers in a social constructivist paradigm are cognizant of their backgrounds which influence or shape their interpretation and they position themselves in research to ‘acknowledge’ how their interpretation flows from personal, cultural, and historical realities. The open-ended questions are used to enquire about the lived experiences of the tutors and tutees, thereafter, the researcher intends to ‘make sense’ or interpret the meanings they hold about the world (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). 3.5. Methodology Section 3.5.1. Data Generation Instruments Mohajan (2018:2) and Cresswell (2014) state that data can be collected in various ways in qualitative research with set limitations. This can be achieved by using journals, observations, open-ended questionnaires, diaries, semi-structured interviews, unstructured interviews, focus groups, oral history, textual materials, and so forth. In the case of this study, both semi-structured interviews and focus groups were deployed to 74 | P a g e effectively interact with the participants and make them partake in epistemic generation in this research. These two techniques are usually used in social science research to collect complex, rich, and high-quality data from the participants. As outlined in the research proposal, I intended to conduct face-to-face semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with the participants. However, due to the global coronavirus pandemic, I was not able to meet with the participants face-to-face. This was to ensure that I adhere to the government disaster management act regulations of the lockdown. Observing social and physical distancing, also safeguarded the participant’s and researcher’s lives from being exposed to Covid-19 either from traveling to campus or their homestead. Moreover, only thirty-three percent of the student population were allowed to return on campus under strict regulations, and this category of students was final year students who are not eligible to form part of the study, as it caters to first-year students and their tutors. Given these reasons, the researcher had to rely on other technological means to ascertain that the study is not disturbed by this global pandemic. The researcher resorted to using Skype for business, for conducting both semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. 3.5.2. Semi-Structured Interviews In this study, to explore the multilingual practices of the tutors and students in their undergraduate tutorials, the researcher opted to interact with the participants using semi- structured interviews. An interview is in nature a face-to-face and verbal exchange where the interviewer tries to elicit in-depth data on aspects from the interviewee, to understand the interviewee’s experiences in their own words and avert misconceptions (Minichiello, Aroni, Timewell, & Alexander, 1990; McMillan & Schumacher, 2006; Cresswell, 2008). Unfortunately, this did not happen as initially planned in the research proposal, as already explained in the preceding paragraph. It was a daunting task to conduct semi-structured interviews due to the outlined reasons. Therefore, we decided with the participants, to use technological tools to elicit information from the participants. These technological tools were not imposed on the participants, but rather, we reached mutual consent based on convenience. There were many technological tools at our disposal, and these were Skype for business, Blackboard 75 | P a g e Collaborate, WhatsApp, Facebook, and Zoom. As already elucidated in the previous paragraph, Skype in form of a telephonic interview was duly chosen by consensus between the researcher and participants as the most convenient ones to generate data. According to Cresswell (2012), a telephonic interview becomes useful when “participants in a study may be geographically dispersed and unable to come to a central location for an interview”. Semi-structured, telephonic in-depth interviews to seek clarity and probe for more information with open-ended questions. This was to ascertain that participants were not hindered by the researchers’ views (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006). The semi- structred interviews scheduled assisted the researcher to guide the discussion and ascertaining that all the themes reported in the literature were highlighted (See Appendix F for the tutors’ schedule; See Appendix G, for the student’s schedule). 3.5.3. Focus Group Interview To supplement the semi-structured interviews, focus groups were conducted. This is one of the many qualitative research techniques for data generation. Focus group is “a group comprised of individuals with certain characteristics who focus discussions on a given issue or topic” (Anderson, 1990:241). A focus group is formed by a small group of individuals, normally between six and nine in numbers. They are invited by the researcher to explore their experiences, perceptions and attitudes, feelings and ideas about a particular phenomenon (Descombe, 2007:115; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990:140). Also, Neuman (2011:459) denotes that focus groups discussion are composed of six to twelve participants and could run for ninety minutes. In this study, focus group discussion consisted of eight (8) participants and lasted for about 45 minutes. It also creates a platform for a “relatively homogenous group’ to reflect on questions posed by the researcher or interviewer. According to Patton (2002) “focus group interview aims at collecting high-quality data in a social context”. This primarily helps the researcher to understand a phenomenon or social problem from the standpoint of the participants. 76 | P a g e The researcher was conscious that focus group interviews may not fit all research objectives and at some point, they may not be relevant to other situations (Dilshad & Latif, 2013:193). It is in this regard, that Morgan (1997:17) recommends that the way to see whether the focus group interviews are relevant for research is to inquire how “actively and easily” participants will discuss the topic at hand. Given the circumstances faced with semi- structured interviews, focus groups, as initially planned were supposed to have been conducted face-to-face. However, because of the global coronavirus pandemic outbreak, the researcher had to swiftly plan, revise, review and rethink any other means which could be explored to conduct focus group interviews. There were available options to consider, however, the researcher had to think for the participants and not inconvenience them by choosing technological tools available at my leverage but inquiring from them as to which online platforms would be viable for them. The researcher confirmed if participants could navigate the tools they had opted for because these online tools also warrant some technological skills to use them efficiently and effectively. Fortunately, all the participants unanimously opted for telephonic focus group interviews. Given Covid-19 restrictions such as social distancing, wearing of a mask, and traveling restrictions focus groups were conducted using Skype, which had a recording function to store all the recordings. This was done to adhere to the national disaster management pronounced by the government. 3.5.4. The language used during research Language is a very important tool for effectively communicating and exchanging ideas and beliefs. In this study, the researcher allowed the participants to use the languages that they feel comfortable with. This allowed the participants to offer rich and detailed inputs during the interviews. However, the majority of the interviewees opted to use English during the interviews. The researcher observed that the usage of English hindered them from fully expressing themselves because some could not pronounce words correctly. In that regard, the researcher ensured that participants are comfortable by giving them time to process, construct, and convey the meaning for the researcher to understand that meaning and make sense of it. 77 | P a g e 3.5.5. Recording Instruments In qualitative case study research, data collection can be achieved using different tools to assist the researcher to respond to research questions (Cresswell, 1998). These tools mainly include note recording, audio recording, and video recording. In this study, both focus group discussion and interviews were recorded from one selected research site, using a laptop (Skype for Business Recording Manager) as a technological tool to generate data, as well as for note recording. These tools among others mainly include audio recording, note recording, and video recording. By using these tools, data become a permanent archive of primary information that can be passed on to other researchers when it is necessary and ethical to do so (Bernard, 2006). Monyela (2017:45) citing Ntombana (2011) highlights that note-recording allows the researcher to deeply think about what participants have said and elevate the level of concentration, on the other hand, audio-recording removes the aspect of writing while conducting the interview, particularly, when the researcher and participants are fully focused and engaged on an essential aspect of the discussion which warrants their attention. 3.6. Research Site The research was based at the University of the Free, QwaQwa Campus. The tutors and students across four faculties, faculty of education, faculty of humanities, faculty of economic and management sciences, and faculty of Natural and agricultural sciences were used as case studies located within the institution. This campus attracts students from the most remote areas in the vicinity of the Free State province. It is located in the eastern Free State in a remote area called Phuthaditjhaba. Historically, students that are enrolled in this institution are coming from Free State and Kwa-Zulu Natal, this means the languages that are dominantly used on campus are Sesotho and isiZulu. It was also valuable that the researcher is located where the study was undertaken, which was a necessary convenience. 78 | P a g e 3.7. Data Generation 3.7.1. Sample The question of sample size is equally essential in planning sampling strategy in the data generation process (Creswell, 2007). In qualitative research sample size is not about studying a few sites but generating extensive and detailed information about that site. Since the intention of qualitative research is not to generalize the data, rather explicate that site (Pinnegar & Daynes, 2007). In this study, purposive and convenience sampling strategies were identified to help me respond to my research question. 3.7.2. Purposive Sampling Purposive sampling is typically used in qualitative research. Patton (2015:264) argues that purposive sampling is “The logic and power of purposeful sampling lie in selecting information-rich cases for in-depth study”. This implies that the researcher selects participants and sites for study because of the qualities they possess and that will inform an in-depth understanding of the research problem and central to the problem in the study and their willingness to participate (Spradley, 2002; Etikan, 2016; Cresswell, 2007:156). Purposive sampling was achieved by the unique case which permits the researcher to search for unusual elements in undergraduate tutorials (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). In this study, the researcher knew what was needed to find appropriate participants, who are willing to proffer data because of their tutoring experience and being a student in a tutorials class (Bernard, 2002; Etikan, 2016). For me to gain an in-depth and diverse understanding of the intricate nature of using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy to implement multilingual language policy in the undergraduate tutorials study had two categories. The rationale for the researcher to use purposive sampling is that it helped him to focus on participants with certain characteristics and who will be able to assist in responding to the research questions (Etikan, 2016). 3.7.3. Convenience Sampling In this study convenience sampling was used to supplement sampling strategy, where 79 | P a g e the participants are deemed appropriate when they meet certain criteria, which includes, easily accessible, geographical proximity, availability at a given time, or willingness to participate in the study (Dornyei 2007; Elumusharaf, 2012; Farrokhi, 2012; Etikan, 2016). As alluded to earlier, the researcher was within the proximity of the participants. I was also working within the department which provides tutors with the training. I was able to phone the participants at a given time and they were also available for the interviews. 3.7.4. Research Participants The participants in this study were 8 tutors and 16 students which in total were 24, 2 tutors and 4 students from faculty of education, 2 tutors and 4 students from faculty of humanities, 2 tutors and 4 students from faculty of Natural and Agricultural Science, and 2 tutors which were consisting of male and female and 4 students which were consisting of male and female from Economic and Management Sciences Faculty Number of Number of Gender Age Tutors Students M F Education 2 4 3 3 18-55 Humanities 2 4 3 3 18-25 Natural and Agricultural 2 4 3 3 18-27 Sciences Economic and 2 4 3 3 18-24 Management Sciences 80 | P a g e 3.8. Role of the researcher In this study, the role of the researcher was to unearth together with the participants translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy to understand its usage in the multilingual tutorials. Therefore, in this research, the researcher was able to conduct semi-structured, focus group discussions, and further engage with tutors and students. Tutors to understand their multilingual practices in their tutorials. To also, gather empirical data on the challenges of implementing multilingual language policy in the undergraduate tutorials. Furthermore, the role of the researcher was to collectively contribute towards knowledge generation and understanding of how translanguaging can be deployed in the undergraduate tutorials to implement multilingual language policy and respond to the objectives of the research. Also, the researcher’s role was to contribute towards reviewing the recent and existing literature to proffer recommendations for further research. An intrinsic qualitative case study was used to include individuals with knowledge in discovering multilingual practices of the tutors. 3.9. Data Analysis McMillan and Schumacher (2006:364) defined qualitative data analysis as an “inductive process of organizing data into categories and identifying patterns”. The main objective of data analysis is to convey understanding (Merriam 1998). Clark (2016) states that data analysis is taking raw data, reducing it, and finally interpreting that unprocessed data to derive meaning and understanding. In this study, thematic analysis was used to analyze data generated from the participants through interviews. Using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) model of thematic analysis, the data collected was analyzed following step-by-step methods. This process began after all the interviews were conducted with all 24 participants, through six steps of thematic analysis. The six steps (Braun & Clarke, 2006): STEPS DESCRIPTION Step One Familiarizing myself with Data 81 | P a g e Step Two Generating initial codes Step Three Searching for themes Step Four Reviewing themes Step Five Defining and Naming themes Step Six Producing report The researcher began with transcribing the audio-recorded interviews into word documents. After all the interviews were transcribed, the researcher repeatedly and attentively listened to each interview whilst going through the transcriptions. This process was done to certify reliability and for me to engage and familiarize myself with the data. When I was satisfied with the quality of the transcriptions, I read through them again with different highlighters and used a pencil to generate codes and to take into cognizant notions emerging from the whole process. As, McMillan and Schumacher (2006:368) suggest that the researcher should “compare codes for duplication and overlapping descriptions”. With that said, the researcher grouped the codes according to their similarities and then categorized them into themes. 3.10. Trustworthiness in the study In qualitative research, unlike quantitative research, quality criteria refer to trustworthiness. This points to whether the findings can be trusted. To respond to the latter question, Lincoln and Guba (1985) propose quality criteria in qualitative research that consist of transferability, credibility, confirmability, and dependability for examining trustworthiness. According to Lauckner, Paterson, and Krupa (2012) trustworthiness of a particular study relies on the expansiveness of which empirical findings from research 82 | P a g e reflect directly the phenomenon that is being studied. In the following part, the researcher expound on the criteria and highlight what method I have used to fulfill the requirement of each criterion. a) Transferability and Dependability According to Korstjens and Moser (2018), transferability in qualitative research is “the degree to which the results of qualitative research can be transferred to other contexts or settings with other respondents. The researcher facilitates the transferability judgment by a potential user through the thick description.” Therefore, in this study, the researcher ascertained a thick description of the research process in a detailed description from methodology, data generation, and writing of the final report. This process allows the reader to examine if the empirical findings of this study are transferrable to another context. On the other hand, Dependability refers to how empirical findings and the extent to which processes have been documented with consistency and reliability (Moon et al., 2016). For this study, dependability was achieved by providing a detailed inclusion of the methodology and methods deployed in this study. The researcher documented all the processes undertaken initiating from research design, methodology, and methods applied for data generation. This way the reader could examine the expansiveness to which qualitative research practices are followed. b) Credibility and Confirmability Credibility gives an account of whether empirical findings present authentic information ‘drawn from the participants’ original data and is a correct interpretation of the participants’ original views’ and can be trusted (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Korstjens & Moser, 2018; MacMillan & Schumacher, 2014). To ensure credibility, the researcher did member checks by taking empirical findings summaries to the participants of the study and inquired if the findings reflected their authentic experiences. Member checks employed in this study as an approach to obtain feedback from the participants on the emanating empirical findings from both semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. The rationale 83 | P a g e for this was to avert and ascertain that researcher does not misrepresent and misinterpret the meanings of what the participants uttered. On the other hand, Confirmability, Lincoln, and Guba (1985) state that confirmability “is concerned with establishing that data and interpretations of the findings are not figments of the inquirer’s imagination, but derived from the data.” In this study, the researcher did not only provide a methodological description but also kept and recorded all the procedures that were followed in this undertaking this research. The transcriptions and recordings of the semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were kept for verification. Through the keeping of all the records, the researcher was enabled to represent an audit trail that can allow for tracing. 3.11. Strengths and limitations of the study Similar to other studies, there were some strengths and limitations with the study design and how it was implemented. 3.11.1. Strengths of the study Data generation instruments and data analysis were important and relevant mechanisms to collect and interpret data. Although data generalization is restricted, the study provides valuable insights into the implementation of the multilingual language policy using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy in undergraduate tutorials. The allocated time for the study allowed the researcher to organize with the participants on when to schedule the interviews and which tool is preferred for the researcher to generate relevant data. Therefore, the university may utilize the findings of this study to look at ways of implementing its multilingual language policy. 84 | P a g e 3.11.2. Limitations to the study Taking into account that this is a case study of one of three campuses, matters of the study are limited to the context and the specific characteristics of undergraduate tutorials; this, therefore, implies that the findings of this study are not generalizable (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006). The study was undertaken at one of the three campuses of the University of the Free State, QwaQwa campus, located in eastern Free State. The majority of the students enrolled in this campus are typically Sesotho and isiZulu speaking students, which is different from the other two campuses, Bloemfontein and South campus. This means that there are aspects of the findings that cannot be generalized and utilized in understanding the undergraduate tutorial practices. Withdrawal of the participants in the study was/is a limitation; the data generation took place during the covid-19 pandemic. 3.11.3. Limitations to the execution of the study In research, it is essential to acknowledge limitations that could prevent the study from commencing. In the case of this study, the identified limitation was finding relevant participants. It was difficult to find participants especially when there were no students allowed to be on campus to curb the spread of COVID-19. The second limitation was not being able to meet with students face-to-face to conduct interviews and focus group discussions. I, therefore, made use of the technological tools that were at my exposal to find relevant participants for my study. However, it was challenging to link with the participants because they had to choose which platform, they will be comfortable with during the interviews. Fortunately, they all chose the method that will accommodate all of them, which is telephonic interviews. There was no other option than meeting with the participants face-to-face because we had to adhere to the lockdown regulations. 3.12. Ethical considerations Creswell (2008:22) states “all educational researchers need to be aware of and anticipate ethical issues in their research”. Ethics in research are salient and focused on ensuring that research conducted adheres to the procedures and meet the requirements of moral conduct during the discussion between the researcher and participants (McMillan & 85 | P a g e Schumacher, 2009). It is also essential that participants’ rights are endorsed throughout the study. Therefore, this research was granted permission by the University of the Free State (UFS) GENERAL/HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE (GHREC) with ethical clearance number: UFS- HSD2020/0046/2505. Moreover, the interview invites contained information, which provided the background and intention of the study. The participants were also informed that they had a right to withdraw from the study anytime during the study. In addition, they can refrain from responding to questions that they are not comfortable answering. They were also notified that their identity would be kept anonymous; the data will be utilized for academic purposes and will be destroyed after 4 to 5 years. Because all our interviews were telephonic, the researcher emailed the consent form to the participants days before the interviews, and they studied the contents of the consent form. The researcher also requested them to sign it and email it back to me before the interview. Unfortunately, all the participants did not possess online signatures, in that regard researcher requested them to fill in their names and surnames, and the email indicated that they are giving their consent to participate in the study. 3.13. Chapter Summary This chapter explicated that research was designed to study and test the claims put forth about translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy to implement multilingual language policy at a South African university, in the undergraduate tutorials. This chapter substantiated the use of exploratory qualitative research using a case study design. Furthermore, this chapter provided a detailed description of the research site, sampling, ethical considerations, and two instruments utilized for data generation and data analysis. Finally, it recognized the possible limitations and aspects related to reliability and validity. 86 | P a g e CHAPTER FOUR DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION 4.1. INTRODUCTION This chapter presents analyses and interprets the findings of the study. It is therefore imperative to mention that presentation will be categorized in line with themes that emanated from the data analysis process in the preceding chapter. The first section focuses on the findings from telephonic semi-structured interviews conducted with eight tutors, who were tutoring modules that form part of the tutoring programme. The tutors interviewed discussed translanguaging as a pedagogical to multilingual language policy at their campus, what are the practices in their tutorials regarding multilingualism, and how translanguaging can be explored to implement this multilingual language policy. The preceding section presents findings from data generated from sixteen students that attended tutorials in four faculties- data was generated using focus group interviews. They provide more insight into concepts of translanguaging and multilingualism – and their application in implementing multilingual language policy. Finally, findings from interviews and focus groups discussion are laid out. This gives an understanding of the how translanguaging could be used in the tutorials to implement a multilingual language policy. This section will unfold according to the layout of the research objective and aims. The first objective that will be under discussion is understanding the university’s multilingual practices in the undergraduate tutorials. The second objective will provide challenges of implementing a multilingual language policy. The last objective is to explore how translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy could be used to implement multilingual language. Therefore, the findings will be outlined following the above structure. 87 | P a g e 4.2. UFS Language policy enactment in the multilingual tutorials In 2016, the university published a new language policy that was amended to address multilingualism in its premises. Although this newly amended language policy received some resistance from the other interest groups – who withhold the belief that the changing of the language policy will compromise Afrikaan’s language and culture. This saw the contestation of the university and interest groups who demanded that the language policy not be considered as an official document. This multilingual language policy is/was envisaged to be implemented in phases particularly in the classrooms that consist of the linguistically and culturally diverse student population. As Toffelson (1995:2) put forward “language policies are both an outcome of power struggles and an arena for those struggles”. Moreover, one of the spaces that are/were identified as sites where this multilingual language policy would be piloted is/was in the undergraduate tutorials where the study is situated. 4.2.1. Perceptions on facilitation of multilingual tutorials in indigenous South African Languages In this section, I provide perceptions of facilitating multilingual tutorials in the South African indigenous languages. The perceptions provided will come from both the tutors and tutees. There are mixed contestations regarding the use of indigenous languages in the classroom particularly in the South African context. Although the utilization of these indigenous languages emanates from redressing of the past inequities that were incurred due to the apartheid regime. Post-1994, when the country entered a democracy, the constitution published officialized eleven indigenous languages (cf. 2.2.2.). This was followed in 2002 by Language Policy in Higher Education (cf. 2.2.) which was promulgated in order to realize and recognize use of indigenous languages in higher education institutions. Pseudonyms were used to protect the identity of the participant 88 | P a g e throughout the semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. Keseabetswe (tutor) Betty (tutor) Ximba (tutee) Kganya (tutee) Keseabetswe: for me sir as a tutor, I do facilitate my tutorials using indigenous languages, this is because during tutorials I find it difficult to keep students focused, and one of the strategies to make them feel comfortable is using their languages during discussion. My tutees feel at ease when we engage in any topic because they know that no one is going to laugh at them. I also think that indigenous languages carry their identity; this means that if I prevent them from using indigenous languages, I am disadvantaging them. Ms. Betty: At first I used to only strictly use English in the tutorials, but that changed after seeing tutees feeling anxious during tutorials, and when I asked some of them why they were not interacting during the session, they said that they don’t know how to express themselves in English. I was very disappointed after getting that feedback after the session. However, I did not stick to English only I encourage them to use both languages, simply because I wanted them to also learn the language, remember the tests, assignments, and examinations are set in English. The above excerpts give a picture of what happens in the tutorials. Here, tutors and tutees were asked about what implementation of the multilingual language policy looks like in their tutorials. From the first recount by Keseabetswe who is a senior tutor, “I find it difficult to keep students focused, and one of the strategies to make them feel comfortable is using their languages during discussion. My tutees feel at ease when we engage in any topic because they know that no one is going to laugh at them” – makes a point that he allows tutees to use indigenous language to create a comfortable learning environment for the tutees. Furthermore, Keseabetswe argues an important point “indigenous languages carry their identity; this means that if I prevent them from using indigenous languages, I am disadvantaging them.” It is an authentic argument that he is raising in this regard, as language and identity coexist. I, therefore, share the same sentiments that language carries’s identity, disregarding indigenous languages perform exclusionary role. 89 | P a g e Betty, who is a junior tutor, differs from Keseabetswe. In her tutorials, she prefers to use both English and indigenous languages, the rationale for her to do this is based on the argument of assessments set up, as they are all in English. Therefore, she felt that when using both English and indigenous languages tutees stand a chance of learning and knowing both languages. Findings reported elsewhere also unveil similar trends from the perceptions of the tutors or teachers who permit students to use their indigenous languages. Ms. Ximba: I have mixed feelings about this, as I am a Zulu speaking person, in the tutorials we sometimes are mixed with other students who speak maybe Venda or Xitsonga, it becomes difficult to understand each other, so we end up using English. At the same time indigenous languages makes it easier to understand difficult concepts, but this is easily achieved when you speak the same language. Mr. Kganya: ke thaba haholo ho sebedisa pou ya lapeng hobane ke ikutlwa ke amohelehile. Ebile ho bonolo ho botsa tutor ya rona e bang re sa utlwisise. Reflections from tutees who have attended tutorials hold differing views regarding the use of indigenous languages in the multilingual tutorials. For example, a tutee claims that the use of indigenous languages leads to confusion; this is due to many languages that exist in their tutorials. However, she also submits, “At the same time indigenous languages makes it easier to understand difficult concepts, but this is easily achieved when you speak the same language” from this excerpt it can be extracted that she also has divided views on this matter. Through these, she continues to demonstrate the value of indigenous languages especially if you are engaging with someone who knows and understands the language. On the other hand, Kganya who is also a tutee, gives an account that is in partial agreement with another tutee, that when he uses indigenous language in the tutorials he feels welcomed, and he continues to mention that it is even easier to ask his tutors questions as in when he does not understand any subject matter. In a way, here it can be said that as the third Orientation in Language Planning tenet, 90 | P a g e multilingualism as a resource, accounts submitted by Kganya are in line OLP framework. In conclusion, both tutors and tutees hold differing views. However, it also shows the level of lack of confidence in indigenous languages. Moreover, the separation of languages according to class and status continues the subtle dehumanization of students who prefer indigenous languages for their learning. 4.2.2. Perceptions on facilitation of multilingual tutorials using English only. In this segment, I provide perceptions of facilitating multilingual tutorials in the English language only. The perceptions provided will come from both the tutors and tutees. There are different views regarding the use of English in the multilingual classroom particularly in the South African context. Although the usage of English emanates from an understanding of globalization and varying views enacted in the language policies that are monolingual in their design. Casius (tutor) Betty (tutor) Kg (tutee) Zealous (tutee) Casius: In my tutorials, I find it easy to use English, and I think that for me it has been that way since I started with tutoring. I prefer English mostly, I have my own reasons, and one of them is to try engaging my tutees’ knowledge of the language. The other obvious reason is tutorials gives us that platform to be in charge of the learning of the students. Me thinking about the multilingual language policy, I really understand the urgency of it, but also we need to check the relevance of it from a global perspective. There are quite interesting views that came out from both tutors’ ad tutees regarding the use of English in the tutorials. Let us look at Casius for example, “Me thinking about the multilingual language policy, I really understand the urgency of it, but also we need to check the relevance of it from a global perspective” I understand her view on the urgency of the language policy particularly in the country such as South African with its history. In addition, she recommends that before even the implementation, there is a need to assess its relevance against global practices. This is an interesting view because in South African universities there are calls to decolonize curriculum. After all, it is too western. Therefore, 91 | P a g e what Casius is recommending is to go back to the western traditions of policy knowledge to benchmark, then implementation can resume. This is a cumbersome approach with the contemporary discussion on decolonization. Betty: Like I said previously, for me facilitating my tutorials in English only would disadvantage my students, from my experience sometimes they don’t even participate in the tutorial discussion. English becomes a barrier for them to collaborate in any discussion, the module is tutoring requires debates in class, so facilitating tutorials in using English and indigenous language made my sessions have high attendance. I think I support language policy; of course, we are at position to speak as to how possible it will be implemented in the tutorials. Kg: Nna abuti, ke nahana hore language policy came at the right time, because when my tutor started to ask us questions in English in the tutorials, I realized that many of us were left behind. I suggested to her that if she can allow us to use our languages, and she agreed because we felt isolated in class. I am not against English but I want our languages to be encouraged so that we are able to build knowledge using our person stories. On the other end, Betty argues, “English becomes a barrier for them to collaborate in any discussion…” for any discussion to be effective in the tutorials means of communication are important. However, as alluded to, tutorial environment should create a comfortable space for learning. In addition, Betty pronounces that “I think I support language policy; of course, we are in at position to speak as to how possible it will be implemented in the tutorials.” a point she makes is pivotal because the language policy implementation is planned within tutorial sessions. It is also an authentic statement that as tutors they are a reference point in planning the implementation. This shows the necessity of this study particularly in this context. Kg, who is a student, his argument supplements the one alluded by Betty, “Nna abuti, ke 92 | P a g e nahana hore language policy came at the right time, because when my tutor started to ask us questions in English in the tutorials, I realized that many of us were left behind” it is shows from the excerpt that the support for the language policy is in existence because of the previous experiences they had. The level of isolation in the tutorials due to language use is problematic even to date. As Kg, unmasks that “…many of us were left behind…” shows that many students are not able to complete their outcomes due to English. Zealous: one of the problems we face in the tutorials is that you judged when you speak English fluently, but again, you are judged when you are struggling to construct a sentence using indigenous languages. Since my primary education I have attended schools were language of instruction was English until high school, even at home we hardly use Sesotho. Now am at the university am expected to know indigenous languages so that I am able to fit in the tutorials. I have seen also that other students feel intimidated when I started to raise my hand in class. But, to emphasize it, am judged for being fluent in English. However, another important submission is made Zealous, who brings a different angle to the study. She remembers, “One of the problems we face in the tutorials is that you judged when you speak English fluently, but again, you are judged when you are struggling to construct a sentence using indigenous languages” this is indicative of divided society is South Africa. As the behaviour of other students towards her fluency in English emanates from the beliefs held by the society that is consumed by socio-economic stratification. In addition, this type of thinking cannot be disassociated from self-dehumanizing that is inculcated in cognitive downward mobility of the student. It is deeply onerous to contemplate the experiences of Zealous in a multilingual tutorial classroom. But one other thing to note is “Now am at the university am expected to know indigenous languages so that I am able to fit in the tutorials” – recurrence of the struggle to exist as a full human being in the university space that is expected to embrace human progress and development. However, this space has turned out to be a battleground for language and cultural discord that nauseates the production of knowledge in the multilingual and multicultural environment. Thus, the narrative is counterproductive in Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy, concurrently alienated from the rudimentary tenets of Orientations 93 | P a g e in Language Planning (See. 2.2.3 and 2.3.4) 4.3. Analyzing challenges of implementing multilingual language policy in higher education institutions: The challenges of implementing a multilingual language policy were discussed by referring to the experiences of the tutors, lecturers, and students reported by various findings of different studies conducted in myriad contexts. To strengthen understanding of these challenges of implementing multilingual language policy – the university’s language policies, government language policies, Acts, and Constitution were used to corroborate the multilingual practices in the undergraduate tutorials. Herein this section is t h e reflection on the findings from tutors and students who are enrolled in the modules that are part of a tutoring programme. Their reflections regarding the implementation of multilingual language policy using translanguaging in multilingual undergraduate tutoring are thoroughly discussed. Thematic analysis was employed to analyze and interpret the findings that were recounted by the participants to get a deeper meaning from them. A snapshot of the conclusion was done through the findings of the empirical data to corroborate whether they were misaligned or aligned with the literature review. Identified challenges were as follows; Lack of UFS language policy knowledge or awareness; Marginalization of diversity of languages in the undergraduate multilingual tutorial classroom; Negative attitudes towards indigenous languages; Lack of resources; Tribalism a persisting threat to linguistic diversity; Use of English as a medium of instruction in the tutorials 4.3.1. Lack of UFS language policy knowledge or awareness In this part, I provide insights received from the participants regarding their knowledge about the multilingual language policy of the university. Below are the excerpts from both tutors and tutees. Betty (tutor) Casius (tutor) Lebohang (tutee) Glen (tutee) 94 | P a g e Betty: To be honest with you sir it is for first the time I hear that there is a language policy at our university. I wonder if it is me only who does not know about it because even in our student caucuses I have never heard anyone talking about. Then my question would be how would it be implemented if we do not know anything about it? I am not being negative towards it but I need clarity from the people who came up with it. Casius: Nkile ka utlwa ho bua ka yona in passing fela tsebo ka yona hakena yona. Fela ke nahana leano la ho qala ka ditutorials le nepahetse. Then haretsebe ka language policy, mohlomong rehloka ho tsebiswa ka yona. Hobane as a tutor Icannot just rock up in my sessions and tell the students that the language policy says the following whereas they do not know about. Knowledge about language policy seems to be eluding both tutors and tutees. It can be extracted from some inputs that language policy must be published for the student population to know about it. As one can learn from Betty that it is for the first time that she hears something about language policy, this is concerning because these are the people who are supposed to be informed about the processes undertaken in the development of the language policy. Another view that seems to be similar to Betty is from Casius: “Nkile ka utlwa ho bua ka yona in passing fela tsebo ka yona hakena yona. Fela ke nahana leano la ho qala ka ditutorials le nepahetse” in translation ( I once heard being talked about, but I don’t have any knowleged about it. But, I think the plan to start with the tutorials is correct” – as he can provide a conceptualization on the approach at which it is taken to implement the policy. Nevertheless, it does not defocus from the input that there is insufficient knowledge about language policy in this context. Lebohang: I know nothing about language policy. However, care about the languages we use in the tutorials. Glen: I agree with my colleague there sir, I also do not much about multilingual 95 | P a g e language policy. Both students, i.e., Lebohang and Glen, share the same sentiments that they acknowledge that they do not have knowledge about the language policy but care about the use of languages in the tutorials. In conclusion, from the excerpts, knowledge about language policy is lacking from both tutors and tutees. This is a concern that warrants necessary attention to ensure that students know about the policy so that they contribute to its implementation phase. Perhaps it is also pivotal to publish or even create information sessions to advertise the language policy for it to be known to the students’ population. 4.3.2. Marginalization of linguistic of diversity in the undergraduate multilingual tutorial classroom The diversity of languages in multilingual classrooms in higher education is an inevitable situation. As students that are attending universities are coming from deeply diverse societies. Thus, it translates into a challenge where universities cannot implement their language policies effectively. The interviews and focus group discussion took place at different times. There was a slot for tutors where I conducted semi-structured interviews, and there was another session with the tutees where I conducted a focus group discussion. In this regard, the below empirical findings will be discussed together instead of being separated. The participants in this regard were tutors and students, Kganya (Tutee), Blessing (Tutor), Unathi (Tutor), Lebohang (Tutee) Ximba (Tutee) Thabiso (Tutor). Blessing: “Oh simply because we have a diversity of languages and mostly our student population the majority is Sesotho as well as isiZulu with a little bit of minority of Venda. So, in most cases let me say a classroom will have a majority of Sesotho speakers not Venda sorry, I mean isiZulu with one student being a Venda they won’t understand each other when it comes to 96 | P a g e using their own language they will have to translate it which will also be time consuming.” Unathi: As a tutor who is responsible to facilitate Chemistry tutorials, I have seen that tutees who attend my tutorials come from different backgrounds especially with the languages they speak. For example, I have tutees who speak Sesotho, isiZulu, and little bit of isiXhosa. So, I think having many languages in the tutorials will not make it possible for the policy to be implemented. That is my own observation, because I believe all languages need equal opportunities and the university management will have to very careful when implementing this policy so that it does not exclude other languages. Thabiso: In my own tutorials, I have seen students battling with learning. Jwale e bang re bua ka implementation of language policy, re tshwanela ho ba le tsebo ka dipuo tse ding (We need to have knowledge of other languages). Fela le ha hole jwalo, ke nahana hore dipuo tse ngata ditla etsa hore ho be thata ho kenya tshebetsong policy ena (even though it is like that, I think many languages will make it difficult to implement this policy). I am saying this because I have seen in the tutorials that students prefer English because they normally say they do not understand other languages. This shows that many languages will hinder the implementation of the language policy. The challenge identified in the empirical data is that diversity of language in the undergraduate multilingual tutorial classrooms. As indicated by the tutors, linguistic diversity is perceived as one of the obstacles. However, it is rather cumbersome to hear tutors voicing out that diversity of languages will be a challenge if the language policy was to be implemented. It is true what Unathi is saying that tutees who attend tutorials are emanating from different languages. However, this should not be perceived as a challenge, there are many attributable factors, which make her, believe that different languages in the tutorials are problematic. Hence, another tutor Thabiso provide his account that his 97 | P a g e observation in the tutorials is that student prefer English over their native languages because they don’t understand the. This is an indication that students would prefer English-only language policy because their experiences are prominently convincing them that multilingual language policy in the linguistically diverse environment will conflict with existing knowledge of other languages. This confirms a view that colonialism created an impetus for the permeation of English. Kganya: “me as a student who has attended tutorials, ke fumana ho le thata hore nka bua le (I find it difficult to speak with) my fellow student in Sesotho because they don’t understand the language. I can’t imagine what would happen if we were to speak all language in the tutorials, it will be a total mess…so language policy e tshwanela hore e ebe ya (it has to be) English because not all of us can speak all languages” Ximba: “I fully agree with my fellow tutee, many languages will possibly hinder the multilingual language policy” Lebohang: sir, tutors do not know all the languages we speak, so that is a challenge on its own, jwale le nna ke dumellana le baithuti mmoho ka taba e na ya (So, I agree with my fellow tutee that) policy implementation will be a difficult process from lack of knowledge of other langauges” Moreover, excerpt from some of the tutees Kganya who cast a view that it cannot be imaginable that all languages are used in the tutorials. This phrase is from a tutee point of view shows that students prefer English language. This confirms with the above tutor’s views that also as tutors they would prefer English only policy, because diverse languages in the tutorials will hamper implementation of multilingual language policy. Another view from Ximba a tutee also adds that many languages in the tutorials will detract the effective implementation of the language policy. These views of tutors and tutees countering the Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy principles of appreciating diversity brought in the classrooms. It shows that both tutors and tutees they have deficient knowledge of the importance of linguistic diversity in the classrooms. In addition, they are against the third 98 | P a g e tenet of Orientations in Language Planning, of seeing multilingualism as a resource, which both tutors and tutees could tap into to make sense of their learning. This tenet perceives multilingualism as a resource to assist linguistically diverse students to achieve the learning outcomes. This empirical data aligns to literature review findings (cf. 2.4.9). The challenge of implementing multilingual language is linguistic diversity in both basic and higher education. The tutors and tutees themselves do the rejection of diverse languages in the undergraduate multilingual tutorials’ classroom. The tutees were questioning the knowledge of different languages by the tutors, and tutors were confirming that tutees preferred English to their own languages. In conclusion, tutors and tutees marginalizing diverse languages in the undergraduate multilingual tutorial classrooms. The knowledge of tutors, which was needed to validate the support for seeing diverse languages as a resource to implement multilingual language policy, was not attained due to marginalization. The knowledge of tutors could scaffold the implementation of multilingual language policy through facilitation of tutorials, learning other languages, and appreciating diversity which includes subject knowledge were not contributed due to marginalisation. Additionally, component of tutees did not yield any strategies on how to implement multilingual language policy in the linguistically diverse classroom, hence some preferred English only language policy. 4.3.3. Negative attitudes towards indigenous languages In the post-colonial epoch, the colonizers succeeded in their mission to socially construct hierarchy of languages. In doing so, their languages were deemed more significant than indigenous languages, hence the negative attitudes towards indigenous languages can be traced from countries which were under colonization and apartheid. This, practice was performed to conqueror subaltern’s identity and culture, to sustain and inoculate self- hatred towards the colonized languages. It is imperative to note that language and culture are indispensable. The below excerpts are evident that remnants of colonial and apartheid structures are still in existence. The participants were asked what would be the challenges 99 | P a g e of implementing multilingual language policy in the undergraduate tutorials. The same approach was used for this process in conducting interviews with tutors and focus groups for students. Refiloe (Tutor), Desiree (Tutor), Pex (Tutee), Lefty (Tutee). Refiloe: “Sir, to be honest I do not like to use my language in the tutorials because some students will not take me serious, I have seen it during my tutorials, ebile pou yaka ke bona enkare etla nkgulisetsa morao ha ke e sebedisa, hobane lefatshe le sebedisa English” Desiree: it is like am going to embarrass myself if I use isiZulu in my tutorials, I know my language is my identity but at the university when you speak isiZulu even my friends laugh at me. I believe that even tutees do not respect their indigenous languages. So angazi mhlambe (So I do not know maybe the language) ilanguage policy will be implemented but from what I have experienced here on campus, I do not think it is going to be possible. Desiree as one of the tutors believes that she is going to embarrass herself if she can attempt to use isiZulu during the tutorials. She takes it further that she can rather compromise her identity in order to depress her language. This type of attitude of tutors towards their languages implies that it will be difficult in implementing the policy in the tutorials. In this regard, they are not suggesting how their languages could be used in the classrooms (c.f. 4.1.6). The notion upheld by tutors is also sustained by tutees, for example, Lefty a tutee states that he is not comfortable with using his language in the tutorial. The negative attitude towards indigenous languages was imbibed from the colonial and apartheid trenches, which advanced the use of English and the development of language policies, which do not consider African languages. Even, in the tutorial spaces where they are not formal, tutors and tutees still maintain their perceptions toward indigenous languages. For example, Desiree emphasizes through her previous experiences that she does not believe that the implementation of multilingual 100 | P a g e language policy in the undergraduate tutorials will be possible. Another study also indicated that 92% of the Xhosa, speaking students p r e f e r r e d English to isiXhosa; they also regarded isiXhosa as ‘waste of time’ (cf.2.7). This statement corroborates that challenge referred to in the latter sentence. This demonstrates that tutors and tutees' negative attitudes towards indigenous languages do not assist in implementing multilingual language policy, as they are not willing to empower and sustain their languages as CSP and OLP suggest (cf. 2.3, 2.4). Pex: “Thank you for this opportunity, my input in this discussion is that, our languages are not fully developed and included in the curriculum, that on its own means it is not possible to bring them into mainstream. They are simply not developed, and I have learned in English throughout my primary education, so I don’t see a need for my language”. Lefty: the implementation of this language policy will not be feasible, interfering (Why do you think it is not going to be feasible?) I believe in using my language with my parents but here at university I use English. I am not comfortable in using my language in the classroom.” Mpho: “Firstly sir I think the first challenge will come from either the student or the tutees attitude sir if maybe I don’t feel like using your home language or English is not good for me sir that attitude sir will be a challenge because remember the aim of going to school or university or tutorial session is to learn is but if you refuse to learn other people’s language your attitude is negative towards others, as a result sir it will hinder the progress in tutorial session, also sir if for example the A step organization or the university in general is not involved in implementing” . This evidence shows that the same African students hold a different worldview about their own indigenous languages, which is a clear indication of disregarding the indigenous languages. Nevertheless, interestingly, this tutor provides a salient suggestion that if the tutorial programme or the university at large is not involved in this regard, the implementation will not be feasible. However, this is not a unique case, even in a study 101 | P a g e conducted in the French context on students’ attitudes toward multilingualism found that students had negative attitudes towards the French language due to ‘peer shaming’ (cf.2.7). Students are mostly reported to be afraid of using their languages because there is a chance that they might be laughed at if they miss a word in English. Also, they argue that it is embarrassing to them to be speaking indigenous languages whereas fellow students are speaking English. Lefty accentuates that he only uses his language at home and not at the university. This is confirmation of the positionality of the students in using indigenous languages. A similar finding was corroborated which reflects the perceptions of students’ attitudes toward the teaching of Basque in education reported that reason, why students have a negative attitude towards the Basque language, is the pronouncements they get from home, they also stated that friends and media had influence toward the Basque language (cf. 2.7). They further state that students use English over their indigenous languages when they converse. In conclusion, the negative attitudes of tutors and students are emphasized in the implementation of the multilingual language policy. There is a mammoth rate of the negative attitude of tutors and tutees seemed needs attention. This defeats the goal of successfully implementing the multilingual language policy in the tutorials. Negative attitudes of both tutors and tutees were not assisting both parties involved. Lack of willingness to demonstrate an approach that could possibly to deployed to address this challenge. 4.3.4. Lack of Resources The research conducted shows that lack of resources also contributes to the slow implementation of the language policy particularly in multilingual countries. Resources in this regard include amongst other things, allocation of budget, curriculum conundrums, pedagogical challenges, lack of trained staff, and learning material (cf. 2.7.4). The implementation of the multilingual language policy could be practically implemented if the latter factors could be attended to. It was the intention of this study to explore tutors' and tutees' experiences in understanding these factors in-depth and in detail. The accessibility 102 | P a g e of resources makes it possible for tutors and tutees to be in a good position to assist in facilitating the implementation of the language policy. Since they engage with each other at a level, where there is no formality, which renders tutorial spaces comfortable for them to voice out their strategies and practices in the tutorials. Velokhaya (tutor) Sello (tutee) Kganya (tutee) Another viewpoint from Velokhaya: “As I said earlier before that, the tools we don’t have enough tools to implement multilingualism for example when going to internet you really find the reaching document with home language so that’s still our problem to the resources we don’t have enough resources to implement multilingualism. In argument of resources, Velokhaya a tutor pronounces that there are no enough resources to implement multilingualism. This is a statement that speaks to an awareness of the tutors that there is a need to overhaul multilingualism as there is a struggle in finding documents on the internet written in their home languages. The excerpt projects learning material on the internet written in English. Therefore, the implementation of multilingualism will be a challenge for him in the context of tutorials. This view is important for this tutor because he uses the internet to verify and simplify learning material – it is also an insightful view as it unearths accessibility to technological resources for the marginalized students and tutors. This finding does not align with the CSP and OLP in observing multilingualism as a resource in the tutorials. In part, Sello (tutee) disagrees with the latter statement… “For me Sir, I think it is not an issue with resources (interference; what do you mean when you say there is no issue with resources? Can you give me more information), ngoba ngisho unguthi mina as a student o attende itutorials, I think that for the university to have resources there is need to have funding to implement the language policy, if imali ayikho (if there is no money) then it won’t be easy to implement the policy, us students and our tutors need to be trained on what multingual language policy, where does it come from? 103 | P a g e And how to implement it” As for tutee Kganya: “For example we don’t have a Geography textbook that is written in isiZulu or Sesotho we only find the English one, jwale (So) I don’t understand how will the policy be implemented in this condition” However, a tutee disagrees in part that the university needs funding to implement the language policy, furthermore, he suggests that resources cannot be limited to finances only but also skills for students and tutors on how to implement the language policy. A call for concern is he articulates that… “Where does it come from”… inquiring about the existence of the language policy. This statement implies that they do not know much about language policy of the university, and the influence of its development. Another submission from Kganya engages in translated learning materials. She believes that already there is a conundrum with access to material, does see any possibility of effectively implementing the language policy in the current circumstances. In addition, the implementation of multilingual practices in the classroom is not due to lack of motivation from the students and ability, rather it stems from curricular conundrums, environmental and pedagogical challenges that form part of resources (Groff, 2015). OLP is perceived multilingualism as a resource, but the empirical views of the students and tutors point to the opposite – this finding is conflicting with the rudiments of OLP – as it contends that every language is important to its speakers, and it should not be perceived from a deficit thinking and perspective (cf. 2.4.1.4). In conclusion, the implementation of the multilingual language policy is fraught with challenges. Moreover, from the above empirical data, lack of resources ventilated from financial support, learning materials not in the languages of the students, and pedagogies tutoring. The necessity to train both tutors and students on implementation of the multilingual language policy, however in that training provision of background development of language policy needs to be addressed in order to provide students and tutors with the insights in line with language policy. 104 | P a g e 4.3.5. Tribalism a persisting threat to linguistic diversity The history of South African languages is entrenched in the apartheid segregationist policies, which allotted people to different homelands later called Bantustan. In the post- apartheid dispensation, social justice has been upfront in language policy discussion. However, even to this day, it appears that the issues related to tribalism still exist even in the democratic epoch in higher education. Morena (tutor) Dimpho (tutor) Glen (tutee) Busi (tutee) Morena (Tutor): Sir, I mean not allowing them (students) to use various languages so that I avoid challenges of favouritism especially tribalism. This on the student (sir) I feel like if people use different language to communicate they will feel like no my languages better than yours so why should I speak your own language so if we use one language specifically English it will prevent this thing of tribalism (sir) or chaos in tutorial session.” Dimpho (Tutor): In our campus unlike in Bloemfontein there is still that attitude towards other languages…interfering (what do you mean, can tell me more about that?), I mean, we still think my language is better than the other is, and importantly there was in the past discussion around tribalism on campus, still it is even today. I honestly do not know what will happen if this policy will be implemented. For me this is a big challenge tribalism. From the above two excerpts from tutors, it can be deduced that tutors are conscious of the campus environment in which they conduct their tutorials. This can be observed from Morena who intimates that he does not allow students to use their languages to avert being seen as favouring or to a certain extent practicing tribalism. This, therefore, complicates the situation i n which the implementation of the multilingual language policy is planned to be executed. The aspect of tribalism seems to be a detractor, which warrants a necessity to do situational analysis prior to the implementation. Although the OLP framework suggests that language needs to be observed as a right, but not only a right but 105 | P a g e also a resource at which students create meaning and knowledge. More so, Dimpho, who is a tutor, also adds that she does how or what will happen if the policy will be implemented, however, the challenge would be tribalism. This viewpoint supports the latter submission put forward by the fellow tutor. This tutor problematizes tribalism and the efficacy of the policy implementation. In doing so, a comparison of the campuses is made to validate their claims that on the other campus assumption is made that there are no challenges emerging from other student populace regarding tribalism. It is on this basis, the role of the CSP framework to address matters of this nature, by ensuring that sustaining linguistic diversity is crucial in the classroom (cf. 2.4). However, this finding is contradictory to the precepts of this finding. Glen (student): mina I think buti ehh (I think my brother) like the multilingual language policy engasebenza (it can work) only if tribalism can be addressed. The excerpt from the student Glen suggests that a multilingual language policy could be implemented if the issue of tribalism could be addressed. This is student paints a picture that successful implementation of the language policy will depend on the call to face tribalism head-on. Dimpho’s analogy of tribalism depicts a situation that has been in existence even in the past. This finding does not emerge as astonishing as the geographical location of the institution where the study was undertaken is in a former Bantustan. The reflection on this note then posits demarcation of black people by their dialects and since the onset of colonialism and apartheid much has not changed, the pervasiveness of tribalism is still bedeviling black students. Busi: I did not know that university has changed its language policy, and it is surprising it is only now that I get to be exposed to it which a good thing. However, I feel like we still need to fight for other things, as Glen said tribalism is still an issue. Ke nahana hore policy etshwanela ho nkella hlohong taba ena (I think this policy has to take into consideration this matter). 106 | P a g e Tshepiso (tutor): “It’s because everyone can understand not everyone can understand English but it can accommodate 95% of the students. But if I have to use indigenous languages then I have to explain in other languages so I cannot explain Zulu only. I also have to accommodate Sotho’s so it going to take much time explaining something in Zulu and explain in Sotho then I have to accommodate Sepedi and Setswana’s speaking students. If I explain in Zulu it might be favouritism that I favour this and this is gonna because conflict at campus. This is an important finding in this study, both the tutors and students unveil that tribalism, particularly at a site where the study was undertaken, is in existence. It is a threat to linguistic diversity brought by the students and tutors from different backgrounds. In this regard, this practice eludes the principles of Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy of respecting multilingualism and multiculturalism in the classrooms. The implementation of the multilingual language policy in this regard needs to be carefully planned before it is brought to the students. Elsewhere, literature confirmed that implications of introducing multilingual language policy are intricate due to it being fraught with ‘dynamics’ of tribalism (cf. 2.7) this is justified by the complexity of historical legacies, which continues to exist to date because colonization and apartheid empires orchestrated systems that segregated the oppressed people by their dialects (Mbolo, 2018). Therefore, the inability to interact with indigenous languages due to fear of tribalism necessitates a broader approach in understanding the role of multilingual language policy in this setup. The finding does corroborate the meager literature review that has been surveyed; this demonstrates the uniqueness of the context in which the study took place. In conclusion, the issue of tribalism in this context is pivotal in thinking through the implementation of the multilingual language policy. It is clear from both the tutors and students that tribalism still exists – warrants attention. The finding also is unique to an extent that it demystifies the myth of social cohesion and rainbow nation, particularly in 107 | P a g e higher education. The success of the policy implementation relies on beneficiaries, therefore it is important to be cognizant of this finding. 4.3.6. Use of English as a medium of instruction in the tutorials In this part, I provide findings from both tutors and tutees regarding multilingual practices in their tutorials. The rationale of this section is to attempt to understand how the participants experience multilingual practices in the undergraduate tutorials. Furthermore, I engage in the use of English in facilitating multilingual tutorials. Lastly, the conclusion drawn from the recounts of the tutors and tutees. Chief (tutor) Betty (tutor) Blessing (tutor) Rethabile (tutee) Lebelo (tutee) Chief: “Yes sir, as I mentioned before we have the diversity of students coming from different background. As a tutor, if I only use my home language it means that I will be disadvantaging other students who cannot communicate using my home language. And also, Sir what I have realized is that especially for those science modules it is not easy as a tutor to tutor those modules using your home language, for example, you can’t tutor Biology or Geography in your home language either isiZulu or Sesotho only in English. The previous excerpt alluded that it is not easy for the tutors to tutor modules such as Biology using home languages of the students. This tutor believes that it is onerous to facilitate tutorials especially Biology and Geography due to the nature of its content. However, he emphatically states that only this could be achieved in English. This finding is crucial because it protracts the colonial and apartheid vestiges that proclaim English over African languages. Mr. Blessing (Tutor): Most of our universities the language e buang pele ke English and ha ore wa sheba for example in our campus, most of the students are black but the medium of instruction ke (its) English and even 108 | P a g e most of our notices or messages sent to us sim its written in English but whereas hao sheba the majority are the blacks so meaning our African languages are not yet elevated they still suppressed and the only language that is dominated its English. Empa ho (But to) emphasize my point, I believe that English will be a huge stumbling block despite the fact that students are struggling with it, but policy implementation ke nahana etla (I think it will be) challenge e kgolo. Betty (Tutor): I’m tutoring first years, so I guess they are still new from high school others are afraid to communicate in English wabo (you see) so, in order to make them feel comfortable I let them speak their own languages. I do not see English as a problem to implement this policy, we are already using our languages in the tutorials, and this policy is meant to officialise it. English as a language of the elite has been widely linked with progress in many societies around the world, while indigenous languages are perceived as not important and present backwardness. These language ideologies are perpetuated in the third world countries, which suffered from a catastrophic mental subjugation under colonialism (Tupar, 2015:120). Blessing recounts that English will be a stumbling block since students are struggling with it, this will make it too onerous for policy implementation in citing the lack of proficiency in English for students, which cannot be denied. On the other hand, however, Betty argues that she does not see English as an impediment to the implementation of the language policy. This excerpt contradicts the other views from other participants, as the tutor does not see English as a hindrance to implementing a multilingual language policy. The reason cited by her is simply that she believes that already they are using their indigenous languages in the tutorials; the reason for implementation is to officialise the languages in the tutorial set up. This claim is substantiated by the existing literature that the majority of the students in higher education institutions are struggling with English, at some point, it has been reported as the contributor to low academic success rates particularly to black students emanating from disadvantaged backgrounds. Blessing continues to point out that it will 109 | P a g e be a huge challenge to implement the multilingual language policy due to the position held by English at the university. English at this university holds an official status of teaching and learning. Ms. Rethabile: my take is that English offers job opportunities, and I think the implementation of the language policy will be impeded. Mr. Lebelo: Nna Sir, ke nahana hore ke nnete hore English e thata fela, hape ke nahana hore ho bohlokwa hore re etsebe. Jwale e bang retlo sebedisa dipou tse ngata ka ditutorials retloba confused and hape o hlokomele hore policy ena e qala ho kenywa tshebetsong. Jwale ka bokgutshwane, English etla etsa hore dintho implementation e be thata hobane ke pou eo reseng re e tlwaetse. (I think it is true that English is difficult but again, I think it is important for us to know it. So, if we are going to use many languages in the tutorials we are going to be confused, and again you need to be aware that this policy is only being implemented, so in a nutshell, English will make the implementation to be difficult as we are now used to English. As for Rethabile, who is a student, shares similar sentiments with Blessing with English impeding the actualization of the language policy, however, she adds that English has a market value that cannot be compromised. Lebelo also agrees with Betty in that the use of English will make the implementation of the policy difficult. It is rather worrisome that being used to English will automatically translate to a difficulty in the policy implementation, perhaps it is due to a popular belief that English holds the center of progress and development. Klapwijk and Van der Walt (2016) providing reasons for English in South African education system state that “the preference for English as a medium of instruction seems to be largely based on the perception of the importance of English to “succeed” in life and work rather than the actual dominant use of English by most of the population”. Therefore, the effects 110 | P a g e of English hegemony are extremely detrimental to the practical implementation of multilingual language policy. The advancement of African indigenous languages is impeded by the “neo-colonial, silence, oppressed voice and attitude of the students who embrace the hegemony of English no matter what intellectual cost to themselves (cf. 2.7). In conclusion, English as reported in the preceding section has the potential to halt the effectiveness of the implementation of multilingual language policy. As deduced from the findings, English as a medium of instruction has gained a hegemonic status, which has resulted in an implausible situation for the existence of the indigenous languages. In this regard, the implementation phase of the language policy needs to communicate clearly to both tutors and students, to avoid confusion in understanding the role of language policy in the undergraduate tutorials. 4.4. Translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy to implement multilingual language policy: In this section, I provide themes that emerged during the interviews with both tutors and tutees. The themes were a response to a research question, which was focusing on how translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy could be used to implement multilingual language policy? Five themes were identified in this regard; which are: providing workshops on university language policy to tutors; training tutors on the use of translanguaging in facilitating multilingual tutorials; promoting the deployment of different languages in the multilingual tutorials; using translanguaging in the group discussions, and utilising translanguaging as a strategy to epistemic access and construction. These themes are discussed in the following section. 111 | P a g e 4.4.1. Providing workshops on university language policy to tutors and tutees The formulation of the language policy is a consultative process, which deems stakeholders’ inputs pivotal for alignment and intent. Therefore, it is of utmost important to consider workshops to ascertain that the strategy such as translanguaging is well understood within the scope of the university language policy implementation framework. However, in this study, lack of knowledge on university language policy from tutors warranted a need to establish grounds for purposeful workshops designed to inform the practice of the tutors. Betty (tutor) Velokhaya (tutor) Kganya (tutee) Rethabile (tutee) Betty: On how this policy can be implemented sir, I believe that we as tutors we need to be provided with workshop so that we know about the university language policy. In that, we will be able to see how we can make use of our knowledge of the policy to conduct our tutorials in line with the language policy. Velokhaya: sir, like I said previously, mina as tutor I have lack of knowledge on language policy, and I will prefer that we give some training that is based on language policy. Most importantly sir, it will help us to align translanguaging with the implementation plans. The above two excerpts are important to be considered as these tutors appear to agree with each other on the provision of the workshop on language policy. It is therefore cumbersome to note that tutors, which assumes the status of being senior students, are not knowledgeable about the language policy of the university. For example, submission from one of the participants believes that as tutors they need to be provided with the workshop so that we know about the university language policy. This evidence is crucial in the successful implementation of the multilingual language policy according to tutors. In support of this claim, one of the tutors proclaim that they do not know language policy of the university. The stance from the tutor is eminent that tutors do need to be provided with a session where language policy will be discussed in detail the planning and the goal of the university regarding its implementation strategy in the multilingual tutorials and 112 | P a g e university at large. Language policy awareness is important in managing multilingual classrooms (cf. 2.7.4). Another point to note is that one of the tutors believebelieves that translanguaging will assist them to align their tutorial practices to the language policy plans. Therefore, the provision of workshops according to this tutor will aid in a greater deal to align implementation plans with translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy. In doing so, translanguaging could emerge as an approach to use to implement the policy. Rethabile: nna ke nahana hore ho hlakile hore rona re le ditutees hare tsebe ka language policy. Fela yona ke dumela hore e tshwanela e kenywe tshebetsong, empa pele ho ka etswa jwalo re hloka platform to discuss the policy and how it came about. Mohlomong enngwe ya di platforms e kaba through student parliament, moo re debate ditaba tse amang baithuti. Kganya: my fellow student is making a valid point that we need platform to be created to discuss the policy, during the discussion or seminars we will be indirectly learning and knowing about the language policy. I fully support the use student parliament to hold even policy developers accountable. From the two tutees excerpts, the emphasis is made on the necessity to hold language policy discourses through student parliament. Although the approach compared to their tutors is different. However, the goal is common is to know more about the language policy and how it emerged. This submission from the tutee is raising an approach from which the university can reach a wider student community in providing a platform to engage on language policy matters. They also claim that during the discussions or seminars they will be indirectly learning and knowing about the language policy. To even add that this would create a space to hold even policy developers accountable to their plan. This comment indicates the mutual understanding and consensus from both tutees that they do not have adequate knowledge about university language policy. This finding is not astonishing as other studies found that six out of ten students’ participants did not know the university language policy (cf. 2.7.4). Further, support the use of student parliament as a platform to discuss the policy, but another important submission is that of holding the policy developers into account. Although this point was not exhausted, even the tutees are conscious of the need to hold stakeholders into account for 113 | P a g e perhaps lack of policy implementation. In conclusion, there is a common understanding across tutors and tutees that indeed there is a need to hold workshops and discourse around the language policy. It is understood that it could be achieved in various ways, for example, tutees suggested the use of student parliament as one of the platforms to carry out discussions. Also, tutors emphasize the necessity to know the planning and the goal of the university regarding its implementation strategy in the multilingual tutorials and university at large through embedding translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy. 4.4.2. Training tutors on the use of translanguaging in facilitating multilingual tutorials Provision of the training to the tutors on how to implement translangauging as a pedagogical strategy in the multilingual tutorials is urgent and important. It is also significant to ascertain the type of training they need to be offered to effectively use the strategy. In this regard, Garcia and Kleifgen (2019) designed five parts in which teachers can engage, in the case of these findings, tutors can be engaged in the following. Betty (Tutor) Refiloe (Tutor) Kganya (Tutee) Rethabile (Tutee) Betty: like the lack of knowledge I have with language policy, I think it is also important to trained on how to use translanguaging when facilitating multilingual tutorials, I know we already received training on how to facilitate tutorials but it does not engage us on using translanguaging. Refiloe: nna sir, I do not know what other tutors think about this, but ke nahana hore re tshwanela ho rutwa practically hore leano le na re ka le sebedisa jwang. Although A_STEP is training us on how to conduct tutorials like the do’s and don’ts, which I think it is good but I feel like we can also be trained on translanguaging because it is a new thing for us as tutors. If this could be done it will be much easier to implement the policy in the tutorials. 114 | P a g e The above two reflections from both tutors are an indication that they need training on how to use translanguaging. For example, a tutor makes a point that she lacks knowledge on language policy, but also adds that they will need training on how to use translanguaging when facilitating multilingual tutorials. This point she is submitting is important in emphasizing and distinguishing between knowledge of the language policy and use of translanguaging. She put forth that it is imperative to be trained on how to use translanguaging to facilitate multilingual tutorials. This finding confirms Omidire and Ayob’s (2020) finding who found that training should focus on the teaching of “linguistically diverse learners” and offering teachers strategies to function in the multilingual class. Of necessity is that she acknowledges that they do receive training from the tutorials programme, but it does not include the use of translanguaging in the tutorials. This finding suggests that in addition to the training they are currently receiving translanguaging must be included. The previous statements from participants could be read in line with the submissions made by others that as tutors they need to be taught practically on how to use the strategy (translanguaging). Hence, this statement is confirming what Betty reported in reference to tutors receiving training on how to use translanguaging to facilitate multilingual tutorials. More so, Refiloe registers that “Although A_STEP is training us on how to conduct tutorials like the do’s and don’ts, which I think is good but I feel like we can also be trained on translanguaging because it is a new thing for us as tutors.” This point also is concurring with Betty’s input, it can be deduced from this finding that tutors agree that they do receive training. However, it is not inclusive of the use of translanguaging in the tutorials. It appears that the training offered is generic and focused on facilitating tutorials in general. Both points corroborate with literature which found that impediment of translanguaging expressed was lack of teachers training (cf. 2.8.2). In addition, they note that if they could be trained on how to use translanguaging it will not be so difficult to implement the policy in the tutorials. Kganya: For me Mr, it is necessary first to know that my tutor is well trained on translanguaging. Tutorials are full of students who are coming from different backgrounds speaking many diverse languages, which are 115 | P a g e important to us as student. I know our tutor does not know all the languages in class and we as student had to intervene to explain what our fellow classmate was asking. Another example is that I have been part of the student leadership, and I realized that some of the policies in the university before they can be implemented there is a need for us to be trained first. This applies even to tutors before the language policy could be implemented, it is necessary that tutors are well trained on how to use translanguaging in the classroom. Rethabile: Nna ke dumellana le Kganya haholo ka mohopolo wa ho train ditutors on translanguaging. Hobane ho bohlokwa hore a ba tsebe ka nepahala hore translanguaging ke eng ebile e ka sebediswa jwang ho netefatsa hore language policy is successfully implemented. From the two excerpts reflected upon by the tutees, both appear to be agreeing that tutors need training on translanguaging. For example, a tutee proclaims that it is important for them to know that their tutors are well trained on how to use translanguaging. In addition, tutees acknowledge that there is linguistic diversity in the tutorials and that needs to be appreciated. Therefore, it aligns itself with the basic principles of the CSP framework, which supports and advances linguistics diversity. On the other hand, it also supports the principles of OLP, which deems linguistic diversity as a resource in the classroom. Of significant, is the emphasis on tutor training. One of the tutees agree that tutors need to be trained on translanguaging to ascertain that the language policy is successfully implemented. They further add that tutors need to know translanguaging, in doing so they will grow their apprehension of translanguaging to enable the efficacy of implementation of the policy. In conclusion, training of the tutors has been observed as one of the ways in which translanguaging could be used to implement a multilingual language policy. The empirical evidence seems to also suggest the necessity of the training of tutors on the 116 | P a g e translanguaging strategy. In addition, important to consider is the shared understanding from tutors who have indicated similar voices on the need for training. This should be done to demonstrate practically how and when translanguaging would be viable during their tutorials. 4.4.3. Promoting deployment of diverse languages in the multilingual tutorials Translanguaging as a pedagogical practice does not simply advance deep learning, but it also promotes marginalized languages concerning the already predominant monolingual practices (cf. 2.8.1). The promotion of the different languages is important as it engenders social cohesion in a multilingual classroom. It is also important to point out that the multilingual language policy intends to advance the different languages within the prescripts of the constitution. The constitution in the context of South Africa is explicit when it comes to the promotion of indigenous languages in the education system. Translanguaging as a strategy in the multilingual undergraduate tutorials is beneficial to tutors and students’ indigenous languages. Refiloe (tutor) Thembi (Tutor) Katleho (tutee) Mpho (tutee) Refiloe: “Kopa o mphehthele? it helps us because we are free to talk ka di language tsa rona akere and we are free to express like re bue dintho as di le jwalo, so yona ya re thusa, it will help us to express how we feel ka di languages tsa rona and it shows hore this thing e leng ho constitutional course it’s really working to promote and innovate our languages.” Thembi: my tutorials are attended by students who speak various languages, this makes my tutorials to be more interesting as it allows me as their tutor to learn to acknowledge their languages and also encourage them to see each other’s languages as resources which they can use to engage in class. I believe the role of translangauging will make things even easier for us tutors and tutees to have more students attending our tutorials. Although I do not have enough knowledge of the language policy but I think translanguaging will help in a great deal in making 117 | P a g e sure that we appreciate diverse languages” The above excerpt is indicating that tutors are aware of the demising status of indigenous African languages. As she indicates that, their languages will help them express themselves, and importantly is being conscious of the constitutional imperative…Refiloe “to promote and innovate our languages…” which afford them rights to use their languages. As one of the three tenets of Orientations in Language Planning - language as right is a discursive fundamental that realizes the rights that are wielded in the languages and the need to respect those rights. In this orientation, language is perceived as a basic human right (cf. 2.2). This theory maintains that every individual is entitled by the legally promulgated acts and policies to utilize and learn in their languages (cf. 2.2). This tutor utters that translanguaging as a strategy would play an important role in advancing and promoting the status of indigenous languages. Literature reported that translanguaging promotes the status of marginalized languages (cf. 2.8.1). This implies that translanguaging can assist in redressing inequities and injustices that were caused by the colonial and apartheid regimes, which were demonizing indigenous African languages at the echelons of higher education. As alluded to in the theoretical approach of Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy, one of its tenets are sustaining the languages that are at the bottom of the hierarchy of languages. Therefore, this finding is in line with what CSP as a lens for this study is vouching for. To take this further, a tutor appears to be considerate of linguistic diversity when she registers that tutorial is attended by students who speak different languages and this makes tutorials to be interesting, this is because as a tutor she learns to acknowledge students’ languages and advocate that they need to be seen as resources. This tutor act is an indication of understanding and appreciating multilingualism in her tutorials. In this regard, the OLP framework is enacted as it recommends seeing languages as resources than seeing diverse languages as fixed entities. This corroborates the finding that teachers utilize students’ linguistic repertoire to attain content understanding and collaborative creation of knowledge (cf. 2.8.1). The occurrence of “metalinguistic reflection” from the tutors in the various language is prominent in this finding. 118 | P a g e This view also supports CSP, which wholly disrupts the “dominant narratives that superficially affirm differences and diversities while maintaining status quo” (cf. 2.4). It further argues that maintenance of the status quo is achieved at the expense of the languages of the students. Nevertheless, also a concern is the view from a tutee, which states that even though she does not have any knowledge about language policy but believes that translanguaging will vastly assist in accommodating diverse languages. This is a concern because she openly reports her lack of knowledge of the language policy but pronounces that translanguaging will assist in ascertaining the appreciation of linguistic diversity. Katleho: “we need to know our culture le di languages tsa rona re di tsebe hore re ikgantshe ka tsona” Mpho: I totally agree with my fellow student here, translanguaging will play a central role in advancing our captured indigenous languages, I think this is the role that should be played by the language policy to promote our languages. Cultural values and indigenous rights can be protected by multilingual education, which may develop language policies that respect and equate the status of marginalized languages with the dominant language (Kaya & Ayadin, 2013; Faltis, 2014). In addition, Katleho who is a student emphasizes that as students’ populace they need to know their culture and language – the reason for this is to have confidence in them. It is evident from the literature and empirical findings that culture, and language are indispensable, therefore depriving students to use their languages in the classrooms implies that their culture is also subjected to deprivation to exist. For Mpho who agrees with Katleho that, translangauging will emancipate and advance their captured indigenous languages, provided that indigenous languages in universities are in captivity and perceived from a backward mind-set, which attains monolingual ideologies over multilingual pedagogies. It is imperative to note that there is a robust emphasis on sustaining pedagogies, which counter the depravity of indigenous languages. Therefore, translanguaging in 119 | P a g e this regard protracts a possibility of engaging that pedagogy that befits sustenance of multilingualism in the classrooms. In conclusion, these findings reveal that translanguaging is a cornerstone in the implementation of the multilingual language policy. As it does not only focus on the promotion of the indigenous languages but also frees the students from the captivity of depriving them of an opportunity to delve into their languages. Further, it is in line with the theoretical underpinnings of both CSP and OLP, translanguaging fits well as it is a holistic approach to understanding how the implementation of the multilingual language policy will take shape and which aspect needs to focus on. Moreover, translanguaging is comprised of the opportunities for implementing multilingual language policy, if strategies are followed and carefully planned. Crucially is that translanguaging is an act of appreciating diverse languages which is a possible challenge for the effective implementation of the language policy (cf. 2.8.2). 4.4.4. Using translanguaging in the tutorials during group discussions Translanguaging was found to be engaging learners in putting more effort into the academic activities, scaffolding teaching, and learning, and streamlining teacher and student communication (cf. 2.8.1). In the context of this study, student engagement is one of the hurdles that higher education is grappling with; however, translanguaging appears to be entangling cognitive, emotional, and behavioural aspects of student engagement. This evidence from this research that translanguauging is an important pedagogical strategy in facilitating student engagement. Tutors also confirm that it is daunting to engage students using monolingual practices; they find it easy to facilitate their tutorials using indigenous languages. Lerato (tutor) Rofihwa (tutor) Belinda (tutee) Thabo (tutee) Lerato: “I believe that it’s okay translanguaging should be implemented in our campus simply because student gain a better understanding and they’re able to speak in so many languages during their group discussion, which will make implementation of the policy not a difficult process, they can gain a better understanding of not only one language but many languages.” 120 | P a g e Rofihwa: “Well for that student gain a better understanding of what they’ve been talking about and even if like for instance we were talking about something class using a different language or their own home languages when they are interacting and collaborating in the tutorials. They can be able to tell other people with the same topic in class simply because they understand what we were talking about. Other benefits? Besides having a better understanding. Okay they can also know other language besides their home language. If we are allowed to permit students to use translanguaging in class especially during the interactions, implementation of the policy will be feasible. The above excerpt is a demonstration that translanguaging in undergraduate tutorials is beneficial in many ways. The tutor here makes a call that translanguaging should be implemented in the institution simply because students will grasp content and be able to use other languages – as alluded in other findings revealed teacher to improve students understanding and learning translanguaging was fully utilized. This is because the teacher would repeat what was said in English in isiZulu for emphasizing the point of discussion (cf. 2.8.1). For example, a tutor submits a bold statement that if it could be permissible for them to allow tutees to use their languages during their engagement with the activities this will make policy implementation feasible Therefore, from this sentence, this tutor makes it clear how translanguaging could be used to implement a multilingual language policy. In addition, she is adamant that it is feasible to implement the policy through translanguaging only if they could be allowed to do so. This is important because it defies monolingual practices, which see languages as fixed and separate entities, but translanguaging perceives languages as fluid discursive resources. Even, other studies indicated that teachers were using translanguaging to aid students to better understand the content in the classroom (cf. 2.8.1). Provided this reflection of this important finding, it is worth noting that even in the multilingual undergraduate tutorial classrooms translanguaging is a normal practice, which is used to perceive languages as a resource – where the indigenous language speakers can benefit 121 | P a g e from. Moreover, translanguaging is seen as a strategy to gain more understanding during group discussion, not through monolingual practices but seeing that there are many languages in a classroom, this will make the policy implementation process not difficult. This statement from Lerato, demonstrates the benefits of using translanguaging in the multilingual tutorials class. Focusing on the last part of the sentence, translanguaging will aid the implementation of language policy through group discussion. It is another way of using this pedagogical strategy to implement the multilingual policy at this institution. Moreover, Lerato, posits that tutees will gain an understanding of not from a single language set up, but from different languages, the advantage in learning many languages will benefit students when engaging in the diverse group of students which is a reality in the South African classrooms. She sees languages as resources, not a problem to overcome as claimed by the monolingual ideologies, however, she makes a clear recount that multiple languages are resources that need to be used to better grasp the content and simultaneously helpful in implementing language policy. Rofihwa also supports what Lerato put forth, that other than understanding, translangauging will be helpful for students in learning other languages. This will allow students to share the topic discussed during the tutorials session and gain more knowledge as they will be interacting using various languages. I also noticed that tutors used translanguaging for them to convey instructions during tutorials, but they use it to make sure that during the discussions no students are left behind due to the language barrier. For them what is important in the tutorial’s session is to see students actively engaged in their learning – and they believe that is achieved through permitting their students to use their languages in the classroom (cf. 2.8.1; 2.8.2) also noted the strategic use of translanguaging includes support of students when they engage and understand the complex subject matter. Literature on translanguaging pedagogy in English writing classrooms prevails that this strategy helps to achieve several things amongst others are - encourage student involvement, and valorizing understanding and learning (cf. 2.8.1). Tutoring on its own is complex – particularly if the content discussed is not explicitly understood by the students. Therefore, translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy offers tutors more creative ways of approaching their tutoring methods in the multilingual setting. Even during the interviews, 122 | P a g e tutors were using their languages to make sense of their inputs. On the side, of the tutees, they also pointed out that translanguaging is a strategy that helps them to overcome challenges during their group discussions. For example, one participant Belinda mentioned that: “other students did not complete their tutorial activity, not because they did not know what was required, but due to language barrier, because we are coming from different high schools were some of us are taught almost every subject in our home language, but, if translanguaging could be used to implement multilingual language policy, classroom environment will change drastically during the discussions. Because we normally request a tutor to permit us to use our home languages, then we start to actively participate, engage, share, understand and solve problems with a thorough understanding, and in the process we were discuss the content in our own languages but when we present, we use English” And, as for Thabo also a tutee: “nna ke nahana hore translanguaging e ke thusa haholo etsa hore dipuo tsa rona ditle di ananelwe, ebile e ka bapala karolo e bohlokwa haholo ho kenyeng tshebetso ya language policy, hobane ke nnete hore retswa background tse fapaneng empa ha re a tshwanelwa ho arohanngwa ke dipuo tsa rona tse fapaneng, hobane dietsa ho be bonolo ho ngagisana ka tsebo eo re nang le yona, ebile tshebidiso ya puo tsa rona e re thusa ho utlwisisa dintho tseo re dirutwang ka ditutorials tsa rona” It shows that even though the tutees during the tutorial did not know or were not conscious of the fact that they were already engaged in the translanguaging practice. It is a confirmation that translanguaging is innate; it is an act of doing. For Belinda and her group members’ translanguaging was fundamental in aiding them during their group discussions. This made them achieve as a collective and encouraging student engagement and problem-solving. It is evident from Belinda’s view that translangauging 123 | P a g e will not be helpful not only for the tutors but also for them as tutees. Therefore, translanguaging pedagogy, according to her could be helpful in the implementation of multilingual language policy as this will transform cthe lassroom environment. She also adds that the classroom environment will change once translanguaging is used in the tutorials, but she does fully provide an account as to how will it change. Interestingly, she states that they normally request their tutor to use their home languages during their discussions. This confirms what other tutors have reported that they were allowing their tutees to use their language to participate in the class discussion because at some point they find it difficult when they asked questions that students do not fathom. The excerpt from Thabo gives an account that translanguaging could play a vital role in the implementation of the language policy. He further makes a point that coming from different backgrounds does not mean that they need to be separated or to be apart from each other. In conclusion, it is clear from the reflections of both tutors and tutees that translanguaging can go a long way in implementing the university’s language policy. They also emphasize how translanguaging could aid used during group discussion to implement a multilingual language policy. They also indicate how they benefit in various ways, amongst other benefits are, to gain a better understanding of the content during the discussion, it will also increase student engagement in the classroom which is good in both ways for the tutors and tutees. Also importantly, it will create a sense of unity amongst the students despite coming from various linguistic backgrounds. 4.4.5. Utilizing translanguaging as a strategy to epistemic access and construction One of the five stages proposed by Garcia and Kleifgen (2019) is number three, which is as phase is known as translanguaging production – in this instance teachers make students to use translanguaging when they engaged in written, gestural, and spoken as meaningful resources to produce new meaning. Moreover, teachers encourage students to have discourse in a multilingual written text, spoken and also to write and read in 124 | P a g e different languages. Giving students an opportunity to use translanguage in education legitimizes translanguaging practice as a tool for knowledge production. Tshepo (tutor) Winnie (tutor) Terrence (tutee) Zealous (tutee) Tshepo: “it helps to negotiate meaning and develop knowledge it creates independency amongst student. But mostly it will assist in really in good terms in implementation of the language policy, because when we use translanguaging, practice it, it will be helpful in understanding and responding on how translanguaging could be used to implement the policy under discussion.” Winnie: “mina buti, I think translanguaging is quite complex, however, ngixabanga unguthi inga siza kakhulu (translation; I think it can help us so much) when it comes to us some tutees to building our knowledge in doing that we will be in practice implementing language policy, that sometimes, ulwazi aliakheke or lithatha isikhathi ukufundeka hayi ngoba asi kwazi, engoba ulwimi (translation; knowledge cannot be built or takes time not because we don’t know it’s because of language) or the language (english) we are using becomes a stumbling block, kodwa translanguaging, e ngasiza kaloku ngoku sebenzisa ama languages wethu ukuthula ulwazi nokulisebenzisa ezimfundweni zethu.(translation: but translanguaging can assist with the how the language policy could be implemented through creation of knowledge that we can use in our education. For Winnie, she comes clear that translanguaging according to her is quite intricate, but she does not provide reasons why she views it that way. Also, she believes that you cannot build knowledge, or even sometimes it takes time to build or have kthe nowledge, not because they don’t know, but because the English language that is used turns out to ridicule their efforts in making sense of their realities. She believes that translanguaging can assist in implementing multilingual language policy, in that they can use it to socially- construct knowledge and use that knowledge in their studies. Against this finding, epistemic access in South African higher education classrooms has been elusive to many students due to linguistic social inequalities that exist. Therefore, translanguaging appears to be appealing to the redress of epistemic access for marginalized students. In 125 | P a g e addition, translangauging could assist students to have access to knowledge that could lead to building knowledge using their various linguistic repertoires without any deterrence. Tshepo is tutoring first-year political science module, and it is known that the content in these modules warrants deep learning, engagement, writing, and reflection. So, for this tutor translangauging “…helps to negotiate to mean…” the negotiation of meaning in the tutorials encompasses several aspects of learning and teaching. However, meaning is negotiated through the learning of different languages to construct knowledge, as translanguaging creates space for multilingual students and ‘ways of knowing’ (cf. 2.8.1). This corroborates findings from the literature that translanguaging ‘created a safe space for meaning making’ as 70% of the students demonstrated that translanguaging improved their English skills (cf. 2.8.2). The successful implementation of the multilingual language policy using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy in the undergraduate tutorials implies that tutors and tutees gain access to the knowledge construction process. In this process, tutors allow tutees to deploy their linguistic repertoires to engage epistemic access and construction (cf. 2.8.2). It is also explicit that translanguaging implementation carries several benefits which are deemed important in learning and teaching. Zealous: knowledge is always important in the tutorials because having knowledge means you understand the content. However, for us to access the knowledge we need to use different sources. Since we are talking about translanguaging one of the ways which it could be used to implement multilingual language policy is through using it as an approach to access knowledge, I don’t know if am making sense sir. Terrence: “as other colleagues have mentioned that at the core of everything is to see the implementation of the multilingual language policy in the tutorials, and I believe that there is no better time than now, because we always learn in western languages and western curriculum that was brought here by a ship, so, it is very important that we use translanguaging in order for us as tutors to facilitate socially just classroom and by the way it will also assist in decolonisation process, which will entail deeper 126 | P a g e knowledge systems from tutors to students” Terrence, who is a tutor, argues that… “It is very important that we use translanguaging in order for us as tutors to facilitate socially just classroom and by the way it will also assist in decolonisation process, which will entail deeper knowledge systems from tutors to students”. These points of view from Terrence are important not only in the deployment of translanguaging in the tutorials, but he stretches his argument that, translanguaging will help in the decolonisation process, this in return implicates that university is still entrenched in colonial practices, which makes deeper knowledge systems not possible. It is without a casting of a doubt that the current policy practice is monolingually stratified. The belief is that translanguaging will be essential because it will create a socially just learning environment and assist in deepening their epistemic systems amongst tutors and tutees. The fact that tutees realize that knowledge production is a site of struggle in higher education, the call for decolonization of the curriculum has aptly gained momentum. As it is important to recognize their clarion call to recognize their languages in the classrooms. That can be achieved once translanguaging is officially used in the tutorial spaces, which are currently marginalizing tutor and tutees linguistic repertoires. It is also known, that translanguaging practices in the undergraduate multilingual tutorials’ classrooms mediate access to learning – which is the intention of creating space for indigenous languages within the teaching and learning parameters (cf. 2.8.2). In conclusion, the above section shows that indeed, if translanguaging was to be used as a pedagogical strategy to implement multilingual language policy, it will yield a significant benefit for both tutors and tutees, although it appears to be intricate for some. Others simply believe that translanguaging could address socially just learning environments, but also, it can help students to negotiate to mean and achieve in closing the gap between epistemic access and epistemic construction. 4.4.6. Chapter Summary This chapter sought to give recounts submitted by the participants in the study. The discussion was based on the research questions of the study. Therefore, it can be concluded from the findings and discussion above that both tutors and tutees had differing 127 | P a g e views on the first part on the use of both indigenous languages and English in the multilingual tutorials, however, it is clear that there is a need to further discussion on lack of knowledge about language policy. This was also evident on the other parts of challenges of implementing multilingual language policy, as there are issues that are aligned with the literature review conducted, but also there are matters that are emerging from the context itself. Lastly, translanguaging is demonstrated as a strategy that is rich with ways of dealing with approaches to implementing language policy. However, there is also a need to provide workshops and training on how to use the strategy in the tutorials. Moreover, translanguaging is also important as indicated from the findings. It could be used in various ways to successfully implement a multilingual language policy. The following chapter provides a summary of findings, recommendations, and conclusion. 128 | P a g e CHAPTER FIVE FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSION 5.1. Introduction This chapter provides a summary of findings and recommendations on translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy to implement multilingual language policy in the undergraduate tutorials. The findings of this study address the four objectives of the study. Which are to determine what lessons could be learned from global North and South, to identify and describe the university’s approach to multilingual practice in the undergraduate tutorials - explore challenges hindering the implementation of multilingual language policy at the university - propose a strategy on how the university can respond to the challenges of implementing its multilingual language policy using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy. The proposed strategy is in line with each finding. 5.2. Study Background South Africa’s institutions of higher learning have been faced with the challenge of implementing multilingual language policies (cf. 1.1). Few universities have shown progress in implementing these language policies, i.e. UKZN and Rhodes. However, it remains a mammoth task for some higher education institutions to plan, revise, review and implement their multilingual language policies to recognize indigenous languages (cf.1.1). This has led to discourses and debates on the recognition of indigenous languages in teaching and learning spaces (cf.1.1). Indigenous languages as stated in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa are Sesotho, Sepedi, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, isiNdebele, isiXhosa, and isiZulu. The language of teaching and learning remains English, despite a lack of proficiency in this language from the majority of multilingual students. Multilingual in this case is premised on the notion of students’ ability to speak more than one language in a classroom. In seeking to address the recognition of indigenous languages in teaching and learning, higher education institutions globally saw the emergence of studies regarding 129 | P a g e multilingualism (cf. 1.1). In the same breath, addressing language policy disparities in higher education institutions (HEIs), in 2002 the ministry of education promulgated LPHE (Language Policy in Higher Education), which was meant to address apartheid inequities. Moreover, it is stated in LPHE (2002) that the challenge at the time was to ensure that there is concurrent development of multilingual spaces where all languages are recognized in academia, thereby ensuring that language is not a barrier to access and success. Regardless of constitutional and policy provisions, in particular, Section 29 (2) which clearly states that, “Everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably practicable.” However, White Paper (RSA DoE, 2013) demonstrates that there is a consistent death of indigenous languages in academic space, which is a serious threat to linguistic diversity. Also, findings emerged from Revised Language Policy for Higher Education (cf.1.1) which indicate that higher education institutions have shown “apathy and sluggishness” particularly in the implementation and promotion of multilingualism to practically advance the status of indigenous languages. 5.3. Problem statement Translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy has the potential to address the implementation of multilingual language policy that higher education institutions have grappled with for many years. The lack of multilingual language policy implementation has delayed the promotion of multilingualism and perpetuated the structural demise of indigenous languages in HEI’s. This necessitates the importance of exploring translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy to implement multilingual language policy at a South African university. 130 | P a g e 5.4. Research question, aim, and objectives The main research question that this research aimed to respond to is: How translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy could be used to implement multilingual language policy in undergraduate tutorials? Through this research I found that challenges of multilingual language policy implementation are common, not only in South Africa but also in other countries throughout the world is caused by a myriad of factors (cf. 2.2). However, this study shows that in South African particularly in a rural context the implementation of the multilingual language policy using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy is feasible despite the conundrums (cf. 4.4; 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.4, and 4.4.5). Furthermore, the aim of this study, was to explore how a South African university can implement multilingual language policy using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy in the undergraduate tutorials (). Similarly, objectives of this research were formulated as follows: I. To determine what lessons can be learned from both global North and South literature II. To identify and describe the university’s approach to multilingual practice in the undergraduate tutorials. III. To explore challenges hindering the implementation of multilingual language policy at the university. v. To propose a strategy on how the university can respond to the challenges of implementing its multilingual language policy using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy. All these objectives were achieved in different sections of this study (cf. 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 4.4) 5.5. Reflection on lessons from learned from global North and South In this section, I reflect on the lessons learned from the global North and South concerning the multilingual practices in the classrooms. In the global North, multilingual practices in the classrooms are perceived differently in various contexts. In countries cited in the literature review, they appear to support multilingual or bilingual practice. The rationale for the support is based on the exponential growth in linguistic diversity in universities. 131 | P a g e They also report that multilingual practices contain a plethora of benefits for students. For example, The European Union Commission embraces the development of multilingualism in all spheres social, political, cultural, and educational (cf. 2.4.1.1). There is also an argument that multilingualism should be seen as a resource than a problem (cf..2.5.1). Literature also shows that teachers who participated in the study in Turkey reported that multilingual students developed competencies in understanding linguistic structure in comparison to monolingual students. However, in the global South, remnants of colonialism have been reported to delay the implementation of the multilingual practice. As many countries continue to wrestle with the use of English and French dominance in education. This is despite the promulgated language policies and constitution that support multilingualism. However, in practice, English and French enjoy a hegemonic status in universities. This can be seen in different contexts, (cf. 2.4.1.2.), while others claim that mismatch between teachers, lecturers, and students' languages impede the practical implementation of multilingual practice (cf. 2.5.2). On the other hand, it is reported that indigenous African languages are not used in either secondary or higher education (cf. 2.5.2), in some contexts it is demonstrated that dominant colonial languages are used for employment opportunities and economic development. Another view is that of differing ideologies, politics, and perceptions of the community regarding diversity. In addition, dishonesty of the language policy implementation where two or more languages are deemed important and used, but in practice, one dominant colonial language is used. In summation, the status of multilingual practice in the Global South is still backward and does not show any means of development and support actual implementation of the multilingual practice. 5.6. Multilingual practices in the undergraduate tutorial’s classrooms Multilingual practices in the tutorials are considered as a space where linguistic diversity is valued and accounted for. In this space, tutors and tutees feel safe to utilize their full linguistic repertoires to make sense and meaning about their academic outcomes. As stipulated in the university language policy tutorials are a projected space at which multilingualism will be used (cf. 2.4.2.2). Findings from both the empirical data and literature unveil that these tutors encounter various challenges in their multilingual 132 | P a g e tutorials; this affects the actualization of deep learning and discussion of the content during their tutorials (cf. 4.2.2.). Moreover, findings reveal that tutors facilitate their tutorials using both indigenous languages and English; in this case, indigenous languages are employed to ascertain that t u t ee s are comfortable and preserve their identity (cf.4.2.1.). In the same breath, findings revealed that other tutors are using both English and indigenous languages because assessments are all in English. Furthermore, both literature and empirical findings show that tutees share similar sentiments with their tutors on the current multilingual practices that indigenous languages are helpful. Although there is contestation on using English only, which in turn dehumanizes tutees' well-being (cf. 4.2.2.). The inclusive approach of embracing linguistic diversity is imperative. This practice will assist both tutors and tutees in learning both languages, simultaneously, learning from each other. Therefore, it is evident for both tutors and tutees the current university approach to multilingual practices is aiding both tutors and tutees in their facilitation and learning in the tutorials. The improved approach will aid tutors and tutees for meaningful engagement amongst them and create a more inclusive approach that appreciates linguistic diversity. 5.7. Summary of challenges of implementing the multilingual language policy 5.7.1. Lack of UFS language policy knowledge or awareness In this part, I report on the empirical findings from the participants regarding their knowledge about the multilingual language policy of the university. Knowledge about language policy seems to be eluding both tutors and tutees. The findings indicated that both tutors and tutees do not know the language policy (cf. 4.3.1) – this is concerning because these are the people who are expected to implement the policy. Another view that seems to be similar (cf. 4.3.1.) is the ability to provide a conceptualization on the approach at which implement the policy is considered. Nevertheless, it does not defocus from the input that there is insufficient knowledge about 133 | P a g e language policy in this context. Even students, share the same sentiments that they acknowledge that they do not have knowledge about the language policy but care about the use of languages in the tutorials. I have observed that knowledge about language policy is lacking from both tutors and tutees. This is a concern that warrants necessary attention to ensure that students know about the policy so that they contribute to its implementation phase. Perhaps it is also pivotal to publish or even create information sessions to advertise the language policy for it to be known to the students’ population. 5.7.2. Linguistic diversity in the undergraduate multilingual tutorial classroom The linguistic diversity of multilingual classrooms in higher education is an inevitable situation as students that are attending universities are coming from deeply diverse societies (cf. 2.6.6). Thus, it translates into a challenge where universities cannot implement their language policies effectively. The interviews and focus group discussion took place at different times. There was a slot for tutors where I conducted semi-structured interviews, and there was another session with the tutees where I conducted a focus group discussion. In this regard, the challenge identified in the empirical data is linguistic diversity in the undergraduate multilingual tutorial classrooms. As indicated by the tutors, linguistic diversity is perceived as one of the obstacles. However, it is rather cumbersome to hear tutors voicing out that diversity of languages will be a challenge if the language policy was to be implemented (cf. 4.3.2 and cf. 2.6.6) However, this should not be perceived as a challenge, there are many attributable factors, which make her believe that different languages in the tutorials are problematic. Furthermore, there is an indication that tutees prefer English-only language policy because their experiences are prominently convincing them that multilingual language policy in the linguistically diverse environment will conflict with existing knowledge of other languages (cf. 4.3.2. and cf. 2.6.6). Thus, confirms the views of Altbach (2015) that colonialism created an impetus for the permeation of English. 134 | P a g e Moreover, deduced from empirical findings both tutees and tutors have indicated that they prefer English, some tutors adding that they prefer monolingual language policy because diverse languages within tutorials will hamper implementation of multilingual language policy (cf.4.3.2 and cf. 4.3.2). This empirical data aligns with the literature review findings, (cf. 2.4.9. and 2.4.3.8) the challenge of implementing multilingual language is linguistic diversity in both basic and higher education. The tutees were questioning the knowledge of different languages by the tutors, and tutors were confirming that tutees preferred English to their languages. Tutors and tutees are marginalizing linguistic diversity in undergraduate multilingual tutorial classrooms. The knowledge of tutors, which was needed to validate the support for seeing linguistic diversity as a resource to implement a multilingual language policy, was not attained due to marginalization (cf. 4.3.2). The knowledge of tutors could scaffold the implementation of multilingual language policy through facilitation of tutorials, learning other languages, and appreciating the diversity which includes subject knowledge were not contributed due to marginalization. Additionally, a component of tutees did not yield any strategies on how to implement multilingual language policy in the linguistically diverse classroom, hence some preferred English only language policy. 5.7.3. Attitudes towards indigenous languages In the post-colonial epoch, the colonizers succeeded in their mission to socially construct a hierarchy of languages. In doing so, their languages were deemed more significant than indigenous languages – hence the negative attitudes towards indigenous languages can be traced from countries, which were under colonization and apartheid. This practice was performed to conqueror the subaltern’s identity and culture, to sustain and inoculate self- hatred towards the colonized languages. It is imperative to note that language and culture are indispensable. The participants were asked what would be the challenges of implementing a multilingual language policy in the undergraduate tutorials. The same approach was used for this process in conducting interviews with tutors and focus groups for students. 135 | P a g e In the findings, some tutors believe that using their indigenous languages in the tutorials will cause an embarrassment for them (cf. 4.3.3. and cf. 2.6.5). They further account that indeed language is their identity, but it is better for them to use English (cf. 4.3.3 and cf. 2.6.5). This implies that they can rather compromise their identity to oppress their languages. This type of attitude of tutors towards their languages implies that it will be difficult in implementing the policy in the tutorials. In this regard, they are not suggesting how their languages could be used in the classrooms (cf. 4.1.6). The notion upheld by tutors is also sustained by tutees, for example, (cf. 4.3.3. and cf. 2.6.5) the negative attitude towards indigenous languages was imbibed from the colonial and apartheid trenches, which advanced the use of English and development of language policies, which does not consider African languages. Even, in the tutorial spaces where they are not formal, tutors and tutees still maintain their perceptions toward indigenous languages, see (cf. 4.3.3.) in the literature review (cf.2.6.5) also indicated that 92% of the Xhosa, speaking students preferred English to isiXhosa; they also regarded isiXhosa as a ‘waste of time’. Contradictory to the isiXhosa speaking students, 97% of Afrikaans speakers indicated that they like their language, and only 3% were neutral. This statement corroborates that challenge referred to in the latter sentence. This demonstrates that tutors' and tutees' negative attitudes towards indigenous languages do not assist in implementing multilingual language policy – they are not willing to empower and sustain their languages as (cf. 2.2.2 and cf. 2.2.3) suggest. 5.7.4. Inadequate Resources The research conducted shows that lack of resources also contributes to the slow implementation of the language policy particularly in multilingual countries. Resources in this regard include amongst other things, allocation of budget, curriculum conundrums, pedagogical challenges, lack of trained staff, and learning material (Kosonen, 2016; Bulusan, 2019). The implementation of the multilingual language policy could be practically implemented if their latter factors could be attended to. It was the intention of 136 | P a g e this study to explore tutors' and tutees' experiences in understanding these factors iindepth and in detail. The accessibility of resources makes it possible for tutors and tutees to be in a good position to assist in facilitating the implementation of the language policy. Since they engage with each other at a level, where there is no formality, which renders tutorials spaces comfortable for them to voice out their strategies and practices in the tutorials. In argument of resources, a tutor pronounces, see (cf. 4.3.4) is a statement which speaks to an awareness of the tutors that there is a need to overhaul the multilingualism as there is a struggle in finding documents on the internet written in their home languages. The excerpt projects learning material on the internet written in English. Therefore, the implementation of multilingualism will be a challenge for him in the context of tutorials. This view is important for this tutor because he uses the internet to verify and simplify learning material – it is also an insightful view as it unearths accessibility to technological resources for the marginalized students and tutors. This finding does not align with the CSP and OLP in observing multilingualism as a resource in the tutorials (cf. 4.3.4 and 2.4.3.5) Another submission from some tutors engages in translated learning materials (cf.4.3.4) there is a conundrum with access to material, does see any possibility of effectively implementing the language policy in the current circumstances. In addition, the implementation of multilingual practices in the classroom is not due to lack of motivation from the students and ability, rather it stems from curricular conundrums, environmental and pedagogical challenges that form part of resources (cf. 2.6.4). Alas, OLP has perceived multilingualism as a resource, but the empirical views of the students and tutors protract opposite – this finding is conflicting with the rudiments of OLP – as it contends that every language is important to its speakers, and it should not be perceived from a deficit thinking and perspective (cf. 2.4.1.4). In part, the implementation of the multilingual language policy is fraught with challenges. Moreover, from the empirical data, lack of resources ventilated from financial support, learning materials not in the languages of the students, and pedagogies tutoring and (cf. 137 | P a g e 2.4.3.8. and cf. 2.6.6). The necessity to train both tutors and students on implementation of the multilingual language policy – however in that training provision of background development of language policy needs to be addressed –to provide students and tutors with insights in line with language policy (cf. 2.4.3.6 and cf. 2.6.4). 5.7.5. Tribalism The history of South African languages is entrenched in the apartheid segregationist policies, which allotted people to different homelands later called Bantustan. In the post- apartheid dispensation, social justice has been upfront in language policy discussion. However, even to this day, it appears that the issues related to tribalism still exist even in the democratic epoch in higher education. The aspect of tribalism seems to be a detractor that warrants a necessity to do situational analysis before the implementation of the policy (cf. 4.3.5) Although the OLP framework suggests that language needs to be observed as a right, but not only a right but also a resource at which students create meaning and knowledge. In the reported findings tutors problematize tribalism and the efficacy of the policy implementation. In doing so, a comparison of the campuses is made to validate their claims that on the other campus assumption is made that no challenges are emerging from other student populace regarding tribalism (cf. 4.3.5). Literature confirmed that implications of introducing multilingual language policy are intricate due to it being fraught with ‘dynamics’ of tribalism – this is justified by the complexity of historical legacies, which continues to exist to date – because colonization and apartheid empires orchestrated systems that segregated the oppressed people by their dialects (cf. 2.6.6). Therefore, the inability to interact with indigenous languages due to fear of tribalism necessitates a broader approach in understanding the role of multilingual language policy in this setup. The finding does corroborate the meager literature review that has been surveyed; this demonstrates the uniqueness of the context in which the study took place. 138 | P a g e 5.7.6. English as a medium of instruction in the tutorials English as a language of the elite has been widely linked with progress in many societies around the world, while indigenous languages are perceived as not important and present backwardness. These language ideologies are perpetuated in third-world countries, which suffered from a catastrophic mental subjugation under colonialism (cf. 2.6.1). The lack of proficiency in English for students, cannot be denied (cf. 4.3.6). The literature indicates that the majority of the students in higher education institutions are struggling with English, at some point, it has been reported as the contributor to low academic success rates particularly to black students emanating from disadvantaged backgrounds. Tutors continue to point out that it will be a huge challenge to implement the multilingual language policy due to the position held by English at the university (cf. 4.3.6.). Klapwijk and Van der Walt (2016) providing reasons for English in the South African education system state that “The preference for English as a medium of instruction seems to be largely based on the perception of the importance of English to “succeed” in life and work rather than the actual dominant use of English by most of the population”. Therefore, the effects of English hegemony are extremely detrimental to the practical implementation of multilingual language policy. In addition, this finding corroborates with the literature review (cf. 2.6.1) which states that the advancement of African indigenous languages is impeded by the “neo-colonial, silence, oppressed voice and attitude of the students who embrace the hegemony of English no matter what intellectual cost to themselves”. The empirical data reported has the potential to halt the effectiveness of the implementation of multilingual language policy. As deduced from the findings, English as a medium of instruction has gained a hegemonic status, which has resulted in an implausible situation for the existence of the indigenous languages (cf. 24.3.2 and cf. 2.4.3.1). In this regard, the implementation phase of the language policy needs to communicate clearly to both tutors and students, to avoid confusion in understanding the role of language policy in the undergraduate tutorials. 139 | P a g e 5.8. Recommendations on how translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy could be used to implement multilingual language policy In this section, I provide herewith recommendations on different ways how translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy can be used to implement multilingual language policy in the undergraduate tutorials. 5.8.1. Providing workshops on university language policy to tutors and tutees The formulation of the language policy is a consultative process, which deems stakeholders’ inputs pivotal for alignment and intent. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to consider workshops to ascertain that the strategy such as translanguaging is well understood within the scope of the university language policy implementation framework. However, in this study, lack of knowledge on university language policy from tutors warranted a need to establish grounds for purposeful workshops designed to inform the practice of the tutors. The tutors agree with each other on the provision of the workshop on language policy. It is therefore cumbersome to note that tutors, which assumes the status of being senior students, are not knowledgeable about the language policy of the university. Although it could not be assumed or concluded that senior students might know the language policy of the university. The evidence is crucial in the successful implementation of the multilingual language policy according to tutors. From the stance, it is eminent that tutors do need to be provided with a session where language policy will be discussed in detail the planning and the goal of the university regarding its implementation strategy in the multilingual tutorials and university at large. Language policy awareness is important in managing multilingual classrooms (cf. 26.4.). Another point note, (cf. 4.4.1.) The provision of workshops according to tutors will aid in a greater deal to align implementation plans with translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy. In doing so, translanguaging could emerge as an approach to use to implement the policy. 140 | P a g e From the two tutees excerpts, the emphasis is made on the necessity to hold language policy discourses through student parliament. Although the approach compared to their tutors is different, however, the ultimate goal is common is to know more about the language policy and how it emerged. The finding is not astonishing as six out of ten students’ participant did not know the university language policy (cf. 2.6.4) Further, support the use of student parliament as a platform to discuss the policy, but another important submission is that of holding the policy developers into account. Although this point was not exhausted, it would seem that even the tutees are conscious of the need to hold stakeholders in to account for perhaps lack of policy implementation. There is a necessity across tutors and tutees that indeed there is a need to hold workshops and discourse around the language policy. It is understood that it could be achieved in various ways, for example, tutees suggested the use of student parliament as one of the platforms to carry out discussions. Also, tutors emphasize the necessity to know the planning and the goal of the university regarding its implementation strategy in the multilingual tutorials and university at large through embedding translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy. 5.8.2. Training tutors on the use of translanguaging in facilitating multilingual tutorials Provision of the training to the tutors on how to implement translangauging as a pedagogical strategy in the multilingual tutorials is urgent and important. It is also significant to ascertain the type of training they need to be offered to effectively use the strategy. The empirical findings and literature review, (cf. 2.7.2) designed five parts in which teachers can engage, in the case of these findings, tutors can be engaged on the following; Tutors as role-players - Co-learner. One-translanguaging affordances – in this part, tutors give bilingual or multilingual students multiple technological resources. This links precisely with the finding on the lack of resources that were raised by the participants. In 141 | P a g e In this regard, the tutors might not have all the resources but availability of referral is also important so that tutees do not complain about access to resources – it is noteworthy to mention that this part is addressed due to its significance as one of the approaches to implement multilingual language policy. Two-translanguaging co-labor – for this part, tutors allow multilingual students to work collaboratively, in this instance they perform ways that move them beyond meaning making an individual practice. Working collaboratively and laboring in groups all students' voices are considered and acknowledged in the process of knowledge construction. The process of meaning-making is moved from focusing on the individual to a socially constructed one. This phase is also important in line with the findings of this study, as tutorials are created to actively engage the student in a cooperative mode with other students. In doing so, translanguaging becomes handy as a strategy to ascertain the level of student engagement through collaboration. Three-translanguaging production – in this instance tutors make students use translanguaging when they engaged in written, gestural, and spoken as meaningful resources to produce new meaning. Moreover, tutors encourage students to have discourse in a multilingual written text, spoken and also to write and read in different languages. Giving students, an opportunity to use translanguage in education legitimizes translanguaging practice as a tool for knowledge production. For this part, it was also found that students or tutees sought to be granted permission before they can tap into their linguistic repertoires during the discussion in the tutorials. By Granting tutees access to their languages, means allowing them to engage in a knowledge production process. Therefore, this phase is also important to consider when implementing a multilingual language policy. Four, translanguaging assessment - tutors design assessments to assess multilingual students' literacy at closer proximity. Multilingual students are encouraged to demonstrate their prior knowledge by employing their full repertoires despite whether they are legitimized in class. In this regard, to contextualize things, it is imperative to be mindful of the tutorials as there are informal activities that are completed to check the students' understanding, in designing those activities tutors need to take into account their student 142 | P a g e profiles. This can be achieved even through the process of session planning. By so doing, designing a lesson plan with a mindset ‘multilingual student –core’ is already an act of implementing a multilingual language policy. Five, translanguaging reflection – this last stage provides a space where “critical multilingual awareness” is activated. Tutors permit tutees to reflect their multilingualism on their meaning-making resources in comparison to the repertoires of others. In the reflection phase, also empowering students to deploy their repertoire of meaning-making resources to learn and understand learning materials. I hold a view that the above design of translanguaging could afford universities to reimagine their conceptualization around the implementation of the multilingual language policy. Tutors have indicated that they need training on how to use translanguaging (cf. 4.4.2) it is imperative to be trained on how to use translanguaging to facilitate multilingual tutorials. This finding confirms (cf. 2.7.3) finding who found that training should focus on the teaching of “linguistically diverse learners” and offering teachers strategies to function in the multilingual class. Of necessity, there is already received training from the tutorials programme but it does not include the use of translanguaging in the tutorials, this is evident from this excerpt (cf. 4.4.2) However, it is not inclusive of the use of translanguaging in the tutorials. It appears that the training offered is generic and focused on facilitating tutorials in general. Both points corroborate (cf. 2.7.3) who found that impediment of translanguaging expressed was lack of teachers training. In addition, to note, “If this could be done it will be much easier to implement the policy in the tutorials” this quote guarantees that the policy would not be fraught with onerous circumstances to be implemented successfully in the tutorials. Training of the tutors has been observed as one of how translanguaging could be used to implement a multilingual language policy. The empirical evidence seems to also suggest the necessity of the training of tutors on the translanguaging strategy. In addition, important to consider is the shared understanding from tutors who have indicated similar voices on the need for training. This should be done to demonstrate practically how and when translanguaging would be viable during their tutorials. 143 | P a g e 5.8.3. Promoting deployment of diverse languages in the multilingual tutorials Trans-languaging as a pedagogical practice does not simply advance deep learning, but it also promotes marginalized languages concerning the already predominant monolingual practices (cf. 1.1). The promotion of the different languages is important as it engenders social cohesion in a multilingual classroom. It is also important to point out that the multilingual language policy intends to advance the different languages within the prescripts of the constitution. The constitution in the context of South Africa is explicit when it comes to the promotion of indigenous languages in the education system. Translanguaging as a strategy in the multilingual undergraduate tutorials is beneficial to tutors and students’ indigenous languages. The empirical data is indicating that tutors are aware of the demising status of indigenous African languages - which afford them rights to use their languages (cf. 4.4.3.) as one of the three tenets of Orientations in Language Planning - language as right is a discursive fundamental that realizes the rights that are wielded in the languages and the need to respect those rights. In this orientation, language is perceived as a basic human right (cf. 2.3.2). This theory maintains that every individual is entitled by the legally promulgated acts and policies to utilize and learn in their languages (cf. 2.3.2). The summary of the finding unveils that translanguaging as a strategy would play an important role in advancing and promoting the status of indigenous languages. In (cf. 2.7.2) reported that translanguaging promotes the status of marginalized languages. This implies that translanguaging can assist in redressing inequities and injustices that were caused by the colonial and apartheid regimes, which were demonizing indigenous African languages at the echelons of higher education. As alluded to in the theoretical approach of Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy, one of its tenets is sustaining the languages that are 144 | P a g e at the bottom of the hierarchy of languages. Therefore, this finding is in line with what CSP as a lens for this study is vouching for. Findings also reveal that translanguaging is a cornerstone in the implementation of the multilingual language policy. As it does not only focus on the promotion of the indigenous languages but also frees the students from the captivity of depriving them of an opportunity to delve into their languages. Further, it is in line with the theoretical underpinnings of both CSP and OLP, translanguaging fits well as it is a holistic approach to understanding how the implementation of the multilingual language policy will take shape and which aspect needs to be focused on (cf. 4.4.3). Moreover, translanguaging is fraught with opportunities of implementing multilingual language policy – when necessary strategies are followed and carefully planned. Crucially is that translanguaging is an act of appreciating diverse languages which is a possible challenge for the effective implementation of the language policy. 5.8.4. Using translanguaging in the tutorials during group discussions Translanguaging was found to be engaging learners in putting more effort into the academic activities, scaffolding teaching, and learning, and ststreamliningeacher and student communication (cf. 2.7.2). In the context of this study, student engagement is one of the hurdles that higher education is grappling with; however, translanguaging appears to be entangling cognitive, emotional, and behavioural aspects of student engagement. This evidence from this research that translanguaging is an important pedagogical strategy in facilitating student engagement. Tutors also confirm that it is daunting to engage students using monolingual practices; they find it easy to facilitate their tutorials using indigenous languages. The linkage between empirical findings and literature review in this section is that if translanguaging could be used during group discussions it will be much more feasible to explore its benefits (cf. 2.7.3). There is a demonstration that translanguaging in undergraduate tutorials is beneficial in many ways. If translanguaging could be implemented in the institution tutees will grasp the content and be able to use other 145 | P a g e languages – as alluded in (cf. 2.7.3) findings revealed teachers to improve students understanding and learning translanguaging was fully utilized (cf. 4.4.5 and 2.4.4.3.). This is because the teacher would repeat what was said in English in isiZulu for emphasizing the point of discussion. This is important because it defies monolingual practices, which see languages as fixed and separate entities, but translanguaging perceives languages as fluid discursive resources. Even, in Taiwan's higher education context, (cf. 2.7.2) indicated that one of the teachers was using translanguaging to aid students to better understand the content in the classroom. Provided this reflection of this important finding, it is worth noting that even in the multilingual undergraduate tutorial classrooms translanguaging is a normal practice, which could be used to perceive languages as a resource – where the indigenous language speakers can benefit from. It is another way of using this pedagogical strategy to implement the multilingual policy at this institution. Moreover, tutees will gain understanding from using different languages. For tutors what is important in the tutorial’s session is to see students actively engaged in their learning – and they believe that is achieved through permitting their students to use their languages in the classroom (cf. 2.7.2.) also noted the strategic use of translanguaging includes support of students when they engage and understand the complex subject matter. In (cf. 2.7.3) on translanguaging pedagogy in English writing classrooms prevails that this strategy helps to achieve several things amongst others are - encourage student involvement, and valorize understanding and learning. Tutoring on its own is complex – particularly if the students do not explicitly understand the content discussed. Therefore, translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy offers tutors more creative ways of approaching their tutoring methods in a multilingual setting. 146 | P a g e 5.8.5. Utilizing translanguaging as a strategy to epistemic access and construction One of the five stages proposed (cf. 2.7.2) is number three, which is a phase known as translanguaging production. In this instance teachers make students use translanguaging when they engaged in written, gestural, and spoken as meaningful resources to produce new meaning. Moreover, teachers encourage students to have discourse in a multilingual written text, spoken and also to write and read in different languages. Allowing students to use translanguage in education legitimizes translanguaging practice as a tool for knowledge production. Translanguaging for some tutors is a complex concept, however, the common understanding shared is that it helps tutees to build knowledge (cf. 4.4.6.). As in when using English, the process becomes daunting – in this regard translanguaging could even assist in the implementation of the language policy in that they use it as a pedagogical strategy to socially access knowledge and disseminate it. Furthermore, translanguaging will not only mediate in the implementation of the policy but also – help tutees to facilitate content understanding for deep learning, engagement, and negotiation of meaning. This is in line with findings in the literature that reported similar reflections: translanguaging creates space for multilingual students and ‘ways of knowing (cf. 2.7.2). This corroborates (cf.1.1) findings that translanguaging ‘created a safe space for meaning making’ as 70% of the students demonstrated that translanguaging improved their English skills. The successful implementation of the multilingual language policy using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy in the undergraduate tutorials implies that tutors and tutees gain access to the knowledge construction process. In this process, tutors allow tutees to deploy their linguistic repertoires to engage epistemic access and construction (cf. 2.7.3). It is also explicit that translanguaging implementation carries several benefits which are deemed important in learning and teaching. The above section shows that indeed, if translanguaging was to be used as a pedagogical strategy to implement a multilingual 147 | P a g e language policy, it will yield a significant benefit for both tutors and tutees, although it appears to be intricate for some. Others simply believe that translanguaging could address socially just learning environments, but also, it can help students to negotiate to mean and achieve in closing the gap between epistemic access and epistemic construction. 5.9. Conclusion Even though some pivotal insights were depicted from this study, the findings and data presented need to be read and understood against the backdrop of limitations. Firstly, similar to other contexts, language policy discussions are fraught with controversies, with this in mind there is a possibility that participants will provide partial recounts. Secondly, as stated in the introduction and methodology chapters this study was focused on tutors' and tutees' experience only those who have participated in the tutorial sessions. Therefore, the might a reality that differing views are emerging in the discussions and reflections from this research study. Like the aforementioned, the critical limitation of this study is, it only focuses on tutors and tutees situated at one satellite campus. However, the findings produced from this study are valuable in formulating a translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy on implementing multilingual language policy, which has the potential to design or create undergraduate multilingual tutorials that are linguistic and culturally inclusive. 148 | P a g e REFERENCE LIST AlBakri, S. 2017. Effects of English medium instruction on students’ learning experiences and quality of education in content courses in a public college in Oman. Phd Dissertation. The University of Exeter. Oman. Allard, E, C. 2017. Re-examining teacher translanguaging: An ecological perspective, Bilingual Research Journal, 40 (2) 116-130. Amaya, M.R.A. & Reyes, F.M.M. 2012. From Mother Tongue Education to Multilingual Higher Education. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 6 (8): 2116-2118. Anderson, G. 1990. Fundamentals of educational research. London: The Falmer Press Anney, V.N. 2014. Ensuring the Quality of the Findings of Qualitative Research: Looking at Trustworthiness of Qualitative Research. Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 5(2): 72-281. Badat, S. 2016. Deciphering the meanings, and explaining the South African Higher Education Student Protests of 2015-16. Pax Academica, 1, 71-106. Bagaswi, M, M. 2017. A critique of Botswana’s language policy from a translanguaging perspective. Current Issues in Language Planning,18 (2) 199-214. Baker, C. 2001. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (3rd ed.). Clevendon: Multilingual Matters, LTD. Baker-Bell, A. 2020. Linguistic Justice: Black language, literacy, identity, and pedagogy. Routledge. Barnard, R. 2015. EMI in Asian Universities. Modern English Teacher, 24 (2) 9 – 11. Beres, A, M. 2014. Translanguaging as a strategy to boost human learning: An event- related potential (ERP) investigation. Prifysgol Bangor University. Beres, A, M. 2014. Translanguaging: A Road to Bilingually Boosted Education. Poster presented at the 9th Annual Alpine Brain Imaging Meeting, Champéry, Switzerland, 14th January 2014. 149 | P a g e Garcia, A. Lin, & S. May (Eds.) Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (3rd edn., pp. 1–14). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Boyatzis, R,E. 1998. Transformative qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks. Carlifonia: Sage. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2) 77–101. Bredtmann, J., Otten, S,. & Vonnahme, C. (2021) Linguistic diversity in the classroom, student achievement and social integration. Education Economics, 29 (2) 121 – 142. Brock-Utne, B. 2012. Language and inequality: Global challenges to education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 42 (5) 1 - 21. Brock-Utne, B. 2017. Multilingualism in Africa: Marginalisation and empowerment. In Coleman, H. Selected proceedings of the 11th Language & Development Conference, New Delhi, India. Brutt-Griffler, J. 2017. English in the multilingual classroom: implications for research, policy and practice. PSU Research Review, 1 (3) 216-228. Bucholtz, M., Casillas, D, I., & Jin Sook, L. 2017. Language and culture as substance. In Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. UC Santa Barbara. Bulusan, F. 2019. Language Policies and Challenges in Promoting Minority Languages in Asia: A Systematic Literature Review. Asian EFL Journal Research Articles, 24 (4) 230 – 247. Butler-Adam, J. 2016. South African Journal of Science - What really matters for students in South African higher education? South African Journal of Science, 112 (3-4) 1 – 2. 150 | P a g e Bybee, E, R., Henderson, K, I., & Hinojosa, R, V. 2014. An Overview of U.S. Bilingual Education: Historical Roots, Legal Battles, and Recent Trends. Texas Education Review, 2 (2): 138 – 146. Canagarajah, A. 2016. Translingual writing and teacher development in composition. College English. 78 (3): 265-273. Canagarajah, S. 2011. Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 1-28. DOI: 10.1515/9783110239331.1 Canagarajah, S. 2016. Translingual Writing and Teacher Development in Composition. College English, 78 (3) 265-273. Carstens, A. 2016. Translanguaging as a vehicle for L2 acquisition and L1 development: students’ perceptions. Language Matters, 47 (2) 203 – 322. Caruso, E. 2018. Translanguaging in higher education: Using several languages for the analysis of academic content in the teaching and learning process. De Gruyter Mouton, 8 (1) 65 – 90. Cenoz, J. & Gorter, D. 2008. The linguistic landscape as an additional source of input in second language acquisition. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46, 257 – 276. Cenoz, J. & Gorter, D. 2020. Teaching English through pedagogical translanguaging. World Englishes, 39, 300 – 311. Champlin, M,J. 2016. "Translanguaging and Bilingual Learners: A Study of How Translanguaging Promotes Literacy Skills in Bilingual Students". Education Masters. St Fisher College. USA. Chang, S. 2019. Beyond the English Box: Constructing and Communicating Knowledge Through Translingual Practices in the Higher Education Classroom. English Teaching & Learning, 43, 23 – 40. Chang-Bacon, C, K. 2021. Monolingual Language Ideologies and Idealized Speaker: The “New Bilingualsim” Meets the “Old” Education Inequalities. Teacher College Record, 123 (1): 1 – 16. Charamba, E. & Zano, K. 2019. Effects of translanguaging as an intervention strategy in a South African Chemistry classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 42 (3) 291–307 151 | P a g e Clarke, V. & Braun, V. 2013. Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26 (2), 120-123. Coetzee- Van Rooy, A. 2018. Dominant language constellations in multilingual repertoires: Implication for language-in-education policy and practices in South Africa. Language Matters, 49 (3) 19 – 46. Connelly, L, M. 2016. Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Scholarly Journal, 25 (6) 435 – 436. Coluzzi, P. 2011. Majority and minority language planning in Brunei Darussalam. Language Problems & Language Planning, 35 (3) 222 – 240. Conteh, J. 2018. Translanguaging. ELT Journal, 72 (4) 445 – 447. Council on Higher Education (CHE). 2016. South African higher education reviewed two decades of democracy. CHE. Pretoria. Creese, A. & Blackledge, A. 2015. Translanguaging and Identity in Educational Settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 20-35. Cresswell. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 35 (2)121-123 Creswell, J. W. 2013. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dados, N. & Connell, R. 2012. The global south. American Sociological Association, 11 (1) 12 – 13. Daly, N., & Sharma, S. 2018. Language-as-Resource: Language strategies used by New Zealand teachers working in an international multilingual setting. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (8) 15 – 29. De Jong, E, J., Li, Z., Zafar, A, M., & Wu, C. 2016. Language policy in multilingual contexts: Revisiting Ruiz’s “language-as-resource” orientation. Bilingual Research Journal, 39 (3-4) 200 – 2012. De los Ríos, C., & Seltzer, K. 2017. Translanguaging, Coloniality, and English Classrooms: An Exploration of Two Bicoastal Urban Classrooms. Research in the 152 | P a g e Teaching of English, 52 (1) 55 -76. Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) 2013. White paper for post-school education and training: Building an expanded, effective, and integrated post-school system. Pretoria. Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) 2017. Revised Language Policy for Higher Education. Pretoria. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J, M. 2014. Language friction and multilingual policies in higher education: the stakeholders' view. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35 (4) 345 - 360. Drummond, A. 2016. An analysis of language policy versus practice in two South African universities. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 34 (1):71-79. Du Buisson, T. 2017. Facilitating Multilingual Tutorials at the University of the Free State. Journal of Student Affairs in Africa, 5 (2) 151 – 162. Duarte, J. 2018. Translanguaging in the context of mainstream multilingual education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 17 (2) 1-16. Duarte, J. 2020. Translanguaging in the context of mainstream multilingual education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 17 (2) 232-247. Duarte, J., & van der Ploeg, M. 2019. Plurilingual lecturers in English medium instruction in the Netherlands: the key to plurilingual approaches in higher education? European Journal of Higher Education, 9 (3) 268-284 Eisenhart, M. 1991. Conceptual frameworks for research circa 1991: Ideas from a cultural anthropologist; implications for mathematics education researchers. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting North American Paper of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA. Elias, M,M. & Lucas, T. 2016. The politics of language in South African Institutions of higher learning. European Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 4 (6) Etikan, I. Musa, S.A. & Alkassim, R.S. 2016. Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5 (1) 1- 4. 153 | P a g e Etxebarrieta G, R., Pérez-Izaguirre E. & Langarika-Rocafort A. 2020. Teaching Minority Languages in Multiethnic and Multilingual Environments: Teachers’ Perceptions of Students’ Attitudes toward the Teaching of Basque in Compulsory Education. Education Sciences, 10 (2) 1 – 20. Evans, B. A., & Hornberger, N. H. 2005. No Child Left Behind repealing and “Unpeeling” Federal Language Education Policy in the United States. Language Policy, 4 (1) 87-106. Farrokhi, F. & A.M. 2012. Rethinking Convenience Sampling: Defining Quality Criteria. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2 (4) 784-792. Fernández-Costales, A. 2017. Assessing students’ perceptions regarding English medium instruction in higher education. Didáctica: Lengua y Literatura, 29 (43) 43 – 63. Fishman, J, A. 1998. The new linguistic order. Foreign Policy, 113, 26 – 40. Flores, N., & García, O. 2017. A critical review of bilingual education in the United States: From base-ments and pride to boutiques and profit. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 14–29. Fossey, E. Harvey, C. McDermott, F. & Davidson, L. 2002. Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36 (6):717-32 Freedman, D.A. 2004. Sampling. In Lewis-Beck, M., Bryman, A. & Liao, T.F. (Eds.). The Encyclopaedia of Social Research Methods. Berkeley: SAGE Publications. Gabriel, D. 2013. Inductive and deductive approaches to research. Accessed on 08/17/2021 from https://deborahgabriel.com/2013/03/17/inductive-and-deductive- approaches-to-research/ García O. 2020. Singularity, Complexities and Contradictions: A Commentary about Translanguaging, Social Justice, and Education. In: Panagiotopoulou J., Rosen L., Strzykala J. (eds) Inclusion, Education and Translanguaging. Inklusion und Bildung in Migrationsgesellschaften. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. Garcia, O & Li, W. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism, and Education. New York, Palgrave MacMillan. García, O. & Ricardo Otheguy, R. 2019. Plurilingualism and translanguaging: commonalities and divergences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Routledge. 1-2 154 | P a g e García, O. & Kleifgen, J,A. 2019. Translanguaging and literacies. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (4) 1- 19. García, O. & Wei, L. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. García, O. 2019. Translanguaging: A coda to the code? Classroom Discourse, 10 (3–4) 369–373. García, O., & Alvis, J. 2019. The Decoloniality of language and translanguaging: Latinx knowledge-production. Journal of Postcolonial Linguistics, 1, 26 - 40. García, O., & Hesson, S. 2015. Translanguaging frameworks for teachers: Macro and micro perspectives. In A. Yiacoumetti, Multilingualism and Language in Education: Current Sociolinguistic and Pedagogical Perspectives from Commonwealth Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 221-242. García, O., Flores, N., & Woodley, H. 2012. Transgressing monolingualism and bilingual dualities: Translanguaging pedagogies. In A. Yiakoumetti (ed.), Harnessing linguistic variation to improve education. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 45-75. García, O., Johnson, I, S., & Seltzer, K. 2017. The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Caslon. Garska, J. & O’Brien, S. 2019.Power, Identity and culture in international students’ perceptions of academic writing. Trab. Ling. Aplic., Campinas, 58 (1):62 – 95. Gentles, S. J., Charles, C., Ploeg, J., & McKibbon, K. 2015. Sampling in Qualitative Research: Insights from an Overview of the Methods Literature. The Qualitative Report, 20 (11) 1772 – 178. Godsell, G. Lepere, R. Mafoko,S. & Nase, A. 2017. “Documenting the Revolution.” In #Fees Must Fall: Student Revolt, Decolonisation and Governance in South Africa, edited by S. Booysen, 101–124. Johannesburg: Wits University Press. Goodman, B. & Tastanbek, S. 2021. Shifting from code switching to translanguaging. Tesol Quartely, 55 (1) 29 – 53. Gordon, S, L. & Harvey, J. 2019. Choice of language in education: do we know what South Africans want? Language and Education, 33 (3) 226 – 243. Greer, J, E. 2015. Blackness and bilingualism: Language ideologies in the African American community. MA Thesis. The University of Texas at Austin. USA. 155 | P a g e Groff, C. 2017. Language and Language-in-Education Planning in Multilingual India: A Minoritized Language Perspective. Language Policy, 16 (2) 135 – 164. Hélot, C., & García, O. 2019. Bilingual Education and Policy. In J. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics, pp. 649-672). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hlatshwayo, A., & Siziba, L. 2014. University students' perceptions of multilingual education: a case study of the North-West University Mafikeng campus. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 42, 81 – 92. Hornberger N, H. 1990. Bilingual Education and English-Only: A Language-Planning Framework. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 508(1):12-26. Hornberger, N, H. 1991. Extending enrichment bilingual education: Revisiting typologies and redirecting policy. In Ofelia Garcia (ed.), Bilingual education: Focusschrift in honor of Joshua A. Fishman On his 65th birthday, 215-34. Philadelphia: Benjamins. Horner, B., NeCamp, S., & Donahue, C. 2011. Toward a Multilingual Composition Scholarship: From English Only to a Translingual Norm. College Composition and Communication, 63 (2) 269 – 300. Hult, F. M., & Hornberger, N. H. (2016). Revisiting Orientations in Language Planning: Problem, Right, and Resource as an Analytical Heuristic. The Bilingual Review/La Revista Bilingüe, 33 (3) 30-49. Hungwe, V., 2019, ‘Using a translanguaging approach in teaching paraphrasing to enhance reading comprehension in first-year students’. Reading & Writing, 10 (1) 1 – 9. Hurst, E. & Mona, M. 2017. “Translanguaging as a socially just pedagogy.” Education as Change, 21 (2) 126-148 Janssens, R., Mamadouh, V., & Marácz, L. 2013. Multilingual higher education in European regions. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae. European and Regional Studies, 3, 5- 23. Jean de Dieu, A, N. 2020. Multilingual writing pedagogy for African languages in the monolingual education setting: Literacy development for multilingual children in Rwanda (grades 1-3). PhD Thesis. University of KwaZulu- Natal, Durban. Jenkins, J. & Wingate, U. 2015. Staff and Students’ Perceptions of English Language 156 | P a g e Policies and Practices in ‘International’ Universities: A Case Study from the UK. Higher Education Review, 47 (2) 47 – 73. Jones, K. 2021. Fandom Kingdom: Analysis of Metadiscourse across Fandom Spaces and Issues of Power and Transformation. Doctoral Thesis. New York University. Kallkvist, M. & Hult, F.M. (2020). Multilingualism as problem or resource? Negotiating space for languages other than Swedish and English in university language planning. 64. ASLA-symposiet 2020. Goteborg, Sweden. Kamwendo, G, H. 2010. Denigrating the local, glorifying the foreign: Malawian language policies in the era of African Renaissance. International Journal of African Renaissance Studies, 5 (5) 270 - 282. Kandel, B. 2020. Multilingual Awareness and Practices in Basic Level English Classroom in Tanahun. The Journal of Aadikavi, 8, 50 – 68. Kangira, J. 2016. Challenges of the implementation of language policies in southern Africa: what is the way forward? Journal of Human & Social Sciences, 8 (2) 156 – 161. Kaschula, R, H. 2016. In search of the African voice in higher education: The language question. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 49, 199 – 214. Kaschula, R. H., & Maseko, P. 2014. The Intellectualization of African languages, multilingualism and education: A research-based approach: Alternation Special Edition, 13. 8–35. Kaya, H, O., & Seleti, Y, N. 2013. African indigenous knowledge systems and relevance of higher education in South Africa. The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12 (1) 30 – 44. Khan, M, E. & Manderson, L. 1992. Focus groups in tropical diseases. Research Health Policy and Planning, 7 (1) 56 – 66. Kiramba, L, K. & Oloo, J, A. 2019. "Untapped communicative resources in multilingual classroom settings: Possible alternatives". Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education. 368. Kiramba, L, K. 2016. Communicative practices in a bi-/multilingual, rural, fourth grade classroom in Kenya. PhD Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. USA. Kircher, R. 2016. Language Attitudes among Adolescents in Montreal: Potential Lessons for Language Planning in Québec. Nottingham French Studies, 55 (2) 239 – 259. Kleemann, C. 2021. Pedagogical Translanguaging to Create Sustainable Minority 157 | P a g e Language Practices in Kindergarten. Sustainability, 13 (3613) 1- 19. Korstjens, I. & Moser, A. 2018. Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing, European Journal of General Practice, 24 (1). Kosonen, K. 2016. Language Policy and Education in Southeast Asia. In: McCarty T., May S. (eds) Language Policy and Political Issues in Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (3rd ed.). Springer, Cham. Kubota, R. 2014. The multi/plural turn, postcolonial theory, neoliberal multiculturalism: Complicities and implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 45, 1–22. Kumar, R. 2014. Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. London: SAGE. Kumar, Ranjit. 2014. Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. Fourth Edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Kvale, S. 1996. Interview Views: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Labaree, J. 2013. Organising social sciences research paper. California. ERIC. (http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide) Accessed on 08/17/2021 Ladson-Billings, G. 1995. "Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy”. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (3) 465-91 Lasagabaster, D. 2015. Language policy and language choice at European Universities: Is there really a ‘choice’?. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3 (2) 244 – 276. 158 | P a g e Lauckner, H., Paterson, M., & Krupa, T. 2012. Using Constructivist case study methodology to understand community development process: prepared methodological questions to guide the research process. The Qualitative Report, 17(13): 1-22. Lefebvre, E, E. 2012. Student attitudes toward multilingual education. MA Thesis. University of Oregon. USA. Li, W. 2018. Translanguaging as a Practical Theory of Language. Applied Linguistics, 39 (1) 9 - 30. Lillis, T, M. & Scott, M. 2007. ‘Defining Academic Literacies Research: Issues of Epistemology, Ideology and Strategy’, Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1) 5 - 32. Lin, H. 2020. Perceptions of the Englishization of higher education in Taiwan: implementation and implications, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23 (5) 617- 634. Lin, Z. & Lei, L. (2020). The research trends of multilingualism in applied linguistics and education (2000- 2019): A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability, 12 (15) 1 – 14. Lincoln, Y, S. & Guba, E, G. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. California: Sage Publication. Liu, W. 2016. Conceptualising Multilingual Capabilities in Anglophone Higher Degree Research Education: Challenges and Possibilities for Reconfiguring Language Practices and Policies. Education Science, 6 (4): 1-12. Liyanage, I. (2018). Multilingual Education Yearbook 2018. Berlin: Springer. Lück, J. & Magxaki, A. 2019. Language in a Life Orientation class: Complexities and contradictions. Journal of Vocational, Adult and Continuing Education and Training, 2 (1) 93 – 111. Lo Bianco, J. & Slaughter, Y. (2016). Bilingual education in Australia. In O. Garcia, A. Lin, & S. May (Eds.) Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (3rd edn., pp. 1–14). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Macias, F, R. 2016. Language ideologies and rhetorical structures in bilingual education policy and research: Richard Ruiz’s 1984 discursive turn. Bilingual Research Journal, 39 (3-4) 173-199. Macias, R, F. 2016. Language ideologies and rhetorical structures in bilingual education policy and research: Richard Ruiz’s 1984 discursive turn. Bilingual Research Journal, 39 (3-4) 173 – 199. 159 | P a g e Madiba, M. & Mabiletja, M. 2008. An evaluation of the implementation 1o6f2 t|hPeangeew Language-in-Education Policy (LiEP) in selected secondary schools of Limpopo Province. Language Matters, 39 (2) 204 – 229. Madiba, M. 2010. Towards multilingual higher education in South Africa: the University of Cape Town's experience. The Language Learning Journal, 38 (3) 327-346. Madiba, M. 2012. Language and academic achievement: perspectives on the potential role of indigenous African languages as a lingua academica. Per Linguam, 28 (2):15-27 Madiba, M. 2018. The multilingual university. In A.Creese & A.Blackledge (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Language and Superdiversity (pp. 504-517). London: Routledge. Maguire, M. & Delahunt, B. 2017. Doing a Thematic Analysis: A Practical, Step-by-Step Guide for Learning and Teaching Scholars. All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (AISHE-J). 8 (3) 335-1534. Magwa, W. 2015. Attitudes towards the Use of Indigenous African Languages as Languages of Instruction in Education: A Case of Zimbabwe. Journal of Educational Policy and Entrepreneurial Research, 2 (1) 1 – 16. Makalela, L. 2014a. Fluid identity construction in language contact zones: Metacognitive reflections on Kasi-taal languaging practices. International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, 17 (6) 668 – 682. Makalela, L. 2014b. Teaching Indigenous African Languages to Speakers of Other African Languages: The Effects of Translanguaging for Multilingual Development. In: Hibbert, L. and van der Walt, C. ed. Multilingual Universities in South Africa. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters, pp. 88-104. Makalela, L. 2015. Translanguaging as a vehicle for epistemic access: cases for reading comprehension and multilingual interactions. Per Linguam. 31(1):15-29 Makalela, L. 2016. Ubuntu translanguaging: An alternative framework for complex multilingual encounters. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 34 (3)187-196. Makalela, L. 2019. Uncovering the universals of ubuntu translanguaging in classroom discourses. Classroom Discourse, 10 (3-4) 237 – 251. 160 | P a g e Makombe, R. 2015. The Mediation of Learning through English in Africa and Asia. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 6 (4) 449 – 458. Mayaba, N,N.; Ralarala, M,K. & Angu, P. 2018. Student Voice: Perspectives on Language and Critical Pedagogy in South African Higher Education. Educational Research for Social Change, 7 (1) 1-12. Mazak, C, M. & Claudia Herbas-Donoso, C. 2015. Translanguaging practices at a bilingual university: a case study of a science classroom, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18 (6) 698-714 Mbirimi-Hungwe, V., Hungwe, T., & Seeletse, S, M. 2020. Emerging Perspectives on Translanguagin in Multilingual University Classrooms. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. UK. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. 2006. Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. McMillan, J.H. & Schumacher, 2014. Research in Education: Evidence-based Inquiry (7th ed.). Boston. Pearson education. McNelly, C, A. 2015. Language Learning Policy through the Lens of Language as a Problem, as a Right, and as a Resource. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 6 (1) 5 – 26. Merriam, S. B. 2009. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S.B. 2009. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: John Wiley & Son Inc. Michener, C, J. Sengupta-Irving, T. Proctor, C, P. & Silverman, R. 2014. Culturally sustaining pedagogy within monolingual language policy: variability in instruction. Language Policy, 14, 199–220 Mohajan, H. 2018. Qualitative Research Methodology in Social Sciences and Related Subjects. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 7 (01):23-48 Monyela, C, N. 2017. The experiences of newly initiated Basotho men in selected botshabelo high schools, free-state province. University of the Free Sate. Bloemfontein. 161 | P a g e Moon, K., Brewer, T.D., Januchonski-Hartley, S.R., Adams, V.M. & Blackman, D.A. 2016. A guidline to improve social science publishing in ecology and conservation journals. Ecology and Society, 21(3): Moore, E. 2016. Conceptualizing multilingual higher education in policies, pedagogical designs and classroom practices. Language, Culture and Curriculum. 29 (1):22-39. Moore, S. 2021. A History of Bilingual Education in the US. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. Motlhaka, H. 2021. Translanguaging in Collaborative Reading Activity: A Multilingual Perspective of Meaning Making. Psychology and Education Journal, 58 (5) 2683 – 2691. Mutasa, D, E. 2015. Language policy implementation in South African universities vis-à- vis the speakers of indigenous African languages’ perception. Per Linguam, 31 (1) 46 – 59. Muthanna, A. & Miao, P. 2015. Chinese Students' Attitudes towards the Use of English- medium Instruction into the Curriculum Courses: A Case Study of a National Key University in Beijing. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3 (5) 59 – 69. Mwaniki, M. 2016. Translanguaging as a class/lecture-room language management strategy in multilingual contexts: Insights from autoethnographic snapshots from Kenya and South Africa, Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 34 (3) 97- 209. Mwaniki, M., van Reenen, D., & Makalela, L. 2018. Advanced language politics in South African higher education post #RhodesMustFall, Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 36 (1) III – V. Ndebele, H. & Ndimande-Hlongwa, N. 2019. Impediments in promoting the functional status of African languages in higher education. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 37 (2) 91 – 104. Ndimande-Hlongwa, N, P. & Ndebele, H. 2017. Embracing African languages as indispensable resources through the promotion of multilingualism. Per-linguam: A journal of language learning, 31(1) 67 – 82. Ngcobo, M, N. & Barnes, L, A. (2021) English in the South African language-in-education policy on higher education. World Englishes, 40 (84): 84 – 97 Ngcobo, S., Ndaba, N., Nyangiwe, B., Mpungose, N., & Jamal, R. 2016. Translanguaging as an approach to address language inequality in South African higher education: summary writing skills development. Critical Studies in Teaching & Learning, 4 (2) 10 – 27. 162 | P a g e Ngubane, N., Ntombela, B.X., & Govender, S. 2020. Translanguaging pedagogy in selected English First Additional Language writing classrooms. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 38 (2) 142 – 151. Nudelman, C. 2015. Language in South Africa’s Higher Education Transformation: A Study of Language Policies at Four Universities. Mini Dissertation. University of Cape Town. Omodan, B, I., & Dube, B. 2020. Towards De-Colonial Agitations in University Classrooms: The Quest for Afrocentric Pedagogy. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19 (4) 14 – 28. Otheguy, R., García, O. & Reid, W. 2015. Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3) 281- 307. Palmer, D., Zuñiga, C.E., & Henderson, K. 2015. A dual language revolution in the United States? On the bumpy road from compensatory to enrichment education for bilingual children in Texas. In W. E. Wright, S. Boun, & O. Garcia (Eds.) Panagiotopoulou, J, A., & Rosen, L. 2018. Denied inclusion of migration-related multilingualism: an ethnographic approach to a preparatory class for newly arrived children in Germany. Language and Education, 32 (5) 394 – 409. Paris, D. & Alim, H.S. 2014. What Are We Seeking to Sustain Through Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy? A Loving Critique Forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84 (1): 85 -100. Paris, D. 2012. Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy: A Needed Change in Stance, Terminology, and Practice. Educational Researcher, 41:93. Paris, D., & Alim, H, S. 2017. Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and Learning for Justice in a Changing World. UC Santa Barbara. Teachers College Press. Patton, M, Q. 2015. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Patton, M, Q. 2002. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 163 | P a g e Patton, M, Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA. Psychology. 3. 77-101. Paudel, J. 2021. Translanguaging as a Pedagogy of Enacting Social Justice in a Multilingual Setting, Teaching Practices and Language Ideologies for Multilingual Classrooms, 131-150. In Bhusal, A. Teaching Practices and Language Ideologies for Multilingual Classrooms, The University of Texas at El Paso, USA. Petrovic, J.E. 2005. The conservative restoration and neoliberal defenses of bilingual education. Language Policy, 4, 395-416. Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Preece, S., Griffin, A., Hao, Y., & Utemuratova, G. (2018) Examining linguistic diversity as a resource for higher education in the anglophone world. In Tong, V,C,H,. Standen, A. & Sotiriou, M. Shaping Higher Education with Students. UCL Press. Probyn, M. 2019. Pedagogical translanguaging and the construction of science knowledge in a multilingual South African classroom: challenging monoglossic/post- colonial orthodoxies, Classroom Discourse, 10 (3-4) 216- 236. Ramachandran, R. & Rauh, C. 2016. Discriminatory attitudes and indigenous language promotion: Challenges and solutions. United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research, Working Paper Series. Republic of South Africa. Constitution 1994. Rhodes, S. Bowie, D. & Hergenrather, K. 2003. Collecting behavioural data using the World Wide Web: considerations for researchers. Journal of Epidemiol Community Health, 57 (1): 68–73. Ricento, T. 2005. Problems with the ‘language-as-resource’ discourse in the promotion of heritage languages in the U.S.A. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(3) 348 – 368. Rivera, A. J., & Mazak, C. M. 2017. Analyzing student perceptions on translanguaging: A case study of a Puerto Rican university classroom. HOW, 24 (1) 122-138. Rodríguez, A,D., Musanti, S, I., & Cavazos, A, G. 2021. Translanguaging in higher education in the US: leveraging students’ bilingualism, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 1 – 22. DOI: 10.1080/15427587.2021.1893730 164 | P a g e Ruiz, R. 1984. Orientations in language planning. NABE: The Journal for the National Association for Bilingual Education, 8(2), 15–34. Ruiz, R. 1984. Orientations in language planning. NABE: The Journal for the National Association for Bilingual Education, 8(2) 15–34. Ruiz, R. 2010. Reorienting language-as-resource. In J.E. Petrovic (Ed.), International perspectives on bilingual education: Policy, practice, and controversy (pp. 155-172). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Sahr, A. 2020. Translanguaging Practices of Multilingual Learners of German. Athens Journal of Education, 7 (1) 49 – 76. Sánchez, M. T., García, O., & Solorza, C. 2018. Reframing language allocation policy in dual language bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal, 41(1) 37-51. Sawula, S. 2017. Incorporating indigenous African languages in higher education: Student attitudes towards learning materials in isiXhosa at the University of the Western Cape. MA Thesis, University of the Western Cape, Bellville. Schlettwein, S. 2015. Multilingual students’ attitudes towards their own and other languages at the University of Stellenbosch and the University of the Western Cape. MA Thesis. Stellenbosch University. Selinger, H, W. & Shohamy, E. 1989. Second Language Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Somlata, Z. (2020) Linguistic Diversity in Higher Education. In Kaschula, R.H. and Wolff, H, E. The Transformative Power of Language: From Postcolonial to Knowledge Societies in Africa. Cambridge University Press. Spring, J. 2016. Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education of dominated cultures in the United States. Routledge. Stake, R. 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Streubert, H. J., & Carpenter, D. R. 2002. Qualitative Research in Nursing: Advancing the Humanistic Imperative (3rd Ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 165 | P a g e Talley-Matthews, S. & Wiggan, G. 2018. Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy: How teachers can teach the new majority in public schools. Black History Bulletin, 81 (2) 24-26 Terry, N.P. & Irving, M.A. (2010) Cultural and Linguistic Diversity: Issues in Education. In Colarusso and O’Rourke, “Special Education for ALL Teachers”. Kendall Hunt Publishing Co. USA. Thonus, T. 2014. Tutoring multilingual students: Shattering the Myths. University of Kansas. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 44(2):200-213. Tsou, W. & Kao S, M. 2017. Overview of EMI Development. In: Tsou W., Kao SM. (eds) English as a Medium of Instruction in Higher Education. English Language Education, vol 8. Springer, Singapore. Tsuchiya, K., & Pérez Murillo, M. D. (2015). Comparing the language policies and the students’ perceptions of CLIL in tertiary education in Spain and Japan. LACLIL, 8 (1) 25 – 35. Turner, N. & Wildsmith-Cromarty, R. 2014. Challenges to the implementation of bilingual/multilingual language policies at tertiary institutions in South Africa (1995–2012). Language Matters, 45 (3) 295 – 312. University of the Free State (UFS) 2016. Language Policy. Bloemfontein. Velasco, P. & Ofelia García, O. 2014. Translanguaging and the Writing of Bilingual Learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 37 (1): 6-23 Velasco, P., & García, O. 2014. Translanguaging and the writing of bilingual learners. Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for BilingualEducation, 1 (37) 6 - 23. Wei, L., & García, O. 2017. From Researching Translanguaging to Translanguaging Research. In King, Kendall, Yi-Ju Lai & May, S. (eds). Research Methods (Vol. 10). Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer. Wildsmith-Cromarty, R. & Balfour, R, J. (2019) Language learning and teaching in South African primary schools. Language Teaching, 52 (3):296 – 317 Wilkinson, D. 2015. English-medium content courses: Student approaches and strategies to increase comprehension levels. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 11 (3) 1-16. 166 | P a g e Wolff, E, H. 2017. Language ideologies and the politics of language in postcolonial Africa. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 51, 1-22 Wright, S. 2004. Language Policy and Language Planning. From Nationalism to Globalisation. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Wright, W. E., & Boun, S. 2015. Striving for Education for all through Bilingual Education in Cambodia. In W. E. Wright, S. Boun, & O. García, The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 517-530). Pondicherry: SPi Zeydanlioglu, W. 2012. “Turkey’s Kurdish Language Policy”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 217, 99–125. 170 | P a g e APPENDICES Appendix A: Ethical Clearance 171 | P a g e Appendix B: Language Editor Certificate 172 | P a g e Appendix C: Consent 173 | P a g e Appendix D: Focus Group Interview Invite Students Researcher Study Leader Mr. Letsela Motaung Dr. Cias Tsotetsi TK Mopeli Library Building TK Mopeli Library Building Private Bag x13 Private Bag x13 Phuthaditjhaba Phuthaditjhaba 9866 9866 Contacts: 0587185116/0671480393 Contacts: 0587185003 E-mail: MotaungLB@ufs.ac.za E-mail: TsotetsiCT@ufs.ac.za Date: 18 June 2020 Invitation to participate in the research project. Dear prospective research participants, This invitation is intended to invite students/tutees who are enrolled in modules that are part of A_STEP programme across four faculties; Education, Humanities, Economic and Management Sciences, and Natural and Agricultural Sciences, for this academic year 2020 to participate voluntarily in a research project. The title of the research project is: “Translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy to implement multilingual language policy at a South African university: A case of tutoring undergraduate” For one to be selected to participate in this research project, the following must be adhered to by prospective participants: - Must be enrolled in module that forms part of A_STEP tutorial programme - Must sign a consent form provided by the researcher agreeing that their participation is voluntary and that they can withdraw at any time they if they feel their rights as participants are being violated - Must be willing to participate in three sessions with the researcher which involves the information session about the research project, the data collect session, the data analysis feedback. Your voluntary participation will be highly appreciated as your views and experiences will assist in understanding of how translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy is perceived and experienced by tutors. ------------------------------- ---------------------------------- Researcher signature Date 174 | P a g e Letsela Motaung Appendix E: Semi-structured Interview Invite to Tutors Researcher Study Leader Mr. Letsela Motaung Dr. Cias Tsotetsi TK Mopeli Library Building TK Mopeli Library Building Private Bag x13 Private Bag x13 Phuthaditjhaba Phuthaditjhaba 9866 9866 Contacts: 0587185116/0671480393 Contacts: 0587185003 E-mail: MotaungLB@ufs.ac.za E-mail: TsotetsiCT@ufs.ac.za Date: 18 June 2020 Invitation to participate in the research project. Dear prospective research participants, This invitation is intended to invite tutors who are tutoring modules that are part of A_STEP programme across four faculties; Education, Humanities, Economic and Management Sciences, and Natural and Agricultural Sciences, for this academic year 2020 to participate voluntarily in a research project. The title of the research project is: “Translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy to implement multilingual language policy at a South African university: A case of tutoring undergraduate” For one to be selected to participate in this research project, the following must be adhered to by prospective participants: - Must be tutoring module that is forms part of A_STEP tutorial programme - Must sign a consent form provided by the researcher agreeing that their participation is voluntary and that they can withdraw at any time they if they feel their rights as participants are being violated - Must be willing to participate in three sessions with the researcher which involves the information session about the research project, the data collect session, the data analysis feedback. Your voluntary participation will be highly appreciated as your views and experiences will assist in understanding of how translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy is perceived and experienced by tutors. ------------------------------- ---------------------------------- Researcher signature Date Letsela Motaung 175 | P a g e Appendix F: Focus Group Interview Schedule Focus group interview (Students) Thank you for agreeing to fit me into your busy schedule for this interview. I am conducting interviews as part of a research study to increase our understanding of how translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy is perceived and experienced by both tutors and students who form part of the tutorials. As a tutor/student you are in an ideal position to give us valuable first-hand information from your own perspective. The interview takes around 20-30 minutes and is very informal. I am simply trying to capture your thoughts and perspectives on being a tutor/student here in our campus. Your responses to the questions will be kept confidential. Each interview will be assigned a number code to help ensure that personal identifiers are not revealed during the analysis and write up of findings. Please note that there will be no compensation for participating in this study. However, your participation will be a valuable addition to our research and findings could lead to greater understanding of how translanguaging can be employed in the tutorials. If you are willing to participate please suggest a day and time that suits you and I'll do my best to be available. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask. Thank you. Letsela Motaung (Researcher)  What is multilingualism to you? What does a multilingual student look like? What do they do?  How would a multilingual language policy in practice look like in a tutorial session?  What is the value of multilingualism in the tutorials? 176 | P a g e  Why should students learn using their (home) language during tutorial session? Why should (African) students learn in English during tutorials not in their home languages?  What are the benefits, if any, of using (African) indigenous languages during tutorials?  What do you know about translanguaging? Why or why not should translanguaging be used as a strategy to implement multilingual language policy in the tutorial?  What are the benefits of using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy during tutorial sessions?  What do you think would be challenging in implementing multilingual language policy at our university particularly in the tutorials?  How would translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy help/assist in addressing those challenges? Thank you for your time and knowledge. 177 | P a g e Appendix G: Semi-structured Interviews: Schedule Semi-structured interviews (Tutors) Thank you for agreeing to fit me into your busy schedule for this interview. I am conducting interviews as part of a research study to increase our understanding of how translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy is perceived and experienced by both tutors and students who form part of the tutorials. As a tutor/student you are in an ideal position to give us valuable first-hand information from your own perspective. The interview takes around 20-30 minutes and is very informal. I am simply trying to capture your thoughts and perspectives on being a tutor/student here in our campus. Your responses to the questions will be kept confidential. Each interview will be assigned a number code to help ensure that personal identifiers are not revealed during the analysis and write up of findings. Please note that there will be no compensation for participating in this study. However, your participation will be a valuable addition to our research and findings could lead to greater understanding of how translanguaging can be employed in the tutorials. If you are willing to participate please suggest a day and time that suits you and I'll do my best to be available. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask. Thank you. Letsela Motaung (Researcher)  What is multilingualism to you? What does a multilingual student look like? What do they do?  How would a multilingual language policy in practice look like in a tutorial session?  What is the value of multilingualism in the tutorials?  Why should students learn using their (home) language during tutorial session? Why should (African) students learn in English during tutorials not in their home languages?  What are the benefits, if any, of using (African) indigenous languages during tutorials? 178 | P a g e  What do you know about translanguaging? Why or why not should translanguaging be used as a strategy to implement multilingual language policy in the tutorial?  What are the benefits of using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy during tutorial sessions?  What do you think would be challenging in implementing a multilingual language policy at our university particularly in the tutorials? How would translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy help/assist in addressing those challenges? Thank you for your time and knowledge. 179 | P a g e Appendix H: Turnitin Report 180 | P a g e