Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development

Activity, Action, and Operation: Three Analytical Levels in CHAT

According to CHAT, human activities are driven by underlying needs and directed toward objects, which provide purpose and direction (Leontiev, 1978). In the context of translanguaging, educators may adopt translanguaging practices to facilitate student comprehension and engagement. CHAT posits that activities can be analyzed at three analytical levels: the activity level, characterized by motives/objects; the action level, involving short-term goals; and the operation level, shaped by contextual factors, such as methods and conditions. An activity is initiated by a need corresponding to an object (i.e., object-oriented activity) and is carried out through actions aimed at specific goals (Cong-Lem, 2022a; Kaptelinin, 2005; Leontiev, 1978). An activity can encompass multiple actions, each aimed at achieving different aspects of the overall motive/object. These actions are further enabled or constrained by operations-the conditions, tools, and resources available within the context (Leontiev, 1978).

Translanguaging practices, therefore, can be examined through these three levels within the CHAT framework. At the activity level, translanguaging is motivated by the overarching need to enhance student learning, encompassing broader objectives like improving comprehension, fostering multiculturalism, increasing engagement, and achieving better educational outcomes by using multiple languages in instruction (Cenoz & Gorter, 2020). This multi-level analysis of translanguaging provides a holistic understanding of how and why educators employ these practices in their teaching.

Moving to the action level, we see how specific strategies and practices employed by educators come into play. These actions are goal-directed tasks aimed at facilitating the broader activity. For instance, educators may switch between languages to explain complex concepts, perform classroom management, or provide feedback (Duarte, 2019; Tai, 2023). These actions are tailored to meet the immediate needs of students in the learning process, ensuring that the overarching educational goals are met (García, 2017).

Finally, at the operation level, the focus shifts to the conditions and tools that enable or constrain these actions. This includes the availability of resources, institutional policies, and the linguistic backgrounds of both teachers and students. For example, the implementation of translanguaging strategies can be significantly influenced by bilingual texts, supportive school policies, and a classroom environment that values linguistic diversity (Cenoz, 2017). Conversely, a lack of resources or restrictive monolingual policies can hinder these efforts (Sahan & Rose, 2021).

By applying CHAT, we can systematically analyze the layers of translanguaging practices and understand how various contextual factors influence these practices. For instance, in a classroom with resources such as bilingual books and supportive policies, translanguaging practices can thrive, leading to improved student engagement and learning outcomes. Conversely, in environments where such resources are scarce, educators may struggle to implement effective translanguaging strategies, thus impacting the overall educational experience.

Vygotsky’s Theorization of Concept Development

While CHAT provides a multi-layered perspective on how translanguaging practices are driven by needs, goals, and contextual conditions, it is also essential to consider the development of these practices at a conceptual level. Vygotsky’s theory on concept development offers a valuable lens to differentiate between intuitive, context-specific actions and systematically developed pedagogical strategies. Understanding this distinction is crucial for assessing how intentional and structured teachers’ translanguaging practices are within their educational contexts.

Vygotsky differentiates between everyday concepts (intuitive knowledge) and scientific concepts (formal knowledge). Everyday concepts develop through concrete, practical experiences and are often used unconsciously and intuitively. In contrast, scientific concepts are abstract, logical, and generalizable, requiring formal instruction and conscious learning (Vygotsky, 1987).

In the context of translanguaging, concept development involves understanding whether educators’ practices are based on intuitive, context-specific knowledge (everyday concepts) or formal, systematic pedagogical strategies (scientific concepts). This differentiation is crucial for assessing the intentionality and systematicity of teachers’ translanguaging practices. For example, do teachers use translanguaging as an ad-hoc response to immediate classroom needs? Or is it part of a well-thought-out pedagogical approach?

An Integrative Cultural-Historical Activity Theory Framework for Investigating Translanguaging

To provide a unifying framework for this study, we integrate concepts from Vygotsky’s CHT and CHAT into a dynamic system referred to as the integrative Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (iCHAT) approach (see Figure 1). The key components of this analytical framework include the subject, activity, action, operation, and concept development.

Figure 1: An iCHAT Framework for Understanding and Analyzing an Activity’s Manifestations and Development

The central upward arrow in the framework illustrates concept formation as the developmental process where the subject increasingly improves and masters their activity (i.e., translanguaging in this study). For example, this concept formation can occur when a teacher learns a new abstract theoretical concept that further guides their empirical actions in the classroom.

The conceptual framework emphasizes the importance of collecting and analyzing data regarding educators’ professional motive/object at the activity level, their goals and actions at the action level, and the means and conditions that influence or inform their translanguaging practices at the operation level (Leontiev, 1978). This multi-level analysis helps uncover the intricate dynamics of translanguaging practices, including their intentionality and systematicity.

This integrated framework provides a comprehensive lens to analyze and understand the individual differences in translanguaging practices among Vietnamese EFL educators. By examining how these educators navigate the complexities of English language instruction in their classrooms, this framework directly addresses the research questions of this study, contributing to a deeper understanding of translanguaging as a pedagogical tool and of the subjectivity among educators in implementing this pedagogy.

Participants

Participants were three tertiary English language educators at a public university in Vietnam, selected from a total of 25 lecturers in the Faculty of Foreign Languages. Data collection was voluntary, and all eligible lecturers were invited to participate in the study. Those who expressed interest were briefed on the purpose and procedures of the research before providing written consent. The aim was to capture a range of professional experiences and teaching contexts. As a result, the participants, using pseudonyms (Daisy, Grace, and Hallie), were chosen to reflect varying experience levels, with 3, 9.5, and 20 years, respectively (see Table 1).

Data Collection

Data collection extended over 12 weeks, aligning with a university semester. The larger research project utilized a combination of semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, post-observation interviews, reflective journals, and document analysis to gather comprehensive insights into the participants’ teaching practices and experiences. However, the data for this paper were mainly drawn from the two rounds of individual interviews, each lasting 60-90 minutes, as these were judged most relevant to the paper’s purposes and sufficient to illustrate the key points.

The first interview took place at the start of the semester to gather background information on the participants’ qualifications, experiences, and pedagogical beliefs, providing a foundational understanding of their professional journey and educational philosophy. This is significant from a sociocultural perspective, as it helps to explain their responses to challenges and the formation of their teacher identity. The second interview, conducted toward the end of the semester, focused on classroom tensions and emotional experiences throughout the semester. This allowed for an in-depth exploration of specific challenges and strategies employed by the participants, providing insights into their transformative agency and creative teacher identity.

The use of multiple data collection instruments enabled data triangulation, enhancing the trustworthiness and credibility of this study. Before commencing data collection, the author obtained ethics approval from the participants’ institutions. The interview audios were transcribed and sent back to the participants for confirmation and any possible corrections.

Data Analysis

The study employed a directed qualitative content analysis (DQC) approach outlined by Hsieh and Shannon (2005). DQC is particularly useful when an existing theory or prior research about a phenomenon is incomplete or needs further description. Additionally, it can aid researchers in validating or extending a theory (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). This approach was chosen due to the emerging but incomplete body of research and theory regarding individual differences in translanguaging in EFL.

The data analysis unfolded in four key stages. In the first stage, the transcripts underwent a careful line-by-line reading, during which pertinent segments of information were initially coded into preliminary codes. Progressing to the second phase, these initial codes were then systematically organized into more abstract categories. In the third stage, these categories underwent further coding, aligning them with the major components of the conceptual framework discussed earlier. Finally, the analysis distilled significant themes, drawing on meaningful and dynamic relations among these components across levels of analysis (activity, action, and operation). Notably, the data analysis followed an iterative approach, combining both inductive and deductive methods. Table 2 presents an excerpt of coding in this study.

By providing a comprehensive and systematic analysis of the data, this method allows for some understanding of the individual differences in the participants’ translanguaging practices and the factors influencing these differences.

Daisy: Translanguaging Implemented “Not For Any Particular Purpose”

Daisy had been teaching at the local university for three years and can be considered a novice educator compared to the other participants. At the time of data collection, she was assigned to teach English linguistics to undergraduate students majoring in English language. While no policy required her to use English exclusively in her classroom, she primarily employed English to teach linguistic content to her students, which was confirmed during classroom observations. When commenting on her translanguaging practice, Daisy indicated that she used it to aid her students’ comprehension and to reduce her own anxiety about speaking English:

For something that’s simple and can be said in English, I either say it because it’s easy or because I feel that my students can understand me in English. But for errors that I find a bit complicated and my English speaking ability becomes more and more confusing, and I feel like my message won’t get through to the students, then I speak Vietnamese and make sure to emphasize to them not to make the same mistake again. (Interview 2)

Daisy explained that she did not have any specific purpose when alternating between languages and that it was mostly based on her “feeling” and judgment of the content’s difficulty level. Her translanguaging appeared to be intuitive and situation-specific, as she mentioned: “I use both languages interchangeably...I don’t really have a specific purpose when using them” (Interview 2).

She also drew on visual cues, such as the students’ facial expressions, to facilitate her decision on when to switch to the L1. Daisy explained: “When the students look clueless . . . The second thing is that I will use it for the part that I want to emphasize greatly for the student” (Post-Observation Interview 1).

Her decision to rely on Vietnamese also stemmed from her low self-efficacy regarding her English proficiency, as she mentioned: “If I feel that my ability to convey in English is not clear enough, then I will speak in English and then speak in Vietnamese, and when explaining vocabulary, explaining the meaning” (Post-Observation Interview 1).

In summary, Daisy employed translanguaging to underscore important content, aid students’ comprehension, and reduce her own English-speaking anxiety. However, Daisy’s use of translanguaging seemed to be mostly intuitive rather than based on any established procedure or conscious intentions.

From the perspective of iCHAT, Daisy’s practices can be analyzed through the lens of the interaction between her professional experience, her actions, and the operational conditions of her classroom. At the activity level, Daisy’s motive was primarily to ensure student comprehension and manage her own anxiety. Her actions, such as switching languages based on perceived student confusion, were directly aimed at achieving this motive. The operation level involved the tools (English and Vietnamese) and conditions (students’ facial expressions, her own language proficiency) that influenced her decisions. Daisy’s translanguaging was characterized by its intuitive and reactive nature, highlighting her reliance on immediate classroom dynamics rather than systematic planning.

Grace: Translanguaging as a Way of Prioritizing Students’ Knowledge Acquisition

As mentioned above, Grace has been teaching for approximately 9.5 years. She elaborated on how she implemented translanguaging in her class:

Usually, on the first day of class, I will speak entirely in English, but then I will notice that the students are looking at me with confusion, and I will start to speak less. I will reduce my use of English to around 70 % and switch to Vietnamese for the difficult parts. To be fair, I will adjust my language use based on the level of the class. For example, if class A is doing well, I will use 80 % English, but if the student in the class is struggling, I will only use 40 % English. (Interview 1)

Grace’s adoption of translanguaging was based on her assessment of the classroom students’ L2 proficiency level. Her indication of the percentage of L1-L2 ratio in her teaching suggests a more deliberate use of translanguaging in her instruction. Like Daisy, Grace relied on students’ facial expressions to guide her use of translanguaging. She further demonstrated her vigilance in employing translanguaging, mentioning that she would adjust her language use “based on the level of the class.”

Grace exhibited a clear purpose in using translanguaging and would decline to implement an all-English approach if it did not align with her pedagogical approach. She recalled a situation where she rejected a suggestion from a more senior colleague to increase the use of English in her class:

Even though Mrs. X encouraged me to use more English, I would teach according to my own approach on the first day and then adjust as necessary based on the class’s progress. I will use more Vietnamese or English, depending on the situation, and encourage the students to speak up and be confident. Whether or not they make progress [in acquiring content knowledge], I believe that by gradually adjusting my language use, they will understand me better and feel more comfortable speaking in class. (Interview 1)

The quote above suggests a prioritization of teaching objectives/motives in Grace’s instruction. Her primary/dominant teaching objective was the students’ acquisition of knowledge rather than providing opportunities for them to listen to or practice English. Consequently, she had a conscious and well-defined intention and goal in using translanguaging.

In short, compared to Daisy, Grace demonstrated her capacity to flexibly moderate her alternation between L1 and L2 to better suit the students’ needs in a clearer, more conscious, and systematic manner.

Grace’s translanguaging practices can be understood through iCHAT by examining her professional experience, classroom actions, and operational conditions. At the activity level, Grace’s primary motive was student comprehension and comfort, balanced with her own pedagogical goals. Her actions involved adjusting the language ratio based on student proficiency and feedback. The operation level included tools (English and Vietnamese) and conditions (students’ facial expressions, class performance) that guided her language use. Grace’s practices were more systematic and purpose-driven than Daisy’s, indicating a higher level of professional development and reflective practice.

Hallie: Purposeful Translanguaging Practice for Improving Students’ English Proficiency

The third and most senior participant in this study is Hallie, who has taught for 20 years. She was assigned to teach an English for specific purposes course. In contrast to Daisy, Hallie had a clear understanding of the objective or motive that drove her to use translanguaging. She was able to mention “translanguaging” as the term/concept that informed her teaching practice: “Usually, I use translanguaging. So, for the most part, I use English first throughout the lesson, including for explaining the lesson content and giving students assignment instructions.”

An important note here is that the interview with the researcher was conducted in Vietnamese. However, Hallie used the term “translanguaging” in English. This suggests that she was aware of this concept, which had informed her teaching practices. Hallie articulated a clear systematic procedure for how she practiced translanguaging in her class:

When I move on to the next sections of the lesson, be it speaking or listening activities, I would tell my students what the requirements of the assignment are. Then, I look at their faces, their eyes, and other gestures to see if they understand. Second, I might check their language understanding. For instance, I might say, “Now we’re going to move on to the speaking part, and we’re going to use the language we heard from the listening and reading parts.” If I see that some students understand and others do not, I might explain in English again or in another way if necessary. For example, I might ask them again what the assignment is to see if they understand and to what extent. If they understand, then they will complete the task correctly. If not, then I will explain it again, perhaps in Vietnamese. However, I try to limit the use of Vietnamese as much as possible. (Post-Observation Interview 1)

Hallie’s response demonstrates her use of translanguaging as a purposeful and systematic action. It is conscious and strategic in that she opted to simplify her English instruction first and/or explain it alternatively rather than using L1 conveniently. Additionally, her translanguaging practice seems to be systematic and transferable. She emphasized that the same principle applies to translanguaging across her teaching tasks, “be it speaking or listening activities.” The important insight from this finding is her scaffolding of language use, where she only reverted to L1 input if it was beyond her students’ existing proficiency or understanding capacity, that is, after having simplified her language or explained it differently. This finding is corroborated by observing her classroom teaching, where Hallie mostly used English throughout the lesson.

Like Daisy and Grace, Hallie relied on visual cues such as students’ faces, eyes, and gestures to judge the extent to which her students understood her English instruction. However, two aspects distinguish Hallie’s translanguaging from Daisy’s and Grace’s. First, when she noticed the students might not understand her instruction, instead of using Vietnamese to explain, she chose to simplify her English language first (“I might explain in English or in another way if necessary”). Second, she was conscious of the need to limit her use of Vietnamese “as much as possible,” aiming to create an English-speaking environment for her students, as she acknowledged during the interview. Hallie’s use of translanguaging was driven by her objective of creating an English-speaking environment for her students, enhancing their competitiveness in securing a job after graduation. In other words, Hallie’s motive for translanguaging is distinct from that of Grace and Daisy, as it extends beyond pedagogical functions to prepare students for future employment.

Hallie’s translanguaging practices, analyzed through iCHAT, reveal a sophisticated approach to teaching. At the activity level, her motive was to enhance students’ English proficiency and prepare them for future employment. Her actions included a structured use of English, with L1 used only when absolutely necessary. The operation level involved tools (English and Vietnamese) and conditions (students’ comprehension cues, employment competitiveness) that informed her practices. Hallie’s systematic and strategic use of translanguaging, driven by clear objectives and a deep understanding of pedagogical principles, exemplifies advanced professional development and reflective practice.

Framing Translanguaging Through the iCHAT Lens

Implications for Relevant Stakeholders

The findings of this study suggest several implications for educators, school administrators, policymakers, and researchers. Firstly, the varied translanguaging practices observed among educators, such as Hallie’s strategic approach and Daisy’s intuitive style, highlight the need for professional development programs that address both intentional and adaptive language use in the classroom (Gorter & Arocena, 2020; Holdway & Hitchcock, 2018). Training should aim to develop skills in PLS, enabling teachers to effectively balance the use of L1 and L2 to support students’ learning within their ZPD. This involves equipping teachers with strategies to assess student needs accurately and implement strategic language switching, as demonstrated in Hallie’s sophisticated use of translanguaging. Crucially, such training must emphasize the need for a structured and well-planned approach to gradually and strategically increase L2 input within the ZPD. By progressively enhancing students’ exposure to L2 through intentional scaffolding and targeted support, educators can scaffold both language development and content mastery. This planned progression ensures that students are continuously challenged and supported at the optimal level for learning, gradually building their independence and proficiency in L2.

For school administrators, the study’s findings indicate that creating supportive environments for translanguaging is essential. This includes implementing policies that encourage bilingual education and providing necessary resources, such as bilingual texts and professional development opportunities. The positive impact of supportive school policies on teachers’ practices was evident in Hallie’s case, where resources and policies empowered her to innovate and refine her translanguaging strategies (Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Menken & Sánchez, 2019). Administrators should prioritize resource allocation to support diverse linguistic needs and foster a school culture that values linguistic diversity and teacher agency in developing effective language practices.

In terms of future research, longitudinal studies could provide deeper insights into how translanguaging strategies evolve and their sustained impact on student learning. Given that the current study primarily focused on educators’ practices, incorporating student feedback in future research would offer a more holistic understanding of the effectiveness of translanguaging, enhancing the practical relevance of the findings.