Pa ge 1 Pa ge 92 American Journal of Education and Technology (AJET) Breaking Language Barriers: The Impact of Translanguaging on Student Classroom Engagement and ESL Confidence among Grade 7 Students of Dr. Yanga’s Colleges Inc Mikaela Louise De Guzman1* Volume 4 Issue 4, Year 2025 ISSN: 2832-9481 (Online) DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajet.v4i4.4969 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Article Information ABSTRACT Received: April 07, 2025 Accepted: May 13, 2025 Published: November 14, 2025 This study highlights the role of Translanguaging - a method where mixed language (L1 and L2) is utilized in the pedagogy - and its impact on the student classroom engagement and confidence in using English as the second language. Using an experimental design that focuses on the result of the pre-test and post test results of the participants, the study investigated how the strategic use of both English and Filipino coined as translanguaging during instruction affect students’ participation, confidence, and language preference. Seventy students participated in an eight-week intervention, transitioning from an English- only classroom as the first phase to the second phase where the researcher employed translanguaging strategies. Data were collected through surveys, classroom observations, and participation logs, and analyzed using paired-sample t-tests, chi-square tests, and descriptive statistics. Results revealed significant improvements in students’ engagement (p < .001), participation frequency (p < .001), and ESL confidence (p < .001) after the intervention. The researcher of the study found out that most students preferred the translanguaging method, supporting the communicative and cognitive value of using the integration of their native language towards learning the second language. Additionally, student perceptions show undeniable approval of translanguaging as a classroom practice. The findings affirm that translanguaging enhances learners’ emotional security, encourages meaningful participation, and validates linguistic identities. This study contributes to the growing body of literature advocating for inclusive and multilingual education practices, particularly in English-dominant Philippine classrooms, where students benefit from leveraging their full linguistic abilities. Keywords ESL Confidence, Translanguaging, Linguistic Identity 1 Dr. Yanga’s Colleges Inc., Philippines * Corresponding author’s e-mail: mikee.deguzman@dyci.edu.ph INTRODUCTION Educational institutions within linguistically diverse nations such as the Philippines operate within a complex sociolinguistic framework where learners must navigate multiple language systems across both academic and social aspects. The archipelagic nation hosts in more than 180 different languages, making linguistic diversity not merely a cultural characteristic but an everyday educational reality (Martin, 2014). Despite this multilingual landscape, numerous Philippine educational institutions particularly those in the private sector and urban environments frequently implement strict English-only instructional policies that effectively isolates non-native English speakers and disregard the documented cognitive and affective advantages of utilizing students’ comprehensive linguistic resources (Libladilla, 2024; Tupas & Martin, 2017). While English maintains its status as an official language and predominates as the instructional medium across most private educational institutions, particularly after elementary education, it represents a second or tertiary language for numerous Filipino learners, who typically acquire Filipino and/or a regional mother tongue such as Cebuano, Ilocano, or Hiligaynon prior to English instruction (Dekker & Young, 2005). This hierarchical language arrangement generates a pedagogical contradiction: although English proficiency is positioned as essential for academic advancement and socioeconomic opportunity, many students lack sufficient language competence and self-assurance to participate effectively in English-dominant learning environments. Consequently, phenomena such as language anxiety, reluctance to participate, and classroom disengagement become widespread, particularly among students transitioning from public educational institutions where native languages receive emphasis during foundational years under the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) framework (Gatil, n.d.; Bernardo, 2004). The phenomenon of language anxiety, known as the fear or apprehension experienced during second language acquisition or utilization, constitutes substantial consequences to language development and academic achievement. Horwitz (2001) tells that this apprehension regarding negative evaluation in L2 contexts frequently manifests as self-consciousness, participatory withdrawal, and diminished classroom engagement. Students in developmental transitions exemplified by Grade 7 learners often internalize these anxieties, associating English communication with experiences of inadequacy, embarrassment, or academic shortcoming (Young, 1991). These effective components are essential to successful second language acquisition, underscoring the need for pedagogical methodologies that address both linguistic competence barriers and emotional challenges. Pa ge 93 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 4(3) 92-103, 2025 Translanguaging represents one such promising pedagogical intervention that acknowledges and legitimizes multilingual practices within educational settings to enhance learning processes and expressive capabilities. Originally conceptualized by Welsh educator Cen Williams and subsequently expanded by García and Wei (2014), translanguaging describes the dynamic processes through which multilingual individuals utilize their comprehensive linguistic repertoire to construct meaning, facilitate understanding, and communicate effectively. Unlike conventional code-switching, which presupposes discrete language systems, translanguaging emphasizes the integrated and interconnected nature of language practices within multilingual contexts (Cenoz & Gorter, 2020). The translanguaging approach offers a paradigmatic transformation from the monolingual assumptions that have historically dominated educational discourse. Rather than conceptualizing the first language (L1) as an impediment, translanguaging positions it as an essential cognitive scaffold for second language (L2) acquisition, such as English. This approach encourages learners to process complex conceptual information through their dominant language before articulating these concepts in English, thereby enhancing comprehension, retention, and expression (Creese & Blackledge, 2010). This scaffolded methodology not only facilitates deeper cognitive engagement but also mitigates the emotional burden associated with utilizing a less familiar language within high-stakes academic environments. Empirical investigations across diverse multilingual educational contexts substantiate the pedagogical efficacy of translanguaging practices. Research conducted by García and Wei (2014) demonstrated that students permitted to utilize their home languages in academic contexts exhibited enhanced confidence, superior critical thinking capabilities, and increased engagement. Similarly, Reyes (2018) determined that translanguaging practices implemented in Filipino classrooms resulted in increased student participation, enhanced inclusivity, and validation of learners’ linguistic identities. Within this framework, translanguaging functions not merely as a linguistic methodology but as a sociocultural and affective intervention that establishes a more equitable and responsive learning environment. The Philippine educational context presents particularly favorable conditions for translanguaging implementation. With established policies such as MTB-MLE operating at the elementary level, there exists institutional recognition of multilingual education benefits. However, this progressive approach frequently diminishes at higher educational levels, particularly within private institutions where English proficiency is valued and is universally recognized as an indicator of one’s level of intellect and global competitiveness (Velasco, 2019). Within such contexts, English-only policies are frequently enforced under the assumption that immersion accelerates language acquisition. However, research evidence indicates alternative conclusions. Cummins (2000) contends that students possessing strong L1 foundations demonstrate superior capacity for L2 acquisition, as cognitive and academic proficiencies transfer across language systems. Consequently, restricting students’ access to their L1 potentially hinders rather than facilitates English language development. Furthermore, translanguaging methodologies align with contemporary second language acquisition theoretical frameworks. Krashen’s (1982) Affective Filter Hypothesis proposes that emotional variables including motivation, anxiety, and self-confidence significantly influence second language acquisition processes. When learners experience psychological safety, affirmation, and competence within their educational environment, the “affective filter” is reduced, facilitating more effective language intake and processing. Translanguaging establishes precisely this supportive environment by validating students’ linguistic identities and diminishing performance pressure within English-exclusive contexts. From a sociolinguistic perspective, translanguaging additionally promotes inclusivity and decoloniality. Traditional English-only educational policies within postcolonial contexts such as the Philippines frequently originate from colonial legacies that privilege non- indigenous languages over native linguistic systems (Tupas, 2015). By implementing translanguaging, educators challenge these hierarchical structures and affirm the legitimacy of local linguistic practices. Garcia-Mateus and Palmer (2017) observe that translanguaging pedagogy not only enhances students’ academic development but also reconceptualizes their linguistic heritage as a source of strength, resilience, and knowledge. Despite these documented advantages, translanguaging remains underutilized across numerous Philippine educational settings. Institutional resistance persists, frequently stemming from misconceptions that native language utilization impedes English proficiency development. Some educators express concerns that translanguaging may produce “language confusion” or undermine the perceived prestige of English (Antony et al., 2024). These apprehensions, while comprehensible, lack empirical substantiation. Indeed, accumulating evidence indicates that students exposed to translanguaging methodologies demonstrate superior performance in both language proficiency and academic achievement compared to their counterparts in monolingual instructional environments (Cenoz & Gorter, 2020). To address this disjunction between theoretical understanding and pedagogical implementation, this investigation examines translanguaging’s function as a pedagogical scaffold for English language acquisition within a private Philippine school context. Specifically, it analyzes translanguaging’s influence on two critical indicators of ESL success: classroom participation frequency and student engagement levels. Utilizing observational data and self-assessment instruments, this research aims to provide empirical support for Pa ge 94 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 4(3) 92-103, 2025 translanguaging integration within English-medium instruction. By focusing on Grade 7 learners’ affective and behavioral responses, this study explores how enabling students to access their complete linguistic repertoire enhances their confidence, communication willingness, and overall classroom involvement. Statement of the Problem Students in English-medium educational institutions across the Philippines particularly those transitioning from Filipino-medium public schools frequently encounter significant challenges adapting to English-only classroom environments. These adaptation difficulties often show as less participatory behavior, increased communication anxiety, and lack of confidence in English language production. Despite having enough academic qualities and possessing an aspect from multiple intelligences deemed important for academic success, many students experience psychological barriers and hesitation when required to communicate exclusively in their second language - English, resulting in classroom shyness or disengagement from learning activities. Standard teaching approaches that enforce English- only instruction often fail to recognize and leverage students’ diverse linguistic resources, inadvertently impacting academic engagement and motivational levels. Translanguaging, defined as the strategic classroom utilization of students’ first language (Filipino) alongside English, has emerged in educational literature as a potential methodology for creating more inclusive and supportive learning environments. However, the implementation and efficacy of translanguaging practices within Philippine educational contexts, particularly in private institutions that maintain strict English-only policies, remains insufficiently investigated. In this light, the study seeks to examine the influence of translanguaging practices on classroom participation patterns and engagement levels among Grade 7 ESL students at Dr. Yanga’s Colleges Inc. The research will analyze how the strategic integration of both English and Filipino during instruction affects students’ classroom involvement, confidence development, and motivational orientation toward English language learning, specifically it addresses the following research questions: 1. What is the frequency of Grade 7 students’ classroom participation when translanguaging strategies are implemented, as measured by quantitative analysis of verbal contributions during instructional activities? 2. What categories of participatory behaviors (e.g., question formulation, response provision, collaborative discussion engagement) predominate during classroom sessions utilizing translanguaging approaches? 3. What language choices (English, Filipino, or alternating usage) do students demonstrate when participating in classroom activities under a translanguaging framework, and what is the relative frequency distribution of each language option? 4. How does translanguaging implementation affect students’ self-reported engagement levels and confidence in English language learning, as measured through comparative analysis of pre- and post-intervention surveys assessing their language learning perceptions and classroom participation experiences? 5. What perceptions do students commonly express regarding the effectiveness of translanguaging practices in enhancing their classroom participation and overall learning experience? Conceptual Framework Figure 1: Conceptual framework This research is grounded in Translanguaging theory (Garcia & Wei, 2014), which offers a pedagogical framework that recognizes and harnesses students’ multilingual resources. The theory suggests that educational outcomes improve when teachers deliberately incorporate both English and students’ native languages during instruction, potentially enhancing student engagement and building confidence in English language production. The framework proposes that learners demonstrate improved performance and self-efficacy when permitted to move fluidly between their linguistic repertoires, thereby advancing more inclusive language education practices within the Philippine context. Translanguaging represents the independent variable within this conceptual structure, characterized as the systematic pedagogical integration of students’ first language (L1) with English (L2) to facilitate comprehension, encourage participation, and support holistic language development. This approach enclose several instructional strategies, including contextual code- switching, strategic translation, development of bilingual reference materials, and facilitation of native language peer collaboration. By legitimizing students’ transition between languages, translanguaging creates a learning environment that values linguistic diversity and enables more effective access to educational content. The framework represents two dependent variables: classroom engagement and ESL confidence. Classroom engagement encompasses students’ behavioral, emotional, and cognitive investment in learning activities, measured through specific indicators including verbal Pa ge 95 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 4(3) 92-103, 2025 participation frequency, sustained attentiveness, peer- to-peer interaction, and motivational persistence. Elevated classroom engagement indicates active student involvement in the learning process, contributing positively to both individual academic outcomes and broader classroom dynamics. The second dependent variable, ESL confidence, refers to students’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding their capacity to comprehend and utilize English in academic contexts. This confidence manifests in their comfort levels with English speaking, writing, and comprehension tasks, significantly influencing their willingness to engage and communicate using English in classroom settings. Hypothesis This study investigates the hypothesis that translanguaging an instructional approach that allows students to use their first language (L1) alongside English (L2) in the classroom can significantly enhance language learning outcomes in the Philippine context. Specifically, it posits that students exposed to translanguaging strategies will demonstrate higher levels of classroom engagement and greater confidence in using English compared to those taught through English-only instruction. By testing this hypothesis, the research aims to provide empirical evidence on the potential of translanguaging to foster a more inclusive and effective English language learning environment for multilingual learners. Hypothesis 1: Classroom Engagement Null Hypothesis (Ho) There is no significant difference in students’ classroom engagement before and after the implementation of translanguaging strategies in English language instruction. Alternative Hypothesis (H₁) Students will demonstrate significantly higher classroom engagement after the implementation of translanguaging strategies in English language instruction. Hypothesis 2: ESL Confidence Null Hypothesis (Ho) There is no significant difference in students’ ESL confidence before and after the implementation of translanguaging strategies in English language instruction. Alternative Hypothesis (H₁) Students will demonstrate significantly greater ESL confidence after the implementation of translanguaging strategies in English language instruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS Research Design This study evaluated the effects of translanguaging pedagogy on the confidence and classroom participation of Grade 7 English as a Second Language (ESL) learners using a quantitative pre-experimental design with a one- group pretest-posttest model. By enabling a before-and- after comparison this model shed light on the changes in students’ engagement and self-reported confidence in their English. While the post-test phase (Weeks 5–8) incorporated translanguaging pedagogy the pre-test phase (Weeks 1–4) used an English-only instructional approach allowing for comparisons of student performance before and after the intervention (Cohen et al., 2017; García & Wei, 2014). This study is consistent with translanguaging research which highlights multilingual interaction as a scaffold for enhanced language learning given its design structure (Cummins, 2007). This study adds to the body of research that highlights the importance of first-language usage in lowering language anxiety and increasing participation by examining students’ classroom engagement and confidence through translanguaging pedagogy (García & Wei, 2014; MacSwan, 2020). Research Participants Students enrolled in the institution’s Masterclass program, a large-format colloquium course intended to improve English communication skills in grade 7 served as the study’s participants. Every week the Masterclass which lasts 60 to 90 minutes can accommodate about 350 students in a single session. In spite of the scale the class used an interactive structured approach that emphasized communication and vocabulary development. Students were required to learn a new set of English words by deciphering definitions and comprehending contextual usage for each session. After that students took part in brief tests and used the recently acquired vocabulary to share their thoughts. Students had to either create meaningful sentences or participate in discussions using the vocabulary from the previous week as part of the final task. This method made vocabulary learning more hands- on and engaging, providing a strong basis for tracking changes in student confidence and involvement. Students in grade 7 were specifically picked because they are in a crucial stage of their education moving from elementary to junior high school where academic standards drastically change and English is increasingly valued as a teaching language. This change poses emotional and cognitive difficulties for many people. Because they frequently worry about being judged or failing learners may find it difficult to express themselves in English which can hinder their ability to participate in class and perform well academically overall (Horwitz, 2001; Young, 1991). This is an especially delicate time of transition. Since they are still in the early phases of adolescence, seventh-graders’ learning behaviors can be significantly influenced by their perceptions of themselves and their peers. Although they are still young enough to gain a great deal from interventions that promote inclusivity and confidence-building in learning, they are old enough to start participating in metacognitive reflection (Krashen, 1982; Cummins, 2000). Translanguaging is appropriate for this group because of these factors. Students can participate more freely and authentically because it acts as emotional scaffolding in Pa ge 96 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 4(3) 92-103, 2025 addition to being a language tool (Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Reyes, 2018). Furthermore long-term attitudes regarding academic communication and English are still being formed by this age group. According to García- Mateus and Palmer (2017) and Antony et al. (2024) introducing translanguaging at this point can help reframe English learning as a collaborative affirming experience that values all of a student’s linguistic resources rather than as a threatening exclusive practice. Students can bridge their understanding of increasingly complex English-language content through translanguaging which promotes both language and academic development. All things considered, the population of Grade 7 students is extremely pertinent and significant to this research. They are especially receptive to translanguaging as a pedagogical scaffold in English language instruction because of their developmental stage, linguistic background and place in the educational system. Research Sampling Seventy seventh-grade students from Dr. Yangas Colleges Inc. participated in this study. chosen by basic random sampling. Because the sample is representative of the broader population this approach helps minimize selection bias and improves the findings external validity (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The final sample was limited to students who had perfect attendance for the entire eight-week period in order to guarantee data consistency and reliability. This group gave a fair and accurate picture of how translanguaging techniques might affect students with different levels of English proficiency because they represented a combination of proficiency levels. Procedure and Instructional Phases The eight-week study was split into two instructional phases that compared the effects of translanguaging pedagogy and English-only instruction. This is to ensure that the students have ample time to me introduced with each phase and fairly see if there any any significant difference after the intervention Phase 1: English-Only Instruction (Weeks 1–4) The Masterclass adhered strictly to the institution’s formal language policy during the first four weeks using only English. Every interaction in the classroom including discussions, instructions and student answers took place solely in English. In an English-only learning environment this method sought to establish a baseline for evaluating student confidence and engagement by reflecting common ESL practices (Cummins, 2007). While facilitating activities and delivering content teachers strictly followed the English language. Through vocabulary drills tests and sentence construction assignments students prepared their English reading, speaking and listening skills. In order to generate pre-test data on students’ frequency of participation and self-reported levels of comfort using English this phase acted as the control condition (Cohen et al. (2017). Additionally it exposed the early affective barriers that some students encountered including limited verbal participation and reluctance to speak problems that have been extensively documented in research on second language acquisition (Horwitz, 2001; Young, 1991). Phase 2: Translanguaging Pedagogy (Weeks 5–8) The class used a translanguaging pedagogy in the second half of the intervention which made it possible to use Filipino and English strategically and purposefully. Students were encouraged to use their entire linguistic repertoire to make sense of new vocabulary, clarify meaning and express themselves more freely even though English remained the primary language of instruction (García & Wei, 2014). When pupils needed to clarify concepts, pose inquiries or create meaning teachers permitted the use of Filipino and facilitated bilingual conversations. Particularly for students who were apprehensive or nervous during the English-only phase this bilingual scaffolding approach sought to reduce affective barriers (MacSwan, 2020; Cummins, 2007). Translanguaging gave learners an easy way to start learning English while boosting their confidence and engagement by incorporating their native tongue. Studies have indicated that learners are more likely to engage deeply, take academic risks and develop stronger conceptual understanding when they are allowed to use their native language as a cognitive and emotional support (Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Reyes, 2018). Due to the lack of a monolingual framework this phase enabled students to engage in more in-depth discussions and show increased comfort using English. Data Collection Instruments The researcher of this study utilized multiple approaches to measure how confident, engaged, and involved students were in class before and after they started using translanguaging, within the eight weeks. The proponent created tools to gather numbers and stories at different times during the study. This gave the researcher a clear picture of how translanguaging affected teaching and learning. Pre- and Post-Surveys on Confidence To gauge how sure students felt about using English, researchers gave out a survey before and after trying translanguaging. This survey asked about key skills: talking, listening, and understanding what they read. Students answered questions like “I feel sure about speaking English in class” and “I’m not scared to make mistakes when I speak English.” They chose answers from 1 (Totally Disagree) to 4 (Agree). The pre-survey provided a baseline for students’ self- perceived language confidence; it showed how confident students felt at the start while the English only policy was being implemented, while the post-survey identified changes resulting from the translanguaging approach. Pa ge 97 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 4(3) 92-103, 2025 Pre- and Post-Surveys on Student Engagement Metrics The researcher of the study measured student engagement with a 10-item self-report survey using a Likert scale. Students took this survey twice: once before and once after the study. The survey included statements such as “I take part in class discussions when teachers allow translanguaging” and “Using two languages helps me share my ideas more in class activities.” Students rated their responses on a 4-point scale. This method captured how students felt about and behaved in class as well as how they saw their own involvement in a classroom that used translanguaging. Pre- and Post-Assessment of Frequency of Participation The researcher kept track of how often students participated in class using an Engagement Log. The researcher filled out the first section of the student engagement log during each class session. The log recorded how many times each student contributed to discussions, categorized by: Frequency of Participation Quantitative count of student contributions. This data was collected across sessions both before and after the intervention, allowing for a comparative analysis of change in participation behaviors over time. Moreover, to gather categorical data, the researcher included the following: Language Used Identification of the language (English, Filipino, or both) used during participation. Type of Contribution Qualitative classification of participation as answering questions, asking questions, engaging in group discussions, or sharing personal opinions. Post-Only Student Perceptions on Translanguaging To gain insights into students’ thoughts and feelings, the researcher gave out an additional survey after the study ended. This survey used a Likert scale to measure views on translanguaging as a teaching method. It asked students to rate statements like “Translanguaging helps me understand the subject better” and “I learn more when the teacher uses materials in both my first language and English.” The goal was to see how students felt about translanguaging and its effect on their learning. This was administered after the intervention to ensure that the students understand the whole nature of translanguaging. Data Analysis To understand how translanguaging impacted learners’ confidence, engagement, and participation in class, the study relied on a mixed-methods strategy that integrated qualitative and quantitative data. This provided a richer and more nuanced understanding of the students’ experiences during the two phases of instruction. Quantitative Data Analysis Quantitative data were collected using pre- and post- intervention Likert-scale surveys, as well as classroom participation logs. All instruments followed a pre-test/ post-test design using the same group of students, making it possible to track changes over time. Confidence and Engagement Surveys Quantitative data was gathered through classroom participation records and delivery logs, as well as through pre- and post-intervention Likert surveys. All of the evaluation instruments were designed to have a pre-test and post-test within one cohort of pupils, thus permitting longitudinal tracking of changes over time. This test helped determine whether students showed significant growth in confidence and engagement after they were allowed to use both English and Filipino in class (Cohen et al., 2017). Participation Frequency The participation of students in each session was tracked using an engagement log which recorded each student’s contributions to discussions and activities within the class. As with the surveys, the analysis was done using a pre- test/post-test methodology, with the English-only phase serving as the baseline and the translanguaging phase serving as the post condition. A paired-sample t-test was executed to determine whether participation improved in the two phases being compared. This tested the hypothesis that translanguaging increases the frequency of interaction students have in the classroom (Horwitz, 2001; Young, 1991). Categorical and Qualitative Data Analysis Language Used and Contribution Type All occurence of participation were further classified according to the language used by the students (English, Filipino, or both) and the contribution made (e.g., answering questions, group discussions, personal reflections). The observations were summarized through frequency counts and cross-tabulations in order to identify patterns of language use and participation. This form of analysis assisted in demonstrating how translanguaging was operating to foster more flexible and responsive relationships within the classroom dynamics (Creese & Blackledge, 2010). Post-Only Perceptions of Translanguaging Translanguaging as a pedagogical approach was evaluated by students at the end of the research using a post-only Likert-scale survey. These responses were summarized using descriptive statistics. Students who provided comments were subjected to thematic analysis centered around specific themes, including greater comfort, better comprehension, and stronger willingness to engage (García & Wei, 2014; Reyes, 2018). Pa ge 98 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 4(3) 92-103, 2025 By combining survey data, participation logs, and student perceptions, the analysis offered a well-rounded picture of how translanguaging affected both the emotional and practical dimensions of classroom learning. This comprehensive approach helped highlight not just what changed, but how and why those changes occurred RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This section focuses on how the translanguaging intervention affected students’ confidence, engagement, and participation, and it presents and interprets the study’s findings in light of the research objectives. Based on both quantitative and qualitative data, the findings are arranged according to the main areas of study: students’ perceptions of translanguaging pedagogy, classroom engagement levels, frequency and type of student participation, and self-reported confidence in English use. In order to understand how letting students use their entire linguistic ability affects both the affective and behavioral aspects of learning, the discussion incorporates these findings with previously published research. Student Engagement Table 1: Student Engagement Metrics One Sample T-Test Statistic df p Meandifference 95% Confidence Interval lower Upper Ql Student's t 37.8 139 < .001 2.95 2.80 3.10 Q2 Student's t 33.6 139 < .001 2.90 2.73 3.07 Q3 Student's t 39.1 139 < .001 2.98 2.83 3.13 Q4 Student's t 45.2 B9 < .001 3.05 2.92 3.18 QS Student's t 38.5 139 < .001 2.90 2.75 3.05 Q6 Student's t 35.8 139 < .001 2.89 2.73 3.05 Q7 Student's t 35.7 139 < .001 2.90 2.74 3.06 Q8 Student's t 36.7 139 < .001 2.91 2.75 3.06 Q9 Student's t 37.9 139 < .001 2.91 2.76 3.07 Q10 Student's t 37A 139 < .001 2.84 2.69 2.99 Note: Ha µ≠0 To determine whether survey responses indicating student engagement levels deviated significantly from a neutral value (set at 2.5 on a 4-point Likert scale), a one-sample t-test was used. The purpose of this test was to ascertain whether the sample mean for each item differed statistically from a population mean that was thought to represent neutrality. All of the items’ resulting t-values were greater than 30, suggesting significant deviations from the neutral point. This implies that across all survey items, students’ reported levels of engagement were noticeably higher than neutral. Following the introduction of translanguaging techniques, students reported feeling noticeably more involved in class. With p values less than.001 for every engagement item, the 10-item Likert-scale survey revealed statistically significant improvements. The highest score was recorded in Question 4 (M = 3.05, 95% CI [2.92, 3.18]), indicating that students strongly agreed with feeling more involved and supported when permitted to use both English and Filipino in the classroom. The mean differences ranged from 2.84 to 3.05. The information clearly shows that students’ reactions to their learning environment have improved. When translanguaging was promoted, they felt more capable of expressing themselves, participating in conversations, and maintaining their emotional and intellectual interest in the lessons. This is in line with what other researchers have found, which is that speaking students’ native tongues in the classroom increases motivation and engagement in addition to promoting understanding (Creese & Blackledge, 2010). The translanguaging approach increased students’ willingness to speak up, take chances, and interact meaningfully with the material rather than detracting from their English language learning. According to these results, translanguaging produced a learning environment where students felt more capable, respected, and safe— elements that are essential for both academic achievement and emotional health (Cummins, 2007; Reyes, 2018). Student ESL Confidence A paired sample t-test was conducted to examine the Table 2: Student ESL Confidence Levels Paired Samples T-Test Statistic df p Mean difference SE difference Pretest average confidence Post test average confidence Student’s t -88.3 69.0 < .001 -1.02 0.0116 Note: Ha µMeasure 1-Measure 2 ≠ 0 Pa ge 99 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 4(3) 92-103, 2025 difference in participants’ confidence levels before and after the intervention. The findings showed that confidence increased after the intervention in a statistically significant way. Participants reported higher levels of confidence following the intervention, according to the analysis, which showed a mean difference of -1.02 between pre-test and post- test scores. There was a significant difference between the two sets of scores, as indicated by the calculated t-statistic of -88.3. The test was based on 70 pairs of data with degrees of freedom (df) equal to 69. A highly significant result was indicated by the associated p-value, which was less than 0.001. The finding that the noticed rise in confidence is due to the intervention and not random variation is supported by the low likelihood of observing this variation by chance. Student Participation Frequency Table 3: Student Participation Frequency Paired Samples T-Test Statistic df p Mean difference SE difference Frequency pre test Frequency Post test Student’s t -12.3 69.0 < .001 -2.17 0.176 Note: Ha µMeasure 1-Measure 2 ≠ 0 A paired sample t-test comparing before and after the intervention participation data was used to evaluate the effect of the intervention itself on students’ frequency of participation. To find out if there was a significant change over time within the exact same group of participants, this method of statistical analysis was suitable. After the intervention, students participated much more frequently, according to the analysis, which showed a mean difference of -2.17. The estimate was highly precise, as evidenced by the standard error of the mean difference of 0.176. A significant difference between the levels of participation before and after the intervention was suggested by the resulting t-statistic, which was -12.3, a value of considerable magnitude. The test used data from 70 paired observations with degrees of freedom (df) equal to 69. A statistically significant outcome was indicated by the associated p-value, which was less than 0.001. As a result, the null hypothesis, according to which the frequency of participation remained unchanged and was rejected. These results offer strong proof that the intervention was successful in raising pupil engagement rates. Language Used by the Students assesses whether the observed frequencies of language use English, Filipino, or both deviate substantially from what would be predicted based on the assumptions of equal distribution. The majority of those participating (65.7%, or 46 out of 70) preferred using both English and Filipino during the intervention, according to the observed data. By contrast, only 12.9% (9 students) spoke Filipino exclusively, whereas 21.4% (15 students) spoke English exclusively. The null hypothesis, which postulated an equal distribution among the three language categories, was tested against these frequencies. With two degrees of freedom, the chi-square test yielded a test statistic of χ² = 33.80 and a p-value of less than 0.001. The observed usage of language pattern is unlikely to have simply happened by accident, as indicated by the statistically significant deviation from what was anticipated, indicated by this incredibly small p-value. Type of Contribution Performed by Students Table 4: Chi-square for languages used by the students Proportions - languages used Level Count Proportion B 46 0.657 E 15 0.2 14 F 9 0.129 x2 Goodness of Fit x2 df p 33.8 2 < .001 A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was used to see if students’ language preferences during the intervention deviated significantly from a uniform distribution. According to McHugh (2013), this statistical process Figure 2: Upset Plot on type of contribution performed by students Student contributions were also analyzed via an UpSet plot across four main levels: Answering questions, Asking questions, Engaging in group discussion and Providing personal opinions. The visualization technique was selected due to its ability to visualize intricate overlap between multiple categorical variables. The information shows that 37 students inquired, 35 gave their opinion, 33 discussed in groups and 30 answered questions. These values indicate a relatively even unbiased distribution of participation types, whereby the most frequent individual activity is posting questions. Pa ge 10 0 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 4(3) 92-103, 2025 This also shows that the contributions of students are shared in four types of engagement. Of the participants who engaged in only one type of activity, 15 students questioned, 12 expressed an opinion, 10 discussed, and 9 responded. These participants showed a concentrated, single-modus commitment. Two-way intersections were more common, with 8 students asking questions and providing their own opinions the most common pairing. Other recurrent combination were questions and answers (7 students), opinions and debates (6 students) and questions and group discussion together (5 students) Further participation was demonstrated by three-way points of intersection: five students combined providing opinions, responding to questions, and participating in discussions, whereas six students asked questions, offered opinions, and answered questions. Seven students participated in each of the four kinds of contributions, demonstrating the greatest degree of engagement. These students demonstrated a well- rounded engagement in class interaction by participating in discussions, sharing opinions, and asking and answering questions. Student Perceptions on Translanguaging CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to investigate how students interact with and perceive translanguaging in a multilingual classroom. The results offer important insights into how students engage with and react to translanguaging practices through an integration of descriptive statistical evaluation and graphic illustrations of participation patterns. The study revealed that translanguaging significantly enhances multilingual classroom dynamics by increasing student engagement, boosting ESL confidence, and encouraging frequent and diverse participation. Students responded positively to the integration of English and Filipino, with data showing an increase in classroom involvement and self-assurance in using English. Chi- square analysis confirmed a strong preference for bilingual interaction, validating translanguaging as a natural and effective communicative bridge. The variety of contributions from group discussions to questioning, demonstrated deeper cognitive processing and active learning. Furthermore, student perceptions overwhelmingly supported translanguaging’s role in fostering inclusivity and reducing linguistic anxiety. These findings collectively affirm translanguaging as a powerful pedagogical strategy that enriches language learning and classroom interaction. REFERENCES Antony, J., Smith, R., & Lee, K. (2024). Challenges in multilingual education: Policy implications and pedagogical practices. Multilingual Educational Journal, 18(2), 101–120. Antony, S., de los Reyes, A., & Morales, J. (2024). Decolonizing language education: The role of translanguaging in Southeast Asian classrooms. Asian Education Studies, 12(1), 15–28. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman. Bernardo, A. (2004). Bilingual education in the Philippines: Sociopolitical and cognitive perspectives. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 35(1), 45–68. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying translanguaging strategies of multilingual students. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01207.x Cenoz, J. (2017). Translanguaging in school contexts: International perspectives. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 193–198. https://doi.org/10.108 0/15348458.2017.1327816 Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2020). Pedagogical translanguaging: Navigating between languages in multilingual classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 24(2), 149–170. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x Table 5: Students’ Perception Score Descriptives Perception score N 70 Missing 0 Mean 4.21 Me