ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 13, Issue 1, February 2025 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 383 ASSESSMENT IN TRANSLANGUAGING CLASSROOMS: INDONESIAN UNIVERSITY ENGLISH TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Yulia Hapsari Department of English Language Education, Faculty of Language and Literature Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, West Java, Indonesia Email: hapsari.yulia@upi.edu Fuad Abdul Hamied Department of English Language Education, Faculty of Language and Literature Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, West Java, Indonesia Email: fuadah@upi.edu Emi Emilia Department of English Language Education, Faculty of Language and Literature Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, West Java, Indonesia Email: emi.emilia.upi@gmail.com APA Citation: Hapsari. Y., Hamied, F.A., Emilia, E. (2025). Assessment in translanguaging classrooms: Experiences and recommendations for university English classes. English Review: Journal of English Education, 13(1), 383-396. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v13i1.11246 Received: 11-09-2024 Accepted: 13-12-2024 Published: 28-02-2025 Abstract: This study explores teachers’ experiences in performing assessments in classroom translanguaging in relation to the four principles of translanguaging assessment to propose recommendations for translanguaging classrooms at the university level. Semi structured interviews were conducted at an English department of a university in Indonesia involving five voluntarily participating teachers based on purposive sampling aiming at non-language skills courses. Data collected from field notes and interview guides were analyzed thematically. The results demonstrated that the different voices in assessment principle had not been well accommodated, as most teachers restricted students’ language use to English and Indonesia. This related to the emerging theme - shared language among interlocutors- underscoring mutual comprehension as the reason of the teachers’ language restriction. The other two principles, the use of other people and other resources and the authenticity of the tasks, were enacted through group works and projects. However, the distinction between general linguistic and language-specific performances was not carried out potentially due to teachers’ less comprehensive knowledge about translanguaging. Recommendations covering improving teachers’ knowledge about pedagogical translanguaging, designing translanguaging assessments, and providing practical strategies of administering translanguaging assessment are made to facilitate good alignment between classroom translanguaging instructions and assessments to maximize students’ learning benefits. The evidence-based results in this study should provide a guidance to translanguaging assessment practice that is barely discussed in translanguaging classrooms studies. Keywords: assessment; English classrooms; English proficiency; translanguaging; translanguaging classrooms INTRODUCTION Translanguaging as a movement away from native speakerism amidst the multilingual turn of society has been extensively employed in English classrooms. However, assessing students in translanguaging English classrooms remains challenging. The use of standardized tests characterized by native-speakerism (McNamara, 2012) are no longer relevant to the basic principles of translanguaging. Translanguaging underscores bi/multilingual use of their full linguistic repertoires to convey meaning without watchful adherence to certain boundaries of named language (García & Wei, 2014). Thus, translanguaging also challenge the assessment that measures language proficiency in isolated English language skills by allowing students to use multiple languages. This practice may incur concerns about how to grade the students’ language progression so that a balance between language use and content understanding can be achieved. Regardless of the increasing studies about translanguaging, its implications in the classroom are limited (Cenoz & Gorter, 2020). Studies pertinent to translanguaging assessment mailto:hapsari.yulia@upi.edu mailto:fuadah@upi.edu mailto:emi.emilia.upi@gmail.com Yulia Hapsari, Fuad Abdul Hamied, & Emi Emilia Assessment in translanguaging classrooms: Experiences and recommendations for university English classes 384 are barely available (Marina Prilutskaya, 2021), calling for more research on translanguaging in assessment practice (M. Prilutskaya & Knoph, 2020), and the effects of translanguaging on language learning outcomes (Pinto, 2020). Among the limited studies is Rafi's (2023) study revealing that when assessments were conducted in English only-policy, some students failed the course due to lack of English proficiency despite having substantial knowledge of the subject matter. In Indonesian settings, a study by Puspitasari and Yumarnamto (2020) indicate that translanguaging was used as a scaffolding strategy to acquire English. Thus, assessment measuring students’ success in learning was still based on the students’ conformation to native-speaker’s English regardless of the use of translanguaging as instructional strategy. To guide teachers in designing and performing assessments in classroom translanguaging contexts, Garcia et al. (2017) propose translanguaging design in assessment as a part of three strands of pedagogical translanguaging – translanguaging stance, translanguaging design, and translanguaging shifts. Translanguaging assessment design focuses on measuring learners’ competence in using the full features of their linguistic repertoire to express what they know and can do on classroom tasks (Garcia et al., 2017, p.159) rather than the learners’ competence in having native-like proficiency. Four principles were proposed: the different voices in assessment (accommodating students’ home language), the use of other people and other resources (maximizing students’ Zone of Proxima Development), the authenticity of the tasks (the real-life use of English), and the distinction between general linguistic (students use of their full features of their linguistic repertoire to express complex thought) and language-specific performances (students’ use of exclusive features of specific named language, e.g., English) (Garcia et al., 2017, p.163). For example, students are allowed to use their home language and English to work as a group to complete a project requiring them to deal with the real-life use of English in an international communication, such as making a YouTube content about strategies in teaching English to young learners in rural areas of Indonesia. During the process, the teacher scores students’ general linguistic performance and language-specific performance differently. This practice differentiates translanguaging assessment from the traditional assessment. Translanguaging in assessment is part of translanguaging pedagogy. However, many reported translanguaging classroom studies have not reflected how the translanguaging assessment is designed or how the four principles of translanguaging in the assessment are addressed. Many studies on classroom translanguaging identified the students’ success through their improved engagement in classroom activities that is connoted with the students’ improved comprehension of the subject matter (e.g., Fang & Liu, 2020; Panezai et al., 2023) without touching any of the four principles of the translanguaging assessment suggested by Garcia et al. (2017). Acknowledging students’ engagement as an indicator of students’ improved comprehension is less beneficial for students when their success in learning is determined by their languaging’ close resemblance to that of the native speaker. Renandya and Chang (2022) even stated that the primary goal of instruction in translanguaging classrooms is more on the mastery of course content rather than language development. They are unsure if translanguaging would help learners of English as a foreign language improve their English proficiency by tagging the CEFR level, indicating how English proficiency should be measured. This measurement tends to conform to native-like proficiency. This mismatch practice, where students are taught using translanguaging but assessed using native-speakerism principles, could put students in disadvantaged situations. It is like teaching students using multilingual framework but assessing them using monolingual scheme. This assessment might result in students’ low score, but the score does not portray what the students learn and acquire. Classroom translanguaging instructions and assessments should be well aligned to ensure students benefit from learning. To do so, reflections on the already available practices of classroom translanguaging should be performed to explore teachers’ experiences in performing assessments in their translanguaging classrooms. Further, discussions on the relevance between the teachers’ experiences and the principles of translanguaging assessment proposed by Garcia et al. (2017) can lead to recommendations on specific strategies that can be used to align assessments with translanguaging principles. This recommendation should inform English teachers that the adoption of translanguaging instruction in their English classrooms need to tag along the translanguaging assessment design to provide a just and fair measures of students’ success in ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 13, Issue 1, February 2025 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 385 learning. With that in mind, this study focuses on the already available translanguaging classrooms of EFL classes at a university in Indonesia, guided by the following research questions: (1) What are the experiences of the EFL teachers at an Indonesian university in performing assessments in their translanguaging classrooms? (2) What are the recommendations for assessment in translanguaging classrooms? METHOD This study was conducted in an English education program at a university in Malang, Indonesia. The participants were five teachers selected based on their voluntary participation through purposive sampling aiming at non-language skills courses. The exclusion of the language skill courses from the sampling is due to the translanguaging principle that focuses more on multilingual speakers’ unitary language system than rigid adherence to the language system of certain named language (García & Wei, 2014) as aimed at the language skills courses. While the translanguaging stance of the five teachers remains unclear, all of them are multilingual English teachers holding doctorate degree and have over ten-year experience of teaching the courses using the mixing of English and non-English languages in classrooms. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with the participants, employing interview guides that focused on the four principles of translanguaging in assessment proposed by Seltzer (2017): 1). the different voices in assessment, 2). the use of other people and other resources, 3). the authenticity of the tasks, and 4). the distinction between general linguistic and language-specific performances. The semi- structured interview was selected as it facilitates the researchers to focus on the topic pertinent to the research objectives while also enables researchers to conduct deeper explorations on the topics (McKinley & Rose, 2020). All the interviews were conducted directly, using any language convenient for the participants to express their ideas best, video-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The non- English utterances were translated by the first author and cross-checked by the other authors to ensure the accuracy of the meaning delivered. All the transcriptions were analyzed qualitatively using a ‘theoretical’ thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis was chosen as it works both to reflect reality, and to unravel the surface of the reality. These functions match this research that aimed at investigating the teachers’ experience pertinent to translanguaging assessment in their classrooms, which entails further in-dept explorations to recommend strategies relevant to the principles of translanguaging assessment. Braun & Clarke's (2006) ‘theoretical’ thematic analysis is relevant to this study in that the analysis in this study was driven by the researchers’ analytic interest pertinent to translanguaging assessment based on the four principles of translanguaging in assessment (Seltzer, 2017). These four principles become the ‘theoretical’ basis that guide the research questions, and consequently set the course of data collection and analysis. Therefore, initial data coding was generated from the four principles of translanguaging assessment. Then, data were collated to review their relevance with the theme. Next, the coded data were reviewed and re- checked against the entire dataset to further develop the themes and to determine its relevance to address the research questions. Finally, a detailed analysis of each theme was conducted to establish the descriptions of each theme. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION EFL teachers’ experiences in performing assessments in translanguaging classrooms In response to the first research question in this study, the ‘theoretical’ thematic analysis, which follows the Braun & Clarke's (2006) phases of thematic analysis (Figure 1), was employed. Yulia Hapsari, Fuad Abdul Hamied, & Emi Emilia Assessment in translanguaging classrooms: Experiences and recommendations for university English classes 386 Figure 1. Phases of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p.15-23) The results indicated that the EFL teachers’ experiences in performing assessments in translanguaging classrooms reflected three out of four principles of translanguaging assessment. The teachers accommodated the different voices in assessment, the use of other people and other resources, and the authenticity of the tasks. Nevertheless, the distinction between general linguistic and language-specific performances was still overlooked, indicating that students’ competence in using only the target language in responding to the tasks is still the main focus of the assessment. In addition, the analysis also resulted in the emergence of one theme – shared language among interlocutors – aside from the four principles of translanguaging assessment. This additional theme leads to its potential contribution to how they assess students’ performance. The teachers will regard their students fail when the students use linguistic features of a language that was not shared with the teacher because the teacher cannot understand it. The teachers’ practice relates to Mahboob and Dutcher (2014), who presented that ability to understand interlocutor’s language practice contributes to building communication competence. The additional theme is presented preceding the other four themes discussed in this study, as stated in the following subheadings. Shared language among interlocutors Table 1 presents the participants’ details. To comply with research ethics, pseudonyms are used. Table 1. The participants’ detail Name ITP TOEFL scores Language repertoire L1 Other language Andy 583 Indonesian Javanese, English, Balinese, Japanese Daisy 576 Javanese Indonesian, English Henry 570 Madurese, Javanese Indonesian, English Fanny 563 Javanese Indonesian, English Irene 533 Javanese Indonesian, English The participants of this study have different language repertoires and English proficiency, as indicated by their ITP TOEFL scores. The study reveals that regardless of their L1, the teachers’ classroom translanguaging practice mainly involved three languages: English, Indonesian, and Javanese. This fact challenges the understanding of many TESOL practitioners that translanguaging is simply using L1 in L2 teaching (Renandya & Chang, 2022). Instead, translanguaging in these classrooms were shaped by shared language between teachers and students, ensuring mutual understanding. The findings align with Zein (2020), who stated that within the complexity of superdiverse Indonesia, Javanese is the most spoken indigenous language, making it the largest ethnolinguistic group in the country as Javanese ethnicity accounts for up to 40.22 per cent of the population. The restriction to English, Indonesian, and Javanese in translanguaging ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 13, Issue 1, February 2025 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 387 classrooms suggests that comprehension is best facilitated when speakers use linguistic features shared by all interlocutors (Mahboob & Dutcher, 2014). This explains the absence of Henry’s L1 (Madurese) and Andy’s Balinese and Japanese from their teaching, as these languages were not widely understood by students. Andy stated, “I told [students] to respond [to the tasks] in any language that I can also understand because I want to check their understanding about the theories we discussed” Daisy also shared a similar notion by explaining that, “It [students’ language choices to be used in the translanguaging classroom] depends on the interlocutors, as the objective is to be understood. So, it’s OK to use translanguaging, but not for full Indonesian use. It would be better if they [students] could use full English. If I could put it as a rank, full English ranks first, translanguaging ranks second, and full Indonesian ranks third. But the goal is the same: to be understood by the interlocutors. If they can be understood in full English, that’s excellent. If they can’t, they can use translanguaging” While the selection of shared languages facilitate comprehension, it contradicts the broader conceptualization of translanguaging as bi/multilingual use of their full linguistic repertoires to convey meaning without watchful adherence to certain boundaries of named language (García & Wei, 2014). The imposed language restrictions limit students’ ability to fully leverage their linguistic repertoires, potentially reducing the optimum work of their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Teachers’ expectations further influenced students’ translanguaging practices. Andy explicitly required students to use language she could understand to facilitate comprehension checks. Daisy ranked full English as the preferred mode of response, followed by translanguaging, and finally full Indonesia. This ranking reflects an implicit hierarchy in language use, reinforcing the perception that English proficiency is the ultimate goal. These attitudes are relevant to Garcia et al.'s (2017) argument that translanguaging assessment is shaped by teachers’ translanguaging stance. The different voices in assessment The five teachers – Andy, Daisy, Henry, Fanny, and Irene – had tried to integrate the home and school unitary language practices by accommodating the use of not only English in their translanguaging classrooms. However, a couple of restrictions that go against the translanguaging concept were still obvious. First, the teachers limit students’ language choices by signaling that only English and Indonesian are allowed. For example, Irene stated that, “I give them [students] opportunity. If they struggle to explain their ideas in English, they can use Indonesian. What matters is that the message is delivered. However, it [shifting into Indonesian] reduces their score.” The accommodation of non-English indicates a movement away from monolingualism. However, restrictions to using only certain languages in the translanguaging classrooms do not reflect the concept of translanguaging that promotes a unitary, not separated, language system of bi/multilingual speakers. Limiting certain languages to be used in the translanguaging classrooms indicates that bi/multilingual have two or more different languages that work separately. This limitation does not agree with the translanguaging concept that promotes the unitary language use of bi/multilingual (Otheguy et al., 2015) in which bi/multilinguals’ languaging should not be considered as a compilation of several different languages because bilinguals’ languaging is not equal to the languaging of two monolinguals (Garcia, 2009a). Second, most teachers in this study restricted students to using only English to respond to the classroom tasks. The use of non-English will affect students’ scores. Daisy pointed out that, “Translanguaging is never allowed in any tests because they are English department students. From the very beginning, they are required to respond in English. There was an experience when the students had to write their best practices during their school internship. It was a final project. Some students submitted it in Indonesian, and some used translanguaging. I returned their work, and they had to re-do it in English unless they got very low scores. ” This assessment practice in the translanguaging classroom did not conform to the translanguaging assessment principles. A translanguaging design for assessment always needs to include many voices that integrate the home and the school juntos – “teacher belief that bilingual student has one Yulia Hapsari, Fuad Abdul Hamied, & Emi Emilia Assessment in translanguaging classrooms: Experiences and recommendations for university English classes 388 language system with features that need to be leveraged together” (Garcia et al., 2017, p.135). However, only Andy that seemed to accommodate the bi/multilingual students’ home and school languaging practice. Andy explained that, “They [students] are given freedom whether to submit their assignment. They can submit it in the form of a video, meaning they are more comfortable speaking their mind, or if they are more comfortable writing up their understanding, they can submit the assignment as a written report. They are also free to use any language and use translanguaging. It’s no problem for me. It will not affect their scores as I focus on assessing their comprehension. The content.” Andy’s assessment affirmed that she focuses on understanding students’ comprehension of the subject matter. Therefore, she gives students the freedom to express their understanding. Students are allowed to use any mode that best expresses their understanding. This assessment practice follows the principle of assessment in translanguaging classrooms, which considers what students can do with content and language on school-based tasks by accommodating the home and school languaging (Garcia et al., 2017, p.162). This theme highlights the need for inclusive, equitable, and student-centered assessment practices that consider diverse linguistic backgrounds. In the context of translanguaging as a unitary language system in multilingual speaker’s linguistic repertoire (García & Wei, 2014) and how assessment in classroom translanguaging should be designed (Garcia et al., 2017), this theme informs future assessment practices to acknowledge and leverage students’ full linguistic repertoires by underscoring the fluid and dynamic nature of multilinguals’ language use rather than penalizing the students for using their entire linguistic repertoire. Andy’s approach of allowing students to choose their mode of assessment was an example of translanguaging assessment practice which aligns with the idea that assessment should measure comprehension rather than rigid linguistic conformity. The incorporation of multimodal strategies is also fundamental in translanguaging assessment as it can reflect students’ strength and allow them to communicate their knowledge in ways that best suit them. The use of other people and other resources One of the principles of translanguaging in the assessment relates to student’s work in the bilingual zone of proximal development (ZPD) to maximize their learning. In this study, this principle emerges as a theme that can be seen from the thematic ‘map’ as suggested by Braun & Clarke, (2006) thematic analysis phases presented in Table 2. Table 2. ‘Map’ of the use of other people and other resources’ theme Extract Data Source Notes Theoretical basis Theme Interviewer: When there are some students who respond to you in Indonesian, some other in English with some obvious inaccuracy, and some other respond to you using translanguaging, which one do you prefer? Andy: I have no problem with any of them Interviewer: No preference? Andy: Hu um. As long as the students are comfortable with it, I have no problem at all. I position myself as a facilitator. I regard it as a process because they have so far tried their best to use vocabulary they meant to express their ideas. That’s why I really appreciate that. They tried. It means they have the courage to use their language. So, I have no problem with that. Andy Teacher and translanguaging as a facilitator in students’ ZPD Students should be given opportunities to use all their interpersonal and intrapersonal sources, as well as external material sources, to ensure that they are working in the zone of proximal development (ZPD) to show what they know and can do The use of other people and other resources ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 13, Issue 1, February 2025 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 389 After completing every discussion about a topic, I always remind students to save their comprehension in the Whatsapp group so that they can access it at any time they want. If there is a misunderstanding, I make sure to provide a correction because to me it is feedback for me as a teacher. I get to know how my students comprehend the topic. The way they perceive the idea is this way, so I have to review their answers and when I found something not properly understood then I can use it as an opportunity to give a review about the topic to the students. Henry Teacher as a facilitator in students’ ZPD When I noticed that the student was struggling to explain her ideas in English, so tangled up with her words, I then allowed her to use Indonesia to continue her explanation. That’s my reason. Fanny Translanguaging as a facilitator in students’ ZPD Table 2 shows that not all teachers manifested the principles of translanguaging in the assessment that accommodates the use of other people or resources, as suggested by Garcia et al. (2017). Including learners’ rights to access all their interpersonal and intrapersonal resources along with external material resources “to show what they know and can do to make sense of and mediate their own learning” (Garcia et al., 2017, p.162) is essential in translanguaging classroom assessment. The three teachers indicated in Table 2 manifest this principle. Andy illustrated that her students’ languaging in responding to her in the translanguaging classroom does not cause any unequal judgment and treatment. Moreover, she perceives it as a part of the student’s learning process that needs to be appreciated. In this manner, she implies that both students’ translanguaging and herself could be the resources that could maximize students’ ZPD. On a slightly different note, Henry’s attitude of providing feedback on students’ misunderstandings has positioned him as the more knowledgeable other to help students’ ZPD work optimally. However, translanguaging was not mentioned in his practice. Finally, Fanny’s permission for her students to use translanguaging to facilitate expressing meaning could provide a safe zone for them to explore their ideas and languages without being judged for being flawed. The provision of the safe zone through translanguaging was also discussed in some studies (e.g., Capstick & Ateek (2021); Tai & Wei, (2021a)). This act can position translanguaging as the resource that maximizes students’ ZPD to scaffold their language development. Garcia et al. (2017, p.162) stated that the interpersonal and intrapersonal resources could be the people around the students, the learners’ inner voice that considers the entire language repertoire, or the material tools for learning that can mediate the task. For example, Tai and Wei (2021) explored how the iPad as a material tool can create a translanguaging space to facilitate multilingual students to acquire new academic knowledge. Tai & Wei's (2021) study and the findings of this study imply that the more knowledgeable others in the ZPD concept are not always in the form of other people. Instead, translanguaging and other material tools can also maximize the work of bi/multilingual students’ ZPD to maximize their learning. The authenticity of the tasks The final project of the translanguaging unit plan is an authentic, action-oriented product that students develop and execute within the course unit (Garcia et al., 2017, p.162). Throughout the completion of this project, students’ performance in the activities constructing the project is assessed for their comprehension of the content and language aimed at by the course unit. This assessment is the basis for authentic, performance-based assessment, which is one of the principles of translanguaging in assessment. Such a project is evident in all five teachers’ translanguaging classrooms (See Table 3). Table 3. The assessed activities and projects Teacher Activities Final Project Andy Classroom discussions, project monitoring 1, project monitoring 2 Analyzing a child’s psychological development Yulia Hapsari, Fuad Abdul Hamied, & Emi Emilia Assessment in translanguaging classrooms: Experiences and recommendations for university English classes 390 using Piaget’s theory Daisy Quiz, Mid-term written test Writing best practice from school internship program Henry Comprehension notes, Mid-term written test, Final written test Writing a research methodology section of an undergraduate thesis proposal Fanny Group presentations, Mid-term written test Analyzing an inclusive classroom Irene Group work – developing a lesson plan, presenting the lesson plan Microteaching – Teaching English in informal education contexts Henry’s assessment practice indicates authentic, performance-based assessments starting from activities assessment culminating in the final project. As mentioned previously in Table 2, Henry requires his students to note down their comprehension of a topic once the discussion is completed. Then, he provided feedback to mitigate and respond to possible content misunderstandings. In this stage, Henry paid more attention to the students’ content than their language. However, translanguaging is never allowed. Henry argued that it is important to train students to use English only to explain their comprehension of an academic concept because the final goal of the course is for the students to be able to write a research methodology section of an undergraduate thesis proposal. This final project requires students to accurately describe the implementation of a research methodology concept. Henry argued that, “When the concept is incorrect, and the English are inaccurate, it’s a disaster. Yet, when the concept is correct, but the English is inaccurate, it is still tolerable. We can work on the language later”. Similar ideas are also voiced by Andy, stating that “When I assign a project, I always give them [students] freedom to choose how they will work on the project as long as they follow the theoretical framework given, for example, Piaget’s theory. Then, they can choose whatever mode they feel comfortable using to communicate their thought best. There will be no different scoring based on the language they use. They can freely use Indonesia, English, or translanguaging. What matters most is the content, not the language skills.” The arguments of the two teachers imply that they prioritize content over target language use. At some points, the arguments agree with the translanguaging concept that bi/multilingual languaging is a unitary system that cannot be judged separately (Garcia, 2009b; Otheguy et al., 2015) and that translanguaging can facilitate students’ comprehension (e.g. Emilia & Hamied, 2022; Fang & Liu, 2020). However, the emphasis on content over language does not seem to agree with the goal of translanguaging in assessments that assess students’ comprehension of the content and language (Garcia et al., 2017). The final projects in the translanguaging unit plan, as outlined in Table 3, suggest varying levels of authenticity and opportunities for students to use their full linguistic repertoire. While teachers like Andy allow students to use multilanguage and multimodality that aligns with translanguaging principle (see (Siu et al., 2023; Tai, 2023b; Tai & Wei, 2021b), teachers like Henry restrict translanguaging by insisting on the exclusive use of English for academic writing. While Henry’s rationale – that students must be trained to write a research methodology section in English – makes sense for discipline-specific academic writing, it contradicts translanguaging pedagogy, which values multilingual meaning-making throughout the learning and assessment process. By disallowing translanguaging, students may struggle to fully articulate their understanding, limiting the authenticity of the task from a translanguaging perspective. The distinction between general linguistic and language-specific performances Translanguaging in assessment aims to assess not only students’ comprehension but also the language required by the translanguaging unit. In assessing the language, Garcia et al. (2017) proposed two aspects of language assessment that need to be covered: the general linguistic performance and the language-specific performance. The general linguistic performance refers to speakers’ use of oral and written language to express complex thoughts (e.g., to explain, persuade, argue, compare and contrast, find text- based evidence, give directions, or recount events) by drawing on the full features of their linguistic repertoires. Language-specific performance refers to speakers’ exclusive use of features from a named ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 13, Issue 1, February 2025 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 391 language (e.g., Spanish, Mandarin, English) to perform classroom tasks. Garcia et al. (2017) added that using a translanguaging design for assessment allows a better evaluation of students’ content and language learning by ensuring that general linguistic and language-specific performances are never conflated. By distinguishing between these types of performances, a translanguaging design for assessment encourages bilingual children to display their entire language repertoires when their general linguistic performances are being assessed. Nevertheless, this study did not indicate that any teachers were implementing the general linguistic performance and language-specific performance assessment. There are some possible explanations for why this principle was overlooked. First, the teachers were familiar with the traditional assessment framework which based on monolingual norms, and not well informed of how translanguaging assessment should be done. Regardless of their improved translanguaging stance like Andy, her knowledge about classroom translanguaging pedagogy was limited. Second, theoretical clarity of general linguistic and language-specific performance is still an issue as there is barely established indicators guiding scoring rubrics separating the assessment of the performances. As a result, the dimensions are often conflated. Third, many languages assessment prioritize specific- language proficiency rather than how students strategically use multiple languages to construct meaning and solve communication problems. This leads to the overlooking of the distinction between the general linguistic and language-specific performances. The last, educational policy and curricula are still designed around separate- language instruction and assessment, discouraging the recognition of translanguaging as a legitimate educational practice in language classrooms. Recommendations for assessment in translanguaging classrooms Based on the teachers' experience conducting assessments in translanguaging classrooms, recommendations are proposed to improve teachers’ knowledge about translanguaging in assessment and designing translanguaging assessments. Improving teachers’ knowledge about translanguaging in assessment This study demonstrates that translanguaging is not simply the use of L1 in teaching L2. Improving teachers’ knowledge about translanguaging is crucial since most TESOL practitioners might not have comprehensive knowledge of it (Renandya & Chang, 2022). Misleading practices in translanguaging classrooms also frequently occur (see Aleksić & García (2022); Wei & García, (2022)). As translanguaging's definition continues to be refined (Lewis et al., 2012), “constant awareness and attention to the perspective in which it is applied” (Singleton & Flynn, 2022, p.1) should be well-maintained. In the pedagogical field, Garcia et al. (2017) presented three strands of pedagogical translanguaging – translanguaging stance, translanguaging design, and translanguaging shift – as pivotal guides to implementing the translanguaging concept in classrooms. The translanguaging stance denotes the philosophical, ideological, or belief system teachers adopt to construct an instructional scheme. The translanguaging design comprises the translanguaging instructional design and translanguaging assessment design. Lastly, the translanguaging shifts refer to the numerous moment-to-moment decisions made by teachers to demonstrate teachers’ flexibility and readiness to modify the language used to support and empower students’ voices. Translanguaging in assessment, part of the second strand of Garcia et al.'s (2017) pedagogical translanguaging strands, comprises students’ profiles, dynamic translanguaging progression, and assessment tools. The students’ profiles supply essential information for teachers to design translanguaging assessments, as translanguaging should cater more to students’ language repertoire than the teachers’ language repertoire. The dynamic translanguaging progression of the students requires teachers to pay close attention to students’ general linguistic performance and language-specific performance since the two performances should indicate how the students’ language has been leveraged throughout the course. Lastly, the assessment tools to measure what students know and can do with content and language required by the course unit should be able to gather information on two aspects: 1). Whether the student’s performance employs all the features of his language repertoire or employs language- specific features. 2). Whether the student performs the assigned task independently, with some help from some other resources, or fails to perform the task. Designing translanguaging assessments Yulia Hapsari, Fuad Abdul Hamied, & Emi Emilia Assessment in translanguaging classrooms: Experiences and recommendations for university English classes 392 Translanguaging in assessment is an aspect of translanguaging pedagogy. Garcia et al. (2017) posited that in translanguaging classrooms, teachers assess students’ knowledge and skills regarding classroom assignments using the students’ full linguistic repertoire. Nevertheless, the ability to carry out language-specific activities is also essential. However, this measure should not be evaluated in isolation or treated as a defining representation of the student’s capabilities. Consequently, a holistic examination should consistently be employed. Thus, the translanguaging assessment design must incorporate teachers deliberate plans (e.g., Rafi, 2023a; Wang & East, 2023; Yunxian & Zhonghui, 2024) to evaluate students’ performances to comprehensively understand their capabilities concerning the instructional framework's content, language, and translanguaging objectives. Garcia et al. (2017) further added that the translanguaging design for assessment relies on authentic, performance-based instruments that allow teachers to monitor students’ general and language-specific performances as they progress through the dynamic translanguaging progressions. There are four principles of translanguaging for assessment: The different voices in assessment. This principle highlights the importance of incorporating the home and school’s language practices when teachers evaluate students' ability to use content and language on academic tasks. The use of other people and other resources. This principle focuses on providing opportunities for students to use all their interpersonal and intrapersonal resources, along with external material resources, to show their knowledge and skills. This principle deals with students’ zone of proximal development by considering students’ inner voice—the intrapersonal voice that considers the entire language repertoire—to solve problems and show their knowledge. The authenticity of the tasks. Assessment of students’ knowledge and skills must be based on authentic, performance-based tasks. Therefore, all activities leading to the translanguaging unit plan's final project must be authentic and action oriented. This may result in students creating and implementing a product throughout the unit. The distinction between general linguistic and language-specific performances. This principle characterizes the translanguaging in assessment. The distinction in assessment between students’ general linguistic performance and language- specific performance “corrects a serious flaw in the contemporary assessment of linguistically diverse students.” (Garcia et al., 2017, p.163). Assessment tools that can observe and record learners’ understanding, creativity, and curiosity about the substantial ideas needed to complete tasks or projects should accommodate the four principles. These principles should be applied both when the learners use the full features of their linguistic repertoires and when they exclusively use features of one specific language or another. Practical strategies for translanguaging assessment Enacting translanguaging assessment requires thoughtful considerations. Prioritizing content over language (as Andy does) aligns with translanguaging principles, but fully excluding linguistic accuracy from assessment contradicts the goal of translanguaging assessment (Garcia et al., 2017). While Andy embraces translanguaging, Henry shares other teachers’ point of view (e.g., Chaika, 2023; Harumi, 2023; Wang, 2020) who sees translanguaging as a temporary scaffold rather than integrated linguistic practice. This reflects that some teachers may fear that allowing translanguaging in assessment could hinder students’ ability to perform in academic English setting. Therefore, some practical strategies with some concrete examples could be helpful for teachers who try to design assessment for their classroom translanguaging practices. There are some thoughts of how translanguaging assessment can be administered, First, include activities that allow students to use their full linguistic repertoire (e.g., Henry’s task of requiring students to take notes of their comprehension on the topic discussed but by allowing students to draw their full linguistic repertoires in making the notes). Second, provide translanguaging spaces (Rafi & Morgan, 2022; Tai, 2023a; Tian & Lau, 2022) in assessment, such as providing score based on students’ comprehension regardless of languages they use to respond to a task. Third, create separate scoring criteria for general linguistic performance (e.g., organization, coherence, argumentation) and language-specific performance (e.g., vocabulary, pronunciation). For writing assessment, idea development and language accuracy should be assessed separately. Next, implement portfolio- based assessment where students submit their work in multiple languages, showing how they construct meaning across languages. Teachers should view errors in English as a part of a multilingual development process rather than deficiencies. ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 13, Issue 1, February 2025 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 393 To note, translanguaging assessment requires institutional support to integrate multilingual strategies into scoring rubrics and learning outcomes so that teachers like Henry do not have to feel compelled to enforce English-only policies to meet academic writing standards. Tying English assessment to monolingual point of view like what is implemented in many educational policies (see (Fang & Xu, 2022; Sun & Rong, 2021; Too, 2023) is no longer relevant in the multilingual reality of English learners and users. CONCLUSION This study addresses a critical gap in translanguaging assessment research, which has largely focused on classroom practices rather than how multilingual competencies are evaluated. While translanguaging pedagogy is gaining recognition, assessments remain tied to monolingual norms. This misalignment between translanguaging instruction and assessment often disadvantaging students by emphasizing native- like English proficiency. Employing qualitative research involving five interviewed EFL teachers, the findings reveal that while teachers implemented some translanguaging assessment principles, such as incorporating different voices, utilizing resources, and ensuring authenticity of the task, the distinction between general linguistics and language-specific performance was overlooked. Additionally, a new theme – shared language among interlocutors – emerged, showing that teachers restricted students to use mutually understood language. These constraints the potential benefit of translanguaging. However, the small sample size (five teachers from a single institution) in this study restricts generalizability of the research. Future research should expand the sample size, incorporate mixed-method approaches, and explore deeper on translanguaging assessment guidelines and scoring rubrics. As multilingualism becomes the norm in education, translanguaging assessment has the transformative potential to redefine success in language learning that move beyond monolingual framework to create more equitable learning, ensuring that students are evaluated based on their ability to think critically and express their ideas rather than their conformity to native-speaker norms. REFERENCES Aleksić, G., & García, O. (2022). Language beyond flags: teachers misunderstanding of translanguaging in preschools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(10), 3835–3848. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2022.2085029 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/11735 Capstick, T., & Ateek, M. (2021). Translanguaging spaces as safe space for psycho-social support in refugee settings in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1899192 Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2020). Teaching English through pedagogical translanguaging. World Englishes, 39(2), 300–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12462 Chaika, O. (2023). Translanguaging in multilingual classrooms: A case study analysis. Philological Review, 1, 127–135. https://doi.org/10.31499/2415- 8828.1.2023.281366 Emilia, E., & Hamied, F. A. (2022). Translanguaging practices in a tertiary EFL context in Indonesia. Teflin Journal, 33(1), 47–74. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v33i1/47- 74 Fang, F., & Liu, Y. (2020). ‘Using all English is not always meaningful’: Stakeholders’ perspectives on the use of and attitudes towards translanguaging at a Chinese university. Lingua, 247, 102959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102959 Fang, F., & Xu, Y. (2022). Commonalities and conflation of global Englishes and translanguaging for equitable English language education. Tesl-Ej, 26(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.26103a9 Garcia, O. (2009a). Bilingual education in the 21st Century: A global perspective (1st ed.). Willey- Blackwell. Garcia, O. (2009b). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. Social Justice Through Multilingual Education, 140–158. Garcia, O., Johnson, S. I., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Caslon, Inc. https://lccn.loc.gov/2016019210 García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. In Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education (pp. 46–67). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765 Harumi, S. (2023). The facilitative use of learner- initiated translanguaging in Japanese EFL contexts. Applied Pragmatics, 5(1), 86–119. https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.20014.har Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 641–654. Yulia Hapsari, Fuad Abdul Hamied, & Emi Emilia Assessment in translanguaging classrooms: Experiences and recommendations for university English classes 394 https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2012.718488 Mahboob, A., & Dutcher, L. (2014). Dynamic approach to language proficiency-A model. In A. Mahboob & L. Barratt (Eds.), Englishes in Multilingual Contexts: Language variation and education (10th ed., pp. 117–136). Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8869-4 McKinley, J., & Rose, H. (2020). The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics. In J. McKinley & H. Rose (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Routledge. McNamara, T. (2012). English as a lingua franca: The challenge for language testing. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), 199–202. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2012-0013 Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0014 Panezai, A., Channa, L. A., & Bibi, B. (2023). Translanguaging in higher education: exploring interactional spaces for meaning-making in the multilingual universities of Pakistan. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26(4), 514–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2022.2124842 Pinto, J. (2020). Chinese teachers’ attitudes towards translanguaging and its uses in portuguese foreign language classrooms. Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition, 6(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.31261/TAPSLA.7742 Prilutskaya, M., & Knoph, R. (2020). Research on three L2 writing conditions: Students’ perceptions and use of background languages when writing in English. Cogent Education, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1832179 Prilutskaya, Marina. (2021). Examining pedagogical translanguaging: A systematic review of the literature. Languages, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6040180 Puspitasari, G. D., & Yumarnamto, M. (2020). Learners' perceptions on the use of Indonesian (L1) in the English (L2) intensive course: Implications for translanguaging pedagogy. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 23(2), 304–318. https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v23i2.2574 Rafi, A. S. M. (2023a). Creativity, criticality and translanguaging in assessment design: perspectives from Bangladeshi higher education. Applied Linguistics Review, June, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2023-0086 Rafi, A. S. M. (2023b). Students’ uptake of translanguaging pedagogies and translanguaging- oriented assessment in an ELT classroom at Bangladeshi University. In R. Khan, A. Bashir, B. L. Basu, & M. E. Uddin (Eds.), Local Research and Glocal Perspectives in English Language Teaching: Teaching in Changing Times (Issue January, pp. 1–479). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6458-9 Rafi, A. S. M., & Morgan, A. M. (2022). Translanguaging as a transformative act in a reading classroom: Perspectives from a Bangladeshi private university. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 00(00), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2021.2004894 Renandya, W. A., & Chang, A. C. S. (2022). Translanguaging: Does it work in EFL contexts? Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language Journal--TESL-EJ, 26(3), 25–27. https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.26103a25 Singleton, D., & Flynn, C. J. (2022). Translanguaging: A pedagogical concept that went wandering. International Multilingual Research Journal, 16(2), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2021.1985692 Siu, P., Sohn, B. gi, & Lin, A. M. Y. (2023). Reclaiming a plurilingual voice in EMI classrooms: Co- creating translanguaging space through the multimodalities-entextualisation cycle. The Power of Voice in Transforming Multilingual Societies, December, 189–210. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800412040-013 Sun, W., & Rong, X. L. (2021). English education reform in Asian countries. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education, June, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093. 013.838 Tai, K. W. H. (2023a). Cross-curricular connection in an English Medium Instruction Western History classroom: A translanguaging view. Language and Education, 0(0), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2023.2174379 Tai, K. W. H. (2023b). Documenting students’ conceptual understanding of second language vocabulary knowledge: A translanguaging analysis of classroom interactions in a primary English as a second language classroom for linguistically and culturally diverse students. Applied Linguistics Review, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2023-0181 Tai, K. W. H., & Wei, L. (2021a). Constructing playful talk through translanguaging in English medium instruction mathematics classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 42(4), 607–640. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa043 Tai, K. W. H., & Wei, L. (2021b). The affordances of iPad for constructing a technology-mediated space in Hong Kong English medium instruction secondary classrooms: A translanguaging view. Language Teaching Research, July. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211027851 Tian, Z., & Lau, S. M. C. (2022). Translanguaging pedagogies in a Mandarin-English dual language bilingual education classroom: Contextualised learning from teacher-researcher collaboration. ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 13, Issue 1, February 2025 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 395 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, December, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2022.2161815 Too, W. K. (2023). ‘People are already doing it’: Malaysian English language teachers’ perceptions on translanguaging. Asian Englishes, May, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2023.2214769 Wang, D. (2020). Studying Chinese language in higher education: The translanguaging reality through learners’ eyes. In System (Vol. 95, Issue October 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102394 Wang, D., & East, M. (2023). Integrating translanguaging into assessment: Students’ responses and perceptions. Applied Linguistics Review, 15(5), 1911–1937. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2023-0087 Wei, L., & García, O. (2022). Not a first language but one repertoire: Translanguaging as a decolonizing project. RELC Journal, 53(2), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221092841 Yunxian, C., & Zhonghui, W. (2024). Integrating translanguaging in formative assessments. Research Studies in English Language Teaching and Learning, 2(3), 116–131. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.62583/rseltl.v2i 3.46 Zein, S. (2020). Language policy in superdiverse Indonesia. Language Policy in Superdiverse Indonesia, March, 1–253. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429019739 Yulia Hapsari, Fuad Abdul Hamied, & Emi Emilia Assessment in translanguaging classrooms: Experiences and recommendations for university English classes 396