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