The overarching aim of this research is to explore how teachers in sub-Saharan Africa use innovative multilingual strategies to enhance learning and learner support in linguistically diverse classrooms. More specifically, this study seeks to identify the types of innovative multilingual strategies used by teachers and examine how these strategies affect learners’ participation, engagement, and academic outcomes and contribute to theoretical and policy discussions on multilingual education and teacher agency in Africa.

To achieve this, the following questions were raised to guide the study:

Multilingual education refers to the use of two or more languages in teaching and learning. Globally, it is increasingly viewed as a pathway to inclusion, equity, and cognitive development, particularly in diverse and multilingual societies. Research from diverse regions shows that multilingual learners who are taught in their home languages during the early years perform better academically and develop stronger cognitive and metalinguistic skills than those taught in a foreign language from the outset (Heugh, 2013; Garcia and Wei, 2014).

Africa has a complex and contested history of multilingual education. While the benefits of mother-tongue-based education are widely recognised, its implementation remains inconsistent and under-resourced. The colonial legacy plays a significant role. During colonial rule, education systems were structured to prioritise European languages as the medium of instruction, often relegating Indigenous languages to the private or informal sphere (Heugh, 2012; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013). These colonial language policies were largely inherited and continued by post-independence governments, despite their rhetorical commitments to linguistic and cultural revitalisation. The result is a pervasive “subtractive bilingualism” model, where Indigenous languages are used minimally, if at all, and learners are expected to transition quickly to a dominant colonial language (usually English or French) (Seroto and Higgs, 2024). Such models have been shown to be pedagogically ineffective, especially for learners from rural and socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds (Ouane and Glanz, 2010). However, despite these findings, political, economic, and ideological factors continue to shape resistance to multilingual policies in education.

The literature also reveals country-specific trajectories that are directly relevant to the present study. In South Africa, for example, translanguaging is increasingly recognised as a practical response to entrenched language inequalities, with classroom-based studies demonstrating how teachers draw on learners’ languages to scaffold genre knowledge, comprehension, and participation (Kerfoot and Van Heerden, 2015; Mahan et al., 2024; Machimana and Genis, 2024). However, despite progressive policy provisions for mother-tongue instruction in early grades, implementation remains uneven, especially in under-resourced township schools (Heugh, 2013; Sizwe and Thokozani, 2024).

In Nigeria, the National Policy on Education endorses mother-tongue instruction in the early years, yet its application is inconsistent due to the multiplicity of languages and inadequate supply of instructional resources (Trudell, 2018; Ouane and Glanz, 2010). Teachers therefore rely heavily on code-switching and improvised multilingual supports to bridge comprehension gaps strategies that align closely with the findings emerging from this study. In Kenya, Kiswahili has a stronger presence as a lingua franca, but learners often speak diverse vernaculars at home. Research notes that teachers negotiate these linguistic ecologies by alternating among English, Kiswahili, and local languages to ensure participation, despite policy pressures favouring English-medium instruction, particularly in upper grades (Trudell, 2016, 2018).

Similarly, in Botswana, Setswana is the dominant language, yet multilingualism persists due to the presence of Kalanga, Kgalagadi, and other regional languages. Studies report that learners who do not have Setswana as a home language face disadvantages in the early years, prompting teachers to use informal multilingual strategies despite the official monolingual orientation of schooling (Probyn, 2024; Ouane and Glanz, 2010). Across these contexts, the literature reveals that teachers’ multilingual practices often emerge from necessity and professional intuition rather than policy enactment. This underscores the need for empirical work such as the present study that captures teachers’ situated innovations within multilingual realities across different sub-Saharan African countries.

Several African countries have adopted language-in-education policies that support mother tongue instruction in the early grades, followed by a gradual transition to a second or third language. For example, Ethiopia, South Africa, and Kenya have policies promoting the use of local languages in the foundation phase (Trudell, 2016). However, implementation remains patchy due to a range of systemic and socio-political barriers.

First, there is a lack of sufficient teaching and learning materials in indigenous languages. Second, teacher education programmes often do not prepare teachers to teach multilingual classrooms or use culturally responsive pedagogies. Third, language ideologies among parents, teachers, and policymakers continue to favour European languages as symbols of modernity, prestige, and upward mobility (Makalela, 2016). These attitudes often result in parents rejecting mother-tongues instruction in favour of English or French, believing it will give their children better chances in life. Furthermore, the politics of language in education are shaped by broader issues such as identity, power, and postcolonial nationalism. Many African states are home to dozens of languages, and decisions about which languages to prioritise can become deeply politicised in the process. Consequently, even well-intentioned multilingual policies can generate resistance, especially when they are perceived to favour certain ethnic or linguistic groups over others (Seroto and Higgs, 2024).

In response to these challenges, scholars and practitioners have increasingly turned to translanguaging as a framework for understanding and supporting multilingual learning (Garcia and Wei, 2014; Makalela, 2015). Translanguaging refers to the flexible and dynamic use of a full linguistic repertoire by multilingual speakers. In classrooms, translanguaging involves allowing learners to draw upon all their languages to create meaning, express understanding, and participate in learning activities. Translanguaging challenges the traditional boundaries between languages and views multilingualism not as a problem to be managed but as a resource to be harnessed. This perspective aligns with the theory of “culturally sustaining pedagogy” (Paris and Alim, 2017), which calls for educational practices that not only acknowledge but also actively sustain learners’ linguistic and cultural identities. These approaches reject the deficit models of bilingualism and instead position multilingual learners as linguistically creative, cognitively capable, and culturally rich.

Empirical studies in African contexts have shown that translanguaging can promote learner engagement, enhance comprehension, and foster inclusive classroom environments (Janks, 2010; Kerfoot and Van Heerden, 2015). In South Africa, for example, research in township schools has demonstrated how teachers use code-switching and translanguaging to scaffold learning and maintain classroom participation (Mahan et al., 2024; Machimana and Genis, 2024). Similarly, studies in Kenya and Tanzania have highlighted how teachers and learners negotiate multilingual repertoires in ways that reflect everyday language practices in their communities (Trudell, 2018). Despite these promising findings, translanguaging remains marginalised in mainstream curricula and teacher training programmes. There is also limited research on how teachers in resource-constrained settings adopt and adapt these strategies, especially in the absence of formal policy support or materials. This study seeks to address this gap by foregrounding teachers’ narratives of innovation and resistance within multilingual classrooms.

Teachers play a critical role in shaping language practices in classrooms. Their beliefs, identities, and professional experiences influence how they interpret and implement language policies and pedagogical innovations (Johnson and Freeman, 2010). In multilingual African classrooms, teachers often find themselves navigating competing demands, such as national curriculum standards, language policy mandates, parental expectations, and the realities of learner diversity. In doing so, they exercise what scholars refer to as “teacher agency,” the capacity to make intentional choices and enact change within constrained environments (Priestley et al., 2015). Emerging research has shown that teacher agency is a key factor in the success of multilingual education initiatives. Teachers who are empowered, reflective, and professionally supported are more likely to adopt inclusive practices and respond creatively to classroom challenges (Alidou et al., 2011). However, many African teachers lack adequate support for professional learning in this area. Pre-service training often focuses on monolingual instructional models, and in-service development opportunities are sporadic or non-existent.

Innovative, teacher-led initiatives have begun to fill this gap. In some cases, teachers have collaborated informally to develop contextually appropriate materials, share best practices, and build communities of practice around multilingual learning (Mahlomaholo, 2013; Makalela, 2016). These grassroots efforts highlight the resilience and ingenuity of teachers in the Global South who often work under challenging conditions with limited resources. Capturing and analysing their narratives can offer valuable insights into what effective multilingual education looks like in practice and how it can be scaled and sustained in the long term.

Although multilingual and translanguaging pedagogies demonstrate clear benefits for comprehension, identity affirmation, and learner participation, several limitations hinder their effective implementation across African classrooms. A recurrent challenge documented in the literature relates to the persistent dominance of colonial languages in schooling, which restricts the systematic use of learners’ home languages despite evidence supporting their pedagogical value (Heugh, 2012; Brock-Utne and Nota, 2010). Teachers frequently operate within policy environments that mandate English or French as the sole medium of instruction, resulting in what Trudell (2016) and Soreto (2024) describe as subtractive bilingualism, a model that sidelines Indigenous languages and positions them as temporary scaffolds rather than legitimate academic resources.

In practice, teachers’ willingness to employ multilingual pedagogies is often constrained by limited training, inadequate materials, and large class sizes, which reduce their ability to differentiate instruction or integrate multilingual strategies consistently (Ouane and Glanz, 2010; Kerfoot and Van Heerden, 2015). Even where teachers recognise the value of translanguaging, they lack institutional support, curriculum guidance, or assessment models aligned with multilingual practice (Probyn, 2024). Parents’ language ideologies which often privilege English or French for perceived economic mobility also influence the extent to which multilingual approaches are accepted or resisted (Makalela, 2016; Okal, 2014). These systemic constraints highlight that multilingual pedagogies require not only teacher agency but also structural and ideological shifts at school and policy levels.

Sociocultural theory (SCT), rooted in the work of Lev Vygotsky, posits that learning is a fundamentally social process mediated by cultural tools, with language being the most significant of these tools (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991). Within this framework, knowledge is not transmitted in a vacuum but co-constructed through interaction within a culturally and linguistically situated context. Therefore, learning is not only cognitive but also inherently social and cultural. In multilingual classrooms, SCT underscores the importance of leveraging learners’ full linguistic repertoire as a mediational tool for cognitive development. The concept of the Zone of Proximal Development is especially relevant here, suggesting that learners can perform more complex tasks when guided by more knowledgeable others—often peers or teachers using familiar linguistic and cultural resources (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006). From this perspective, denying learners access to their home languages or community knowledge denies them the most accessible and meaningful tools for learning.

SCT also informs our understanding of teacher’s agency. Teachers, as cultural agents, mediate learning by interpreting the curriculum, selecting instructional strategies, and shaping classroom interactions. Their decisions are informed by sociocultural histories, values, and professional identities. Thus, multilingual education is not simply about language choice but about how teachers and learners engage in meaning-making processes that are culturally and historically grounded (Rogoff, 2024).

A key concept arising from SCT relevant to this study is translanguaging, the practice of using multiple languages fluidly and strategically within a single learning context. Translanguaging aligns with SCT in viewing language use as dynamic, context-dependent, and purpose-driven, rather than fixed or compartmentalised (Garcia and Wei, 2014; Creese and Blackledge, 2010). In multilingual African classrooms, translanguaging allows learners and teachers to make meaning across languages, negotiate identity, and co-construct knowledge using their full linguistic repertoire. This approach reframes multilingualism as a resource to be valued and harnessed rather than a barrier to overcome. Within the classroom, translanguaging practices include code-switching, language mixing, and using one language to scaffold understanding in another language. For teachers, this means engaging with learners in ways that reflect community language practices, rather than imposing artificial language boundaries.

SCT helps position translanguaging as a legitimate pedagogical practice, especially in contexts where learners navigate between home, school, and societal language norms. It also reinforces the idea that innovative multilingual strategies emerge from culturally embedded and contextually responsive pedagogical choices, not merely from adherence to policy mandates or standardised curricula.

While SCT offers a powerful lens for understanding the cognitive and social dimensions of multilingual learning, it does not fully address the historical and ideological dimensions of language in African education. In this regard, decolonial theory offers a critical complement. Decolonial theory is concerned with dismantling the lingering effects of colonialism on knowledge, identity, and power, particularly in the Global South (Mignolo, 2007; Maldonado-Torres, 2007).

From a decolonial perspective, language is not a neutral medium of instruction but rather a site of struggle and resistance. In many African contexts, the dominance of European languages in formal education is a legacy of colonial rule, which positioned indigenous languages and the knowledge systems they carry as inferior or irrelevant (Ngũgĩ wa, 1986; Prah, 2009). This linguistic hierarchy continues to marginalise learners who speak African languages and reinforces colonial patterns of knowledge production and social stratification. Decolonial theory calls for the epistemic disobedience necessary to recover Indigenous languages, knowledge, and pedagogies as valid and valuable. This includes centring the voices and experiences of teachers and learners who resist dominant language ideologies and create alternative pedagogical spaces rooted in local linguistic and cultural resources (Mignolo, 2007; Maldonado-Torres, 2007).

In this study, teacher narratives are analysed not only as accounts of pedagogical practice but also as acts of resistance and affirmations. By exploring how teachers navigate, contest, and reimagine language use in their classrooms, this study seeks to surface the decolonial potential of multilingual pedagogies. This includes understanding how teachers challenge the epistemic dominance of English or French, validate learners’ linguistic identities, and create spaces for Indigenous knowledge to flourish. An important intersection between sociocultural and decolonial theory lies in the concepts of teacher identity and critical language awareness. Teachers do not simply implement policies; they interpret and enact them based on their professional beliefs, personal experiences, and socio-political contexts. Teacher identity is shaped by discourses of language, power, and professionalism, which can either constrain or enable the development of innovative multilingual practices (Norton, 2013).

In African contexts, many teachers are multilingual and have experienced both the benefits and limitations of dominant language ideologies. Their lived experiences often inform their teaching practices in ways that challenge official policies or curriculum standards. Developing a critical awareness of how language functions in society as a marker of power, identity, and access is essential for fostering transformative pedagogy. This awareness enables teachers to move beyond the technical implementation of language policies toward more reflective, ethical, and justice-oriented practices (Janks, 2010; Makalela, 2016).

This study therefore used teacher narratives to explore how identity, ideology, and critical reflection inform pedagogical innovation. It views teachers as cultural workers engaged in the daily labour of negotiating linguistic diversity, resisting marginalisation, and constructing inclusive learning environments. Together, sociocultural and decolonial theories offer a robust analytical framework for this study. While SCT helps explain how learning is mediated through language in social contexts, decolonial theory addresses the historical and ideological dimensions of language use in education. The integration of these frameworks enables a more holistic understanding of multilingual pedagogy as both a socio-cognitive process and a socio-political act.

This study utilised a qualitative phenomenological research approach. Phenomenology, as a methodological framework, focuses on comprehending persons’ lived experiences and the significance they ascribe to those experiences (Alhazmi and Kaufmann, 2022). This approach is especially suitable for investigating intricate, culturally ingrained phenomena like language utilisation in education, as it enables a thorough analysis of how individuals interpret their social and linguistic contexts. The qualitative approach was selected to emphasise participants’ voices and subjective experiences, rather than to generalise findings scientifically.

Participants were drawn from four countries, Nigeria, Kenya, Cameroon, and Botswana, to reflect a broad range of linguistic and educational contexts. Table 1 below summarises the demographic information of the participants.

A total of 26 participants were purposively chosen from multilingual primary and secondary schools in four Sub-Saharan African nations: Nigeria (n = 15), Cameroon (n = 4), Botswana (n = 4), and Kenya (n = 2). Attempts were undertaken to incorporate individuals from both rural and urban environments, public and private educational institutions, and various locations within each nation. The sample technique also took into account diversity in linguistic background, gender, and years of professional experience. Recruitment was conducted by local research collaborators with existing links with schools and communities, facilitating a culturally appropriate and trust-based access to research sites. The individuals engaged in Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) exhibited a spectrum of teaching experiences, ranging from 2 to 30 years, primarily at the primary level. A prevalent feature in all scenarios was the composition of multilingual classrooms. The teachers were multilingual, all proficient in English (100%), with several being fluent in regional African languages like Yoruba, Kiswahili, Setswana, Kalanga, and French. Most classrooms exhibited 3–5 languages among students, indicating linguistic diversity and complexity within the educational setting. The intentional selection guaranteed representation across gender (predominantly female), educational level, and linguistic diversity, hence facilitating the study’s objective to investigate language-use techniques and challenges in varied multilingual classrooms.

Data were gathered via semi-structured FGDs. FGDs were selected to promote dynamic dialogues among members, fostering the creation of common experiences, divergent viewpoints, and collective reflections. This strategy proved very effective in revealing the social aspects of language use and educational practices, which are frequently influenced by interpersonal interactions. Distinct focus groups were organised for teachers in each nation. Each FGD lasted between 30 and 45 min and included from four to seven people. Discussions were directed by thematic prompts based on the research objectives and theoretical frameworks. The enquiries focused on language variety in educational settings, instructional difficulties, available support systems, and novel approaches. All FGDs were audio-recorded with the informed consent of participants, and transcribed verbatim. Field notes were additionally recorded to document non-verbal signals and contextual details.

Data analysis in this study was conducted using a rigorous and systematic approach grounded in thematic analysis. The researchers adopted the six-phase framework articulated by Braun and Clarke (2006), which is well-suited for examining complex, qualitative data derived from participants’ lived experiences. This analytical approach allowed for the identification of meaningful patterns and themes within the data while preserving the richness and depth of participants’ narratives. The process began with familiarisation with the data, during which members of the research team immersed themselves in the raw data by reading and re-reading the transcriptions of the focus group discussions. This phase allowed researchers to become intimately acquainted with the content, nuances, and tone of participants’ voices, enabling them to develop an intuitive understanding of the data’s breadth and depth. Transcripts were reviewed alongside the original audio recordings and field notes to ensure accuracy and to capture any emotive or contextual cues that may not have been reflected fully in the textual data.

Following this, the researchers proceeded to generate initial codes, systematically identifying and tagging key ideas, phrases, and recurring expressions that were relevant to the research questions. These codes reflected both semantic content the explicit statements made by participants and latent meanings, underlying beliefs, assumptions, and emotions that emerged through participants’ stories. Coding was performed manually by multiple members of the research team to encourage reflexivity and to minimise interpretive bias. This collaborative approach helped to surface diverse perspectives and ensured that the coding process remained grounded in participants’ voices rather than researcher assumptions. Once a comprehensive set of codes had been developed, the research team engaged in searching for themes. This involved grouping similar codes together into broader conceptual categories that captured recurring patterns of meaning across the dataset. At this stage, the analysis began to take a more interpretive turn, moving beyond surface-level descriptions to uncover deeper insights about participants’ experiences and the social and educational contexts in which those experiences were situated.

The fourth phase, reviewing themes, was both iterative and dialogic. Themes were examined for internal coherence, consistency, and distinctiveness. The team scrutinised whether each theme accurately represented the data it was intended to capture and whether there was sufficient evidence across the dataset to support its inclusion. Themes were refined or collapsed where necessary, and outlier data that challenged initial interpretations were critically considered rather than dismissed. This step also involved re-engaging with the original transcripts to ensure that the thematic structure remained grounded in participants’ actual language and experiences, rather than merely reflecting the researchers’ conceptual frameworks. Once the thematic architecture had been finalised, the next step was defining and naming the themes. Each theme was given a clear definition and scope, and subthemes were identified where applicable to reflect nuances or variations in the data. For example, under the broader theme of “Teacher Pedagogical Innovation,” subthemes emerged around specific strategies such as “code-switching,” “use of visual aids,” “peer learning,” and “translanguaging practices.” These subthemes helped to highlight the diversity of practices across different national and institutional contexts while also revealing shared pedagogical commitments.

The final phase of analysis involved producing the thematic narrative, which entailed synthesising the themes into coherent and compelling prose. This narrative was structured around the original research questions and theoretical frameworks and was illustrated with verbatim quotations from participants. These excerpts served to preserve the authenticity of participant voices and to anchor analytic claims in the data. Quotations were selected not merely for their rhetorical value but for their representativeness and explanatory power in relation to the themes they illustrated.

Throughout the analytical process, the research team remained mindful of their positionality as scholars working within and across different African contexts. Reflexivity was a key element of the analytic approach, with team members engaging in regular debriefing sessions to question their interpretations, reflect on power dynamics, and consider the influence of their cultural and disciplinary backgrounds on the meaning-making process. In addition to generating country-specific insights, the analysis allowed for cross-national comparisons, revealing both context-specific challenges and regionally shared concerns in relation to multilingual education. For instance, while teachers across all five countries reported difficulties related to the exclusive use of English as the language of instruction, the extent and form of these challenges varied based on local policies, community language ecologies, and available support structures.

Participants consistently described English mandated as the language of instruction as a significant learning barrier for many learners. In most classrooms, learners relied heavily on their home languages such as Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa, Setswana, Kalanga, Luhya, or Pidgin, with limited functional exposure to English outside school. This mismatch created substantial comprehension challenges, particularly in early-grade and rural settings.

Teachers narrated how the use of English alone sometimes made lessons inaccessible. One participant explained: “Most of them keep repeating the same thing, they still do not understand” (P4N1), highlighting how English-only instruction often resulted in superficial repetition rather than genuine learning. Another added that learners “prefer being taught in Setswana than English” (P4B1), reflecting the emotional comfort and cognitive ease associated with home-language use.

Although curriculum policy requires English, participants noted that these policies seldom align with the linguistic realities of their classrooms. As one teacher put it: “They speak their dialect… like some are Hausa, they hardly understand English” (P1N1). This demonstrates a recurrent tension between policy imperatives and pedagogical demands.

The patterns summarised in Table 2 below capture the range of language challenges described.

Despite these challenges, teachers demonstrated strong agency and creativity in deploying multilingual practices to bridge comprehension gaps. The most prominent strategy across all study sites was translanguaging, where teachers fluidly integrated English with learners’ home languages. Participants emphasised that even limited code-switching significantly increased learner understanding. As one teacher stated: “Sometimes… I will use Yoruba to explain… though it’s not allowed” (P3N2). This quote shows the tension between official policy restrictions and classroom-based needs, yet also illustrates teachers’ willingness to take pedagogical risks when necessary.

Teachers also relied extensively on multimodal tools such as flashcards, pictures, digital videos, gestures, and dramatization. P2N2 explained: “We use body language… flashcards… videos,” suggesting how visual and auditory aids help learners interpret meaning beyond English text.

Play-based and oral learning strategies such as songs, rhymes, and role-play were particularly effective for younger learners. One participant described using culturally familiar songs and interpreting them in the home language to support comprehension: “I teach some songs… interpret for them in native language” (P1N3). These methods were not only instructional but also emotionally supportive, fostering a safe environment for learners with limited English proficiency.

Group work and peer learning also emerged as meaningful strategies. Some teachers grouped learners deliberately to ensure linguistic diversity:“I encourage students to work in heterogeneous groups” (P2C1), enabling peer scaffolding.

The strategies identified are summarised in Table 3.

Participants evaluated the effectiveness of their strategies by observing improved learner participation, confidence, and comprehension. Visual and auditory tools were particularly valued for making abstract content accessible. As P2N3 shared: “I play a video in English and another in Yoruba…,” demonstrating how bilingual multimedia resources promote deeper understanding.

Teachers also emphasised scaffolding breaking content into smaller steps, simplifying vocabulary, or providing demonstrations. P5N1 illustrated this well: “I break it down to smaller syllables for them….”

Inclusive and differentiated pedagogy also emerged strongly. As one teacher explained: “I simplify them… so all students are catered for” (P1B1), reflecting deliberate attempts to recognise linguistic diversity and ensure no learner is left behind.

These patterns are summarised in Table 4.

Although teachers demonstrated significant innovation, their efforts were often hindered by systemic challenges. Participants described a lack of government support, inadequate infrastructure, limited training in multilingual teaching, and low parental involvement. One teacher stated bluntly: “The government is not doing anything for us…” (P3N1). Infrastructure deficits especially electricity, computers, and teaching materials further restricted teachers’ ability to implement multimodal strategies. As noted by P2N2: “We need more computers… the electricity is nothing to write home about….”

Parental disengagement was also highlighted as a major barrier, especially when parents were illiterate or unable to assist with homework: “Parents… find it difficult to help them” (P1N1).

These challenges are summarised in Table 5.

In light of these challenges, teachers strongly advocated for professional development and capacity building. They supported the idea of in-service training, workshops, and refresher courses that could help them respond better to language barriers in classrooms. For instance,a teacher said “In-service training is very important for teachers” (P1B1). Others recommended online courses, noting that digital learning platforms could help teachers improve their ICT skills and instructional design, especially in the context of linguistically diverse classrooms. A teacher from Nigeria emphatically said “We can develop ourselves through online courses…” (P1N1). Notably, some teachers called for targeted language acquisition programmes, arguing that teachers should be encouraged to learn local languages to facilitate classroom communication in multilingual contexts (Table 6).

Overall, this study reveals a deeply complex interplay between language policy, pedagogy, and lived classroom realities in Sub-Saharan Africa. While English remains the official medium of instruction, its dominance often undermines learner participation and understanding in diverse linguistic settings. Teachers have responded with contextual ingenuity and practical innovations, but their efforts are constrained by lack of systemic support and professional development. These findings underscore the urgent need for multilingual education policies that are context-sensitive, teacher-inclusive, and backed by institutional support systems. Teachers cannot continue to shoulder the responsibility for bridging language gaps alone; governments, school managements, and communities must collaboratively act to promote linguistically inclusive education in Africa.

A key finding of this study is the tension between the mandatory use of English (or other former colonial languages) and learners’ linguistic realities. According to data, 73% of instructors believe that English is a barrier to understanding, particularly among early-grade children and those in rural or linguistically homogeneous contexts. This is consistent with previous research demonstrating that learning a foreign language impedes conceptual comprehension and academic advancement (Heugh, 2013; UNESCO, 2014). Rather than accept this limitation passively, teachers have adopted multilingual strategies such as code-switching and translanguaging. These techniques represent a recontextualisation of language from a problem to be solved to an asset to be used. According to SCT (Vygotsky, 1978), teachers recognise that language enhances learning, and that using students’ home languages enriches comprehension and connects current knowledge to new concepts. Translanguaging empowers learners to use their entire linguistic resources, enhancing their identity and comprehension (Garcia and Wei, 2014; Makalela, 2015).

The result shows teachers’ pedagogical agency and adaptive expertise in responding to multilingual classroom realities. Despite operating within policy environments that privilege English as the sole medium of instruction, teachers actively deployed multilingual strategies to mediate learning and ensure comprehension. The use of translanguaging and code-switching across all study sites demonstrates that teachers view learners’ home languages not as obstacles, but as essential cognitive and pedagogical resources. This is in line with translanguaging theory, which positions multilingual learners’ full linguistic repertoires as central to meaning-making and knowledge construction (Makalela, 2015). Teachers’ willingness to contravene monolingual policies reflects a form of professional judgement grounded in learners’ immediate needs rather than abstract policy ideals. From a sociocultural perspective, these practices can be understood as scaffolding strategies that connect new academic concepts to learners’ prior linguistic knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). In this sense, teachers’ multilingual practices function as mediational tools that support comprehension, participation, and learner confidence.

Another noteworthy finding is the use of multimodal and play-based pedagogies. Instructional aids such as flashcards, movies, gestures oral literacy and play-based methods were used by teachers to improve verbal instruction. These strategies are consistent with the ideas of culturally sustaining education (Paris and Alim, 2017), emphasising the need of engaging learners through familiar cultural expressions and sensory modalities. These approaches are both developmentally appropriate and contextually relevant, particularly in under-resourced settings where printed resources may be restricted. SCT is once again relevant, as these strategies reveal how teachers assist learning by employing the resources and symbols available in their sociocultural contexts. The use of music, nonverbal communication, and narrative demonstrates the collective knowledge systems and educational norms embedded in African societies. These strategies serve cognitive and emotional functions, enhancing retention and fostering an emotional connection with the learning experience.

Teachers evaluated the effectiveness of their methods by measuring student engagement and comprehension. Approximately 59% found visual and auditory assistance to be particularly beneficial, while 50% cited scaffolding tactics such as information segmentation. These findings emphasise the importance of personalised instruction, especially in linguistically diverse educational contexts. Inclusive pedagogy has also become an important component of good teaching. Teachers actively tailored instruction to students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds, often drawing on their own multilingual identities in the process. This is consistent with Janks’ (2010) argument that critical language awareness enables teachers to engage in reflective discourse about language, power, and pedagogy. It supports Cummins’ (2001) theory that instructors who recognise students’ identities through inclusive practices may reduce the negative effects of subtractive bilingualism.

The importance of teacher agency is one of the study’s key findings. Despite systematic neglect, with 86% of teachers reporting a lack of government support, teachers demonstrated exceptional ingenuity and resilience. This is consistent with research stressing the importance of teacher agency in implementing inclusive pedagogies in challenging settings (Johnson and Freeman, 2010; Priestley et al., 2015). Teachers suggested modifying class plans, creating original resources, and learning local languages to improve student support. According to decolonial theorists (Mignolo, 2007; Ngũgĩ wa, 1986), these actions are examples of resistance. By rejecting the limits of standardised curricula and monolingual ideologies, teachers are expressing their pedagogical autonomy and reinventing language education in accordance with their own beliefs. Their efforts demonstrate “epistemic disobedience” (Maldonado-Torres, 2007), which challenges the coloniality of language that regards indigenous languages and knowledge as inferior.

The study emphasises the limitations of individual initiative in the lack of structural support, notwithstanding the admirable nature of teacher creativity. The majority of participants expressed unhappiness with insufficient training, a lack of resources, and policy inconsistencies. This discovery is consistent with prior critiques of disparities in the implementation of language-in-education programmes across Africa (Trudell, 2016). Teachers called for specialised professional development, including workshops, online courses, and language acquisition teaching. Such approaches could improve their ability to deal with linguistic diversity and integrate practices into new pedagogical frameworks, such as translanguaging and culturally sustaining pedagogy. Furthermore, the need for teachers to learn indigenous languages reflects a decolonial change in professional identity. Teachers are increasingly seeing proficiency in indigenous languages as a career advantage, rather than simply aspiring to mastery of English or French. This transformation represents a comprehensive reassessment of linguistic capital and supports the inclusion of decolonial concepts in teacher education (Makalela, 2016).

The study also sheds light on the limited but critical role of parents and communities. Nearly two-thirds of teachers reported parental disengagement, citing illiteracy, economic hardship, or cultural deference to schools. Despite this, some teachers expressed optimism about the potential for community-based support, including scholarships and home language reinforcement. This points to a need for more holistic, ecosystemic approaches to multilingual education, where schools, families, and communities collaborate to support learners. Culturally sustaining pedagogy encourages such partnerships, viewing education as a collective endeavour rather than a top-down transmission of knowledge (Gay, 2018; Paris and Alim, 2017).

While the study provides rich, contextual insights into language use and multilingual pedagogy in Sub-Saharan Africa, it is important to acknowledge its limitations. The focus group format may have limited individual expression on sensitive topics, and translation across various languages poses a risk of meaning loss or distortion, despite meticulous transcribing and validation processes. Furthermore, as a qualitative investigation, the results are not statistically generalisable but are designed to contribute to theory development, professional practice, and policy discourse in similar circumstances.