EFL university students are currently facing numerous challenges in academic essay writing (Mustafa et al., 2022), among which language barriers are a major obstacle when engaging in academic writing classes (Anderson, 2025). Language barriers create a gap that hinders students’ participation in academic writing, as they often experience a lack of confidence and encouragement (Huyen & Lam, 2024). Additionally, this phenomenon limits vocabulary development and complicates sentence construction, thereby negatively affecting the overall quality and coherence of their writing (Al-Mwber et al., 2025). Addressing language barriers is thus essential to help students learn and improve their academic essay writing skills effectively. Within the current trend of the student-centered approach-a pedagogical model that places learners’ needs and interests at the heart of the educational process (Kerimbayev et al., 2023)-active participation, collaboration, and learner autonomy are emphasized. This approach fosters a supportive, challenging, and learner-responsive environment (Kerimbayev et al., 2023), which has been shown to positively impact students’ motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes (Khoury, 2022). To respond to this trend and the needs of EFL students in overcoming language barriers, the adoption of translanguaging has been recognized as an effective pedagogical strategy in writing instruction (Akdeniz, 2025). In particular, the current study introduces the concept of peer translanguaging-bilingual interaction among peers-as a mediating mechanism in academic essay writing. While previous research has highlighted the role of translanguaging in academic writing (Paul & Jun, 2022; Sameli & Rahmati, 2023), the bridging mechanisms through which peer translanguaging supports EFL university students remain underexplored, especially given its connections to cultural and social dimensions. According to Vygotsky (1978), social interaction is central to knowledge construction, and peer translanguaging operates under a similar mechanism. This study aims to investigate the specific forms of bridging mechanisms within academic writing contexts that foster meaningful peer interaction. The research question posed in the present study is: “What bridging mechanisms of peer translanguaging are employed by EFL university students in academic essay writing?”

The present study employs SCT as a theoretical framework to explore the bridging mechanisms that emerge through social interaction among peers in academic essay writing classes. Vygotsky (1978) emphasized the critical role of social interaction in the development of learners’ cognition. In the context of language education, SCT is applied within a classroom environment that values collaborative learning, social interaction, and knowledge-sharing (Charinkam & Yawiloeng, 2021). Through co-construction of knowledge, peer interactions involve mutual sharing, support, construction, and acquisition of the L2 in meaningful and effective ways (Alkhudiry, 2022).

Within the scope of the current study, employing SCT allows a deeper understanding of how peer translanguaging-the use of both L1 and L2 among peers-functions as a mediating tool in EFL academic writing classrooms, promoting collaborative and supportive learning. Through peer-to-peer interaction, students co-construct and internalize L2 knowledge, particularly in the area of academic essay writing, leading to outcomes situated within the ZPD.

The concept of ZPD emphasizes socially mediated learning through interaction with more capable peers or instructors (Ness, 2023). Vygotsky (1978, p. 86) defines ZPD as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.” Accordingly, in the current study, through translanguaging, students are able to receive support from their peers, decode and access academic writing knowledge that might previously have been inaccessible to them.

Clearly, this form of support suggests that translanguaging in this context can be conceptualized as a scaffolding strategy. Scaffolding, derived from Vygotsky’s conceptualization of the ZPD, refers to the structured and purposeful support provided by more knowledgeable others-in this case, more capable peers-to help learners accomplish tasks they are initially unable to complete independently (Ertugruloglu, Mearns & Admiraal, 2023). This pedagogical approach gradually reduces assistance as learners gain competence, reflecting the natural developmental processes within sociocultural learning environments (Panhwar et al., 2025). Hence, in this study, peer translanguaging functions as a peer scaffolding strategy, serving as a bridge that enables students to support one another in developing academic writing proficiency.

Within SCT, and particularly in the context of this research, translanguaging is viewed as the flexible integration of L1 and L2. This linguistic process serves as a form of mediation-a central tenet of SCT-throughout the peer interaction process. Mediation, another foundational concept within SCT, further reinforces the value of learner-centered pedagogical approaches (Wang, 2024). In an interactive learning environment, language acts as a cultural tool of mediation, helping construct a meaningful, dynamic, and supportive space for academic growth (Saeedian et al., 2025).

It has been found that students exposed to mediated teaching approaches tend to achieve higher academic outcomes and demonstrate greater self-efficacy compared to those taught under teacher-centered, traditional methods (Alanazi, 2024). In this study, language is fluidly alternated between L1 and L2, and translanguaging is naturally embedded within peer discussions as a form of support in academic writing development. Thus, peer translanguaging is positioned as a bridging scaffolding strategy that enables EFL university students to enhance their academic essay writing skills effectively.

Translanguaging is no longer a foreign concept in educational research, particularly in the field of language teaching and learning. It is commonly defined as the flexible use of both L1 and L2 in learning and communicative contexts, enabling learners to fully mobilize their linguistic repertoires in pursuit of academic goals (Wang et al., 2024). More importantly, the effectiveness of translanguaging has been well-demonstrated through its multifaceted roles in academic settings, particularly in helping learners navigate academic discourse and integrate language strategies more effectively (Zhu & Li, 2025).

In the context of academic writing, translanguaging has been increasingly recognized for its practical and pedagogical potential (Paradita et al., 2025). Its characteristics and functions have proven beneficial, particularly in areas such as feedback practices. For instance, Li and Wang (2024) argue that feedback delivered within a translanguaging framework not only informs students of the accuracy of their language use but also encourages them to engage with multiple linguistic resources, ultimately enhancing their writing capabilities. In peer interactions, translanguaged feedback has been shown to boost learners’ confidence and sense of agency in their writing (Lui & Chen, 2024). Similarly, Farooq (2024) delineates how translanguaging acts not only as a linguistic scaffold but also as a catalyst for confidence in academic writing. The integration of multiple languages into classroom practices creates a dynamic learning environment that affirms students’ linguistic identities, thereby increasing motivation and self-esteem.

As Yu (2025) has noted, translanguaging serves as a crucial mechanism by which bilingual learners can draw on their entire linguistic repertoires to construct knowledge and convey nuanced ideas more effectively than if they were restricted to one language. Gu, Jiang, and Chiu (2024) further argue that translanguaging empowers students to authentically express complex ideas, thereby enhancing their motivation, confidence, and cultural identity in academic writing. These studies collectively highlight that translanguaging offers both academic and affective value in the writing classroom.

In the present study, the concept of peer translanguaging is introduced within the context of academic writing in order to explore its bridging mechanisms. While recent research has acknowledged translanguaging’s mediating role in academic writing, in-depth examinations of how these mechanisms function throughout the writing process remain limited. A growing body of literature has addressed the pedagogical value of translanguaging in supporting academic writing across varied contexts. For example, Zhu and Li (2025) demonstrated how Chinese students employed peer translanguaging during collaborative academic writing tasks, using both Mandarin and English to express complex ideas, negotiate meaning, and co-construct essays with greater rhetorical sophistication. However, the study does not explore how these translanguaging practices evolve across different stages of the writing process.

Likewise, Paradita et al. (2025) examined a lecturer’s strategic use of both Indonesian (L1) and English (L2) in providing thesis feedback. Their findings suggest that translanguaging aids in clarifying abstract concepts and enhances students’ understanding of coherence in academic texts. Nevertheless, the study did not investigate how students interact with or apply this bilingual feedback during critical writing stages such as revision or redrafting.

In a different context, Kareem and Adams (2024) compared the effects of translanguaging pedagogy and English-only instruction in a Kurdish EFL collaborative writing course. Their results showed that students exposed to translanguaging engaged in more language-related episodes and produced higher-quality texts. Yet, the study did not articulate how translanguaging supported learners’ cognitive processes or linguistic choices throughout the composing process. Paspali (2025), working with migrant learners in a Greek reception class, documented how collaboration in writing tasks led to cognitive, social, and affective engagement. While the study emphasizes the interactional dynamics involved, it stops short of identifying how translanguaging mediates learning across the various stages of writing.

Taken together, these studies affirm the positive impact of translanguaging on academic writing and learner engagement. However, they fall short of clarifying how translanguaging functions as a bridging mechanism across distinct stages of the writing process—particularly in essay composition within the EFL context. There remains limited exploration of how learners draw upon their full linguistic repertoires to transition between key phases such as pre-writing, while-writing, and post-writing. Addressing this gap is essential for developing a more nuanced understanding of translanguaging not simply as a linguistic choice, but as a dynamic mediational tool that supports both academic thinking and writing development in multilingual settings.

Data from peer interaction recordings also consistently revealed a distinct affective dimension of peer translanguaging-one that functions as a bridging mechanism of emotional and motivational support. To co-construct quality writing and foster academic development, students must overcome not only linguistic but also emotional barriers. This affective mechanism reduces anxiety and fosters a motivating environment that encourages learners to persevere with writing tasks. The affective and motivational scaffolding was embodied in the following sub-mechanisms: (1) Trans-Encouragement – providing emotional support and cheering each other on, (2) Trans-Empathy – expressing mutual understanding and shared experience, (3) Trans-Stress Soothing – alleviating peer anxiety during writing discussions, (4) Trans-Motivation Prompting – inspiring peers to remain focused and persistent, (5) Trans-Confidence Boosting – reinforcing self-belief in writing ability, (6) Trans-Affective Reflection – sharing emotional responses and reflections related to the writing process.

Recording 3 clearly illustrates that affective support mechanisms played a central role in maintaining student engagement and stimulating academic writing motivation. When Novice 3 expressed anxiety by saying “tau sợ viết không nổi luôn á” (I'm scared I can’t write this at all) (Trans-Stress Soothing), Expert 3 quickly reassured them with a familiar phrase: “mày làm được mà… tau thấy mi hiểu đề rõ” (You can do it… I think you understood the prompt clearly) (Trans-Encouragement). The novice’s insecurity was further alleviated through a confidence-boosting statement: “hôm bữa mi nói cái vụ AI không có empathy là quá ổn luôn đó” (What you said earlier about AI lacking empathy was spot on) (Trans-Confidence Boosting). Empathy emerged naturally when Expert 3 shared a similar struggle: “tau cũng vậy mà… mình dùng tiếng Việt rồi chuyển ý sau cũng ổn” (Same here… I use Vietnamese first and then convert the idea later) (Trans-Empathy). This led to motivational prompting, as the expert encouraged action: “viết mấy câu đầu ra đi cho có đà” (Just write the first few lines to get started) (Trans-Motivation Prompting). Finally, a humorous reflection on the topic-“AI không có cảm xúc mà viết hoài” (AI has no emotions but keeps writing)-revealed a deeper emotional connection to the essay theme (Trans-Affective Reflection).

These mechanisms worked in tandem to help the learner overcome anxiety, regain confidence, and continue writing with a more positive outlook. The dialogue segments associated with these affective mechanisms were recorded and coded, with their frequencies documented across the five extracts.

Data from the audio recordings revealed that Trans-Encouragement appeared most frequently (f = 11), reflecting the strong need for emotional reassurance during the academic writing process. This was followed by Trans-Stress Soothing (f = 9) and Trans-Confidence Boosting (f = 8), indicating that alleviating anxiety and reinforcing self-belief are essential to maintaining writing momentum. Other mechanisms, such as Trans-Empathy (f = 7), Trans-Motivation Prompting (f = 6), and Trans-Affective Reflection (f = 4), also contributed to the creation of a supportive emotional environment.

These frequencies affirm the role of translanguaging as a psychological support tool that promotes learner engagement and autonomy in academic contexts. A diagram was also constructed to visualize how peer translanguaging fosters affective and motivational mechanisms. Specifically, emotional regulation was observed in the form of reducing negative emotions and enhancing positive ones, thereby cultivating a learning space free from fear, comparison, or disengagement. This emphasizes the mediating function of peer translanguaging as an effective emotional bridge in academic writing environments.

Through mechanisms identified from interaction recordings and coded transcripts, this study reveals how peer translanguaging functions as a set of bridging activities that support students in academic writing. The flexible use of both L1 and L2 enables learners to access knowledge across multiple stages-from idea generation to feedback reception-while fostering emotional understanding, motivation, and cultural nuance. This indicates that translanguaging is not merely a linguistic strategy but a strategic and continuous mediational system that contributes to sustainable academic development.

By allowing learners to fluidly switch between languages in collaborative contexts, the study underscores the role of peer translanguaging in creating inclusive learning spaces where individual abilities, cultural identities, and emotional dimensions are respected and amplified. As a result, students not only improve their academic writing skills but also develop intercultural communication, reasoning, and critical thinking-essential competencies in the global academic landscape. These findings affirm that peer translanguaging can and should be recognized as a vital pedagogical tool in teaching academic writing, particularly in EFL contexts.

Despite its contributions, the study has several limitations. First, the small sample size (five expert–novice student pairs) may limit the generalizability of the findings. Second, the focus on a single academic genre-the argumentative essay-restricts the transferability of the identified mechanisms to other writing types. Third, all participants were English majors, which may not reflect the practices of students from other disciplines or those with lower language proficiency. Lastly, the data primarily relied on audio recordings and hand-written coded notes; incorporating multimodal data (video observation, reflective journals) could enhance the analysis of interactional dynamics.

Future studies should expand the sample size and diversity, including participants from various institutions and disciplines, to validate and broaden the findings. Investigating translanguaging mechanisms across different academic genres (narrative, expository, or research reports) may provide a more comprehensive understanding of its pedagogical potential. Longitudinal studies tracking learners’ translanguaging practices over time could offer insights into how these evolve with increased proficiency. Additionally, incorporating teacher perspectives on peer translanguaging could help design more inclusive and culturally responsive writing pedagogies. Teachers are encouraged to support and guide flexible translanguaging practices in writing classrooms to maximize students’ linguistic resources, affirm identity, and foster academic progress.