Learners’ Perceptions of Tertiary Level Teachers’ Code Switching: A Vietnamese Perspective

The literature on language teaching and second language acquisition has been largely driven by monolingual ideology with a common assumption that a second language (L2) is best taught and learned in the L2 only. The current study challenges this assumption by reporting learners' positive perceptions of tertiary level teachers' code switching practices in Vietnam. The findings of this study contribute to our understanding of code switching practices in language classrooms from a learners' perspective. Data were collected from student participants who were working towards a Bachelor degree in English within the English for Business Communication stream through the use of focus group interviews. The literature has documented that this method of interviewing has a number of distinct advantages over individual student interviews. For instance, group interactions generated by focus groups create a more natural environment than that of an individual interview because they include a range of communicative processes in which each individual may influence or be influenced by others - as they are in their real life. The process of interaction provides the opportunity to obtain the meanings and answers to a problem that are "socially constructed rather than individually created" leading to the capture of real-life data. The distinct feature of group interaction offered by this technique makes it a powerful means of obtaining deeper and richer data than those from individual interviews. The data generated through this study were analysed using a constant comparative approach. Overall, the students expressed positive views of this practice indicating that it is a useful teaching strategy. Teacher code switching was seen as a learning resource and a source supporting language output. This practice was perceived to promote student comprehension and to aid the learning of content and target language knowledge. This practice was also believed to scaffold the students' language production in different contexts. However, the students indicated their preference for teacher code switching to be constrained, as extensive use was believed to negatively impact on their L2 learning and trigger cognitive reliance on the L1 for L2 learning. The students also perceived that when the L1 was used to a great extent, their ability to develop as autonomous learners was negatively impacted. This study found that teacher code switching was supported in certain contexts by learners, thus suggesting that there is a need for the widespread assumption about the monolingual teaching approach to be re-considered.

Authors:

• Hoa Pham

Keywords:

• Code switching
• L1 use
• L2 teaching
• Learners’ perception.

References:

[1] Agudo, J.D.M. (2014). Analysing Spanish learners’ beliefs about EFL
learning, Porta Linguarum, 22, 285-301..
[2] Ahmad, B.H. (2009). Teachers' code-switching in classroom instructions
for low English proficient learners. English Language Teaching, 2(2),
49-55.
[3] Alenezi, A.A. (2010). Students' language attitude towards using code
switching as a medium of instruction in the college of health sciences:
An exploratory study. ARECLS, 7, 1- 22.
[4] Al-Nofaie, H. (2010). The attitudes of teachers and students towards
using Arabic in EFL classrooms in Saudi public schools - A case study.
Novitas-Royal - Research on Youth and Language, 4(1), 64-95.
[5] Ariffin, K., & Husin, S, M. (2011). Code switching and code-mixing of
English and Bahasa Malaysia in content-based classrooms: Frequency
and attitudes. The Linguistics Journal, 5 (1), 220-246.
[6] Arnold, J., & Brown, H.D. (1999). A map of the terrain. In J. Arnold
(Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 1-24). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
[7] Arthur, J., & Martin, P. (2006). Accomplishing lessons in postcolonial
classrooms: Comparative perspectives from Botswana and Brunei
Darussalam. Comparative Education, 42(2), 177-202.
[8] Auerbach, E.R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL
classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9-32
[9] Auerbach, E.R. (1995). The politics of the ESL classroom: Issues of
power in pedagogical choices. In J.W. Tollefson (Ed.) Power and
inequality in language education (pp.9-33). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
[10] Barcelos, A.M.F. (2000). Understanding teachers' and students'
language learning beliefs in experience: A Deweyan approach.
(Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). The University of Alabama,
Alabama.
[11] Barcelos, A.M.F. (2003). Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical
review. In P. Kalaja & A. Barcelos (Eds.) Beliefs about SLA: New
research approaches (pp. 7-33).Boston: Kluwer Academic.
[12] Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign
language learning? In S. Gass & J.Schacht (Eds.), Linguistic
perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41- 68). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
[13] Brooks-Lewis, K.A. (2009). Adult learners' perceptions of the
incorporation of their L1 in foreign language teaching and learning.
Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 216-235.
[14] Butzkamm, W. (1998). Code-switching in a bilingual history lesson: The
mother tongue as a conversational lubricant. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1(2), 81-99. [15] Butzkamm, W. (2011).Why, make the crawl if they can walk? Teaching
with mother tongue support. RELC Journal 42(3), 379-391.
[16] Butzkamm, W. (2013). Monolingual principle. In M.Byram & A.Hu
(Eds.) Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp.
471-473) (2nd). Routledge: Taylor& Francis Group.
[17] Butzkamm, W., & Caldwell, J.A.W. (2009). The bilingual reform. A
paradigm shift inforeign language teaching. Tu¨bingen: Narr Francke
Attempto Verlag.
[18] Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on
teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[19] Chavez, M. (2003). The diglossic foreign-language classroom: Learners'
views on L1 and L2 functions. In C. Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of
foreign-language classrooms: Contributions of the native, near-native,
and the non-native speaker (pp.163-208). Boston: Heinle.
[20] Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
[21] Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402– 423.
[22] Cook, V. (2005). Basing teaching on the L2 user. In E. Llurda (Ed.).
Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and
contributions to the profession (pp.47-62). New York: Springer.
[23] Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[24] Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
[25] Crotty, M. (1998).The foundations of social research: Meaning and
perspectives in the research process. St Leonards, NSW: Allen &
Unwin.
[26] Cummins, J. (2005a). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing
heritage language competence as a learning resource within the
mainstream classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 585-592.
[27] Cummins, J. (2005b). Teaching for cross-language transfer in dual
language education: Possibilities and pitfalls. TESOL symposium on
dual language education: Teaching and learning two languages in the
EFL setting. Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey.
[28] Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual strategies in multilingual
classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221-240.
[29] Cummins, J. (2008). Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two
solitudes assumption in bilingual education. In J. Cummins & N.H.
Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education. New
York: Springer Science, Business Media LLC.
[30] Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education. Aspects
of theory, research and practice. London: Longman.
[31] Curriculum Development Council. (2004). English language curriculum
guide (Primary 1–6). Hong Kong: Government Logistics Department.
[32] Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
[33] Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual
differences in second language acquisition. London: Routledge.
[34] Dupuy, B. (2000). Content-based instruction: Can it help ease the
transition from beginning to advanced foreign language classes? Foreign
Language Annals, 33 (2), 205-223.
[35] Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. Oxford:
Pergamon.
[36] Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
[37] Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. New York: Oxford
University Press.
[38] Ellis, R. (2008). Learner beliefs and language learning. Asian EFL
Journal, 10(4), 7-25.
[39] Feilzer, M. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically:
Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6-16.
[40] Flowerdew, J., Li, D. & Miller, L. (1998). Attitudes towards English and
Cantonese among Hong Kong Chinese university lecturers. TESOL
Quarterly, 32(2), 201-230.
[41] Gauci, H., & Grima, C.A. (2013). Codeswitching as a tool in teaching
Italian in Malta. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 16 (5), 615-631.
[42] González- Davies, M. (2014). Towards a plurilingual development
paradigm: from spontaneous to informed use of translation in additional
language learning, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8(1), 8-31.
[43] Guo, T. (2007). A case study of teachers' codeswitching behaviours in
mainland China's university EFL classrooms and students' reactions to
the codeswitching. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), University of
Oxford, UK.
[44] Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own language use in language teaching
and learning. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271-308.
[45] Horwitz, E. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning.
In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language
learning (pp. l 19-129), Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hal.
[46] Jenkins, S. (2010). Monolingualism: An uncongenial policy for Saudi
Arabia’s low-level learners. ELT Journal, 64(4), 459-461.
[47] Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research:
A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher,
33(7), 14-26.
[48] Kalaja, P. (1995). Student beliefs (or metacognitive knowledge) about
SLA reconsidered. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2),
191-204.
[49] Kalaja, P., & Barcelos, A.M.F. (2003). Introduction. In P.Kalaja &
A.M.F.Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA. New research approaches
(pp.1-4). Dorecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[50] Kaneko, T. (1992). The role of the first language in foreign language
classrooms. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Temple University,
UK.
[51] Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications.
New York: Longman.
[52] Krashen, S.D., & Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach. Hayward,
CA: Alemany Press.
[53] Levine, G.S. (2011). Code choice in language classroom. UK: Channel
View Publications.
[54] Lightbown, P.M. (2001). L2 Instruction: Time to teach. TESOL
Quarterly, 35, 598-99.
[55] Lin, A.M.Y. (1996). Bilingualism or linguistic segregation? Symbolic
domination, resistance and code switching in Hong Kong schools.
Linguistics and Education, 8, 49-84.
[56] Liu, D., Ahn, G.S, Baek.K.S, & Han, N.O. (2004). South Korean high
school English teachers' code switching: Questions and challenges in the
drive for maximal use of English in teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 38 (4),
605-637.
[57] Macaro, E. (1997). Target language collaborative learning and
autonomy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
[58] Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers' code switching in foreign
language classrooms: theories and decision making. The Modern
Language Journal, 85(4), 531-548.
[59] Macaro, E. (2005). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A
communication and learning strategy. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native
language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the
profession (pp.47-62). New York: Springer.
[60] Macaro, E., & Lee, J.H. (2012). Teacher language background,
codeswitching, and English-only instruction: Does age make a
difference to learners' attitudes? TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 717-742.
[61] Macaro, E., Nakatani, Y., Hayashi, Y., & Khabbazbashi, N. (2014).
Exploring the value of bilingual language assistants with Japanese
English as foreign language learners. The Language Learning Journal,
43(1), 41-54.
[62] MacDonald, C. (1993). Using the target language. Cheltenham, UK:
Mary Glasgow Publications.
[63] Machaal, B. (2011). The use of Arabic in English classes: A teaching
support or a learning hindrance? Arab World English Journal, 194-232.
[64] Mafela, L. (2009). Code switching in Botswana history classrooms in
the decade of education for sustainable development. Language Matters,
40(1), 56-79.
[65] Martin, P. W. (1999) Bilingual unpacking of monolingual texts in two
primary classrooms in Brunei Darussalam. Language and Education,
13(1), 38–58.
[66] Martin, P. W. (2005) ‘Safe’ language practices in two rural schools in
Malaysia: Tensions between policy and practice. In A. M. Y. Lin & P.
W. Martin (Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation. Language-in-education
policy and practice (pp. 74-97). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
[67] Morgan, D.L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research.
Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045-1053.
[68] Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs:
What do language learners believe about their learning? Language
Learning, 49(3), 377-415.
[69] Peacock, M. (1998). Exploring the gap between teachers’ and learners’
beliefs about ‘useful’ activities for EFL. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 233-250.[70] Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
[71] Probyn, M. (2009). Conflicts and tensions in classroom codeswitching.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(2),
123-136.
[72] Prodromou, L. (2002). The liberating role of the mother tongue. In
S.Deller & M. Rinvolucri (Eds.), Using the mother tongue: Making the
most of the learner's language (p.5). London: English Teaching
Professional.
[73] Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in
language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[74] Rolin-Ianziti, J., &Varshney, R. (2008). Students’ views regarding the
use of the first language: An exploratory study in a tertiary context
maximizing target language use. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 65 (2), 249-273.
[75] Scott, P.J., & Briggs, J.S. (2009). A pragmatist argument for mixed
methodology in medical informatics. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 3(3), 223-241.
[76] Simon, D.L. (2001).Towards a new understanding of codeswitching in
the foreign language classroom. In R. Jacobson (Ed.), Codeswitching
worldwide II (pp.311-342). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[77] Skinner, D.C. (1985). Access to meaning: The anatomy of the
language/learning connection. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 6(5), 369-388.
[78] Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
[79] Stoller, F. (2002). Promoting the acquisition of knowledge in a content
based course. In J. Crandall & D. Kaufman (Eds.), Content-based
instruction in higher education settings (pp. 109-123). Alexandria, VA:
TESOL.
[80] Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of
comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In
S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition.
Rowley, Mass: Newbury.
[81] Tian, L. (2013). Codeswitching in two Chinese universities. In R.
Barnard & J. McLellan (Eds.), Codeswitching in university Englishmedium
classes: Asian perspectives (pp.43-54). Clevedon: Channel
View Publications.
[82] Tien, C. (2009). Conflict and accommodation in classroom
codeswitching in Taiwan. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 12(2), 173-192.
[83] Tomlison, B. (2005). Matching procedures to the context of learning. In
E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and
learning (pp. 137-153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[84] Tudor, I. (1996). Learner-centredness as language education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[85] Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign
language teaching, but...Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4),
531-540.
[86] Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2009). First language use in second
and foreign language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
[87] Van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social interactive
learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.),
Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Recent advances
(pp. 245-259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[88] Varshney, R., & Rolin-Ianziti, J. (2006). Student perceptions of L1 use
in the foreign language classroom: Help or hinderance? Journal of the
Australian Universities Modern Language Association, 105, 55-83.
[89] Viakinnou-Brinson, L., Herron, C., Cole, S.P., & Haight, C. (2012). The
effect of target language and code switching on the grammatical
performance and perceptions of elementary level college French
students. Foreign Language Annals, 45 (1),72-91.
[90] Victori, M., & Lockhart, W. (1995). Enhancing metacognition in selfdirected
language learning, System, 23(2), 223-234.
[91] Wei, L., & Wu, C.J. (2009). Polite Chinese children revisited: Creativity
and the use of codeswitching in the Chinese complementary school
classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 12(2), 193-211.
[92] Wenden, A. (1986). Helping language learners think about learning. ELT
Journal, 40(1), 3-12.
[93] Widdowson, H.G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[94] Wong-Fillmore, L. (1985). When does teacher talk work as input? In
S.M. Gass and C.G. Madden (Eds.). Input in second language
acquisition (pp.17-50). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
[95] Yang, N. D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners' beliefs and
learning strategy use. System, 27, 515-535.
[96] Yu, W. (2000). Direct method. In M.Byram (Ed.), Routledge
encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 176-178), New
York: Routledge.