Code-Switching As A Teaching and Learning Strategy
Code-Switching As A Teaching and Learning Strategy
01-21
DOI 10.35631/IJHPL.726001
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
HUMANITIES, PHILOSOPHY
AND LANGUAGE
(IJHPL)
www.ijhpl.com
Article history: This research paper examines the phenomenon of code-switching in ESL
Received date: 12.03.2024 classrooms in Malaysia, where English teachers often employ the Malay
Revised date: 10.04.2024 language as a support tool for teaching and learning. The study aims to
Accepted date: 15.05.2024 investigate the reasons behind code-switching among students and lecturers in
Published date: 20.06.2024 the English language classroom at Malaysian Polytechnics and explore how it
contributes to their language acquisition goals. A descriptive qualitative
To cite this document:
research design was employed, and data were collected through self-
Jogulu, L. N. (2024). Code-Switching administered questionnaires from English language lecturers and semester four
As A Teaching And Learning Strategy students. The results reveal that both lecturers and students hold positive
In ESL Classrooms. International attitudes towards code-switching, recognizing its potential benefits in terms of
Journal of Humanities, Philosophy language learning, teaching strategies, student comfort, and lesson
and Language, 7 (26), 01-21. comprehension. Lecturers employ code-switching for various purposes such as
clarification, tension easing, explaining language differences, socializing, and
DOI: 10.35631/IJHPL.726001. rephrasing utterances. Students frequently code-switch to aid language
learning, foster a comfortable learning environment, and improve
This work is licensed under CC BY 4.0 comprehension. While lecturers exhibit more neutral perspectives, students
express stronger agreement towards code-switching. The findings highlight the
pedagogical implications of code-switching, emphasizing its value as a tool for
language acquisition and the need for strategic use and gradual reduction as
learners’ progress. Creating a supportive learning environment that balances
code-switching with target language engagement is essential. By leveraging
the benefits of code-switching and promoting active engagement with the
target language, educators can create inclusive language learning environments
that facilitate learners' overall language proficiency development.
Keywords:
Copyright © GLOBAL ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE (M) SDN BHD - All rights reserved
1
Volume 7 Issue 26 (June 2024) PP. 01-21
DOI 10.35631/IJHPL.726001
Introduction
Code-switching is a linguistic practice commonly observed among bilingual individuals who
possess the ability to alternate between different languages or dialects during communication.
This phenomenon aids effective communication by manifesting at various linguistic levels,
ranging from the exchange of individual words to complete sentences. Broadly defined, code-
switching serves as a communication strategy wherein two or more languages are juxtaposed
within a single conversation.
In the field of education, one of the primary roles of an English teacher in the classroom is to
serve as an exemplary language user, thereby, are expected to employ English exclusively as
the medium of instruction. This imperative arises from the observation that students tend to
imitate the linguistic patterns and styles exhibited by their teachers during instructional sessions
(Marsella, 2020). According to Crawford (2004), if teachers aim to encourage students to use
the second language (L2) within the classroom, they must establish an English-speaking
environment by using English themselves.
In addition to the role of the teacher, students themselves should be actively encouraged to
participate in linguistic interaction, utilizing the target language as a means to directly expose
themselves to linguistic input and facilitate their learning process. In a communicative language
teaching setting, learners acquire and refine their proficiency in the target language through
interactions with both teachers and peers. Therefore, in the context of English language
teaching, particularly in classes where English serves as a second language (ESL) or a foreign
language (EFL), instructors are encouraged to embrace the comprehensive use of English
within the classroom, with the expectation that students will follow suit.
However, many studies revealed that in situations where when teachers share the same first
language (L1) background with their students, the use of L1 by the teachers in the second
language (L2) classrooms does exist (Saringat & Ismail, 2024). This pedagogical approach is
employed as a strategy to assist students in improving their understanding of the target
language (Desoyo, 2021). For instance, in an investigation into this issue, García (2009) found
that even though teachers try to emphasize the use of the medium of instruction as the student
progress is assessed using the language, the instructional conversations between students and
teachers do occur in languages other than the medium of instruction. Similarly, a more recent
study by Wijaya (2021) reveals that students use more than one language to communicate with
the teacher and other students in the process of understanding the knowledge taught. This
strategy is primarily employed to facilitate easier comprehension of the input and assist in
learning the target language, particularly in classrooms where students and teachers have
diverse linguistic backgrounds.
This has created conflicts in policy formulation and differences of opinion between various
stakeholders such as students, educators, parents, administrators, curriculum designers and
policymakers in curriculum planning and in deciding the most effective methods to achieve the
objectives of teaching and learning English. Therefore, to reach a consensus on when and how
code-switching can be allowed to be used in English classes is certainly challenging.
This study aims to investigate the perspectives and reasons behind code-switching among
students and lecturers in classroom interaction and seeks to analyze the utilization of code-
switching as a strategic approach to assist them in accomplishing their objectives, particularly
Copyright © GLOBAL ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE (M) SDN BHD - All rights reserved
2
Volume 7 Issue 26 (June 2024) PP. 01-21
DOI 10.35631/IJHPL.726001
in relation to the acquisition of the English language within the ESL classroom setting at
Malaysian Polytechnics.
Literature Review
One of the early scholars to discuss the phenomenon of code-switching was linguist Weinreich
(1953), in his book "Language in Contact." Weinreich defined code-switching as the
intermittent practice of alternating between two languages during speech. Another notable
definition was proposed by Gumperz (1982), a prominent linguist, who described code-
switching as the exchange of languages within the same conversation that involves two distinct
grammatical systems or subsystems. Typically, code-switching occurs in the second articulated
utterance, where the speaker employs the second language either to reiterate their message or
respond to another person's statement. Code-switching can range from simple word exchanges
to more complex instances where language is juxtaposed at the phrase or sentence level.
This dynamic practice of code-switching has garnered significant attention from other
researchers too, leading to the development of various definitions that share fundamental
similarities. Myers-Scotton (2001) who introduced the Markedness Model, a widely
recognized framework for examining code-switching conceptualized code-switching as a
linguistic practice, suggests that the term is where an individual proficient in two languages
alternates between them within a single utterance or dialogue. Valdés-Fallis (1978)
characterizes code-switching as the concurrent usage of two languages, while Heller (2006)
emphasizes its continuous presence during a dialogue involving two or more languages.
Additionally, Chana and Romaine (1984) define code-switching as the alignment of speech
passages from two distinct grammatical systems or subsystems within the same speech
exchange.
Based on the aforementioned definitions, this study will adopt the term "code-switching" in its
most encompassing interpretation, denoting the interchange of languages at various linguistic
levels, including words, phrases, clauses, and sentences, within the context of a single dialogue
or conversation among individuals proficient in multiple languages.
Students’ Perspective
Students generally prefer using their native language (L1) in second language (L2) classrooms
to overcome language barriers. However, successful implementation requires both teacher and
student proficiency in both languages. To illustrate, Al Tale and Alqahtani (2020) found that
students responded positively to code-switching in reading comprehension activities. They
preferred this method over instruction solely in the target language. Additionally, studies
suggest students favor L2 instruction by teachers proficient in their native language (Bateman,
2008; Hertel & Sunderman, 2009; Tajgozari, 2017).
Educators often worry about using students' native language (L1) in class, especially for those
proficient in the second language (L2). However, these concerns overlook the benefits of L1
use, which serves specific purposes in language learning. One such reason is students often
turn to their native language (L1) to understand unfamiliar words by consulting L1 dictionaries.
This helps bridge the gap between their existing linguistic knowledge and new L2 vocabulary.
Additionally, using L1 for socializing with peers fosters comfort and enhances social cohesion
in the classroom, as supported by Galali and Cinkara's (2017) research.
Copyright © GLOBAL ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE (M) SDN BHD - All rights reserved
3
Volume 7 Issue 26 (June 2024) PP. 01-21
DOI 10.35631/IJHPL.726001
Tian and Hennebry (2016) found students at a Chinese university, teachers preferred to use L1,
especially for explaining complex topics or introducing new vocabulary. Similarly, Hlas (2016)
reported comparable findings in their study. Besides that, students often resort to their native
language (L1) in class for translation, writing exercises, and participation in discussions.
Boustani (2019) highlighted the challenge of preventing L1 use in such situations, with students
naturally gravitating toward their mother tongue. Studies like Al-Musawi (2014) advocate for
incorporating L1 in language learning experiences, especially for writing activities and
selecting L2 vocabulary.
As a general trend, many students generally use tend to rely on their native language (L1) for
academic tasks, but the extent varies based on their proficiency in the second language (L2).
Those with limited L2 mastery rely more on L1 compared to those more proficient (Hanáková
& Metruk, 2017).
Educators’ Perspective
Though many students rely heavily on their first language (L1) in second language (L2)
classrooms, broader acceptance of this strategy among policymakers and teachers remains
limited. Educators' views on code-switching vary, with some endorsing it while others dissent.
In a recent study by Karakaya and Dikilitaş (2020), EFL educators view code-switching as a
valuable strategy for teaching and promoting classroom social interaction. Besides
instructional benefits, code-switching helps alleviate students' apprehensions, enhances
participation, and boosts motivation and confidence, especially when students struggle with
English comprehension or expression. Creating such a comfortable environment is crucial for
educators to facilitate English language acquisition.
Kohi and Lakshmi (2020) surveyed 40 EFL/ESL teachers from 12 countries, finding that they
support using the first language (L1) as an instructional strategy in L2 classrooms. They use
L1 for translation, content explanation, classroom management, and promoting social
interactions. Relying solely on L2 can overwhelm students with limited proficiency, hindering
their understanding. Jingxia (2010) found a similar trend in a study involving 60 teachers from
three Chinese universities. The majority expressed strong support for bilingual approaches in
EFL classrooms, noting that L1 use can be both conscious and unconscious.
However, some educators are skeptical about this practice, fearing it may disrupt the learning
of the new language by diverting attention from core linguistic content and diluting
instructional focus. Yao (2011) highlights a focus in English language pedagogy on minimizing
code-switching, believed to hinder effective target language acquisition, without considering
its underlying purposes. This effort reflects a desire to reduce students' L1 use, often seen as a
sign of proficiency failure and reluctance to use English. In line with this, Şener and Korkut
(2017) found most trainee teachers prioritize using the target language in EFL classrooms,
arguing excessive L1 reliance restricts speaking practice and overall English communication
improvement. Similarly, Alrabah, Wu, Alotaibi, and Aldaihani (2015) discovered that while
students benefitted from L1 use in language learning, educators generally disapproved of this
strategy.
In addition to this, there are also studies indicate that educators within the same institution may
hold differing views on instructional practices. De La Campa and Nassaji (2009) found varying
perspectives among teachers on adopting a bilingual approach. Similarly, Murga, Damian, and
Copyright © GLOBAL ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE (M) SDN BHD - All rights reserved
4
Volume 7 Issue 26 (June 2024) PP. 01-21
DOI 10.35631/IJHPL.726001
Tacoaman (2018) observed differing attitudes, with half occasionally using L1 in class and the
other half strictly prohibiting its use.
Such varied viewpoints highlight the complexity of education and instructional decision-
making. These differences can arise from beliefs about language acquisition, cultural
influences, teaching philosophies, or interpretations of institutional policies. Coexisting
perspectives within an institution prompt dialogue and require consideration of their impact on
teaching practices, student learning, and pedagogical coherence.
The bilingual approach is seen as impeding second language (L2) class objectives for multiple
reasons. Scholars like (Parker, Heitzman, Fjerstad, Babbs, & Cohen, 1995) suggest that
exclusive use of L2 fosters higher proficiency, with increased exposure expediting language
mastery. Thus, the presence of L1 in classrooms is viewed as hindering L2 acquisition. Voicu
(2012) and Wong (2010) argue for an English-only policy to replicate native language
acquisition environments, ideal for ESL classrooms. In a study by Izquierdo, Martínez, Pulido,
and Zúñiga (2016), heavy L1 reliance during EFL instruction was linked to low English
achievement among Mexican students, with limited use of L2 for communication.
Another reason to oppose the bilingual approach is its negative effect on lesson time allocation.
Explaining concepts in L1 to clarify new vocabulary and then expecting tasks to be performed
in L2 disrupts teaching plans, requiring additional time (Mahboob, 2010). Finally, a prevailing
belief among many educators is that incorporating L1 within an L2 classroom setting reduces
learning challenges, particularly for students who possess a strong command of L2 (Ortega,
2014).
While some scholars view code-switching as a sign of linguistic limitations, however, recent
research suggests it can enhance second language acquisition when used effectively. An
increasing number of researchers promote its use in L2 classrooms, as it benefits both educators
and students in language learning. Research confirms the brain's ability to process multiple
languages simultaneously (Ellis & Natsuko, 2014). However, bilingual students may fail to
leverage this cognitive advantage in learning a second language (L2) if it goes untapped or if
they lack the skills to do so effectively in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom
(Arenas-Iglesias, 2016; Moeller & Roberts, 2013).
Atkinson (1987), Cook (2013), and Liu (2008) argue that using the first language (L1) doesn't
harm language learning. When used judiciously, L1 can aid in acquiring a second language
(L2) and optimize time efficiency. Almoayidi (2018) supports the selective use of the first
language (L1) alongside the second language (L2) in classrooms, rather than replacing L2
entirely. Fauziati, Hidayat, and Susiati (2020) found teachers in Indonesia use L1 for
instructions, grammar explanations, managing classrooms, and reinforcing learning, aligning
with learning objectives. Similarly, Al-Musawi (2014) and Galali and Cinkara (2017) advocate
for using L1 only when necessary, like aiding comprehension of unfamiliar terms. Using the
native language (L1) in class is seen as beneficial for teaching and learning, especially for
student control, classroom management, and instruction (Cahyani, Courcy, & Barnett, 2016).
It enhances knowledge acquisition, social interaction, and classroom order among students and
instructors (Fachrurozy, Puspita & Sunarti, 2024).
Here are other studies suggest that L1 should be employed selectively and as needed.. Laufer
and Nathan (2008) found it helps students compare L1 and L2, aiding acquisition through
translation exercises. This approach acts as a bridge, leveraging existing L1 knowledge for
nuanced L2 comprehension. Bashir and Author (2015) noted its value in disciplinary
management, humor, lesson delivery, and student engagement. Gulzar (2010) found that code-
switching aids in displaying empathy, emphasizing points, and facilitating comprehension
through direct quotations. Taniş, Şensoy, and Atay (2020) support using the first language (L1)
for instructions in writing classes. Sa’d and Qadermazi (2015) suggest that while an English-
only policy can improve listening and speaking skills, strategic use of L1 helps teachers deliver
instructions effectively, enhance English language learning, and reduce potential ambiguities.
Karakaya and Dikilitaş (2020) found that EFL instructors in Turkish universities use code-
switching to clarify language elements. Cook (2013) suggests that L1 serves various
educational purposes, including checking comprehension and maintaining discipline. Overall,
incorporating L1 in classrooms aids L2 development and enhances language efficiency (Pan &
Pan, 2010).
Probably the most important reason to encourage the use of L1 is it helps teachers build strong
relationships with students, motivating active participation (Sarwar & Ghani, 2024); Cahyani
et al., 2016). This interpersonal connection fosters student involvement, motivation, and
confidence in the L2 classroom (Karakaya & Dikilitaş, 2020; Pan & Pan, 2010). Additionally,
using L1 makes interactions more natural and easier, as emphasized by Lin (2013) and Cook
(2001). In a recent study by Ali (2020), using the native language (L1) alongside a second
language (L2) positively influences the teaching and learning process and enhances teacher-
student relationships. Code-switching, as suggested by Wei (1998), allows individuals to
express emotions and create a comfortable atmosphere in the classroom, strengthening teacher-
student bonds.
Sholikhah & Isnaini (2024), Boustani (2019) and Afzal (2012) found that using the first
language (L1) in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classes reduced students' speaking
anxiety and improved vocabulary acquisition among low-achieving students. This fosters
Copyright © GLOBAL ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE (M) SDN BHD - All rights reserved
6
Volume 7 Issue 26 (June 2024) PP. 01-21
DOI 10.35631/IJHPL.726001
student-centered learning, promoting active engagement and ownership of learning, as
evidenced by Storch and Aldosari (2010), who found that pair and group work in EFL
classrooms can be effectively conducted even with the use of L1.
Hence, it is evident that the use of the native language (L1) alongside second language (L2)
instruction is recognized for enhancing L2 proficiency. Thus, exclusive immersion classrooms
may not always be suitable, especially when students can effectively use their L1 knowledge
to learn L2. Hanif (2020) stresses the importance of skillfully integrating bilingual approaches,
requiring comprehensive teacher training on bilingual strategy integration.
The preceding literature review has elucidated the extensive discourse surrounding both the
favorable and unfavorable facets of code switching. It can be concluded that the disparity in
methodological elements, such as sample characteristics, research instruments, academic
levels, contextual factors, and others, from one study to another creates a significant challenge
in reaching a consensus regarding the efficacy of code-switching and subsequently hinders the
generalizability of findings.
Consequently, it is foreseeable that this debate will continue as scholars strive to navigate the
intricate nuances surrounding code-switching. However, given the need to identify the function
of code-switching due to its important role in the ESL classroom conducting research in an
effort to obtain a better understanding of this issue seems justified. Above all, this study
contributes to the exploration of the most effective ways in which code-switching can assist
both teachers and students in attaining their academic and social objectives within the
classroom setting.
In order to achieve the aim of this research the following research questions were formulated:
1. What are the attitudes of instructors and students towards the practice of code-switching?
2. To what extent do instructors and students engage in code-switching?
3. What are the underlying reasons for instructors and students to code-switch in the ESL
classroom?
Methodology
This study investigates code-switching among lecturers and fourth-semester students in
English as a Second Language (ESL) classes at PTSB. To achieve this, a descriptive research
design is employed, allowing effective summarization of individual or group characteristics
(Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). This design is suitable for exploring factors influencing code-
switching practices among fourth-semester students in ESL classrooms at PTSB, especially
when dealing with a large population (Burns & Bush, 2014). For precision, a quantitative
approach is chosen, offering a systematic method for collecting and analyzing numerical data
using statistical techniques.
The study involves 13 qualified English language lecturers and 235 fourth-semester students
from PTSB, ensuring a minimum five years of teaching experience for lecturers. The inclusion
criterion minimizes ineffective code-switching due to lack of experience. Students,
representing all four academic departments, are sampled using simple random sampling,
providing an unbiased representation of the student population (Kothari, 2004). The sample
size adheres to Krejcie and Morgan's (1970) guideline. These students are fluent in Malay and
English, undergo a mandatory Communicative English Course at PTSB.
Copyright © GLOBAL ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE (M) SDN BHD - All rights reserved
7
Volume 7 Issue 26 (June 2024) PP. 01-21
DOI 10.35631/IJHPL.726001
Two self-administered questionnaires, one for lecturers and one for students, were utilized to
collect qualitative data. Adapted from previous studies (Horasan, 2014; Rose & Dulm, 2006;
Barandagh et al., 2013; Momenian & Samar, 2011), the questionnaires consist of two sections.
Section 'A' gathers demographic information, providing insights into factors influencing
perspectives on code-switching. Section 'B' employs a 5-point Likert scale to capture
participants' perspectives on code-switching in ESL classrooms. To address language concerns,
each item includes a Malay translation, mitigating potential misinterpretations by students.
Theoretical Framework
This study is grounded in the theoretical framework of Gumperz (1982) Semantic Model of
conversational code-switching. Gumperz's model has been widely employed in research to
understand the functions of code-switching in various contexts. Although this model primarily
focuses on code-switching in conversations in general, it provides a solid foundation for
analyzing the use of code-switching in the ESL classroom.
In Gumperz's classification, code-switching was divided into two types: situational code-
switching and metaphorical code-switching. Situational code-switching involves changes in
the setting, topic, or participants. While, metaphorical code-switching refers to instances where
code-switching occurs without being prompted by changes in the social context. Metaphorical
code-switching serves various purposes, such as quotation, addressee specification,
interjections, reiterations, message qualification, and personalization versus objectivization.
However, it is important to note that Gumperz's model does not specifically address the reasons
for employing code-switching in the classroom setting. To address this limitation and fulfill
the objectives of this study, the researcher has adapted and modified the functions of code-
switching proposed by other scholars who have specifically examined code-switching in
educational contexts.
Copyright © GLOBAL ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE (M) SDN BHD - All rights reserved
8
Volume 7 Issue 26 (June 2024) PP. 01-21
DOI 10.35631/IJHPL.726001
In particular, the researcher has drawn upon the works of Horasan (2014), Rose and Dulm
(2006), Barandagh et al. (2013), and Momenian and Samar (2011), who have extensively
studied the reasons for practicing code-switching among students in classroom settings. Their
insights and findings have been instrumental in shaping the design of this research instrument
and ensuring its relevance to our research objectives.
By utilizing this theoretical framework and employing the modified questionnaire, the
researcher aims to shed light on the attitudes of instructors and students towards code-switching
and the underlying reasons behind its usage in the ESL classroom.
Result
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Strongly
Neutral
No
Agree
Agree
Items
.
The data reflects a generally positive attitude among English language lecturers towards the
use of code-switching in the English language classroom. More than half of the respondents
agreed or strongly agreed that code-switching should be used (46% agree, 8% strongly agree)
while almost three-quarters of them perceived that it helps students learn the English language
(62% agree, 8% strongly agree). This suggests that these lecturers recognize code-switching as
a useful tool in facilitating language learning. The data also revealed that lecturers view code-
switching as a strategy for the teaching and learning process. A substantial majority (69%)
agreed that code-switching is a viable teaching strategy, while an additional 8% strongly agreed
with this statement.
Interestingly, when examining the impact of code-switching on students' comfort, all the
lecturers agreed (77% agree, 23% strongly agree) that code-switching makes students feel
comfortable and secure in the English language classroom. This indicates that lecturers strongly
considered code-switching as a means to create a non-threatening environment, potentially
leading to enhanced student participation and learning outcomes. When asked about its effect
on student understanding, 54% of respondents agreed and 15% strongly agreed that code-
Copyright © GLOBAL ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE (M) SDN BHD - All rights reserved
9
Volume 7 Issue 26 (June 2024) PP. 01-21
DOI 10.35631/IJHPL.726001
switching helps students follow their lessons better. These show that code-switching may
improve students' comprehension and facilitate their engagement with the material.
Overall, the data reveals that the lecturers seemed to have a positive attitude towards code-
switching practice. They recognize its potential benefits in terms of language learning, teaching
strategies, student comfort, and lesson comprehension. These findings suggest that code-
switching can be considered a valuable pedagogical tool in the English language classroom,
aligning with the lecturers' perceptions and preferences.
Occasionally
Sometimes
Always
No. Items
Never
Often
I code-switch because I want to give the 3 4 4 1 1
1.
procedural instructions. (23%) (31%) (31%) (8%) (8%)
I code-switch because I want to manage or 5 5 2 1 0
2.
control the class. (38%) (38%) (15%) (8%) (0%)
I code-switch because I want to teach new 1 6 3 0 3
3.
vocabulary. (8%) (46%) (23%) (0%) (23%)
I code-switch because I want to teach new 3 4 4 1 1
4.
grammatical item. (23%) (31%) (31%) (8%) (8%)
I code-switch because I want to clarify 1 4 2 1 5
5.
something. (8%) (31%) (15%) (8%) (38%)
I code-switch because there is no direct 2 3 5 1 2
6.
translation of a word in English language. (15%) (23%) (38%) (8%) (15%)
I code-switch because I want to check 2 4 5 1 1
7.
students’ understanding. (15%) (31%) (38%) (8%) (8%)
I code-switch because I want to rephrase 2 4 3 2 2
8.
English language utterance in Malay language. (15%) (31%) (23%) (15%) (15%)
I code-switch because I want to put emphasis 4 4 2 3 0
9.
on the utterance. (31%) (31%) (15%) (23%) (0%)
I code-switch when moving from one activity 8 1 3 1 0
10.
to another. (62%) (8%) (23%) (8%) (0%)
I code-switch when explaining differences 1 6 2 3 1
11.
between first and second language. (8%) (46%) (15%) (23%) (8%)
I code-switch when I need to explain 4 4 2 2 1
12.
something quickly. (31%) (31%) (15%) (15%) (8%)
I code-switch because I want to ease tension 0 5 3 3 2
13.
and inject humour. (0%) (38%) (23%) (23%) (15%)
I code-switch when socialising with the 0 9 0 3 1
14.
students. (0%) (69%) (0%) (23%) (8%)
Copyright © GLOBAL ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE (M) SDN BHD - All rights reserved
10
Volume 7 Issue 26 (June 2024) PP. 01-21
DOI 10.35631/IJHPL.726001
Upon analyzing the data on English language lecturers' reasons for employing code-switching
in the classroom, several patterns and trends emerge. One notable trend is that the highest
frequency of "often" and "always" combined is observed in the statement, "I code-switch
because I want to clarify something," with a combined frequency of 46%. This implies that
lecturers frequently use code-switching to provide additional explanations or ensure that
students understand the content being taught. The high occurrence of code-switching for
clarification suggests that lecturers prioritize effective communication and comprehension in
their classrooms.
Another reason that stands out is, "I code-switch because I want to ease tension and inject
humor," with a combined (often and always) frequency of 38%. This finding suggests that
lecturers use code-switching as a pedagogical tool to create a relaxed and engaging classroom
environment. By incorporating humor and light-heartedness, lecturers can potentially enhance
students' motivation and enjoyment of the English language learning process. Additionally, "I
code-switch when socializing with the students" shows a combined (often and always)
frequency of 31%. This indicates that lecturers utilize code-switching to build rapport and
establish a connection with their students. Socializing through code-switching may help bridge
cultural and linguistic gaps, making students feel more comfortable and fostering a positive
learning atmosphere.
The statement "I code-switch when explaining differences between first and second language"
also has a combined (often and always) frequency of 31%. This finding suggests that lecturers
frequently switch between languages to compare and contrast aspects of the students' native
language with English. By doing so, lecturers can highlight nuances, address common errors,
and facilitate a deeper understanding of language structures and concepts. On the other hand,
the statements with the least frequency of "often" and "always" combined are "I code-switch
because I want to manage or control the class" and "I code-switch when moving from one
activity to another," both with a combined frequency of 8%. This implies that lecturers rely
less on code-switching for classroom management and transitioning between activities.
Lecturers may prefer alternative strategies for maintaining discipline and smoothly
transitioning between tasks, indicating a potential focus on maintaining a consistent language
environment during instruction.
It's worth noting that there are relatively fewer instances of "often" or "always" responses in
the dataset, indicating that extreme or consistent use of code-switching is less prevalent among
the surveyed lecturers. Instead, a majority of responses fall within the occasional or sometimes
categories, suggesting that lecturers employ code-switching strategically and selectively rather
than as a default approach. Overall, the data reveals that English language lecturers employ
code-switching in the classroom for various purposes, including the most frequently (often and
always combined) used for clarification followed by easing tension, explaining language
differences, socializing and rephrasing utterances. Code-switching is seen as a tool to enhance
language learning, foster engagement, and create a positive classroom environment. These
findings indicate that lecturers recognize the potential benefits of code-switching in facilitating
language acquisition and pedagogical interactions with students.
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Strongly
Neutral
Agree
Agree
No. Items
Furthermore, when asked about the role of code-switching as a strategy for teaching and
learning, a substantial proportion of students agreed (58.2%) or strongly agreed (33.1%) that it
serves as an effective approach. This implies that students recognize the intentional use of code-
switching by teachers as a pedagogical approach rather than a mere linguistic phenomenon. A
significant number of students (89.5%) agreed or strongly agreed that code-switching creates
a comfortable and non-threatening environment. This sentiment suggests that code-switching
allows students to express themselves more freely and engage in classroom activities without
fear of judgment or making mistakes. Correspondingly, when asked whether code-switching
helps students follow the lesson better, a majority of students (87.9%) agreed or strongly
agreed. This finding indicates that code-switching can serve as a bridge between the students'
native language and English, facilitating their comprehension and understanding of the lesson
content.
Although the majority of students hold positive attitudes towards code-switching, there are
some notable patterns worth mentioning. Notably, in some statements, there were a few
students who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the use of code-switching. However, these
percentages were relatively low, ranging from 0.4% to 1.2%. These outliers may represent a
small subset of students who have differing preferences or experiences regarding code-
switching. It would be beneficial to further investigate their perspectives to understand their
concerns and address any potential barriers to accepting code-switching as a valuable tool in
the classroom.
In summary, the data analysis reveals that a significant majority of students hold favorable
attitudes toward the practice of code-switching in the English language classroom. Students
Copyright © GLOBAL ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE (M) SDN BHD - All rights reserved
12
Volume 7 Issue 26 (June 2024) PP. 01-21
DOI 10.35631/IJHPL.726001
perceive code-switching as a valuable resource that aids language learning, fosters a
comfortable learning environment, and improves comprehension. These findings emphasize
the importance of incorporating code-switching effectively into teaching methodologies to
enhance student engagement, promote successful language acquisition, and create inclusive
learning environments.
From the responses received, it is evident that a significant portion of the students expressed a
positive inclination towards the use of code-switching. The majority of students (37.1%)
indicated that code-switching should be used "Often," followed closely by 32.5% of students
who believed it should be used "Always." Together, these two categories encompass almost
70% of the participants, indicating a considerable proportion of students who view code-
switching as a regular or constant practice in the classroom. Furthermore, 27.9% of the students
responded with "Sometimes," suggesting that they perceive code-switching as a moderately
frequent occurrence. These students acknowledge the value of code-switching but may prefer
it to be used selectively or situationally rather than consistently.
A smaller percentage of students (2.5%) responded with "Occasionally," implying that they
believe code-switching should be used infrequently or only on rare occasions. This group of
students likely prefers to predominantly use English without incorporating elements from other
languages during classroom interactions. Interestingly, none of the students responded with
"Never," indicating that all participants perceived at least some level of usefulness or relevance
in the practice of code-switching in the English language classroom. It is worth noting that the
absence of a "Never" response suggests a general acceptance or recognition of the potential
benefits that code-switching can bring to language learning.
Occasionally
Sometimes
No. Items
Always
Never
Often
I code-switch because I do not know the
1. English language equivalent, so I use a 3 7 28 119 83
Malay or Tamil word. (1.2%) (2.9%) (11.7%) (49.6%) (34.6%)
I code-switch because there is no direct 1 12 45 118 64
2.
translation of a word in English language. (0.4%) (5%) (18.8%) (49.2%) (26.7%)
I code-switch because I am not proficient in 4 14 35 126 61
3.
English language. (1.7%) (5.8%) (14.6%) (52.5%) (25.4%)
I code-switch when I need help from 1 2 28 147 61
4.
lecturers or friends. (0.4%) (0.8%) (11.7%) (61.5%) (25.5%)
I code-switch to socialise with teacher and 2 3 40 140 54
5.
friends. (0.8%) (1.3%) (16.7%) (58.6%) (22.6%)
I code-switch because I do not want to get 8 23 50 111 47
6.
embarrassed. (3.3%) (9.6%) (20.9%) (46.4%) (19.7%)
0 4 28 145 60
7. I code-switch when explaining.
(0%) (1.7%) (11.8%) (61.2%) (25.3%)
I code-switch to rephrase English language 0 6 35 144 52
8.
utterance in Malay language. (0%) (2.5%) (14.8%) (60.8%) (21.9%)
I code-switch to attract attention and to have 11 29 84 80 33
9.
the floor. (4.6%) (12.2%) (35.4%) (33.8%) (13.9%)
I code-switch to put emphasis on the 1 7 46 138 45
10.
utterance. (0.4%) (3%) (19.4%) (58.2%) (19%)
I code-switch to help me to maintain the 1 3 32 133 68
11.
flow of a conversation. (0.4%) (1.3%) (13.5%) (56.1%) (28.7%)
Similarly, another significant finding is that code-switching is frequently used for explanation
purposes. A substantial majority of students (86.5%) reported that they often or always code-
switch when explaining, indicating that code-switching allows students to provide clearer and
more comprehensive explanations by utilizing familiar terms and concepts from their native
languages. Another notable pattern is the high percentage of students (84.8%) who indicated
that they often or always code-switch as a strategy for maintaining conversational flow.
Furthermore, another important finding that mirrors this is the significant proportion of students
who reported often or always code-switching because not knowing the English language
equivalent (84.2%)
Copyright © GLOBAL ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE (M) SDN BHD - All rights reserved
14
Volume 7 Issue 26 (June 2024) PP. 01-21
DOI 10.35631/IJHPL.726001
Lastly, a substantial majority of students (82.5%) responded that they code-switch to put
emphasis on their utterances, often or always. This finding indicates that students utilize code-
switching as a linguistic tool to enhance the impact and clarity of their messages, emphasizing
specific points or concepts during communication. In summary, the data reveals that students
frequently employ code-switching in English language classrooms for various reasons. These
findings emphasize the multifaceted nature of code-switching as a linguistic resource utilized
by students to enhance their communication and learning experiences in the English language
classroom.
Discussion
This study delves into the intricate dynamics of code-switching practices within ESL
classrooms, shedding light on both students' and lecturers' perspectives. It unravels a diverse
array of motivations behind code-switching, offering valuable insights into the nuanced reasons
driving this linguistic phenomenon in the classroom.
However, some educators express skepticism about code-switching, fearing it may disrupt the
learning process. This stance is echoed by Yao (2011), while Şener and Korkut (2017) found
that trainee teachers prioritize the use of the target language. These divergent perspectives
within the same institution were also observed in the studies by De La Campa and Nassaji
(2009) and Murga et al. (2018), highlighting the complex nature of instructional decision-
making and the influence of various factors.
While lecturers tend to hold more neutral views, students strongly support code-switching. This
disparity may stem from the lecturers' role in considering instructional approaches and students'
focus on their learning experiences. However, it is imperative for lecturers to heed students'
perspectives, given their positive outlook on code-switching.
Copyright © GLOBAL ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE (M) SDN BHD - All rights reserved
15
Volume 7 Issue 26 (June 2024) PP. 01-21
DOI 10.35631/IJHPL.726001
Respondents Reasons for Code-Switching
The reasons for lecturers' code-switching in ESL classrooms are diverse, including pedagogical
and socio-communicative purposes such as giving instructions, managing the class, teaching
new concepts, clarifying ideas, and fostering a positive atmosphere. Previous studies by
Fauziati et al. (2020), Al-Musawi (2014), and Cahyani et al. (2016) support these findings,
highlighting code-switching's role in instruction and classroom management, as well as its
facilitation of social interaction and comprehension. Gulzar (2010) emphasizes code-
switching's empathetic function and its role in emphasizing points and aiding comprehension.
Similarly, students code-switch for various reasons, including limited English proficiency, lack
of direct translations, the need for assistance, socialization, avoidance of embarrassment, and
maintaining conversational flow. Research by Almoayidi (2018), Taniş et al. (2020), Ali
(2020), and Boustani (2019) supports these findings, illustrating code-switching's role in
bridging languages, reducing anxiety, and enhancing vocabulary acquisition among low-
achieving students.
Limitation
This research, like any study, has limitations. It was conducted solely at PTSB with semester
four students, so the findings may not apply to students in other semesters or at other Malaysian
polytechnics. Also, the assumption that all semester four students at PTSB can code-switch
proficiently introduces uncertainty about the generalizability of the results.
Conclusion
While the study supports the positive impact of code-switching, it emphasizes the need to avoid
overreliance. Code-switching should be viewed as a strategic tool, gradually reduced as
learners’ progress in language proficiency. Educators should strike a balance between
providing linguistic support and encouraging target language engagement. There are promising
avenues for future research on code-switching in ESL classrooms, including longitudinal
studies, investigations into its impact on different language skills, exploration of specific
contexts and learner populations, examination of digital tools' role, and understanding
stakeholders' perspectives. Continued research will refine instructional practices and inform
supportive language learning policies.
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Associate Professor Dr. Donna Starks from La
Trobe University for her invaluable guidance and expertise in teaching Sociolinguistics and
Language Teaching, which served as the foundation for this research. Her insights and
encouragement have been instrumental in shaping my understanding of the topic and in the
development of this paper.
Copyright © GLOBAL ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE (M) SDN BHD - All rights reserved
16
Volume 7 Issue 26 (June 2024) PP. 01-21
DOI 10.35631/IJHPL.726001
References
Afzal, S. (2012). Relationship between Providing Persian Equivalents of English Adjectives
and Iranian EFL Learners’ Active Vocabulary. International Journal of English
Linguistics, 2(1), 231-238. doi:10.5539/ijel.v2n1p231
Al-Musawi, N. (2014). Strategic use of translation in learning English as a foreign language
(EFL) among Bahrain University students. Comprehensive Psychology, 3(4), 1-10.
Al Tale, M. A., & Alqahtani, F. A. (2020). Code-Switching versus Target-Language-Only for
English as a Foreign Language: Saudi Students' Perceptions. English Language
Teaching, 13(9), 18-29. doi:10.5539/elt.v13n9p18
Almoayidi, K. (2018). The effectiveness of using L1 in second language classrooms: A
controversial issue. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(4), 375-379.
Alrabah, S., Wu, S., Alotaibi, A., & Aldaihani, H. (2015). English teachers' use of learners' L1
(Arabic) in college classrooms in Kuwait. English Language Teaching, 9(1), 2-11.
Arenas-Iglesias, L. (2016). Students’ opinions about the use of L1 in an intermediate level
course, (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). University of St Mark and St John. UK.
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11117/3399
Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: A neglected resource? ELT Journal,
41(4), 241-247. doi:10.1093/elt/41.4.241
Barandagh, S. G., Zoghi, S. M., & Amini, D. (2013). An investigation of teachers and learners'
use of English-Persian code switching in Iranian intermediate EFL classrooms. Journal
of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 3(7), 876-883.
Bashir, A., & Author, C. (2015). The Functions of Code Switching in ESL Classroom
Discourse. Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics, 6, 6-9.
Bateman, B. (2008). Student Teachers' Attitudes and Beliefs About Using the Target Language
in the Classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 41(1), 11-28. doi:10.1111/j.1944-
9720.2008.tb03277.x
Bhooth, A., Azman, H., & Ismail, K. (2014). The role of the L1 as a scaffolding tool in the
EFL reading classroom. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 76-84.
Boustani, K. (2019). The Correlation between translation equivalence, as a vocabulary learning
strategy, and Tunisian EFL learners’ speaking anxiety. Languages, 4(1), 19-28.
Burns, A. C., & Bush, R. F. (2014). Marketing research (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Cahyani, H., Courcy, d., & Barnett, J. (2016). Teachers’ code-switching in bilingual
classrooms: Exploring pedagogical and sociostructural functions. International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-15.
Chambers, F. (1991). Promoting use of the target language in the classroom. Language
Learning Journal, 4(1), 27-31. doi:10.1080/09571739185200411
Chana, U., & Romaine, S. (1984). Evaluative reactions to Panjabi/English code‐switching.
Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 5(6), 447-473.
doi:10.1080/01434632.1984.9994174
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 57(3), 402-423.
Cook, V. (2013). Second language learning and language teaching (4th ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Crawford, J. (2004). Language choices in the foreign language classroom: Target language or
the learners' first language? RELC journal, 35(1), 5-20.
doi:org/10.1177/003368820403500103
Copyright © GLOBAL ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE (M) SDN BHD - All rights reserved
17
Volume 7 Issue 26 (June 2024) PP. 01-21
DOI 10.35631/IJHPL.726001
De La Campa, J., & Nassaji, H. (2009). The amount, purpose, and reasons for using L1 in L2
classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 42(4), 742-759. doi:10.1111/j.1944-
9720.2009.01052.x
De la Fuente, M. J., & Goldenberg, C. (2020). Understanding the role of the first language (L1)
in instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): Effects of using a principled
approach to L1 in the beginner foreign language classroom. Language Teaching
Research, 1 –20. doi:10.1177/1362168820921882
Desoyo, A. A. (2021). Code-Switching as a Language Teaching Strategy Based on the
Grammar-Translation Method for Comprehension Enhancement. International Journal
of Applied Linguistics and Translation, 7(1), 1. doi:10.11648/j.ijalt.20210701.11
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R., & Natsuko, S. (2014). Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language
Acquisition Research: Routledge.
Fachrurozy, A., Puspita, R. H., & Sunarti, S. (2024). The analysis of factors and context that
influence students to use code switching in delivering utterances in english class. Jurnal
Review Pendidikan dan Pengajaran (JRPP), 7(1), 2194-2198.
Fauziati, E., Hidayat, T., & Susiati. (2020). Exploring teachers’ use of L1 in Indonesian EFL
classroom: Pattern, purpose, and implication. Psychology and Education, 57(8), 1076–
1081.
Fraenkel , J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Franklin, C. E. M. (1990). Teaching in the target language: Problems and prospects. Language
Learning Journal, 2(1), 20-24. doi:10.1080/09571739085200371
Galali, A., & Cinkara, E. (2017). The use of L1 in English as a foreign language classes:
Insights from Iraqi tertiary level students. Advances in Language and Literary Studies,
8(5), 54-64.
García, O. (2009). Latino language practices and literacy education in the US. In
Ethnolinguistic Diversity and Education (pp. 205-223): Routledge.
Giannikas, C. (2011). L1 in English Language Learning: A Research Study in a Greek Regional
Context. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and Translation, 21(3), 319-339.
Gulzar, M. A. (2010). Code-switching: Awareness about its utility in bilingual classrooms.
Bulletin of Education and Research, 32(2), 23-44.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies: Studies in interactional sociolinguistics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hanáková, M., & Metruk, R. (2017). The use of L1 in the process of teaching English. Modern
Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 7(8), 208-216.
Hanif, H. (2020). The role of L1 in an EFL classroom. The Language Scholar, 8, 54-62.
Heller, M. (2006). Linguistic Minorities ana Modernity: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography (2nd
ed.). London: Continuum.
Hertel, T., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Student Attitudes toward Native and Non-Native
Language Instructors. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 468-475. doi:10.1111/j.1944-
9720.2009.01031.x
Hlas, A. (2016). Secondary Teachers’ Language Usage: Beliefs and Practices. Hispania, 99(2),
305-319.
Horasan, S. (2014). Code-switching in EFL classrooms and the perceptions of the students and
teachers. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 10(1), 31-45.
Copyright © GLOBAL ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE (M) SDN BHD - All rights reserved
18
Volume 7 Issue 26 (June 2024) PP. 01-21
DOI 10.35631/IJHPL.726001
Izquierdo, J., Martínez, V., Pulido, M., & Zúñiga, S. (2016). First and Target Language use in
Public Language Education for Young Learners: Longitudinal Evidence from Mexican
Secondaryschool Classrooms. System, 61, 20-30.
Jingxia, L. (2010). Teachers’ code-switching to the L1 in EFL classroom. The Open Applied
Linguistics Journal, 3, 10-23.
Karakaya, M., & Dikilitaş, K. (2020). Perceptions of the students and the teachers towards the
use of code switching in EFL classrooms. The Literacy Trek, 6(1), 40-73.
Kohi, M., & Lakshmi, S. (2020). Use of L1 in ESL/EFL Classroom: Multinational Teachers’
Perceptions and Attitudes. International Journal of English Language & Translation
Studies, 8(3), 88-96.
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology methods and techniques (2nd ed.). New Delhi:
New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
doi:10.1177/001316447003000308
Laufer, B., & Nathan, G. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary
learning: a case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 694–
716.
Lin, A. (2013). Classroom code-switching: Three decades of research. Applied Linguistics
Review, 4(1), 195-218.
Liu, J. (2008). L1 use in L2 vocabulary learning: Facilitator or barrier. International Education
Studies, 1(2), 65-69. doi:10.5539/ies.v1n2p65
Lopes, A., & Ruiz- Cecilia, R. (2019). New Trends in Foreign Language Teaching: Methods,
Evaluation and Innovation: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Mahboob, A. (2010). The NNEST Lens: Non Native English Speakers in TESOL. Cambridge:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Marsella, E. (2020). Exploring Teachers' Use of First Language (L1) in EFL Classroom.
Teknosastik, 18(1), 15-24. doi:10.33365/ts.v18i1.483
Moeller, A., & Roberts, A. (2013). Keeping it in the target language. Faculty Publications:
Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education, 178, 21-38.
Momenian, M., & Samar, R. G. (2011). Functions of code-switching among Iranian advanced
and elementary teachers and students. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(13), 769-
777.
Murga, B., Damian, D., & Tacoaman, M. (2018). Use of L1 in English as a foreign language
(EFL) learning environment. Bulletin Virtual, 7, 59-83.
Myers-Scotton, C. (2001). The matrix language frame model: Developments and responses. In
Codeswitching Worldwide II (Vol. 2, pp. 23).
Ortega, L. (2014). Understanding Second Language Acquisition: Routledge.
Pan, Y., & Pan, Y. (2010). The use of L1 in the foreign language classroom. Colombian Applied
Linguistics Journal, 12(2), 87-96. doi:10.14483/22487085.85
Parker, J. E., Heitzman, S. M., Fjerstad, A. M., Babbs, L. M., & Cohen, A. D. (1995). Exploring
the role of foreign language in immersion education. Second language acquisition
theory and pedagogy, 235-253.
Polio, C., & Duff, P. (1994). Teachers' language use in university foreign language classrooms:
A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. Modern Language
Journal, 78(3), 311-326. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02045.x
Copyright © GLOBAL ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE (M) SDN BHD - All rights reserved
19
Volume 7 Issue 26 (June 2024) PP. 01-21
DOI 10.35631/IJHPL.726001
Rose, S., & Dulm, O. v. (2006). Functions of code switching in multilingual classrooms. Per
Linguam, 22(2), 1-13. doi:10.5785/22-2-63
Sa’d, S. H. T., & Qadermazi, Z. (2015). L1 use in EFL classes with English-only policy:
Insights from triangulated data. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 5(2),
159-175--175.
Saringat, A. S., & Ismail, R. (2024). Code-Switching in Bilingual Malaysian Polytechnic
Settings. Borneo Engineering & Advanced Multidisciplinary International Journal,
3(1), 12-17.
Sarwar, M., & Ghani, N. A. (2024). To be or not to be: Undergraduate ESL learners’ attitudes
towards code-switching. Literary Voice 2(1), 154-166.
Şener, S., & Korkut, P. (2017). Teacher trainees’ awareness regarding mother tongue use in
English as a foreign language classes. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies,
13(1), 41-61.
Shabir, M. (2017). Student-teachers’ beliefs on the use of L1 in EFL classroom: A global
perspective. English Language Teaching, 10(4), 45-52. doi:10.5539/elt.v10n4p45
Sholikhah, M. A., & Isnaini, M. H. (2024). EFL Learners’ Views on the Use of Code-Switching
in Reducing Speaking Anxiety. Voices of English Language Education Society, 8(1),
115-127.
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an
EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 355-375.
doi:10.1177/1362168810375362
Tajgozari, M. (2017). Factors contributing to the use of L1 in English classrooms: Listening to
the voice of teachers and students in Iranian institutes. International Journal of
Research in English, 2(2), 63-75. doi:10.18869/acadpub.ijree.2.2.63
Taniş, A., Şensoy, H., & Atay, D. (2020). The effects of L1 use and dialogic instruction on
EFL writing. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 1-21.
doi:10.32601/ejal.710178
Tian, L., & Hennebry, M. (2016). Chinese Learners’ Perceptions Towards Teachers’ Language
Use in Lexical Explanations: A Comparison Between Chinese-only and English-only
Instructions. System, 63, 77-88.
Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in foreign and second language teaching, but.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 531-540. doi:10.3138/cmlr.57.4.531
Valdés-Fallis, G. (1978). Code-Switching Among Bilingual Mexican-American Women:
Towards an Understanding of Sex-Related Language Alternation. International journal
of the sociology of language(17), 65-72. doi:10.1515/ijsl.1978.17.65
Voicu, C. G. (2012). Overusing mother tongue in English language teaching. International
Journal of Communication Research, 2(3), 212.
Wei, L. (1998). The ‘why’ and ‘how’ question in the analysis of conversational code-switching.
In P. Auer (Ed.), Code-Switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity
(pp. 156-179). London: Routledge.
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. New York, NY: Linguistic Circle of New York
Publication.
Wijaya, K. F. (2021). Code-switching in indonesian efl teaching-learning contexts. UC
Journal: ELT, Linguistics and Literature Journal, 2(1), 22-34.
doi:10.24071/uc.v2i1.3419
Wong, R. M. (2010). The effectiveness of using English as the sole medium of instruction in
English classes: Student responses and improved English proficiency. Porta
Linguarum, 13, 119-130.
Copyright © GLOBAL ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE (M) SDN BHD - All rights reserved
20
Volume 7 Issue 26 (June 2024) PP. 01-21
DOI 10.35631/IJHPL.726001
Yao, M. (2011). On Attitudes to Teachers Code-switching in EFL Classes. World Journal of
English Language, 1(1).
Copyright © GLOBAL ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE (M) SDN BHD - All rights reserved
21