Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

There has been an increasing interest in the topic of code switching (CS) for the past two decades. This ethnographic exploratory study uncovers the status quo of classroom CS in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms in Libyan universities. It aims to investigate how EFL teachers code-switch to facilitate teaching/learning process. Six EFL instructors and their students participated in this study from three universities in Libya. Fifteen hours of classroom observation were carried out and 24 students were interviewed. The results revealed that first language (L1), Arabic, was occasionally used by classroom participants for different pedagogical and social functions. Those functions are labeled as follows: Clarification, Repetition, Recapitulation, and Socialization. Both teachers and students hold positive attitudes toward the use of the teacher’s CS to tackle pedagogical and social issues.

Keywords

Arabic language bilingual classroom classroom code switching functions of code switching

Introduction

The usage of first language (L1) in foreign language (L2) classrooms has been a controversial issue since the 19th century (Hall & Cook, 2012). Over the past two decades, however, there has been an increasing interest in this topic. Many researchers have examined this phenomenon from either a pedagogical (Levine, 2011) or a sociolinguistic perspective (Auer, 1988).

Research studies on the realism of classroom code switching (CS) showed differences in students and teachers’ perspectives. Many scholars, including the advocates of the monolingual approach to language teaching, acknowledged that CS is inevitable in language classrooms and that both students and teachers code-switch for various reasons (Polio & Duff, 1994). Furthermore, it has been ascertained in literature that the exclusive use of a target language limits the students’ prospective achievements and the possibilities of language teaching in the classroom (Cook, 2001; Levine, 2003; Turnbull, 2001). However, Turnbull (2001) highlighted some drawbacks to teachers’ extensive reliance on L1 and called for an optimal, or acceptable, amount of both L2 and L1 in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms. According to Levine (2003), many of the beliefs which influence teachers and educators’ judgment regarding the potential effectiveness of L1 use on the mastery of L2 are not based on theory or research.

Despite the restrictions on L1 use in many L2 classrooms around the world, its inevitable presence as another resource available for teachers and students posed numerous questions about how teachers and students who share the same L1 might actually address the issue. The learners’ L1 in the classroom can therefore be compared with an elephant in the room: We know it is there, but we try to ignore it either consciously or subconsciously (Levine, 2013).

Relatively few studies were published on classroom CS in Arabic contexts, where Arabic is the learners’ L1 (Al-Nofaie, 2010; Alrabah, Wu, Alotaibi, & Aldaihani, 2016; Alshammari, 2011; Asker & Martin-Jones, 2013; Bahous, Nabhani, & Bacha, 2014). The findings of such studies showed inconsistency in the classroom participants’ attitudes toward using learners’ L1, Arabic, in EFL classrooms (e.g., Al-Nofaie, 2010; Mahmoud, 2012).

Arabic, being spoken by the vast majority of Libyans, is the main language of the country. However, English occupies an increasingly significant role as the foreign language (Najeeb, 2013). English was a school subject in primary and secondary schools and was used as the medium of instruction in Libyan universities before its elimination from the educational system of the country for political reasons in the late 1980s. This elimination deprived a whole generation of the exposure to the language. Although teaching EFL was allowed back in Libyan schools and universities in the mid-1990s, it was found that using English as the only medium of instruction would have a negative influence on the students’ academic performance. However, using only Arabic was unprofitable due to the lack of academic materials and resources. Accordingly, Arabic–English Bilingualism was perceived as a first step toward globalization (Tamtam, Gallagher, Naher, & Olabi, 2013).

The fact that English teaching was eliminated for years by the Libyan government has been a disadvantage. The students were unable to make use of the learning materials and available data due to the language barriers (Tamtam, Gallagher, Olabi, & Naher, 2011). Despite that, there are no negative attitudes attached to English language. Libyan people feel positive about its value because it is the language of science and technology.

Asker and Martin-Jones (2013) investigated the sociocultural, political, and historical milieus behind the beliefs and ideologies about the appropriate language use in multilingual classroom interaction and CS practices in western Libya, where the Berber language is the mother tongue of the students. However, there are no published studies about classroom CS in the Libyan context where Arabic is the learners’ L1. The present study, therefore, attempts to fill in the gap by exploring the status quo of the teachers’ practice and beliefs on CS between L1 (Arabic) and L2 (English) in EFL undergraduate classrooms in some universities of Libya. It aims to investigate how EFL teachers code-switch to facilitate the teaching and learning process.

Literature Review

The review of the literature revealed that many studies tackled the issue of classroom CS from various aspects (Arpac, 2016; Macaro & Tian, 2015; Simasiku, Kasanda, & Smit, 2015; Thompson & Harrison, 2014; Tian & Macaro, 2012). The most common aspects are as follows: the functions and practicality of teacher’s CS, the reasons for classroom CS, and the classroom participants’ attitudes to CS.

Functions and Practicality of Teacher’s CS

Different studies were carried out in different linguistic contexts to investigate the functional distribution of L1 in L2 classrooms (e.g., Alrabah et al., 2016 in Arabic context; Cahyani, de Courcy, & Barnett, 2018 in Indonesian context; Sali, 2014 in Turkish context). Previous findings indicated that teachers tend to use their L1 in L2 classrooms for pedagogical, social, and managerial motives. Makulloluwa (2013) reported that L1 was used for pedagogical, administrative, and interactional purposes in both low and high proficiency levels in English as Second Language (ESL) classrooms in Sri Lanka. Most of the teachers who participated in the study had positive attitudes toward the use of L1 and found it useful by making input more comprehensible.

Gulzar (2010) also highlighted the functions of CS in Pakistani EFL classrooms. She reported that different functions such as clarification, effective instructions, translation, socialization, repetition, and topic shift were emphasized by the participants. Similarly, Bensen and Çavuşoğlu (2013) found that teachers in EFL classrooms in North Cyprus code-switched for topic switch, affective, and repetitive functions.

In the Australian context, Ma (2019) investigated the various functions of L1 use by the teacher and the students at elementary level with adult migrants. The results revealed that the teachers used L1 frequently for pedagogical and social reasons. They also argued that it regulated the classroom behavior. L1 was employed by the teachers to give instructions, to elicit answers, and to give explanations. However, it was used by the students to ask questions, to give reasons for lacking the necessary skills in L2, and to offer peer assistance.

Other studies, however, focused on the practicality and the effectiveness of CS in EFL classrooms (Bahous et al., 2014; Bensen & Çavuşoğlu, 2013; Macaro, 2009; Zhao & Macaro, 2016; Zhu & Vanek, 2017). The overall results did not provide any evidence that teacher’s CS was harmful to the acquisition of lexical items. In contrast, they pointed at the potential reduction of the cognitive and metacognitive opportunities available to learners by excluding their first language from communication in L2 classrooms (Macaro, 2009).

Most of the previous studies integrated the functions of teacher’s CS with other aspects such as reasons for CS (Hall & Cook, 2012), teachers’ attitudes, (Horasan, 2014), teachers’ ideologies (Sali, 2014), teachers’ identities (Raman & Yiğitoğlu, 2018), and teachers’ awareness of their CS (Grant & Nguyen, 2017).

According to Grant and Nguyen (2017), only when it is selectively and deliberately used, CS can work as a positive strategy in EFL classroom but not when it takes place as an automatic habit. Bilgin (2016) related students and teachers’ CS in Turkey to a number of dimensions, including teacher identity, beliefs, and professionalism.

In the Arabic context, Alrabah et al. (2016) explored the functions and reasons for teacher’s CS. He concluded that although teachers had negative attitudes toward the use of L1 in L2 teaching, they used it for both pedagogical and managerial purposes.

Teachers and Students’ Perceptions of Classroom CS

A lot of research has been conducted in different contexts to measure the classroom participants’ perceptions on CS (Al-Nofaie, 2010; Alrabah et al., 2016; Bilgin, 2016; Ibrahim, Shah, & Armia, 2013; Leoanak & Amalo, 2018; Suteja & Purwanti, 2017). The overall findings revealed that both teachers and students hold positive attitudes toward using L1 to support L2 teaching and learning process, although Cheng (2013) observed that teachers go to classes with a negative attitude toward CS; despite this, its usage is still prevalent in the class.

Hall and Cook (2012, 2013) conducted a global study across 111 countries with 2,785 teachers. The results showed widespread L1 use within English Language Teaching (ELT) classrooms. Teachers reported that learners found L1 use easier to clarify ambiguous vocabulary and grammar. The researchers also identified L1 role in developing a positive classroom atmosphere. Yet, Cheng (2013) cautioned that despite the widely acceptable use of CS, L1 should only be used in a controlled manner to explain difficult grammatical rules and obscure linguistic concepts.

Pedagogy and CS

According to Macaro (2009), there are three theoretical frameworks which provide evidence of the facilitative role of L1 use in L2 classrooms: Cognitive Processing Theory, Sociocultural Theory (SCT) and the phenomenon of “Code Switching in a Naturalistic Environment.” The Cognitive Processing Theory suggests that language is perceived, processed, and stored similarly to how other types of information are processed (Ellis, 2005). Therefore, individuals’ linguistic and communicative skills depend on their total experiences, not only of their separate repertoire but also via the interconnection of available languages. Both the L1 and L2 lexical items are activated in the long-term memory when a bilingual speaker attempts to use either of the languages.

SCT, however, brings together the individual efforts and social environment of learning processes (Antón & DiCamilla, 1999). SCT suggests that one’s cognitive development is created socially and culturally. In SCT, the inner voice and private speech contribute essentially to the way we think and act, and they are usually performed in L1. As L1 is used for both communicative interaction and cognitive process regulation, learners must rely on their L1 to mediate their L2 learning. Furthermore, there is also evidence that social speech produced in both L1 and L2 has an impact on L2 learning (Lantolf & Beckett, 2009).

The notion of CS in “naturalistic environments” is the third model that supports the facilitative effect of L1 use in L2 classrooms where CS occurs in nonformal and noninstructional contexts (Macaro, 2009). As in other bilingual contexts, classroom participants may switch between two or more languages for natural communicative purposes. However, whether teachers code-switch to focus on the language itself, similar to the natural environments, is less certain. Thus, the search for similarities is important if the aim is to “remove, from certain types of teacher use of the first language, an essentially negative connotation of ‘unfortunate recourse to first language’ and replace it with the more positive image of code switching” (Macaro, 2009, p. 38).

The view of multi-competence (Cook, 1992) has also challenged the idea that the learners’ L1 should be kept out of L2 classrooms. Cook (1992) argues that “multi-competence has an effect on other parts of cognition” (p. 564). The implication is that an atmosphere in which the individuals’ first language competence is recognized and valued might have a significant effect and a motivational impact on their approach to learning a second language. Levine (2011) contends that “the time is ripe for the development of a principled multilingual approach to language classroom communication” (p. 5).

The above-mentioned theoretical frameworks provided an interpretation of the functions and reasons behind the teacher’s CS in the classroom for different pedagogical and social purposes.

Research Questions

The following questions form the basis to attain the objectives of the study:

Research Question 1: What are the functions of the teachers’ CS between English and Arabic in undergraduate EFL classrooms in Libya?

Research Question 2: What are the teachers’ attitudes toward the feasibility of classroom CS in EFL undergraduate classrooms in Libya?

Research Question 3:. What are the students’ attitudes and responses to the teachers’ CS in EFL undergraduate classrooms in Libya?

Method

Ethnographic approach (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 1993) is one of the qualitative approaches and is widely used in educational research: “It can reveal nuances and subtleties that other methodologies miss” (p. 508). Thus, this study followed the exploratory ethnographic approach to explore how university teachers exploit their available language repertoires to code-switch for various pedagogical and social functions.

Instruments and Participants

An ethnographic exploratory study was designed to investigate the real situation of classroom CS in general and the role of teacher’s CS in particular in EFL undergraduate classrooms in Libyan universities. Four different instruments were implemented to collect data. They include classroom audio recordings, classroom observation, teachers’ interviews, and students’ interviews. Different data collection instruments were used to triangulate the findings and were piloted to confirm their validity and reliability.

The participants include six EFL instructors and their students from three different universities in Libya. All the participating teachers and 24 students were interviewed after the classroom observation. Participation in the study was based on “voluntary sampling” (Zoltán, 2007). However, the level of the grade and the variations of ELT subjects were taken into consideration when the participants were selected.

Data Collection Procedures

After consent was obtained from the teachers and the students, two class sessions for each teacher were observed and audio-recorded. After each session, semi-structured interviews were carried out with the teacher and a sample of two voluntary students from each class session. The interviews were conducted both in English and in Arabic as participants desired. However, the Arabic versions of interviews were translated into English for data analysis.

Approximately 15 teaching hours were recorded and observed by using a classroom observation checklist to explore the classroom interactions between the teachers and the students. The broad objective was to investigate how teachers use CS to solve communicational and pedagogical problems.

Data Analysis

The audio-recorded class sessions, teachers’ interviews, and students’ interviews were transcribed and then analyzed to explore the most frequent features and common phenomena. Guided by the research questions, the data were analyzed and coded.

The analytic framework of the present study was based on three main pillars: thematic analysis framework (Gibson & Brown, 2009), Ferguson’s theoretical framework for the functions of classroom CS (Ferguson, 2009), and Myers-Scotton’s Matrix Language Frame (MLF; Myers-Scotton, 1997). The thematic analysis framework was used to analyze the teachers and students’ perceptions. Ferguson’s theoretical framework was used to analyze the functions of CS, and the MLF was used to identify the dominant language which was used in the classroom.

The thematic analysis approach is commonly used for analyzing qualitative data, such as interview transcripts and observation schedules, according to the commonalities, relationship, and differences across a set of data (Gibson & Brown, 2009). “The word ‘thematic’ relates to the aim of searching for aggregated themes within data” (Gibson & Brown, 2009, p. 127). As the data were collected using four different instruments, the thematic analysis framework was used to investigate the teachers and students’ perspectives of CS to explore the commonalities and differences between their perceptions and their actual practice. This analytic framework was mainly applied on the second and third research questions by comparing the themes that rose from different sources of data.

Ferguson (2009) classified the teacher’s CS in the classroom into three main categories: (a) CS for constructing and transmitting knowledge, (b) CS for classroom management, and (c) CS for interpersonal relations. By using classroom recording transcripts, the teachers and students’ CS practices were highlighted, and all CS instances were listed and coded on the basis of their potential functions and reasons. After identifying the teachers and students’ use of CS in the classroom, Ferguson’s (2009) theoretical framework was used in relation to the pedagogical, managerial, and interpersonal functions of teacher’s CS. Guided by this taxonomy, the observed instances of the teachers’ CS were categorized in light of Libyan context. The taxonomy of Ferguson’s functional categories of classroom CS fits into the purpose of this study as the drawn categories are based on a series of studies reflecting classroom data in diverse pedagogical and geographic contexts. Ferguson’s (2009) framework was therefore dedicated specifically to answer the first research question.

Furthermore, transcripts of interviews were also coded based on the reported functions, reasons, and the participants’ perception of CS. The comparison between the data from different sources (the interview transcripts and class recording transcripts) contributed to identifying the potential themes of CS, looking for commonalities and differences in the information shared by the participants.

MLF module (Myers-Scotton, 1997) assumes that one of the languages used in CS is more dominant than the other. This is labeled a “Matrix Language” (ML), whereas the less dominant one is known as the “Embedded Language” (EL). The elements of the EL are implanted into the morphosyntactic frame of the ML. For example, if the ML is English and the EL is Arabic, the English syntactic structure is used with lexical elements added from the Arabic language. The MLF module was practically employed in this study to identify the teacher’s use of CS in the classroom and to determine the ML and EL.

In this study, tags with the L1 indication (<L1>) were used to show the use of L1 by the participants based on the Vienna Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE). The teachers’ names were also replaced by codes such as T1 and T2, and students’ names were likewise replaced with S1 and S2 to maintain anonymity.

Results

The analysis of the data revealed that the target language (English) was predominantly used as a means of instruction in EFL undergraduate classrooms in Libya. The observations also pointed out that the teachers mainly used L2 (English) to explain lessons in the classroom. Yet, they switched to the learners’ L1 (Arabic) for limited and carefully oriented purposes. It was also found that both teachers and students had positive attitudes toward the feasibility of teacher’s CS. Similarly, the data obtained from the teachers’ interviews indicated that there was a tendency to use L2 (English) as the medium of instruction and resorting to L1(Arabic) if necessary. One of the teachers stated the following:

Yes, yes, I think we need to switch to Arabic, but most of the time, you know, English is the medium of instruction. (T5)

The above excerpt shows that L2 was mainly used as a language of instruction in the classroom. However, the teacher admitted that it is necessary to use L1 in some unavoidable circumstances.

Functions of Teacher’s CS

Both the teachers and the students resorted to their first language (Arabic) for pedagogical and interpersonal reasons. Table 1 illustrates that teachers code-switched 196 times for different functions at different class levels and subjects. With reference to Ferguson’s (2009) classification of the functions of classroom CS, such functions were sorted into two main functional categories. The first one is CS for constructing and transmitting knowledge. This category covers three pedagogical functions: Clarification, Repetition, and Recapitulation. The second category is CS for interpersonal relations, which represents the function of Socialization.

Table 1.

Functional Distribution of Code Switching in the Classroom.

Teacher and class labels			Functional distributions (frequency of code switching in class)
Teacher code	Class code	Class level	Clarification	Repetition	Recapitulation	Socialization
T1	CLASS I	Second year	12	1	6	3
	CLASS II	Third year	18	2	1	4
T2	CLASS I	First year	24	21	—	1
	CLASS II	Fourth year	23	14	—	4
T3	CLASS I	Third year	—	—	—	—
	CLASS II	Third year	—	—	—	1
T4	CLASS I	Third year	8	2	—	—
	CLASS II	Fourth year	9	2	—	2
T5	CLASS I	First year	16	2	—	11
	CLASS II	Third year	4	—	—	3
T6	CLASS I	Third year	—	—	—	1
	CLASS II	Fourth year	—	—	—	1
Total			114	44	7	31

The table below shows that the functions of Clarification and Repetition were the most common functions of the teachers’ CS. However, there were occasions where CS took place for social and interpersonal reasons. Teachers mostly used the students’ L1 to give more clarifications and to create rapport with the learners. The function of Recapitulation was also used by some teachers for specific purposes.

Clarification

On many occasions, the teachers tended to switch to the learners’ L1 to expand explanation of some given points. The data revealed that “clarification” is the most reasonable justification for the use of L1 by teachers to make students understand unclear concepts. The teachers mostly used L2, but switched frequently to L1 whenever the necessity arises. For instance, one of the teachers switched to L1 to clarify a theoretical foundation:

. . . meaning that. . . I’ll try to explain this in Arabic to convey the idea to you, OK? <L1 According to what he said regarding this theory, the learner does not primarily need to learn the target grammar as much as he/she needs to learn and grasp the speaker’s intended message. First, he understands the thought and then the grammar comes, as I told you earlier. However, let’s move to the next point. What did he say here? He says . . .> (T1)

Here, the teacher first tried to explain the point using simple sentences in L2, and then he repeated certain sentences to convey the message, but he finally switched to L1 to make it easier for the students to understand what he meant. Obviously, this function is used to explain broad thoughts and ideas via longer utterances in L1.

The teachers’ interview data also showed that L1 was sometimes used for clarification when the teacher discussed some aspects of the language structure and usage or attempted to compare the two languages.

Sometimes when I teach courses like linguistics, at some points or in some positions, I need to clarify some points in Arabic when I want to show some type of usage. For example, when I want to clarify some point about, let’s say, syntax, here I need to make some type of comparison between English and Arabic sentences. (T6)

In the above extract, the teacher justified for CS. He mentioned that some metalinguistic functions of the language require some sophisticated terminologies that challenge the students’ capability to comprehend. Thus, the students’ L1 was used to overcome this issue.

The data obtained from the students’ interview also revealed their need to switch to L1 to explain some challenging input in L2. Occasionally, the teacher’s input in L2 was complex and challenging. So, the students needed the teacher’s CS to understand the given point in L1:

. . . but sometimes there is a need to use the Arabic language to explain something that it’s difficult for us to understand in English. (S6)

The above extract indicates that the students needed the teacher’s CS to clarify some points in the lesson.

Repetition

The classroom observation demonstrated that L1 was also used by the teachers to confirm whether learning really took place in L2. It was to ascertain the confidence of the learners. Although students do not insist on translation, teachers do so to determine their own accomplishment in the classroom. One of the teachers drew students’ attention to the book, first in L2 and then in L1, for something that was written in italics:

It is in italics <L1 It means: in italics>. (T2)

Another teacher combined the two languages to offer repetition:

The other type, the children’s dictionary; it is a dictionary prepared for use by children. For example, students in primary school or basic school, or maybe even those in K.G., K.G. children, K.G. <L1 Kindergarten> O.K.! (T4)

The two examples above show that the teachers used L1 to repeat some familiar L2 vocabularies. In this case, they used very short utterances such as single words and phrases to repeat the L2 terms in L1. It is worthy of notice, however, that the data of the teachers’ interviews did not contain any indication to the above function. The teachers reported that they code-switched for the functions of clarification, recapitulation, and socialization, but they did not mention using L1 for repetition.

Recapitulation

In some situations, teachers used CS to summarize the detailed input in L2. After presenting the explanation of the lesson in L2 (English), they attempted to conclude the main points of the lesson in L1 (Arabic). They did so for students to be able to grasp the main ideas presented in L2. Therefore, when necessary, the teachers recapitulated the central points of the lesson either within the class or informally after the lesson.

In the following extract from the classroom observation, after a long explanation in L2, the teacher summarized the main points of the discussion in L1 so that the students would be able to rearrange their thoughts and enhance learning. This function of teacher CS is sometimes associated with the discussion about the language itself. In other words, it is used for meta-language functions:

That’s it. OK! <L1 I mean, here, in general, we have already understood the parts of speech, and we realized that every study is specified for a particular part of speech, the parts of the speech. . .> OK! So let’s move onto the other part . . . (T1)

The quotation below from the teachers’ interviews reveals some of the reasons why the teachers opted to use L1 (Arabic). A teacher summarized his intended message in L1 for those who might encounter some difficulties in comprehending it in English:

so that I am specifying the last period of my lecture to speak in Arabic just for the sake of further understanding and more clarification. (T1)

This technique of CS was also used by some teachers to give the students a brief idea of the central message in L1 (Arabic). By following such method, the teachers’ aim was to maintain L1 as a medium of instruction while ensuring that all students got the intended message. For this reason, teachers tended to implement one of the above-mentioned functions of CS (Clarification, Repetition, and Recapitulation) to solve pedagogical issues.

Socialization

Apart from the above pedagogical functions of classroom CS, the function of Socialization appears more at the beginning and the end of the class sessions where students and teachers exchange greetings and informal interaction in their L1. However, it was noticed that during the class session, this function occurred only when teachers give instructions and were involved in informal conversations.

In the following extract, L1 has a social and cultural impact on the classroom interaction. Both teachers and students preferred to use their L1 to exchange greetings and to get into some sort of informal conversation:

T3:

They’re coming?

Yes!

T3:

We’re going to wait until they come.

Ss:

T3:

The example that follows indicates that the teacher used L1 to present informal instructions as social interactional exchanges. The teacher said,

OK! Page 20, <L1 here, I’m going over the most important points only> we go over the most important points. We don’t want to go over everything . . . (T2)

The data from the teachers and the students’ interviews also supported the findings of the classroom observation. The teachers largely agreed that they used L1 for urgency of social needs in the classroom irrespective of the students’ proficiency in L2. Arabic is subconsciously used by both teachers and students for greetings before starting the class session. In addition, some teachers prefer to switch to L1 for interpersonal reasons:

It happens from time to time that some students come late, so instead of commenting on this or maybe giving instructions in English, sometimes I comment in Arabic. (T4)

Similarly, the students expressed their tendency to use L1, rather than L2, with their teachers for informal conversations:

Well, in the classroom, I usually speak English, but I have a teacher who is my friend, so, I talk with her in both English and Arabic . . . especially for non-academic topics . . . for chatting I mean . . . it is more comfortable to talk to her in Arabic . . . you feel more closer. (S8)

This extract reflects the students’ preference to resort to their L1 (Arabic) for personal interrelations. Although S8 claimed that she tend to use L2 (English) in the classroom, she stated that L1 (Arabic) was her best choice for talking with a friend teacher because she felt more comfortable and closer to her interlocutor.

The data analysis, hence, revealed that teacher’s CS was used in undergraduate EFL classrooms in Libyan universities for four different functions: Clarification, Repetition, Recapitulation, and Socialization. Although the functions of Clarification, Repetition, and Recapitulation served some pedagogical purposes, the function of Socialization was used for interpersonal relations in the classroom.

Teachers’ Attitudes to the Feasibility of Classroom CS

The analysis of the teachers’ interviews revealed some other distinguished aspects related to the teachers’ perceptions of classroom CS and L1 use in undergraduate EFL classrooms in Libya. The teachers reported their tendency to use L2 (English) in the classroom as a medium of instruction. However, they held positive attitude toward resorting to L1 (Arabic) for specific and limited purposes. They believe that L2 must be the main language of instruction in the classroom. Yet, they realized the significance of teacher’s CS for some pedagogical and social functions and reasons.

The dominance of L2 (English) as a medium of instruction

All of the teachers agreed that L2 was the main language used in their EFL classrooms. They asserted that English was mostly used as a medium of instruction, and they switched to the students’ L1 only on limited occasions for clarification:

It’s hard to estimate, but I would say 80%. Yes, so . . . it also depends on the situation, the circumstances of course. Sometimes you find yourself, you know, you need to use the L1, but most of the time, of course, I use English. (T2)

The percentage of L2 usage in EFL classrooms was reportedly estimated by some teachers to be more than 80%. However, L1 was admittedly used for unavoidable reasons in certain situations. It is worth mentioning, however, that the estimated percentage was not based on statistical parameter. However, it was widely reported by some teachers and supported by the findings of the classroom observation analysis.

Positive versus negative effects of classroom CS

Although the teachers reported that they code-switched between L2 and L1 to solve pedagogical problems and to attain social objectives, they think that L2 should be mainly used as a medium of instruction. Most teachers believed that L1 is an important available resource that can compensate for conveying some intended message in L2. However, they argued that the reliance on L1 will deprive the students of better exposure to L2 in the classroom:

Well,. . .I always feel they need to use the target language, but in some situations, I would prefer Arabic, as I told you, because it is needed, but I don’t feel that guilty if I use it when I need it. But if it is, you know, used more than it should be, then, of course, there is, you know, there is a problem. There will be a problem. (T2)

The above extract indicates the teachers’ conviction and acceptance of the use of L1 to solve certain pedagogical issues and attain other social goals. Yet, they felt concerned about the excessive use of L1 in the classroom, which might pose potential pedagogical challenges.

Students’ Attitudes and Responses to Teacher’s CS

The analysis of the students’ interviews showed the learners’ inclination to speak English in the classroom. The findings revealed that the students preferred to use English (L2) rather than Arabic (L1) for classroom communication. They believed that the learners of English must practice the target language to improve their language skills. As English language is not widely used outside the classroom, students saw it an opportunity to practice L2 in the classroom:

S1:

We have to use English in the classroom.

S2:

. . . we should speak English in the class or with our classmates because we came here to learn this language, and we cannot learn it if we do not practice it.

The examples above reflect the students’ motivation to speak L2 in the classroom as people in Libya hardly use it in their daily routine. Yet, the students sometimes feel the need to switch to L1 to understand some unfamiliar L2 words and expressions. The below extract indicates such desire:

I feel the need to use Arabic sometimes. (S3)

However, most students have positive perceptions to teacher’s CS in the classroom. They believed that the use of L1 has positive impact on learning new vocabularies and in the simplification and comprehension of new grammatical rules.

The classroom observation showed that the teachers’ role in most class sessions was to talk and explain while the students passively listened. Even when students appeared more active in the classroom, they used their L1 to negotiate given points with their peers. Occasionally, the students responded to the teacher’s questions in L1.

The following interaction between the teacher and one of the students shows how students switch to Arabic when they have difficulty formulating the answer in the target language:

T1:

So I’ll tell you the difference between what is meant by conscious and unconscious in Arabic. Before telling you, can anyone of you tell me?

conscious, it’s . . . <L1 Can I say it in Arabic?>

T1:

First, say it in English, and then say it in Arabic.

This example implies the student’s limit in L2 which obliged him to resort to L1 to answer the teacher’s question. However, the teacher insisted that L2 should be used first. The student understood the teacher’s input in L2 but had difficulty producing output in L2. After the student’s failure to respond in L2, he asked the teacher to allow him to speak in L1.

Similarly, the students’ interviews showed that they preferred L2 in the classroom as their first choice. They pointed out some strategies that they utilized in this vein. One of the mentioned strategies was to request the teacher to summarize the entire lesson in L1. Only after all attempts were exhausted in L2, they resorted to L1.

The following quotation from S5 indicates that students developed various strategies to help in understanding through L2 before going for L1 as the last alternative:

Sometimes, we record classroom, we hear and try to get more of an explanation . . . Sometimes I ask my classmate to give me an explanation, or sometimes I go to the teacher after class to get an explanation. (S5)

This excerpt summarizes the potential strategies adopted by the students to overcome learning challenges in comprehending the teacher’s input in L2. Such strategies vary from self- assistance and peer assistance to teacher assistance. It was noticed that the students prioritized L2 for explanation, but L1 came as a final rescue to bridge the gaps for proper understanding.

To conclude, it was found that the students had positive attitudes and responses to the teachers’ CS in EFL undergraduate classrooms in Libya. Despite their tendency to speak L2 (English) in the classroom, they, sometimes, needed to resort to their L1 (Arabic) for pedagogical and social purposes.

Discussion

In bilingual classrooms, where students and teachers share the same L1, CS is inevitable. In this study, the data obtained from classroom recordings and observations revealed a considerable amount of teacher’s CS for different purposes. The analysis of the teachers and students’ interviews revealed that they were more inclined to use English in the classroom than Arabic. However, both teachers and students considered teacher’s CS as a necessary tool to facilitate learning process.

Functions of Teacher’s CS

According to Ferguson (2009), the pedagogical functions of the teacher’s CS are wide ranging and variously labeled. The findings of the study revealed that the teachers’ CS had four different objectives: clarifying unfamiliar concepts, repeating L2 short utterances, summarizing given idea in L1, and exchanging greetings and informal interactions with the students. These objectives represented pedagogical and social functions and were categorized under the following: Clarification, Repetition, Recapitulation, and Socialization, respectively. Obviously, the first three functions belong to the first functional category of teacher’s CS, “constructing and transmitting knowledge” of Ferguson’s (2009) Classification. The fourth one, however, belongs to the third category, “CS for interpersonal relations” (Ferguson, 2009). The absence of instances of CS for “classroom management,” the second category of Ferguson’s (2009) classification, can be attributed to the nature of the undergraduate classes where classroom management is less dominant.

All functions were confirmed by the teachers in their report on the main reasons for CS except the function of “Repetition.” The analysis of teachers’ interviews did not reveal such function. This implies that the teachers used L1 subconsciously and often due to habitual reasons instead of formulating a deliberate teaching strategy. That happened more due to an affective reason related to the qualification and experience of the teachers than students’ needs. As found in Grant and Nguyen (2017), sometimes, affective reasons hold much sway over the teacher’s CS rather than pedagogical ones. Bahous et al. (2014), for instance, found that university teachers were unaware about their CS, and thus, they did not know about the function of L1. The learners, however, had more awareness, and they reported having used L1 to improve their learning. Grant and Nguyen (2017) put it clearly that CS can be effectively used in EFL classrooms only when it is done selectively and deliberately rather than habitually and automatically.

The classroom observation revealed that the teachers adopted CS to offer clarification of complicated L2 input for their students. This was reported by the teachers in the interviews; they contended that they had to code-switch due to the learners’ needs. The students had difficulty understanding new language item and challenging concepts in L2. These findings are compatible with many previous research outcomes (e.g., Bensen & Çavuşoğlu, 2013; Hall & Cook, 2012; Zhu & Vanek, 2017). Cahyani et al. (2018) clearly stated that the teachers’ CS helped students to understand unfamiliar concepts when the focus was on the subject matter rather than the language itself.

Furthermore, Macaro (2009) argued that teachers found CS legitimate because they had to provide L1 equivalents for L2 lexical items. According to Macaro (2009), teacher’s CS fostered students’ learning of concepts as both L1 and L2 lexical items are activated in the long-term memory, which provides an opportunity for improved comprehension. Alshammari (2011) also indicated that CS was used by the teachers for clarification purposes and that a balanced use of L1 in EFL classrooms by both teachers and students enhances the learning process and increases the learners’ comprehension.

Although the functions of Clarification, Repetition, and Socialization were also revealed by the previous studies (e.g., Gulzar, 2010; Makulloluwa, 2013), the function of “Recapitulation” emerged from this study as a relatively unique function. Even though it seems like an innovative way of clarification, this function is practiced in a distinctive form. This can be attributed to the teacher’s desire to ensure that the students understand the given point in both languages. This technique enables the students to get exposed to the target language in the classroom and to exploit their available linguistic repertoire to mediate the learning process.

The function of Socialization can be interpreted in light of the SCT which sees bilingual learners as users of two languages simultaneously to mediate their own learning process. In terms of this phenomenon, CS is an ingrained element of the social interaction. Therefore, it would be immature to ignore L1 as an alternative source of communication for social interaction.

In the present study, teachers reported that they used L1 for social and interactional purposes. For example, greetings are important aspect of Arabic culture, and L1 is closely interrelated with this sociocultural phenomenon. Using L1 to greet each other is an instinctive need for both teachers and students. The findings supported Macaro’s (2006) argument that the natural impulse of bilingual classroom interaction obliges teachers to regularly resort to L1 to deal with a number of challenging issues. Cahyani et al. (2018) also attested to the above reflection of thoughts. They pointed out that L1 served managerial, instructional, interpersonal, and affective interactions. Related to the social function of CS, classroom management through social relationship can also be facilitated by CS. Alrabah et al. (2016) also affirmed that L1 can be used for the purpose of classroom management. In addition, they reported on the affective, sociolinguistic, and psycholinguistic factors that contributed to the teachers’ use of L1 in L2 classroom.

In the context of Libya, as English is not widely used in the community as a means of communication, the teachers considered the classroom interaction as a unique opportunity for students to practice their language. Accordingly, they switched to the students’ L1 only when they think that it is essential to do so. Generally, it can be seen that L2 (English) is used as the ML, whereas L1 (Arabic) functions as the EL in the classroom based on Myers-Scotton’s MLF (Myers-Scotton, 1997).

Teachers and Students’ Attitudes to CS

The findings showed that the classroom participants hold positive attitudes toward teacher’s CS. Many other studies, locally and internationally, revealed the same positive perceptions of teacher’s CS in the classroom (e.g., Ibrahim et al., 2013; Leoanak & Amalo, 2018; Suteja & Purwanti, 2017). Al-Nofaie (2010), for instance, found that the teachers and students had positive attitudes toward the use of L1 for certain functions and reasons. Alrabah et al. (2016) also revealed that teachers used L1 to manage classroom activities with positive frame of learning outcomes.

Despite the positive attitude and important reason for the use of CS, both teachers and students were cautious about the use of L1 in the classroom so that its usage would not be abused. As Asker and Martin-Jones (2013) stated, the constraints imposed by institutional and ideological context influenced the classroom participants. So they believed that L1 use must be restricted to serve specific functions. The output produced by students, although they may rely on L1 to mediate L2 learning, triggers cognitive processing and learning (Lantolf & Beckett, 2009).

The teachers in this study strongly upheld the view that the overuse of L1 in the L2 classroom has negative impact on students’ achievement and proficiency in L2. Therefore, L1 was utilized as a last resort when other techniques failed to convey the intended message in L2. These findings endorsed additional practical evidence of Macaro’s (2009) advocacy notion of “optimal use” of teacher CS that can improve second language acquisition rather than the exclusive use of L2.

Conclusions and Implications

The findings of the present study and the review of the literature revealed the important, yet overlooked, value of L1 in foreign language classrooms. When L1 is used with purpose and awareness for particular functions, it facilitates learning. The fact that both teachers and students have positive outlook toward the use of L1 asserts that L2 learning experience cannot be attained to its ultimate until L1 makes rewarding contributions.

Based on the findings of the present study, a number of implications can be elicited. The first and the most important is that teachers’ awareness of the practicality of classroom CS must be raised in light of its functional effect in helping students understand better. Second, teacher’s CS does not necessarily interrupt students’ acquisition and/or use of the target language but rather mediates it. Finally, the learning and teaching process draws on the social communication, and CS is a natural part of that communication. To explore the full potentials of CS, further experimental research is required to measure the effectiveness of how teachers code-switch for various reasons in the context of Libya.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Mohamed Adrisoh

Author Biographies

Mohamed Adriosh has completed his MA program on Translation Studies at Libyan Academy, Libya. He worked as an assistant lecturer at Asmarya Islamic University from 2010 to 2014. Now, he is doing his PhD on English Language Teaching, ELT, at Cyprus International University.

Özge Razı has completed her PhD on Language Learner Strategies Research at Trinity College, Dublin and has been working as an assistant professor at Cyprus International University since 2014. She has supervised a number of master and PhD students in the previous years. Her research interests centre on Language Learner Strategies Research in Reading, Implicature Comprehension and Production and Code-Switching in Language Classes.

References

Al-Nofaie

(2010). The attitudes of teachers and students towards using Arabic in EFL classrooms in Saudi public schools—A case study. Novitas-ROYAL, 4, 64-95. Retrieved from http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_4_1/al-nofaie.pdf

Alrabah

S. H.

Alotaibi

A. M.

Aldaihani

H. A.

(2016). English teachers’ use of learners’ L1 (Arabic) in college classrooms in Kuwait. English Language Teaching, 9, 1-11.

Alshammari

M. M.

(2011). The use of the mother tongue in Saudi EFL classrooms. Journal of International Education Research, 7, 95-101.

Antón

DiCamilla

F. J.

(1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Modern Language Journal, 83, 233-247.

Arpac

(2016). The effects of accessing L1 versus L2 definitional glosses on L2 learners’ reading comprehension and vocabulary learning. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 15-29. Retrieved from http://www.ejal.eu/index.php/ejal/article/view/63/25

Asker

Martin-Jones

(2013). “A classroom is not a classroom if students are talking to me in Berber”: Language ideologies and multilingual resources in secondary school English classes in Libya. Language and Education, 27, 343-355. doi:10.1080/09500782.2013.788189

Auer

(1988). A conversation analytic approach to code-switching and transfer. In Heller

(Ed.), Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 187-213). New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.

Bahous

R. N.

Nabhani

M. B.

Bacha

N. N.

(2014). Code-switching in higher education in a multilingual environment: A Lebanese exploratory study. Language Awareness, 23, 353-368.

Bensen

Çavuşoğlu

. (2013). Reasons for the teachers’ uses of code-switching in adult EFL classrooms. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10, 69-82.

10.

Bilgin

S. S.

(2016). Code switching in English language teaching (ELT) teaching practice in Turkey: Student teacher practices, beliefs and identity. Educational Research and Reviews, 11, 686-702.

11.

Cahyani

de Courcy

Barnett

(2018). Teachers’ code-switching in bilingual classrooms: Exploring pedagogical and sociocultural functions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21, 465-479. doi:10.1080/13670050.2016.1189509

12.

Cheng

(2013). Research on Chinese college English teachers’ classroom code-switching: Beliefs and attitudes. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4, 1277-1284. doi:10.4304/jltr.4.6.1277-1284

13.

Cook

(1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42, 557-591.

14.

Cook

(2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 402-423.

15.

Ellis

N. C.

(2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305-352. doi:10.1017/S027226310505014X

16.

Ferguson

(2009). What next? Towards an agenda for classroom codeswitching research. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12, 231-241. doi:10.1080/13670050802153236

17.

Fraenkel

J. R.

Wallen

N. E.

Hyun

H. H.

(1993). How to design and evaluate research in education (Vol. 7). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

18.

Gibson

W. J.

Brown

(2009). Working with qualitative data. London, England: Sage.

19.

Grant

L. E.

Nguyen

T. H.

(2017). Code-switching in Vietnamese university EFL teachers’ classroom instruction: A pedagogical focus. Language Awareness, 26, 244-259. doi:10.1080/09658416.2017.1402915

20.

Gulzar

M. A.

(2010). Code-switching: Awareness about its utility in bilingual classrooms. Bulletin of Education & Research, 32, 23-44.

21.

Hall

Cook

(2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45, 271-308. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000067

22.

Hall

Cook

(2013). Own-language use in ELT: Exploring global practices and attitudes (British Council ELT Research Papers 13-01). London, England: British Council.

23.

Horasan

(2014). Code-switching in EFL classrooms and the perceptions of the students and teachers. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 10, 31-45.

24.

Ibrahim

E. H. E.

Shah

M. I. A.

Armia

N. T.

(2013). Code-switching in English as a foreign language classroom: Teachers’ attitudes. English Language Teaching, 6, 139-150.

25.

Lantolf

J. P.

Beckett

T. G.

(2009). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 42, 459-475. doi:10.1017/S0261444809990048

26.

Leoanak

S. P. P.

Amalo

B. K.

(2018). Teachers’ beliefs and perceptions of code switching in English as foreign language classroom. In SHS web of conferences (Vol. 42, p. 00034). EDP Sciences. doi:10.1051/shsconf/20184200034

27.

Levine

G. S.

(2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. Modern Language Journal, 87, 343-364.

28.

Levine

G. S.

(2011). Code choice in the language classroom. Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications.

29.

Levine

G. S.

(2013). The case for a multilingual approach to language classroom communication. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7, 423-436. doi:10.1111/lnc3.12036

30.

L. P. F.

(2019). Examining the functions of L1 use through teacher and student interactions in an adult migrant English classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22, 386-401. doi:10.1080/13670050.2016.1257562

31.

Macaro

(2006). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In Llurda

(Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession (pp. 63-84). Boston, MA: Springer.

32.

Macaro

(2009). Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom: Exploring “optimal” use. In Turnbull

A. P. M.

Dailey-O’Cain

A. P. J.

(Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 35-49). Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications.

33.

Macaro

Tian

(2015). Exploring teachers’ oral explanations of new English lexical items in a Chinese university: Comparisons with dictionary information. System, 52, 78-90. doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.05.002

34.

Mahmoud

(2012). The effect of using L1 (Arabic language) in the L2 (English Language) classroom on the achievement in general English of foundation year students in King AbdulAziz University. Sino-US English Teaching, 9, 1734-1738.

35.

Makulloluwa

(2013). Code switching by teachers in the second language classroom. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 6, 581-598.

36.

Myers-Scotton

(1997). Duelling languages: Grammatical structure in codeswitching. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

37.

Najeeb

S. S. R.

(2013). The business of teaching English as a second language: A Libyan case study. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1243-1253. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.184

38.

Polio

C. G.

Duff

P. A.

(1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. Modern Language Journal, 78, 313-326. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02045.x

39.

Raman

Yiğitoğlu

(2018). Justifying code switching through the lens of teacher identities: Novice EFL teachers. Quality & Quantity, 52, 2079-2092.

40.

Sali

(2014). An analysis of the teachers’ use of L1 in Turkish EFL classrooms. System, 42, 308-318. doi:10.1016/j.system.2013.12.021

41.

Simasiku

Kasanda

Smit

(2015). Can code switching enhance learners’ academic achievement? English Language Teaching, 8, 70-77. doi:10.5539/elt.v8n2p70

42.

Suteja

Purwanti

(2017). Code switching in BIPA classes: Teachers’ and students’ attitudes. Polyglot: Jurnal Ilmiah, 13, 43-52.

43.

Tamtam

Gallagher

Naher

Olabi

(2013). The impact of language of instruction on quality of science and engineering education in Libya: Qualitative study of faculty members. European Scientific Journal, 9(31), 19-36.

44.

Tamtam

Gallagher

Olabi

A. G.

Naher

(2011). Higher education in Libya, system under stress. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 742-751.

45.

Thompson

G. L.

Harrison

(2014). Language use in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 47, 321-337. doi:10.1111/flan.12079

46.

Tian

Macaro

(2012). Comparing the effect of teacher codeswitching with English-only explanations on the vocabulary acquisition of Chinese university students: A lexical focus-on-form study English. Language Teaching Research, 16, 367-391. doi:10.1177/1362168812436909

47.

Turnbull

(2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but…. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 531-540. doi:10.3138/cmlr.57.4.531

48.

Zhao

Macaro

(2016). What works better for the learning of concrete and abstract words: Teachers’ L1 use or L2-only explanations? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26, 75-98. doi:10.1111/ijal.12080

49.

Zhu

Vanek

(2017). Facilitative effects of learner-directed codeswitching: Evidence from Chinese learners of English. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 773-787. doi:10.1080/13670050.2015.1087962

50.

Zoltán

(2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Teacher’s Code Switching in EFL Undergraduate Classrooms in Libya: Functions and Perceptions

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Functions and Practicality of Teacher’s CS

Teachers and Students’ Perceptions of Classroom CS

Pedagogy and CS

Research Questions

Method

Instruments and Participants

Data Collection Procedures

Data Analysis

Results

Functions of Teacher’s CS

Clarification

Repetition

Recapitulation

Socialization

Teachers’ Attitudes to the Feasibility of Classroom CS

The dominance of L2 (English) as a medium of instruction

Positive versus negative effects of classroom CS

Students’ Attitudes and Responses to Teacher’s CS

Discussion

Functions of Teacher’s CS

Teachers and Students’ Attitudes to CS

Conclusions and Implications

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References