Commenced in January 2007
Paper Count: 30075
Learners’ Perceptions of Tertiary Level Teachers’ Code Switching: A Vietnamese Perspective
Authors: Hoa Pham
Abstract:The literature on language teaching and second language acquisition has been largely driven by monolingual ideology with a common assumption that a second language (L2) is best taught and learned in the L2 only. The current study challenges this assumption by reporting learners' positive perceptions of tertiary level teachers' code switching practices in Vietnam. The findings of this study contribute to our understanding of code switching practices in language classrooms from a learners' perspective. Data were collected from student participants who were working towards a Bachelor degree in English within the English for Business Communication stream through the use of focus group interviews. The literature has documented that this method of interviewing has a number of distinct advantages over individual student interviews. For instance, group interactions generated by focus groups create a more natural environment than that of an individual interview because they include a range of communicative processes in which each individual may influence or be influenced by others - as they are in their real life. The process of interaction provides the opportunity to obtain the meanings and answers to a problem that are "socially constructed rather than individually created" leading to the capture of real-life data. The distinct feature of group interaction offered by this technique makes it a powerful means of obtaining deeper and richer data than those from individual interviews. The data generated through this study were analysed using a constant comparative approach. Overall, the students expressed positive views of this practice indicating that it is a useful teaching strategy. Teacher code switching was seen as a learning resource and a source supporting language output. This practice was perceived to promote student comprehension and to aid the learning of content and target language knowledge. This practice was also believed to scaffold the students' language production in different contexts. However, the students indicated their preference for teacher code switching to be constrained, as extensive use was believed to negatively impact on their L2 learning and trigger cognitive reliance on the L1 for L2 learning. The students also perceived that when the L1 was used to a great extent, their ability to develop as autonomous learners was negatively impacted. This study found that teacher code switching was supported in certain contexts by learners, thus suggesting that there is a need for the widespread assumption about the monolingual teaching approach to be re-considered.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1107654Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1827
 Agudo, J.D.M. (2014). Analysing Spanish learners’ beliefs about EFL learning, Porta Linguarum, 22, 285-301..
 Ahmad, B.H. (2009). Teachers' code-switching in classroom instructions for low English proficient learners. English Language Teaching, 2(2), 49-55.
 Alenezi, A.A. (2010). Students' language attitude towards using code switching as a medium of instruction in the college of health sciences: An exploratory study. ARECLS, 7, 1- 22.
 Al-Nofaie, H. (2010). The attitudes of teachers and students towards using Arabic in EFL classrooms in Saudi public schools - A case study. Novitas-Royal - Research on Youth and Language, 4(1), 64-95.
 Ariffin, K., & Husin, S, M. (2011). Code switching and code-mixing of English and Bahasa Malaysia in content-based classrooms: Frequency and attitudes. The Linguistics Journal, 5 (1), 220-246.
 Arnold, J., & Brown, H.D. (1999). A map of the terrain. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 1-24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Arthur, J., & Martin, P. (2006). Accomplishing lessons in postcolonial classrooms: Comparative perspectives from Botswana and Brunei Darussalam. Comparative Education, 42(2), 177-202.
 Auerbach, E.R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9-32
 Auerbach, E.R. (1995). The politics of the ESL classroom: Issues of power in pedagogical choices. In J.W. Tollefson (Ed.) Power and inequality in language education (pp.9-33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Barcelos, A.M.F. (2000). Understanding teachers' and students' language learning beliefs in experience: A Deweyan approach. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). The University of Alabama, Alabama.
 Barcelos, A.M.F. (2003). Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review. In P. Kalaja & A. Barcelos (Eds.) Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp. 7-33).Boston: Kluwer Academic.
 Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In S. Gass & J.Schacht (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41- 68). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
 Brooks-Lewis, K.A. (2009). Adult learners' perceptions of the incorporation of their L1 in foreign language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 216-235.
 Butzkamm, W. (1998). Code-switching in a bilingual history lesson: The mother tongue as a conversational lubricant. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1(2), 81-99.
 Butzkamm, W. (2011).Why, make the crawl if they can walk? Teaching with mother tongue support. RELC Journal 42(3), 379-391.
 Butzkamm, W. (2013). Monolingual principle. In M.Byram & A.Hu (Eds.) Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 471-473) (2nd). Routledge: Taylor& Francis Group.
 Butzkamm, W., & Caldwell, J.A.W. (2009). The bilingual reform. A paradigm shift inforeign language teaching. Tu¨bingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.
 Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Chavez, M. (2003). The diglossic foreign-language classroom: Learners' views on L1 and L2 functions. In C. Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of foreign-language classrooms: Contributions of the native, near-native, and the non-native speaker (pp.163-208). Boston: Heinle.
 Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402– 423.
 Cook, V. (2005). Basing teaching on the L2 user. In E. Llurda (Ed.). Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession (pp.47-62). New York: Springer.
 Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
 Crotty, M. (1998).The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspectives in the research process. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
 Cummins, J. (2005a). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 585-592.
 Cummins, J. (2005b). Teaching for cross-language transfer in dual language education: Possibilities and pitfalls. TESOL symposium on dual language education: Teaching and learning two languages in the EFL setting. Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey.
 Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221-240.
 Cummins, J. (2008). Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual education. In J. Cummins & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education. New York: Springer Science, Business Media LLC.
 Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education. Aspects of theory, research and practice. London: Longman.
 Curriculum Development Council. (2004). English language curriculum guide (Primary 1–6). Hong Kong: Government Logistics Department.
 Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
 Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. London: Routledge.
 Dupuy, B. (2000). Content-based instruction: Can it help ease the transition from beginning to advanced foreign language classes? Foreign Language Annals, 33 (2), 205-223.
 Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon.
 Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
 Ellis, R. (2008). Learner beliefs and language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 10(4), 7-25.
 Feilzer, M. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6-16.
 Flowerdew, J., Li, D. & Miller, L. (1998). Attitudes towards English and Cantonese among Hong Kong Chinese university lecturers. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 201-230.
 Gauci, H., & Grima, C.A. (2013). Codeswitching as a tool in teaching Italian in Malta. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16 (5), 615-631.
 González- Davies, M. (2014). Towards a plurilingual development paradigm: from spontaneous to informed use of translation in additional language learning, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8(1), 8-31.
 Guo, T. (2007). A case study of teachers' codeswitching behaviours in mainland China's university EFL classrooms and students' reactions to the codeswitching. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), University of Oxford, UK.
 Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271-308.
 Horwitz, E. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. l 19-129), Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hal.
 Jenkins, S. (2010). Monolingualism: An uncongenial policy for Saudi Arabia’s low-level learners. ELT Journal, 64(4), 459-461.
 Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
 Kalaja, P. (1995). Student beliefs (or metacognitive knowledge) about SLA reconsidered. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 191-204.
 Kalaja, P., & Barcelos, A.M.F. (2003). Introduction. In P.Kalaja & A.M.F.Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA. New research approaches (pp.1-4). Dorecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
 Kaneko, T. (1992). The role of the first language in foreign language classrooms. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Temple University, UK.
 Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
 Krashen, S.D., & Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
 Levine, G.S. (2011). Code choice in language classroom. UK: Channel View Publications.
 Lightbown, P.M. (2001). L2 Instruction: Time to teach. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 598-99.
 Lin, A.M.Y. (1996). Bilingualism or linguistic segregation? Symbolic domination, resistance and code switching in Hong Kong schools. Linguistics and Education, 8, 49-84.
 Liu, D., Ahn, G.S, Baek.K.S, & Han, N.O. (2004). South Korean high school English teachers' code switching: Questions and challenges in the drive for maximal use of English in teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 38 (4), 605-637.
 Macaro, E. (1997). Target language collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
 Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers' code switching in foreign language classrooms: theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85(4), 531-548.
 Macaro, E. (2005). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession (pp.47-62). New York: Springer.
 Macaro, E., & Lee, J.H. (2012). Teacher language background, codeswitching, and English-only instruction: Does age make a difference to learners' attitudes? TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 717-742.
 Macaro, E., Nakatani, Y., Hayashi, Y., & Khabbazbashi, N. (2014). Exploring the value of bilingual language assistants with Japanese English as foreign language learners. The Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 41-54.
 MacDonald, C. (1993). Using the target language. Cheltenham, UK: Mary Glasgow Publications.
 Machaal, B. (2011). The use of Arabic in English classes: A teaching support or a learning hindrance? Arab World English Journal, 194-232.
 Mafela, L. (2009). Code switching in Botswana history classrooms in the decade of education for sustainable development. Language Matters, 40(1), 56-79.
 Martin, P. W. (1999) Bilingual unpacking of monolingual texts in two primary classrooms in Brunei Darussalam. Language and Education, 13(1), 38–58.
 Martin, P. W. (2005) ‘Safe’ language practices in two rural schools in Malaysia: Tensions between policy and practice. In A. M. Y. Lin & P. W. Martin (Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation. Language-in-education policy and practice (pp. 74-97). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
 Morgan, D.L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045-1053.
 Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What do language learners believe about their learning? Language Learning, 49(3), 377-415.
 Peacock, M. (1998). Exploring the gap between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about ‘useful’ activities for EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 233-250.
 Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Probyn, M. (2009). Conflicts and tensions in classroom codeswitching. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(2), 123-136.
 Prodromou, L. (2002). The liberating role of the mother tongue. In S.Deller & M. Rinvolucri (Eds.), Using the mother tongue: Making the most of the learner's language (p.5). London: English Teaching Professional.
 Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Rolin-Ianziti, J., &Varshney, R. (2008). Students’ views regarding the use of the first language: An exploratory study in a tertiary context maximizing target language use. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 65 (2), 249-273.
 Scott, P.J., & Briggs, J.S. (2009). A pragmatist argument for mixed methodology in medical informatics. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 223-241.
 Simon, D.L. (2001).Towards a new understanding of codeswitching in the foreign language classroom. In R. Jacobson (Ed.), Codeswitching worldwide II (pp.311-342). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
 Skinner, D.C. (1985). Access to meaning: The anatomy of the language/learning connection. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6(5), 369-388.
 Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Stoller, F. (2002). Promoting the acquisition of knowledge in a content based course. In J. Crandall & D. Kaufman (Eds.), Content-based instruction in higher education settings (pp. 109-123). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
 Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, Mass: Newbury.
 Tian, L. (2013). Codeswitching in two Chinese universities. In R. Barnard & J. McLellan (Eds.), Codeswitching in university Englishmedium classes: Asian perspectives (pp.43-54). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
 Tien, C. (2009). Conflict and accommodation in classroom codeswitching in Taiwan. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(2), 173-192.
 Tomlison, B. (2005). Matching procedures to the context of learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 137-153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 Tudor, I. (1996). Learner-centredness as language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but...Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 531-540.
 Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2009). First language use in second and foreign language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
 Van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Recent advances (pp. 245-259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Varshney, R., & Rolin-Ianziti, J. (2006). Student perceptions of L1 use in the foreign language classroom: Help or hinderance? Journal of the Australian Universities Modern Language Association, 105, 55-83.
 Viakinnou-Brinson, L., Herron, C., Cole, S.P., & Haight, C. (2012). The effect of target language and code switching on the grammatical performance and perceptions of elementary level college French students. Foreign Language Annals, 45 (1),72-91.
 Victori, M., & Lockhart, W. (1995). Enhancing metacognition in selfdirected language learning, System, 23(2), 223-234.
 Wei, L., & Wu, C.J. (2009). Polite Chinese children revisited: Creativity and the use of codeswitching in the Chinese complementary school classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(2), 193-211.
 Wenden, A. (1986). Helping language learners think about learning. ELT Journal, 40(1), 3-12.
 Widdowson, H.G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Wong-Fillmore, L. (1985). When does teacher talk work as input? In S.M. Gass and C.G. Madden (Eds.). Input in second language acquisition (pp.17-50). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
 Yang, N. D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners' beliefs and learning strategy use. System, 27, 515-535.
 Yu, W. (2000). Direct method. In M.Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 176-178), New York: Routledge.