Teachers‟ codeswitching to L1 in the EFL classroom A comparative study of Chinese and Swedish teachers‟ beliefs and practices

Lärares kodväxling till modersmålet i engelskundervisningen

En jämförande studie av kinesiska och svenska lärares åsikter och bruk

Rickard Nilsson

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Department of Language, Literature and Intercultural Studies

English

English III: Degree Project

15 credits

Supervisors: Solveig Granath, Zhang Yi

Examiner: Marika Kjellén

Fall 2015

Title: Teachers‟ codeswitching to L1 in the EFL classroom: A comparative study of

a Chinese and Swedish teachers‟ beliefs and practices

Titel på svenska: Lärares kodväxling till modersmålet i engelskundervisningen: En jämförande

a studie av kinesiska och svenska lärares åsikter och bruk

Author: Rickard Nilsson

Pages: 31

Abstract

This qualitative study deals with Chinese middle school teachers‟ and Swedish upper secondary

school teachers‟ beliefs and practices regarding the use of L1 in the EFL classroom. Through semi-

structured interview questions, data were collected from five Chinese teachers and five Swedish

teachers. The interviews with the Chinese teachers were conducted by the researcher on a one-to-

one basis, while five Swedish teachers were asked to answer the same questions via email. The

results of this study showed that there were both differences and similarities between the two groups

of teachers. The Swedish teachers had a fairly negative view regarding the usage of L1 in the EFL

classroom and most of them claimed that the only time they codeswitched was when giving

individual feedback, when making direct comparisons to the Swedish language or when the class got

out of hand. Most of the five Chinese teachers deemed target language exclusivity not logically

feasible and codeswitched mostly with the students‟ comprehension in mind. The findings mostly

agreed with previous research.

Keywords: codeswitching, EFL classroom, teachers‟ beliefs, teachers‟ practices

Sammanfattning på svenska

Denna kvalitativa studie handlar om kinesiska högstadielärares och svenska gymnasielärares åsikter

och bruk när det gäller användningen av moderspråket i engelskundervisningen. Genom

semistrukturerade intervjuer samlades data in från fem kinesiska lärare. Intervjuerna med de

kinesiska lärarna genomfördes, en i taget. Fem svenska engelsklärare ombads att svara på samma

frågor via epost. Resultaten av denna studie visade både skillnader och likheter i åsikter och bruk

hos de tio lärarna. De svenska engelsklärarna hade en ganska negativ syn på användningen av

modersmålet i engelskunderviningen och kodväxlade mestadels när de gav individuell feedback, när

de gjorde direkta jämförelser med det svenska språket och när de förlorade kontrollen över klassen.

De flesta av de fem kinesiska lärarna ansåg att exklusiv användning av målspråket inte var logiskt

rimligt med tanke på elevernas förståelse. Resultaten stämde mestadels överens med tidigare

forskning.

Nyckelord: kodväxling, engelskundervisningen, lärarens åsikter, lärarens bruk

Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Aim ................................................................................................................................................ 2

2. Background ........................................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 What is codeswitching? ................................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Codeswitching in the language classroom ................................................................................... 4

2.2.1 The debate about the usefulness of codeswitching in language teaching ............................. 4

2.2.2 Previous studies on codeswitching in language teaching ..................................................... 5

2.3 Differences in the Swedish and Chinese curriculum ................................................................... 8

3. Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 8

3.1 Data collection .............................................................................................................................. 9

3.2 Participants ................................................................................................................................ 10

3.3 Ethical considerations ................................................................................................................. 11

4. Analysis and results .......................................................................................................................... 12

4.1 The Chinese and Swedish teachers‟ general beliefs about codeswitching in the EFL classroom

.............................................................................................................................................................. 12

4.2 When and why do the Chinese and Swedish teachers practice codeswitching in the EFL

classroom? ............................................................................................................................................ 16

4.3 Summary of results .................................................................................................................... 18

5. Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 20

6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 20

Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 25

Appendix 2 ........................................................................................................................................... 28

1

1. Introduction

The curriculum for English teaching in Sweden was altered in 2011 to follow the general

guidelines set up by the Common European Framework for Languages (CEFR) more closely.

This change was made in order to be able to compare Swedish results with the rest of Europe

more easily (The Swedish National Agency for Education 2011: 53). The way these guidelines

are phrased gives room for interpretation. For example, the guideline for the use of the

language that is being acquired by the students (L2)1 and the first language (L1)2 can be

interpreted in different ways. Some teachers may opt to use the L1 in certain situations,

whereas others may use the L2 almost exclusively, depending on how they interpret the

guidelines. Switching languages in the classroom can be regarded as a type of codeswitching.

In linguistics, codeswitching is a phenomenon which occurs in bilingual societies, when

bilinguals utilize linguistic resources from two languages to convey meaning. When a teacher

switches to Swedish to explain something in an English class, a switch of code has occurred

(Bullock & Toribio 2009: 2). Applied linguists have taken mainly two sides on whether

codeswitching should be utilized in the English as a foreign language (EFL)3 classroom or

not. Linguists such as Krashen believe English should be used as far as possible in the EFL

classroom (Krashen 1985:14). Other linguists, such as Harbord (1992: 352-354), argue that

the first language (L1) can be used to speed up the learning process and that it may have

other benefits to the learning of the L2. The relationship (in historical terms) between

languages varies and therefore, the context where codeswitching takes place should be

considered.

Historically, some languages are closely related. For example, Swedish and English are

similar, both being Germanic languages. Other languages, such as Chinese for example, are

completely unrelated to English, which means that the languages have very little in common

both when it comes to grammar and lexicon. Codeswitching between English and Swedish

and English and Chinese will therefore likely happen under different circumstances and for

different reasons. The amount of codeswitching between the languages involved is also likely

to be different.

The Chinese guideline documents for English teaching state clearly what students need to

achieve and how the students should achieve their goals in English class. However, unlike the

1 The language that is being acquired will be referred to as the L2. 2 The “first language” will from here on be abbreviated L1. 3 “English as a foreign language” will henceforth be referred to as EFL.

2

Swedish guideline documents, these do not give any specific guidance for the teachers on the

usage of Chinese and English (Cheng 2013: 1279). This may of course also have an influence

on how much codeswitching goes on in the English language classroom in China.

1.1 Aim

The aim of this paper is to find out about Chinese and Swedish teachers‟ beliefs and practices

regarding the use of L1 in the EFL classroom. Do Swedish and Chinese EFL teachers differ

from each other when it comes to codeswitching in the classroom? Due to time limitations,

only a fairly small sample of teachers could be interviewed, which will make this case-study

non-generalizable. This case-study also had limitations in regards to available time and

settings, which made one-to-one interviews with Swedish teachers impossible. Instead, the

interview questions were answered in writing by the Swedish teachers. The teachers

interviewed in China were all middle school teachers while the teachers in Sweden were

upper secondary school teachers. These two groups of teachers were selected since their

students are roughly the same age (16-17 years old). The research questions of this case-study

are:

What are the teachers‟ beliefs about using L1 in L2 teaching?

What arguments do the teachers use for switching to the L1 in L2 teaching?

According to the teachers, when do they code-switch to the L1 in the EFL classroom?

According to the teachers, why do they code-switch to the L1 in the EFL classroom?

2. Background

This section will introduce the theoretical framework for this paper. Section 2.1 will define

the term codeswitching as well as discuss the different types of codeswitching that are used

by bilinguals. It will also discuss who uses codeswitching and why. Section 2.2 will discuss

the use of codeswitching in the classroom, including a survey of the debate about the

usefulness of codeswitching in language teaching (2.2.1). Sub-section 2.2.2 will present

previous studies on codeswitching in language teaching. In section 2.3, a comparison

between what the curriculum in the Chinese middle school and Swedish upper secondary

school say about codeswitching, respectively, will be presented.

3

2.1 What is codeswitching?

All language speakers utilize their linguistic assets to convey meaning. While monolinguals

and bilinguals can utilize “style-shifting,” that is manipulation of dialects and linguistic

registers, bilinguals are capable of “codeswitching” or “language-shifting” (Bullock & Toribio

2009: 2). Codeswitching is a phenomenon which allows bilinguals to utilize not only one but

two or more languages. It can be defined as “the use of words or phrases from more than one

language within a conversation” (Lightbown & Spada 2013: 31). According to the Longman

Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, codeswitching can be used to

show “cultural solidarity or distance or serve as an act of identity.” The code a person selects

can depend on sex, age and level of education, ethnic background and to whom the speaker is

talking (Richards and Schmidt 2002: 81).

People who engage in codeswitching are individuals who are capable of using more than one

language. Not all bilinguals engage in codeswitching but those who do usually do it

consciously and purposefully (Bullock & Toribio 2009: 7). Unlike what non-linguists may

believe, the use of codeswitching does not indicate a lack of proficiency or mix-up between

the languages that the speaker uses. Rather, it is a tool that bilinguals can utilize, telling

something about the language proficiency of the bilingual user (Bullock & Toribio 2009: 8).

Bilinguals only codeswitch when interacting with individuals who are also bilinguals and

share the same language knowledge. Codeswitching is a speech form that for many people

tends to be used to show a belonging to more than one culture (Bullock & Toribio 2009: 10).

Generally, codeswitching is studied from two different approaches, the grammatical

approach and the sociolinguistic approach. The grammatical approach, presented by Poplack

(1980: 615), distinguishes between three types of codeswitching: inter-sentential, intra-

sentential and tag codeswitching. Tag codeswitching takes place when a word or phrase, a tag

statement, is switched from one language to another language. For example: Es dificil

encontrar trabajo estes dias, YOU KNOW? („It‟s hard to find work these days, you know‟;

Zirker 2007: 8). Inter-sentential codeswitching is codeswitching that occurs at clause and

sentence boundaries such as in Y yo pienso que todos los estudiantes deben aprender a tocar

un intrumento, so did you see the football game last night? („And I think that all the students

should learn how to play an instrument, so did you see the football game last night?‟; Zirker

2007: 10). Intra-sentential codeswitching is codeswitching that occurs within a sentence or a

clause such as in Poplack‟s (1980) study: Sometimes I‟ll start a sentence in Spanish y

Termino en Espanol („Sometimes I‟ll start a sentence in Spanish and end it in Spanish‟; cited

in Zirker 2007: 11).

4

The sociolinguistic approach studies codeswitching in relation to aspects of society, for

example the characteristics and social identity of the speaker using codeswitching (Gardner-

Chloros 2008: 97, 98). Other variables studied by the sociolinguistic approach are “the topic

of conversation, the participants, the setting, the affective aspect of the message” (Hamers &

Blanc 2000: 266). Sociolinguists believe social factors are the prime source of variation that

affects codeswitching. According to Gardner-Chloros (2008: 112), codeswitching researched

in the domain of sociolinguistics gives extremely varied results, depending on the data used

and the levels of language investigated. Societal and intra-individual data can be gathered but

researchers need to be wary of the data since it is so complex and individual (Gardner-

Chloros 2008: 113). The sociolinguistic approach can propose general ideas of how languages

are used in our society.

2.2 Codeswitching in the language classroom

Codeswitching in the context of the foreign language classroom refers to the alternating use

of the L1 and the L2, providing “a means of communication by language teachers when the

need arises” (Jingxia 2010: 1). In sub-section 2.2.1 the debate about the usefulness of

codeswitching in language teaching will be presented, with views from both sides of the

argument. Section 2.2.2 will present previous studies on codeswitching.

2.2.1 The debate about the usefulness of codeswitching in language

teaching

The issue of using the L1 in L2 teaching has been highly debated amongst researchers and

linguists. There are two major opposing beliefs; target language exclusivity in teaching on the

one hand and allowing the first language to be used as an aid on the other (Jingxia 2010: 11).

One of the first to object against the use of the first language in the EFL classroom was

Krashen (1985). Krashen believed in maximum exposure to the L2 and stated that lessons

should as far as possible be conducted in the target language. He argued that the use of the L1

would detract from the L2 learning (Krashen 1985: 14). Another argument for target

language exclusivity in the learning of an L2 was that understanding everything the teacher

says is not necessary; codeswitching only undermines the learning process. Not all

researchers agreed with Krashen; there were applied linguists who thought the L1 should be

utilised in L2 learning (Jingxia, 2010: 11).

Harbord (1992) gives three reasons for why the L1 should be utilized in the EFL classroom.

The reasons are “facilitating communication,” “facilitating teacher-student relationships” and

“facilitating the learning of L2” (Harbord 1992: 352-354). One of the main benefits, according

5

to Harbord, is that using the L1 saves time and it can be utilized to avoid confusion in the

classroom (Harbord 1992: 351).The L1 can also be utilized to convey meanings and to

organize a class (Cook 2001: 10-11). According to Jingxia (2010: 12), excluding the L1 in L2

learning is not only impractical but also takes a useful and important tool away from the

students learning a new language.

In conclusion, there is no agreement on which approach is superior. Some linguists have

argued for maximum exposure to the L2, since it does not appear to detract from the learning

process. Other linguists believe in the benefits of using the L1 in L2 teaching as it can be used

to speed up the learning process. They claim it would be impractical to exclude the L1 from

the EFL classroom. The next section will present previous research on codeswitching in the

English language classroom.

2.2.2 Previous studies on codeswitching in language teaching

The topic of codeswitching in the EFL classroom has been the subject of studies with the

intention of supporting either of the hypotheses presented in section 2.2.1. Two early studies

from the 1990‟s on codeswitching in the classroom came to different conclusions about its

usefulness. In her study from 1993, Auerbach reexamined previous research findings on how

the L1 should be used in the ESL (English as a Second Language) classroom. According to

Auerbach (1993: 5), there is no conclusive evidence that English-only teaching has any

benefits. She claims that pedagogically it is not a good idea to exclude the L1 in L2 teaching.

Auerbach‟s conclusion on the different findings point to a need for L1 usage on some

occasions and confirm that L1 in the language classroom can be an effective tool (Auerbach

1993: 1).

Eldridge (1996) carried out a study which took place in a small Turkish secondary school. In

the study, Eldridge recorded hundreds of instances where codeswitching was used, which

were then transcribed and analyzed. The findings indicated that codeswitching was a natural

and purposeful phenomenon in the classroom which could facilitate communication and

learning. However, Eldridge noted that codeswitching had short-term benefits but could

hinder long-term second language acquisition (Eldridge 1996: 310). As regards pedagogical

implications, Eldridge (1996: 309) said: “It must, of course, remain the aim of the language

teacher that the target code will ultimately be used in isolation, for the simple reason that

once outside the classroom, the learners can have no guarantee that their audience will share

a knowledge of their mother tongue.” One important point Eldridge (1996:311) made is that

he did not believe that decreasing the use of the L1 in the EFL classroom was a good idea in

6

itself. His general idea was that pupils should be exposed as much as possible to the L2 in the

classroom (Eldridge 1996: 311).

A later study by Miles (2007) set out to demonstrate two points. The first point is that the L1

does not hinder learning and the second point is that the L1 has a facilitating role in the

English classroom and might actually have a positive effect. Two experiments were carried

out at Chaucer College at the University of Kent, England. Chaucer College is for first-year

Japanese students only, with students around 18 and 19 years of age. The first experiment

compared the results of three different classes. One class was only allowed to use English in

class, whereas in the second class the Japanese students (but not the teachers) were allowed

to speak Japanese beside English. The third class allowed both the teacher and the students

to use Japanese in the English class. The experiment spanned five months. The findings

seemed to indicate that L1 did not hinder the learning of L2 as the class with the teacher that

was allowed the use of the L1 performed better in all aspects compared to the other two

classes. All classes improved over the five months but the group where the L1 could be used

not only by the students but also by the teacher improved more than the other groups, in

some areas considerably more. The second experiment involved only one group of students,

who were taught English on four different occasions, twice when Japanese was allowed and

twice when Japanese was not allowed (Miles 2007: 2). The findings were similar to the first

experiment as improvements could be seen on both occasions when Japanese was allowed.

Again, in the classes where the L1 was allowed, the students improved more than in the

classes where no Japanese was spoken. The results of this study showed that the use of the L1

did not hinder the learning of the students and in fact seemed to have a positive effect. The

study indicated the usefulness of the L1 in the English classroom (Miles 2007: 39).4

Cheng (2013: 1282) found that codeswitching is commonplace in Chinese foreign language

teaching. A semi-structured questionnaire was given to 32 Chinese teachers about

codeswitching (Cheng 2013: 1279). The findings showed that the Chinese college teachers

usually codeswitched in class because they assumed the students would not understand

otherwise. Still, most of the teachers believed that Chinese did not have a place in the English

classroom and were hesitant to treat the L1 as a useful tool. The L1 was usually employed in

the teaching of more abstract concepts and grammar. Only 12% of the 32 teachers believed

target language exclusivity could be realized in the Chinese EFL classroom (Cheng 2013:

1282).

4 It should be noted that the study by Miles is a Master‟s thesis which has not been published. However, it has been cited 45 times according to Google Scholar, which is why I decided to cite it.

7

A qualitative study on the cognitive processes of teachers during codeswitching in the EFL

classroom was carried out in Kermanshah, Iran (Samar & Moradkhani 2014). Two male and

two female English teachers from a private institute were the subjects in this study. Variables

such as age and teaching experience were controlled in the selection process of the subjects

(Samar & Moradkhani 2014: 155). The researchers utilized a stimulated recall protocol, as

this was deemed to be the most efficient way to examine the teachers‟ cognitive processes

when codeswitching. This method included recording the teacher in class, followed by an

interview in which questions about the teachers‟ thought processes regarding codeswitching

were asked (Samar & Moradkhani 2014: 156). By using an inductive method of assigning

themes to the data, the researchers arrived at the categories that they used in their analysis

(Samar & Moradkhani 2014: 157). The results of the study showed that about 27% of the

classes were conducted in the L1. The main reason the teachers codeswitched had to do with

the students‟ comprehension during class, but they also did it to see if the students had

understood something correctly after the teacher had spoken English. Some teachers would

ask the students to translate what the teacher had said in English into Persian. According to

the researchers, more than 40% of the codeswitching done in the classes had to do with

comprehension. Other reasons were the explanation of difficult aspects such as specific

grammatical points and comparisons between the L1 and L2 languages (Samar &

Moradkhani 2014: 160). It was also noted by the researchers that since their study was

qualitative it should be generalized with care (Samar & Moradkhani 2014: 162).

In summary, previous studies on codeswitching in the English classroom have come to

different conclusions. Auerbach‟s study from 1993 pointed to a need for L1 usage on some

occasions and confirmed that L1 in the language classroom can be an effective tool. In 1996,

Eldridge came to a different conclusion; that the pupils should be exposed as much as

possible to the L2 in the classroom. Miles‟s study from 2007 showed that the use of the L1 did

not hinder the learning of the students and in fact seemed to have a positive effect, indicating

the usefulness of the L1 in the English classroom. Cheng‟s study on codeswitching in the

Chinese classroom from 2013 showed that the Chinese college teachers in the study usually

codeswitched in class because they assumed the students would not understand otherwise.

Finally, Samar and Moradkhani‟s study of teacher codeswitching in Iran, showed that more

than 40% of the codeswitching done in the classes had to do with comprehension (Samar &

Moradkhani 2014).

8

2.3 Differences in the Swedish and Chinese curriculum

As was pointed out in the introduction of this paper, the national guidelines for the teaching

of English by the Swedish National Agency for Education contain specific instructions to

teachers when it comes to the use of the L1 in the classroom. It says explicitly that “teaching

should as far as possible be conducted in English” (The Swedish National Agency for

Education 2011: 53). The reasoning behind this is that Swedish students should be in contact

with the target language as much as possible. The way it is phrased, saying that English

should be used “as far as possible,” means that it does not forbid teachers to use Swedish

when they deem that it is required. In fact, the document explicitly says that the L1 should be

used as a tool when the teacher believes it to be beneficial to the learning of the students (The

Swedish National Agency for Education 2011: 53).

In comparison, the Chinese stance toward the usage of L1 and codeswitching in the language

classroom is unclear. The various Chinese curricula indicate clearly what needs to be

achieved by the students and what they need to learn. However, the relation between Chinese

and English is not touched upon and no suggestions are put forth (Cheng 2013: 1279). Since

China‟s guideline documents for English education fail to specify what language to use in the

English language classroom, it is interesting to see what teachers in China believe. It is also

interesting to compare their beliefs and practices to Swedish teachers‟ beliefs and practices

and see to what extent they agree and disagree with each other.

3. Methods

This study is qualitative in its nature. Since interviews are well suited for studying attitudes,

motivation and behaviors of subjects, a qualitative approach is logical for a case-study such as

the present (Denscombe 2010: 104). This case-study set out to compare teachers‟ beliefs and

practices regarding codeswitching, which means that using questionnaires would have been a

viable approach, but according to Denscombe (2010: 109), interviews are better suited for

more exploratory research. A mixed research design would have technically been possible for

the same purpose, but due to time restrictions, a purely qualitative design seemed more

feasible. However, a mixed design could have given more generalizable results.

In order to study Swedish and Chinese teachers‟ beliefs and practices regarding

codeswitching in the EFL classroom, questions were asked to teachers from the two

countries. The following section will describe how the data was collected (3.1). Section 3.2

will describe the participants in some detail. Section 3.3 deals with ethical considerations.

9

3.1 Data collection

As previously mentioned, collecting data from one-to-one interviews is suitable for studying

attitudes (Denscombe 2010: 104). All the data for this study were collected by the researcher

in China. The original idea was to interview Swedish teachers using a virtual platform;

however, the idea was abandoned due to technical difficulties. An alternative method for

collecting the data was adopted as a compromise. Instead of one-to-one interviews, the

Swedish teachers were asked to answer the questions in writing.

For the Chinese middle school teachers, one-to-one interviews were conducted by me. The

data was collected at a big middle school located in a large city in China. Back-up assistance

from a native Chinese speaker was available if issues with communication were to arise. The

head of the English teachers‟ department at the school was my contact person who helped me

organize the interviews. She had intended for ten English teachers to partake in a group

interview. Since this was not how I had structured or prepared my interview in advance, I

requested one-to-one interviews. Due to time restrictions, only five teachers could partake in

the interviews as the rest had other duties to attend to. Interviews were conducted and

recorded in English and lasted between 12 and 20 minutes (see Appendix A for the interview

questions). Before the interview started, I introduced myself and the purpose of the

interview. I gave a description to the teachers about what codeswitching is and made sure

they understood the concept before moving on. In order not to make the teachers feel

uncomfortable or embarrassed, I took into consideration the teachers‟ social self-image, or

face. I told them there were no right or wrong answers and that I myself believed that there

were advantages to codeswitching in the EFL classroom.

Twenty semi-structured questions, some with follow-up questions, were asked in English.

Chinese translations were also provided.5 As I wanted to collect as much data as possible,

some of my questions were rather similar to other questions. The following questions were

believed to be similar by some of the subjects: “In what situations do you choose to speak

Chinese in the classroom”? and “Are there situations or instances when you prefer to speak

Chinese? When and why?” When I realized that a teacher had trouble understanding the

difference between these questions I tried to stress the word prefer in order to indicate the

difference. Admittedly, the difference in meaning is very small. However, in all instances this

method worked to make the message clearer and the teachers gave logical answers to each

question. Generally during the interviews, I tried not to influence the answers by gesturing

agreement or other feelings. Instead, I showed my interest in what they were saying by

5 I am grateful to my friend Trisha for doing the translations for me.

10

keeping eye contact and slightly nodding my head now and then. I also asked follow-up

questions to indicate my interest.

As mentioned, due to technical difficulties sustaining a stable internet connection in China,

the original idea to interview Swedish teachers over a virtual platform had to be abandoned.

As a compromise, five Swedish upper secondary school teachers of English were instead

asked to answer the same questions in writing and send their responses to me by email. The

questions about guidelines for the usage of L1 in the EFL classroom were left out, since the

Swedish guidelines for the English instruct teachers on this matter (see Section 2.3). As

previously mentioned, the Swedish National Agency of Education gives suggestions for the

usage of the L1 in the EFL classroom. Another obvious change in the phrasing of the

questions was the words Chinese and Swedish, which had to be changed. The informants

were asked to write down their answers, either in the document I sent to them or in a

separate file, and then return them to me before a certain date. They were allowed to answer

either in English or in Swedish. In order to give the Swedish informants the same background

information as the Chinese informants, a short text was given at the beginning of the

document. In this text, where I introduced myself, the purpose of my study and instructions

on how to answer the questions, I also thanked the subjects for their participation. I also gave

the same information that I had given to the Chinese teachers about the fact that there were

no right or wrong answers to the questions (See Appendix B).

3.2 Participants

The informants in this case-study were five middle school teachers from China (T1-5) and

five upper secondary school teachers from Sweden (T6-10). Five teachers from each country

is a relatively small sample but the number is suitable for a case-study which is qualitative in

nature. A small sample allows for a restricted area of study to be thoroughly researched and

in this case, be compared to a similarly restricted area of study (Denscombe 2010: 102).

The Chinese teachers came from a large city in China, and they were all from the same middle

school. I got in contact with this school and the teachers with the help of one of my

professors, who knew the head of the department of the English teachers. Five female

teachers who all spoke Chinese as a native language were interviewed in a one-to-one setting.

The fact that all teachers from China were female was not ideal; I would have preferred a

sample with a similar number of male and female informants from the two countries. All the

informants taught English as a sole subject and had either a Bachelor‟s degree or a Master‟s

degree in English. The informants had varied experience of teaching English, spanning from

seven years to 27 years (see Table 1).

11

For the Swedish teachers, emails were originally sent to the principals of three schools. The

principals were asked to distribute my request for participation to English teachers. Three of

the teachers who responded were from a school in a medium sized town in Sweden, while the

other two were from a school in a smaller town. Both towns are very small in comparison to

the city in China. The informants were three female teachers and two male teachers with

their teaching experience spanning from one and a half years to more than 30 years. I had

originally wished to match the Swedish informants to the Chinese informants better in terms

of gender, age and experience; this is one of my research limitations due to the restricted

amount of time available. All teachers were fully qualified English teachers.

Table 1. – Survey of informants.

Country China Sweden

Teacher T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10

Age 50 31 30 32 30 55 26 56 39 26

Gender F F F F F M F F M F

Years of experience

27 7 9 9 8 30+ 26 15 15 1.5

Degree MA MA BA BA BA QT QT QT QT QT

Other subjects taught

- - - - - SWE MATH GER SFL

P.E. PSY

F=Female, M=Male MA= Master‟s Degree, BA=Bachelor‟s Degree, QT=Qualified Teacher SWE=Swedish, MATH= Mathematics, GER=German, SFL=Swedish as a Foreign Language, P.E.=Physical Education, PSY=Psychology.

3.4 Ethical considerations

Ethical considerations concerning all subjects and data collected in this case-study are based

on the guidelines put forward in Ground Rules for Social Research (Denscombe 2010). It was

made clear to all participants that their participation was voluntary and that they could end

the interview at any point (Denscombe 2010: 67). During the interviews with the Chinese

teachers, the questions were asked by me orally but the interviewee also had a copy of the

questions together with a Chinese translation. This was done in order not to cause

misunderstandings or discomfort to the subject (Denscombe 2010: 64). It was also made

clear to all of the subjects that their names were not to be mentioned in the paper and that all

12

direct references to them would be avoided (Denscombe 2010: 65). To assure this, all

subjects are referred to using numbers (T1, T2 etc.).

4. Analysis and results

This section presents the results as well as an analysis of the data collected in this case-study.

In the following section, the collected data on Swedish and Chinese teachers‟ beliefs about

codeswitching in the EFL classroom will be presented and compared (4.1). In Section 4.2, the

reasons for when and why the Swedish and Chinese teachers codeswitch in the EFL

classroom will be presented and compared (i.e., their practices). Finally, the results will be

summarized in Section 4.3.

4.1 The Chinese and Swedish teachers’ general beliefs about

codeswitching in the EFL classroom

The teachers had different views and beliefs on the usage of L1 in the EFL classroom. The

Swedish teachers were, in general, fairly negative to the usage of the L1, with three out of five

teachers opposed to it. In comparison, only one out of the five Chinese teachers was against

the usage of the L1. The one Chinese teacher who did not believe in using Chinese in the EFL

classroom stressed the importance of having an English-speaking environment, especially in

the context of oral activities. Three of the Swedish teachers were in favour of using English

exclusively, or as far as possible, in the EFL classroom. Teacher 9‟s opinion on the use of

Swedish in the EFL classroom was “very negative” and he almost never used Swedish himself.

Teacher 7 mentioned the importance of the learner environment, similar to the one Chinese

teacher who said that using Chinese in the EFL classroom was a bad practice.

The other four Chinese teachers all seemed to agree with each other that it was not feasible to

exclude the L1 entirely from the classroom. They believed Chinese could be used when the

classroom topic was difficult to comprehend for the students. For teacher 1, it was important

that the pupils could understand the lesson, and if the topic was too difficult, she would use

Chinese instead of English. Teacher 1 believed that only using the target language was

unreasonable:

“It depends on the topic, perhaps if the topic is familiar to the students, you can use more

English. If it is not so familiar or if it too strange for them, you have to use less English. For

example, art, I personally know very little about art, so I have to search for information in

Chinese and present it in Chinese, so the students can understand my explanation.” (T1)

13

In comparison, the other two Swedish teachers acknowledged the fact that using Swedish was

sometimes necessary in the classroom in regards to the students‟ comprehension.

I asked the Chinese teachers at the beginning of the interviews if there were any guidelines

for the use of the L1 in the EFL classroom. All the teachers said that no official guidelines

existed, but that their English department encouraged them to speak as much English as

possible. As a follow-up question I asked if they would prefer to have such guidelines in the

future. Most of them said that they thought it would not be a good idea since every teacher

and class is different. Only one teacher said that guidelines could be good to make teachers

use more English in the classroom.

Most teachers believed that there were at least some advantages to codeswitching. The

Chinese teachers all gave similar reasons; that instructions could be conveyed more clearly

and that the students would understand the L1 better than English. The Swedish teachers

were less inclined to say that there were advantages, but four out of the five gave at least one

advantage each. Teacher 6 was the only teacher who said that there were no advantages at all

to using the L1 in the classroom. According to Teacher 9, the L1 was useful when giving

feedback to individual students, since for him it was better if the student could understand

what he or she needed to improve. Teacher 7 believed that there were only minor advantages

to using Swedish; for example, when linking something discussed in another class to the

English class. She also believed, although she admittedly had not tried it, that if she switched

to Swedish for a minute or so, the students would pay extra attention. This strategy can also

be used when something important needs to be addressed, according to Teacher 7.

All the teachers except one believed there were also disadvantages to using the L1 in the EFL

classroom. Teacher 8 (Swedish teacher) was the only teacher who was not convinced that

there were any disadvantages to it. The Chinese teachers on their part all agreed that using

too much Chinese was not good for the students. Teacher 2 and Teacher 5 (Chinese teachers)

said that it was good to create an “atmosphere of English” for the students. Teacher 3 said

that if too much Chinese was used in class, the students might start to rely on the fact that the

teacher would codeswitch, and thus be hindered in their learning. According to Teacher 1, the

disadvantages were that if the students do not get to hear enough English in the classroom,

they will not improve their listening comprehension. Teacher 10 (Swedish teacher) believed,

like most of the other teachers, that there were disadvantages to codeswitching. According to

her, if the students had a hard time following the language shifts from a teacher, it might be

difficult for them to get a complete understanding of the language. Teacher 7 wrote that she

believed there were many disadvantages, and that switching to Swedish was the easy way out.

Furthermore, she said that if she switched to Swedish, she would encourage her students to

14

do the same when they got stuck. She wanted to set a good example and keep the

conversation going, even if some words were wrong. The Chinese and Swedish teachers all

more or less agreed on the fact that too much L1 in the EFL classroom was not good. The

classroom environment was mentioned by teachers from both countries:

“It is important to create an environment where the norm is to use the target language,

both for the teacher and the students. If I speak a lot of Swedish, the students also tend to

speak a lot of Swedish.” (T9, translated)

The teachers had very different views regarding students‟ codeswitching to the L1 in the

English classroom. The Chinese teachers mostly believed that there were advantages to

students codeswitching, with only one teacher being opposed to it (T1). Teacher 2 believed

that if the students used Chinese, they could express themselves more clearly in class.

Teacher 3 believed it would be good if the students could exchange opinions with each other

first in Chinese, and then present their views in English to the class. According to Teacher 4

and Teacher 5, if the students used Chinese, they would think quicker and give answers to

questions from the teacher. The Swedish teachers, on the other hand, were generally against

the use of Swedish in the English classroom. Teacher 6 and Teacher 8 did not believe there

were any advantages for the students. Teacher 6 would not even answer a student speaking

Swedish. According to Teacher 9, in some cases when the teacher is giving feedback or

formative assessment, it might be better for the student to speak Swedish so that the teacher

can make sure the students understand the feedback and can ask questions. Teacher 10,

similarly to the Chinese teachers, believed that the advantage is that they could express

themselves in different ways; if the student lacked the courage or knowledge to ask a question

in English, he or she might be able to ask in Swedish instead.

The Chinese and Swedish teachers more or less agreed with each other regarding the

disadvantages of students‟ codeswitching in the EFL classroom. Three out of the five Swedish

teachers had similar ideas of disadvantages while one teacher did not answer the question

and another one did not have a clear opinion. Almost every teacher, in one way or another,

mentioned that the English proficiency of the student would be negatively affected. The

biggest disadvantage according to two of the Chinese teachers was that if the students used

too much Chinese, they would not learn the correct English sentence structure (T1 and T4).

According to Teacher 4, this might lead to situations where the utterance could only be

understood by Chinese people, and not by anyone else. Teacher 2, Teacher 3 and Teacher 5

said that the pupils would lose out on time which could have been used for practicing oral

proficiency and listening proficiency. According to Teacher 7 (Swedish teacher), if the

students did not try to find the right words or to speak English to their classmates, they

15

would not improve their oral proficiency. She also said that the students should not worry

about pronunciation or grammar. According to her, fluency and accuracy come with practise.

Teacher 9 believed that the more English students use, the better. Teacher 10 said that if a

student used too much Swedish, it could possibly affect their understanding as a whole:

“The same as when I switch to Swedish. There is a break in using English and that might

influence their understanding of the language as a whole. They might start speaking

“Swenglish.” (T10)

All the teachers had similar beliefs about what the advantages of using the target language in

the EFL classroom were. Their answers had the common theme of a good “classroom

environment” for learning English. Chinese Teacher 5 spoke of the importance of “teacher

influence”; if the teacher spoke more English, the students would do the same. She also

mentioned that more English in the classroom would lead to more listening practice. Teacher

3 and Teacher 4 mentioned something similar about listening. Teacher 4 also believed that if

the students had more opportunities for listening, they would become more fluent speakers.

Teacher 1 said that the Chinese students only had English class as an opportunity to learn

English, and hence, this was their only chance to practice. All the Swedish teachers wrote

about how more exposure to the target language increased the learning of the students. They

also said that teachers who use English as much as possible set a good example for the

students to follow. This would also give the students maximum exposure to the target

language.

The teachers‟ beliefs about disadvantages in using English in the EFL classroom were all

similar, with some exceptions. Most Chinese and Swedish teachers mentioned the students‟

lack of understanding during instructions and classes as the biggest disadvantage to only

using English. Additionally, Chinese Teacher 2 said that not all students would dare to speak

in the classroom if it was English only. The most interesting difference between the answers,

was in my opinion, what Teacher 5 said when she talked about some Chinese teachers‟

English speaking proficiency. According to her, in the small cities in China, the teachers‟ oral

proficiency is not always good and could set bad examples for the students:

“In the English classroom, the disadvantages of using English may sometimes be the

teacher‟s English oral proficiency. Chinese English teachers, especially in small cities in

China, are not always good at speaking English and will in some cases be bad examples for

the students.” (T5)

16

4.2 When and why do the Chinese and Swedish teachers practice

codeswitching in the EFL classroom?

The general conclusion from the interviews was that the Swedish teachers claimed to use

more English than the Chinese teachers in the EFL classroom. One of the Swedish teachers

claimed to use English only, and never used the L1 (T6). The Chinese teachers all initially

claimed to use “more English than Chinese”; however, when they were asked again later in

the interview they restated that they used more English but that their choice of language

depended on the proficiency of the class. One of them answered that she used English fifty-

fifty in all classes. Teacher 7 (Swedish teacher) said she only used Swedish when making

“deliberate comparisons to Swedish.” Teacher 8 was the only Swedish teacher who used the

L1 rather extensively. She said that she used 60% English and 40% Swedish in English class.

When the teachers were asked about situations where they themselves codeswitched to their

L1, they had slightly different answers from one another. The Chinese teachers said that they

used the L1 mostly to make the students understand something in class, and that the extent

depended on how difficult the topic they taught was. English grammar seemed to be mostly

taught in Chinese as it was deemed difficult by most of the Chinese teachers. The Swedish

teachers had different reasons for using Swedish but since they did not use the L1 as often as

the Chinese teachers, their answers were slightly different. The Swedish teachers said that

they used their L1 when making deliberate comparisons to Swedish, for example, when

teaching grammar or when giving one-on-one feedback to students. Interestingly, one of the

Chinese teachers had a very different answer from the other teachers. From what she said, it

seemed like the Chinese teachers worked with a range of topics in their classes, some of

which were difficult to explain to the students. The Swedish teachers never related their use

of English to the content of their classes. Teacher 6 said he used Swedish perhaps once a year

if the task was translating into Swedish but that he preferred never to use Swedish otherwise.

Apart from educational purposes for codeswitching, one Swedish teacher mentioned another

use for the L1. Teacher 9 said that he used Swedish when taking control over a class when it

got too noisy or out of hand. This was something the Chinese teachers never mentioned and it

is an interesting difference.

The teachers gave similar answers when asked about times or situations when they did not

use the L1 or tried extra hard not to do so. Classroom discussions about texts or books were

situations where both the Chinese and Swedish teachers mentioned that they preferred

English. Two Swedish teachers (T6 and T9) stated that they preferred to use the target

language as much as possible in class, and mostly avoided the L1. Teacher 7 said that she

17

preferred not to speak Swedish when explaining a word or phrase. She would explain it in

English, even if it would take several attempts. According to her, this was an example of a

communicative strategy which was good practise for learning how to use synonyms and

learning new words.

A big difference between the Swedish and Chinese teachers was how they answered regarding

if there were any occasions where they planned on using the L1 in advance for a specific

purpose in class. The Chinese teachers all gave situations where they said they planned ahead

on using Chinese; when teaching grammar or a new difficult classroom topic were common

answers. Teacher 3 believed most Chinese English teachers used Chinese when teaching

grammar. On the other hand, every Swedish teacher except one said that they never planned

on using Swedish in advance for a specific purpose. The Swedish teachers who said that they

sometimes used their L1 when teaching grammar said that they only used Swedish in one-to-

one situations with students and when the teacher could not make the class understand

something in English. Only Teacher 9 said that he planned on using Swedish in some cases

before giving feedback to students.

Another big difference between the teachers was how they answered regarding if their choice

of language was different depending on if they spoke to the whole class or a single student.

The Chinese teachers generally considered the student‟s English proficiency when selecting

their language. If the student was less proficient they would use more Chinese. Only one

Chinese teacher said that there was no difference whether she spoke to one student or the

whole class. She said she tried to speak English to all students (T5). Interestingly, most of the

Swedish teachers answered that they always spoke English, with no consideration whether

they spoke to the class or with an individual student. However, Teacher 10 tended to speak

English in front of the entire class and if a student would ask her afterwards, she tended to

answer in Swedish. Teacher 7 explained her choice of always using English by saying:

“Everyone is treated the same – doesn‟t matter if it‟s the entire group, a small group or a

single student. However, I can alter the way I speak English – for example the level of

formality of my vocabulary. A subtle change, which has an impact, but I don‟t think the

students notice as much. I fear that with my “English-at-all-times” policy, students could

actually be offended if I addressed them in Swedish, as that might project that I don‟t think

they would understand me in English. Therefore, I use English at all times, but I might vary

the words that I use.” (T7)

18

Most of the teachers‟ choice of language also depended on the class they taught. All the

Chinese teachers agreed that if the class was more proficient, they would speak more English

and if the class was less proficient, they would speak more Chinese. Most of the Swedish

responses were similar to the Chinese teachers‟, except for Teacher 6, who was the only one

who said his choice of language was the same in all classes.

The teachers had different views on whether there were situations where they encouraged

students to use the L1. Two Chinese teachers said that they always encouraged their Chinese

students to use as much English as possible (T4 and T5). The three other teachers said that if

the students cannot express themselves clearly, they are allowed to speak Chinese (T1, T2 and

T3). These responses were very different from the Swedish teachers. No Swedish teacher said

there were any situations where they as teachers encouraged the students to use the L1.

Teacher 8 said that she never encouraged her students to speak Swedish, but gave one

scenario when she potentially could encourage the student to speak Swedish:

“No, not at all, well if their English were absolutely impossible to understand then I would

encourage them to speak Swedish in order to understand.” (T8)

The teachers said that they always tried to speak as much English as possible and always

encouraged students to speak as much as they could. Chinese Teacher 5 said she not only

wanted to speak English in order to teach the students, but also to improve her own English.

Similarly, the Swedish teachers answered that they always tried to speak as much English as

possible since that was the target language of the course. Here are two responses which I

believe show the general difference in the use of English between the Swedish and Chinese

teachers:

“Officially, we are ordered to teach the English class in English. When we explain history

and when we explain background information, I personally prefer English. When

explaining language points like grammar and so on I prefer to use Chinese.” (Chinese T4)

“I always use English because it gives my students maximum chances of hearing and seeing

(if in writing) English. Many students listen to English constantly in their spare time, but

not all do. I should give them every opportunity to hear proper English on a regular basis.”

(Swedish T7)

4.3 Summary of results

There were many similarities between the teachers as regards their beliefs and practices

about codeswitching in the EFL classroom. A good classroom environment for learning

19

English was something mentioned by teachers both from Sweden and China. The teachers

more or less agreed on the fact that too much L1 in the EFL classroom was not good.

Additionally, the teachers also agreed with each other as regards the disadvantages of

students‟ codeswitching in the EFL classroom; they mentioned that the English proficiency of

the students would be affected if the L1 was used too much. All teachers had similar beliefs

about the kind of advantages of using the target language in the EFL classroom. Their

answers had a common theme, which was once again, a good “classroom environment” for

learning English. Most Chinese and Swedish teachers mentioned the students‟ lack of

understanding during instructions and classes as the biggest disadvantage to only using

English. Classroom discussions about texts or books were situations where both the Chinese

and Swedish teachers mentioned that they preferred English and tried extra hard not to use

the L1. Additionally, most of the teachers‟ choice of language also depended on the class they

taught. Finally, all the teachers said that they always tried to speak as much English as

possible and always encouraged students to speak as much as they could.

There were also many differences between the teachers in regards to beliefs and practices of

codeswitching in the EFL classroom. Most teachers believed that there were at least some

advantages to codeswitching. The Swedish teachers were more hesitant to give advantages for

the use of the L1, but some were mentioned. The advantages they mentioned had to do with

giving feedback, controlling the class and making direct comparisons to the Swedish

language. The Chinese teachers thought the students‟ understanding was the biggest

advantage and seemed to agree with each other that it was not feasible to exclude the L1

entirely from the classroom. Furthermore, the Chinese teachers mostly believed that there

were advantages to students‟ codeswitching, while most Swedish teachers were against it. The

Chinese teachers believed it was good if the students could express themselves clearly, while

most Swedish teachers said that they thought it was not good for the learning of the students

if they used the L1. Another difference was that the Swedish teachers claimed to use more

English than the Chinese teachers did in the EFL classroom. All the Chinese teachers stated

that they used more English than Chinese but that their choice of language depended on the

proficiency of the class. Additionally, the Chinese teachers all gave situations where they said

they planned to use Chinese for a specific purpose in class, when teaching grammar or

introducing a new difficult classroom topic were common answers. Every Swedish teacher

except one said that they never planned on using Swedish in advance for a specific purpose.

In contrast to the Chinese teachers, most of the Swedish teachers answered that they always

spoke English, with no consideration whether they spoke to the class or with an individual

student.

20

5. Discussion

The results of the case-study mostly agree with the findings of previous research. While all

teachers seemed to have a slightly negative view of using the L1 in the EFL classroom, the

Swedish teachers appeared to be more against it than the Chinese teachers. Even if the

Swedish National Agency for Education (2011: 53) clearly states that the teachers are allowed

to use the L1 if they believe that it benefits the learning, there appeared to be some kind of

stigma regarding its use. Most of the Swedish teachers had similar views to Eldridge (1996:

311), that the pupils should be exposed as much as possible to the L2 in the classroom.

The main reasons for codeswitching mentioned by the Chinese teachers in my study were

that they assumed the students would not understand otherwise. The teachers codeswitched

when they deemed the topic to be too difficult for the students. As mentioned earlier in this

paper, Cheng (2013) carried out research on codeswitching in the Chinese EFL classroom.

Her findings showed that the Chinese college teachers usually codeswitched for the same

reasons. One difference between Cheng‟s (2013) study and my case-study was that the

majority of the teachers in my study thought that solely using the target language was not

feasible and to exclude the L1 entirely from the classroom was not reasonable. The teachers

in Cheng‟s (2013) study believed that Chinese did not have a place in the English classroom

and were hesitant to treat the L1 as a useful tool. However, the reason for this might depend

on the fact that the teachers in Cheng‟s study taught at college level while the teachers I

interviewed were middle school teachers.

As mentioned above, the Chinese teachers in my study all mentioned that they codeswitched

with the students‟ comprehension in mind. According to Samar and Moradkhani (2014),

more than 40% of the codeswitching done in classes they studied had to do with

comprehension. Other reasons were the explanation of difficult aspects such as specific

grammatical points and comparison between the L1 and L2 languages. The Swedish teachers

also mentioned the student‟s comprehension as a reason, but mostly codeswitched in order to

explain grammatical points to certain students, or making comparisons between the L1 and

L2 languages. The Swedish teachers mostly codeswitched for the other reasons mentioned by

Samar & Moradkhani (2014), and not comprehension.

One reason why the Chinese teachers were more favourable towards the usage of the L1

might have to do with the previously mentioned language relations. Codeswitching between

English and Swedish and English and Chinese happen under different circumstances and for

different reasons because of the historical relationship between the languages. Chinese and

21

English are completely unrelated languages while Swedish and English are closely related.

For this reason, grammar and other aspects of the English language must be much harder to

learn for a Chinese student, than for a Swedish student. This is, in my opinion, also the

reason why the amount of codeswitching differs between the two groups of teachers.

Another reason for why the Chinese teachers said that they codeswitched to the L1 more than

the Swedish teachers did might have been because of the difference in English proficiency

between Swedish upper secondary school students and Chinese middle school students.

According to a 2011 study by the European Commission, Swedish students have very good

English proficiency (First European Survey on Language Competence: 2011) The English

language is also pervasive in Sweden, almost to the point of it being considered a second

language. In China, the situation is different. Chinese students do not have the same

opportunities to encounter or be exposed to English on a daily basis as Swedish students

have.

6. Conclusion

The aim of this paper was to compare and contrast Chinese middle school teachers‟ and

Swedish upper secondary school teachers‟ beliefs and practices regarding the use of L1 in the

EFL classroom. The qualitative approach of this paper made it possible to find differences

and similarities between the teachers from Sweden and China. The general conclusion

regarding the teachers‟ practices was that the Swedish teachers claimed to use more English

than the Chinese teachers in the EFL classroom. The Swedish teachers mostly used English in

class with few exceptions, as they believed that using the L1 might have a negative effect on

the learning of the L2. Initially, all Chinese teachers claimed to use “more English than

Chinese”; however, when they were asked again later in the interviews, they restated that

they used more English but that their choice of language depended on the proficiency of the

class. The Chinese teachers believed the L1 could be used as a tool when the students did not

comprehend the L2. The results of this paper showed that the Swedish teachers had a fairly

negative beliefs regarding the usage of L1 in the EFL classroom and mostly codeswitched

when giving individual feedback, when making direct comparisons to the Swedish language

or when the class got out of hand. Most of the Chinese teachers deemed target language

exclusivity not logically feasible and codeswitched mostly in regards to the students‟

comprehension. The findings mostly agreed with previous research. Since this paper is

qualitative in its nature, the results are non-generalizable and everything presented by this

paper must be read with regard to this.

22

The area of codeswitching in the EFL classroom needs to be studied further. Many linguists

and researchers have studied whether codeswitching in the EFL classroom is beneficial or not

with, from my knowledge, only some regard to the L1 of the country where the codeswitching

takes place. I believe historical relations between different languages and codeswitching

should be studied further and compared. It would also be interesting to see if different

teachers plan ahead on using the L1 for different purposes.

23

References

Auerbach, Elisa. 1993. Reexamining English Only in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly,

27(1): 1-18.

Bullock, Barbara E. & Almeida Jacqueline Toribio. 2009. Themes in the study of code-

switching. In Bullock, Barbara E. & Almeida Jacqueline Toribio (eds.), The Cambridge

handbook of linguistic code-switching, 1-17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cheng, Xiaoli. 2013. Research on Chinese college teacher‟s classroom code-switching: Beliefs

and attitudes. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(06): 1277-1284.

Cook, Vivian. 2001. Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language

Review, 57(3): 403-423.

Denscombe, Martyn. 2010. Ground rules for social research: Guidelines for good practice.

Berkshire, Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Eldridge, John. 1996. Code-Switching in a Turkish secondary school. ELT Journal, 50(4):

303-311.

European Commission/SurveyLang. 2012. First European Survey on Language Competences:

Final Report Available at: [http://ec.europa.eu/languages/policy/strategic-

framework/documents/language-survey-final-report_en.pdf].

Gardner-Chloros, Penelope. 2009. Sociolinguistic factors on code-switching. In Bullock,

Barbara E. & Almeida Jacqueline Toribio (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistics. 97-

113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hamers, Josiane F. & Michael H. A. Blanc. 2000. Bilinguality and bilingualism. 2nd edn.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harbord, John. 1992. The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal, 46(4):

350-355.

Jingxia, Liu. 2010. Teachers‟ code-switching to the L1 in the EFL classroom. The Open

Applied Linguistics Journal, 3: 10-23.

Krashen, Steven. 1985. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London and New

York: Longman.

Lightbown, Patsy & Nina Spada. 2013. How languages are learned. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Miles, Richard. 2007. Evaluating the Use of L1 in the English Language Classroom.

Unpublished master‟s dissertation. University of Birmingham, UK. Available at:

[http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/documents/college-

artslaw/cels/essays/matefltesldissertations/milesdiss.pdf].

24

Poplack, Shana. 1980. Sometimes I‟ll start a sentence in Spanish y Termino en Espanol:

Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18: 581-618.

Richards, Jack & Richard, Schmidt. 2002. Longman dictionary of language teaching and

applied linguistics. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Educational.

Samar G. Reza & Shahab Moradkhani. 2014. Code-switching in the language classroom: A

study of four EFL teachers‟ cognition. RELC Journal, 45(2): 151-164.

The Swedish National Agency for Education. 2011. English syllabus. Available at:

[http://www.skolverket.se/polopoly_fs/1.174543!/Menu/article/attachment/English%20120

912.pdf].

Zirker, Kelly Ann Hill. 2007. Intrasentential vs intersentential code switching in early and

late bilinguals. All theses and dissertations. Paper 927. Avaliable at:

[http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1926&context=etd].

25

Appendix 1

Interview questions

问卷问题：

Male ( ) Female ( )

男性（） 女性（）

What is your age?

年龄_______

What subjects (if any) do you teach beside English?

除了英语之外所讲授的其他学科（如果有请注明）?

How many years have you been a teacher?

教龄_______

What is your degree?

学历_______

Guidance (注)

In foreign language classes, sometimes teachers may shift from one language to another (for

example from English to Chinese) in their teaching. This phenomenon is called code-

switching which refers to the alternate use of the first language and the target language.

在外语教学中，教师有时会在讲课过程中从一种语言转换到另一种语言（比如：从英

语转变为汉语）。这种母语和目标语之间的替代使用现象叫做语码转换。

Part I - The usage of Chinese in the English classroom.

第一部分-英语课堂中的汉语使用

1. Are there any general recommendations or guidelines for teachers when it comes to the use

of Chinese in English class?

1当教师 在英语课堂中需要使用汉语时，是否有供他们参考的一般性建议或准则？

2. In English class, do you speak predominantly English or predominantly Chinese?

2. 在英语课上，你主要以英语还是汉语授课？

3. What is your opinion on the use of Chinese in the English classroom in general?

3. 请谈谈你对在英语课堂上教师普遍使用汉语授课的看法？

4. In what situations do you choose to speak Chinese in the classroom?

4. 你认为在什么情况下教师会在课堂上选择说汉语？

26

5. Are there situations or instances when you prefer to speak Chinese? When and why?

5. 你曾经是否有过在课堂上倾向于说汉语的情况，请详细说明时间及原因？

6. Are there advantages in using Chinese when teaching English?

6. 你认为教师用汉语讲授英语课程的优点是什么？

7. Are there times and situations when you prefer not to speak Chinese or try extra hard not

too? When and why?

7. 你是否有过在课堂教学中选择不使用汉语的情况？请注明具体时间和原因

8. Are there disadvantages in changing the language to Chinese when you teach?

8. 你认为在授课中将语言转换成汉语的弊端是什么？

9. Are there occasions when you plan on using Chinese in advance for a specific purpose in

class?

9. 你曾经在授课中有过为了特定的目的而刻意优先使用汉语的情况么？

11. Is your choice of language different if you are talking to the whole class or with a single

student?

11. 你在面对全班同学讲话和对个别学生讲话时，是否会选择不同的语言？

12. Is your choice of language different depending on which one of your classes you are

teaching?

12. 你是否会针对不同的班级选择不同的授课语言？

13. If yes, what is the reason for this?

13. 如果会，请说明原因

14. What language is predominantly used in your classrooms, English or Chinese?

14. 在你的课堂中主要使用的是哪一种语言，英语还是汉语？

15. Are there any advantages for the students when they switch to Chinese during class?

15. 你认为在课堂中学生将语言转换为汉语的优点是什么？

16. Are there any disadvantages for the students when they switch to Chinese during class?

16. 你认为在课堂中学生将语言转换为汉语的弊端是什么？

17. Are there situations when you encourage students to speak Chinese?

17. 你是否鼓励过学生在课堂中说汉语？

27

Part II – The usage of English in the English classroom.

第二部分—英语课堂中的英语使用

1. Are there any official guideline on how much you should use English in the English class-

room?

1. 英语课堂中的英语使用率是否有官方准则？

1.1. If yes, what do they say?

1.1．如果有，具体标准是什么？

1.2. If yes, do you agree with these guidelines?

1.2 如果有，你是否赞同？

1.3. If yes, do you try to follow them?

1.3 如果有，你是否尝试过遵循它？

1.4. If no, do you believe such guidelines would be helpful?

1.4 如果没有，你认为这样的准则是否会对英语教学提供帮助？

1.5. If no, how would you formulate such guidelines?

1.5 如果没有，你会怎样制定这样一个准则？

2. Are there situations when you prefer to speak English over Chinese in class? When and

why?

2.

你是否曾经有过在授课中英语使用率多于汉语的情况，如果有，请说明时间及原因？

3. What might be the advantages towards to using English in the English classroom?

3. 你认为在英语课堂中使用英语授课的好处是什么？

4. What might be the disadvantages to using English in the English classroom?

4. 你认为在英语课堂中使用英语授课的弊端是什么？

5. Are there situations when you encourage students to speak English?

5. 你是否鼓励过学生在课堂中说英语？

28

Appendix 2

Questions about code-switching in the English classroom

Hello!

My name is Rickard Nilsson and I am a studying to become an English teacher at Karlstad

University, in Sweden. However, I am currently in China participating in an exchange

program with a university in China. Here I am writing my thesis paper on the usage of code-

switching in the English foreign language classroom in which I wish to do a comparative

study between Sweden and China. Unfortunately, due to research limitations, I will not be

able to do one-to-one interviews with Swedish English teachers, as I would have hoped.

Instead, I am sending questions by e-mail to teachers who might be able to help me. I would

really appreciate if you would take the time to answer the following questions (and preferably

send them back to me before December 5). Thank you very much for your participation!

Please note that there are no right or wrong answers, so please answer with honesty. You may

choose to answer in English or Swedish, in the margins of this document or in a separate

document altogether. Both handwritten or computer typed answers are acceptable.

If you have any questions or wish to send the answers to me, please use the following e-mail

address:

Name: Rickard Nilsson

E-mail: rickardnilsson123@hotmail.com

___________________________________________________________________________

A definition of code-switching:

Sometimes in the language classroom, teachers may shift from one language to another in

their teaching (for example from English to Swedish). This phenomenon is called code-

switching which refers to the alternate use of the first language and the target language.

Background information:

Male ( ) Female ( )

What is your age? _____

What subjects (if any) do you teach beside English? _____________

How many years have you been a teacher? _____

What is your degree? ______________

29

Part I - The usage of Swedish in the English classroom.

1. In English class, do you speak predominantly English or predominantly Swedish?

2. What is your opinion on the use of Swedish in the English classroom in general?

3. In what situations do you choose to speak Swedish in the classroom?

4. Are there situations or instances when you prefer to speak Swedish? When and why?

5. Are there advantages in using Swedish when teaching English?

6. Are there times and situations when you prefer not to speak Swedish or try extra hard

not too? When and why?

7. Are there disadvantages in changing the language to Swedish when you teach?

30

8. Are there occasions when you plan on using Swedish in advance for a specific purpose

in class?

9. Is your choice of language different if you are talking to the whole class or with a

single student?

10. Is your choice of language different depending on which one of your classes you are

teaching?

11. -If yes, what is the reason for this?

12. Are there any advantages for the students when they switch to Swedish during class?

13. Are there any disadvantages for the students when they switch to Swedish during

class?

14. Are there situations when you encourage students to speak Swedish?

31

Part II – The usage of English in the English classroom.

15. Are there situations when you prefer to speak English over Swedish in class? When

and why?

16. What might be the advantages towards to using English in the English classroom?

17. What might be the disadvantages to using English in the English classroom?

18. Are there situations when you encourage students to speak English?

Thank you for your participation!