The International Journal of Communication and Linguistic Studies

ISSN: 2327-7882 (Print), ISSN: 2327-8617 (Online)

Volume 22, Issue 2, 2024
https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7882/CGP/v22i02/115-136

Original Research

Delving into the Functions of EFL Teachers’ Code-

Switching in University Classrooms: A Case Study

Rima Al-Essa, Al-Albayt University, Jordan

Received: 07/11/2023; Accepted: 12/01/2023; Published: 03/06/2024

Abstract: Code-switching (CS) is a very common practice in most bilingual or multilingual English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms. Over the last two decades, there has been a growing interest in CS.
The purpose of this study is to ascertain the current state of CS in EFL classrooms in Jordanian universities.
The study intends to determine how EFL teachers implement CS to make the teaching process easier. The
participants in this study were four EFL teachers and twelve undergraduate students from two Jordanian
universities. Data was collected through classroom observations and semistructured interviews and

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

analyzed using the content analysis technique to extract the key themes. The findings indicate that teachers
use CS in EFL classrooms occasionally and employ their first language (L1), Arabic, for a variety of social
and pedagogical reasons. They switch codes for repetition, clarification, recapitulation, and socialization to
help learners better comprehend the topic.

Keywords: EFL Classroom, Code-Switching, Arabic Context, Undergraduate Level, Jordan

Introduction
Over the past few decades, a controversy has raged over the use of L1 (native language) in the
L2 (target language) classrooms (Gutiérrez 2021). However, interest in this subject has
increased significantly. Scholars investigate this issue from the sociolinguistic (Auer 1988)
and pedagogical (Levine 2011) points of view. Studies reveal varied opinions from both
teachers and students regarding English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ classroom
code-switching (CS). Numerous scholars, even proponents of the monolingual approach to
language training, admit that CS occurs in all language classes where both teachers and
students use it for a variety of purposes (Kheder and Kaan 2021).
Notwithstanding the limitations on the use of L1 in many L2 classes worldwide and its
inescapable presence as just another medium available to instructors and students, it has
sparked a host of issues over how L2 learners and EFL instructors who share the same L1 may
truly manage the situation. Thus, in the classroom, the learners’ L1 might be likened to an
elephant in the room: we are aware of its presence but actively or subconsciously attempt to
ignore it (Levine 2013). Empirical studies are relatively rare in classroom CS in environments
where Arabic is the L1 of the learners. Nevertheless, some research (Alrabah et al. 2016;
Bahous, Nabhani, and Bacha 2014) has been undertaken on classroom CS from various

115
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

perspectives. This research obtains mixed results from both learners and instructors regarding
the use of learners’ native tongue, L1, in EFL classes (Mahmoud 2012).
Arabic, the country’s primary language, is spoken by most Jordanians. On the other hand,
English has growing importance as a foreign language (Najeeb 2013). English is a compulsory
subject at all levels of schools and serves as the medium of teaching in most Jordanian tertiary
education institutions (Hussein, Saed, and Haider 2020). Moreover, nowadays many Jordanian
students are pursuing higher studies abroad where classes are conducted entirely in English. To
meet this requirement, students need to take various English tests like IELTS, TOEFL, PTE, and
so forth. Hence, learning English is a growing trend in Jordan. To make students proficient in
L2 English, many Jordanian schools and universities have considered adopting English as their
medium of instruction. However, it was soon recognized that using English as the sole teaching
medium has a detrimental influence on students’ academic achievement. Nevertheless,
employing only Arabic proved unproductive due to a shortage of academic texts and resources.
As a result, bilingualism in Arabic and English was regarded as an initial step in the direction
of globalization (Tamtam et al. 2013).

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

Despite various efforts to enhance learners’ L2 skills, a significant proportion of students
still struggle with English proficiency, as is evident in their performance on entering. Due to
the lack of English language skills, students face challenges in utilizing instructional materials
and accessing information essential for their future careers (Alam et al. 2022). Nevertheless,
there is no prevailing negative opinion toward the English language; rather, Jordanians are
well aware of the necessity of learning English since it is the sole language of instruction used
for teaching science and technology–oriented subjects (Karakaya and Dikilitaş 2020).
In the context of Jordan (Hussein, Saed, and Haider 2020; Karakaya and Dikilitaş 2020)
have explored the CS tendencies of both teachers and students at different levels of education.
Most of these studies have focused on samples from the school levels and conducted
quantitative studies. Notably, only the study (Karakaya and Dikilitaş 2020) has delved into
CS tendencies of university EFL students and teachers, employing a quantitative approach.
Apart from the aforementioned issues, studies are rare in this regard and have been published
in an indexed and refereed journal.
Hence, taking all these issues into consideration, this empirical study intends to bridge
the gap in the literature by studying the current state of EFL instructors’ practice and views
on classroom CS between L1 (Arabic) and L2 (English) in two Jordanian universities. Its goal
is to look into how EFL teachers use CS to aid in the learning and teaching process.

The Key Concepts in CS

Repetition

Teachers utilize CS for reinforcement by repeating and emphasizing key concepts in both English
and the students’ native language, ensuring clarity and understanding (Puspawati 2018). In the

116
 AL-ESSA: DELVING INTO THE FUNCTIONS OF EFL TEACHERS’ CODE SWITCHING

context of vocabulary building, CS allows for the repetition of new words in both languages, aiding
in pronunciation and retention, especially beneficial for language learners (Domalewska 2015). In
grammar practice, teachers employ CS to repeat and practice specific sentence structures or
grammar rules, providing examples in both languages for reinforcement (Namaziandost, Neisi,
and Banari 2019). Instructions and task repetition involve using CS to repeat essential information,
ensuring students understand expectations. Questioning in both languages helps check
comprehension, while cultural repetition through CS emphasizes cultural context (Aljasir 2020).

Clarification

In EFL classrooms, CS can be effectively utilized for clarification in education. Teachers

employ CS as a strategic tool to enhance understanding, provide additional explanations, and
ensure clarity in communication (Hall and Cook 2013). By seamlessly moving between L1
and L2, teachers can offer concise explanations, define complex concepts, and address
potential misunderstandings. This approach aids in making the learning content more
accessible to students, particularly when faced with challenging or abstract ideas (Ma 2019).

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

Moreover, CS allows for the immediate clarification of instructions, ensuring that students
comprehend tasks and expectations (Raman and Yiğitoğlu 2018).

Recapitulation

CS can serve as a valuable tool for recapitulation in education. Teachers can strategically employ
CS to review and summarize key points covered in a lesson or a series of lessons (Simasiku 2016).
By seamlessly alternating between L1 and L2, teachers can reinforce important concepts, revisit
vocabulary, and clarify any lingering doubts or misconceptions (Raman and Yiğitoğlu 2018). This
CS strategy for recapitulation helps consolidate learning, ensuring that students have a
comprehensive understanding of the material. It can be particularly beneficial for reinforcing
complex topics or preparing students for assessments (Simasiku 2016).

Socialization

Teachers can use CS for fostering socialization and creating an inclusive learning
environment to facilitate communication and interaction among students, especially in
situations where learners share diverse linguistic backgrounds (Lin and Li 2012). By
incorporating the students’ native language alongside English, teachers promote a sense of
inclusivity, making students feel more comfortable and engaged in social interactions
(Sampurna 2023). This can enhance peer collaboration, encourage students to express
themselves more freely, and contribute to a positive classroom atmosphere (Lin and Li 2012).
Additionally, CS can be employed during group activities, discussions, or collaborative
projects, allowing students to share ideas, build relationships, and develop social and
language skills simultaneously (Shay 2015).

117
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

Background
Based on the existing literature, it is evident that several studies (Macaro and Tian 2015; Tian
and Macaro 2012; Thompson and Harrison 2014; Arpac 2016; Simasiku, Kasanda, and Smit
2015) have been carried out so far in different contexts to examine teachers’ CS in EFL
classrooms. These studies find a number of factors for teachers’ CS in EFL classrooms, including
the rational ground of CS, its rationality, and the outlook of learners toward the use of CS.

Views of Using Classroom CS by Instructors and Students

Numerous studies (Leoanak and Amalo 2018; Suteja and Purwanti 2017; Seymen-Bilgin 2016;
Ibrahim, Shah, and Armia 2013; Alrabah et al. 2016)—have been undertaken in a variety of
settings to ascertain students’ impressions about CS. Generally, both teachers and students have
positive intentions regarding the use of L1 in L2 classrooms to accelerate teaching and learning
quality. However, Cheng (2013) finds that most EFL teachers are not eager to use L1 although
they are compelled to use it for a better understanding of the learners. Furthermore, Hall and
Cook’s research (2013) surveyed 2,785 instructors from 111 countries. The findings revealed

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

extensive L1 use in ELT classrooms. Teachers stated that students feel comfortable when they
use L1 to explain ambiguous grammatical forms and complex lexical items. Nonetheless,
Cheng (2013) stressed that despite its widespread acceptance, L1 should be used only to teach
challenging grammar rules and complex language concepts.

Reasons and Rational Grounds for EFL Teachers’ CS Tendency

Numerous studies have been conducted in a variety of linguistic settings to assess the
functional allocation and logical grounds for using L1 in L2 classrooms. Studies (Cahyani, de
Courcy, and Barnett 2018) in the context of Indonesia (Alrabah et al. 2016), in the context of
Arabic-speaking countries (Sali 2014), and in the context of Turkey surveyed a varied group
of teachers and students. According to prevailing research, teachers commonly use learners’
L1 in L2 classes for educational, social, and managerial goals.
The findings of Gulzar’s (2010) study emphasized the importance of CS in Pakistani EFL
classrooms. Gulzar noted that participants prioritized a variety of tasks, including
explanation, effective teaching, interpretation, socialization, repetition, and subject change.
Likewise, Bensen and Çavuşoğlu (2013) observed that instructors coded for subject switching,
emotional, and repetitive roles in EFL classrooms in North Cyprus. Also, Ma (2019) examined
the several purposes for which L1 is used by teachers and students at the primary level with
elder migrants in the Australian context and found that teachers made frequent use of L1 for
both instructional and social reasons. They also claimed that it governed classroom behavior.
The teachers used L1 to give instructions, elicit responses, and explain things. Students, on
the other hand, used it to ask questions, explain why they didn’t have the necessary L2 skills,
and provide peer assistance.

118
 AL-ESSA: DELVING INTO THE FUNCTIONS OF EFL TEACHERS’ CODE SWITCHING

Other studies, on the other hand, have concentrated on the feasibility and usefulness of
CS in EFL classrooms through various lenses (Bensen and Çavuşoğlu 2013; Macaro 2009;
Zhu and Vanek 2017; Bahous, Nabhani, and Bacha 2014; Zhao and Macaro 2016). The
findings of all these studies have been positive with regard to using CS, with no indication
that teachers’ use of CS is harmful to the understanding of L2. Instead, they have emphasized
the possible decline in cognitive and metacognitive chances of learners if the use of L1 is
completely eliminated from the L2 classrooms (Macaro 2009). In the existing literature, most
of the scholars have integrated the job of teachers’ CS with other factors. For example, Grant
and Nguyen (2017) examine the awareness of EFL teachers in terms of using CS in
classrooms, Sali (2014) explores teachers’ ideologies, teachers’ identities have been integrated
by the study of Raman and Yiğitoğlu (2018), and Horasan (2014) investigates teachers’
perspectives on using L1 in L2 classrooms.
As per Grant and Nguyen (2017), CS can be a beneficial tactic in an EFL classroom when
employed judiciously and purposefully, but it does not provide any benefit when it is used
frequently as a common phenomenon. The findings of Seymen-Bilgin (2016) connected the

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

CS of Turkish students and teachers to a variety of dimensions, such as teacher identity,
viewpoints, and professionalism. Alrabah et al. (2016) investigated the roles and purposes of
EFL teachers’ intention to CS in the Arabic context and found that, despite teachers’ negative
outlook toward using L1 in L2 classrooms, they are sometimes compelled to use it for
managerial and pedagogical purposes.

The Theoretical Grounds of CS

Three theoretical perspectives, according to Macaro (2009), indicate the facilitative effect of
EFL teachers’ CS in L2 classrooms. These are sociocultural theory (SCT), cognitive processing
theory (CPT), and the phenomenon of “code-switching in a naturalistic environment.” Based
on the notion of CPT, language is viewed, stored, and processed in the same way as other
types of information are viewed and stored (Ellis 2005). The lexical items and other parts of
both L1 and L2 get activated and turn into long-term memory. When a bilingual speaker
attempts to use any of the languages, either L1 or L2, they can remember both from their
memory. SCT, on the other hand, integrates the individual effort and the social setting in
which learning takes place (Antón and Dicamilla 2002).
The theory of CS in “naturalistic contexts” is a third framework that highlights the
benefits of L1 usage in L2 classrooms when CS happens in non-formal and non-instructional
circumstances (Macaro 2009). In terms of other bilingual settings, students may use two or
more languages in order to meet the purpose of their language learning. Therefore,
comparable to natural contexts, whether or if CS of EFL teachers is to focus on the language
itself is less certain. For this reason, finding similarities is critical if the goal is to remove from
several types of teachers’ use of the first language, a mainly negative connotation of

119
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

“unfortunate recourse to the first language,” and substitute it with the more positive view of
CS (Macaro 2009). The consequence is that an environment that recognizes and values an
individual’s first language proficiency may have a substantial effect on their attitude toward
the acquisition of L2 and may serve as a motivation. According to Levine (2011, 5), “the
moment has come to build a principled multilingual method to language classroom
communication.” The theoretical perspectives described earlier provided a reason for the use
of CS by EFL teacher’s CS for teaching L2 and the factors that contribute to it for a range of
educational and social reasons. Evaluating all the related issues of EFL teachers’ CS in L2
classrooms, the following questions serve as the foundation for achieving the study’s goals:

▪ RQ1: What are the purposes of the instructors’ CS in undergraduate EFL courses in
Jordan?
▪ RQ2: What are the instructors’ perspectives on the possibility of using CS in
Jordanian EFL undergraduate classrooms?
▪ RQ3: What are the opinions of Jordanian EFL undergraduate students’ toward
instructors’ CS?

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

Method

The study employs a qualitative case study to attain its objectives. A qualitative approach is
often used in educational research because it may disclose nuances and subtleties that other
methods miss (Fraenkel, Wallen, and Hyun 1993). As a result, this study employed an
exploratory qualitative method to examine how university professors code-switch for a
multitude of pedagogical and social tasks using their available language repertoires.

Participants

This qualitative study was done to ascertain the current state of CS tendency, in general, and to
have an in-depth understanding of teachers’ CS, in particular, in EFL undergraduate classes in
Jordanian tertiary institutions. In order to gather data, classroom observations as well as both
instructors’ and students’ interviews were considered. Four EFL teachers and twelve students
from two universities in Jordan were among the participants. Following the classroom
observation, all the interviews were conducted with twelve students and four instructors. The
study’s participants were chosen by voluntary sampling (Zoltán 2007). However, when
selecting participants, the variations and grade levels of ELT subjects were considered.

Materials

After obtaining consent from both participating students and instructors, data collection was
carried out. For each instructor, the researchers observed two classes, and both the class
sessions were audio-recorded. After every classroom observation, the researchers conducted

120
 AL-ESSA: DELVING INTO THE FUNCTIONS OF EFL TEACHERS’ CODE SWITCHING

semistructured interviews with the teachers and three willing students from each class. The
interviews were conducted in both English and Arabic, depending on the preferences of the
participants. Both L1 and L2 were used for interviews considering respondents’ preferences.
For data analysis, the Arabic versions of the interviews, on the other hand, were translated
into English after transcription. A classroom observation checklist was used to record and
observe approximately fifteen teaching hours in order to better understand how teachers and
students interact in the classroom. The study’s overall goal was to observe how instructors
utilize CS to address communicative and pedagogical challenges.

Procedure

To uncover the most prevalent traits and phenomena, audio recordings of class sessions,
interviews with instructors, and interviews with students were transcribed and analyzed. The
data was analyzed and coded using the research questions as a guide. The current study’s
analytical framework was built on three core elements: Gibson and Brown’s (2009) thematic
framework, Myers-Scotton’s (1997) Myers-Scotton’s Matrix Language Frame (MLF), and

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

Ferguson’s (2009) theoretical framework for classroom CS functions. The perceptions of
teachers and students were studied using a thematic analysis framework. The functions of CS
were examined on the basis of Ferguson’s theoretical framework, and the MLF was deployed
to determine the main language used in the classroom.
Thematic analysis is a method for analyzing qualitative data, including interview
transcripts and observation of classrooms, in order to find common traits, relationships, and
dissimilarities among them (Gibson and Brown 2009). “The term ‘thematic’ refers to the goal
of finding aggregated themes within information” (Gibson and Brown 2009, 127). Since data
was collected through interviews and classroom observations, a thematic analysis approach
was used to investigate instructors’ and students’ viewpoints on CS in order to identify
similarities and dissimilarities between their actual practice and beliefs. This analytic
technique was mostly used to address the second and third study goals, comparing the motifs
identified in the multiple data sources.
The study (Ferguson 2009) classified instructors’ classroom CS into three basic groups:
(a) CS for classroom management, (b) CS for knowledge construction and transmission, and
(c) CS for interpersonal connections. The CS behaviors of instructors and learners were
emphasized through the use of classroom recording transcripts, and all CS incidents were
documented and categorized according to their possible roles and causes. Following an
examination of learners’ and instructors’ use of classroom CS, the administrative,
pedagogical, and interpersonal functions of teachers’ CS were studied using Ferguson’s
theoretical framework (Ferguson 2009). The recorded cases of teachers’ CS were classified
using this taxonomy in light of the Jordanian context. Ferguson’s functional categories of
classroom CS are appropriate for this study since they are developed depending on a set of

121
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

empirical studies that provide actual data on classroom CS in a number of geographical and
educational contexts. Hence, the framework by (Ferguson 2009) was deployed to gain the
objective of the first research question.
Additionally, interview transcripts were coded according to the reported functions, causes,
and participants’ perceptions of CS. Comparing data from both sources aided in discovering
possible CS themes by detecting commonalities and variations in the information supplied by
participants. The MLF technique of (Myers-Scotton 1997) presupposes that one of the CS
languages is more prevalent than another. This is referred to as a “Matrix Language” (ML), while
the less prevalent language is referred to as an “Embedded Language” (EL). The EL components
are placed into the morphosyntactic frame of the ML. For instance, if English is the ML and Arabic
is the EL, the syntactic structure of English is employed with Arabic lexical items. This study has
considered the MLF module to detect the teacher’s usage of classroom CS and to detect the EL
and ML. To retain anonymity, “T” for teachers and “S” for students were considered.

Results

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

The data analysis found that in EFL undergraduate courses in Jordan, the L2 (English) was
mostly employed as a medium of instruction. The observations also revealed that the teachers
mostly employed L2 in the classroom to explain courses. Nonetheless, they shifted to Arabic
(learners’ L1) for certain restricted purposes. It was also discovered that both instructors and
learners had favorable views on the teacher’s CS feasibility. Similarly, the results from the
teacher interviews revealed a preference for using L2 as the primary medium of teaching,
with L1 (Arabic) as a backup. The following is a statement of one of the teachers: “Absolutely,
yes, I believe we should switch to learners’ L1. However, we use English most of the time
since it is the language of instruction” (T3).
The foregoing snippet demonstrates that L2 was primarily employed in the classroom as
a medium of teaching. However, the teacher asserted that in some unavoidable
circumstances, it is important to switch to L1.
For educational and interpersonal reasons, both the instructors and the learners used
their native language (Arabic). Teachers code-switched 209 times for different functions at
different class levels and subjects, as shown in Table 1. Such functions were categorized into
two primary functional groups based on Ferguson’s description of classroom CS functions
(Ferguson’s 2009). The first is CS, which is used to create and disseminate knowledge.
Clarification, Repetition, and Recapitulation are the three instructional roles covered by this
category. The second is CS for interpersonal connections, and this category reflects the
Socialization function.

122
 AL-ESSA: DELVING INTO THE FUNCTIONS OF EFL TEACHERS’ CODE SWITCHING

Table 1: EFL Teachers’ Classroom CS for Various Functional Purposes

Instructors’ ID Class Level Class Code Repetition Clarification Recapitulation Socialization
2nd year Class I 5 9 2 7
T1
3rd year Class II 4 7 1 9
1st year Class I 9 12 5 15
T2
4th year Class II 2 4 0 3
4th year Class I 3 7 1 5
T3
2nd year Class II 6 13 3 8
3rd year Class I 8 12 0 2
T4
1st year Class II 11 19 6 11
Total 48 83 18 60

The functions of Repetition and Clarification were the most prevalent functions of the
instructors’ CS, as seen in the table. There were, however, times when CS was used for social
or interpersonal purposes. Teachers primarily utilized the student’s first language to provide
further explanations and to establish relationships with the pupils. Some teachers also
employed the Recapitulation mechanism for specialized objectives.

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

Repetition

Based on the data of classroom observation, teachers considered L1 to confirm whether

learning was taking place in L2 in the classroom. It was done to gauge the pupils’ self-
assurance. Although students are not required to translate, teachers do it in order to assess
their own performance. Instructors took a book and called students to first read it written in
their L1 and then told them to translate it into L2. As noticed, one of the teachers mixed both
L1 and L2 to provide more opportunities for repetition: “I use a bilingual dictionary in the
classroom, and I ask my students to take help from the book when I feel learners need help
if the topics are repeated several times in a mixed language” (T1).
The EFL instructors used L1 to repeat some familiar L2 words in the preceding example.
To repeat the L2 concepts in L1, they employed extremely brief utterances such as single words
and sentences. However, it is worth noting that the data from the teacher interviews had no
indication of the aforesaid function. The instructors said they code-switched for an explanation,
recapitulation, and socializing but didn’t say if they used L1 for repeating the topic.

Clarification

Often, teachers opted to switch to the learners’ L1 to elaborate on certain issues. Based on the
research findings, the most plausible reason for CS (use of L1) by teachers is to help students
grasp confusing topics, which is termed “clarification.” Teachers mostly utilized L2 but
shifted to L1 if it was deemed necessary for students to understand complex topics. One of
the lecturers, for example, shifted to L1 to elucidate a theoretical underpinning:

123
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

I’ll attempt to describe this in Arabic to help you understand. My goal is to make
you understand the main idea of the theory, rather than to teach the target grammar.
First of all, you need to understand the main concept of the theory, then I will teach
you grammar from this. (T1)

The instructor began by explaining the point in L2 using basic terms, then repeated
particular sentences to disseminate the meaning, before switching to L1 to make it simpler
for the pupils to comprehend what he meant. Thus, learners’ L1 or teachers’ CS is used in the
classroom to clarify complex topics. The analysis of the interview data showed that when the
instructor described various features of the usage and structure of language or sought to
compare the two languages, L1 was occasionally employed for clarification.

When I teach linguistics classes, I occasionally need to explain some topics in Arabic
if I wish to demonstrate their various types of usage. For instance, if I need to clarify
a point relating to phonetics or syntax, I need to show a comparison between
sentences from learners’ L1 and L2. (T4)

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

The aforementioned statement shows that the teacher made a case for CS. He explained
that some complex topics like linguistics necessitate the use of complex terminologies that are
difficult for pupils to grasp. As a result, the students’ L1 was employed to solve the problem.
The students’ interview data also suggested that they needed to transition to L1 to illustrate
certain difficult inputs in L2. In L2, instructors’ input might be complicated and demanding at
times. As a result, the students need the teachers’ CS in order to comprehend the difficult topic
in L1. One of the students states: “However, there are occasions when it is necessary to switch
to Arabic to convey something that is tough for us to grasp in L2” (S6). According to the
preceding excerpt, the pupils need the teacher’s CS to explain various aspects of the lecture.

Recapitulation

Teachers considered CS to summarize detailed input in L2 in several cases. They sought to

summarize the key themes of the lesson in L1 (Arabic) after providing the lesson explanation
in L2 (English). They did so in order for pupils to comprehend the primary principles
provided in L2. As a result, when required, the teachers recapped the main themes of the
lesson either in class or afterward informally. After a lengthy elucidation in L2, the instructor
described the major aspects of the conversation in the native language so that learners may
reorganize their thoughts and improve their learning, as noticed in the following excerpt
from the classroom observation. This instructor CS function is frequently linked to a debate
on the language itself. It’s utilized for meta-language functions, in other words: “That is all.
Okay. (Then started using L1) In general, we’ve already grasped this important topic of
grammar; types of the verb, and we’ve discovered that each study is tailored to a certain
portion of verbs. (then L2) OK! So let’s move on to the next section…” (T4).

124
 AL-ESSA: DELVING INTO THE FUNCTIONS OF EFL TEACHERS’ CODE SWITCHING

The following excerpt from the instructors’ interviews highlights a few reasons why teachers
chose to adopt L1. For individuals who might have trouble understanding the intended message
in English, an instructor described it in L1: “My dear students, I’m going to talk in Arabic for the
last few minutes of my presentation simply to make sure that everyone understands” (T2).
Some lecturers employed the CS approach to provide pupils with a quick overview of
the primary concept in L1 (Arabic). The teachers’ goal in using this strategy was to keep L1
as a teaching medium while guaranteeing that all pupils received the main message of the
topic. As a result, instructors tend to use one of the CS functions, Repetition, Clarification,
and Recapitulation, to handle pedagogical challenges.
Socialization
Besides the pedagogical benefits of CS in EFL classrooms mentioned previously, the function
of Socialization is particularly visible at the start and at the end of class sessions, when
greetings and casual contact take place between instructors and learners in Arabic. However,
it was shown that this function happened only during class when professors gave directions
and engaged in casual interactions. L1 has a cultural and social influence on classroom

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

engagement, as shown in the following excerpt. Both professors and students chose to utilize
their L1 to greet one another and engage in casual conversation:

T2: How are you doing, my boys?

S: Fine. How are you, teacher?
T2: Fine too. Where is S2?
S2: I am here in the back (in Arabic).
T2: Oh, I see. Are you okay? So let’s start our lesson today (in Arabic)

In the following example, instructors use Arabic informally for social interactional
exchanges. The teacher stated: “Dear students, take your grammar book” (Starts in L1).
“Today, we will learn the most important topic, which is parts of speech. I expect your full
concentration” (T4). The results from the interviews with the instructors and learners
corroborated the findings of the classroom observation. Regardless of the pupils’ competency
in L2, the instructors mostly agreed that they employed L1 in the classroom for urgent social
requirements. Before beginning a class session, both professors and students use Arabic as a
means of welcoming one another. Furthermore, for interpersonal reasons, some professors
opt to transition to L1: “Some students arrive late frequently, so instead of commenting or
even providing directions in English to warn them, I occasionally comment in Arabic” (T3).
Similarly, students showed their preference for using Arabic instead of English with their
teachers for informal conversations: “Most of the time in the classroom I use English, but
with one of my very friendly teachers, I use both Arabic and English based on my comfort
zone” (S10). This excerpt demonstrates the pupils’ propensity for personal interactions in
their L1 (Arabic). Despite the fact that S10 claims to prefer using English in the classroom,

125
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

he claims that Arabic is his preferred language for conversing with a friendly instructor since
he feels more at ease using L1 in informal conversation.
Based on the findings of the data analysis, it was discovered that teachers’ CS was utilized
for four distinct purposes in undergraduate EFL courses at Jordanian universities:
Clarification, Repetition, Recapitulation, and Socialization. Socialization is used for building
interpersonal relations, while the other three are used for pedagogical purposes.

Instructors’ Outlook on the Feasibility of Classroom CS

Other noteworthy characteristics of the instructors’ opinions of classroom CS and the use of
Arabic in EFL courses at the undergraduate level in Jordanian universities were revealed
through the analysis of the teachers’ interviews. Teachers expressed a preference for using L2
as a medium of teaching in the classroom. They were, nevertheless, enthusiastic about using
L1 for certain and restricted purposes. They think that in the classroom, L2 should be the
primary language of teaching. Nonetheless, they recognized the importance of a teacher’s CS
for some social and pedagogical reasons.

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

L2 has been dominantly used as a medium of teaching. In their EFL lessons, all of the
instructors acknowledged that English was the primary language of instruction. However,
they only shifted to the students’ L1 for the explanation, a case repeated in rare situations:
“It’s difficult to say, but I’d guess 70 percent. It also relies on the setting, or more precisely,
the circumstances. You may find yourself realizing the need to use the L1 on occasion, but I
prefer to use English most of the time” (T1).
Some teachers have calculated that the rate of L2 usage in EFL courses is more than 70
percent. However, L1 was admittedly employed in some circumstances for inescapable
reasons. Although the projected percentage was not calculated using a statistical parameter,
it was assumed by the findings of classroom observations and teachers’ interviews.

Positive versus Negative Effects of Classroom CS

Even though the instructors switched to Arabic from English to address pedagogical
challenges and achieve social goals, they believe English (L2) should be used primarily as a
medium of teaching. The majority of the instructors stated that L1 was an essential available
resource that might compensate for the failure of L2 to deliver a desired message. They
suggested, however, that relying more on L1 will keep learners away from improving their
L2 proficiency: “I always believe learners should speak in L2, but in some cases, I prefer using
L1, as I previously stated, because it is required. However, if it is used more frequently, then
there is, of course, a problem. Learners’ L2 learning will be hindered” (T4). The foregoing
statement demonstrates the instructors’ belief in and approval of the use of Arabic to address
instructional challenges and achieve other social objectives. However, they were aware of its
overuse, which they believed may generate pedagogical issues.

126
 AL-ESSA: DELVING INTO THE FUNCTIONS OF EFL TEACHERS’ CODE SWITCHING

Outlook and Responses of Learners toward Teachers’ CS Attitude

The interview of the students was analyzed to reveal their attitude toward speaking English
in the classroom. The findings show that students preferred to communicate in English
instead of Arabic. They felt that in order to develop their language abilities, English learners
needed to practice the target language since English is not frequently used outside of the
classroom. Hence, students regarded it as an opportunity to perfect their second language:

S3: In the classroom, we must speak in English.

S5: We are here to learn English. So, we should use English always in our classroom
conversations. We will not be able to learn it until we practice it.

The aforementioned statement shows students’ motivation to speak L2 in the classroom as

Jordanian people rarely use it in their daily lives. However, pupils may feel compelled to
switch to L1 in order to comprehend some foreign L2 words and idioms. The following
excerpt exemplifies this desire: “Sometimes, I feel compelled to utilize Arabic when the topic

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

seems to be difficult for me” (S9).
Most of the students, on the other hand, had favorable impressions of their teachers’
classroom CS. They felt that using L1 aids in the acquisition of new vocabulary as well as the
comprehension and simplicity of new grammatical rules. Based on the findings of classroom
observations, teachers played an active role in the class, while learners were remained passive
listeners. Hence, the teacher’s job was to make them understand the topic clearly. So the
teacher needed to use Arabic, and students also replied in L1 to the teacher’s queries. When
learners have trouble forming an answer in the target language, they resort to Arabic, as
shown by the following conversation between students and an instructor:

T4: Okay, then let me explain the difference between day and night in Arabic. Can
anyone of you tell me before I tell you?
S11: Night, it’s…(started in L1) Is it possible for me to say it in L1?
T4: Sure. But try answering in L2 first.

This conversation illustrates the student’s L2 limitation, forcing him/her to use L1 to respond
to the instructor’s question. The teacher, on the other hand, insisted on using L2 initially. In
L2, the student grasped the teacher’s input but struggled to provide output in L2. After failing
to answer in L2, the student requested that the teacher enable him to answer in Arabic.
Similarly, findings of the students’ interviews revealed that using L2 in the classroom was their
favorite option. They discussed some of the tactics they used in this regard. Requesting the
teacher to describe the entire lecture in L1 was one of the options recommended. They only
went to L1 after exhausting all other options in L2. Students used several ways to aid
comprehension through L2 before resorting to L1 as the last resort, as reflected by the following

127
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

statement of a student: “We sometimes record the classroom, listen, and try to obtain a better
understanding…I occasionally ask my classmates to explain the topic to me, or I seek
clarification from the teacher after class” (S7). This statement outlines the students’ probable
solutions for overcoming learning problems in understanding the teacher’s input in L2. Self-
help, peer-help, and teacher-help are all examples of such tactics. The students preferred L2 for
their understanding, while L1 came in as a last resort to gain proper comprehension.
Finally, it was discovered that students in EFL undergraduate courses in Jordan had a positive
response and outlook on the instructors’ CS. Despite their preference for using L2 (English) in
their classroom, they occasionally had to use L1 (Arabic) for social and pedagogical reasons.

Discussion and Conclusion

CS is unavoidable in bilingual classrooms when both learners and instructors speak the same
language. The data gathered from interviews and classroom observations demonstrated that
teachers use CS for a variety of objectives in this study. Teachers and students were more
likely to use L2 instead of L1. Teachers and students, on the other hand, saw the teacher’s CS

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

as a crucial instrument for facilitating the learning process.

Reasons for Instructors’ CS

Based on the study by Ferguson (2009), the teacher’s CS has a wide range of educational roles
that are differently termed. The study found that the instructors’ CS had four goals:
explaining new ideas, summarizing a given topic in L1, repeating L2 short sentences, and
sharing informal discussions and greetings with learners. These goals were classified as
Clarification, Repetition, Recapitulation, and Socialization. Clearly, the first three functions
relate to Ferguson’s first functional classification of instructors’ CS, “constructing and
conveying knowledge.” However, the fourth one falls within the third classification, “CS for
interpersonal connections” (Ferguson 2009).
In Muthusamy et al. (2020), the factors that influence CS in a Malaysian college setting
were investigated. Their findings revealed that students’ limited proficiency in L2 was the
primary driver of CS. Additionally, maintaining privacy, perceived ease of communication
in L1, avoiding potential misunderstandings, and unfamiliarity with English vocabulary
contributed to CS behavior.
The context in Macaro (2013) defines “maximal” as the state in which teachers employ
L1 due to students’ low language proficiency. The teacher was aware that the students lacked
sufficient vocabulary and that the material’s content was difficult for them to grasp.
Therefore, CS was deemed preferable to adhering solely to the English-only mandate.
Except for the function of “Repetition,” all of the functions were validated by the
instructors in their report on the key reasons for CS. Such a function was not shown in the
analysis of teacher interviews. This suggests that rather than adopting an intentional teaching

128
 AL-ESSA: DELVING INTO THE FUNCTIONS OF EFL TEACHERS’ CODE SWITCHING

approach, the teachers employed L1 instinctively and often owing to habitual factors. That
was driven more by an emotive factor connected to the teacher’s qualifications and experience
than by the requirements of the pupils. According to Grant and Nguyen (2017), emotive
factors can have a greater influence on instructors’ CS than pedagogical factors. For example,
Bahous, Nabhani, and Bacha (2014) discovered that tertiary-level lecturers were uninformed
of their CS and were hence unclear of the role of L1. The students, on the other hand, were
more alert, and they claimed to have used L1 to boost their learning. CS may be utilized
effectively in EFL classes only when it is done strategically and consciously rather than
automatically and routinely (Grant and Nguyen 2017).
The teachers used CS to explain challenging L2 information to their pupils, as found in
the classroom observation. This was mentioned by instructors in the interviews. Teachers
claimed that they were compelled to use CS according to the demands of the students. In L2,
the pupils struggled to grasp new language items and complex ideas, as noted by many studies
(Bensen and Çavuşoğlu 2013; Zhu and Vanek 2017). Cahyani, de Courcy, and Barnett (2018)
claimed that when the focus was on the topic content rather than the language itself, the

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

instructors’ CS helped students grasp new ideas.
Moreover, Macaro (2009) stated that teachers’ use of CS is logical since they were
required to offer L1 counterparts for L2 lexical items. He also stated that teachers’ CS aided
students’ conceptual learning since both L1 and L2 lexical elements are engaged in long-term
memory, allowing for better understanding.
Although prior research (Gulzar 2010) showed the functions of Repetition, Clarification,
and Socialization, this study revealed the function of “Recapitulation” as a comparatively
distinct function. Although it appears to be a novel method of explanation, this function is
carried out in a unique way. The teacher’s aim to guarantee that the learners comprehend the
given topic in both L1 and L2 can be ascribed to this. This method also allows learners to be
exposed to L2 in the classroom while also allowing them to use their own L1 repertoire to
make their learning process smoother.
Similarly, Nurhamidah, Fauziati, and Supriyadi (2018) confirmed that CS was beneficial
as it served some functions for teachers to convey material and for students to receive material
and communicate in the classroom.
Another study by Bhatti, Shamsudin, and Said (2018) revealed that teachers code-switched to
maintain discipline, translate new words, and build solidarity and intimate relationships with the
students before, during, and after the lessons. The study explored that CS took place in different
situations in the teaching of grammar, in explaining difficult concepts, and in repeating
instructions to those who had difficulty in understanding in the target language.
Similarly to the findings of our study, Yildiz and Su-Bergil (2021) reported that the
teachers’ efforts to make the lesson simpler and more understandable influence their use of
the mother tongue in a foreign language learning setting. Other factors forcing teachers to
use L1 in lessons are the difficulties posed by grammar rules for students, the difficulty of

129
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

learning vocabulary in the L2, and the inability to practice the language due to the exam-
oriented language teaching curriculum.
The role of socialization may be understood in terms of the SCT, which considers
bilingual students as simultaneous users of both languages to assist the process of learning.
CS is an embedded feature of social contact when it comes to this problem. As a result, it
would be immature to dismiss L1 as a viable mode of social interaction. Teachers in the
current study said they used L1 (Arabic) for interactional and social reasons. Conveying
greetings, for example, is an essential part of Arabic society, and L1 is intimately linked to
this sociocultural phenomenon. Both instructors and students have an inherent impulse to
greet each other in L1, and these findings are supported by the study of Macaro (2005), which
claimed that teachers and students use L1 for social interaction and for understanding
difficult topics. Findings of Cahyani, de Courcy, and Barnett (2018) also supported the notion
that L1 is used for instructional, managerial, emotional, and interpersonal interactions.
Alrabah et al. (2016) also noted that L1 can be used for the purpose of classroom
management. They also studied the emotional, psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic aspects

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

that influence the instructors to switch to L1 from L2 in the classroom.
Teachers in Jordan saw classroom interaction as a unique opportunity for pupils to
develop their L2 skills because L2 is not commonly used outside the classroom as a form of
communication. As a result, they shifted to the students’ L1 only when they felt it was
necessary. Hence, in Jordanian EFL undergraduate classrooms, English is the ML and Arabic
the EL, as in the model of Myers-Scotton’s MLF (Myers-Scotton 1997).

Attitudes of Learners and Teachers to Classroom CS

The findings of the study revealed that the students had a favorable attitude regarding
teachers’ classroom CS, as noted by very many studies (Suteja and Purwanti 2017; Leoanak
and Amalo 2018; Ibrahim, Shah, and Armia 2013).In fact, Yildiz and Su-Bergil (2021)
revealed that students welcomed the teachers’ CS efforts in English lessons, and the teachers
advocated the balanced conduct of language switching, especially in terms of communication
skills. The study by Alrabah et al. (2016) showed that teachers use L1 to manage classroom
activities, with favorable learning results.
However, overuse of L1 in the L2 classroom, according to the instructors in this study, is
detrimental to students’ success and competency in L2. As a result, when alternative tactics failed
to deliver the intended message in L2, L1 was used as a last resort. These findings supported
Macaro’s idea of “optimal use” of instructor CS to increase the L2 learning process (Macaro 2009).
Students also demonstrate their support for CS due to its significant benefits. The study
(Sert 2005) indicates that students tend to code-switch because they lack the ability to utilize
the target language to clarify specific words in their first language. Consequently, the study
revealed that students would opt for L1 over L2 to explain certain challenging terms or

130
 AL-ESSA: DELVING INTO THE FUNCTIONS OF EFL TEACHERS’ CODE SWITCHING

because they were unfamiliar with the corresponding English term, necessitating the switch.
In interactions with teachers or peers, students also employed CS as a means of bridging the
gap in conveying their emotions or messages.
According to Mujiono et al. (2013), classroom members tend to code-switch based on
their feelings. Based on this finding, students responded to the teacher using their L1 because
the teacher expressed herself using L1, and this pattern also applied among peers. They used
the same language to respond to each other’s feelings. This is also in accordance with a shared
cultural background or identity. Students and the teacher shared the use of L1 to
communicate during the teaching and learning process.
Several studies revealed that the shared identity led learners and teachers to code-switch
in the classroom setting. They would talk freely with their friends from the same cultural
background and express their identities through their L1 (Azlan and Narasuman 2013; Gu
and Benson 2014; Jiang, García, and Willis 2014; Uys and van Dulm 2011).
The results of this study, as well as a review of the literature, demonstrated the critical, but
often underestimated, role of L1 in foreign language classes. Learning is aided when L1 is

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

purposefully used in L2 classrooms in a limited zone. The fact that both learners and instructors
have a favorable outlook toward using teachers’ CS in L2 classrooms suggests that the L2 learning
process will not be fully comprehended by the learners unless L1 contributes meaningfully.
Among the many inferences that may be drawn from the findings of this research, the
first, and most crucial, is that instructors’ knowledge of the usefulness of classroom CS must
be enhanced with a focus on its functional effect in assisting learners to better understand
complex topics. Second, the teacher’s CS mediates rather than interrupts students’ acquisition
of L2. Finally, social communication is a natural element of the learning and teaching
process, and CS is a common feature of that communication. Further experimental studies
are needed to test the efficacy of how instructors use CS for various reasons in the context of
Arab countries to fully explore the potential of CS in L2 classrooms.

AI Acknowledgment

The author acknowledges the use of Bing AI (https://www.bing.com/) to check and correct
grammar and for proofreading throughout the article.

Informed Consent

The author has obtained informed consent from all participants.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

131
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

REFERENCES

Alam, Md Rabiul, Diana Ansarey, Huzaina Abdul Halim, Md Masud Rana, Md Rashed Khan
Milon, and Rabeya Khatun Mitu. 2022. “Exploring Bangladeshi University Students’
Willingness to Communicate (WTC) in English Classes through a Qualitative
Study.” Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education 7 (2): 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00129-6.
Aljasir, Nouf. 2020. “Arabic-English Code-Switching in Saudi Arabia: Exploring Bilinguals’
Behavior and the Individual Factors Influencing It.” Arab Journal for Scientific
Publishing 24 (2): 1–15.
Alrabah, Sulaiman, Shu-hua Wu, Abdullah Alotaibi, and Hussein Aldaihani. 2016. “English
Teachers’ Use of Learners’ L1 (Arabic) in College Classrooms in Kuwait.” English
Language Teaching 9 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n1p1.
Antón, Marta, and Frederick J. Dicamilla. 2002. “Socio‐Cognitive Functions of L1
Collaborative Interaction in the L2 Classroom.” Modern Language Journal 83 (2):
233–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00018.

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

Arpac, Dilara. 2016. “The Effects of Accessing L1 versus L2 Definitional Glosses on L2
Learners’ Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary Learning.” Eurasian Journal of
Applied Linguistics 2 (1): 15–29. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.460988.
Auer, Peter. 1988. “A Conversation Analytic Approach to Code-Switching and Transfer.” In
Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives, edited by Monica
Heller, 187–213. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Azlan, Ismail, and Suthagar Narasuman. 2013. “The Role of Code-Switching as a
Communicative Tool in an ESL Teacher Education Classroom.” Procedia—Social and
Behavioral Sciences 90:458–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.115.
Bahous, Rima N., Mona Baroud Nabhani, and Nahla Nola Bacha. 2014. “Code-Switching in
Higher Education in a Multilingual Environment: A Lebanese Exploratory Study.”
Language Awareness 23 (4): 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.828735.
Bensen, Hanife, and Cise Çavuşoğlu. Cise. 2013. “Reasons for the Teachers’ Uses of Code
Switching in Adult EFL Classrooms.” Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 2:69–82.
Bhatti, Aisha, Sarimah Shamsudin, and Seriaznita Said. 2018. “Code-Switching: A Useful
Foreign Language Teaching Tool in EFL Classrooms.” English Language Teaching 11
(6): 93–101. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n6p93.
Cahyani, Hilda, Michele de Courcy, and Jenny Barnett. 2018. “Teachers’ Code-Switching in
Bilingual Classrooms: Exploring Pedagogical and Sociocultural Functions.”
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 21 (4): 465–479.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1189509.

132
 AL-ESSA: DELVING INTO THE FUNCTIONS OF EFL TEACHERS’ CODE SWITCHING

Cheng, Xiaoli. 2013. “Research on Chinese College English Teachers’ Classroom Code-
Switching: Beliefs and Attitudes.” Journal of Language Teaching and Research 4 (6):
1277–1284. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.6.1277-1284.
Domalewska, Dorota. 2015. “Classroom Discourse Analysis in EFL Elementary Lessons.”
International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics 1 (1): 6–9.
https://doi.org/10.7763/IJLLL.2015.V1.2.
Ellis, Nick C. 2005. “At the Interface: Dynamic Interactions of Explicit and Implicit Language
Knowledge.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27 (2): 305–352.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310505014X.
Ferguson, Gibson. 2009. “What Next? towards an Agenda for Classroom Codeswitching
Research.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 12 (2): 231–
241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050802153236.
Fraenkel, Jack, Norman E. Wallen, and Helen H. Hyun. 1993. How to Design and Evaluate
Research in Education. Vol. 7. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gibson, William, and Andrew Brown. 2009. Working with Qualitative Data. London: Sage.
Grant, Lynn E., and Thi Hang Nguyen. 2017. “Code-Switching in Vietnamese University EFL

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

Teachers’ Classroom Instruction: A Pedagogical Focus.” Language Awareness 26 (3):
244–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2017.1402915.
Gu, Mingyue, and Phil Benson. 2014. “The Formation of English Teacher Identities: A Cross-
Cultural Investigation.” Language Teaching Research 19 (2): 187–206.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541725.
Gulzar, Ajmal. 2010. “Code-Switching: Awareness about Its Utility in Bilingual Classrooms.”
Bulletin of Education & Research 32 (2): 23–44.
Gutiérrez, Lucia Pintado. 2021. “Translation in Language Teaching, Pedagogical Translation,
and Code-Switching: Restructuring the Boundaries.” Language Learning Journal 49
(2): 219–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1534260.
Hall, Graham, and Guy Cook. 2013. Own-Language Use in ELT: Exploring Global Practices and
Attitudes. ELT Research Papers 13-01. London: British Council.
Horasan, Secil. 2014. “Code-Switching in EFL Classrooms and the Perceptions of the
Students and Teachers.” Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 10 (1): 31–45.
Hussein, Riyad, Hadeel A. Saed, and Ahmad S. Haider. 2020. “Teachers and Students Code-
Switching: The Inevitable Evil in EFL Classrooms.” International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational Research 19 (2): 60–78. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.2.5.
Ibrahim, Engku, Mohamed I. Shah, and Najwa T. Armia. 2013. “Code-Switching in English
as a Foreign Language Classroom: Teachers’ Attitudes.” English Language Teaching 6
(7): 139–150. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n7p139.
Jiang, Yih-Lin, Georgia Earnest García, and Arlette Ingram Willis. 2014. “Code-Mixing as a
Bilingual Instructional Strategy.” Bilingual Research Journal 37 (3): 311–326.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15235882.2014.963738.

133
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

Karakaya, Merve, and Kenan Dikilitaş. 2020. “Perceptions of the Students and the Teachers
towards the Use of Code-Switching in EFL Classrooms.” Literacy Trek 6 (1): 40–73.
Kheder, Souad, and Edith Kaan. 2021. “Cognitive Control in Bilinguals: Proficiency and
Code-Switching Both Matter.” Cognition 209:104575. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cognition.2020.104575.
Leoanak, Sondang, and Bonik K. Amalo. 2018. “Teachers’ Beliefs and Perceptions of Code
Switching in English as Foreign Language Classroom.” SHS Web of Conferences 42
(00034). GC-TALE 2017.
Levine, Glenn. 2011. Code Choice in the Language Classroom. Bristol, UK: Channel View
Publications.
Levine, Glenn. 2013. “The Case for a Multilingual Approach to Language Classroom
Communication.” Language and Linguistics Compass 7 (8): 423–436.
https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12036.
Lin, Angel, and David C. Li. 2012. “Code-Switching.” In Multilingualism, edited by Marilyn
Martin-Jones, Adrian Blackledge, and Angela Creese, 470–481. London: Routledge.
Ma, Lai. 2019. “Examining the Functions of L1 Use through Teacher and Student Interactions

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

in an Adult Migrant English Classroom.” International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism 22 (4): 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1257562.
Macaro, Ernesto, and Lili Tian. 2015. “Exploring Teachers’ Oral Explanations of New English
Lexical Items in a Chinese University: Comparisons with Dictionary Information.”
System 52:78–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.05.002.
Macaro, Ernesto. 2005. “Codeswitching in the L2 Classroom: A Communication and
Learning Strategy.” In Non-Native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges, and
Contributions to the Professions, edited by E. Llurda, 63–84. Boston: Springer.
Macaro, Ernesto. 2009. “Teacher Use of Codeswitching in the Second Language Classroom:
Exploring ‘Optimal’ Use.” In First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language
Learning, edited by A. P. M. Turnbull and A. P. J. Dailey-O’Cain, 35–49. Bristol, UK:
Channel View Publications.
Macaro, Ernesto. 2013. “Overview: Where Should We Be Going with Classroom
Codeswitching Research?” In Codeswitching in University English-Medium Classes,
edited by R. Barnard and J. McLellan, 10–23. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Mahmoud, Salameh. 2012. “The Effect of Using L1 (Arabic Language) in the L2 (English
Language) Classroom on the Achievement in General English of Foundation Year
Students in King AbdulAziz University.” Sino-US English Teaching 9 (12): 1734–1738.
Mujiono, Mujiono, Soepomo Poedjosoedarmo, Edi Subroto, and Tri Wiratno. 2013. “Code
Switching in English as Foreign Language Instruction Practiced by the English
Lecturers at Universities.” International Journal of Linguistics 5 (2): 46–65.
https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v5i2.3561.

134
 AL-ESSA: DELVING INTO THE FUNCTIONS OF EFL TEACHERS’ CODE SWITCHING

Muthusamy, Paramasivam, Rajantheran Muniandy, Silllalee S. Kandasamy, Omrah Hassan,

Manimaran Subramaniam, and Atieh Farashaiyan. 2020. “Factors of Code-Switching
among Bilingual International Students in Malaysia.” International Journal of Higher
Education 9 (4): 332–338. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n4p332.
Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1997. Duelling Languages: Grammatical Structure in Codeswitching.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Najeeb, Sabitha. 2013. “The Business of Teaching English as a Second Language: A Libyan
Case Study.” Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 70:1243–1253.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.184.
Namaziandost, Ehsan, Leila Neisi, and Reza Banari. 2019. “The Impact of Code-Switching
on Vocabulary Learning among Iranian Upper-Intermediate EFL Learners.”
International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation 5 (2): 509–529.
Nurhamidah, Nur, Endang Fauziati, and Slamet Supriyadi. 2018. “Code-Switching in EFL
Classroom: Is It Good or Bad?” Journal of English Education 3 (2): 78–88.
Puspawati, Indah. 2018. “Teachers’ Use of Code Switching in EFL Classroom and Its

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

Functions.” Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning 3 (1): 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.18196/ftl.3128.
Raman, Yağmur, and Nur Yiğitoğlu. 2018. “Justifying Code Switching through the Lens of
Teacher Identities: Novice EFL Teachers Perceptions.” Quality & Quantity 52 (3):
2079–2092.
Sali, Pinar. 2014. “An Analysis of the Teachers’ Use of L1 in Turkish EFL Classrooms.” System
42:308–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.021.
Sampurna, Budi. 2023. “Code-Switching in English Classroom.” Journal Syntax
Transformation 4 (3): 40–43. https://doi.org/10.46799/jst.v4i3.706.
Sert, Olcay. 2005. “The Functions of Code Switching in ELT Classroom.” Internet TESL
Journal XI (8): 1–6. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496119.pdf.
Seymen-Bilgin, Sezen. 2016. “Code Switching in English Language Teaching (ELT) Teaching
Practice in Turkey: Student Teacher Practices, Beliefs and Identity.” Educational
Research and Reviews 11 (8): 686–702. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2016.2802.
Shay, Orit. 2015. “To Switch or Not to Switch: Code-Switching in a Multilingual Country.”
Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 209:462–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.sbspro.2015.11.253.
Simasiku, Liswani, Choshi Kasanda, and Talita Smit. 2015. “Can Code Switching Enhance
Learners’ Academic Achievement?” English Language Teaching 8 (2): 70–77.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n2p70.
Simasiku, Liswani. 2016. “The Impact of Code Switching on Learners’ Participation during
Classroom Practice.” Studies in English Language Teaching 4 (2): 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.22158/selt.v4n2p157.

135
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

Suteja, Hanna, and Christina Purwanti. 2017. “Code Switching in BIPA Classes: Teachers’
and Students’ Attitudes.” Polyglot: JurnalIlmiah 13 (1): 43–52.
https://doi.org/10.19166/pji.v13i1.356.
Tamtam, Abdalmonem, Fiona Gallagher, Sumsun Naher, and Abdul Olabi. 2013. “The Impact
of Language of Instruction on Quality of Science and Engineering Education in Libya:
Qualitative Study of Faculty Members.” European Scientific Journal 9 (31): 19–36.
Thompson, Gregory L., and Katie Harrison. 2014. “Language Use in the Foreign Language
Classroom.” Foreign Language Annals 47 (2): 321–337.
https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12079.
Tian, Lili, and Ernesto Macaro. 2012. “Comparing the Effect of Teacher Code-Switching with
English-Only Explanations on the Vocabulary Acquisition of Chinese University
Students: A Lexical Focus-on-Form Study English.” Language Teaching Research 16
(3): 367–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812436909.
Uys, Dawid, and Ondene van Dulm. 2011. “The Functions of Classroom Code-Switching in
the Siyanda District of the Northern Cape.” Southern African Linguistics and Applied

Downloaded on Mon Apr 01 2024 at 05:52:27 UTC

Language Studies 29 (1): 67–76. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2011.583159.
Yildiz, İslam, and Ayfer Su-Bergil. 2021. “Students and Teachers’ Points of View on Code-
Switching in EFL Classes: A Balance or Imbalance Paradigm?” Educational Policy Analysis
and Strategic Research 16 (4): 8–29. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2021.383.1.
Zhao, Ting, and Ernesto Macaro. 2016. “What Works Better for the Learning of Concrete
and Abstract Words: Teachers’ L1 Use or L2-Only Explanations?” International
Journal of Applied Linguistics 26 (1): 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12080.
Zhu, Xiye, and Norbert Vanek. 2017. “Facilitative Effects of Learner-Directed Codeswitching:
Evidence from Chinese Learners of English.” International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism 20 (7): 773–787. https:/doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1087962.
Zoltán, Dörnyei. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and
Mixed Methodologies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Rima Al-Essa: English Instructor, Facultative Humanitarian Requirements/Faculty of

Arts, Al-Albayt University, Zarqa, New Zarqa, Jordan
Email: rima_alessa@aabu.edu.jo

136
Copyright © 2024, Common Ground Research Networks, All
Rights Reserved