VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES
*********************

TRẦN THỊ HÒA

TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS
CODE-SWITCHING IN EFL CLASSROOMS AT RURAL
HIGH SCHOOLS
( Quan điểm của giáo viên và học sinh với việc sử dụng tiếng Việt trong
các lớp học tiếng Anh tại các trường cấp 3 nông thôn)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

HANOI-2019


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES
*********************

TRẦN THỊ HÒA

TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS
CODE-SWITCHING IN EFL CLASSROOMS AT RURAL
HIGH SCHOOLS
( Quan điểm của giáo viên và học sinh với việc sử dụng tiếng Việt trong
các lớp học tiếng Anh tại các trường cấp 3 nông thôn)


contributions of other researchers which were indicated clearly with the
references. The study was done under the guidance of Associated Professor
Le Van Canh at Hanoi University of Languages and International Studies.

Approved by SUPERVISOR
(Signature and fullname)

Lê Văn Canh
Date:……………………
Hanoi, 2019

Trần Thị Hòa

ii


ABSTRACT
The use of mother tongue or code-switching in the EFL (English as a
foreign language) classrooms has created controversy for many years and its
role in the different teaching methods that have been developed has also been
clearly defined. Conducted in the context of a Vietnamese rural area, the
study is to examine the teachers’ and students’ attitudes toward codeswitching use in English classrooms, find out if there are differences between
students’ and teachers’ attitudes and identify how often teachers codeswitch
in EFL classrooms. This research was conducted at two rural high schools in
Thanh Hoa province, one of them where I was working and 50 students and 6
teachers participated in the study. Data was collected by means of recorded
lesson observations, interviews and questionnaires. In general, the results of
this study showed that both teachers and students were positive towards the
use of mother tongue (Vietnamese) in English classrooms but only under
certain circumstances. The use of code-switching means using both English

2. Aims and Objectives of the Research ........................................................... 2
3. Research Questions ....................................................................................... 2
4. Scope of the Study ........................................................................................ 3
5. Significance of the Study .............................................................................. 3
6. Structural Organization of the Thesis ........................................................... 4
PART B: DEVELOPMENT........................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................... 6
1.1. Definition of Code-switching..................................................................... 6
1.2. History of language teaching methods focusing on code-switching in EFL
classroom ........................................................................................................... 6
1.3. Arguments about the use of code-switching or L1 in EFL classrooms. .... 8
1.3.1. Arguments against using code-switching or L1 in EFL classrooms. ..... 8
1.3.2. Arguments in favour of code-switching in EFL classrooms. ............... 10
1.4. Studies focusing on teachers’ code-switching in EFL classrooms .......... 12
1.4.1. The attitudes of teachers and students................................................... 12
1.4.2. Amount of code-switching use ............................................................. 15
1.4.3. Situations of code-switching use........................................................... 15

v


CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY............................................................... 17
2.1. Research Methodology............................................................................. 17
2.2. Setting and participants ............................................................................ 17
2.3. Data collection instruments and procedure .............................................. 17
2.3.1. Classroom Observation ......................................................................... 17
2.3.2. Questionnaires ....................................................................................... 18
2.3.3. Interview................................................................................................ 18
2.4. Data analysis procedure ........................................................................... 19
CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ............................ 20

1. Rationale
There has been a growing interest in learning English as a second/foreign
language over the last few decades. This is due to the important role English
plays in almost every aspect of life nowadays, starting from education to
business (Hasman 2004). In addition, English has become a global lingua
franca and a mean of international communication round the world (BruttGriffle, 1998). It has allowed people from different cultures and linguistic
backgrounds to communicate and share their knowledge and expertise.
Moreover, English has become “a key part of the educational strategy in most
countries” (Graddol, 2006 p.70). This explains why governments have exerted
to introduce English language as early as possible to their educational
systems, in an attempt to help their citizens to be effective users of the target
language in the future.
In the process of teaching and learning foreign language, using mother
tongue or foreign language only in the classroom remains virtually
unquestioned. This has been still controversy topic for many ages, especially
Communicative Language Teaching become more popular. In global scale,
many studies were conducted to investigate the code-switching technique or
the use of mother tongue in EFL (English as a foreign language) classrooms
with the different results. Ellis (1984), Wong-Fillmore (1985), Chaudron
(1988), Lightbown (2001), believe that teachers should aim at creating a pure
foreign language environment since they are the sole linguistic models for the
students and that code-switching will result in negative transfer in FL
learning. On the contrary, researchers in support of crosslingual (codeswitching) teaching strategy including Tikunoff and Vazquez-Faria (1982),

1


Levine (2003), Chen Liping (2004), etc., argue that the first language can
promote the learning of target language and the first language deserves a
place in foreign language classroom. And code-switching is a good strategy of

What are the attitudes of the teachers towards code-switching?

2


-

What are the attitudes of the students towards code-switching?
Are there any differences between students’ and teachers’ attitudes

towards code-switching?
4. Scope of the Study
Within the framework of this minor thesis, the study focused on both
students’ and teachers’ attitudes (the teachers of English) towards the codeswitching in English classrooms at High schools in rural area. The data for
analysis is taken from teachers’ interviews and observations and students’
questionnaires at some High schools. The participants are 6 teachers of
English and one hundred students at these High schools in Thanh Hoa
province.
5. Significance of the Study
Educational policy-makers in a lot of countries seem to have adopted the
monolingual approach. Although there are a lot of researches that support the
inclusion of learners’ mother tongue (Schweers, 1999; Swain & Lapkin, 2000;
Burden, 2001; Prodromou 2002; Tang 2002; Al-Nofaie, 2010), such
pedagogical decisions regarding the exclusion of learners’ the first language
have been made on “unexamined and taken-for-granted assumptions
(Auerbach, 1993, p.29). Moreover, there does not seem to be enough evidence
that both teachers’ and students’ input has been taken into consideration.
Since teachers and students are the most important key players in the
education, a lot of studies have been carried out to investigate their
perceptions towards the use of learners’ mother tongue in learning another

procedure and data analysis procedure from which answers for the research
questions.
- Chapter 3: Findings and Discussion
The data collection from observations, interviews and questionnaires are
analyzed in this chapter so the findings and discussion will be presented

4


Part C: Conclusion
This part has the major findings, some recommendation, limitation of the
research as well as the suggestions for the further study
The references and appendices are the last parts of the study.

5


PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1.Definition of Code-switching
The concept of code was put forward by Bernstein (1971). It refers to any
system of signals, such as numbers, words, which carries concrete meaning.
Wardhaugh pointed out that the term code is neutral term rather than terms
such as dialect, language, style, pidgin and creole which are inclined to
arouse emotions. Code can be used to refer to “any kind of system that two or
more people employ for communication” (p.86).
In the studies of code-switching, there have been various definitions of
the term “code-switching”. Gumperz referred to it as “the juxtaposition within
the same speech exchange of passages of speech belonging to two different
grammatical systems or subsystems” (Gumperz, 1982, p.59).

2001). In other words, FL teachers mostly codeswitch in their GTM
classrooms.
However, some other linguistics strongly criticized the Grammar
Translation Method. In the late nineteenth century, the Western world
experienced a big change in the need of learning languages with the aim of
communicating. This led to the emergence of the Direct Method, which pays
its whole attention to the spoken language. The Direct Method is based on the
belief that FL learning should be an imitation of L1 learning. In this light,
learners should be immersed in the target language (TL) through the use of
that TL “as a mean of instruction and communication in the language
classroom”, and through “the avoidance of the use of L1 and translation as a
technique” (Stern, 1983). After its highest popularity during the period from
the late nineteenth century to the first quarter of the twentieth century, the
Direct Method began to decline. However, the method has laid foundation
upon which many of the later methods and approaches expanded and
developed. Among them are the Audio-lingual Method and Communicative
Approach.
7


Audio-lingual Method (ALM), which was suggested by American
linguistics in 1950s, aims to develop communicative competence of students
by the repetition of dialogues and drills. Supporting this method, LarsenFreeman (2000 cited in Vu Thi Thu Trang, 2016) says the more often
something is repeated, the stronger the habit and the greater the learning. In
ALM classroom, the use of the first language is forbidden because
understanding context as well as grammatical explanation are not necessary.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has the same communicative
purpose to ALM, the CLT has served as a major source of influence on language
teaching practise around the world since its inception in the 1970s (Richards,
2006). The author also suggests a lot of classroom activities that best facilitate

(Cook, 2001, p412)
The first reason is based on the rationale from childhood, children
listen, imitate and respond to what they hear around them and then they
succeed in mastering their mother tongue. Therefore, many linguistics suggest
that language learners should be in the surrounding sound environment to get
the best result. According to Krashen and Terrell (1983), as cited in Salah &
Farrah (2012), indicate that L1 use should be excluded in the English
classroom to increase students’ exposure to the target language. Phillipson
(1992, cited in Salah & Farrah, 2012) who has same view, argue that the more
learners exposure to the target language, the more quickly will they learn.
Turnbull (2001) also mentions that students do not benefit if teachers rely too
much on using their students’ mother tongue.
Regarding to Cook’s second principle, the supporters of the
Monolingual Approach have stated that translating between L1 and L2 can be
dangerous as it encourages the belief that there are equivalents between the
language, which is not always the case (Pracek, 2003). They believe that

9


successful FL acquisition depends on keeping L2 separate from L1. One main
reason for thinking this way is the fear of L1 interference (Cook, 2001).
Karshen (1981) in his influential “Second Language Acquisition and Second
Language Learning” also suggests that L1 is a source of errors in learners’
foreign language performance.The proponents of target language exclusivity
argue that it is not necessary for learners to understand everything that is said
to them by the teacher and that switching to the first language undermines the
process of learning (F. Chambers, 1991; Halliwell & Jones, 1991; Macdonald,
1993). For them, teaching entirely through the TL makes the language real,
allows learners to experience unpredictability, and develops the learners’ own

classroom. Cook (2000) believed that to let students use their mother tongue
is a humanistic approach, as it permits them to say what they really want to
say. The use of students’ L1 is a “learner- preferred strategy” (p.242). Stern
(1992) suggested that it may be the time to “reconsider” the use of
crosslingual strategy, though in theory language teaching today is entirely
intralingual. The learner inevitably works from an L1 reference base, so it can
be helpful for him to “orient himself in the L2 through the L1 medium or by
relating L2 phenomena to their equivalents in L1” (Stern, 1992, p.285).
Moreover, Stern quoted several students’ far less positive opinions on the
exclusive use of the TL.
Atkinson (1987, p.42) also stated that the mother tongue use in the
form of translation technique is a preferred learning strategy for most learners.
This idea has been voiced earlier by Danchev (1982, cited by Christine
Manara, 2007) who states that “translation is a natural phenomenon and an
inevitable part of second language acquisition even where no formal
classroom learning occurs”.
L1 use also reduces the affective barriers to L2 acquisition. According
to D’Annulizios (1991), Garcia (1991), Hemmindinger (1987), Shamash

11


(1990), Strei (1992), (cited in Christine Manara 2007), they show that the use
of L1 lowers students’ language anxiety and enhances positive affective
environment for the students to make a progress in their L2 learning.
Moreover it takes into account students’ sociocultural factors, facilitates
incorporation of learners’ life experiences, and allows for learner centered
curriculum development.
Additionally, some linguistics think that L1 can be used as a tool for
thought. Vygotsky (1986) asserts that “L1 would quite naturally serve as a

Another important study was carried out by Burden (2001). It
explored the issue of when learners and their teachers felt there was a need to
use Japanese in English classes. The results indicated that there was a general
agreement between teachers and students regarding the importance of L1 use
in the TL classes. The surveyed teachers and students also believed that it was
acceptable to use L1 to explain new vocabulary, give instructions, teach
grammar and check comprehension. Burden emphasized the value of
occasional inclusion of L1 in L2 classes to meet learners’ psychological need
of not portraying their mother tongue as an inferior to the teaching language.
In an Arab context, Al-Nofaie (2010) carried out research to examine
the Saudi teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards using Arabic as a
facilitating learning tool in the English classroom. The findings indicated that
the study participants had positive attitudes toward using L1 in EFL classes.
Both teachers and students were convinced of the value of limited and
judicious use of Arabic in English classes. They believed that excessive use of
Arabic would hinder their learning and affect it negatively. They also
preferred to use Arabic to a) give exam instructions, b) translate new words,
and c) contrast between English and Arabic.
Tang (2002) researched both students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards
using mother tongue (Chinese) during English classrooms. The reveals that

13


the use of L1 in L2 classes does not hinder L2 learning but helps teaching and
learning. They saw the value of using L1 to discuss difficult grammatical
rules and to explain challenging vocabulary items, to practice new phrases
and expression. Tang concluded that “limited and judicious use of the mother
tongue in EFL class does not reduce students’ exposure to English, but rather
than can assist in the teaching and learning processes” (p.41)

the discourse of seven native-speaker secondary-school teachers of Japanese,
Korean, German and French in New Zealand and found a range from 12% to
77% use of the students’ L1 (English). In South Korea, Liu et al. (2004)
calculated the percentage of L1 (Korean) and TL words in the lessons of
thirteen high school teachers of English and found that their use of L1 ranged
from only 10% to 90%.
In Vietnam, according to Vu Thi Thu Trang (2016), the proportion of
mother tongue used by teacher in the classroom depends on the level and age
of students, types of lessons and stages in each lesson, but they would try to
use English as much as possible for their students to exposure to L2. She
conducted group interview with five female teachers and ten observations in
May School English Center and the results revealed that Vietnamese use was
about 20 percent to 91 percent.
1.4.3.Situations of code-switching use
Many linguistics have investigated the benefits of code-switching in EFl
classrooms and they look over in which situations the teachers and students
often use mother tongue. Atkinson (1987), who believes in the great potential
of L1 “as a classroom resource” (Atkinson, 1987, p.241), provided extensive
knowledge on where to use mother tongue in EFL classrooms:

15


1. Eliciting language (all levels)
2. Checking comprehension (all levels)
3. Giving instructions (early levels)
4. Co-operation among learners.
5. Discussions of classroom methodology (early levels)
6. Presentations and reinforcement of language (mainly early levels)
7. Checking for sense