Degree Project with Specialization in English Studies in Education

15 Credits, Second Cycle

Code-Switching in the Upper Secondary School EFL Classroom in Sweden

Kodväxling i gymnasieskolans engelskklassrum i Sverige

Moa Torvaldsdotter

Master of Arts/Science in Education, 300 credits English Studies in Education 7 June 2020

Examiner: Chrys Malilang Supervisor: Shaun Nolan

FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND SOCIETY

Department of Culture, Languages, and Media

2

Abstract Code-switching has been shown to be beneficial for students’ language learning and for

strengthening their identities. Despite this, it can be interpreted that code-switching is

not encouraged in the syllabus for English in upper secondary school in Sweden.

Because of this potential disagreement, this study aims to broaden the knowledge of

how upper secondary school teachers relate to code-switching in their different

classrooms. Thereby, this study seeks to examine some upper secondary school EFL

teachers’ understanding of code-switching as well as the use of code-switching in their

different classrooms. In this qualitative study, four upper secondary school teachers of

English participated in semi-structured interviews followed by classroom observations.

The teachers represent all courses of English at upper secondary school level and they

represent schools with different programs and students with different first languages.

The results show that the teachers have limited knowledge of code-switching and that

they believe that a large amount of target language use in the classroom is favorable.

Nevertheless, the results also show that the teachers as well as their students use code-

switching both intentionally and unintentionally for various purposes, but none of the

participating teachers seem to use code-switching as a strategy to promote long-standing

language acquisition. However, the results indicate that the teachers seem to effectively

adapt their code-switching behavior to their student group. The findings of this study

are in line with earlier research where it, for instance, is argued that code-switching is

more suitable for classes with students with lower language proficiency.

Keywords: Code-switching; English language teaching; Multilingual classrooms; Upper

secondary education

3

Table of Contents 1. Introduction...............................................................................................................4

2. AimandResearchQuestions................................................................................6

2.1. ResearchQuestions...........................................................................................................6

3. Background:Theory,PolicyDocuments,andRecentResearch...............7

3.1. MonolingualandMultilingualEducation...................................................................73.2. Code-Switching....................................................................................................................83.2.1.Code-SwitchinginForeignLanguageEducation...............................................................93.2.2.DifferenceBetweenCode-SwitchingandTranslanguaging.......................................113.2.3.ThePlaceofCode-SwitchingintheSteeringDocuments...........................................11

3.3. RecentResearchonCode-SwitchingintheClassroom.......................................12

4. Method.......................................................................................................................15

4.1. TheParticipants..............................................................................................................154.2. MaterialsandProcedure..............................................................................................164.2.1.Semi-StructuredInterviews....................................................................................................174.2.2.Observations..................................................................................................................................18

4.3. Analysis...............................................................................................................................194.4. EthicalConsiderations...................................................................................................19

5. ResultsandDiscussion........................................................................................20

5.1. EFLTeachers’AwarenessofCode-Switching.........................................................205.2. EFLTeachers’andTheirStudents’UsageofCode-Switching...........................245.2.1.IntentionalCode-Switching.....................................................................................................245.2.1.1. FocalizationonForm............................................................................................................245.2.1.2. CommunicationEffectiveness..........................................................................................255.2.1.3. RelationalPurposes..............................................................................................................285.2.1.4. Convenience.............................................................................................................................29

5.2.2.UnintentionalCode-Switching................................................................................................305.3. DifferenceintheUseofCode-SwitchingDependingontheStudents’

LanguageLevel.............................................................................................................................31

6. Conclusion................................................................................................................34

7. References................................................................................................................36

8. Appendix...................................................................................................................39

4

1. Introduction Up until recently, the generally accepted approach to foreign and second language

(henceforth FL and L2) education was the monolingual approach, which advocates the

target language (TL) being the only language used in the classroom (García & Wei,

2013; Lundahl, 2019; Cummins, 2007). Within this approach, the use of students’ first

language (L1) is often seen as a failure and a sign of language deficiency (Cummins,

2007; Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2005). However, in an article by Cummins (2007) it

is stated that there is minimal pedagogical evidence supporting the exclusive use of the

TL in FL teaching. And as the world has become more globalized, the monolingual

approach has been questioned (García & Wei, 2013). Many researchers now perceive

students’ L1 as a resource in both language teaching and learning (Lundahl, 2019;

Cummins, 2007). Furthermore, it has been shown that code-switching, the switch

between two or more languages within a sentence or conversation, is a natural

phenomenon in bilingual speakers’ language use (Poplak, 1980). Using code-switching

as an educational approach in the FL classroom is to encourage students to use their

whole language repertoire, and it has not only been shown to be beneficial for students’

language learning (Moore, 2002; Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2005) but also for

strengthening their identities (McKay, 2012).

Although much research on code-switching has been done internationally, there is a

lack of studies regarding code-switching in English language education in a Swedish

context. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of code-switching in this

context. Lundahl (2019), however, states that the use of code-switching is dependent on

the students’ language level and, therefore, it might not be a beneficial approach in the

English language education in countries like Sweden where the students’ linguistic

levels are high. This view has also been prevalent within the courses of English in my

teaching training, where it has been conveyed that one should only use the TL in the

English classroom at upper secondary level. Furthermore, it can be interpreted that

code-switching is not encouraged in the syllabus for English in upper secondary school

in Sweden as it is stated that “Teaching should as far as possible be conducted in

English” (Skolverket, 2011a). However, in the commentary material for the subject

English provided by Skolverket (2011b), the National Agency for Education, it is

5

expressed that on occasion, elements of other languages may occur in the classroom but

that it is dependent on the teachers’ professional judgment of the students’ need for

support. This clarification is in line with Lundahl (2019) highlighting that code-

switching could be used in classrooms with students with a lower linguistic language.

In contrast to the negative view of code-switching in the courses of English in my

teacher training, it has been viewed more positively within the courses of Swedish as an

L2 in the same teacher training. One possible explanation for this is that the syllabus for

Swedish as a second language (Skolverket, 2011c) emphasizes the importance of

multilingualism more explicitly, and it is, for example, stated that multilingualism is an

asset both for individuals and for the society. As such, there seems to be a disagreement

in the attitude towards code-switching within the subjects English and Swedish as an

L2, even though they are both being taught as an L2 or FL in Swedish upper secondary

schools. Considering the above, and the fact that FL classrooms are multilingual as

such, there is a reason to examine the approach to code-switching in English in upper

secondary school.

6

2. Aim and Research Questions The aim of this study is to broaden the knowledge of how upper secondary school

teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) in Sweden relate to code-switching in

their different classrooms. Thereby, this study seeks to examine some upper secondary

school EFL teachers’ understanding of code-switching as well as the use of code-

switching in their different classrooms.

2.1. Research Questions 1. What is EFL teachers’ awareness of code-switching?

2. What are EFL teachers’ and their students’ usage of code-switching in the

classroom?

3. How does the use of code-switching differ depending on the students’ language

level?

7

3. Background: Theory, Policy Documents, and Recent Research In this section, the theoretical concepts underpinning this study will be unpacked and

explained, namely monolingual and multilingual education. Thereafter, the key term

code-switching will be defined, unpacked and discussed in the context of the curriculum

documents. Lastly, relevant research on code-switching in EFL education will be

presented.

3.1. Monolingual and Multilingual Education As mentioned above, the monolingual principle has long prevailed in EFL teaching and

has been called the English-only discourse (Cummins, 2007; Liebscher & Dailey-

O’Cain, 2005; McKay, 2012). Cummins (2007) explains that this principle “emphasizes

instructional use of the target language (TL) to the exclusion of students’ L1, with the

goal of enabling learners to think in the TL with minimal interference from L1.”

(p.223). As it was believed that the languages interfered with each other, Liebscher and

Dailey-O’Cain (2005) explain that the monolingual principle, therefore, is based on the

idea of “compartmentalizing languages in learners’ minds in a kind of coordinate

bilingualism” (p.235). This principle evolved within the notion of learning an L2

through the direct method, which imitates the way a first language is acquired, meaning

that the TL is used both as medium and means of the language learning (Cummins,

2007). Support for this approach can be found, as greater use of the TL results in higher

achievement in the TL (Cummins, 2007). Therefore, in the context of FL teaching, the

use of students’ L1 is often seen as a failure by researchers and teachers (Cummins,

2007).

However, Cummins (2007) argues that there is minimal pedagogical evidence

supporting the exclusive use of English in ESL-education and that there is “no empirical

justification for any absolute exclusion of students’ L1 from TL instruction” (p.227). As

a result of this, it has been a shift in FL research over the years to an approach where the

students’ L1 is viewed as a resource and that the goal of language education is to

develop bilingual and bicultural identities and skills (Lundahl, 2019). Furthermore,

8

Lundahl (2019) states that if students’ language ability is limited, it is natural that they

use all the language resources they have. Similar claims are made by Cummins (2007),

stating that conscious usage of students’ L1 can function as scaffolding to higher

language achievement. However, EFL education in a country like Sweden does not

fully apply to this approach, as the students’ language proficiency is high (Lundahl,

2019). Lundahl further argues that in this context it is beneficial to retain the English-

only principle, as this will help the students develop their language more. Therefore, he

concludes that the multilingual approach should be weighed against the importance of

using the TL.

Even though Swedish students’ language proficiency in English is high, Lundahl (2019)

states that Swedish often is used as a reference when teaching English in Sweden. This

could be problematic as Swedish classrooms consist of many students with other L1s

than Swedish, and therefore, might be disfavored by such an approach. As such, the

teachers’ intended scaffolding might become an additional barrier for these students. In

multilingual classrooms where the teacher does not know the students’ L1s, the teacher

could instead, for instance, create opportunities for students with the same L1 to support

each other with translations (Allard, Apt & Sacks, 2019).

3.2. Code-Switching One form of multilingual language use is code-switching, which is defined as “the

ability of plurilingual speakers to switch within or between sentences from and to the

codes in their repertoire, in order to fulfill communication needs triggered by decisions

concerning the communicative context in which they are immersed.” (Corocoll López

& González-Davies, 2016, p.69). This alternation occurs naturally in bilingual

communities where it requires a large degree of linguistic competence (Poplak, 1980;

Lightbown & Spada, 2013). That is, code-switching can be used in conversations where

all interlocutors share the same language repertoire (Lightbown & Spada, 2013), which

is often seen in bilingual settings such as Spanish-speaking communities in the United

States (Poplak, 1980). Code-switching can, in these settings, be used for various

purposes, for example to express solidarity, making a joke, or to signal personal identity

(Lightbown & Spada, 2013; McKay, 2012). The identity aspect is well discussed in

9

research on multilingualism where it is argued that multilingualism is a fundamental

part of the creation of an identity (Auer, 1988; García & Wei, 2013; McKay, 2011).

Despite code-switching being a natural language phenomenon, and requires a large

degree of linguistic competence, it could also be a sign of insufficient language

proficiency. For example, a code-switching behavior might be the result of insufficient

knowledge in the L2 such as a lack of relevant vocabulary (Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain;

2005; Lightbown & Spada 2013), or a way to avoid expressing oneself in the TL

(Lundahl, 2019). It might also be the result of speakers being too lazy to search for the

appropriate word (Gardner-Chloros, 2009). Because of this, code-switching has for a

long time been a stigmatized practice (García & Wei, 2013).

The concept code-switching, as presented in research (see, e.g. Auer, 1988; Corcoll

López & González-Davies, 2016), seem to exclusively cover oral language and thereby

excludes writing. Therefore, in conformity with previous research, this study defines

code-switching as an oral phenomenon. Moreover, in research, the different codes

within the concept of code-switching seem to mainly refer to recognized languages, and

therefore, this is also the definition of codes used in this study.

3.2.1. Code-Switching in Foreign Language Education

There are several purposes for using code-switching in the FL classroom. One purpose

is focalization on form (Moore, 2002), where the teacher, for example, chooses to use

the L1 when explaining certain unknown words or grammatical aspects in the TL

(Lundahl, 2019). Bensen and Çavtşoğlu (2013) show that teachers switch languages in

these situations for the purpose of clarifying meaning. This has also been shown to be

done by the teachers with the purpose of saving time in their teaching (Bensen &

Çavtşoğlu, 2013). That is, a second purpose of code-switching is communication

effectiveness (Moore, 2002) where it can function as a support for reading, listening, or

conversational comprehension (Lundahl, 2019). One example of such code-switching

can be found in teacher-student communication where the focus is on content, for

instance after reading a text. This can result in the teacher asking a question in the TL,

and the students are allowed to answer in the L1 to not break the flow of the

conversation in order to ensure that the students have understood the content. Moore

10

(2002) states that in situations where the focus is on both content and language, code-

switching can be especially beneficial as it, for example, can enrich new concepts.

As shown, code-switching can be used both by teachers and students in educational

settings to facilitate learning. One example of how code-switching can be used to

benefit the language learning process is through the learning strategy Pedagogically

Based Code-Switching (PBCS) (Corocoll López & González-Davies, 2016). PBCS is

described as a strategy designed by the teacher aiming to create informed ways for

students to move between languages. This strategy is beneficial, Corocoll López and

González-Davies (2016) argue, since the learning of a language does not only involve

using the language but also to reflect on language use. Therefore, Corocoll López and

González-Davies (2016) highlight that code-switching should be used in FL learning as

it can facilitate the recognition of different language aspects.

McKay (2012) argues that it is beneficial to encourage code-switching in EFL

classrooms as it gives equal status to the students’ languages and allows students to use

their L1 to develop their English proficiency. Further, Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain

(2005) found that students use code-switching both for participant-related functions,

such as adapting the choice of language to the language used by the individuals in the

conversation, and also for discourse-related functions, such as repeating one’s utterance

in another language if it was not being replied to in the first language. These examples

could be seen as informed strategies to support the communication, which corresponds

to one of the goals for the subject of English: “The ability to use different language

strategies in different contexts” (Skolverket, 2011a, p.2). Despite this, Moore (2002)

states that many L2 teachers still believe the notion of avoiding the use of L1 in L2

classes as much as possible. Yet, code-switching occurs in the classrooms, especially in

those consisting of students with a low linguistic level (Moore, 2002). It is also in these

classrooms that teacher code-switching has been found to be most beneficial for

students’ language development (Lee & Macaro, 2013). Lee and Macaro (2013) show

that even though both young and adult learners benefit from code-switching for

vocabulary acquisition, young learners’ gains were shown to be higher and also led to

higher vocabulary retention. For the adult groups, the result of vocabulary retention did

not differ between a code-switching instruction and an English-only instruction.

11

3.2.2. Difference Between Code-Switching and Translanguaging

Lundahl (2019) highlights that since code-switching has negative connotations, many

researchers use the term translanguaging to refer to various approaches of using the

students’ language repertoire to facilitate learning. However, code-switching and

translanguaging are not synonymous. Translanguaging is defined by Canagarajah

(2011) as “the ability of multilingual speakers to shuttle between languages, treating the

diverse languages that form their repertoire as an integrated system” (p.401).

Translanguaging, García and Wei (2013) explain, differs from code-switching in that it

refers to “the speakers’ construction and use of original and complex interrelated

discursive practices that cannot be easily assigned to one or another traditional

definition of a language, but that makes up the speakers’ complete language repertoire.”

(p.22), whereas code-switching refers to a shift between two or more recognized

languages. That is, code-switching is a learning and communicative strategy that is

situated within the framework of translanguaging (Corcoll López & González-Davies,

2015). In this thesis, it is, therefore, relevant to use articles on translanguaging where

the code-switching aspect is transparent.

3.2.3. The Place of Code-Switching in the Steering Documents

In the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of

Europe, 2001), a plurilingual approach to language teaching is promoted. In this

approach, the knowledge of more than one language is not understood as different

monolingual competences where the languages are strictly separated in the brain.

Instead, plurilingualism is explained as the notion of all the languages an individual

knows to be interrelated and together build up “a communicative competence to which

all knowledge and experience of language contributes” (p.4). A plurilingual

competence, they state, therefore allows alternations of the languages one knows where

a person can code switch during an utterance to achieve effective communication. A

plurilingual approach enables students to develop enriched identities and increases the

ability for further language learning (Council of Europe, 2001).

This positive attitude towards plurilingualism can also be found in the syllabus for the

subject English in upper secondary school (Skolverket, 2011a), where it is stated in the

12

aim of the subject: “Teaching should encourage students' curiosity in language and

culture, and allow them to develop plurilingualism where skills in different languages

interact and support each other.” (p.1). Despite this promotion of plurilingualism, the

syllabus does not give more support to this approach. Instead, it is emphasized that

“Teaching should as far as possible be conducted in English.” (Skolverket, 2011a, p.1)

which can be interpreted as being somewhat in disagreement with the previous

statement. In the commentary material for the subject English (Skolverket, 2011b),

some reasons for the English-only approach are presented. These include increased

opportunities for input in the TL and that it will encourage students to use the TL

themselves. Nevertheless, it is also highlighted that occasional elements of Swedish or

students’ L1 can occur in the teaching, if the teacher considers it to contribute to

increased understanding.

3.3. Recent Research on Code-Switching in the Classroom Recent research indicates that teachers’ attitudes towards code-switching in the EFL

classroom are predominantly positive since they believe it can be useful for various

purposes (Allard et al., 2019; Lo, 2015; Simasiku, Kasanda & Smit, 2015; Yuvayapan,

2019; Zhu & Vanek, 2017). For example, it has been shown that teachers believe code-

switching to be useful for making students more active in the classroom, making

students more actively involved in their learning, giving access to content and ideas,

helping low proficiency students, and building bonds with the students (Allard et al.,

2019; Simasiku et al. 2015; Zhu & Vanek, 2017; Yuvayapan, 2019). Further, Allard et

al. (2019) state that the use of code-switching made the teacher avoid the “infantilizing

nature of the English-only classroom” (p.83), meaning that instead of having the

students rely on the teacher’s explanation each time they did not understand an

utterance in English, they could be more autonomous in their language learning by, for

example, translate and confer with their peers in the L1. Moreover, it has also been

shown that teachers use code-switching to provide translation, repetition, and to deliver

content (Lo, 2015; Zhu & Vanek, 2017). However, some teachers instead prefer a TL-

only principle to strengthen their students’ linguistic competence (Simasiku et al.,

2015). Similarly, Yuvayapan (2019) found that many teachers avoid using the L1 in the

classes, as it interferes with their notion of helping the students achieve a native-like

13

competence in English. Yuvayapan (2019), further, discusses that this monolingual

teaching practice could be the result of factors such as the formulations in the

curriculum and the expectations from colleagues or institutions.

In the current research, students’ beliefs of code-switching in the classroom differ.

Kocaman and Aslan (2018) show that the majority of the students in their study

believed that some usage of L1 in the EFL classroom could be beneficial for instance

when explaining grammar, new words as well as differences between the L1 and L2. As

the students in this study expressed the necessity of the use of L1 in the classroom,

Kocaman and Aslan (2018) conclude that a bilingual approach should be taken, as it can

be good for maintaining good relations with the students. However, Allard et al. (2019)

found that some students were unsatisfied with their English development due to code-

switching in the classroom, and in Simasiku et al. (2015), teachers believed that their

students prefer to speak the TL in the classroom.

Despite the varying attitudes towards code-switching in the classroom, its use has

shown different results. For example, Allard et al. (2019) show that code-switching is

more beneficial when the students use it themselves rather than their teachers using it,

and that code-switching is not as beneficial for the students who do not share the same

L1 as the majority of the class. However, it has been found that code-switching

increases students' activity in the language classroom (Lo, 2015; Rahayu & Margana,

2018; Zhu & Vanek, 2017). Zhu and Vanek (2017) show that the use of code-switching

in the classroom enhances the level of student engagement and student talk. Similarly,

Lo (2015) shows that classes that adopted a code-switching pedagogy were more

interactive and less teacher-centered than classes with a TL-only principle. Rahayu and

Margana (2018) also found that code-switching made students more active, but they

highlight that this occurs negatively. That is, the students were more talkative but did

not speak English. In the compared classrooms, which applied a TL-only principle, the

students made more effort to pronounce words correctly as well as to comprehend the

meaning of the teachers’ utterances. In these classrooms it was found that the students

were more active in using the TL than the students taught through code-switching-based

instruction who were instead more comfortable using their L1.

14

As mentioned in section 3.1 and 3.2.1, it is argued that the use of code-switching should

be adapted to the student group as its use differs depending on the students’ language

level. This is also found in current research showing that the teacher makes use of

students’ L1 more in classes where students' TL proficiency level is low (Lo, 2015). In

these classes, Lo found, the teacher mainly used the L1 and code-switched to English

mostly to teach English academic language or, for instance, to provide a translation of a

student’s L1 utterance into the L2. In the classes with students of higher language

ability, the teachers mainly used English, but occasionally made use of the L1 to help

deliver the content of the subjects to students. Moreover, in these classes, some teachers

switched to L1 for explaining difficult or abstract concepts, whereas others instead

elaborated more in the TL.

Even though it has been shown that some teachers adapt the use of code-switching to

the students’ language ability, research argues for a more conscious code-switching

pedagogy for it to benefit the students (Allard et al., 2019; Yuvayapan, 2019; Zhu &

Vanek, 2017). Yuvayapan (2019) states that the teachers’ usage of the L1 in class did

not seem to be a conscious strategy to promote a long-standing language acquisition,

but instead, it functioned as a tool to reduce the time for clarifications in the classroom.

Similar findings are presented in the study by Zhu and Vanek (2017), and they,

therefore, argue that code-switching should be used more efficiently as careless use of

the L1 gives students fewer opportunities to interact in the TL. Additionally, Allard et

al. (2019) also highlight the importance of hearing and using the TL in meaningful ways

in order to learn it. Zhu and Vanek (2017), therefore, suggest that code-switching could

be optimized by the teacher and the students together deciding on norms about language

use in the classroom.

15

4. Method To achieve the purpose of this study, which is to examine upper secondary school

teachers’ understanding and use of code-switching in Swedish EFL classrooms, a

qualitative approach has been adapted. Two sets of data were collected to increase

validity, namely: semi-structured interviews with upper secondary school teachers of

English, and observations of digital video-based English lessons. The following section

describes and discusses the chosen methods, their implementation, the participants and

ends with a presentation of the ethical considerations.

4.1. The Participants Four teachers of EFL who work at different upper secondary schools in southern

Sweden participated in this project. For the participants to remain anonymous they have

been given the aliases such as T1 and T2. Table 1 below provides information about the

teachers’ age, their working experience, and the English courses they currently teach.

The teachers whose classes were observed were T2, T3 and T4.

The participants were selected through both convenience sampling and purposive

sampling. Due to the time limitation attributed to this project and the prevailing Corona

pandemic that has drastically changed teachers’ workdays, teachers who were already

known to the author were directly contacted to increase the likelihood of them

participating in the interviews. Nevertheless, Bryman (2016) states that convenience

sampling could be problematic as the participants might not be representative of

teachers as a whole and that it, therefore, is not possible to generalize the findings.

Therefore, a purposive sampling were also applied to ensure that “the sampling is

conducted with reference to the research questions” (Bryman, 2016, p.410), which in in

this study’s case implies that the interviewed teachers are representing all courses of

English at upper secondary school level, that is English 5, English 6 and English 7.

Furthermore, it implies that the teachers represent schools with both university

preparatory and vocational programs, and also schools where the majority are Swedish

L1 speakers and schools where most students have a different L1 than Swedish.

16

It is also worth noting that T3 is not qualified to teach English. Nevertheless, T3 teaches

two courses of English, and therefore, it was motivated to include this participant as

T3’s English teaching activities reflect the reality in Swedish upper secondary schools

(Skolverket, 2019).

Table 1

Participating Teachers in This Study

Teacher Age Teaching Diploma

Subjects

English Courses They

Currently Teach

Work

Experience

Date of the

Interview

T1 28 History &

English

English 6 &

English 7

2 years 10 April 2020

T2 28 English

& Religion

English Elementary

Level, English 5 &

English 6

1,5 years 14 April 2020

T3 31 Swedish as a L2

& French

English 5 &

English 6

1,5 years 16 April 2020

T4 30 Swedish &

English

English 5 &

English 6

1 year 17 April 2020

4.2. Materials and Procedure As previously mentioned, a qualitative approach was adopted to address this study’s

research questions. Since the research questions focus on teachers’ understanding and

use of code-switching, the main empirical data is based on the interviews with the four

teachers. To increase the validity and reliability of the interpretation of the teachers’

assertions, observations of three of the teachers’ lessons were also made.

17

4.2.1. Semi-Structured Interviews

To investigate teachers’ awareness and usage of code-switching, the main method for

this study is semi-structured interviews. Bryman (2016) states that semi-structured

interviews are commonly used when the investigation has a fairly clear focus and when

the interest lies in the interviewee’s point of view, which is the case of this study. The

interviews were conducted by using an interview guide (see Appendix 1), in which

questions to be covered were formulated. The questions are inspired by some of the

questions listed in Yuvavapan’s (2019) article, but modified to fit the purpose of this

study. During the interview, the order of the questions was then customized to the

answers given by the interviewee. Furthermore, follow-up questions were asked to gain

rich and detailed answers (Bryman, 2016).

To facilitate the carrying out of the interviews during the Spring 2020 Corona

pandemic, the interviews were held via the online video conferencing service Zoom

through Malmö University’s server. To manage Zoom’s security issues which became

apparent during this time, the following actions were taken: the invitations were e-

mailed to the participants with a personal note and it was made sure no one but the

interviewer and the interviewee entered the meeting. The video interviews were,

furthermore, recorded since, as Bryman (2016) states, this helps the interviewer pay

attention to what the interviewee answers and thereby ensures that no utterances go

unnoticed and that the right post-interview follow-up questions can be asked if needed.

Since Zoom does not allow recording audio only, video was also recorded. However,

the participants were informed that only the audio was going to be used in this study,

and therefore, the video files were deleted directly after the interviews.

The interviews took between 15-30 minutes and were carried out in Swedish, as this is

the participants’ first language and could perhaps therefore result in more detailed

answers. Shortly after the interviews were conducted they were transcribed. Kvale

(2007) states that the choice of transcription style should be chosen based on the

purpose of the research. Since the main interest in this study is on what the interviewees

said, and not on how they said it, the interviews were transformed into a written style

but it was chosen to include pauses and oral emotional expressions such as laughter, as

this could give clues to the interviewees’ attitudes.

18

4.2.2. Observations

Since interviews only provide access to the reported behavior of the participants, it is

not certain that this behavior is accurate (Bryman, 2016). Therefore, to examine

teachers’ actual use of code-switching in a classroom setting, participant observations

with three of the four interviewed teachers were carried out, as not all wanted to

participate. Table 2 below provides some information about the observed lessons.

Table 2

Observed Lessons

Teacher English Course Date of the Observation

T2 English 6 30 April 2020

T3 English 5 22 April 2020

T4 English 5 28 April 2020

At the time of the observations, the participants’ schools had implemented distance

learning due to the prevailing Corona pandemic and the three observed lessons,

therefore, were online video-based lessons carried out on Google Meets. The teachers

had both their video and microphone turned on, whereas their students’ turned their

microphones on only when speaking. To not interfere with the lesson, the author’s

camera and microphone were turned off and the author remained passive throughout the

lessons. The observations were carried out a few days after the interviews were

conducted, which means that the teachers were aware of the focus of the observation.

This, together with the author’s presence in the online classroom, could have had an

impact on the behavior of both the teacher and the students.

The observations were carried out in terms of incidents, which Bryman (2016) explains

is to wait for something to happen and then record what follows from it. Furthermore,

19

Bryman states that when the focus of the observation is on a specific question, the

observation itself should be oriented to that research focus. As the focus of the

observation was on the possibly occurring code-switching in the classroom, the author

solely concentrated on what type of code-switching that occurred, when it occurred and

with what functions. During the observation, detailed field notes were taken to

remember what happened (Bryman, 2016).

4.3. Analysis After the data collection, the material was analyzed through a qualitative data analysis.

While reading through the material, meaningful units were identified and categorized

based on this study’s research questions. The first category regards teachers’ awareness

of code-switching and includes the teachers expressed knowledge, or lack of

knowledge, about code-switching. The second category regards the habits of code-

switching in which several sub-categories were found. These sub-categories were

partially inspired by the categories found in Bensen and Çavtşoğlu (2013) (see section

3.2.1). Lastly, the final category includes to what extent teachers adapt their code-

switching behavior to their student group. As the interviews were conducted in

Swedish, all quotations are translated into English. The quotations and their original

transcription in Swedish can be found in Appendix B.

4.4. Ethical Considerations In this study, the four main ethical guidelines stated by Vetenskapsrådet (2002) have

been applied in the design, the implementation and the synthesis of the interviews and

the observations. All the participants were informed of the purpose of the study and that

the participation was voluntary (the information requirement). The participants’ consent

was acquired through signed consent forms where the participants were informed that

they could cancel or revoke their participation at any time (the consent requirement),

they have been disidentified and they have received information about who will be able

to read this paper and that the collected material will be stored at Malmö University’s

server (the confidentiality requirement). Lastly, the participants have been informed that

the material will not be used for anything else but this paper and will be deleted when

this thesis has been examined (the requirement for usage).

20

5. Results and Discussion In this section, the results are presented according to the research questions of this

study. The first question regards EFL teachers’ awareness of code-switching, and the

second question regards EFL teachers’ and their students’ usage of code-switching in

the classroom. This question is, further, divided into two overall themes named

intentional and unintentional usage. The first theme, intentional usage, is then divided

into subsections that correspond to the different purposes of code-switching. Lastly,

results related to the third research question, namely how the use of code-switching

differ depending on the students’ language level, will be presented. These results are

subject to analytical discussion throughout this section.

5.1. EFL Teachers’ Awareness of Code-Switching The awareness of code-switching differed among the interviewed teachers. Only one of

the participants, T3, reported that he had knowledge of it whereas the other three were

unfamiliar with the concept prior to the interviews.

T3 remembered that he learned about code-switching when taking courses in Swedish

as a L2 during his teacher education. He expressed that code-switching both can

concern switching languages if the speaker is multilingual, but that it can also concern

“switching [language] styles” depending on the recipient and situation. An example of

this switch, T3 explained, can be to “shift between ‘chat language’ and written language

when writing an essay versus when writing on Messenger”. This explanation provided

by T3 does not fully correspond to the concept of code-switching (see the definition of

code-switching presented in section 3.2.) since T3 seems to interpret ‘codes’ as if it also

pertains to intra-language variety rather than recognized languages. However, in

conformity with code-switching, a switch in language styles requires the speaker to

adapt his or her utterances to the recipient and can be used for various purposes such as

to signal personal identity (Gardner-Chloros, 2009). Furthermore, T3’s explanation also

goes beyond the code-switching framework by including written text. As mentioned in

secion 3.2, the concept code-switching seem to exclusively cover oral language and

thereby excludes writing (see, e.g. Auer, 1988; Corcoll López & González-Davies,

21

2016). Accordingly, that T3 has understood code-switching in this way reveals some

limitations in his awareness.

In contrast to this, neither T1, T2, nor T4 expressed that they had any knowledge of

code-switching before the interviews, and both T1 and T2 mentioned that they searched

for the concept before the interview took place. Yet, T1 and T4 vaguely recalled the

concept code-switching being mentioned in the English courses during their teacher

education but did not remember the purpose of it. Upon the question of whether they

believed that code-switching could help students develop English language proficiency,

T1 replied hesitatingly: “I do not know how to answer that question” and continued

“well, yes, maybe”. T1 further said that one could of course learn English through the

use of Swedish by working with vocabulary lists and translation. These findings show

that the interviewed teachers have little to no knowledge about code-switching and its

potential benefits. By comparison, T3 shows awareness of the potential benefits of

code-switching in saying that he believes code-switching could help students develop

their English language proficiency. He stated:

“I do not think that there is any teacher who in good conscience could say that they only

speak English in class, and I do not think it is the most successful way either. I mean you

must be able to switch between explaining the assignment in English and provide

clarifications of some parts in Swedish.” (T3)

This utterance is in line with what Lundahl (2019) and Moore (2002) state being one of

the purposes for code-switching, namely to make communication more effective by

using code-switching as a support for listening comprehension.

Furthermore, T3 and T2 provided similar descriptions of today's students frequently

switching between Swedish and English, and that code-switching, therefore, is

inevitable and natural. These findings align with the foundations of code-switching

expressed by Poplak (1980) and Lightbown and Spada (2013), namely that code-

switching is a natural language phenomenon. However, T2 expressed that it occurs “not

in a positive sense” in the classroom. One interpretation of this utterance is that T2

believe students’ switch of language to be a sign of insufficient language proficiency.

This is in line with Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain (2005) stating that code-switching could

22

be the result of insufficient knowledge in the TL, and also with Lundahl (2019) who

state that code-switching could be a way to avoid expressing oneself in the TL. T2’s

statement could, furthermore, be a result of his lack of knowledge of code-switching

and the impact of the syllabus (Skolverket, 2011a). As will be presented further down in

this section, T2 interprets the syllabus as a TL-only principle is being promoted, and

thereby, it signals that the L1 should be avoided. Another interpretation of T2’s

utterance is that he believes that the code-switching that appears in the classroom does

not occur in an informed way. This idea is supported in Zhu and Vanek (2017), who

found that aimless use of the L1 deprives students of important L2 interaction time.

This, furthermore, indicates that T2 gained some knowledge about code-switching from

searching for the concept before the interview as he, by expressing that code-switching

does not appear in a positive sense, reveals that he understands that code-switching

could occur in a positive sense. This is also in line with Rahayu and Margana (2018)

who found that allowing code-switching in the classroom made the students more

talkative but in a negative way as they did not speak English, whereas the students in

classrooms permeated by a TL-only principle were more active in using the TL.

In conformity with research (see, e.g. Yuvayapan, 2019; Allard et al., 2019), T3 argued

that it could be favorable to “use it [code-switching] consciously and clarify to the

students [...] when it is efficient and not to do it”. T3 further explained that even though

the goal is to speak English in the classroom, he does not believe in a classroom culture

where students are forbidden to use Swedish as this might result in students not daring

to ask questions or ask for clarifications in class. Instead, T3 believes that one should

lower the students’ bar to switch between the languages. This idea is supported in both

Zhu and Vanek (2017) and Lo (2015) who found that an adoption of a code-switching

pedagogy made the students more active in the classroom and it enhanced the level of

student talk. This is, furthermore, relevant to the communicative classroom as it is

stated in the aim for English in upper secondary school (Skolverket, 2011c) that

students’ should be given opportunities to interact in speech and to produce spoken

language.

All the interviewed teachers expressed that the TL should be used as much as possible

in the language classroom and provided different reasons for that. For example, T2

explained that code-switching is not promoted in the guidelines by Skolverket and he

23

interprets the guidelines as one should abide by English as much as possible in the

classroom. This finding partly agrees with the statements in the syllabus for English in

upper secondary school (Skolverket, 2011a) where it is state that “teaching should as far

as possible be conducted in English” (p.1), but does not take the expression of the

promotion of plurilingualism, expressed in the same syllabus, into account. T2’s

explanation is also supported in Yuvayapan (2019) who proposes that, despite the

potential advantages of code-switching, a TL-only practice could be the result of the

impact of the curriculum. A similar view as T2 presented was communicated by T3 who

said that one should mainly use the TL in language education in school. Although T3

did not explain this statement further, it is interpreted as he was referring to the same

passage in the syllabus as T2 did. Moreover, T1 said that he almost exclusively uses

English in the classroom and believes that “it generally does not impair the learning in

any way”. Here it can be seen that T2 relates to the commentary material for the subject

English (Skolverket, 2011b) where it is expressed that occasional elements of L1 could

be used in teaching if the teacher considers it as helpful to increase understanding.

Consequently, these ideas of using the TL as much as possible in the language

classroom expressed by both the syllabus and the participating teachers are in line with

Cummins (2007) and Lundahl (2019) who state that a greater use of the TL can result in

higher language achievement. Similarly, that T1 expressed that a TL-only practice did

not impair learning in any way, is also supported by the findings by Lee and Macaro

(2013). They show that adult students’ vocabulary acquisition did not differ between a

code-switching instruction and a TL-only instruction. In Lee and Macaro’s (2013)

study, adult learners refer to students at university level, and they state that proficiency

levels often accompany age differences. Since T1’s reports that his students are

relatively proficient in English (see section 5.3), a TL-only principle in T1’s classrooms

seems to be well-motivated.

Furthermore, T4 explained that she tries to use English for the most part in the

classroom to “create an English education which is as authentic as possible” and T2

mentioned that he assesses his students based on the idea that an English speaking

person should understand the students’ production. Therefore, if the student switches

between Swedish and English too much, the English speaking person would not

understand the message. This notion of using the TL as much as possible also

corroborates the findings by Simasiku et al. (2015) and Yuvayapan (2019) who found

24

that teachers prefer a TL-only principle to help students strengthen their linguistic

competence to acquire a native-like proficiency. This goal of reaching native-like

proficiency is not stated in the syllabus (Skolverket, 2011a). Instead, it is expressed that

students should develop knowledge of English “so that they have the ability, desire and

confidence to use English in different situations and for different purposes” (Skolverket,

2011a, p.1) in order to increase their opportunities to participate in “different social and

cultural contexts, as well as in global studies and in working life” (p.1).

5.2. EFL Teachers’ and Their Students’ Usage of Code-Switching Although most of the interviewed teachers lack knowledge of the concept of code-

switching, and they all expressed that a large amount of TL-use is favorable, all

participating teachers presented examples of code-switching in their teaching. Some of

these occurrences of code-switching were intentionally planned for whereas others

happened unintentionally.

5.2.1. Intentional Code-Switching

The examples of intentional code-switching found in the material regard the use of

code-switching to focalize on form, for communication effectiveness, for relational

purposes, and due to convenience to avoid using the TL.

5.2.1.1. Focalization on Form

All teachers but T2 spoke of using code-switching to focalize on form. For example, T1

expressed that he occasionally switches to Swedish to explain something grammatical

that he believes his students need to revise or if he, for example, “needs to explain the

difference in what the student says and what he instead should say”. That is, T1 clarifies

the inaccurate use of English in an utterance by providing an example of how the same

utterance would sound in Swedish. This finding is in line with what Moore (2002) and

Lundahl (2019) express as being one of the functions of using code-switching in the

classroom. Furthermore, this idea of using code-switching for a form focus is also

supported by Kocama and Aslan (2018) showing that students find it positive to make

use of the L1 for explaining grammar or for highlighting differences between the L1

25

and the L2. T1’s use of code-switching for this purpose is also in line with the

commentary material for English (Skolverket, 2011b) where it is expressed that

occasional elements of the L1 can occur if the teacher considers it to contribute to

increased understanding.

Moreover, T3 expressed that he uses code-switching when talking about difficult words

and their meaning. In those cases, he said, he can make quick comparisons between

different Latin languages since “many of the difficult words in both English and

Swedish have their origin [there]”. Furthermore, he tries to link difficult words to as

many languages as possible for the students to see connections between the languages.

In correspondence with the result presented above, T3’s examples of code-switching are

also in line with theory (Lundahl, 2019; Kocama & Aslan, 2018; Moore, 2002) where it

is expressed that code-switching can function as an effective tool for explaining new

words. Also, this use of code-switching can be promoted both by the desirable

plurilingual approach expressed in CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001) and in the syllabus

for English (Skolverket, 2011a) where it is stated that teaching should encourage

students’ curiosity in language.

5.2.1.2. Communication Effectiveness

All the participating teachers use code-switching for communication effectiveness. For

example, both T3 and T4 explained that if their students are uncertain of a specific word

or want to ask a question in Swedish, they encourage them to try to explain the word or

question in English, but if it does not work they allow them to use Swedish instead.

These findings corroborate the findings by Lo (2015) and Zhu and Vanek (2017), who

found that teachers use code-switching to provide translation in order for the students

to, for instance, access content. In the situations explained by T3 and T4, one could also

argue that the use of code-switching is a result of the lack of relevant vocabulary

(Lightbown & Spada, 2013). However, as the students await the teachers’ approval to

use the L1, it appears to be an informed strategy that students are able to use in the

classroom, which corresponds to one of the goals for the subject of English: “The

ability to use different language strategies in different contexts” (Skolverket, 2011a,

p.2). The idea of letting students code-switch is further supported by Zhu and Vanek

26

(2017) who show that code-switching encourages more student interactions, which is

relevant for promoting the communicative English classroom.

Furthermore, T4 explained that she shifts to Swedish on occasions where it is

particularly important that the information is getting through. For example, because of

the prevailing distance learning, she has sent e-mails to her students in Swedish to

ensure that important information gets through. This is in line with Allard et al. (2019)

who found that teachers believe code-switching to be useful for giving access to

content. Another example of code-switching in T4’s classroom is that T4 and her

students have agreed on her switching to Swedish when explaining or talking about the

knowledge requirements since the students must understand them. This was also shown

in the observed class of T4 where she explained a new assignment in English and

suddenly shifted to Swedish:

T4: Och eftersom det handlar om betygsättning går jag över till svenska

And since this is about grading I will move on to Swedish

This finding is an example of an intentionally planned code-switching and thus is what

Zhu and Vanek (2017) suggest as an optimized use of code-switching. Zhu and Vanek

(2017) state that the teacher and the students should agree on norms about language use

in the classroom, which is exactly what T4 has done in her classroom. She has

consequently given the students possibilities to influence the teaching and has adapted

the teaching to the students’ conditions and needs, which are two aspects required from

Skolverket (2011c).

In the same class, it was also shown that T4 uses code-switching to translate specific

words within a sentence:

T4: Do you need props, rekvisita, for your movie

props

Here, in contrast to the focalization on form (see section 5.2.1.1), the purpose of this

utterance by the teacher was to convey a message, that is, to explain an assignment, and

not specifically to teach the students this new word. Thereby, according to the author’s

27

interpretation, the purpose of this code-switch was to make the communication more

effective. This finding is in line with Lo (2015) and Zhu and Vanek (2017), showing

that teachers in their studies used code-switching for the same purposes.

Similar occurrences of code-switching were found in T3’s lesson. To exemplify, T3

gave the students the task to “write the headlines in abbreviations” and one of his

students’ immediately asked, in Swedish, what they were supposed to do. In this

particular case, T3 explained the task again, but this time in Swedish. This finding

corroborates the findings by Allard et al. (2019), showing that teachers use code-

switching to give access to content. Furthermore, Yuvavapan (2019) also shows that

teachers use code-switching to help low proficiency students, which the example from

T3’s class could be an example of. Other examples of code-switching for

communication effectiveness were when Swedish was used by the students to answer

questions, which is illustrated by the following example:

T3: What is a noun?

S: Substantiv

Noun

In cases like these, T3 explained after the observation, where T3 asks a relatively simple

question to see if the students are following, he finds it more efficient to let students

answer in Swedish instead of having them trying to explain what a specific term is in

English. That is, code-switching is used to make the communication more efficient,

which is also found in Moore (2002).

Lastly, T2 declared that in his classes of English at the elementary level he “has to rely

on Swedish to, for example, explain assignments”. He explained that when speaking

English in class he has to repeat and explain in Swedish what he just said so that his

students who “do not understand English” will get the message. In these classes,

student-coaches who speak the students’ L1s, which are not Swedish, aid T2 in

explaining the given assignments in the students’ L1s. Besides this, T2 also expressed

that he asks his students to use the online dictionary Lexin where they can use their L1

to understand an assignment or translate a word. These examples of code-switching

have a content focus and functions, as Moore (2002) and Lundahl (2019) state, as a

28

support for listening, reading, or conversational comprehension. That is, code-switching

is used for the students to be able to carry out assignments and the teacher adapts his

choice of language to the pupils so that they can develop their English, which is in line

with what McKay (2012) states being beneficial for the development of their English

proficiency. As T2 explains, his students are not that proficient in English, which means

that this finding is also in line with the findings in Lo (2019), showing that L1 is used to

a greater extent in classes where students’ TL proficiency level is low.

Throughout this section, several examples of the use of Swedish in the English language

classrooms are presented. Although the participating teachers seem to adapt their

teaching to their specific group of students, both Allard et al. (2019) and Lundahl

(2019) highlight that a shift from L2 to L1 in the classroom is not as beneficial for the

students who do not share the same L1 as the majority of the class. In all the

participating teachers’ classes, there were students with other L1s than Swedish. As

such, these students might be disfavored by the approach where Swedish is used as a

reference when learning English. Nevertheless, as the participating teachers are not

proficient in the students’ L1s, they cannot use those languages when giving

instructions. Instead, when they notice that the students do not understand what is being

said in English, they switch to Swedish. As such, they make use of the languages they

know, intending to fulfill communication needs. Also, the teachers provide other

communicative support for the students who might not be benefited by this code-switch.

One example of this is T2’s classroom practices where student-coaches who speak the

students’ L1s are able to assist the students, and that T2 encourages students to use

translations.

5.2.1.3. Relational Purposes

Both T1 and T4 mentioned that they use code-switching for relational purposes. T1

pointed out that if a student comes to him after class and explains that he or she is not

feeling well or is feeling stressed, he switches to Swedish; “if I notice it [that the student

is not feeling well] and still would continue with English, it just feels annoying”.

Instead of talking to the students in English with the purpose of developing their skills

in those situations, T1 wants to “talk to them for real”. Similar examples were provided

by T4 who explained “I get a completely different relationship with them [the students]

29

when I speak Swedish”. This was also shown in the lesson observation with T4, where

one of the students stayed in the virtual classroom while the rest of the class logged out.

The conversation that took place between T4 and the student, in which the student was

crying and told T4 that she was stressed and T4 tried to support the student, was

conducted solely in Swedish. These results corroborate the findings by Yuvayapan

(2019) who shows that the teachers in her study believed code-switching to be useful

for building bonds with the students. This is furthermore an example of where the

teachers step out of their professional roles as teachers, where their main goal is to teach

students the TL, and enters a more informal role where their main goal is to maintain a

good relationship with their students.

5.2.1.4. Convenience

All the participating teachers provided examples of code-switching due to convenience

in their classrooms. Based on these findings, it seems like this occurrence of code-

switching is due to students’ insecurity. For instance, T1 explained that a few of his

students show resistance towards speaking English in front of the class. Likewise, T2

said that his students prefer to speak Swedish or Arabic in the classroom because he

believes they “prefer to speak what they are more comfortable speaking”. Similarly, T3

said that most of his students prefer to speak Swedish in the classroom because “in

general, they do not speak it [English] outside the classroom”. These examples of code-

switching could be a sign of students’ lack of proficiency in the TL. As Lundahl (2019)

states, a code-switching behavior could be a way to avoid expressing oneself in the TL.

Or it could also be the result of the lack of relevant vocabulary (Lightbown & Spada,

2013). Another interpretation of this could be that the students are lazy seeing that

Gardner-Chloros (2009) states that bilingual speakers themselves report that they

sometimes use code-switching when they cannot be bothered to find the appropriate

word in the language. In these cases of code-switching due to convenience, code-

switching does not function as an informed way to reach higher linguistic competence,

but it could potentially function as a way to signal personal identity, which Lightbown

and Spada (2013) and McKay (2012) state is one of the functions of code-switching.

These findings are also examples of using code-switching to avoid expressing oneself in

the TL (Lundahl, 2019).

30

Furthermore, T2 mentioned that some of his students do not dare to express themselves

in English because they are ashamed of their language. T2 believes that the students do

not want to expose themselves to say something or pronounce a word incorrectly

because they are afraid that the class will laugh. A similar description was also shown

by T4, where she expressed that in her English classes, most students are Swedish L1

speakers, but some are English L1 speakers. In these classes, T4 has noticed that some

Swedish L1 students do not dare to speak English to the same extent, as she believes

they would have done if there were no English L1 students in the class.

5.2.2. Unintentional Code-Switching

The examples of unintentional code-switching found in the material regard code-

switching due to forgetfulness. All the participating teachers explained that both their

students and themselves sometimes tend to forget to speak English. T1 described how if

a student comes up to him outside of class and asks about something, he answers in

Swedish because he is not “in an English mode”. Also, both T2 and T3 said that they

occasionally forget to speak English themselves in the classroom, and T2, therefore,

sometimes receives complaints from his students for doing that. The example from T2’s

classroom is in line with what Allard et al. (2019) found in their study, namely that

some students are unsatisfied with their English language development due to the use of

L1 in the classroom. It is also in line with what Simasiku et al. (2015) found, namely

that teachers believed that their students prefer to speak the TL in the classroom. In the

study by Zhu and Vanek (2017), they also warn against L1 overuse in these types of

settings but argue for a need to optimize the use of L1 to ensure comprehensible input.

Moreover, T2, T3, and T4 all provided stories of their students forgetting to speak

English in the classroom. For example, T2 reported that many of his students switch to

Swedish unconsciously while speaking and, for example, frequently add the Swedish

filler word “liksom” while speaking English. Furthermore, T3 said that his students tend

to forget to speak English while working in class and that it usually is enough for him to

walk around in the classroom for the students to realize that they are speaking Swedish

and immediately switch to English again. A similar report was given by T4 who showed

an understanding of the tendency to forget to speak English as she expressed that it is

unnatural to speak another language with someone whom you know speaks your L1.

31

Therefore, she pointed out that “one must force ones’ brain” to focus on the L2 and that

is why she finds it important that everyone in the class tries to solely speak English. An

example of forgetting to speak English was observed in T4’s lesson:

S: Vilka filmer har blivit tagna?

What movies have been taken?

T4: Can you say that in English?

S: Oh, yes, which movies are already taken?

In this example, the student asks a question in Swedish upon which T4 reminds her to

speak English. The student reacts with an “oh” which indicates that she had forgotten to

speak English and immediately after she repeats the question in English.

These examples of unintentional code-switching could be explained by the nature of

code-switching, namely that it occurs naturally in bilingual settings and that it can be

used in conversations where all interlocutors share the same language repertoire

(Lightbown & Spada, 2013). As shown in this section, code-switching seems to happen

frequently in these settings where the teacher shares the same L1 as the students. That

is, a code-switching behavior is functional, yet to some extent undesirable, in the

participants’ classrooms. This is, for example, the case with the students’ use of the

Swedish filler word “liksom”. This filler word does not have a corresponding word in

English, and therefore, code-switching, in this case, does not seem to be a sign of

insufficient language use. Instead, it seems to be consistent with the nature of code-

switching as it is used to fulfill communicative needs (Corocoll López & González-

Davies, 2016).

5.3. Difference in the Use of Code-Switching Depending on the Students’ Language Level The third research question seeks to answer how teachers’ choices of code-switching in

the classroom differ depending on their students’ language level. As illustrated by the

interviewed teachers, the use of other languages than English seems to differ between

the different English courses as well as their student groups. One exception to this is

illustrated by T4 who said that she does not adapt her language at all regardless of the

English course since she tries to “have this genuine English in the classroom always”.

32

As previously mentioned, T1 practices an English-only principle in his classrooms and

motivated this by explaining that an exclusive use of English will make the students

learn more of the language. T1 explained that his students are “generally very, very

good at speaking English” and that some of his students have English as their L1

whereas other Swedish L1 students speak English as if it was their L1. T1 said that “I

would say that all my students keep up with everything we do, even though I am only

speaking English” and instead of switching to Swedish, he adapts his language to

different levels. He gives an example of when the students are working with a project

about, for instance, the climate and they are supposed to use difficult vocabulary he tries

to “take it down to a less abstract level and talk about what the terms mean instead of

blurting out the terms and thereby lose the students”. Another example of adaptation to

the students’ levels was provided by T2 who explained that he is much more strict with

the English-only principle in English 6 than he is in English 5. He described that “in

English 5, if they happen to say something in Swedish or if they maybe ask how

something is pronounced or so, one can overlook it in English 5, but not in English 6”.

These findings are in line with previous research and theory (Lo, 2015; Lundahl, 2019).

For example, Lundahl (2019) argues that the usage of code-switching should be

dependent on the students’ language level, which both T1 and T2 seem to have adapted.

Similarly, in the study by Lo (2015), it was found that the teacher makes use of

students’ L1 more in classes where the students TL proficiency level is low. In this

study it was found that in classes with students of higher language ability, as is the case

for T1 and T2’s classes, the teachers occasionally made use of the L1 as a support, but

in some cases the teachers instead elaborated more in the TL. Moreover, both T2 and

T3’s code-switching behavior is in line with the recommendations from Skolverket

(2011c), namely to adapt the teaching to the specific students’ needs.

T3 said that he speaks more Swedish in the course English 5 than in English 6 because

the language requirements are lower in English 5. Furthermore, T3 explained that the

students taking that course are in a vocational program, and “their goal only has to be to

get an E in the course to get their school leaving certificate”, and therefore he puts more

effort into pushing them over that finish line. On the other hand, in the English 6 course,

T3 explained that “the idea is that you should be able to study at university afterward

and be able to have course books in English and lectures in English, so therefore one

does one's students a disservice if one adapts too much there”. These findings, similar to

33

the findings presented above, are supported by the recommendations by the national

curriculum (Skolverket, 2011c) where it is expressed that education should be adapted

to the students’ conditions and needs. However, in the same curriculum (Skolverket,

2011c) is stated that each person working in the school should give all students support

and stimulus so that they can develop as far as possible. As such, T3’s statement on

students in the vocational program only has to get an E in English could potentially be

problematic as they might not be encouraged to develop as far as possible.

34

6. Conclusion To summarize, although code-switching has shown to be beneficial for students’

language learning and for strengthening their identities, it can be interpreted as it is not

encouraged in the syllabus for English in upper secondary school. Because of this

potential disagreement, this study aimed to broaden the knowledge of how upper

secondary school teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) in Sweden relate to

code-switching in their different classrooms. And thereby, this study sought to examine

some upper secondary school teachers’ understanding of code-switching as well as

their, and their students, use of code-switching in EFL classrooms.

The first research question of this study aimed to examine EFL teachers’ awareness of

code-switching. The data suggests that all participating teachers have limited knowledge

of code-switching and that they believe that a large amount of TL use in the classroom

is favorable. Nevertheless, the data shows that the participating teachers use code-

switching both intentionally and unintentionally for various purposes. The intentional

use of code-switching is to focus on form, for communication effectiveness, for

relational purposes, and due to convenience. The unintentional use of code-switching,

though, is due to forgetting to speak the TL. Based on the teachers’ reports and the

lesson observations, it was found that the students also use code-switching for the same

purposes as the teachers, but not to the same degree to focus on form. Notably, none of

the participating teachers seem to use code-switching as a strategy for promoting

students’ long-standing language acquisition. Instead, code-switching seems to be used

for time-saving purposes, for giving access to content for students with low TL

proficiency, and for relational purposes. Thereby, the second research question (What

are EFL teachers’ and their students’ usage of code-switching in the classroom?) has

been answered. Moreover, regarding the third research question (How does the use of

code-switching differ depending on the students’ language level?), it seems as all the

participating teachers adapt their code-switching behavior effectively to their student

group. In conclusion, the findings of this study are in line with earlier research arguing

that code-switching is more suitable for students with lower language proficiency.

Considering this being a small-scale study based on participants with limited teaching

experience, it is not possible to draw any general conclusions from these findings.

35

Nevertheless, this study contributes to a somewhat deeper knowledge about how upper

secondary school teachers of EFL in Sweden relate to code-switching in their

classrooms. Although a triangulation was used for data collection to increase the

validity and reliability of this study, the study is based on a small number of participants

and observations. Therefore, it is difficult to say whether the teachers’ reports of code-

switching in fact match their teaching practice. Nonetheless, based on the findings of

this study it could be argued that EFL teachers should get training in how to effectively

use code-switching in the classroom in a way that it can facilitate language learning.

Based on this study, it is not possible to say whether the use of code-switching impacts

students’ language learning. Similarly, much of the previous research has focused on

teachers’ use and beliefs about code-switching. Therefore, further research could focus

more on the consequences of a code-switching pedagogy. For instance, a larger-scale

long-term study of learners at different language levels could be carried out to

investigate to what extent the use of code-switching affects students’ FL learning.

Further, it could be examined to what extent students find it useful to use code-

switching as a conscious language learning strategy to develop their language

proficiency.

36

7. References Allard, E. C., Apt, S., & Sacks, I. (2019). Language Policy and Practice in Almost-

Bilingual Classrooms. International Multilingual Research Journal, 13(2), 73–

87.

Auer, P. (1988). Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, interaction and identity.

London: Routledge

Bensen, H., & Çavuşoğlu, Ç. (2013). Reasons for the Teachers’ Uses of Code-

Switching in Adult Efl Classrooms. Journal of Hasan Ali Yücel Faculty of

Education / Hasan Ali Yücel Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi (HAYEF), 10(2), 69.

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Canagarajah, S. (2011). ‘Codemeshing in academic writing: identifying teachable

strategies of translanguaging’. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–17.

Corcoll López, C., & González-Davies, M. (2016). Switching Codes in the Plurilingual

Classroom. ELT Journal, 70(1), 67–77.

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages:

Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Press Syndicate of the

University of Cambridge.

Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual

classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–240.

García, O., & Wei, L. (2013). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and

Education. Palgrave Macmillan Limited.

Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge University Press.

Kocaman, O., & Aslan, E. (2018). The Students’ Perceptions of the Use of L1 in EFL

Classes: A Private Anatolian High School Sample. Journal of Language and

Linguistic Studies, 14(4), 179–189.

Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. Thousand Oakes: Sage Publications

Lee, J. H., & Macaro, E. (2013). Investigating age in the use of L1 or english-only

instruction: Vocabulary acquisition by Korean EFL learners. The Modern

Language Journal, 97(4), 887–901. https://doi-

org.proxy.mau.se/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12044.x

37

Liebscher, G., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2005). Learner Code-Switching in the Content-

Based Foreign Language Classroom. Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 234-

247.

Lightbown, M. P., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Lo, Y. Y. (2015). How Much L1 Is Too Much? Teachers’ Language Use in Response to

Students’ Abilities and Classroom Interaction in Content and Language

Integrated Learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism, 18(3), 270–288.

Lundahl, B. (2019). Engelsk språkdidaktik texter, kommunikation, språkutveckling.

Lund: Studentlitteratur AB.

McKay, S. (2012). English as an international language. In Burns, A. & Richards, J, C.

(Eds.), Pedagogy and practice in second language teaching (pp. 15-22).

Cambrigde University Press

Moore, D. (2002). Code-switching and Learning in the Classroom. International

Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5(5), 279.

Poplak, S. (1980). “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en espanol”:

toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18(7/8), 581-618.

Rahayu, D. I., & Margana, M. (2018). Comparing the Effects of L2-based with Code

switching-based Instruction on EFL Speaking Classes. Journal of Language

Teaching & Research, 9(5), 946–952.

https://doi.org.proxy.mau.se/10.17507/jltr.0905.07

Simasiku, L., Kasanda, C., & Smit, T. (2015). Can Code Switching Enhance Learners’

Academic Achievement? English Language Teaching, 8(2), 70–77.

Skolverket. (2011a). English. Läroplan, ämnen & kurser: Ämne – engelska. Retrieved

from

https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.4fc05a3f164131a74181056/153537229

7288/English-swedish-school.pdf

Skolverket. (2011b). Kommentarmaterial till ämnesplanen i engelska i gymnasieskolan.

Retrieved from

https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.6011fe501629fd150a28916/153683151

8394/Kommentarmaterial_gymnasieskolan_engelska.pdf

Skolverket. (2011c). Läroplan, examensmål och gymnasiegemensamma ämnen för

gymnasieskola 2011. Retrieved from

38

https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/gymnasieskolan/laroplan-program-och-

amnen-i-gymnasieskolan/laroplan-gy11-for-gymnasieskolan

Skolverket. (2019). Lärarbehörigheten minskar i grundskolan men ökar i gymnasiet.

Retrieved 2020-05-04 from https://www.skolverket.se/om-

oss/press/pressmeddelanden/pressmeddelanden/2019-03-12-lararbehorigheten-

minskar-i-grundskolan-men-okar-i-gymnasiet

Vetenskapsrådet. (2002). Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-

samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. Retrieved from

http://www.codex.vr.se/texts/HSFR.pdf

Yuvayapan, F. (2019). Translanguaging in EFL Classrooms: Teachers’ Perceptions and

Practices. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 678–694.

Zhu, X., & Vanek, N. (2017) Facilitative effects of learner-directed codeswitching:

evidence from Chinese learners of English, International Journal of Bilingual

Education and Bilingualism. 20(7), 773-787, DOI:

10.1080/13670050.2015.1087962

39

8. Appendix

Appendix A: Interview Guide

Background questions:

How old are you? When did you graduate?

What is your study background?

What is your working experience within the teaching profession?

What English courses are you teaching now?

Understanding:

What do you know about code-switching?

Do you remember learning about code-switching in your teacher education?

Do you believe using code-switching in the EFL classroom can help students develop

their English language proficiency? In what way/why not?

Do you believe using code-switching in the EFL classroom can have other benefits for

the students? What?/Why not?

Use:

What languages do you use when teaching English? Why?

Do you use code-switching in the English classroom? When? For what purposes/Why

not?

What language do you prefer your students to speak during the English lesson? Why?

What language do you perceive that your students prefer to speak during the English

lesson? Why?

What languages do your students use in the English classroom? Why?

Do your students use code-switching? When? For what purposes/Why not?

Do you encourage your students to use code-switching in the classroom? Why/Why

not?

Do your teaching methods differ depending on your students’ language level? How?

If you do not use code-switching: Do you have any other strategies to support

multilingual students?

40

Appendix B: My Translations of Participants’ Quotes

Page

Number

Participant My translation in English

(the highlighted words)

The original transcription in Swedish

(the highlighted words that are

translated)

p.20

T3 but that it can also concern

“switching [language] styles”

depending on the recipient and

situation.

det kan liksom både handla om byta språk

om du är flerspråkig, eh, och att du byter

stil så att du kan gå mellan att till exempel

prata förortsslang och mer, ehm,

majoritetskultursvenska

p.20 T3 An example of this switch can be

to “shift between ‘chat language’

and written language when

writing an essay versus when

writing on Messenger”.

Och att man kan liksom aa växla mellan

chattspråk och skriftspråk när man skriver

uppsats versus när man skriver på

messenger eller liknande.

p.21 T1 “I do not know how to answer

that question” and continued

“well, yes, maybe”.

Ja, ehm, jag vet inte alls hur jag ska vara

på den frågan. Ehm. Vad sa du, kan du

säga det igen? [...] Ehm jaa kanske det

p.21

T3 “I do not think that there is any

teacher who in good conscience

could say that they only speak

English in class, and I do not

think it is the most successful way

either. I mean you must be able to

switch between explaining the

assignment in English and provide

clarifications of some parts in

Swedish.”

men jag tror att det inte finns någon lärare

som med gott samvete kan säga att man

bara pratar engelska på lektionen, och jag

tror inte heller att det är det mest

framgångsrika sättet, alltså du måste

kunna växla mellan att förklara uppgiften

på engelska och komma med

förtydliganden av vissa delar på svenska

p.21 T2 However, T2 expressed that it

occurs “not in a positive sense” in

the classroom

så de gör ju en del code-switching redan

som det är, men inte i positiv bemärkelse

skulle jag säga att det anses

p.22 T3 T3 argued that it could be

favorable to “use it [code-

switching] consciously and clarify

to the students [...] when it is

men det finns absolut fördelar med att

göra det medvetet, och att tydliggöra för

eleverna när vissa saker passar sig och när

vissa saker inte passar sig och när det är

41

efficient and not to do it”.

såhär effektivt och inte att göra det liksom

p.23 T1 Moreover, T1 said that he almost

exclusively uses English in the

classroom and believes that “it

generally does not impair the

learning in any way”.

Och jag tycker att det generellt sätt inte

liksom förstör i inlärningen på något sätt,

att det är så att jag liksom tappar bort

elever, att de inte hänger med på grund av

språket eller såhär

p.23 T4 Furthermore, T4 explained that

she tries to use English for the

most part in the classroom to

“create an English education

which is as authentic as possible”

jag försöker till allra största del använda

engelska, för att vi ska skapa liksom en så

genuin engelskundervisning som möjligt

p.24 T1 For example, T1 expressed that he

occasionally switches to Swedish

to explain something grammatical

that he believes his students need

to revise or if he, for example,

“needs to explain the difference in

what the student says and what he

instead should say”.

det är väl i så fall om man kommer in på

någonting grammatiskt som man känner

att folk behöver repetera eller har någon

slags genomgång om, ehm, jag vet inte, låt

säga någon verbböjning, eh, och man

behöver liksom förtydliga skillnaden i det

eleven säger och vad den istället borde

säga, eh, eller skriva, eh, genom att liksom

lyfta fram ett svenskt exempel

p.25 T3 T3 expressed that he uses code-

switching when talking about

difficult words and their meaning.

In those cases, he said, he can

make quick comparisons between

different Latin languages since

“many of the difficult words in

both English and Swedish have

their origin [there]”.

när vi pratar om svåra ord och så, och vad

de betyder, då kan man ju komma in på

andra latinska språk ofta för det är ju där

många av de svåra orden både i engelska

och svenska har sitt ursprung, att man

liksom kan göra snabba jämförelser och

såhär

p.27 T2 Lastly, T2 declared that in his

classes of English at the

elementary level he “has to rely

on Swedish to, for example,

explain assignments”.

Så på min grund-klass där måste jag

förlita mig på svenskan för att till exempel

förklara uppgifter.

42

p.27 T2 He explained that when speaking

English in class he has to repeat

and explain in Swedish what he

just said so that his students who

“do not understand English” will

get the message.

Som jag pratar engelska men så måste jag

förklara det på svenska för de som inte

förstår engelska.

p.28 T1 T1 pointed out that if a student

comes to him after class and

explains that he or she is not

feeling well or is stressed out, he

switches to Swedish; “if I notice it

[that the student is not feeling

well] and still would continue

with English, it just feels

annoying”. Instead of talking to

the students in English with the

purpose of developing their skills

in those situations, T1 wants to

“talk to them for real”.

allts låt säga att nån kommer till mig och

säger att det är jättejobbigt och man mår

dåligt över uppgiften osv, eh, är

skitstressade och om jag då märker det

och fortfarande skulle köra vidare på

engelskan så känns det bara liksom drygt,

istället för att liksom bara prata, jamen,

utan något syfte om att utveckla deras

kunskaper utan bara liksom prata med

dem på riktigt

p.28 T4 Similar examples were provided

by T4 who explained “I get a

completely different relationship

with them [the students] when I

speak Swedish”.

nu har jag ju både svenska och engelska,

så jag märker det ganska tydligt det är ju

att jag får en helt annan relation med dem

när jag pratar på svenska

p.29 T2 Likewise, T2 said that his

students prefer to speak Swedish

or Arabic in the classroom

because he believes they “prefer

to speak what they are more

comfortable speaking”.

Men jag tror som sagt att de föredrar nog

att prata det som de är mer bekväma i att

prata.

p.29 T3 Similarly, T3 said that most of his

students prefer to speak Swedish

in the classroom because “in

general, they do not speak it

[English] outside the classroom”

de pratar inte det utanför klassrummet i

stort sett

p.30 T1 T1 described how if a student snarare utanför lektionstid om någon

43

comes up to him outside of class

and asks about something, he

answers in Swedish because he is

not “in an English mode”

kommer till mig och vill ta det och jag inte

är inställd på engelska så blir det på

svenska

p.31 T4 Therefore, she pointed out that

“one must force ones’ brain” to

focus on the L2 and that is why

she finds it important that

everyone in the class tries to

solely speak English.

så är det fullständigt onaturligt att prata på

ett annat språk, man måste tvinga hjärnan

och det är därför det är så viktigt att alla

håller sig till engelskan

p.31 T4 One exception to this is illustrated

by T4 who said that she does not

adapt her language at all

regardless of the English course

since she tries to “have this

genuine English in the classroom

always”

engelska 6 kräver ganska mycket mer,

men just eftersom att jag försöker att ha

liksom ändå det här genuina engelska i

klassrummet alltid så blir det väldigt likt

p.32 T1 T1 explained that his students are

“generally very, very good at

speaking English” and that some

of his students have English as

their L1 whereas other Swedish

L1 students speak English as if it

was their L1

jag måste säga att mina elever är

sinnessjukt, generellt sett, väldigt väldigt

duktiga på att prata engelska

p.32 T1 T1 said that “I would say that all

my students keep up with

everything we do, even though I

am only speaking English” and

instead of switching to Swedish,

he adapts his language to different

levels.

jag skulle nog säga att alla mina elever

hänger med i allting vi gör trots att jag

bara pratar engelska

p.32 T1 He gives an example of when the

students are working with a

project about, for instance, the

climate and they are supposed to

use difficult vocabulary he tries to

och man ska slänga in svåra ord, att

försöka dra ner det på en mindre abstrakt

nivå och prata om vad begreppen innebär

istället för att slänga med begreppen och

därav tappa bort eleverna

44

“take it down to a less abstract

level and talk about what the

terms mean instead of blurting out

the terms and thereby lose the

students”.

p.32 T2 He described that “in English 5, if

they happen to say something in

Swedish or if they maybe ask how

something is pronounced or so,

one can overlook it in English 5,

but not in English 6”.

alltså att i engelska 5 om de råkar säga

någonting på svenska eller ifall de kanske

frågar om hur någonting uttalas eller något

liknande, man kan ha överseende med det

på engelska 5, men inte i engelska 6.

p.32 T3 T3 explained that the students

taking that course are in a

vocational program, and “their

goal only has to be to get an E in

the course to get their school

leaving certificate”

dom behöver inte läsa engelska 6, utan

deras mål behöver bara vara att få E på

kursen för att de ska liksom få sin

yrkesexamen

p.32 T3 On the other hand, in the English

6 course, T3 explained that “the

idea is that you should be able to

study at university afterward and

be able to have course books in

English and lectures in English,

so therefore one does one's

students a disservice if one adapts

too much there”.

medans om man har valt engelska 6 så är

ju tanken att du ska kunna klara av att sen

läsa på universitetet och kunna ha

kursböcker på engelska och föreläsningar

på engelska, så då blir det också så att då

gör man också eleverna en otjänst om man

anpassar för mycket där