Language Use in the ForeignLanguage ClassroomGregory L. ThompsonBrigham Young University

Katie HarrisonUniversity of Central Florida

Abstract: Students’ first and target language are often used by both teachers andstudents during instruction in the foreign language classroom (Levine, 2011). In thisstudy, the frequency of and reasons for students’ and teachers’ use of English or Spanishwere analyzed using video recordings of 40 class sessions taught by eight randomlyselected Spanish 102 teachers and by eight randomly selected Spanish 202 teachers. All ofthe videos were transcribed, and a word count was made to determine the overall use ofSpanish and English by the students and teachers. The relationship between the numberof code‐switches by teachers and students and the overall use of Spanish and English inthe classroom were analyzed. Finally, the code‐switches between languages were cate-gorized and counted to determine if students or teachers initiated the switch and underwhat circumstances, as well as the influence of code‐switching on the interlocutor’ssubsequent language choice. The results indicate that teacher‐initiated code‐switches hadthe most influence on students’ subsequent language choice and that teachers code‐switched more often, even though students used a higher overall percentage of the firstlanguage. In addition, there was a strong positive relationship between the number ofcode‐switches and the overall use of Spanish and English during instruction.

Key words: Spanish, code‐switching, first language, language use, target language

IntroductionStudents’ first and target language are often used by both teachers and studentsduring instruction in the foreign language classroom (Levine, 2011). Changes fromone language to another, called code‐switching, have been defined in a variety ofways. Timm (1993) defined code‐switching as the alternating of two differentlanguages at the word, phrase, clause, or sentence level (p. 94). Coste (1997) definedcode‐switching as alternating between two languages in either oral or writtenexpression. Often, the expression is used interchangeably with terms such as codemixing, language switching, or language alternation, although each term has a slightly

Gregory L. Thompson (PhD, University of Arizona) is an Assistant Professor ofSpanish Pedagogy at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.Katie Harrison (BS, University of Central Florida) is a freelance editor forCreateSpace.Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 47, Iss. 2, pp. 321–337. © 2014 by American Council on the Teaching of ForeignLanguages.DOI: 10.1111/flan.12079

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 2 321

different meaning depending on the re-searcher. Code‐switching research hastended to look at more advanced bilinguals,while less consideration has been given tocode‐switching in the foreign languageclassroom and especially these interactionsbetween students and teachers.

Research to date has not consideredhow the initiator of the code‐switches mayinfluence other interlocutors and how thetype and quantity of code‐switching in aclassroom may affect overall language use.In addition, studies have failed to considerthe impact of the students’ code‐switchingon the teacher’s language choices. In thisstudy, researchers examined the overalluse of Spanish and English in the classroomby both the students and the teachers. Inorder to better understand the influence ofcode‐switching on overall language use, thenumber of code‐switches by teachers andstudents were examined, focusing on theinitiator of the code‐switch and subsequentlanguage use. In addition, teacher and stu-dent code‐switching behaviors, includingthe point of initiation of each code‐switch,the context surrounding it, subsequent lan-guage choices, and how the class level andthe frequency of code‐switches affected theoverall use of Spanish and English in theclassroom, were also studied to better un-derstand first and target language use in theclassroom. Too often research has lookedonly at student or teacher use and failed toconnect the linguistic behaviors between thetwo groups within the language classroomto fully understand the language choicesthat are made and how choice of languagemay be influenced, which can thus lead to abetter understanding of the dynamic of lan-guage use in the foreign language classroomas well as the factors that impact languageuse by both students and teachers.

Literature Review

Recommendations for Language Usein the ClassroomIn 2010, ACTFL recommended that“language educators and their students use

the target language as exclusively as possible(90% plus) at all levels of instruction duringinstructional time and, when feasible,beyond the classroom” (ACTFL, 2010,p. 1). This recommendation is supportedby an established body of research aboutthe effectiveness of exclusive, or almostexclusive, use of the target language in sup-porting students’ progress toward proficien-cy in a second language. Several studies(Carroll, 1975; Turnbull & Arnett, 2002;Wolf, 1977) reported positive correlationsbetween the teacher’s use of the targetlanguage and students’ acquisition of thelanguage, thus substantiating the effective-ness of a teaching style in which use of thefirst language is actively avoided.

In addition, some researchers have em-phasized the importance of the quality ofthe language being used with students(Guthrie, 1984; Hall & Walsh, 2002). Forexample, using the target language for rotetranslations and mechanical pronunciationpractice will likely inspire less progress to-ward proficiency than engaging students inmore interactive exercises and negotiation ofmeaning. This is, in fact, what Guthrie(1984) discovered: In her study of graduatestudent‐teachers of French, she found that,although the student‐teachers used the tar-get languagemost of the time, they tended touse routine phrases and instructions thatwere very repetitive and limited in range;that learners were required to cognitivelyprocess very small amounts of novel lan-guage that was outside of their daily class-room routine; and that learners were able,with very limited knowledge of the targetlanguage, to understand the activities in theclassroom due to their undeviating patterns.Becausemost of the classes exposed studentsto mainly mechanical types of utterancesandmemorized phrases, Guthrie questionedwhether students “engaged in processingFrench at all” (p. 189).

Finally, while research supports theneed for comprehensible input in a commu-nicative setting (Krashen, 1982; VanPatten& Lee, 2003), other studies have found thatsimple exposure to the language is not

322 SUMMER 2014

enough: Students need to have comprehen-sible input as well as to be pushed to producethe target language. Swain (1993), for exam-ple, stated, “Learners need to be pushed tomake use of their resources; they need tohave their linguistic abilities stretchedto their fullest; they need to reflect on theiroutput and consider ways of modifying it toenhance comprehensibility, appropriate-ness, and accuracy” (pp. 160–161). Theargument, then, is that students do not dem-onstrate greater productive competence, notbecause their comprehensible input is limit-ed but because their comprehensible outputis limited.

First Language UseTo better understand teachers’ and students’use of English in the foreign language class-room, a number of researchers developedcategories to analyze when and for whatpurposes each language was used (Ahlberg& Bogunic, 2011; Brice, 2001; Greggio &Gil, 2007; Polio & Duff, 1994; Rolin‐Ianziti& Varshney, 2008). Categories have includ-ed translation (developing and expandingvocabulary), as a time‐saving measure(giving directions, answering questions, ex-plaining grammar, and classroom manage-ment), and to build rapport (establishing arelationship with students and maintaininga flexible environment).

Martin (1999) found that the teacher inhis study code‐switched to “encourage andelicit pupil participation” and to “clarify themeaning of certain sections of text” (pp. 51–52). Merritt (1992) further found “the use ofcode‐switching [to be] an attention‐focus-ing device” with which the teachers wereable to draw the students’ attention to cer-tain important aspects of language learningor to redirect the attention of the languagelearners from one task to a new topic”(p. 117). Üstünel and Seedhouse (2005)noticed that teachers in their study didindeed code‐switch to give feedback to stu-dents and to deal with questions regardingclassroom discipline. In addition, severalpsychological, sociological, and environ-

mental variables affect whether or not ateacher will use the first language: Factorsthat often accounted for the differences infirst language use in previous research in-cluded class level, teacher’s native language,pedagogical training, previous experienceteaching and learning, subject of lesson,and language and pedagogical beliefs (Duff& Polio, 1990; Hobbs, Matsuo, & Payne,2010). In spite of the many reasons thatsome researchers have offered supportingthe use of the first language in the classroom,Turnbull (2001) stated, “I fear that licensingteachers to speak the L1 in their SL [secondlanguage] or FL classes will lead to an over-use of the L1 by many teachers” (p. 536) andcited studies showing that, even when poli-cies were in place limiting the amount of firstlanguage that teachers were allowed to use,they consistently used the first languagemore frequently than policies allowed. PolioandDuff (1994) suggested that the use of thefirst language by the teacher, when there is alack of student comprehension, “suggeststhat teachers may lack the necessary experi-ence or strategies to rephrase or otherwisemodify their speech” (p. 323) and warnedagainst the pervasive tendency in classroomswhere English is the first language for“English to be the vehicle of meaningfulcommunication—and supplementary meta-linguistic information—with the [targetlanguage] reserved for more mechanical,grammatical drills” (p. 322).

Proportion of First and TargetLanguage UseMuch of the previous research on code‐switching has focused primarily on studyingbilingual students in the living languagecommunities; thus, most of the literatureon code‐switching has dealt with speakerswhose proficiency is greater than that foundin most basic language courses (Auer, 1999;McConvell, 1988). While some research hasbeen done in the English as a foreign lan-guage classroom, there is a lack of researchon code‐switching in the Spanish as aforeign language classroom (Duff &

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 2 323

Polio, 1990; Unamuno, 2008). In addition,few studies have addressed code‐switchingby teachers and learners in beginning‐ andintermediate‐level foreign language classes(Üstünel & Seedhouse, 2005). Duff and Po-lio (1990) and Macaro (2001) looked at theamount of first and target language used inforeign language classrooms as well as thecontexts for which languages were utilizedand found a great deal of variation not onlyamong teachers but especially across differ-ent languages. As opposed to transcribingevery word, they sampled the speech of theteachers and students at periodic intervalsand failed to look at how the students’ andteachers’ code‐switching influenced the sub-sequent interlocutors’ language choice. Inaddition, while Duff and Polio (1990) stud-ied teachers at the university level, they onlystudied native‐speaking teachers of the tar-get languages being taught and looked at asmall sample of 13 different commonly andless commonly taught languages. Theyfound that teachers ranged from 10 to100% target language use, depending onthe language (p. 156). These authors alsoquestioned whether fluency in English mayplay a role in target language use in theclassroom. In their study, they found thatthe teacher who used 100% of the targetlanguage was concurrently enrolled in anESL class trying to improve his Englishand that the teacher who used the targetlanguage only 10% of the time was fluentin English.

Macaro (2001) investigated languageuse in the beginning French classroombut studied students who ranged fromages 11–18 in public secondary schools. Inaddition, the teachers were student‐teacherswho were being observed by their supervi-sor, which may have influenced their lan-guage use in the classroom. He found that,while the student‐teachers he observedused the first language only about 5% ofthe time, there was no significant correlationbetween the student‐teacher’s use of thefirst language and the students’ use of thefirst language and no increase in students’use of the second language with an increase

in the student‐teacher’s second languageuse.

While previous research has providedmany valuable studies on language use inthe classroom, there is a still a need forresearch on how code‐switching betweenstudents and teachers affects overall lan-guage use of both groups and on how theinitiator of the code‐switch affects the sub-sequent language choices in the Spanish as aforeign language classroom. In addition,while earlier studies have focused on learn-ers in a particular course or at a particularinstructional level, they have not consideredhow the differences in students’ class levelmay influence not only the amount of code‐switching in the classroom but also the func-tion of the code‐switches.

In order to better understand teachers’and students’ use of the first and targetlanguages during instruction, this studyaddressed the following questions:

1. How much of the first and target lan-guage was used in the classroom byteachers and students?

2. How did code‐switches by teachers andstudents correlate with overall use of thefirst and target languages?

3. How did the initiator of the code‐switchesinfluence the other interlocutors?

4. In what contexts and for what purposesdid teachers and students initiate code‐switches?

Methodology

ParticipantsSixteen Spanish teachers and their classesfrom a large university in the southwesternUnited States participated in this study. Theteachers were equally distributed betweenboth the beginning and intermediate levelsof Spanish so as to account for the possibleeffects of different student proficiencylevels on the amount and initiation ofcode‐switching. The eight randomly select-ed Spanish 102 (first‐year, second‐semester,beginning‐level Spanish) teachers included

324 SUMMER 2014

four native English–speaking teachers andfour native Spanish–speaking teachers. Sim-ilarly, the eight Spanish 202 (second‐year,second‐semester, intermediate‐level Span-ish) teachers were randomly selected andincluded four native English–speakingteachers and four native Spanish–speakingteachers.

All of the teachers but one had complet-ed a BA, MA, or PhD in Spanish (literature,linguistics, translation, or pedagogy). Theone teacher who had not completed a degreein Spanish had completed his BA in engi-neering and was a native speaker of Spanishstudying in a master’s program in LatinAmerican literature. In addition, all of theteachers were graduate students, with theexception of one who had just recently com-pleted a PhD program in translation and wasworking as an adjunct professor. Finally, allof the teachers were required to take a courseon language pedagogy during their first se-mester of teaching unless they could provideevidence of previous course work in class-room pedagogy. For five of the teachers, therequired course was their only work in lan-guage pedagogy. The other 11 teachersshowed a great deal of variation in back-ground, ranging from two to more thanfive classes in language pedagogy. The teach-ers had on average 3.2 years of experienceteaching Spanish as a foreign language.

Each class had, on average, 20 students,most of whom were taking the courses tocomplete the university‐mandated require-ment of one or two years of language studydepending on the major. In addition, thestudents were almost all of traditional uni-versity age (18–23). All of the Spanish 102students had previous language experienceat either the university or high school level,and the vast majority of the students inSpanish 202 had completed Spanish 201 atthe university.

ProcedureAll of the teachers followed a department‐issued curriculum; thus, teachers at eachclass level were teaching essentiallythe same material at each observation. The

curriculum focused on the development ofreading, writing, speaking, and listening,although the Spanish 102 courses focusedmore on listening and speaking skills whilethe Spanish 202 courses were more gearedtoward reading and writing while still ex-ploring the other modalities. At both courselevels, material was presented in a student‐centered and communicative mannerwherein students spent part of each classin pairs and small groups practicing andcreating with the language.

The 16 teachers were assigned identifi-cation codes: for example, participant1NSS1 was the first native Spanish–speaking102 teacher. Each of the 16 teachers wasobserved three times, at the beginning, mid-dle, and end of the fall semester, for theduration of the 50‐minute class. One ofthe researchers made video and audio re-cordings of each class session. All of thestudent and teacher interactions were tran-scribed in their entirety, word for word,including errors in pronunciation, whichwere transcribed phonetically, and gram-mar, with the exception of some pair andgroup work activities during which it wastoo difficult to account for the simultaneousspeech of many students in the same class-room. The transcription did not includepauses, inflection, or other descriptors.The total number of words used in Englishand Spanish by both the teachers and thestudents was tabulated in order to determinethe percentages of first and target languageusage.

Because the department policy at theuniversity calls for exclusive use of the targetlanguage, Spanish was considered the de-fault language; thus using Spanish or switch-ing from English to Spanish was not coded.Only code‐switches from Spanish to Englishwere marked on each transcription. Instan-ces of code‐switching of one word, multiplewords, phrases, or even multiple exchangesbetween speakers in the same languagewere each coded as only one switch. Thus,conversation that continued between stu-dents and teachers in English (the initialcode‐switch) was coded as one instance of

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 2 325

code‐switching. The length of the code‐switches, then, varied from a single wordto several phrases or even paragraphs.

All instances of code‐switching wereidentified using a two‐part identifier: (1)the initiator of the switch, and (2) the indi-vidual performing the switch. For example,if a teacher initiated a code‐switch by usingEnglish, it was labeled (T)TI because it was ateacher code‐switch that was teacher‐initiat-ed. However, if the teacher initiated thecode‐switch and then the students used En-glish in response to the teacher‐initiatedswitch, it would be labeled STI because itwas a student code‐switch that was initiatedby the teacher. Table 1 shows the four dif-ferent codes that were used to describe theinitiator of the code‐switch.

For the analysis of some research ques-tions, the code marker categories were com-bined so that all of the switches initiated by agroup (SI‐ALL and TI‐ALL) could be con-sidered together and all the switches per-formed by a group (S‐ALL and T‐ALL)could be looked at together. These compos-ite codes are listed in Table 2.

After all of the code‐switches had beenlabeled using the two‐part identifier, each

one was categorized to identify the purposeor context of the switch. For example, if ateacher was lecturing in Spanish on the con-ditional mood and then switched to Englishto clarify that the conditional is often usedin “if … then” statements, then this code‐switch would be marked as teacher code‐switch, teacher‐initiated ([T]TI), in thegrammar category. If a student then raiseda hand and asked in English for an exampleof an “if … then” statement, then the code‐switch would be marked as a student code‐switch, teacher‐initiated ([S]TI) in thegrammar category because the teacherstarted the exchange using English. The cat-egories for classifying the code‐switcheswere loosely based on Polio and Duff’s(1994) classifications. Some changes tothat classification system were made so asto be more inclusive of the various purposesof student speech. The categories are sum-marized in Table 3, and examples of eachcategory and code‐switch type from theclassroom transcripts can be found in theAppendix. In some cases, code‐switchesserved multiple purposes or fell into morethan one category. In these instances, thecategory that best reflected the purpose of

TABLE 1

Initiator Code‐Switch Markers

(S)SI Student code‐switch, student‐initiatedSTI Student code‐switch, teacher‐initiatedTSI Teacher code‐switch, student‐initiated(T)TI Teacher code‐switch, teacher‐initiated

TABLE 2

Code Marker Combinations

SI‐ALL All student‐initiated ([S]SIþTSI)TI‐ALL All teacher‐initiated ([T]TIþ STI)S‐ALL All student code‐switches ([S]SIþ STI)T‐ALL All teacher code‐switches ([T]TIþTSI)

326 SUMMER 2014

the switch was chosen. The code‐switcheswere coded by two researchers with morethan a 90% interrater reliability.

Results

First and Target Language Use in theClassroomData on teachers’ and students’ use ofEnglish and the target language are pre-sented in Tables 4 and 5. As shown in thetables, while many of the teachers used 90%

ormore of the target language, a great deal ofvariation was found across the differentteachers and classes. It was also found thatthe amount of Spanish and English that theteachers used did not always correlate tosimilar amounts of language use by the stu-dents. Differences were also found in Span-ish and English use depending on class level.Only one of the classes at the Spanish 102level had students who used less than 10% ofthe first language in the classroom, whilefour classes at the Spanish 202 level used

TABLE 3

Categories of Code‐Switches

Classroom Administration (CA) Classroom tasks, managing time and assignmentsGrammar (G) Grammar instruction, student grammar questionsEstablish Relationship (RC) Empathy, solidarity, humor, social usesExplain New Topic or

Assignment (NTA)Introduce ideas, discuss new cultural concepts

Translation (T) Request or provide translation of word or phraseComprehension Check (CC) Repetition for clarity, ensuring understandingMaintain Flow (MF) Quickly expressing an idea, floor‐holdingOther (O) “What?”, “I don’t know,” “Yeah,” etc.

TABLE 4

Spanish 102 Teachers’ and Students’ Use of Spanish and English

Teacher Teachers’WordTotal ofSpanish

Teachers’WordTotal ofEnglish

Percentageof English

Use

Students’WordTotal ofSpanish

Students’WordTotal ofEnglish

Percentageof English

Use

1NSS1 3,655 1,045 22% 1,220 283 19%1NES1 5,469 56 1% 706 355 33%2NSS1 5,436 182 3% 864 193 18%2NES1 8,817 1,181 12% 1,123 224 16%3NSS1 7,533 27 0.3% 1,409 109 7%3NES1 3,044 1,445 32% 970 439 31%4NSS1 5,352 3,879 42% 1,411 1,391 50%4NES1 3,031 403 12% 1,339 187 12%Average 5,292 1,027 16% 1,130 398 26%

Key: NES¼ native English speaker; NSS¼ native Spanish speaker; 1 at the end of teachercode¼ Spanish 102 level; the initial number¼ number of the participant

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 2 327

less than 10% of the first language. In addi-tion, six teachers from Spanish 202 used lessthan 10% of the first language, while onlythree of the Spanish 102 teachers employed10% or less of the first language. Despite thedepartment’s policy of exclusion of the firstlanguage and language training received byall of the teachers on the use of the targetlanguage, the amount of first and target lan-guage used by teachers and students in eachclass varied widely. In some extreme cases,teachers and students used English in theclassroom 50% of the time or more. It is alsoimportant to note that the almost exclusiveuse of Spanish by some teachers (e.g., 1NES1and 2NSS2) still resulted in student use ofEnglish more than 30% of the time. Table 4shows that, while there was substantial var-iation between the classes, the overall aver-age for the Spanish 102 teachers was 84%target language use. This is below theACTFL‐recommended 90% but better thanthe students’ use of the target language,which was employed 74% of the time. Ta-ble 5 shows that, while there was consider-able variation between the classes, theoverall average for the Spanish 202 teacherswas 91% target language use. This met the

minimum ACTFL‐recommended amount oftarget language use in the classroom. In spiteof the teachers’ overall use of the targetlanguage, the Spanish 202 students usedthe target language slightly less than theSpanish 102 students, with an average ofjust under 73% target language use.

Total Number of Code‐SwitchesThe teacher‐initiated switches (TI‐ALL) to-taled 374 for the Spanish 102 classes, for anaverage of 16 code‐switches per class. Thestudent‐initiated switches (SI‐ALL) totaled254, for an average of 11 code‐switchesper class. The teachers initiated thecode‐switches 47% more often than theirstudents. While the teachers initiated moreof the code‐switches, the students usedmuch more English as a result of the teach-ers’ language choice.

For the Spanish 202 classes, the TI‐ALLtotaled 1,191, or about 50 code‐switches perclass, and the SI‐ALL totaled 519, or about22 code‐switches per class. The teachersinitiated the code‐switches 230% of thetime more than their students. While theteachers initiated more of the code‐switches,

TABLE 5

Spanish 202 Teachers’ and Students’ Use of Spanish and English

Teacher Teachers’WordTotal ofSpanish

Teachers’WordTotal ofEnglish

Percentageof English

Use

Students’WordTotal ofSpanish

Students’WordTotal ofEnglish

Percentageof English

Use

1NES2 2,853 3,517 55% 1,130 2,864 72%1NSS2 6,376 189 3% 1,817 60 3%2NES2 3,283 63 2% 922 94 9%2NSS2 7,955 287 3% 1,065 664 38%3NES2 8,738 92 1% 3,749 145 4%3NSS2 9,160 67 1% 1,602 522 25%4NES2 6,243 1,212 16% 2,568 1,130 31%4NSS2 11,521 229 2% 2,062 173 8%Average 7,016 707 9% 1,864 707 27%

Key: NES¼ native English speaker; NSS¼ native Spanish speaker; 2 at the end of teachercode¼ Spanish 202 level; the initial number¼ number of the participant

328 SUMMER 2014

the students used much more English as aresult of the teachers’ language choice.

Correlation Between Code‐Switchesand First and Target Language UseThe number of code‐switches and the over-all use of the first and target languages wereanalyzed using Pearson product correla-tions. For the Spanish 102 classes, therewas a slightly negative correlation (r¼�0.51) between the student‐initiated code‐switches and the teachers’ use of Spanish.This shows that, at the beginning levels,the students’ decision to code‐switch affect-ed the language choice of their teachers.However, when analyzing the influenceof the teacher‐initiated code‐switches onthe amount of the target and first languagethe students used, the researchers foundthat no strong correlation existed in eithercase. This indicated that the number ofteacher‐initiated code‐switches did nothave a strong relationship with the overallamount of English or Spanish used in theclassroom.

The Spanish 202 results were quite dif-ferent. There was a strong correlation be-tween the teacher‐initiated code‐switchesand the amount of English used by the stu-dents (r¼ 0.78). There was also a strongcorrelation between the student code‐switches and the amount of English theteachers used (r¼ 0.90). There was also aslightly negative correlation between theteacher‐initiated code‐switches and theamount of Spanish used by the students(r¼�0.54). At the Spanish 202 level, theresults reflected the influence that the code‐switches had on the subsequent interlocu-tors’ use of both English and Spanish.This indicates that the number of teacher‐initiated code‐switches did have a strongrelationship with the overall amount of En-glish that the students used in the classroom.These data also show that the number ofcode‐switches by the teachers correspondedto a decrease in the amount of Spanish usedby the students. There was also a very strongrelationship between the number of student

code‐switches and the amount of Englishused by the teachers.

Influence of Code‐Switching onTeachers and StudentsThe number of student code‐switches thatwere teacher‐initiated (STI) was comparedto the number of teacher code‐switches thatwere student‐initiated (TSI) to determinethe impact of a code‐switch on subsequentspeech and thus determine if teachers orstudents had more influence on the choiceof the language used during instruction. Atboth instructional levels (Spanish 102 and202), a greater number of student code‐switches were initiated by teachers than bythe students themselves, indicating thatteachers had more influence over the lan-guage spoken in the classroom. Figures 1and 2 show the number of STIs and TSIs forSpanish 102 and Spanish 202. The teacher’sdecisions to code‐switch not only causedstudents to use the first language but alsoled them into using a higher percentage ofthe first language. The difference betweenSTIs and TSIs was statistically significant atthe Spanish 202 level (mSTI¼ 57.0 vs. mTSI

¼ 12.13, p¼ 0.041) but not at the Spanish102 level (mSTI¼ 17.0 vs. mTSI¼ 5.6,p¼ 0.090). This indicates that the teachersat the Spanish 202 level caused a muchgreater number of the student code‐switches. Every Spanish 202 class had sig-nificantly more STIs. The Spanish 102 teach-ers had a similar influence, but only five ofclasses had a larger number of STIs.

Data on the contexts and purposes inwhich teachers and students code‐switchedare presented in Table 6. Data showed thatstudents in both Spanish 102 and 202 code‐switched most frequently in order to betterunderstand classroom administration, usingEnglish to seek clarification about classroomassignments and other organizational mat-ters. Spanish 102 teachers most frequentlyused the first language to explain grammati-cal concepts, with almost 36% of the code‐switches used for this purpose. In contrast,Spanish 202 teachers most frequently used

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 2 329

English to translate new words and expres-sions—48% of the teacher‐initiated code‐switches were for this purpose, comparedwith only about 22% of the code‐switchesfor Spanish 102 teachers. Students also code‐switched to better understand new wordsand phrases (translation); this was the sec-ond‐highest cause of code‐switching bySpanish 102 students and the most frequentreason for code‐switching for Spanish 202students (33%).

DiscussionThe variation in the amount of use of En-glish and the target language across the dif-ferent classes reflected the one of the mostsignificant challenges in training teachers:helping them to achieve ACTFL’s recom-mended level of 90% use of the target lan-guage. While all of the teachers had, at thevery least, one course on language pedagogyand had discussed how to use the targetlanguage in the classroom, many chose to

FIGURE 1

Spanish 102 Teacher and Student Influence on Language Choice

FIGURE 2

Spanish 202 Teacher and Student Influence on Language Choice

330 SUMMER 2014

use substantial amounts of English in theclassroom in spite of both their training andthe departments’ clearly stated policies. Inaddition, both native speakers of Spanishand native speakers of English used largeamounts of English in the classroom. Inthe classes where teachers used largeamounts of English, it was also found thatthe students used as much or more of thefirst language as their teachers, thus limitingtheir production of the target language andexposure to it. This overuse of the first lan-guage significantly limited students’ oppor-tunity to become more proficient users ofthe language.

Whereas previous studies consideredonly one level of instruction, the data fromthis study on language use across the classlevels have important implications for in-struction. Although the Spanish 102 and202 curricula were very similar and policiesregarding 100% target language use wereemphasized, students at both the beginning‐and intermediate‐level courses used aboutthe same amount of English overall. Howev-er, data revealed important differences in thepurposes for which the first language wasused and how the code‐switches influencedsubsequent language behavior at each levelof instruction. The teachers at the 102 levelcode‐switched more frequently to explaingrammatical concepts (more than 35% oftheir first language use), while only about

12% of students’ use of English was for thispurpose. Subsequent discussions with theteachers revealed that they believed thatstudents did not understand explanationsin the target language. This was not corrob-orated by the data, which showed that thestudents typically code‐switched to discussgrammar only when their teachers initiatedthe discussion in English. It is also the ob-servation of these researchers that manystudents are not familiar with grammaticalterms in their first language and, thus, ex-plaining grammar may be just as easily ac-complished in the target language. Becausemost major textbook publishers (Pearson,Cengage, McGraw‐Hill, Vista, etc.) includeonline grammar tutorials in English throughstudent textbook Web sites, taking classtime to explain grammatical conceptsin the first language becomes even lessuseful.

Given that the Spanish 102 teachersstruggled using Spanish to teach grammar,these teachers could learn and practice moreinductive approaches to the teaching ofgrammar that would eliminate the need tolecture extensively on grammar topics andinstead allow students to consider multipleexamples in Spanish of the concepts beingtaught before drawing conclusions about thegrammar rule under consideration. Thiswould not only eliminate the use of the firstlanguage altogether but also assist students

TABLE 6

Percent of Code‐Switches per Category

102SI‐ALL

102TI‐ALL

202SI‐ALL

202TI‐ALL

Classroom Administration (CA) 30% 12.4% 23.1% 17.7%Grammar (G) 12.3% 35.5% 11.8% 12.4%Establish Relationship (RC) 11.6% 6.2% 14.1% 9.1%Explain New Topic

or Assignment (NTA)3.7% 11.5% 1.0% 1.7%

Translation (T) 21.0% 22.4% 32.9% 47.9%Comprehension Check (CC) 0.0% 3.9% 0.4% 3.4%Maintain Flow (MF) 6.6% 3.5% 9.1% 5.7%Other (O) 14.9% 4.5% 7.7% 2.1%

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 2 331

in contextualizing the information beingtaught.

The Spanish 202 students and teachersused the first language much less frequentlyfor explaining grammar and much morefrequently for clarifying the meaning ofwords or phrases, accounting for almosthalf of all of the English use by the Spanish202 teachers. The Spanish 202 students, to acertain degree, mirrored their teachers’ useof the first language for translation, whichrepresented almost 33% of their English use.For the Spanish 202 teachers, verbal andnonverbal cues could be used for the pre-sentation of new words or concepts. Theseteachers could identify in advance thewords, phrases, and concepts that maybe unfamiliar to the students and then pre-pare and use visuals, body language,gestures, synonyms, definitions, and exam-ples to clarify and support their meaning,thus entirely avoiding the use of English.Directly teaching help‐seeking vocabulary,key words, and phrases, as well as strategiessuch as circumlocution, may also providestudents with the skills they need to main-tain communication exclusively in the targetlanguage.

Even though the Spanish 202 teachersinitiated more than 600 more code‐switchesthan their students, they still averaged 91%target language use, while the students onlyused the target language about 73% of thetime. However, even though the students atthis level had greater exposure to the targetlanguage and presumed higher levels of pro-ficiency than Spanish 102 students, theiroverall use of the target language was nothigher than that of students in the second‐semester beginning course sequence. Thestrong correlation between the amount offirst language used by the students and thenumber of teacher‐initiated code‐switchesappears to have caused these fourth‐semes-ter students to revert to the use of English intheir interactions with their teachers. Thisagain supports the notion of limiting oreliminating the use of the first languagefrom the classroom because of the overalleffect that it has on students’ opportunities

for both meaningful input and output in thetarget language. This also demonstrates thatresearch into language use in the classroomneeds to look not only at the amount oftarget language used in the classroom butalso at the situations in which it is used andthe frequency with which code‐switchestake place. This study found these factorsto be important in fostering target languageuse.

To help teachers at all levels better un-derstand their overall use of language andcode‐switching behavior, teachers can re-cord and analyze their teaching to identifycode‐switches and develop strategies toavoid them. Freeman (1989) argued that,in order for teachers to be able to applyknowledge, they first must be made awareof their own individual practices. Polio andDuff declared, “Some behaviors could prob-ably be changed simply by viewing a video-tape of themselves teaching and then notingtheir various uses of English, either alone orwith the assistance of a colleague” (1994, p.323). Thus, although teachers may want tochange their language use in the classroom,they need a greater understanding of whatactually goes on in the classroom to do so. Inaddition, as modeled by Edstrom (2006),teachers can reflect on their use of the firstand target language as well as the purposesfor which each language was used.

This study also investigated code‐switching in the foreign language classroomand its impact on the overall use of the firstand target languages. After the researcherscompared the number of TSIs with the num-ber of STIs, data showed that the number ofSTIs was higher at both class levels. Thisindicates that the teacher’s decision of whichlanguage to employ in the classroom notonly impacts the amount of input that thestudents receive but also influences the lan-guage that students choose to use in theclassroom. However, in spite of the factthat the teachers initiated more code‐switches, the students used a greater per-centage of English in the classroom. Theresearchers also found that simply maintain-ing 90% or more of the target language use

332 SUMMER 2014

was not enough to guarantee that the stu-dents would exclusively use the target lan-guage. Even the large number of teacherswho used 10% or less of the first languagestill had a significant number of short code‐switches in each class session. While suchbrief code‐switches, usually for a translationof a word or phrase or a quick grammaticalexplanation,may seem to not affect the over-all proportion of Spanish and English usedin the classroom, these brief teacher‐initiat-ed code‐switches seemed to give permissionto students to use the first language andresulted in students’ increased use of En-glish. In some of the classes, the teachersused a minimal amount of the first language;yet even in those few instances when Englishwas employed, the students responded byusing substantially more English than theyotherwise would have. The use of code‐switches by the teachers, then, appeared to“license” students to follow their teacher’sexample and may have led students to be-lieve that using English was acceptable.

While a small number of studies havequantified the amount of language used byteachers and students, they have failed todetermine the impact of the initiator of thecode‐switch not only on the students’ lan-guage use but also on the teacher’s languageuse. In addition, as many studies have sam-pled the language used in the classroominstead of transcribing all of the speech,they may have missed important factors inconnecting the language use of teachers andstudents. Contrary to the research by Mac-aro (2001), where no relationship was foundbetween the amount of student and teacheruse of the target language, this study foundthat there was a strong correlation betweenthe initiator and the number of code‐switches and the subsequent language use.This correlation was found across all levelsand was especially robust with the Spanish202 students. While the studies previouslyoutlined looked at the amounts of target andfirst language used, they did not considerthat the impact of the initiator of the code‐switch and number of code‐switches may bemuch more predictive of language use than

simply sampling overall language use. Datafrom this study showed that code‐switchesresulted in the subsequent loss of opportu-nities for the kinds of meaningful input thatare necessary for successful acquisition ofthe target language (VanPatten & Lee,2003). In addition, teacher‐initiated code‐switches in the classroom limited students’output in the target language (Swain, 1993).Such code‐switches resulted in a loss ofopportunities for students to use the targetlanguage for real communicative purposesand negotiate meaning; instead, studentsused the first language to respond to theirteachers’ switch from Spanish to English.

Including in‐class instruction on code‐switching and having students analyze theirown language habits could help increasestudents’ awareness of their use of language.In addition, students could be asked to ana-lyze videos of heritage and native speakersengaged in code‐switching or to find authen-tic samples of code‐switching in the broadercommunity. Such activities may promotegreater understanding of the process andhelp students become more cognizant oftheir own speech patterns. When studentsand teachers become more aware of whatwas previously a subconscious process, theirlanguage habits can become more informed,leading to the development of sound peda-gogical practices and greater overall studentprogress toward proficiency.

This study also found that the teacher’snative language was not a significant factorin understanding first and target languageuse in the foreign language classroom. Manyof the previous studies into language usehave limited their participants to native‐speaking teachers of the target language(Polio & Duff, 1994; Üstünel &Seedhouse, 2005). As shown in this study,there were both native speakers and nonna-tive speakers who used the target language atleast 90% of the time, as recommended byACTFL, as well as teachers from both groupswho did not.

Because the results of this study dem-onstrate that teachers have more influencethan students on language choice, it is

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 2 333

critical that teachers not only set strict rulesabout the use of the native language but,more important, make every effort to main-tain instruction exclusively in the target lan-guage. The rules regarding language use inthe classroom are only as valuable as theexample given by the teacher. Graduateteaching assistants and teacher candidatesas well as experienced teachers at alllevels of instruction need to be made awareof how their decision to code‐switch in theclassroom, albeit briefly, can instigate great-er student use of the native language.

LimitationsSeveral limitations should be mentioned.First, even though the teachers were ran-domly chosen from among a much largerset of Spanish 102 and Spanish 202 teachers,there is the possibility that the sampledteachers did not reflect the overall languageuse at the university. Second, within thesample, some teachers used substantiallymore English than others. These partici-pants’ results influenced the overall percen-tages and code‐switch counts; however,when data from these individual teacherswere removed, the same general patternsof results still existed. Third, strategiesthat would have allowed data on students’and teachers’ use of language and code‐switches to be obtained from group andpair activities would allow for a more com-plete understanding of language use in theclassroom. Fourth, while the teachers wereobserved on three different occasions duringthe course of the semester, additional obser-vations would have yielded a more robustdatabase. Finally, Pearson product correla-tions were used to analyze the amount offirst and target language use in relation tothe number of code‐switches by teachersand students. While the results of thecorrelations proved insightful, correlationdoes not imply causation; thus, there isthe possibility that other factors influencedthe relationship between the amount oflanguage use and the number of code‐switches.

Future ResearchThe relationship between a number of teach-er characteristics (the number of classes inforeign language pedagogy, level of educa-tion, years of experience teaching Spanish asa foreign language, field of study, age, nativelanguage, and gender) and overall use ofSpanish and English in the classroom wasexamined to determine the extent to whichsuch factors had influenced overall use oflanguage. None of these factors were foundto have a significant correlation with eitherfirst or target language use in the classroom,although the teacher who held a PhD intranslation was found to code‐switch fortranslation more than all of the other teach-ers. Future studies might investigate therelationship between teacher characteristics,particularly in cases where the teachers orstudents use a very high or exceptionally lowpercentage of the first or target language. Inaddition, studies of language choice andcode‐switching behaviors might be investi-gated during small group activities and inteaching‐learning contexts in which stu-dents are required to learn some of thecourse content independently, outside ofclass. Finally, the relationship betweenclassroom use of language and students’progress toward proficiency might beconsidered.

ConclusionArguably the most important point of thisstudy is that one’s language use in the class-room is important. Regardless of the pur-pose for which the first and target languagesare used, students, and more important,teachers, need to be more aware of howthey use language in the classroom andwhy. As this study showed, teachers havea very real influence on the amount of variedand meaningful language that students hearas well as on the type and quality ofthe language that students use in class.Although students’ choice of language natu-rally influences their teachers’ choice oflanguage at times as well, it is importantthat both groups become aware of their

334 SUMMER 2014

conscious and subconscious practices.Research has shown that students need tohave significant input and must also use thenew language in meaningful and creativeways. Data show that even small code‐switches or the use of the first languagefor certain purposes by teachers influencestheir students’ opportunities to developmore sophisticated language skills.

References

ACTFL. (2010). Use of target language in theclassroom. RetrievedMay 13, 2013, from http://www.actfl.org/news/position‐statements/use‐the‐target‐language‐the‐classroom‐0

Ahlberg, A., & Bogunic, A. (2011). A study ofteachers’ code‐switching in six Swedish EFLclassrooms (Unpublished joint student thesis),Malmö University, Sweden. Retrieved fromhttp://dspace.mah.se:8080/

Auer, P. (1999). Code‐switching in conversa-tion: Language, interaction, and identity. NewYork: Routledge.

Brice, A. (2001). Choice of language in instruc-tion: One language or two? Teaching of Excep-tional Children, 33, 10–16.

Carroll, J. B. (1975). The teaching of French as aforeign language in 8 countries. Stockholm:Almqvist & Wiksell Tryckeri AB.

Coste, D. (1997). Alternances didactiques.Etudes de linguistique appliquée, 108, 393–400.

Duff, P., & Polio, C. (1990). How much for-eign language is there in the foreign languageclassroom?Modern Language Journal, 74, 154–166.

Edstrom, A. (2006). L1 use in the L2 class-room: One teacher’s self‐evaluation. CanadianModern Language Review, 63, 275–292.

Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, devel-opment, and decision‐making: A model ofteaching and related strategies for languageteachers. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 27–46.

Greggio, S., & Gil, G. (2007). Teachers’ andlearners’ use of code switching in the Englishas a foreign language classroom: A qualitativestudy. Linguagem & Ensino, 10, 371–393.

Guthrie, E. M. L. (1984). Six cases in class-room communication: A study of teacher dis-course in the foreign language classroom. InJ. P. Lantolf & A. Labarca (Eds.), Research in

second language learning: Focus on the class-room (pp. 173–194). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hall, J. K., & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher‐stu-dent interaction and language learning. AnnualReview of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186–203.

Hobbs, V., Matsuo, A., & Payne, M. (2010).Code‐switching in Japanese language class-rooms: An exploratory investigation of nativevs. non‐native speaker teacher practice. Lin-guistics and Education, 21, 44–59.

Krashen, S. (1982). Second language acquisitionand second language learning. Oxford: Perga-mon Press.

Levine, G. (2011). Code choice in the languageclassroom. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Macaro, E. (2001). Analyzing student teachers’codeswitching in foreign language classrooms:Theories and decision making. Modern Lan-guage Journal, 85, 531–548.

Martin, P. (1999). Bilingual unpacking ofmonolingual texts in two primary classroomsin Brunei Darussalam. Language and Educa-tion, 13, 38–58.

McConvell, P. (1988). MIX‐IM‐UP: Aboriginalcode‐switching, old and new. In M. Heller(Ed.), Code‐switching: Anthropological and so-ciolinguistic perspectives (pp. 97–150). NewYork: de Gruyter.

Merritt, M. (1992). Socialising multilingual-ism: Determinants of code‐switching in Ken-yan primary schools. Journal of Multilingualismand Multicultural Development, 13, 103–121.

Polio, C., & Duff, P. (1994). Teachers’ lan-guage use in university foreign language class-rooms: A qualitative analysis of English andtarget language alternation. Modern LanguageJournal, 78, 313–326.

Rolin‐Ianziti, J., & Varshney, R. (2008). Stu-dents’ views regarding the use of the first lan-guage: An exploratory study in a tertiarycontext maximizing target language use. Ca-nadian Modern Language Review, 65, 249–273.

Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Justspeaking and writing aren’t enough. CanadianModern Language Review, 50, 158–164.

Timm, L. (1993). Bilingual code‐switching: Anoverview of research. Language and Culture inLearning: Teaching Spanish to Native Speakersof Spanish (pp. 94–114). Bristol, PA: TheFalmer Press, Taylor & Francis Inc.

Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1in second and foreign language teaching,but…. Canadian Modern Language Review,57, 531–540.

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 2 335

Turnbull, M., & Arnett, K. (2002). Teachers’use of the target language and first languagesin second and foreign language classrooms.Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22,204–218.

Unamuno, V. (2008). Multilingual switch inpeer classroom interaction. Linguistics and Ed-ucation, 19, 1–19.

Üstünel, E., & Seedhouse, P. (2005). Whythat, in that language, right now? Code‐switching and pedagogical focus. InternationalJournal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 302–325.

VanPatten, B., & Lee, J. (2003). Making com-municative language teaching happen (2nd ed.).New York: McGraw‐Hill.

Wolf, R. M. (1977). Achievement in America:National report of the United States for the in-ternational educational achievement project.New York: Teachers College Press.

Submitted November 5, 2013

Accepted February 18, 2014

APPENDIX

Categories of Code‐Switch Examples

Classroom Administration (CA): Classroom tasks, manage time and assignments4NSS1: OK, OK. ¿Preguntas sobre lo que hemos visto hoy? [Questions about what we have seentoday?] Any questions so far? No? Tomorrow we will continue practicing. I, I am expectinglast a couple of minutes tomorrow for you to practice your presentation starting on Thursdayyou know? So eh bring eh your notes or whatever you are eh whatever you have for yourpresentations. OK? Notes or anything you have for preparing your presentations bring ittomorrow. [TI‐CA]

Grammar (G): Grammar instruction, student grammar questions1NES1: ¿Cuál es una diferencia importante entre el futuro y el condicional? [What is animportant difference between the future and the conditional?]Student: What is happening, what is happening, and what will happen. [SI‐G]

Establish Relationship (RC): Empathy, solidarity, humor, social uses1NES2: En cuanto…[asking for translation] [As soon as…] [no one answers]1NES2: No, come on, make me proud [TI‐RC]. En cuanto [As soon as].

Explain New Topic or Assignment (NTA): Introduce ideas, discuss new cultural concepts4NSS1: So today, we are going to do two activities. If we have timewewill do something else topractice these two tenses, [TI‐NTA] el, el futuro y el condicional. ¿OK? [the, the future and theconditional]

Translation (T): Request or provide translation of a word or phrase2NSS2: De hecho, de hecho tomaría muy pocas cosas con seriedad. [In fact, in fact I would takemany fewer things seriously.]Student: I would have taken things less seriously. [STI‐T]2NSS2: Sí [Yes], in fact I would take things less seriously. [TI‐T]

Comprehension Check (CC): Repetition for clarity, ensuring understanding4NSS2: Cuando expresan un hecho, cuando es un hecho ¿no? una verdad o una verdad, ¿sí? algoverdadero. Something that is true, [TI‐CC] algo que es verdad. OK. [When you express a fact,when it’s a fact, no? A truth or a truth, yes? Something true. Something that is true, somethingthat is true. OK.]

336 SUMMER 2014

Maintain Flow (MF): Quickly expressing an idea, keeping the flow of the utterance going,floor‐holding1NSS2: Vamos a terminar con Uruguay en la página cuatrocientos veintidós, cuatrocientosveintitrés, y los voy a poner en grupos para que ustedes contesten de la uno a la tres…. [Weare going to finish with Uruguay on page four hundred twenty‐two, four hundred twenty‐three, and I’m going to put you in groups so that you all answer from one to three….] So,[TI‐MF] pongan sus grupos, jóvenes, para contestar estas preguntas. [Put yourselves in yourgroups, kids, to answer these questions.]

Other (O): “What?”, “Yeah,” “I don’t know,” etc.Student: Si fuera un famosa sería un actor. [If I were a famous (person) I’d be an actor.]4NSS1: What? I don’t know. [TI‐O] Ah, ya.

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 2 337