Introduction
The study aims to investigate teachers’ code-switching between the TL and the L1 and their beliefs of language use in FL university-level classrooms in Taiwan. The research questions addressed are:
1. What are the amounts of teachers’ uses of the L1 and the TL in the foreign language classroom?
2. How do teachers differ in the functions of their code-switching between the L1 and the TL?
3. What are the teachers’ beliefs of language use in foreign language classrooms?
4. What was the relationship between teachers’ beliefs of language use and their actual code-switching behavior in the classroom?
This chapter is organized in three sections: (a) participants, (b) data collection, and (c) data analysis.
Participants
To explain teachers’ uses of code-switching between the TL and the L1 in EFL classrooms, the participants in the present study were two Taiwanese English teachers, Lisa and Julie, who were proficient in both English (TL) and Chinese (L1). Lisa and Julie taught Freshman English reading courses in one university in Taiwan. The following presents the two teachers’ background information and the teaching procedure of their two classes.
The Teachers’ Background Information
The background information of the two teachers were described in terms of their
previous major subject in school and teaching experiences before they entered the current college for teaching.
Lisa had been abroad to English country for Master Degree, and majored in Teaching English as Second or Other Language (TESOL) for one year and three months. Before this college, Lisa had taught English to children and courses of English certificate test such as IELTS and GEPT for two years.
Julie had been abroad to English country for Master degree as well, and also majored in TESOL for two years. The teacher had taught English courses at another college for one year before entered this college. The overall year for teaching English was one and half a year.
The Teaching Procedure of the Two Teachers’ Classes
To understand how the two teachers used the L1 and the TL in their classes, this section introduces the teaching procedure of the first and the second class. Both classes are reading classes, and different textbooks are selected for class use. Lisa’s textbook contains short reading articles and is more dialogue-oriented, while Julie’s textbook contains long reading articles and difficult vocabulary.
Table 3.1 is a summary of the teaching activities of the two teachers’ two classes.
Lisa usually had an administrative reminding about assignments or examines before started the class. The class started by explaining content on the textbook and then followed by students’ group performances such as role plays which were related to class content. A handout with reading articles was used to supplement the class content.
Julie usually started the class by teaching content on the textbook unless a quiz
was needed to be taken. Class time was almost spent on explaining vocabularies and a handout was used for supplementing knowledge of new words. There was no student group activity in the classes.
Table 3.1 Teaching Procedure of the Two Teachers’ Classes
First Class Activity Second Class Activity Lisa
Two data collection methods involved: (1) classroom observation and (2) teacher interview. Both the classes and the interview were audio-taped. The classroom
observation would help understand teachers’ teaching practices, and a semi-structured interview was conducted one week after the classroom observation to further realize the teachers’ beliefs of language use in FL classrooms.
Classroom Observation
The observed classes were each teacher's two Freshman English reading classes.
Each of the class meets once a week, two hours a session. The two classes were observed and audio-recorded with two digital recorders from the beginning to the end of the lesson for a total 8 hours in four weeks to provide data relevant to the amount and the functions of teachers’ uses of L1.
I was present in the two classes to take field notes during classroom observation without any interruption and participation of the class. The notes served as a reference for the following transcription and interpretation of the data. Teaching activities and relevant details of the class were noted down to facilitate subsequent data analysis. To capture details of the lesson, an observation scheme was used as a facilitator (see Appendix B).
Teacher Interview
Both of the two teachers were interviewed for twenty to thirty minutes and were audio-recorded one week after the 4-week classroom observation to gather data relevant to teachers’ beliefs of language use in FL classrooms. The interview included four parts: (1) biographical information, (2) use of TL and L1 in current English class, (3) beliefs and opinions about TL use in FL classrooms and (4) departmental policy and other factors. Biographical information included previous teacher training and teaching experiences, then the teachers’ estimation of their TL and L1 use in class, followed by their philosophy and beliefs about TL and L1 use in foreign language classrooms, and the last part was other factors influencing their use of TL and L1 use in class.
Some of the interview questions were borrowed and adapted from Levine (2003) and Duff and Polio (1990), and some were my own invented questions (see Appendix C).
Data Analysis
The data analysis involved three parts: (1) the unit of analysis ‘AS-unit’, (2) the coding system ‘FLAATT’ and (3) the teacher interview. The audio-recorded data from classroom observation and the teacher interview were transcribed and analyzed.
To determine how much TL and L1 the teachers used and to show how the two teachers differed in the functions of their code-switching from TL to L1, the
transcribed classroom observation data was segmented according to AS-unit and each AS-unit was then assigned to one of the subcategories of the coding system
‘FLAATT’. To realize teachers’ beliefs of language use in the FL classroom, the teacher interview data was described and interpreted. Finally, to describe the relationship between teachers’ beliefs of language use and their actual teaching behaviors, the classroom observation data and teacher interview data were compared and analyzed.
The Unit of Analysis ‘AS-Unit’
Foster et al. (2000) provided a series of definition about different sets of AS-unit and example sentences that are segmented with AS-unit analytical approach. The followings are some sets of AS-unit and examples extracted from Foster et al. (2000) which will be adopted in the study.
“In the examples that follow below an AS-unit boundary is marked by an upright slash…|…A clause boundary within an AS-unit is marked by a double colon (::).
False starts, functionless repetitions, and self-corrections are put inside brackets {…}.” (Foster et al., p. 365).
1. An independent clause will be minimally a clause including a finite verb.
| That’s right |
| Turn left |
(p. 365) 2. An independent sub-clausal unit will consist of: either one or more phrases
which can be elaborated to a full clause by means of recovery of ellipted elements from the context of the discourse or situation:
A: | how long you stay here | B: | three months. |
or a minor utterance, ‘Irregular sentences’ or ‘Nonsentences’
| Oh poor woman |
| Yes |
(p. 366) 3. A subordinate clause will consist minimally of a finite or non-finite Verb element
plus at least one other clause element (Subject, Object, Complement or Adverbial).
| I serves in in a organization government organization in Bangladesh ::
which is called er department of agricultural extension | (2 clauses, 1 AS-unit )
| I have no opportunity to visit | (1 clause, 1 AS-unit)
| and you you be surprise :: how he can work | (2 clauses, 1 AS-unit )
(p. 366) (i) In cases where coordination of verb phrases occurs, the coordinated phrases
will normally be considered to belong to the same AS-unit, unless the first phrases is marked by falling or rising intonation and is followed by a pause of at least 0.5 seconds.
| and they pinned er a notice to his front :: telling everybody :: what he had done (0.5) | and marched him around the streets with a gun at his back | (2
AS-units )
(ii) Subordinate clauses within an AS-unit can realize the following functions:
(a) Subject
(b) Verb complementation (object, complement, or catenative verb complementation)
| and er they told :: that there there was no food crisis |
| I wish :: to er visited other areas of England |
| the main object of this organization is :: to raise up the people’s attitudes |
(c) Phrasal post-modifier or complement
| still in our country the school and er college students learned the English :: which were er taught to the students before thirty years. | (iii) Under certain conditions, the subordinate clause within an AS-unit can
realize an adverbial function.
| when I was in the university :: er I have specialized in this er subject | (1AS-unit)
(p. 367) (iv) Those optional subordinate adverbial clauses, particularly in final position,
are allowed to be included in the preceding AS-unit.
| it’s usual in this age to get in love with an older ‘person because I’m talking about what happened to me (1.0) because you see experience in that older person | (1 AS-unit)
| and I can bring him tomorrow together :: where you can talk with him | (1 AS-unit)
(p. 363)
The Coding System ‘FLAATT’
The coding system ‘Functional Language Alternation Analysis of Teacher Talk’
(FLAATT) developed by Kim and Elder (2005) were adopted in this study to analyze the amount and the functions of the teachers’ L1 and TL use in the FL classrooms.
Table 3.2 summarizes the four categories involved in the coding system and
definitions of the subcategories. Table A presents 16 subcategories of teaching acts and their definitions adopted from Kim & Elder (2005) (see Appendix D).
The FLAATT system involved four coding categories, including (1) language used (Duff & Polio, 1990), (2) goal orientation (Ellis, 1984), (3) teaching acts (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1992; Tsui, 1985), and (4) addressee (Kim & Elder, 2005).
The last category addressee would not be adopted in the present study for the concern of research purposes and therefore would not be introduced here.
Language used refers to the classification of teacher talk according to the degree to which the TL is mixed with the L1 (Kim & Elder, 2005). Goal orientation is the classification of classroom interactions, which includes three types of goals: (i) core goals, (ii) framework goals, and (iii) social goals (adapted from Ellis, 1984, 1994).
Teaching acts refer to teachers’ talks that achieve certain teaching purposes and functions.
Table 3.2 Coding Categories and Definitions of Subcategories in the FLAATT Category Subcategory Definition
The unit consists entirely of English
The unit consists mainly of English with one TL word or morpheme
The unit consists entirely of the TL
The unit consists mainly of the TL with
Category Subcategory Definition TL, to which the above categories of L1c or L2c cannot be applicable
“Goals where the teacher’s primary target is the teaching of the TL.
Goals that get pupils to respond to the organizational requirements of the lesson; for example, the communication about the materials and tools required to carry out an activity and routines of classroom business, etc (Ellis, 1984).
Social goals refer to the social needs in that the TL is used as the medium of everyday communication in language classrooms (Ellis,1984).
See Appendix D
The Teacher Interview
The teacher interview data was transcribed and interpreted to further realize their beliefs of language use in FL classrooms. Interview contents such as biographical information, estimations of their actual use of L1 and TL in the current class, beliefs of language teaching and other related factors influencing their decision making about L1 and TL use in class were analyzed and discussed.
CHAPTER FOUR