University of Halabja

College of Basic Education

Department of English Language
Undergraduate Research Project

The Attitude of Kurdish EFL Students towards Teachers Use of

Code Switching in the Classroom

A RESEARCH PAPER
SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE – UNIVERSITY OF HALABJA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR
IN
TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

By:
Arazoo Atta
Didan Sharif

Supervised by:
Dr. Barzan Hadi Hama Karim

May, 2022
 Ali and Hamasharif

Dedication

We would like to dedicate this research paper to:

- Our supervisor Mr. Barzan Hadi

-The English Department.

-The staff of the English Department.

- Our families and friends.

-All those who have supported us to complete this work.

-Anyone who reads this research.

ii
 Ali and Hamasharif

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, praises and thanks to Allah, the Almighty, for His showers of

blessings throughout our research work to complete the research. We would like to express our

deep and sincere gratitude to our dear supervisor, Mr. Barzan Hadi for providing invaluable

guidance throughout this research. His dynamism, vision, sincerity and motivation have deeply

inspired us. It was a great privilege and honor to work and study under his guidance. We are very

much thankful to the School of Basic Education and to the English Department and all the

lecturers and staff members. Also, we wish to offer our special thanks for those who helped us

with their continuous and valuable guidance, advice and answering our questions without any

feeling of hesitation. Finally, we are extremely grateful to our parents for their love, prayers,

caring and sacrifices for educating and preparing us for future.

iii
 Ali and Hamasharif

List of Abbreviations

)CS(

Code-switching

)EFL(

English as a foreign language

)FL(

Foreign language

)L1(

First (native) Language

)L2(

Second language

)MT(

Mother Tongue

iv
 Ali and Hamasharif

Table of Contents

Dedication ..................................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... v
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ vi
Chapter One .................................................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Research Question(S): ........................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 The Aims and the Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 The Hypothesis ....................................................................................................................................... 3
1.6 The Scope of the Study ........................................................................................................................... 3
1.7 The Value of the Study ........................................................................................................................... 4
1.8 The Organizational Overview of the Paper............................................................................................ 4
Chapter Two.................................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Literature Review.................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Teachers’ Function of Code Switching ................................................................................................ 7
2.1.2 Students’ Functions of Code Switching.................................................................................... 9
Chapter Three.............................................................................................................................................. 11
3.1 The Study .............................................................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................................. 11
3.3 Sampling ............................................................................................................................................... 11
3.4 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................................... 11
3.5 Data analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 12
Chapter Four ............................................................................................................................................... 13
4.1 Results and Discussions ........................................................................................................................ 13
Chapter Five ................................................................................................................................................ 17
5.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 17
5.2 Pedagogical Recommendation .............................................................................................................. 18
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................... 19

v
 Ali and Hamasharif

Abstract
The present study aims at finding out the attitudes and perceptions of the Kurdish

EFL learners to towards code-switching in teaching environment. For the purpose of data

collection, an existing questionnaire was adopted and adapted to the context of the study.

The questionnaire was administered to a sample of 64 students studying/learning English

language in a public university in Iraqi Kurdistan. Descriptive statistics were run to the

questionnaire items. The results of the study suggest that Kurdish EFL students’ attitude

toward code-switching are varied depends on the function and purposes of using code-

switching in the classroom by both teachers and students. The results obtained may

provide the interesting ideas and useful information for any English as a Foreign

language learners, teachers and Kurdish universities to better understand how to do code-

switching in teaching context.

Keywords: code-switching, Attitude, Language learning, EFL students.

vi
 Ali and Hamasharif 2

Chapter One

1.1 Introduction

First and foremost it is very much important to make the readers of the paper familiar

with the meaning of code-switching by presenting definitions of the term in the perspectives of

different authors. Therefore, code-switching (CS) refers to the mixing, by bilinguals (or multi-

linguals), of two or more languages in discourse, often with no change of interlocutor or topic.

Such mixing may take place at any level of linguistic structure (Poplack, 2011). According to

Lin and Li Code switching (CS) is one of the best-known and most widely researched language-

contact phenomena. Languages do not come into contact; people do. When speakers of one

language are exposed to another language over a sustained period of time, they will become

bilingual, albeit to differing extents. CS refers to ‘the alternating use of two languages in the

same stretch of discourse by a bilingual speaker (2012).

Code-switching is frequently used in the classroom. For this reason, the authors of this

study considered it important to investigate its advantages and disadvantages and find out the

attitude of the students towards it.

1.2 Research Question(S):

What attitudes do the students have to the teachers’ code switching in EFL classroom?
 Ali and Hamasharif 3

1.3 The Problem

This is a topic which has not been investigated for a long time in Kurdish context so we

as students of English language department believe that there are different opinions on the

importance of code-switching in the classroom by different researchers and linguists .

1.4 The Aims and the Purpose

The main purpose of this study is to investigate the opinions and the attitudes of the

participants towards the use of code-switching by their teachers inside the classroom, as well as

to find out the factors which may allow or not allowing code-switching take place inside the

classroom.

1.5 The Hypothesis

The study hypothesizes that:

1. Many Kurdish EFL learners do not have mastery of speaking English fluently, that’s why their attitude

towards code switching is positive.

2. The students understanding of English language is not in a high level.

1.6 The Scope of the Study

The scope of this study is limited to the second, third and fourth year students in English

language department at the university of Halabja .

 Ali and Hamasharif 4

1.7 The Value of the Study

Due to the lack of research in this area, this study is of vital importance for both students

and teachers in order understand the term much better. Regarding its significance in the field of

teaching, there is no doubt that this study helps the undergraduate students to learn more about

CS and finding out its positive and negative sides. It also helps both local and international

researches to know more about Kurdish undergraduate students’ reactions and willingness in

learning English as a foreign language.

1.8 The Organizational Overview of the Paper

The current study includes five chapters. Chapter one includes introduction, research

questions, the problem(s), aims and the purposes, scope of the study, value of the study and the

organizational overview of the paper. Chapter two includes the literature review, teachers’

function of code-switching and the students’ function of code-switching. Chapter three consists

of the study, the purpose of the study, sampling, data collection and data analysis. Chapter four is

the results and discussions. Chapter five contains of the conclusion and pedagogical

recommendations.
Ali and Hamasharif 5
 Atta and Sharif

Chapter Two

2.1 Literature Review

Code switching is defined in many ways, as (Grosjean, 1982) illustrated, it is the

simultaneous or interchangeable use of two or more languages inside one communication.

(Jingxia, 2010) defined code switching as the use of L1 and L2 in a classroom alternately when it

is needed. There are three types of code-switching which are identified by (Poplack, 1980) as

“tag-switching,” “inter-sentential switching,” and “intra-sentential switching”. Tag-switching is

defined by (Romaine, 1989) as inserting words to our speech or sentences without violating the

grammatical rules. Inter-sentential switching is the second type which occurs in the clauses and

the sentences (Romaine, 1989), where, for example, the switching occurs after the completion of

a sentence in L1 and the next sentence or clause begins with L2. The third type is Intra-sentential

switching which occurs when words or phrases from L2 are added to a sentence of the L1

(Yletyinen, 2004).

The use of code-switching in the EFL is a contentious issue in modern educational

practice since there are two perspectives on the alternate use of two languages; that is, some

authors perceive code-switching as conflicting, while others see it as beneficial in the classroom

(Muñoz & Mora, 2006).

For more than 120 years, the most common attitude towards code-switching was anti-MT

and refusing the use of students’ MT in the classroom (Cook, 2001). The objections to using

students' MT are mostly pedagogical. As illustrated by Macaro (2001), the classroom is set up to

resemble the target country. As a result, we should strive for total L1 exclusion. The usage of L1

4
 Ali and Hamasharif 5

has no pedagogical benefit. As long as the instructor is competent, the L1 can be omitted from

the classroom. Translation was avoided and had a negative or disrespectful connotation.

According to (Scott and Ytreberg, 2010) the teacher's choice of language in the classroom has an

important role especially for the beginner levels where the teacher controls every activity in the

classroom. Listening is the first skill in language acquisition; language has to be heard then it is

spoken. (Turnbull 2001) illustrated that if the teachers use the students’ MT in the classroom, the

students will not get benefit especially when the teacher is the only source of the FL. Classroom

situations are really beneficial, as (McDonald, 1993) states, a teacher can create a real-life

situation for the students through role play for example, but if they overuse MT, the students will

not get benefit.

Since the end of the 18th century, some of the well-known teaching methods including

direct method, audiolingualism, communicative language teaching, and task-based language

teaching have used monolingual approach in their language teaching. Monolingual approach tries

to make the teachers not to use of L1 through one of these three methods:

1. Banning the use of L1 in the classroom,

2. Decreasing the use of L1 in the classroom, or

3. Increasing the use of the target language (L2) in the classroom (Cook, 2001).

Krashen’s (1981) theory of second language acquisition supports the monolingual

approach which contends that when learning foreign languages, people take essentially the same

path as when learning their mother tongue, and thus use of the mother tongue in the learning

process should be lessened (Alshehri, 2016). Besides (Brown 1994) considers that language is

learned unconsciously and it can only be learned through the use of L2.
 Ali and Hamasharif 6

The monolingual approach was hardly questioned until recently. This could be due to a

variety of factors. The majority of EFL classes used to comprise students who did not share a

single L1 and the teacher did not speak the students' native language (Atkinson, 1993). Even in

those classrooms that both teachers and learners speak the same MT the monolingual approach is

anti-MT; as an example, the Curriculum Development Council (2004) requires that "in all

English lessons... teachers should teach English through English", effectively eliminating the

concept of language diversity in instruction, (Lee, 2012).

As a result, using the L1, whether by instructors or students, will reduce the amount of L2

exposure required. Or it reduces the quantity of comprehensible input, as Krashen describes it

(Pham, 2015).

Language instructors who promote code-switching as a kind of bilingual instruction, on

the other hand, believe it is tremendously beneficial to students in a variety of ways (Sert, 2005).

(Skiba, 1997) believes that code-switching should be considered as a linguistic benefit rather

than a communication barrier. (Atkinson, 1993) stated that “Teachers should use English where

possible and L1 where necessary”.

According to research conducted in classrooms around the world, there are three reasons

why teachers prefer to use the L1:

1. Developing useful relationships between the teacher and the students in the classroom.

2. Demonstrating difficult L2 ideas.

3. Providing discipline in the classroom. (Bateman, 2008; Littlewood & Yu, 2011).
 Ali and Hamasharif 7

In addition, the results of a study conducted by (Yao, 2011) shed the light on the

importance of using code-switching by the teachers in the classroom. As the result of the study,

students strongly supported the use of code switching by their teacher and believed that code

switching makes them understand the lessons easier, the learning environment will become more

participative and the teachers who used their L1 were explaining the subject better and had

stronger bond with them comparing to the teachers who didn't. According to (Ahmad & Jusoff,

2009; Selmat, 2014; and Ellis, 2015) using code-switching in the classroom is to improve

understanding and recently, it has been determined that translating is a simple way to improve

language awareness (Cook 2011).

The exclusion of student’s L1 is nearly impossible, according to (Nunan and Lamb,

1996), particularly with monolingual students and students with low-level English proficiency.

According to (Cook, 2001), teachers who have at least a basic understanding of their students'

common mother language are more likely to use L1 in the classroom. It has been proposed that

EFL teachers find integrating L1 in L2 instruction to be useful and believe that eliminating L1

may impede students' learning (Macaro, 2001; Cook, 2001; Hall & Cook, 2012; Harbord, 1992).

It is also believed that only using the TL in a classroom when the teacher and students

share an L1 is not natural, and that regular usage of the L1 actually help rather than hinder

learning (Hall & Cook, 2012; Ghorbani, 2011; Inbar-Lourie, 2010; Jingxia, 2010; Turnball &

Arnett, 2002).

2.1.1 Teachers’ Function of Code Switching

The teachers aren’t always using code-switching intentionally; which means that they are

not always conscious of the process’s functions and outcomes. As a result, in some situations, it
 Ali and Hamasharif 8

may be considered an automatic and unconscious habit. Nonetheless, whether conscious or

unconscious, it will provide some basic functions that may be advantageous in language learning

environments.

Historically, the most commonly claimed rationale for teachers code-switching from L2

to L1 was to assist learning of grammatical structures and rules during grammar teaching (Keller

2016). The teacher switches the language of instruction from the L2 to the students' L1 in order

to cope with specific grammar topics that are being taught at the time (Gill, 2003; Greggio and

Gil, 2007; Sert, 2005). In these circumstances, the students' focus is drawn to the new

information through the use of code switching and, as a result, the usage of native language. At

this stage, it is recommended that a bridge is built from known (L1) to unknown (L2) in order to

transfer the new content and meaning (Waris, 2012).

Studies have shown that L1 avoidance is not required; that its use can massively increase

learning if it is used correctly; and those instructors do use L1 in the classroom (Copland &

Neokleous, 2011; Duff & Polio, 1990; Hall & Cook, 2013; Rolin-Ianziti & Brownlie, 2002).

The teacher also performs code switching as a repetitive function in which the L1 is used

as a resource for L2 learning (Cipriani, 2001, as cited in Greggio & Gil, 2007). With this in

mind, (Sert, 2005) explains that the teacher may employ code switching to impart relevant

knowledge to the students in order to confirm clarity for lesson purposes. Following the L2 target

language lesson, the teacher code changes to the L1 native language to explain meaning and

ensure efficient comprehension.

 Ali and Hamasharif 9

Furthermore, teacher use code-switching while they are changing the subject, such as

when a teacher switches the language of instruction from L2 to L1 to correspond with a change

in the topic being discussed (Mattson & Burenhult, 1999).

2.1.2 Students’ Functions of Code Switching

Students, like the teacher, are not always aware of the reasons for code switching, as well

as its purposes and consequences. Although they may switch codes unintentionally, it obviously

has some functions, whether useful or not. Equivalence, floor-holding, reiteration, and conflict

control are some of the functions identified by Eldridge (1996).

Equivalence is the first function of the student code-switching. In this situation, the

students can’t find an equivalent of the L2 word so they tend to use code-switching. Or the

student doesn’t know the word in L2, so he/she uses L1. As a result, "equivalence" serves as a

defense strategy for pupils, allowing them to continue conversing by bridging the gaps caused by

foreign language incompetence.

The next function is floor-holding which may be used by the students who aren’t fluent in

the L2. Students fill the stop gap with the L1 use while they are speaking in the target language.

The learners who use floor-holding often have the same problem: they are unable to retain the

relevant target language structure or vocabulary.

The third function of the students’ code-switching is reiteration, which is when the

student has already conveyed his or her message in one code but he or she did not understand it.

In this case, the student makes use of repetition technique and repeats his or her message in his

or her native language in order to give its meaning and clarify it. The reason behind this

repetition could have two reasons: first, he or she may not have conveyed the meaning exactly in
 Ali and Hamasharif 10

L2. Second, the student may believe that if he or she code-switch, it will show the teacher that he

or she has understood the topic.

Conflict control is the final function of students' code switching that will be discussed

here. Students use code-switching to express the message they want to send without

misunderstanding. The basic causes for this form of code switching may differ depending on the

needs, intentions, or purposes of pupils. So, code switching for conflict control is used to avoid

possible misunderstandings and violation of conveying the intended meaning.

In conclusion, code-switching is he use of L1 and L2 in a classroom alternately and it has

three types: 1) tag switching inter-sentential witching intra-sentential switching. Code-switching

is regarded as beneficial to use by some researchers and experts because it enhances learning,

however, some other researchers believe that it have to be avoided and L2 have to be used

through using L2 not L1 because using it impedes learning. Finally, code-switching is used by

both of the teachers and students and has some important functions such as explaining

grammatical points and when the students don’t know the equivalent in the L2 they code-switch.
 Ali and Hamasharif

Chapter Three

3.1 The Study

This paper provides the detailed information of the study on subjects, research instrument

and data analysis.

3.2 Purpose of the Study

This study aims to investigate attitude of Kurdish EFL students towards Code Switching

in the classroom. The results obtained may provide the interesting ideas and useful information

for any English as a Foreign Language Learners, teachers and Kurdish universities to better

understand of how Code Switching is perceived by the students and what can be done to

minimize the negative factors that Code Switching might bring into English classroom in the

Kurdish universities.

3.3 Sampling

The sample of this study consists of 64 students from a state Universities in Iraqi Kurdistan

namely, Halabja University. The participants were all studying English as a Foreign Language.

The participants are from 2nd, 3rd and 4th stages of English department from the same

university.

3.4 Data Collection

In order to access the opinions and perceptions of the EFL learners, an online-survey-

questionnaire tool was adopted and being sent to a hundred students of 2nd, 3rd and 4th stages

11
 Atta and Sharif 12

from the department of English language in the University of Halabja. Out of 100, sixty-

four students completed the questionnaire. The questions are in a multiple-choice format with

five possible options for each. It consists of two parts. Part one contains of five questions that are

designed to consider the participant’s attitudes towards code switching. Second part

contains of four questions and they find out the contextual factors that influence the participants

towards code switching.

3.5 Data analysis

In order to determine what trends in the data suggested about Code Switching in English

classrooms, responses of the participants were analyzed descriptively by calculating percentages

and average scores.

 Ali and Hamasharif

Chapter Four

4.1 Results and Discussions

The collected data was analyzed descriptively by calculating percentages and average

scores in order to determine what trends in the data suggested about attitudes and contextual

factors of the participants of the study towards Code Switching in the process of studying

English as a foreign language learning as well as to answer the research question posed at the

outset of the study. Thus, the participants were asked to rate their feelings and situations about

the impact of Code Switching on a 5 point Likert scale.

The following table consists of three questions that are designed to consider the

participants attitude towards code-switching. As it is shown in table 1, 55 out of 64 agree or

strongly agree with the statement “I would like teaching process to take place only in English".

The percentage of those who agree or strongly agree is (85.9%). This result is a significant

indicator that the respondents of the current study find the language classroom to practice as well

improve their English language. The result of our study is in line with the argument of Semiun

(2014) who believes that “The use of English in the classroom by the teachers for instance is to

provide comprehensible English language input in terms of rules and prosody that the learners

cannot obtain in the none native English societies”.

The participants of our study were asked to rate their feelings on the switching from

English into Kurdish for the purpose of understanding, the results in table 1 shows more than

two-third of respondents believe that “Switching from English to Kurdish make it easy for me to

understand”. This shows that when code-switching takes place in the classroom the respondents

feel supported and they will understand better. According to (Baker, 1995) code-switching is

13
 Ali and Hamasharif 14

similar to a bridge from what is known (L1) to what is unknown (L2). Furthermore,

(Abad, 2005) mentioned that the teacher switches between languages to direct the student’s

attention towards the new subject and clarify it better. Although the high number of the

participants support or do not have objection to use Kurdish as a mother tongue in the classroom,

it seems that they prefer English language to be used as the only language of instruction in the

process of teaching.

The results in table 1 displays that half of the participants believe that “switching from

English to Kurdish leads to weakness my English” and 34 out of 64 agree or strongly agree

which is (53%) of the participants and 1 out of 64 disagree which is (1%) of the participants.

This sheds light on that the respondents are willing to use L2 as much as they can because using

their L1 will affect their L2 in a bad way. There is no doubt that CS has various benefits, but as

(Eldridge, 1996) argues that it can fossilize the student’s mistakes and they use it as an avoidance

strategy.

Table, 1, participant’s attitude towards code-switching

Neither Somew
Strongly Strongly
No. Items Agree Agree nor hat Disagree
agree disagree
Disagree agree

I would like teaching

1. process to take place only in 17 38 6 3 0 0
English

Switching from English to

2. Kurdish make it easy for me 11 31 15 4 3 0
to understand

Switching from English to

3. Kurdish leads to weakness 15 19 20 9 1 0
my English
 Ali and Hamasharif 15

In order to find out how the contextual factors may influence the attitudes of the

participants about code-switching, they were asked to rate their feelings on 5 Likert-scale from

strongly agree to agree. The data received from table 3 shows only 7 out 64 strongly agree with

the statement “I would like my teachers to switch from English to Kurdish while they are

teaching in the class” and 27 out of 64 of the participants agreed with the statement. This result

shows that the attitude of the students towards code-switching may be varied based on the

piratical use of it by the teachers and the learning strategies by the students (Cook, 2001).

Moreover, 35 out of 64 (54%) are agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I do not

prefer my teachers to switch from English to Kurdish while they are teaching in the class”. More

importantly none of the participants reported negatively against the statement.

These results illustrate that the attitude of the respondents of the study is not positive

towards CS. There might be various reasons behind their negative attitude which may include

lack of interest in using mother tongue, they may argue that they have to use target language in

order to practice and master the language well. The results of the our study is in line with the

argument of (Krashen and Terrell, 1983) natural approach and they think that ” the use of the

language in communicative situations without recourse to the use of the native language”(p.9).

In support of the findings of item 2 in table 3, 51 out of 64 (79%) reported that they

would like their classmates to speak in English in the classroom rather than Kurdish and none of

the participants has objection. These findings display that most of the students have been

affected by using target language among themselves and they seem to communicate and interact

in English with each other. The result of our study is in line with the observations conducted by

(Seedhouse, 2004) who highlighted that interaction as a set of process is about interacting

students among themselves when they have a common goal which is learning the language (p.5).
 Ali and Hamasharif 16

Twenty-eight out of sixty-four respondents reported that they feel confused when their

teacher uses code-switching to teach the subject or topic of the day. This shows that most of the

students have problems with using two languages at the same time, it might cause to avoid them

from focusing on their ideas or lack of concentration to the lecture during teaching inside the

class, the result of our statement supports the arguments of Vygotskyś (piagetś) who believed

that using two languages (bilingualism) affect cognitive processes of the brain (Takakuwa,

2000).

Table, 2, Contextual Factors May Influence the Attitudes of Their Participants

Neither Strongl
Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagre y
No. Items Agree
agree nor agree e disagre
Disagree e

4. I understand my teacher when 14 20 20 7 3 0

speaks in Kurdish than English

Teaching the subjects in English

5. and Kurdish increases my 20 27 14 2 1 0
chances to pass in the exams

I would like my teachers to

6. switch from English to Kurdish
7 20 25 5 7 0
while they are teaching in the
class
I do not prefer my teachers to
7. switch from English to Kurdish
13 22 23 6 0 0
while they are teaching in the
class
I would like my classmates to
8. 0
speak in English in the 27 24 11 2 0
classroom rather than Kurdish
It confuse me when the teachers
9.
teach the subjects in Kurdish and 8 20 23 6 7 8
English at the same time
 Ali and Hamasharif

Chapter Five

5.1 Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to find out the Attitudes of Kurdish EFLL towards teacher’s

Use of Code-Switching in the classroom, to achieve this aim, a questionnaire was adopted for data

collection. 64 of English language students from the 2nd, 3rd, 4th stages of English Department,

university of Halabja at a public university in Iraqi Kurdistan voluntarily completed and returned

the questionnaire.

The results of the questionnaire display that the participants have positive and negative

attitudes towards CS, because of that there are many factors either to reject Code-Switching or

accepting it. The findings of the study indicate that, there are some students who have been

affected positively by using CS, for instance, almost (%74) of participants believe that “Teaching

the subjects in English and Kurdish increases my chance to pass in the exam” that proves most of

the participants accept CS in order to avoid failing in the exams. on the other hand, there are

some students that have been affected negatively for example, (%54) of participants are agree

with this statement “I do not prefer my teachers to switch from English to Kurdish while they are

teaching in the class” which illustrate that they think about CS negatively, the reason behind this

may be of lack of interest in using their MT or they believe in practicing in their TL in order to

master the language well.

Finally, as the present study aim at investigating what characterizes the attitudes of

Kurdish EFLL towards a particular group of English language teachers at a public university in

Iraqi Kurdistan, we do not claim the generalizability of the results but participating more than

17
 Ali and Hamasharif 18

half of the students in this teacher education program results is shedding some light on

how CS maybe affect students positively or negatively in the outcomes of their academic

achievements.

5.2 Pedagogical Recommendation

As a further step of research, a larger-scale study could be carried out in public

universities in Iraqi Kurdistan. And to obtain more comprehensive picture of the Code-

Switching, that from a very long time the door has been shut towards understanding Code-

Switching, but still there are some voices that underpin CS and its benefits for the students

especially at their beginner levels. Also the other aspects of CS need to be investigated.
 Ali and Hamasharif 19

Bibliography

Abad, L. ( 2005). Code-switching in the classroom: A clash of two languages. Faculty Research

Journal of Miriam College. 36-52.

Alshehri, Eman. (2016). Using Learners’ First Language in EFL Classrooms.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316553332_Using_Learners'_First_Language_i

n_EFL_Classrooms

Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching monolingual classes: Using L1 in the classroom. Harlow:

Longman Group Ltd.

Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching monolingual classes. London: Longman.

Ahmad, B. H., & Jusoff, K. (2009). Teachers’ code switching in classroom instructions for low

English proficient learners. English Language Teaching, 2(2), 49-55.

DOI: 10.5539/elt.v2n2p49

Bateman, B.E. (2008). Student teachers' attitudes and beliefs about using the target language in

the classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 41(1), 11-28.

Baker, C. (1995). A Parents’ and Teachers’ Guide to Bilingualism. Bridgend, England:

Multilingual Matters publishers.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall Regents

 Ali and Hamasharif 20

Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language

Review, 57 (3), 402-423.

Copland, F., & Neokleous, G. (2011). L1 to teach L2: Complexities and contradictions.

ELT Journal, 65 (3), 270-280.

Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language

classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 74 (2), 154-166.

Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition 2nd Edition-Oxford applied

linguistics. Oxford university press.

Eldridge, J. (1996). Code-switching in a Turkish secondary school. ELT journal, 50(4), 303-311.

Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two language. An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Ghorbani, A. (2011). First language use in foreign language classroom discourse. Procedia –

Social and Behavioral Sciences 29, 1654-1659.

Gill, S. (2003). The L1 in the L2 classroom. Retrieved at http://www.hltmag.co.uk/

sep05/mart03.htm

Greggio, S., & Gil, G. (2007). Teacher’s and learner’s use of code switching in the English as a

foreign language classroom: A qualitative study. Linguagem & Ensino, 10(2), 371-393.

Retieved from
 Ali and Hamasharif 21

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260299540_Teacher's_and_Learners'_U

se_of_Code_Switching_in_the_English_as_a_Foreign_Language_Classroom_A_

Qualitative_Study

Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language Use in Language Teaching and Learning: State of

the Art. Language Teaching, 45 (3), 271–308.

Harbord, J. (1992). The Use of the Mother Tongue in the Classroom. ELT Journal 46 (4), 350–

355.

Hall, G. & Cook, G. (2012). Own language use in language teaching and learning. Language

Teaching, 45, 271-308.

Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2013). Own-language use in ELT: exploring global practices and attitudes.

ELT Research Paper, British Council, London.

Inbar - Louire, O. (2010). English only? The linguistic choices of teachers of young EFL

learners. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14 (3), 351-367.

Jingxia, L. (2010). Teachers’ code-switching to the L1 in EFL classroom. The Open Applied

Linguistics Journal 3, 10-12.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamon.

Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. (1983). Natural approach (pp. 20-20). New York: Pergamon. P.9

Keller, George H., "Code Switching in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages"
 Ali and Hamasharif 22

(2016). Master's

Projects and Capstones. 480. https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/480

Lee, Jang Ho. (2012). Implications for language diversity in instruction in the context of target

language classrooms: Development of a preliminary model of the effectiveness of teacher

code-switching. English Teaching. 11. 137-160.

Littlewood, W. & Yu, B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign teaching

classroom. Language Teaching, 44(1), 64-77.

Mattsson, A., & Burenhult-Mattsson, N. (1999). Code-switching in second language teaching of

French. Working Papers, 47, 59-72. Retrieved from

journals.lub.lu.se/index.php/LWPL/article/viewFile/2322/1897

Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers' code switching in foreign language classrooms.

Modern Language Journal, 85, 531-548.

McDonald, C. (1993). Using the target language. Cheltenham, UK: Mary Glasgow.

Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms:

Theories and decision making. The Modern Languages Journal, 85(4), 531-548.

Muñoz, Jorge Enrique , & Mora, Yadira Fernanda (2006). Functions of Code-Switching: Tools

for Learning and Communicating in English Classes. HOW, 13(1),31-45.[fecha de

Consulta 25 de Abril de 2022]. ISSN: 0120-5927. Disponible en:

https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=499450712003
 Ali and Hamasharif 23

Nunan, D., & Lamb, C. (1996). The self-directed teacher. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Pham, H. (2015). 'Learners’ Perceptions of Tertiary Level Teachers’ Code Switching: A

Vietnamese Perspective'. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology,

Open Science Index 102, International Journal of Educational and Pedagogical Sciences,

9(6), 2011 - 2021.

Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English y termino en espanol: toward a

typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18, 581-616. (613-615)

Romaine, S. (1989). Bilingualism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Brownlie, S. (2002). Teacher use of learners' native language in the foreign

language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58 (3), 402-426.

Sert, O. (2005). The functions of code switching in ELT classrooms. The Internet TESL Journal,

11(8). Retrieved from http://www.iteslj.org/Articles/SertCodeSwitching.html.

Selamat, J. T. (2014). Code switching in the Malaysian ESL classroom. Unpublished

Doctoral Dissertation. University of Otago.

Skiba, R. (1997). Code switching as a countenance of language interference. The internet TESL

journal, 3(10), 1-6.

Scott, W. & Ytreberg, L. (2010). Teaching English to children. New York: Longman

Seedhouse, P. (2004). Conversation analysis methodology. Language Learning, 54(s1), 1-

 Ali and Hamasharif 24

54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00268.x. [ Links ]

Semiun, Agustinus. (2014). The Importance of the Use of English by EFL Teachers Viewed

from the Theories of Language Learning, Language Teaching and Classroom Interaction.

01. 184-196.

Simasiku, L. (2015). Can Code Switching Enhance Learners’ Academic Achievement? English

Language Teaching, 8(2), 70–77.

Sarıçoban, A. (2010), “Should native language be allowed in foreign language classes?”,

Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 38: 164-178.

Takakuwa, M. (2000). What's wrong with the concept of cognitive development in studies of

bilingualism?. Bilingual Review/La Revista Bilingüe, 225-237.

Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but? The

Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 531-535.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.4.531

Turnball, M., & Arnett, K. (2002). Teachers’ uses of the target and first languages in second and

foreign language classrooms. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 204–218.

Vygotsky, LS Gulutsan, M, I, Arki [Multilingualism in children]1975EdmontonThe University

of Alberta(The original essay appears in L. U. Zankov, Zh. I. Skif, & D. B. El'konin

[Eds.], Umstvennoe razvitie detei v protsse obucheviia, spornik statei [Mental

 Ali and Hamasharif 25

development of children in the process of education, a collection of essays].

Moscow: State Pedagogical Publishing House, 1935.)

Waris, A. M. (2012). Code switching and mixing (Communication in Learning Language ).

Jurnal Dakwah Tabligh, 13(1), 123–135. Page: 131

Yao, M. (2011). On attitudes to teachers’ code-switching in EFL classes. World Journal of

English Language, 1(1): 19-28.

Yletyinen, H. The Functions of Codeswitching in EFL Classroom Discourse. Unpublished

dissertation. University of Jyväskylä, 2004