24
Delia Hidalgo
Universidad Nacional de Loja (Ecuador)
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9051-6833
Wellintong Intriago
Ponticia Universidad Católica del Ecuador (Ecuador)
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4435-6722
-
factores que motivan a los profesores de inglés de las escuelas públicas
ecuatorianas a realizar - (cambiar de un idioma
a otro) en el aula de inglés como lengua extranjera
Code-switching is a sociolinguistic phenomenon that usually occurs in bilingual
or multilingual communities either to show aection or membership. However,
and regarding to the English as Foreign Language teaching (e), it seems that
code-switching is also considered by the Ecuadorian public schools’ English teachers
within this process. erefore, this paper attempts to nd out and describe the factors
that motivate them to code-switch as well as to establish the foundation for further
studies on code-switching inuence and the role that L1 should play in the English
as Foreign Language classroom. is descriptive, combined, and ethnographic re-
search gathered data through surveys consisting of 6 questions framing the Likert
scale format, which were answered by 17 Ecuadorian public school English teachers.
Likewise, the interview was used to gather the perceptions of 5 English teachers about
the usage and acceptance of code-switching. e results show that the factors that
motivate them to code-switch are related to pedagogical and aective purposes; in
fact, the participants highly accept its usage for pedagogical purposes such as giving
examples and explaining the class in the mother tongue. Nevertheless, it seems that
code-switching is used according to each teacher’s perception, without following
any logical nor planned sequence, which seems to be contradictory to well-known
theories that explain the eects of the frequent usage of the mother tongue within
the second language acquisition process.
El cambio de código es un fenómeno sociolingüístico que usualmente ocurre en co-
munidades bilingües o multilingües, principalmente con nes afectivos. No obstante,
y en relación a la enseñanza del idioma inglés como lengua extranjera ( por sus
siglas en inglés), el cambio de código también parece ser considerado como parte
de este proceso, por los docentes de inglés de las instituciones educativas públicas
del Ecuador. Por lo tanto, este artículo intenta descubrir y describir los factores que
los motivan a cambiar de código, así como establecer las bases para futuros estudios
sobre la inuencia y el papel que el idioma materno debería desempeñar en el aula
de enseñanza del idioma inglés como lengua extranjera. Este estudio descriptivo,
combinado y etnográco recopiló datos por medio de encuestas que siguen el formato
de la escala de Likert, las cuales fueron contestadas por 17 docentes de inglés de
: 10.29166/kronos.v2i1.3032
Sociolinguistics,
factors to code-switch, English
as foreign language teaching, Ec-
uadorian public schools’ English
teachers.
Sociolingüísti-
ca, factores para cambiar de códi-
go, enseñanza del idioma inglés
como lengua extranjera, docentes
de inglés de instituciones públicas
del Ecuador.
- - | - -
| - | vol. | n.°
Recibido: 30 de enero 2021
Aprobado: 30 de mayo 2021
25
Code-switching is a sociolinguistic phenomenon that
usually occurs within bilingual or multilingual con-
texts. Holmes (2013) claims that the most common
reasons for switching codes are related to social status,
aection, and amusement where speakers are usually
procient in both languages. Nevertheless, it seems
that code-switching is conceptualized under positive
and negative attitudes, for example, Holmes (2013)
states that «Reactions to code-switching styles are
negative in many communities, despite the fact that
prociency in intra-sentential code-switching requires
good control of both codes».
Taking into consideration that most of the English
teachers worldwide are non-native English speakers, it is
highly likely that the mainstreaming of code-switching
into English as a foreign language classroom ()
brings about some eects. at might be the reason why
researchers such as (Hamadi & Sarem (2012), Pollard
(2002), Chowdhury (2013), Johansson (2014), Itmeizeh,
Ibnian, & Sha’fout (2017), and Yao (2011) have carried
out investigations on code-switching in the .
Nonetheless, it seems that neither in Ecuador nor
in Spanish speaking countries code-switching in
have aroused up the researchers’ interest. In fact, the
literature review showed that only two researchers
focused on code-switching: Rivera (2017) investigated
A1 learners’ perspectives of code-switching in the
classroom in Ecuador, while Vergara (2016) studied
teacher’s code-switching use in the classroom and its
eects on students’ learning process in Colombia. Ac-
tually, there are more studies about the role and usage
of L1 in the ; nonetheless, it seems that some of
them confused the mixed terms, which provide the
gap to go on with this type of studies.
On the other hand, Payne & Contreras (2019) and
Carabajo, González, & Paccha (2020) carried out studies
related to translation in the although it appears
that both studies approaches include examples and ask
questions about code-switching instead. erefore, it is
necessary to draw the dierences between both concepts
to focus on the kind of code-switching that will be studied.
Translation and translanguaging
e Dictionary of Cambridge (2020) denes translation
as «A piece of writing or speech in one language that
has been changed into another language». In the
classroom, English Language teachers are familiar with
the Grammar-translation method. According to Brown
(2000), two features of this well-known method are:
(a) vocabulary taught in the form of lists of isolated
words, and (b) exercises in disconnected sentences
from the target language into the mother tongue.
Aer some years, the grammar-translation method
was criticized, reduced, and sometimes banned since
it was thought that its usage aected the process.
Concordantly, Carabajo, González, & Paccha, (2020)
found that «e translation in a class aects the
when it is developed, because the teacher does not
increase the interest of the new language if he/she is
speaking in his/her mother tongue» (p. 77). is re-
search conceptualizes translation as a mixture of both
languages; however, it appears that it is nothing but
the confusion between translation and code-switching.
Despite its ndings, the authors drew the conclusion
that most of the time translation is the only option for
English teachers to make students understand and
acquire new learning, which is still under discussion.
Regarding translanguaging, it has gained popular-
ity during the past decade due to new theories about
languages acquisition. To illustrate it, Wei (2016) holds
that monolinguals learn a second language because they
want to become bilinguals or multilinguals not because
they want to forget their L1. In the same speech, he
also establishes dierences between code-switching
and translanguaging. e rst one is related to soci-
olinguistics and psycholinguistics studies while the
second one is related to the manipulation of L1 and
L2 for Language teaching purposes. Furthermore,
García (2017) theorizes that Language teachers should
not ignore the learners’ L1 repertoire, but get both
languages working together to achieve better results
in the process.
According to the above views, it seems that
code-switching and translanguaging are not mutually
instituciones públicas. Asimismo, se utilizó la entrevista para obtener la percepción
de 5 docentes de inglés sobre el uso, percepción y aceptación del cambio de código.
Los resultados muestran que los factores que los motivan a cambiar de código están
relacionados con propósitos afectivos y pedagógicos; de hecho, los participantes
muestran mayor aceptación hacia motivos pedagógicos, como proveer ejemplos
y explicar la clase en el idioma materno. No obstante, el cambio de código parece
ser usado de acuerdo a la percepción de cada docente, sin una secuencia lógica ni
planicada, lo cual contradice teorías reconocidas que explican los efectos del uso
frecuente del idioma materno en el proceso de adquisición de un segundo idioma.
26
exclusive against each other, indeed, translanguaging
might be the term introduced to the manipulation that
goes beyond the languages’ boundaries for pedagogical
reasons. at is, when speakers code-switch in the
, they are not commonly aware of this fact while
in translanguaging the switching of codes is expected
to follow a structured plan to get pedagogical results,
although it is not quite clear yet how and when teachers
should apply it. ose are the reasons why this research
is neither focused on translation nor on translanguaging
but on code-switching per se.
Code-switching types
Code-switching is not a new concept, actually, Re-
douane (2012) states that the earliest denition of
code-switching dates back to Weinreich (1953) who
realized this phenomenon used to occur between bi-
linguals or multilingual. From that moment on, many
terms related to code-switching have been introduced;
therefore, in an attempt to dierentiate them as well as
to clarify the research approach, only intersentential
and the intrasentential switch will be analyzed and
they both will be referred as code-switching during
the rest of the paper.
On the one hand, Ritchie & Bathia (2008) quoted
by (Kim, 2006) postulate that code-mixing refers to the
mixing of various linguistic units (morphemes, words,
modiers, phrases, clauses and sentences) primarily
from two participating grammatical systems within a
sentence. More specically, code-mixing is intrasen-
tential and is constrained by grammatical principles.
at is to say, code-mixing usually occurs inside the
sentences’ boundaries, therefore, it is likely to end up
in languages mixture.
On the other hand, Grosjean (1982) cited by (Kim,
2006) denes code-switching as the alternation of
two languages within a single discourse, sentence, or
constituent. Intersentential alternations occur when
the switch is made across sentence boundaries. In
general terms, code-switching usually occurs outside
the sentences’ boundaries.
Code-switching in the
As the code-switching term became popular, research-
ers took up investigations about its eects in the .
In fact, it seems that code-switching was the starting
point of what is known as translanguaging. Professor Li
Wei (2016) Chair of Applied Linguistics and Director
of the Centre for Applied Linguistics at the
Institute of Education, University College London, ,
explained the dierences between code-switching and
translanguaging and proposed a second explanation
as a theory for language acquisition.
According to Wei (2016) code-switching is neither
structured nor planned, therefore when teachers
switch codes, they do not usually expect any peda-
gogical outcome while translanguaging is supported
on scaolding or the deliberated manipulation of L1
for pedagogical purposes. at is, translanguaging
might me the name given to code-switching when it
is structured and planned to get pedagogical purposes
in the EFL classroom. Furthermore, García (2017)
Professor at the City University of New York, holds
that both L1 and L2 should work together as a unitary
meaning making system that allows learners to select
from their individual repertoire the features to stablish
communication.
It appears that both professors’ concepts match with
that of Krashen (1981) who concludes that the L1 may
«substitute» for the acquired L2 as an utterance initiator
when the performer has to produce in the target lan-
guage but has not acquired enough of the L2 to do this.
erefore, it seems that L1 might be useful at the lower
levels, since it might show that learners understand
the input but it is still too early for them to produce
the desired output. In a more updated view Krashen
(2021) suggests that there is no problem whether in
the early stages of second language acquisition ()
learners answer in their L1, the key factor is to know
what the L1 role in the is.
e above opinions are more focused on learner’s
performance; therefore, in an attempt to provide rea-
sons, functions, and eects of code-switching, some
researchers studied how teachers use L1 in the .
To illustrate this fact, Hamadi & Sarem (2012) investi-
gated about the reasons behind code switching in the
; Fareed, Humayuny, & Akhtar, (2016) studied
the perceptions about English Language teachers’
code-switching in class; Azlan & Narasumanb (2012)
researched about the role of code-switching as a com
-
municative tool; Mahdi & Almalki (2019) focused on
the pedagogical implications of code-switching in the
classroom.
Most of the research about code-switching found
that this phenomenon seems to be benecial at lower
levels; however, in advanced levels it is likely to be
detrimental since this might reduce the learners’
exposure to the target language (). at might
be the reason why, most of those studies suggest
reducing or eliminate the use of L1 when it has no
pedagogical role to play in the . Regarding the
decrease of L1 input issue, Krashen & Terrell (1998)
conclude that «it allows the performer to participate
more in conversation, and this could mean more
comprehensible input and thus more second language
acquisition» (p. 42).
27
Code-switching in Spanish speaking countries
Taking into consideration the analysis of code-switching
in the , studies related to this issue were carried
out in Colombia as well as in Ecuador. For example,
Vergara (2016) concludes that «students appreciated
when teachers explained instructions, meanings, and
grammar elements through code-switching; what is
more, it was identied the decrease of code-switching
through the semester and students English process
was successfully achieved» (p. 61).
In the Ecuadorian context, Rivera (2017) holds
that teachers believe that sometimes the use of
code-switching is necessary especially in to be
successful; nonetheless, some of them still doubt about
how much L1 should be utilized. erefore, it seems
that the role, functions, or eects of code-switching
– or what others call translanguaging – are neither
explained nor standardized yet. What seems to be
clear is that L1 is frequently used in the ; there-
fore, it should play an established role that provides
guidelines to take advantage of its usage. is might
be gotten by applying the right strategy at the right
moment instead of randomly. at is, L1 shouldn´t
be used to get away from providing comprehensible
inputs to learners or just because it is much easier
to switch to L1 to deal with some aspects within the
process.
Likewise, Payne & Contreras (2019) carried out
an investigation on translation, despite the research
questions were closely related to code-switching instead.
For instance, they found that 90% of students believed
that they would learn more English if the L1 were used
as a medium of instruction. It is clear that the ndings
were not related to translation but to code-switching.
Finally, Payne & Contreras, (2019) concluded that «It
can be perceived that most level 1 students prefer to
include Spanish in their English classes, while most
level 6 students do not» (p. 69).
Taking into consideration the above literature, this
research will attempt to answer the next questions:
What are the factors that motivate Ecuadorian English
teachers to switch codes in the ? Is code-switching
used for aective and pedagogical purposes in the
? erefore, the research aim will be to nd out
and describe the factors that motivate Ecuadorian
English teachers to switch codes as well as to establish
the foundations for further research on the eects and
role that L1 should play in the .
Research materials
To begin with, the instruments utilized to gather
data were a survey and an interview. e survey was
designed by using google forms applying the Likert
scale format which includes indicators ranging from
strongly agree to strongly disagree. It was organized
in three sections: e rst one shows a brief explana-
tion about code-switching so that the participants are
able to understand what the questions will be about;
the second section allows the participants consent
their participation in the research; the third section
displays 6 structured questions about both aective
and pedagogical factors that might motivate them to
switch codes in the .
In January 2021 the survey was piloted within a
group of 15 English teachers, who were pursuing the
Masters’ program «English as a Foreign Language Ped-
agogy» developed at Ponticia Universidad Católica
del Ecuador. Once the survey was completed, some
suggestions were made to narrow its scope as well as
to edit some features for embracing the study purpose.
In the end, the survey was sent via WhatsApp to 17
English teachers, who work in 4 public schools, located
in the cities of Quito, Ibarra, Salcedo, and Gualaquiza.
e interviews were carried out through WhatsApp
in the interviewees’ L1 (Spanish) since its main purpose
was to gather their perceptions on code-switching. e
conversation was free, but it followed a 5 semi-struc-
tured questionnaire about code-switching which were
typed in Word les and organized individually in order
to present the ndings in a qualitative way while the
data obtained from the surveys was organized and
tabulated by using Excel worksheets. Both results will
be discussed and analyzed in the next section.
Research methods
As this investigation attempts to identify and describe
the factors that motivate teachers to code-switch in the
, the chosen type of investigation was descriptive.
In this respect, Bernal ( 2010) holds that «En tales
estudios se muestran, narran, reseñan o identican
hechos, situaciones, rasgos, características de un objeto
de estudio […] pero no se dan explicaciones o razones
de las situaciones, los hechos, los fenómenos, etcétera».
[Such studies show, narrate, review, or identify facts,
issues, features, characteristics of a study object […] but
they neither give explanations nor reasons on the situ-
ations, facts, phenomena, etc.]. (p. 113) which frames
this study that also seeks to establish the foundation for
further investigations on code-switching in the .
Furthermore, this study is also supported on the
ethnographic method, which seeks to describe what
usually occurs in the day-to-day English teaching
practice. Bernal (2010) claims that «[e]l propósito
especíco de la investigación etnográca es conocer el
signicado de los hechos de grupos de personas, dentro
del contexto de la vida cotidiana». [e ethnographic
28
research’ specic purpose is to know people’s meaning
of facts in the daily life context]. (p. 65). Consequently,
this research expects to gather English teachers’ per-
ceptions about code-switching in the classroom,
which is part of their daily routines.
It is worth pointing out that this investigation will
apply the mixed method to analyze the gathered data.
Regarding the qualitative method, Bernal (2010) states
that «Su preocupación no es prioritariamente medir,
sino cualicar y describir el fenómeno social a partir
de rasgos determinantes, según sean percibidos por
los elementos mismos que están dentro de la situación
estudiada». [Its concern is not mainly to measure but
qualify and describe the social phenomenon from
determining features, as perceived by the elements
within the studied issue]. (p. 60).
Concerning the quantitate method, Bernal (2010)
sets that «Se fundamenta en la medición de las car-
acterísticas de los fenómenos sociales, lo cual supone
derivar de un marco conceptual pertinente al problema
analizado». [It is based on the measurement of social
phenomena features which are supposed to be derived
from a conceptual framework related to the analyzed
problem]. (p. 60).
e above concepts match the research purpose
since, on the one hand, it seeks to get the general view
on code-switching through a set of semi-structured
questions asked to 5 interviewees. On the other hand,
it is expected to nd out the factors that motivate them
to code-switch in the through surveys made up
of a set of structured questions that were answered by
the participants.
Research sample
e Ecuadorian Ministry of Education (Currículo,
2016) establishes the English prociency levels in
which high schoolers attending the 3 years of Ba-
chillerato General Unicado () are expected to
master prociency levels starting from A2 to B1 of
the Common European Framework of References
(). us, the research population is focused on
Non-native English teachers who currently teach
these levels. e participants are 5 English teachers,
4 males and 1 female, while the survey participants
are 17 English teachers, 9 males, and 8 females, who
have taught English for more than 5 years in Ecuador-
ian public institutions. is experience provides the
academic background so that they express valid and
reliable opinions on this issue.
Results
As explained above, the interview is based on 5 topics
about code-switching. In an attempt to clarify individ-
ual perceptions, they will follow the same sequence so
that the results and perceptions are displayed in a logical
and organized way. e interview results are organized
in Word tables where each question is analyzed tak-
ing into consideration the interviewee number, if the
answers are similar the interviewee number is written
in the interviewee column and only one perception is
written. On the contrary, if the answers are not similar
they will be presented with the correspondent inter-
viewee number and their perceptions. An extract of
introductory statements and the questions asked to
the responders are shown in each heading.
Statement: At the beginning of each school year,
it is almost a must to give directions and explain the
course rules quickly to meet the deadlines set by the
principals and authorities (see Table 1).
Statement: Code-switching saves time when explain-
ing dicult grammar structures and vocabularies as
well as when providing individual feedback to English
learners, especially in large classes (see Table 2).
Statement: Some teachers believe that code-switch-
ing is useful in lower levels but it should be reduced
in advanced ones. On the other hand, others believe it
slows down Second Language Acquisition at any level;
therefore, it should be eliminated at all (see Table 3).
Statement: Code-switching is eective to motivate,
engage, and challenge learners to do activities in
the as well as to build rapport and show empathy
within the class (see Table 4).
Statement: It might sound unfair to force both
English teachers and learners to avoid switching codes
in the since this is a bilingual context where they
share the L1. If so…
Taking into consideration the above perceptions,
most English teachers code-switch to cope with both
pedagogical and aective factors; therefore, its usage in
the should be planned so that it is not overused
(see Table 5). Finally, the agreement columns show
that code-switching should not be eliminated in lower
levels but reduced in advanced ones to broaden the
L2 exposure.
S
In the next section, the data obtained from the 6 survey
questions will be shown orderly. Questions 1 to 3 are
related to pedagogical factors while the last 3 questions
are focused on the aective factors that code-switching
might bring to the .
Graph 1 shows that 2 respondents (12%) strongly
agree; 8 (12%) agree; 4 (23%) hold a neutral view; 2
(12%) disagree; and 1 (6%) strongly disagree with
29
Table 1. Do you explain these details in Spanish or English?
Interviewee Perception Agreement
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 English teachers should be the ones who choose in which Lan-
guage to give directions and explain the course rules as long as the
learners understand every aspect.
It depends on learners’ English
prociency levels.
Table 2. What is your opinion about this statement?
Interviewee Perception Agreement
1 Beyond code-switching, it is important to consider the best way to
transfer knowledge
If L1 helps, there is no reason
to avoid it, but it is important
not to overuse it.
2 Sometimes, it is a must to switch codes as it might be useful tool
to save time.
3, 4, 5 In advanced levels, there is no need to use L1, but if they nd it
dicult L1 might help with further explanations.
It depends on the learners’
level
Table 3. Which methodology do you think is more eective?
Interviewee Perception Agreement
1 e curriculum should consider all the available resources to
learn any Language.
It should not be eliminated
but reduced in higher levels.
2, 3, 4, 5 In advanced levels, there is no need to code- switch, but L1 might
support SLA in lower levels.
Table 4. Do you agree with this statement?
Interviewee Perception Agreement
1 Code-switching allows learners to gain condence which creates a
funny and interactive learning environment.
In lower levels, it provides
support, but it has an oppo-
site eect in higher ones.
2, 3, 4, 5 In advanced levels there is no need to switch codes since these
aspects should be approached in English.
Table 5. Could you support your choice?
Interviewee Perception Agreement
2 More than unfair, it seems to be inevitable since English teachers
have to cope with many issues that might be solved easily in L1.
It is not necessary to force
English teacher to eliminate
L1 from the EFL classroom,
but its usage should have a
goal or purpose in the EFLC
3 If learners acquire enough vocabulary, grammar, and knowledge,
they will not need to use L1.
1, 4, 5 Forcing English teachers to eliminate the L1 from the EFLC might
lead learners to frustration.
30
the usage of code-switching to facilitate the ow of
classroom discipline, give instructions and explain
the course rules. e results might be related to time
constraints usually faced in public institutions by
teachers to give directions and instructions as well as
to the need for clear explanations about the course´s
rules and discipline to avoid future drawbacks due
to learners’ misunderstanding that might occur in
the L2.
Graph 2 shows that 2 participants (12%) strongly agree;
9 (53%) agree; 3 (17%) hold a neutral view; 2 (12%)
disagree; and 1 (6%) strongly disagree with the usage of
code-switching as a pedagogical tool to teach grammar
and vocabulary as well as to draw similarities between
L1 and L2, especially in large classes contexts. It seems
they perceive code-switching as a teaching strategy that
facilitates grammar and vocabulary acquisition in the
which is reinforced through the presentation of
similarities between L1 and L2.
Graph 3 shows that 2 interviewees (12%) strongly
agree; 9 (53%) agree; 3 (17%) hold a neutral view, and
only 2 (12%) disagree with the usage of code-switching
to teach English at lower levels as well as to provide
individual feedback to those learners who face problems
at understanding some content or structure. According
to the results, it seems pretty clear that most of the Ec-
uadorian Public Schools English teachers code-switch
in the during early learning stages where L1 is
also used to make the feedback more understandable
to learners.
Graph 4 shows that 2 teachers (12%) strongly
agree; 7 (41%) agree; 4 (23%) neither agree nor
disagree, 3 (18%) disagree, and 1 (6%) strongly
disagree with the usage of code-switching to get
learners engaged, motivate them or to foster their
participation during the class. The results display
divided opinions about this statement since almost
half of the teachers believe there are more options
than switching to L1 either to motivate schoolers
to learn English or to empower their participation
in the . This outcome might be interpreted as
a kind of rejection to the usage of code-switching
for these purposes.
Graph 5 shows that 1 respondent (6%) strong-
ly agrees; 9 (53%) agree; 4 (23%) neither agree nor
disagree, and 3 (18%) disagree with the usage of
code-switching to build rapport, avoid embarrassment,
and show aection in the . e results reveal a
favorable tendency toward the usage of code-switching
to deal with aective factors. It is likely this phenome-
non is not considered as part of the teaching practice
per se, since this sort of interaction usually happens
before and aer the hour class when teachers play the
role of counselors.
Graph 6 shows that 3 interviewees (17%) strong-
ly agree; 10 (56%) agree; 4 (22%) neither agree nor
disagree, and 1 (5%) disagree with the usage of
code-switching to create better learning environ
-
ments. It appears that Ecuadorian public schools’
English teachers switch codes to create better learning
environments where it is likely the aective lter is
lowered, since in this type of setting learners usually
pay attention to the class and are eager to acquire
new knowledge.
As it was already mentioned, graphs 1, 2, and 3 are
related to pedagogical factors. e ndings indicate
that at the beginning of the school year about a half
of teachers usually switch codes to establish a better
channel of communication that permit them clearly
explain all the aspects related to the course, but it is
limited by the learners’ levels. Furthermore, more than
a half of teachers switch codes to establish similarities
between L1 and L2 as well as to teach grammar and
vocabulary. Finally, it is evident a rising tendency
toward the L1 utility to teach English at lower levels
as well as to provide individual feedback.
Graphs 4, 5, and 6 have to do with aective factors
while teaching English as a foreign language. e
ndings demonstrate diverse opinions about whether
code-switching is useful to motivate and get schoolers
eager to participate in the . It is also revealed that
about a half of the teachers are not quite sure about
switching codes to show aection or to build rapport.
e only graph that shows a determining acceptance is
the one related to the creation of better learning envi-
ronments. It appears that code-switching is determined
by the class phase since motivation and aection might
be shown within the class period while the creation
of a better learning environment may start and nish
out of its boundaries.
e interview results and ndings establish that Ec-
uadorian public school English teachers think there is
no need to eliminate L1 from the but to reduce
its usage, particularly in advanced levels. According
to them, there is a need to continue using L1 as long
as it is used to avoid learners’ frustration in lower
levels as well as to achieve pedagogical aims. In this
respect, García (2017) concludes that L1 and L2 should
work as a team to create a meaning system that fosters
the . By the same token, Wei (2016) sets that L1
should be manipulated to get pedagogical purposes
which eventually lead teachers to make the input more
comprehensible, especially in lower levels. Likewise,
Krashen (2021) posits that beginner learners might
31
switch codes to answer any question during the silent
period; indeed, a right answer in either language may
be the best tool to measure input comprehension.
On the other hand, All the interviewees agree with
using code-switching at lower levels; nevertheless,
they acknowledge its overuse can be detrimental
in advanced ones due to the lack of exposure to the
target language. Along the same vein, Johansson
(2014) gured out that English teachers not only
switched codes, but it also had an important function
and regarded it as an essential tool in their teaching
practice, despite in the previous interviews they had
rejected the idea of switching codes during their
teaching practice.
e survey results and ndings, it seems quite
clear that most of the teachers use code-switching to
draw similarities between L1 and L2, teach grammar
and vocabulary, and provide individual feedback in
lower levels. at is the reason why it appears that
code-switching is considered a pedagogical tool that is
also used to give directions and explain course’s rules.
Contrasting this view, Itmeizeh, Ibnian, & Sha’fout,
(2017) recommended that English teachers should
look for diverse teaching methods to avoid switching
which, in turn, would encourage students to use the
L2. at is, English teachers should facilitate the
instead of promoting the use of the L1.
As far as affective factors are concerned,
code-switching seems to be used by English teachers
to create better learning environments; nevertheless, to
motivate, build rapport, and show aection there is a
divided view about whether it would be better to do it
in L1 or L2. Contrasting this divided view, Karakaya &
Dikilita (2020) conclude that English teachers utilize
code-switching for interpersonal relations as well as
to encourage participation, and enhance motivation,
which is somehow similar to create better learning
environments.
As a result, there is a high possibility that Ecuado
-
rian English teachers related aection and rapport to
the interaction that usually occurs within the class time
and the creation of better learning environments to
the interaction that usually surrounds it. erefore, it
is recommended to carry out further studies not only
in online modality but also in face-to-face classes in
order to compare whether Ecuadorian English teach-
ers perceive code-switching in the same way they do
during the pandemic lockdown.
Based on the gathered data, results and ndings obtained
from the application of the research instruments, most of
the questions show a light tendency that favor the usage
of code-switching in the . at is to say, Ecuadorian
public school English teachers switch codes for peda-
gogical and aective purposes mainly in lower levels.
Nonetheless, the broadest tendency is that related to the
use of code-switching to draw similarities between L1
and L2, teach grammar and vocabulary, which accord-
ing to previous ndings and some theorists should be
avoided since it cuts down the exposure to the . is
fact clearly demonstrates that the role that L1 should
play in the EFL classroom is not fully understood, since
it seems that code-switching is used to teach English
instead of using it for aective factors or to deal with
issues that surround the teaching practice per se.
e research contribution is based on the fact that
most of the communicative methods are focused on
the English teachers’ role, since they are meant to
provide comprehensible input in the , although
how to measure it and how and when its application
benets the has not been studied yet. erefore,
this investigation expects to establish the foundations
for further studies about the eects of code-switching
in dierent contexts.
On the other hand, the main limitation was to get
the participations consents due to the pandemic lock-
down which reduced the sample that might have been
larger. Another limitation was that this study was not
carried out to measure code-switching eects in the
and was mainly focused on teachers who teach
A2 and B1 levels in Public schools, which might be
broadened in the future.
Azlan, N. M. & Narasumanb, S. (2012). The role of
code-switching as a communicative tool in an esl teach-
er education classroom. 6
th
International Conference on
University Learning and Teaching (pp. 458-467). Selan-
gor, Malaysia: Academy of Language Studies, Universiti
Teknologi .
Bernal, C. (2010). Metodología de la investigación (3.
a
ed.).
Pearson.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by principles: an interactive
approach to language pedagogy. Logman.
Cambridge. (2020, January 18). Cambridge Dictionary.
Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/es/
diccionario/ingles/translation
Carabajo, Í. R., González, S. D. & Paccha, M. d. (2020).
Advantages and disadvantages of teaching English as a
second language in a Spanish-speaking country: a case
study at the coastal zone in Ecuador, 4(31). Pro Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.29018/issn.2588-1000
Chowdhury, N. (2013). Classroom code switching of en-
glish language teachers at tertiary level: A Bangladeshi
perspective. Stanford Journal of English, 7, 40-61. https://
doi.org/10.3329/sje.v7i0.14462
32
Currículo. (2016, February 2). Mineduc. Retrieved from:
Currículo de lengua extranjera inglés. https://educacion.
gob.ec/curriculo-lengua-extranjera/
Fareed, M., Humayuny, S. & Akhtar, H. (2016). English
language teachers’ code-switching in class: learners’
perceptions. Journal of Education & Social Sciences, 4(1),
1-11. :10.20547/jess0411604101
García, O. (2017, November 11). Translanguaging during
the multilingualism. Diversity lectures. retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l1CcrRrck0
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two language. An introduction
to bilingualism. Harvard University Press.
Hamadi, H. & Sarem, S. N. (2012). A closer look at some
reasons behind code-switching: a case of iranian
classrooms. Voices-India, 90-102.
Holmes, J. (2013). An introduction to sociolinguistics (4.
a
ed.). Routledge.
Itmeizeh, M., Ibnian, S. S., & Sha’fout, M. (2017).
Code-switching among teachers of english language
service. Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies,
05. https://www.ajouronline.com/index.php//
article/view/4892
Johansson, S. (2014). Code-switching in the English class-
room: What teachers do and what their students wish
they do. Semantic Scholar.
Karakaya, M. & Dikilita, K. (2020). Perceptions of the stu-
dents and the teachers towards the use of code switching
in classrooms. e Literacy Trek, 40-73.
Kim, E. (2006). Reasons and motivations for. Issues in ,
4(1), 43-61. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/
Reasons-and-Motivations-for-Code-Mixing-and-Kim/
ae406457161f9cccea34a54a06c67246de2d72
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second
language learning. Pergamon Press Inc.
Krashen, S. D. (2021, January 20). Bilingualism in second
language acquisition. (J. Matts, Interviewer). https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr4bMaRLKM
Krashen, S. D. & Terrell, T. D. (1998). e natural approach:
language acquisition in the classroom. Prentice Hall .
Mahdi, A. & Almalki, M. S. (2019). Teachers’ perceptions
towards pedagogical implications of code switching: Sau-
di classroom context in focus. International Journal
on Studies in English Language and Literature (),
7(1), 1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.20431/2347-3134.0703001
Payne, M. & Contreras, J. P. (2019). Ecuadorian students’
perception on the use of translation in the classroom.
Studies in English Language and Education, 6(1), 61-70.
https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v6i1.12072
Pollard, S. (2002). e benet of code switching within
a bilingual education program. Honors Project, Paper
2. http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/hispstu_honproj/2
Redouane, R. (2012). Linguistic constraints on code-switch-
ing and code-mixing of bilingual moroccan arabic-french
speakers in Canada. Proceedings of the 4th International
Symposium on Bilingualism, 1921-1933. http://www.
lingref.com/isb/4/.
Ritchie, W. C. & Bathia, T. K. (2008). Social and psychological
factors in language mixing. e Handbook of Bilingualism,
336-352. : 10.1002/9780470756997.ch13
Rivera, W. (2017). Perspectivees of code-switching in
A1 learners of an Ecuadorian public university. Escuela
Politécnica del Litoral, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y
Humanísticas.
Vergara, A. V. (2016). Code-switching: uses and perceptions
an the classroom at Uniminuto. Corporación Univer-
sitaria Minuto de Dios. http://hdl.handle.net/10656/4453
Wei, L. (2016, December 06). Translanguaging as a theory
of language. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnOx-
8GjPvj4
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact, ndings and
problems. New York, : Linguistic Circle of New York.
Linguistic Circle of New York.
Yao, M. (2011). On attitudes to teachers’ code-switching
in classes. World Journal of English Language, 01.
https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v1n1p19
