INTRODUCTION
Rationale of the study
English is increasingly popular worldwide, serving as a vital language in education, politics, economy, and entertainment In Vietnam, the demand for learning English is rising rapidly Unlike students in ESL settings with more opportunities to practice, Vietnamese EFL students have limited exposure to English outside the classroom Experts suggest that EFL teachers should maximize the use of the target language (TL) in lessons to create an immersive environment, enhancing learning effectiveness (Krashen, 1985) However, the English Only policy has faced criticism from educators for its effectiveness (Dujmovic, 2007), and teachers often struggle to communicate clearly, leading to student misunderstandings and frustration (Harbord, 1992) As a result, many teachers adopt a bilingual approach, switching between students’ mother tongue and English—a practice known as code-switching—which is considered a natural and useful tool in bilingual education (Palmer, 2009; Sert).
2005) By alternating between two languages, teachers can ensure they get their meaning across while students still have sufficient exposure to and practice the target language
Research worldwide has increasingly focused on the phenomenon of code-switching, which occurs among individuals proficient in at least two languages, whether in ESL or EFL contexts (Ahmed & Yassin, 2013; Esfahani, 2014; Selemat, 2014; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003) This behavior has been extensively studied within EFL classrooms, revealing that English majors and non-English majors often hold differing perspectives on its use (Chowdhury, 2012).
Educators have shown a growing interest in studying how learners of all ages, including kindergarten children (Anggraeni, 2012) and high school students (Eldrige, 1996; Hamdan & Diab), utilize code-switching in their language development Research such as Nguyen, T B H., Jang, and Yang (2010) highlights the significance of understanding code-switching patterns to enhance language learning strategies across different educational levels.
1997) or at tertiary level (Chowdhury, 2012; Schweers, 1999) Researchers have also examined the use of code-switching by students at beginner level (Greggio & Gil, 2007) or intermediate level (Barandagh, Zoghi & Amini, 2013)
Vietnamese researchers have actively contributed to the study of code-switching, exploring its use in daily conversations among Vietnamese speakers in English-speaking countries such as Australia and the USA (Nguyen, T.) These studies provide valuable insights into how bilingual individuals navigate and integrate their native language with English in everyday communication.
Research by Nguyen et al (2010) indicates that approximately 70% of first-year English-major students in Vietnam prefer their teachers to occasionally use Vietnamese alongside English to enhance understanding Vietnamese studies, such as those by Nguyen Q T (2012) and Nguyen T H (2013), explore teachers’ perspectives on code-switching, focusing on its types, functions, reasons, and optimal timing in classrooms Most existing research relies on questionnaires, interviews, and classroom observations to investigate the use of code-switching by teachers and students The current study adopts an experimental approach to evaluate the effectiveness of teacher-employed code-switching in EFL classrooms and to understand students’ attitudes towards it, aiming to help teachers adapt their language use to better facilitate student learning.
This study aims to evaluate the impact of teachers’ code-switching on students’ learning success, focusing specifically on classroom discourse It investigates how teachers’ use of code-switching to explain grammar, structures, and new vocabulary can enhance students' understanding of reading texts Reading skill is emphasized because it helps students expand their vocabulary and provides valuable exposure to authentic language, which is meaningful and includes all features of the target language aside from pronunciation (Eskey, 2005) During the reading experiment, students are also taught vocabulary, grammar, and reading techniques to better prepare for the TOEIC test, highlighting the practical benefits of incorporating code-switching in language instruction.
Aims of the study
This study investigates the impact of teachers' code-switching on enhancing reading comprehension among EFL students It explores how the strategic use of code-switching can facilitate better understanding and engagement in the classroom Additionally, the research examines students' perceptions of their teachers' use of code-switching, providing insights into its effectiveness and acceptability from the learners' perspective The findings aim to inform teaching practices that support effective language learning through appropriate code-switching techniques.
Research questions
For the above purposes, the study will be led by two research questions:
1 How does teacher’s code-switching affect students’ reading comprehension?
2 What are students’ attitudes towards their teacher’s use of code-switching in the classroom?
Hypothesis
This study hypothesizes that teachers' use of code-switching in the classroom can improve students' reading comprehension by helping them better understand texts Building on prior research, the study aims to explore how code-switching techniques enhance student performance in reading tasks Effective code-switching by teachers has the potential to facilitate better comprehension and boost academic achievement The findings may provide valuable insights into the role of code-switching as a supportive classroom strategy to enhance reading skills.
Significance of the study
The study may bring benefits to both EFL teachers and educational administrators
This study aims to dispel the misconception among EFL teachers that using L1 occasionally in L2 classrooms reflects a deficiency in employing the target language (Choomthong, 2014; Kamwangamalu, 2010) Research from Vietnam and other countries demonstrates that judicious use of code-switching can support students with low proficiency, facilitating their language acquisition process.
When it comes to educational administrators, it is important to carefully consider policies on using only the target language in the classroom Incorporating both Vietnamese and English can serve multiple functions and has been recognized as an effective tool in foreign language instruction Utilizing a bilingual approach can enhance student understanding and facilitate more engaging language learning experiences.
Scope of the study
The study will be conducted in two intermediate classes with non-English major students at Ton Duc Thang University.
Organization of the study
This thesis is organized into five chapters, starting with an introductory chapter that outlines the research objectives and significance The second chapter reviews relevant literature, highlighting previous studies in ESL and EFL contexts to identify existing contributions and research gaps This comprehensive literature review provides a foundation for understanding the current state of research and informs the study’s focus within the Vietnamese context The chapter concludes with a conceptual framework that guides the research methodology and data analysis, ensuring a coherent approach to addressing the research questions.
Chapter 3 details the research methodology, including study design, sampling selection, experimental procedures, and data collection and analysis The findings are presented and discussed in Chapter 4 to address the core research questions, providing insights into the study’s outcomes The final chapter, Chapter 5, summarizes the main findings, discusses pedagogical implications, acknowledges limitations, and offers recommendations for future research, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the study’s contributions.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Definition of code-switching
In sociolinguistics, the term “code” refers to a language or variety of a language, representing any communication system shared by two or more people (Wardhaugh, 2010) Code-switching occurs when speakers interchange or blend these languages within the same conversation or utterance, often when both interlocutors share the same language repertoire Poplack (1980) describes code-switching as “the alternation of two languages within a single discourse, sentence or constituent,” highlighting its intra-sentential nature Valdes-Fallis (1978) further explains it as “the alternating use of two languages on the word, phrase, clause, or sentence level,” while Muysken (2000) characterizes it as “the rapid succession of several languages in a single speech event,” emphasizing the fluid language shifts that can occur between sentences.
Code-switching occurs when learners incorporate elements of their mother tongue into their speech, a phenomenon prevalent in both ESL and EFL contexts regardless of bilingual ability (2008, p 43; Auer, 2011, p 461) This linguistic behavior is common in EFL classrooms worldwide, where teachers and students often share a first language, facilitating code-switching during instruction (Littlewood and Yu, 2009) Research indicates that code-switching is a widespread practice in primary and secondary education settings globally, reflecting its role in enhancing communication and understanding between teachers and students (Cook, 1996, as cited in Chowdhury, 2012).
42) also acknowledged the inevitability of code-switching and supplemented that it is common in the classroom where “the teacher and students share the same languages.”
In the classroom context, code switching is understood as the alternation of both teacher’s and students’ mother tongue and the target language that they are learning (Sert, 2005)
In linguistic research, the term “code-switching” is often discussed alongside related concepts like borrowing and code-mixing, which are frequently misunderstood To ensure clarity, it is essential to clearly define and distinguish these terms, highlighting their unique functions within bilingual language use and emphasizing their roles in linguistic phenomena.
Borrowing, as defined by Gumperz (1982, cited in Selemat, 2014, p 20), involves introducing single words or short, idiomatic phrases from one language into another Experts distinguish between various aspects of borrowing; for example, Poplack (1980, p 584) emphasizes that borrowed words are typically integrated into the host language's phonology, morphology, and syntax, often with little or no change in spelling, pronunciation, or grammatical structure Recognizing these features is essential for understanding how loanwords function within a language and contribute to its evolution.
In the process of code-switching, phonological, morphological, and syntactic rules of the embedded language are maintained, indicating a higher level of linguistic integration compared to borrowing, which occurs primarily at the lexical level While borrowing involves incorporating words from another language without implying language proficiency issues, code-switching can occur at both lexical and syntactic levels and often reflects the speaker's proficiency and social context Kamwangamalu (2010) emphasizes that code-switching is typically used when speakers are less proficient in the languages they switch between, whereas borrowing does not suggest any language incompetence Functionally, borrowing is mainly used to fill lexical gaps, whereas code-switching serves various social and expressive purposes, such as expressing solidarity or emphasizing key points in conversation.
The distinction between code-switching and borrowing can be clearly illustrated with examples For instance, two French sentences expressing "I can't believe that we code-switched as often as that" demonstrate how code-switching involves alternating between languages within a conversation, whereas borrowing refers to integrating words from another language into one’s own Understanding this difference is essential for analyzing multilingual communication.
(a) Ca m’étonnerait qu’on ait code-switched autant que ca
(b) Ca m’étonnerait qu’on ait code-switché autant que ca
(Grosjean, 1982, p 308, as cited in Nguyen, T H, 2013, p 15)
In sentence (a), the term “code-switched” functions as a proper example of code-switching, used with correct English grammar and pronunciation Conversely, “code-switché” is integrated into French grammar and morphology, indicating a borrowing rather than code-switching This distinction highlights how language contact can result in either code-switching or lexical borrowing based on grammatical integration Understanding these differences enhances clarity in multilingual communication and linguistic analysis.
Code-switching occurs when a word or phrase from one language is used within another language without any grammatical, phonological, morphological, or syntactic adaptation When such words or phrases are used frequently, widely adopted, and accepted by speakers of the second language, they become considered borrowings Some researchers suggest that code-switching serves as an initial step in the development of a language's lexicon and can be a precursor to borrowing (Eastman, 1992; Hoffmann, 1991, as cited in Nguyen, T H., 2013, p 16).
2.1.3 Code switching and code mixing
According to Myers-Scotton (1997, as cited in Selemat, 2014, p 1), code mixing involves the use of words, affixes, phrases, and clauses from multiple languages within a single sentence, highlighting its role in multilingual communication Muysken (2000, p 1) describes code mixing as the occurrence of lexical items and grammatical features from two languages appearing together in one sentence, emphasizing its integration at the lexical and grammatical levels While code-switching refers to switching between languages across sentences, code mixing occurs within a single sentence, and these terms are often considered complementary Hamers and Blanc (2000) note that code mixing is a type of insertional code switching, indicating an overlap between the two; therefore, the study uses the broader term "code-switching" to encompass any language alternation, whether within or across sentences.
Types of code-switching
In the field of sociolinguistics, the categorization of code-switching by Poplack
Since 1980, the work by Poplack has been widely referenced by experts due to its long-standing reputation in the field of code-switching research Poplack (1980) identifies three main types of code-switching: inter-sentential, intra-sentential, and tag switching, which are fundamental categories for understanding bilingual language behavior Nguyen (2013) also highlights the significance of these classifications in analyzing multilingual communication, making Poplack’s framework a cornerstone in linguistic studies on code-switching.
Inter-sentential code-switching occurs at sentence or clause boundaries, involving a shift from one language to another between different sentences or clauses For example, one sentence or clause is spoken in one language, and the next in a different language A well-known illustration is in Poplack’s study title: “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English y termino en espanol,” which translates to “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English and finish it in Spanish.” This example clearly demonstrates how language switches from English to Spanish between clauses, highlighting the nature of inter-sentential code-switching.
Barandagh et al (2013) observed that this type of code-switching commonly occurs between speakers’ turns or when a speaker needs to translate or clarify information They found that teachers often begin with an English sentence and then translate the entire sentence into students’ first language in the following utterance This pattern highlights the strategic use of code-switching to enhance understanding and communication in bilingual educational settings.
Teacher: Most of the families wanted to have a television back in their house Bishtare khanevadeha khastand ke telvizion be khanehaieshan bargardad (Barandagh et al., 2013, p 878)
Code-switching can occur within a sentence or clause boundary, as noted by Poplack (1980), meaning the language shift happens within the same sentence This type involves switching languages mid-sentence or clause, demonstrating fluid bilingual communication Additionally, code-switching may occur within a word boundary, exemplified by Barandagh et al (2013), where a student switches to their mother tongue when unable to find a suitable word in the target language This phenomenon highlights the dynamic nature of bilingual language use in various contexts.
Teacher: Can watching TV have bad effects on our body?
Ebrahimi: Yes, it can be harmful for our binayi (meaning “ eyesight ”)
Many linguists consider intra-sentential code-switching as code mixing, as both terms refer to language change within a single word, clause, or sentence This distinction is important for understanding bilingual language behavior and code alternation patterns (Pfaff, 1979, as cited in Wardhaugh) Recognizing intra-sentential code-switching as a form of code mixing highlights the fluidity of bilingual speakers' language use in various contexts.
Extra-sentential code-switching, also known as “tag-switching,” involves brief insertions of fixed phrases or fillers like “Well,” “Right,” “You know,”, or “I mean” from English into utterances in another language (Milroy and Muysken, 1995; Barandagh et al., 2013) These tags are considered to be less closely connected to the main body of the sentence, serving as pragmatic markers or conversational fillers For example, in tag-switching, a speaker might say, “I was going to the store, well, and then I saw my friend,” illustrating how these English fillers are integrated into speech in a different language context.
But I wanted to fight her con los punos, you know (meaning “But I want to fight her with my fists, you know ”) (Poplack, 1980, p 596)
2.3 Functions of code-switching in classrooms
Code-switching in ESL and EFL classrooms involves alternating between students' first language (L1) and the target language (L2), enhancing communication and understanding Educational experts recognize that code-switching plays a vital role in facilitating effective learning and teaching by bridging language gaps This bilingual practice supports students' comprehension, boosts engagement, and helps them develop language skills more efficiently Overall, incorporating code-switching strategically in language instruction offers significant benefits for both teachers and learners.
2.3.1 Functions of teachers’ code-switching
Ferguson (2003) categorized functions of teachers’ code-switching into three broad groups: (1) code switching for curriculum access, (2) code switching for classroom discourse management, and (3) code switching for interpersonal relations
Code-switching by teachers is a valuable instructional tool used to clarify difficult concepts, explain grammatical rules, or translate new words, often switching from L2 to L1 to ensure student understanding (Ahmad & Jusoff, 2009; Mujiono et al., 2013; Pei-shi, 2012; Yletyinen, 2004) It can also be employed to check comprehension by using the students’ mother tongue when seeking responses or explaining similarities and differences between L1 and L2 (Greggio & Gil, 2007; Nazari, 2008) However, overusing code-switching may hinder students' attention and focus on English instructions, underscoring the importance for teachers to balance the use of L1 and L2 This approach helps facilitate learning while encouraging sufficient exposure to the target language for optimal language development (Sert, 2005).
Many researchers agree that teachers use code-switching as a strategy to manage classroom discipline, particularly in large classes (Ahmad & Jusoff, 2009; Chowdhury, 2012; Cook, 2001; Selemat, 2014) Teachers often switch to their first language (L1) when transitioning between lesson topics or activities, as it helps capture students' attention more effectively than using only the second language (L2) (Greggio & Gil, 2007; Pei-shi, 2012; Sert) This practice supports classroom management and facilitates smoother transitions during lessons.
Research indicates that for students with low English proficiency, teachers should organize classroom tasks using students’ mother tongue to enhance understanding and engagement (Ahmad & Jusoff, 2009; Cook, 2001) Classroom discourse management also involves strategic code-switching, which teachers can use to control student behavior, such as switching to L1 to express disappointment or reprimand when students are disengaged or neglecting homework (Ferguson, 2003) Yletyinen (2004) suggests that teachers often find their words more impactful in L1, and students perceive this code-switching as a clear indicator that they have done something wrong, thereby reinforcing behavioral boundaries.
For the last function, code-switching deals with maintaining and negotiating the relationship between teachers and students This function of code-switching is for
Unofficial interactions between teachers and students, such as casual conversations about weekends or holidays or light-hearted jokes during lessons, play a significant role in creating a positive classroom environment (Canagarajah, 1995; Greggio & Gil, 2007; Mujiono et al., 2013) These informal exchanges can occur at any time during the lesson and help build rapport and reduce classroom tension Additionally, code-switching serves as an important tool for expressing solidarity and establishing interpersonal relationships between teachers and students (Ahmad & Jusoff, 2009; Chowdhury, 2012; Mujiono et al., 2013) Teachers often switch to the students' first language (L1) to decrease anxiety, provide feedback, and motivate students, thereby boosting their confidence and participation in learning English (Selemat, 2014) Incorporating informal interactions and strategic code-switching enhances student engagement and promotes a supportive learning environment.
2.3.2 Functions of students’ code-switching
Students use code-switching primarily to bridge gaps in their language proficiency, often reverting to their native language when they cannot find suitable English words or structures (Greggio & Gil, 2007; Selemat, 2014; Sert, 2005) Krashen (1981) highlights that students tend to switch to their first language (L1) when struggling to express ideas in the second language (L2), reflecting their limited proficiency and desire to maintain effective communication Unlike teachers, whose code-switching serves different functions, students' code-switching mainly functions as a strategy to compensate for language gaps and facilitate understanding in classroom interactions.
Students’ code-switching plays a crucial role in facilitating their learning process, especially for beginners who feel more comfortable using their L1 as a foundation to explore ideas (Selemat, 2014, p 31) While the use of L1 should gradually decrease as students become more proficient in L2, it remains a valuable tool during language acquisition Students often switch to their mother tongue when seeking help from teachers, such as asking for pronunciation guidance, translations, or clarifications on grammatical rules (Greggio & Gil, 2007; Yletyinen, 2004) Additionally, students may switch from L2 to L1 to repeat teachers’ messages, indicating comprehension of the instruction (Sert, 2005).
Code-switching plays a vital role in the teaching and learning process, serving multiple functions in L2 classrooms However, its use remains controversial within sociolinguistics and related fields When used inappropriately, code-switching can hinder language acquisition rather than facilitate it.
Attitudes towards the use of code-switching in L2 classrooms
This study explores the ongoing debate over whether code-switching in language classrooms hinders or enhances second language (L2) learning It examines both sides of the argument, analyzing how code-switching can either facilitate understanding and engagement or create confusion and dependency Based on this balanced perspective, the study proposes effective strategies for integrating code-switching into classroom practices to optimize L2 acquisition.
Resorting to the mother tongue in language classrooms has been criticized for contradicting established pedagogical principles Many linguists and second language acquisition experts argue that learning an L2 mirrors the natural process of acquiring an L1, emphasizing the importance of immersing students in a solely target language environment The use of only L1 in L2 teaching gained popularity in the 19th century with the rise of the Natural Method, later known as the Direct Method, which advocates for encouraging spontaneous, direct use of the foreign language in class This approach emphasizes that students should learn to think directly in L2 early in the acquisition process and promotes teaching grammatical rules inductively while conveying vocabulary meanings through contextual learning.
Using demonstration, objects, and pictures effectively supports the teaching of concrete vocabulary, while the association of ideas aids in teaching abstract concepts (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, p 10) Consequently, teachers do not need to rely on translation or the students’ mother tongue during class, promoting more immersive and natural language learning experiences.
The avoidance of using L1 in L2 classrooms at all costs is also advocated by Krashen (1985), who is the father of the Input Hypothesis In his work, he claimed that
Humans acquire language primarily through understanding messages and receiving comprehensible input, which enables them to extend their current knowledge (Krashen, 1985) While children learn their first language (L1) through caretaker speech, adults acquire a second language (L2) mainly via modified input, such as teacher talk in classrooms The purpose of modified input is to ensure students understand, allowing them to naturally acquire new grammatical structures without explicit teaching Effective language instruction involves teachers adjusting their language to match students’ proficiency levels and avoiding reliance on their first language (L1), as increased exposure to L2 is strongly linked to higher proficiency (Krashen, 1982) Ultimately, Krashen emphasizes that language acquisition success depends on comprehensible input, and interference from L1 may hinder the process.
Teachers play a crucial role as the primary source of L2 for students in EFL classrooms, emphasizing the importance of simulating real-life situations to enhance language use Krashen highlights that comprehensible input provided in the classroom is “the essential environmental ingredient” necessary for language acquisition Therefore, it is vital for teachers to ensure students are continually exposed to meaningful and authentic target language experiences, as the classroom often serves as “the main, if not only, source of comprehensible input.”
Excessive reliance on L1 in language learning can have negative consequences, as it fosters a habit of translating between L1 and L2 This practice hinders students from thinking directly in the target language, ultimately impeding their language acquisition progress (Choomthong, 2014).
A number of researchers holding positive attitudes towards code-switching have attacked the monolingual approach in teaching L2 because it reveals some defects
Code-switching plays a vital role in EFL classrooms by facilitating effective communication and understanding It benefits both teachers and students, especially when explaining grammatical issues or unfamiliar words, as using the mother tongue saves time and enhances comprehension (Turnbull, 2001) Additionally, switching to L1 to provide meanings of L2 words is effective because translation is clear, concise, and familiar to students, making new vocabulary easier to grasp (McKeown, 1993, as cited in Nguyen, T B H et al., 2010, p.).
Atkinson (1987) emphasized that translation is a preferred learning strategy for many learners in L2 classrooms, highlighting its importance in language acquisition Code-switching is regarded as an effective teaching and learning strategy in EFL classrooms, as it helps "build a bridge from known to unknown," facilitating comprehension and engagement (Sert, 2005) This approach leverages students' mother tongue to enhance understanding and support bilingual or multilingual language development.
(1975, as cited in Ellis, 1985, p 37) argued that L1 is used as part of the psychological process – “that of relying on prior knowledge to facilitate new learning.”
The monolingual approach is criticized for being impractical when teaching low-proficiency language learners, as they lack sufficient command of the target language to understand lessons solely conducted in L2 (Kieu, H K A, 2010) Teaching exclusively in L2 can lead to student frustration, resentment, and feelings of alienation from the learning process, ultimately hindering their progress (Pachler & Field, 2001, p 85) Therefore, flexibly incorporating the use of L1 in the classroom can make learning English less intimidating, boost students' confidence, and foster positive attitudes towards language acquisition (Schweers, 1999, p 13).
The Input Hypothesis, a core principle of the L2-only policy, is criticized for suggesting that maximum exposure to the target language directly leads to student success While exposure to the language plays a significant role in language acquisition, it is not always sufficient on its own According to Phillipson (1992, as cited in Kieu, H K A), the effectiveness of language exposure depends on various factors beyond mere quantity, emphasizing the need for comprehensive language learning strategies.
Research indicates that students' language learning success depends not only on the quantity of L2 input but also significantly on the quality of teachers, teaching materials, and methodology Additionally, Elridge (1996) argued that increasing exposure to the target language while minimizing mother tongue use does not necessarily improve the quality or quantity of L2 output by students.
Lastly, those supporting the use of code-switching express their concern over
The "humanistic approach" in the classroom, introduced by Atkinson (1987), emphasizes the importance of allowing students to freely express their true thoughts in their target language This approach encourages teachers to create a supportive environment where students feel comfortable "saying what they really want to say" in their second language (L2) Educators are advised to facilitate this process by providing assistance and encouragement, fostering genuine communication and language development.
Previous studies on the use code-switching in English classrooms
Previous research on code-switching and L1 interference in L2 classrooms has been conducted in both ESL and EFL contexts These studies primarily focus on teaching reading and writing skills, as well as other language components such as grammar and vocabulary.
Seng and Hashim (2006) studied Malaysian first-year Education students' use of Bahasa Melayu (L1) during L2 reading, revealing three main patterns: reading entirely in L2, entirely in L1, or switching smoothly between both languages, reflecting their bilingual background in an ESL community The study found that students use L1 for 32.2% of reading strategies, primarily to address difficulties with word meaning or comprehension They emphasized that code-switching is a natural and helpful part of the reading process, especially for learners with lower English proficiency The researchers recommend that ESL teachers should not completely prohibit L1 use, as it facilitates more effective learning and comprehension among students.
Azlan and Narasuman (2013) studied code-switching among Malaysian university students and lecturers, revealing that students frequently switch to Malay (L1) to emphasize points or clarify during discussions Despite training to become English teachers, 50% of students found it challenging to use English consistently due to limited language proficiency, leading them to rely on L1 during interactions with classmates and in class presentations The use of L1 also fostered social solidarity among Malay Muslim students and lecturers, strengthening their bonds during informal conversations Although lecturers emphasized English use in class, many students still preferred code-switching, with 10% using L1 for peer communication and 50% following instructions to use English The study expressed concern over frequent code-switching and grammatical errors by TESL students, suggesting that teachers should regulate language use in English-oriented classrooms It was recommended that L1 could be permitted for low-proficiency students, but its use should not overshadow the target language to ensure effective language acquisition (Azlan & Narasuman, 2013).
Research indicates a growing interest in the role of code-switching in EFL classrooms, focusing on teachers’ and students’ attitudes toward mother tongue interference and its impact on language learning success Some studies, including Torki, Kasmani, and Valipour (2014), conclude that code-switching does not significantly enhance students’ learning outcomes, as their research on Iranian university students’ L2 reading comprehension showed no notable difference between pre-test and post-test scores in both control and experimental groups This finding suggests that, for advanced learners such as English translation sophomores, proficiency in both English and their mother tongue is essential, and dealing with L2 texts may not pose a significant challenge.
Unlike what Torki et al (2014) discovered, many researchers’ findings confirm the positive role of code-switching on students’ learning process Ahmed and Yassin
Ahmed and Yassin (2013) conducted a study to explore the impact of using students' L1 (Arabic) to teach reading comprehension to high school Arabic native speakers The study employed a test-retest method, with students completing pre-tests and post-tests to measure progress The experimental group received vocabulary and phrase explanations in Arabic, while the control group was taught exclusively in English Results showed both groups improved post-test scores, but the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group in L2 reading comprehension, indicating that L1 support facilitated understanding Additionally, a slight improvement in the control group's scores was attributed to their adaptation to English-only instruction over two months, highlighting the potential benefits of combining L1 use with immersive English learning.
Hamdan and Diab (1997) confirmed that using L1 in testing improves students’ reading comprehension abilities Their study with secondary school students showed that test scores were higher when questions were in Arabic (L1) compared to English (L2) They concluded that intermediate-level learners understand L2 reading comprehension better when test items are in their native language and answered in the same language, highlighting the positive impact of L1 on reading assessment.
Esfahani (2014) highlighted the positive impact of code-switching on students’ learning success in an ESP context in Iran, revealing that students prefer teachers’ use of L1 and L2, especially for complex topics like grammar and new vocabulary Her study showed that classroom code-switching helps reduce learning anxiety and is significantly associated with improved learning outcomes However, relying solely on students’ subjective perceptions limits the conclusiveness of her findings; a more robust approach would involve experimental research with treatment and post-tests to objectively measure learning success.
Research indicates that code-switching plays a vital role in L2 classrooms, with optimal L1 use helping to facilitate student learning Sipra (2007) found that bilingualism supports integrated skill development for intermediate students, especially during classroom activities like discussions, intensive reading, and writing preparation, where L1 use is more natural and effective The study recommends limiting L1 to less than 10% of class time to expose students more to L2, but also suggests that 20-30% is acceptable if it helps meet students' needs and supports their language acquisition Overall, classroom management in L2, combined with strategic use of L1, enhances language learning outcomes.
Research on the appropriate L1 to L2 ratio in classrooms shows varied recommendations; for instance, Dujmovic (2007) suggests dedicating 10-20% of class time to L1 for intermediate and upper-intermediate students, while Atkinson (1987) recommends only 5% L1 and 95% L2 in early levels Nonetheless, Turnbull (2001) warns that using L1 less than 25% of the time indicates heavy reliance on L1, which can hinder students' access to valuable target language input Despite differing opinions on exact percentages, all researchers agree that minimal L1 use is preferable and should decrease as students’ L2 proficiency improves.
The use of L1 in university classrooms has been investigated by several researchers in Thailand where English is used as a foreign language as in Vietnam
Choomthong (2014) highlights that the national entrance examination negatively impacts English teaching and learning, leading to a focus on grammar and reading while neglecting speaking and writing skills He emphasizes that teachers’ limited proficiency in spoken English results in frequent use of Thai in classes, which hampers students’ speaking abilities To improve outcomes, he recommends prioritizing English to create an immersive environment that enhances pronunciation, accent, and language rules, suggesting minimal use of Thai based on the class context and students’ English proficiency.
Thongwichit (2013) emphasized that incorporating Thai in English classrooms can be highly beneficial, as it serves as a valuable resource in second language learning He argued that using the L1 judiciously and pedagogically can enhance understanding and facilitate language acquisition, making Thai an important tool for effective teaching in bilingual education settings.
Research using questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and classroom observations found that university students generally believe that using L1 in foreign language classrooms helps them understand lessons better, especially with difficult exercises, and aids in learning new vocabulary While most students expressed a preference for L1 support, some reported that excessive use of Thai can cause feelings of boredom and lack of motivation It is recommended that teachers use L1 carefully to assist students with limited exposure to English outside the classroom, particularly during questions, discussions, instructions, and vocabulary teaching Students acknowledge that while L1 facilitates learning, overuse may hinder English acquisition; therefore, L1 should be used judiciously and pedagogically to prevent negative feelings and ensure adequate exposure to L2.
Research in Vietnam on code-switching remains limited, with Nguyen, Q T (2012) providing valuable insights based on observations of teachers at both private and public universities in Ho Chi Minh City and students’ written feedback His study revealed that, despite similar functions of code-switching in both settings, its usage varied and contributed significantly to understanding bilingual communication within Vietnamese higher education.
Code-switching serves as a vital communicative and facilitating tool to enhance L2 comprehension and provide additional information, as highlighted by Nguyen (2012) Its higher frequency in public universities can be attributed to less time pressure on teachers, allowing them to use English more freely without rushing, and the practice of teaching students at their own learning pace Additionally, in public institutions, students are placed in classes appropriate to their level, aiding teachers in delivering lessons in English The effectiveness of teacher evaluation systems, which include classroom observations and merit-based assessments, encourages private university teachers to maximize Target Language use Both public and private schools exhibit code-switching due to cultural factors, such as Asian classroom norms where students are less inclined to initiate discourse and prefer the teacher to scaffold understanding through code-switching Teachers frequently resort to switching between English and Vietnamese to clarify lessons, support scaffolding, and provide comprehensible input, regardless of the institution type.
Kieu, H K A (2010) examined the use of Vietnamese in L2 classrooms in three universities in Ho Chi Minh City, highlighting teachers' attitudes towards code-switching The study found that teachers predominantly used Vietnamese to explain grammar and vocabulary and to check students' understanding Teachers supported code-switching as an important classroom strategy and were generally aware of gradually reducing its use as students' English proficiency improved The research suggests that further experimental studies are needed to explore the effectiveness of code-switching on students' learning outcomes.
Readability formula
This study focuses on teaching reading comprehension to university students, emphasizing the importance of considering the difficulty of reading passages, also known as readability, which significantly influences students' understanding Readability can be objectively measured using various formulas, with the Flesch Reading Ease Readability Formula—developed by Rudolph Flesch—being one of the most widely used among over 40 available methods (Heydari, 2012) The readability of English passages is calculated based on specific formulas that assess factors such as sentence length and word complexity to determine their overall difficulty level.
In the formula, ASL represents the Average Sentence Length, calculated by dividing the total number of words by the number of sentences, while ASW stands for the Average Syllables per Word, determined by dividing the total syllables by the total words (Heydari) These metrics are essential for analyzing readability and writing clarity in SEO-optimized content.
Reading ease score = 206.835 – (1.015 x ASL) – (84.6 x ASW)
Reading ease scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating that the text is easier for readers to understand According to Flesch (1949), these scores help assess the readability of a text, providing valuable insights into how accessible the content is for the intended audience.
Table 2.1: Description and estimated reading grade for Flesch Reading Ease Score
Reading Ease Score Description of Style Estimated Reading Grade
30-50 Difficult 13 th – 16 th grade (college) 50-60 Fairly difficult 10 th - 12 th grade (high school)
The advancement of Microsoft Word Office has significantly simplified readability level assessment, making it easier for researchers to evaluate text clarity Modern tools now allow users to calculate readability scores while simultaneously checking grammar and spelling, enhancing overall writing quality This integrated approach streamlines the editing process and ensures that reading passages are both accurate and accessible.
Conceptual framework of the study
In this study, "code-switching" is defined as the teacher's use of both English and Vietnamese in the classroom to facilitate communication and understanding The research adopts Ferguson’s (2003) three functional categories of teachers’ code-switching, providing a framework to analyze different contexts of language alternation Specific examples of code-switching in each category are drawn from prior studies by Jingxia (2010), Nazari (2008), and Selemat (2014), illustrating how teachers utilize language switches for various pedagogical purposes The functions of teachers’ code-switching are systematically summarized in Table 2.2, highlighting its role in enhancing classroom interaction and learning outcomes.
Table 2.2: Functions of teachers’ code-switching in the classroom
Three broad functional categories Situations
Code-switching for curriculum access
Explaining grammar points Explaining difficult or abstract vocabulary
Explaining difficult concepts Emphasizing or clarifying important points
Explaining the similarities and differences between L1 and L2 Checking students’ comprehension Translating difficult texts/sentences from L2 to L1
Code-switching for discourse classroom management
Maintaining classroom discipline Organizing classroom activities
Code-switching for interpersonal relations
Building and strengthening interpersonal relationships between teachers and students
Reducing students’ anxiety in the classroom
Increasing students’ motivation and confidence in learning English Providing praise, feedback or personal remarks about student’s performance Encouraging students’ participation in classroom activities
The researcher used the scenarios in Table 2.2 to determine optimal moments for incorporating both English and Vietnamese in teaching the experimental group, aiming to assess the effectiveness of code-switching in EFL classrooms Additionally, the teacher’s code-switching functions guided the development of the questionnaire and interview questions, ensuring they accurately reflected the roles and purposes of code-switching in language instruction (see Chapter 3).
This study examines the duration of code-switching in intermediate-level classroom settings Based on a comprehensive literature review, it was determined that the experimental group would utilize L1 during 20% to 25% of the reading comprehension instruction time This targeted code-switching range aims to optimize language learning while maintaining effective classroom communication.
The researcher selected reading texts with Reading Ease Scores in the "Difficult" range (30-50), considering this level suitable for university students, as recommended by Flesch (1949).
The conceptual framework provided a foundational guide for determining when to implement code-switching in EFL classrooms, enabling the researcher to evaluate its effectiveness in teaching It also assisted in designing the questionnaire and interview questions to assess students’ attitudes toward their teacher’s use of code-switching during reading comprehension lessons Additionally, the framework served as a basis for the discussion and analysis presented in Chapter 4 of the study, ensuring a coherent and structured interpretation of the findings.
METHODOLOGY
Research design
This study investigated the effectiveness of teachers' use of code-switching in the classroom through a quasi-experimental design The experimental group received instruction in both English and Vietnamese, while the control group was taught entirely in English By altering the independent variable—teachers’ code-switching—and measuring its impact on students’ reading comprehension, the research aimed to assess its influence on student performance To gather students' opinions on code-switching during class, the study utilized questionnaires and interviews, providing valuable insights into students’ perceptions.
Research site
This study was conducted at the TOEIC Center (TTC) affiliated with Ton Duc Thang University in District 7, Ho Chi Minh City A convenience sampling method was employed, as the researcher, with three years of experience at the university, had easy access to participants.
Participants
All non-English major students must complete TOEIC preparation courses to achieve a minimum score of 500 and 420 out of 900, which are required for graduation Prior to starting their first year, freshmen are mandated to take a placement test, enabling accurate class assignment based on their language proficiency.
The university requires freshmen to achieve a minimum score of 200 on the placement TOEIC test to meet the English proficiency standard Students who do not reach this threshold are placed into two lower-level classes, General English 1 and General English 2 These eight classes are categorized into three proficiency levels according to the university's classification system, as shown in Table 3.1, ensuring tailored instruction based on students' language skills.
Table 3.1: Levels of English classes based on students’ placement test scores
Placement test score Class Level of English proficiency
Students attend six English classes per week throughout a 15-week semester, totaling 90 periods All first five class levels, from General English 1 to TOEIC 3, are required to use two coursebooks simultaneously: *International Express* to reinforce general English skills, and a TOEIC preparation book to build a solid foundation for taking the TOEIC exam Intermediate-level students, excluding those in TOEIC 3, participate in an intensive preparation program focused on practicing simulated TOEIC tests to enhance their test-taking skills.
The researcher selected students at TOEIC 3 level for three key reasons First, these sophomores had completed three semesters at the university and were familiar with academic English instruction Second, their proficiency level was intermediate—above beginners but below students at TOEIC levels 4, 5, and 6—making them ideal for studying the impact of bilingual instruction Lower proficiency students were excluded based on expert recommendations that they benefit more from L1 support, which would conflict with an English-only teaching approach in the control group Additionally, higher-level students were omitted because their advanced English skills might diminish the effectiveness of code-switching in facilitating learning Finally, the researcher believed TOEIC 3 students could successfully learn in classrooms where teachers use both L1 and L2, making this group suitable for the study's objectives.
After consulting with the TTC Director regarding participant requirements, the researcher was assigned to teach two classes: Class 001003_26 with 39 students and Class 001003_83 with 31 students Initially, some students in Class 001003_26 transferred to other classes at the start of the semester, reducing its total to 34 students Throughout the study, two participants from this class were disqualified due to incomplete participation, affecting the overall sample size.
The study involved 63 participants, with 32 students in the experimental group and 31 in the control group The experimental group (Class 001003_26) received bilingual instructions in both English and Vietnamese, while the control group (Class 001003_83) was taught using only English instructions This setup aimed to compare the effects of bilingual versus monolingual instruction on student performance.
Participants' homogeneity was ensured through prior sorting based on a university placement test Additionally, a pre-test was administered to accurately measure their initial similarities using SPSS software Both classes studied English during Shift 2 (9:25 AM to 11:50 AM), ensuring they shared similar mental and physical conditions.
Table 3.2 presents the general information about the participants of the study
Table 3.2: Gender of the participants
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Experimental group
Research instruments
This study utilized three key research instruments—reading tests, questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews—to investigate the impact of code-switching on student learning A pre-test was conducted to assess students’ initial homogeneity, while post-tests measured the influence of code-switching on their understanding and performance The questionnaire gathered students’ attitudes toward the language(s) used by their teacher in the classroom Additionally, semi-structured interviews provided in-depth insights into students’ opinions regarding the teacher’s use of language during reading comprehension lessons.
Despite all participants being required to take a university-administered placement test, a pre-test was additionally conducted to specifically assess reading skills and determine the homogeneity of the control and experimental groups The university test was a simulated TOEIC, measuring both reading and listening skills, while the pre-test focused solely on reading comprehension The pre-test results, evaluated through the Flesch Reading Ease Score in Microsoft Word, ensured the text's difficulty aligned with participants' proficiency levels To maintain objectivity, the test content was designed to be unrelated to students’ fields of study, covering topics in technology, social sciences, economics, business, foreign languages, and arts A reading passage from the New English File – Intermediate Test Booklet was used, accompanied by ten multiple-choice questions, with participants earning one point for each correct answer (see Appendix A).
The post-tests assessed students' reading comprehension skills effectively To select suitable reading passages for the two groups, the researcher avoided using the coursebook "International Express – Intermediate Pack A" due to concerns that its answer key section could enable students to prepare at home and compromise assessment validity Additionally, the researcher aimed to prevent students who had previously failed and repeated the course from gaining an unfair advantage by knowing lesson content in advance Instead, the researcher adapted reading passages from the "New English File – Upper-intermediate Student’s Book" to ensure fairness and maintain the integrity of the study.
The study utilized the New English File – Upper-intermediate Workbook (Oxenden, Latham-Koenig, & Hudson, 2008) alongside Latham-Koenig (2008), both designed for upper-intermediate learners Despite their target audience, these books were selected because their readability levels and the length of the reading passages closely match those in the students' coursebook, ensuring comparability Details regarding the correspondence between these resources are provided in Table 3.3 and Table 3.4, highlighting their suitability for the research.
Table 3.3: Readability level and length of reading passages in the coursebook
The rise of the ethical consumer 33.2 302 words
Selling your country-national branding 48.2 440 words
Changing consumer trend in Japan 51.3 491 words
The Rosetta Stone and the new Rosetta Disk 56.1 203 words
Table 3.4: Readability level and length of reading passages in the book ‘New English
Pre-test How green is your house? 42.2 288 words
Do we see ourselves as we really are? 38.5 359 words Becoming a flight attendant – the easy way! 47.3 368 words
India – the dream destination for astrology addicts 42.3 450 words
The Flesch Reading Ease Score for university students should be between 30 and 50 to ensure suitable comprehension levels Consequently, the reading passages selected for the study were appropriate for participants' reading abilities In the passage titled ‘Do we see ourselves as we really are,’ eight open-ended questions were initially included, but these were modified into multiple-choice questions by the researcher Similar to the pre-test, each correct answer in the post-tests was awarded one point, as detailed in Appendices B, C, and D.
1, post-test 2 and post-test 3, respectively)
This study utilized questionnaires to explore students’ attitudes towards their teacher’s use of L1 and L2 in the classroom and its impact on learning success According to Cohen et al (2000), rating scales are widely favored in research because they allow for flexible responses and facilitate quantitative analysis, such as determining frequencies and correlations These questionnaires are particularly effective for assessing respondents’ attitudes, perceptions, and opinions The statements included in the questionnaire were adapted from Esfahani's work, ensuring relevant and meaningful data collection.
The questionnaire was structured into two parts to gather comprehensive data The first part collected participants’ personal information, including gender and university education level The second, main part consisted of 18 closed-ended questions designed to address the study’s second research question, divided into three sections: language preference (Section A), specific situations for using English and Vietnamese (Section B), and the connection between language use and students’ learning satisfaction (Section C) Clear instructions guided participants on how to record their responses, utilizing a 5-point Likert scale—ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” in Section B, and from “never satisfied” to “always satisfied” in Section C—to facilitate easy and effective data collection.
This study examined the impact of different teaching techniques—with and without teacher’s code-switching—by administering tailored questionnaires to each group The control group’s questionnaire focused on their attitudes toward the teacher’s use of English and their suggestions for when Vietnamese could enhance learning Meanwhile, the experimental group received a nearly identical questionnaire, with slight modifications in Section C to better suit their experiences (see Appendices E and F) These questionnaires aimed to gather insights into students’ perceptions and preferences regarding language use in the classroom.
While questionnaires can reveal participants' opinions, they have limitations such as respondents potentially providing dishonest answers or adding unrelated comments (Cohen et al., 2000, p 254) To gain deeper insights into participants’ motivations, conducting follow-up interviews after questionnaire collection is recommended (Kerlinger, 1970, as cited in Cohen et al., 2000, p 268).
The use of semi-structured interviews in this study offered significant benefits, including creating a less formal discussion environment that encouraged students to freely express their ideas and explore issues beyond a pre-planned agenda (Denzin, 1970; Silverman, 1993; Cohen et al., 2000) Additionally, this approach allowed researchers to gain deeper insights into the investigated topic by prompting participants to extend, elaborate, and clarify their responses, thus enriching the data collected beyond the initial questionnaire findings.
This study employed semi-structured interviews, allowing for flexible reordering and rephrasing of questions to suit the flow of each participant's discussion Detailed descriptions of the interview questions provide insight into the key topics explored, ensuring comprehensive data collection and understanding of participant perspectives, which enhances the overall quality and depth of the research findings.
The interview questions aimed to explore students' experiences and perceptions of the language use during class Participants were asked to confirm the language(s) their teacher used, and their attitudes towards these language practices were examined, with experimental group students discussing teacher code-switching and control group students focusing on English-only lessons Additional questions sought insights into how students understood vocabulary, grammar, and complex concepts in an English-only environment Students were also asked to imagine scenarios where the teacher switched between English and Vietnamese, and to specify their preferred ratio of languages used in the classroom Furthermore, they evaluated the effectiveness of teacher code-switching for short-term and long-term learning outcomes The interview concluded by asking students to identify the most suitable class level for instruction entirely in English, providing comprehensive data on language use, perceptions, and instructional preferences (see Appendices G and H for full interview questions).
Data collection procedure
The researcher initially planned to conduct her study over a full 15-week semester, alternating roles between experimental and control groups to compare the impact of English-only and combined English-Vietnamese instructions on student comprehension To ensure natural learning environments and accurate results, she intended to keep participants unaware of the study's purpose, framing pre-tests as proficiency assessments and using questionnaires and interviews to gather student perspectives However, upon consulting with the TTC Director, the scope was narrowed to 11 weeks with only one phase, limited to three reading lessons and post-tests every two weeks to minimize interference with regular teaching schedules The researcher was advised to use multiple-choice questions similar to TOEIC tests to familiarize students with test formats Additionally, students were fully informed about the study and their voluntary participation was secured through Consent Forms before obtaining approval from the TTC Director Despite these adjustments, all students willingly participated, completing tests, questionnaires, and interviews, supporting the study’s success.
Upon gaining access to the research site, the researcher began her pilot study by collaborating with a lecturer to administer a pre-test to students, assessing its validity and reliability The three post-tests were not piloted, as they aimed to evaluate students’ comprehension after lessons on specific reading passages To ensure clarity and accuracy, the researcher translated the questionnaire and interview questions from English into Vietnamese, then collaborated with two lecturers to verify the equivalence of both language versions Additionally, she invited 10 students with whom she had previously established rapport to complete the questionnaire and participate in interviews, enabling the identification and correction of any ambiguous questions before distributing the research tools to all participants.
At the beginning of the study, all participants completed a pre-test on reading comprehension to assess their initial abilities and ensure group homogeneity, as they had been classified earlier through a university placement test The experimental group (Class 001003_26) and the control group (Class 001003_83) participated in a seven-week reading program, with sessions every other week, excluding a week off for Independence Day Each session involved a warm-up activity with questions related to the reading topic and vocabulary exercises covering pronunciation, meaning, and synonyms The teaching process included various activities to analyze the reading passage, guided by instructions from the teacher and researcher After the reading sessions, a post-test was administered to evaluate participants’ comprehension of the text Participants were asked to write their names in pencil on their tests to facilitate easy removal after grading, ensuring confidentiality while allowing the researcher to record and analyze their scores accurately.
The questionnaire was distributed to participants immediately after they completed their third post-test, ensuring their responses reflected fresh memories, attitudes, and perceptions of their teacher’s language use in giving instructions Participants wrote their names in pencil, consistent with their post-test procedure, allowing for accurate correlation of responses This timing aimed to capture genuine feedback while their experiences were still recent, enhancing the validity of the data collected.
Participants were selected for interviews based on their average scores from three post-tests, ensuring a diverse range of perspectives Specifically, in both control and experimental groups, the researcher chose the top five highest-scoring students and the five lowest-scoring students, resulting in a total of 20 interviewees This sampling strategy provided valuable insights into students' attitudes towards code-switching in the classroom, capturing both high and low achievers' viewpoints.
The second semester was impacted by two national holidays—Tet Holiday and Independence Day—and a week of mid-term exams, which slightly disrupted the data collection process With the semester ending in mid-May and only two weeks remaining for final exam preparation, participants suggested conducting interviews via telephone to save time, leading to a two-week delay until after the exams Each interview lasted approximately five minutes and focused on participants’ opinions regarding teachers’ use of code-switching during class To facilitate open communication, interviews were conducted in Vietnamese, allowing participants to express their ideas comfortably All responses were recorded, translated into English, and analyzed for the study.
The detailed procedure of collecting data is presented in Table 3.5 in term of the time conducting the experiment
Table 3.5: Specific time of collecting data
3 February, 2015 Distributing Consent Form to the participants
13 February, 2015 Requesting authorization from the
9 March, 2015 Obtaining authorization to conduct the study
16 March, 2015 Piloting pre-test in class 001003_48 with
32 students taught by another lecturer
Experimental group Control group Task
17 March, 2015 18 March, 2015 Distributing Pre-test to both groups
31 March, 2015 1 April,2015 Teaching Reading text 1 and distributing
14 April, 2015 15 April, 2015 Teaching Reading text 2 and distributing
12 May, 2015 13 May, 2015 Teaching Reading text 3 and distributing
Post-test 3 Distributing and collecting questionnaire
Data analysis procedure
3.6.1 Analyzing the pre-test and post-tests
All data, including pre-tests, post-tests, and questionnaires, were entered into SPSS 22 for analysis The initial step involved coding the data, with the experimental group labeled as "1" and the control group as "2." Participants in the experimental group were assigned IDs such as ES1, ES2, ES3, indicating 'experimental student' and their position in the class list, while control group participants were coded as CS1, CS2, CS3, and so on.
The study analyzed pre-test and post-test results of two groups by calculating mean scores, standard deviations, and identifying the lowest and highest scores Independent sample t-tests were conducted on pre-test scores to assess homogeneity between groups using Levene’s Test Post-test scores, averaged across the entire experiment, helped identify suitable participants for the interview stage Additionally, independent sample t-tests examined inter-group differences in post-test results to test the research hypothesis and address the first research question.
3.6.2 Analyzing data from the questionnaire
Concerning the questionnaire, all the items also needed coding so that they could be processed by the software Question item 1 asked the respondents to tick either
The study used a coding scheme where "1" represented "Male" and "2" represented "Female." Respondents' education levels were coded from "1" for first-year students up to "4" for last-year students Language preferences were recorded with "1" indicating "English entirely," "2" for "Vietnamese entirely," and "3" for "Both English and Vietnamese." Additionally, questions 4 to 16 in Section B and questions 17 to 24 in Section C utilized a 5-point Likert scale, with corresponding codes outlined in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6: Coding scheme for the two Likert scales
Likert scale in Section B Likert scale in Section C Code
For easier interpretation of the results, the original 5-point Likert scales in Sections B and C were recoded into 3-point Likert scales This recoding was performed using SPSS commands, following the schemes outlined in Tables 3.7 and 3.8.
Table 3.7: Recoding scheme for Section B
5- point Likert scale in Section B
3- point Likert scale in Section B Code
Table 3.8: Recoding scheme for Section C
5- point Likert scale in Section C
3- point Likert scale in Section C Code
The study utilized descriptive analysis, focusing on frequency and percentage distributions within each section to provide clear insights Comparative analysis was conducted between the control and experimental groups to identify similarities and differences in participant attitudes, facilitating a comprehensive understanding of the data This approach ensures an accurate assessment of group variations, enhancing the reliability of the findings for educational or behavioral research.
3.6.3 Analyzing data from the interview
The researcher analyzed the interview notes by comparing participant responses within each group and across different groups, following the same approach used for questionnaire analysis This method ensured a comprehensive understanding of participant perspectives and facilitated accurate comparisons aligned with the study's objectives.
This chapter outlines the research methodology used to evaluate the impact of teachers’ code-switching on students’ reading comprehension and to gather students’ opinions The study employed a mixed-methods approach, including a pre-test, three post-tests, questionnaires, and interviews The findings derived from these data collection methods will be analyzed and discussed in the next chapter to provide insights into the effectiveness of code-switching in enhancing reading skills.