In order to gauge how L1 and TL are being used in EFL classrooms around the world, this section reviews some of the countries where researchers have conducted
experiments using L1 and TL. Although the L1 for each of the countries is different, the target language was English as they were EFL classrooms.
China and Taiwan
A large amount of research suggests that it is common for the majority of the teacher’s talk to be in Chinese in a Chinese EFL classroom (Dong & Zhu, 2007; Li, 2011; Li-ping, 2004; Xiao-xia, 2009). In many classes, the use of Chinese can be so extensive that some argue there is often no learning opportunity for students in such classes (Xiaoyan, 2011). Some suggest that the only way Chinese students can learn English is if the EFL class is taught by a native English speaker, because the classroom is the only place they can experience English (Wang & Hyun, 2009).
Other researchers argue that this is exactly the reason why it is impractical for Chinese teachers to conduct the class entirely in English (Wei & Wu, 2009). This is because, until the last decade, China was completely separated from the rest of the world and Chinese people had limited access to non-Chinese materials. Even at present it is only in the bigger cities that there is more access to English. If a student comes from a rural area and is then exposed to everything in English, she is likely to be completely lost and demotivated (Qian, Tian, & Wang, 2009). Therefore, researchers argue that it is important that L1 is used in the EFL classroom to ensure students understand what is being taught.
However, a recent doctoral study on teachers’ code switching in Chinese universities found that EFL teachers themselves believe that their code switching has a negative impact on student learning. Almost all the EFL teachers surveyed for that research suggested that excessive use of the mother tongue (Mandarin, in this case) prevents students from having exposure to realistic communication in English (Lu, 2015).
Korea
Similar to the debate on the appropriateness of Chinese in EFL classrooms in China, researchers in Korea are divided on the use of Korean in EFL classrooms in South Korea (Liu, Ahn, Baek, & Han, 2004). Some researchers have found that the use of Korean is helpful (Kang, 2008) for similar reasons, such as being easier to
explain concepts and build rapport with students. A notable study by Lee (2010b) found that usage of Korean (L1) is preferred by younger students while older students prefer the teacher to use TL in the classroom. Lee (2010) studied more than 700 participants, among whom 286 were adults and 443 were young students. Based on the findings, Lee suggested that, for younger learners, it might be more appropriate to use more Korean in the class, but for older learners it is better to have as much English as possible.
Yet others have found that it is better if the class is conducted in English, regardless of their age (Littlewood & Yu, 2011). Again, the reason for the emphasis is similar - mimicking an English speaking environment as well as more input. Guilloteaux (2014) found that, in Korean EFL classes, it is fairly common to have a high amount of Korean spoken by the teacher, resulting in reduced exposure to, and opportunities to learn, English. Guilloteaux argued that, due to this, students tend to grow over-reliant on their teachers explaining classroom activities in Korean. An example of this was that if there was a situation where students needed to engage in an activity that required the use of English, they would wait for the teacher to translate the activity into Korean and then mostly use Korean to complete the task.
Malaysia
For many researchers, the EFL classroom in Malaysia is extremely interesting due to the students’ multicultural backgrounds. Being a multicultural country where there are three main languages spoken (Malay, Chinese and Tamil), an EFL classroom in Malaysia is more like an ESL than an EFL classroom (Rajadurai, 2004). However, even though the first language may vary, it is still normal to hear the dominant language, Malay, in an EFL classroom (Lee, 2010a).
In addition, as there are three major languages, it is common to have sentences where all of the languages are present. For example, while talking to a student, it is not uncommon to hear “Apasal la you do your quiz so cincai?” (Why did you do your task in such sloppy manner?). In this example, the first word apasal is from Bahasa Malaysia, whereas the last word cincai is taken from Cantonese. Some researchers argue that one of the reasons why Malaysian students perform so poorly in English is that they are extremely confused with such a mixture of languages (Abu
Bakar, 2009; Saxena, 2011). Some other researchers argue that this “rojak” (mixture) language is actually a resource and not an impediment (Rubdy, 2007) because it allows the teacher to cross the ethnic divide and get close to the students, regardless of any potential ethnic barriers (Vaish & Roslan, 2011).
However, many other researchers have argued that this “rojak” language is the reason why many Malaysian students are unable to become proficient in English, despite studying English for many years (Nair-Venugopal, 2013). Nair-Venugopal contends this has not only resulted in a poor command of English among students in EFL classes, but also in adverse implications for student employment. Therefore, it was recommended that EFL classes should be conducted in English rather than by switching codes - be it between Malay, English, Tamil or Mandarin.
As can be seen, regardless of the choice a teacher makes in class about the use of L1 vs. English, she can argue in favour of either, as no research from any of the countries provided any definite conclusion about which type of instruction is better. However, when it comes to Saudi Arabia, many recent studies suggest that using L1 in EFL classrooms is a benefit, rather being than a hindrance for the students. The next section discusses current practices and research in Saudi Arabia with regard to instruction in the EFL classroom.
2.3.4 Translanguaging
Before proceeding further, the concept of translanguaging should be mentioned. By definition, translanguaging suggests that bilinguals have a “linguistic repertoire from which they select features strategically to communicate effectively” (Lacorte, 2014, p. 644). In recent years, there has been growing interest in the area of translanguaging in classroom education. Many prominent researchers (Canagarajah, 2011; Creese & Blackledge, 2010; García & Wei, 2013) argue for the use of translanguaging in bilingual classroom pedagogy.
Although such discussions are important, this research focuses on code switching. Translanguaging is very different from code switching because code switching does not just involve shifting from one language to another, but the
languages are often used without reference to each other (Lacorte, 2014). Due to the difference between translanguaging and code switching, the use of the former was not explored in this research.