INFORMACIÓN GENERAL DEL SISTEMA DE EDUCACIÓN SUPERIOR

In the context of this study, the students at elementary school level in Indonesia learn English + 70 minutes per week (Depdiknas, 2006). The teacher is often the major source of TL input in an EFL classroom, as in other foreign language teaching contexts (see Ellis, 1994; Wong-Fillmore, 1985). It is therefore taken for granted that teacher use of the TL is essential. However, teachers frequently use BI to discuss the topic (Diknas, 2010) and to some extent, to explain the grammatical rules of English (Zacharias, 2011). In this type of classroom, teachers and their respective classes communicate in their national

and the students share the same first language, Minangkabau language, as the regional language. These leads to the possibility of teacher and student code- switching in classroom discourse even when English is put aside.

A limited number of studies has examined code-switching in EFL classrooms in Indonesia. Most recently, Arung (2015) investigated university students’ and teachers’ attitudes toward the use of Bahasa Indonesia in teaching English as a foreign language. The results indicated that the attitude of the students and the teachers towards using Bahasa Indonesia were generally positive. Arung (2015) used questionnaires and observations to study the use of L1 in EFL classrooms.

Hidayati (2012) explored the role of Bahasa Indonesia in teaching receptive skills and grammar in 6 classes of different majors and six lectures at university level in Bandung. Her study reveals that judicious use of Bahasa Indonesia supports the English language learning process. She also found that some teachers still overused Bahasa Indonesia in the EFL classroom. These findings in terms of the use of the L1 are similar to Coo ’s (2001), and Cau ill’s (2015) that the L1 is often used to teach grammar.

The study of language choice by Zacharias (2003) at tertiary level in Indonesia demonstrates the use of Bahasa Indonesia in explaining grammar. The aim of her study was to investigate teachers’ beliefs regarding the use of L1, and how teachers’ beliefs influenced their classroom practices. Zacharias claims that

Bahasa Indonesia is commonly used in the process of teaching TL. Teachers used BI to explain grammatical points and the meaning of new words, to give instructions, to check learner’s understanding, and to give feedback. Moreover, according to Zacharias, not much research on language use in EFL classrooms has been done in Indonesia. It appears that no research has yet been conducted in the context of EFL classrooms at the elementary school level in Indonesia, in terms of language use by the teacher.

In line with Zacharias’ findings, Mujiono, Poedjosoedarmo, Subroto & Wiratno (2013) investigated teachers of English in Indonesian universities and found that they alternated languages when they teach grammar. Mujiono et al. (2013) also claim that few studies have been done on code-switching in EFL classes in Indonesia. They further mention in their findings that Bahasa Indonesia was used to explain grammar at university level.

Regarding language use, Semiun (2009) conducted research on senior high school EFL teachers in West Timor, in the province of East Nusa Tenggara, and found that the teachers used Bahasa Indonesia for most of the time during English language classroom instruction. Those teachers interviewed mentioned that they used Bahasa Indonesia due to their lack of proficiency in English. In addition, teachers seem to have been inadequately prepared to implement the curriculum (Djiwandono, 2009).

Yulia (2014) evaluated the English program at 12 junior high schools in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Most teachers in her 12 case studies reported that they spo e English (45%), a ‘mixture’ of English and Indonesia (50%), and Bahasa Indonesia (5%). However, Yulia reported that her observation data displayed that the participant teachers in her study mostly spoke a mixture of Bahasa Indonesia and English as well as in Bahasa Indonesia. A few of them even spoke in Javanese (L1), a local language in Java Island, in Indonesia.

Those teachers in Yulia’s study believed that they were more comfortable communicating in Bahasa Indonesia than English. Furthermore, they contended that the students asked them to speak in Bahasa Indonesia or Javanese because they did not understand their teacher if the teacher spoke in English. In contrast, when the students were asked which language they wanted the teacher to speak, 69.7 % of the students agreed that their teacher should speak in English in class.

In Indonesia, some research supports teachers’ use of L2 in the EFL classroom for the reason that MT scaffolds students understanding and accuracy of English grammatical use (see Arung, 2015; Usadiati, 2009). For example, Usadiati (2009) reported that students in her research had more success in writing sentences in the Present Perfect Tense (45% of the students) when she used MT interchangeably with English in the explanations (25% and 75% respectively) and (80% of the students) when she used 50% English and 50% MT. She quoted Ellis and Kelly’s (1997) findings that “L1 should not be minimised (Usadiati, 2009: 180)”; Matiioli (2004) and Kavaliaus ienė (2009)

claim that “it was not the questions of ‘how much’ L1 and L2 should be used, but ‘for what purpose” (in Usadiati, 2009: 180).

The fact that Usadiati (2009) was teaching grammar in her research explained why her use of the TL (75%) was hard for her students; and her use of TL (50%) and L1 (50%) helped her students to achieve the objective of the lesson. 50 % of the L1 used was too much, whereas Cook (2001) and Turnbull (2001: 536) recommended not using more than 5% of L1 used. In contrast Shapson, Kaufman, & Dyrward (1978) cited 25% as acceptable levels of L1 use. However, teaching grammar explicitly, especially at primary school level, is not recommended.

It is true that “a fixed percentage of the L1 use cannot be defined universally” (Edstorm, 2006). The use of L1 in the classroom should be viewed from the related perspectives of how much L1 should be used (Macaro, 2001; Turnbull & Arnett 2002) and for what purposes (Turnbull & Dailey, 2009). As mentioned previously, research has found that most teachers were not aware of their use of MT/SL in their interaction with students (Polio & Duff, 1994).