A case study on the use of code switching in teaching grammar at vietnam usa society language centers

INTRODUCTION

Background to the study

Code-switching as a medium of instruction is a significant topic within bilingualism, involving the interchange of two languages, which is common among multilingual individuals In bilingual classrooms, students often utilize their mother tongue alongside the target language, reflecting a shared practice The evolution of English teaching and learning has seen various methods and approaches aimed at enhancing effectiveness, leading to shifting perspectives on the use of both first and second languages throughout different educational eras.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Grammar-Translation method dominated language teaching, but it faced criticism as new approaches emerged The 20th century introduced various methods, such as the Direct method, Audiolingual method, and Task-based learning, which largely excluded the use of learners' first language in the classroom These methods operated on the belief that minimizing the use of the first language enhances instruction quality This trend continues into the 21st century, with many schools and language centers, including those in Vietnam, prohibiting the use of the first language Consequently, teachers often discourage students from engaging in pair and group activities that involve their mother tongue.

However, code-switching is widespread and exists frequently in language schools around the world during teaching and learning the target

Research supports the positive implications of code-switching (CS) in language learning Cook (2016) argues that banning the first language (L1) in classrooms denies a crucial aspect of many second language (L2) contexts, as L1 provides essential scaffolding for communication Demir (2012) emphasizes that merely using L1 for translation exercises is ineffective and reminiscent of outdated Grammar-Translation methods, which hinder L2 communication However, incorporating concise grammatical explanations and limited translation tasks can mitigate native language interference and enhance understanding Experts in language education advocate for the judicious use of CS in second language classes, suggesting it fosters deeper learning and greater focus on input (Demir, 2012; Arshad & Hidayati, 2012; Abdolrahimpour & Najafi, 2015; Nguyen, 2017; Grant & Nguyen, 2017; Navidinia, Khoshhal, & Mobaraki, 2020).

The evolution of teaching methods has significantly impacted language instruction, particularly in grammar education Research indicates that code-switching, as opposed to a strict English-only policy, has become a prevalent instructional strategy among teachers As highlighted by Navidinia et al (2020), code-switching plays a crucial role in teaching challenging grammatical rules that students struggle to grasp through implicit methods Numerous studies, including those by Abdolrahimpour et al (2015) and Arshad et al (2012), provide evidence that integrating code-switching as a facilitative tool enhances students' efficiency in acquiring grammar lessons.

At VUS language centers, the use of English is strongly promoted while the use of the first language (L1) is strictly restricted This approach is designed to enhance English language proficiency across all levels by fostering a fully immersive English-speaking environment, thereby improving both language knowledge and skills.

The role of code-switching (CS) in teaching grammar has been previously discussed, yet its effectiveness is often measured under limited conditions In the context of VUS language centers, where English is prioritized and teachers are encouraged to minimize the use of the native language (L1), it is crucial to investigate teachers' attitudes towards code-switching and their perspectives on an English-only policy Notably, the impact of students' proficiency levels on teachers' use of CS is frequently overlooked, despite its significance Additionally, to date, there has been insufficient research on the strategies teachers propose for effectively incorporating code-switching while avoiding excessive reliance on L1.

Aims of the study

This study explores teachers' attitudes towards code-switching in grammar instruction at VUS language centers in Ho Chi Minh City The researcher aims to understand how teachers implement code-switching across various learner levels and seeks to gather teachers' recommendations on effective techniques for utilizing code-switching in grammar teaching Additionally, the study addresses strategies for minimizing excessive code-switching to maintain an immersive English-speaking environment.

Research questions

Specifically, this study makes an effort to answer the following research questions:

1 What are teachers' attitudes towards using code-switching in teaching grammar?

2 How do teachers at VUS employ code-switching in teaching grammar?

3 What are teachers’ suggestions on employing code-switching in teaching grammar while avoiding overusing L1?

Scope of the study

This study investigates teachers' experiences with code-switching (CS) in grammar instruction across various proficiency levels It specifically focuses on how educators employ CS differently while teaching grammar to learners at three distinct proficiency stages Additionally, the research gathers solutions proposed by teachers to enhance the effective use of CS The study was conducted across three campuses of VUS language centers.

Ho Chi Minh city, with the participation of 43 teachers.

Significance of the study

This study aims to enhance the understanding of code-switching techniques in TESOL, particularly in teaching grammar By focusing on the Vietnamese context, it seeks to provide valuable insights into teachers' attitudes and practices regarding code-switching, thereby contributing significantly to applied research in this area.

Organization of the thesis

The thesis proposal comprises five chapters: the first chapter introduces the study's background, aims, research questions, significance, and scope The second chapter, Literature Review, analyzes and critically evaluates existing studies and journal articles to provide a theoretical foundation for the research The third chapter, Methodology, justifies the chosen research strategy and data collection methods to address the research questions Chapter four presents the Analysis and Discussion of the data collected, culminating in the study's findings.

5 integral section of the dissertation Finally, in chapter five – Conclusions, a review of the key ideas, pedagogical implications, and study limitations is written, followed by References and Appendices

LITERATURE REVIEW

Definitions of key concepts

2.1.1 First language (L1) and second language (L2)

When addressing Code-switching, it's essential to clarify key terms that may lead to confusion, including first language, native language, mother tongue, second language, target language, and foreign language These terms are categorized into two primary groups, with synonyms within each group being interchangeable.

The term "first language," as defined by the Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (Richards & Schmidt, 2013), refers to an individual's mother tongue or the language initially acquired In multilingual environments, a child's first language may shift, often influenced by the language of instruction at school, leading to a preference for the language in which they feel most comfortable This language functions instinctively from birth and evolves through exposure It is synonymous with the terms "native language" and "mother tongue."

Every person learns their first language during childhood, which shapes their linguistic foundation While individuals can acquire multiple languages later in life, these subsequent languages remain fundamentally different from their native tongue According to Richards et al (2013, p 514), any language learned after mastering one's first language is classified as a "second language."

“However, it's worth noting that in some cases, a distinction between second and foreign language acquisition is important Richards (2013, p 514)

The term "second language" refers to a language that, while not the primary language for many speakers, holds significant importance in a specific country or region For instance, immigrants in the United States learning English or Spanish speakers in Catalonia learning Catalan exemplify second language acquisition, as these languages are essential for survival in their respective societies In countries like Nigeria, India, Singapore, and the Philippines, English is widely spoken as a second language due to its critical roles in education and government, making proficiency in English necessary for success Hummel (2020) further clarifies that second language acquisition occurs when the target language is the dominant language in the learner's environment, such as an immigrant learning English in the United States.

Foreign language acquisition occurs when a learner resides in a native language environment with minimal or no interaction with speakers of the target language, exemplified by learning English in Beijing, China.

"ESL" for "English as a second language" and "EFL" for "English as a foreign language" are frequently used in the context of studying English

In this thesis, the term "second language" (L2) is preferred over "foreign language" due to the increasing global use of English As noted by Hall & Cook (2012), the distinction between English as a "second" language is becoming less relevant in the context of its widespread adoption worldwide (Graddol 1997, 2006; Crystal 2003; Seargeant 2012).

The distinction between "foreign" and "second" languages is increasingly unclear, with English emerging as the world's predominant second language In Vietnam, English is the primary foreign language taught in schools, while other languages are offered in a limited number of institutions It is a mandatory subject for nearly all university students who are not majoring in English Consequently, this study uses the term "second language" to encompass both foreign and second languages, specifying "foreign language" when necessary to clarify the context.

2.1.2 Code switching and its types

Code-switching, as defined by Gardner-Chloros (2009), involves the use of multiple linguistic varieties in bilingual communities, allowing speakers to alternate between languages or dialects within a conversation or even a single sentence Richards et al (2013) describe this phenomenon as a transition from one language to another by the speaker or writer Bullock & Toribio (2009) highlight that bilingual individuals can switch seamlessly between languages, while Cook (2016) emphasizes that this switching often occurs mid-speech when both participants are proficient in the languages being used.

Code-switching (CS) typically occurs among bilingual speakers during conversations, but its application extends beyond casual dialogue In language classrooms, CS serves as an effective instructional tool, enhancing communication and understanding Macaro (2013, p.12) emphasizes the significance of this practice in educational settings, highlighting its role in facilitating language learning.

Code-switching (CS) is equally valid as naturalistic CS when participants in the conversation recognize that the interaction serves its intended purpose Notable examples from De Mejía (2002) and Lin (2001) illustrate this concept effectively.

Code-switching (CS) plays a significant role in bilingual classrooms, facilitating communication and learning It is commonly utilized in environments such as private English–Spanish immersion schools, where it is embraced, and even in contexts where it is prohibited, like Anglo–Chinese secondary schools in Hong Kong Additionally, CS is an essential resource for children navigating their education in multilingual settings like Singapore.

Dailey-O’Cain and Liebscher (2009) contend that code-switching (CS) is now recognized as a communicative strategy in bilingual cultures, rather than a sign of language deficiency as previously thought.

Research has explored the connection between code-switching (CS) and language learning, emphasizing its role in developing language skills It appears that individuals switch languages not only due to vocabulary gaps but also as a strategic communication tool to emphasize specific information (Cook, 2016, p 185) When used effectively, CS can enhance teaching methodologies (p 188) A key distinction between CS and language transfer is that speakers have control over when to switch languages, unlike transfer, which occurs automatically.

& Toribio, 2009) As a result, CS is implemented into language teaching as the teachers have specific purposes in their instruction, and it does not mean a deficiency in using the target language.”

Linguists have classified code-switching into different types, with McArthur (1996) identifying four categories based on the characteristics of code-switching within sentences, between sentences, or within words The first type, known as Tag-switching, involves inserting tags or specific phrases from one language into an utterance primarily in another language; for instance, a Panjai/English bilingual might say, "It’s a nice day, hana?" where "hana" translates to "isn’t it?" The second type, Intra-sentential switching, occurs when switches happen within a clause or sentence boundary, exemplified by a Yoruba/English bilingual.

Code-switching (CS) can be categorized into four types, with the third type being inter-sentential switching This occurs when a speaker alternates languages at the boundary of clauses or sentences, exemplified by a bilingual individual saying, "Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English y termino en español." The fourth type, intra-word switching, is less common and involves language changes within a single word, such as the blend "shoppa."

“shop” in English and “a” in Panjabi plural ending Similarly, Gardner-Chloros

(2009, p 92) believed that CS occurs not only within the sentence, but also between sentences and between conversational moves

Principles on grammar teaching

“Teachers now have a variety of grammar teaching styles to choose from

In addition to established models like the PPP (Present-Practice-Produce), ARC (Authentic Use-Restricted Use-Clarification), and ESA (Engage-Study-Activate), alternative frameworks for second language (L2) acquisition have emerged, notably the three principles proposed by Batstone and Ellis (2009) They argue that effective grammar instruction should enhance L2 acquisition processes, aiming to help students develop new form-meaning mappings and integrate them into their existing knowledge structures Their model is built on three interrelated principles, with the first being Given-to-New, which emphasizes leveraging learners' prior knowledge to facilitate new form/function connections.

The article discusses three key principles in language learning: 1) "Given" schematic knowledge, which emphasizes the importance of understanding the underlying structures of language; 2) Awareness, which involves teaching learners how specific meanings are expressed through particular grammatical forms; and 3) the real-operating conditions principle, which stresses the necessity for learners to practice language in authentic contexts, prioritizing effective communication over grammatical precision.

Effective grammar teaching practices involve two key characteristics: first, students must engage in consciousness-raising activities to understand both meanings and grammatical structures; second, these activities should present real-life situations where learners can apply the grammatical concepts This approach aligns with the principles outlined by Richards and Renandya.

Grammar instruction can effectively combine practice and consciousness-raising to enhance learning The primary aim of practice is to develop implicit knowledge of grammatical structures, which is essential for facilitating smooth communication.

The primary goal of consciousness-raising is to develop explicit grammatical knowledge, which, while not directly enhancing communication, plays a crucial indirect role in fostering implicit knowledge Robinson's (1996) research indicates that explicit form-focused instruction is effective for the short-term acquisition of both simple and complex grammar concepts Thus, effective grammar instruction inherently involves some degree of consciousness-raising, as it supports both implicit and explicit learning processes.

Language acquisition occurs unconsciously, but engaging in meaning-focused tasks helps learners organize their understanding of how language functions (Harmer, 2007) When learners concentrate on language, they become aware of its various components, which facilitates retention through consciousness-raising This aligns with Lynch's (2001) assertion that noticing is crucial for language learning, as substantial progress is difficult without it Consequently, a focused approach to consciousness-raising in grammar instruction can enhance learners' awareness of the relationship between meanings and grammatical structures, prompting further exploration in this area.

Code-switching versus Grammar-translation method

Integrating both L1 and L2 in grammar instruction is a distinctive feature of code-switching (CS) that can lead to confusion with the Grammar-Translation Method It is essential to compare and contrast these two approaches Both the Grammar-Translation Method and CS in grammar teaching emphasize explicit learning, where grammatical rules are presented to students for better understanding.

15 memorization- teaching about grammar” (Richards et al., 2002, p.169), which requires consciousness-raising during the instruction

The concepts of the Grammar-Translation Method and Code-Switching (CS) are fundamentally different in their approach to teaching grammar The Grammar-Translation Method relies heavily on the use of the learner's native language (L1) to explain individual grammar points, providing examples that are subsequently translated back and forth between the target language and L1 (Harmer, 2007, p 63) In contrast, Code-Switching does not involve full translation; instead, it allows for strategic language switching at the word, phrase, or even sentence level to emphasize specific information or to compare and contrast grammatical structures between L1 and L2.

The teaching of grammar varies significantly between the grammar-translation method and communicative strategies (CS) The grammar-translation method, rooted in traditional education, employs a deductive approach where students learn grammatical rules before applying them through translation exercises This method emphasizes grammatical structure over spoken language and contextual communication (Harmer, 2007) In contrast, CS can utilize both inductive and deductive approaches, allowing for a more interactive learning experience The inductive approach encourages learners to derive grammatical rules from provided data, fostering deeper understanding and application in real-life communication (Richards et al., 2002) Consequently, language learners can effectively use CS to enhance their second language skills in a more communicative context.

16 language teaching environments by interacting with one another and the teacher (Desoyo, 2021, p 2).”

In summary, while both the Grammar-Translation Method and Code-Switching (CS) incorporate the use of L1 in grammar instruction, they differ significantly in their teaching methodologies and the application of L1 This distinction supports the pedagogical arguments for employing CS in grammar teaching, demonstrating its effectiveness in enhancing language instruction.

Code-switching (CS) aligns with the communicative objectives of grammar teaching and can effectively enhance various contemporary teaching methodologies It is integral to approaches like Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and the New Concurrent Method, which emphasizes systematic code-switching under teacher supervision Additionally, in Community Language Learning (CLL), translation facilitates authentic use of the second language (L2), while the Bilingual Method connects first language (L1) and L2 in learners' minds through meaning interpretation rather than direct translation (Cook, 2016, p 195).

Views on using L1 and L2 in grammar teaching

2.4.1 Arguments for avoiding the First Language

The avoidance of the first language (L1) in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms has its roots in historical language teaching methods The Grammar-Translation method allowed for L1 use, while the later dominance of methods like the Direct Method, Natural Approach, and Audio-Lingual Method strictly prohibited it These methodologies advocate that minimizing L1 use enhances instruction quality Initially, the mother tongue was dismissed as a relic of 19th-century educational practices, and later approaches, such as Task-Based Learning, offered limited acknowledgment of L1 as a teaching tool According to Franklin (1990), 90% of instructors believe that instruction in the target language is essential, a perspective strongly supported in the UK.

The National Curriculum emphasizes that effective modern language courses prioritize the natural use of the target language for communication (DES, 1990) Throughout the twentieth century, popular teaching methods largely discouraged the use of learners' first language in the classroom Steven Krashen's Natural Approach (2003) posits that second language acquisition mirrors first language acquisition, advocating for extensive exposure to the target language while minimizing the use of the first language This perspective has led many educators to believe that the first language should be entirely excluded from second language instruction.

Cook (2016) argues that avoiding the use of the first language (L1) in teaching can enhance the authenticity of the second language (L2) learning experience By using the target language to explain grammar rules, such as the present perfect tense for discussing current relevance, teachers provide students with practical guidance For instance, when instructed to "turn your chairs around so that you are in groups of four," learners receive clear, actionable directions in the L2, reinforcing their communicative skills.

Using the first language (L1) in the classroom limits students' genuine engagement and interaction in the second language (L2) Cook contended that relying on L2 throughout the course can sometimes make the learning environment feel less authentic Consequently, rather than genuinely communicating as L2 users, students may merely mimic native speakers in an unnatural way.

Opponents of using L1 in language learning argue that, unlike children acquiring their native language, second language (L2) learners should not rely on a backup language According to Cook (2016), except in cases of early simultaneous bilingualism, children learn their first language without reference to another language, suggesting that L2 learners should adopt a similar approach This perspective emphasizes the importance of keeping the two languages distinct in the learner's mind, as it is believed that learning a language outside of its natural environment can hinder the acquisition process.

Using the first language (L1) in language teaching can hinder students' ability to think in the target language (L2), leading to reliance on L1 and a lack of effort to interpret meaning from context or express themselves in L2 This reliance risks transforming language education into merely "teaching about grammar" rather than effectively teaching grammar itself (Demir, 2012, p 23) To truly develop proficiency in a second language, learners must first use it independently of their first language and learn to think in it; therefore, strategies that keep the two languages distinct are beneficial for L2 acquisition (Cook).

Cook contends that second language acquisition (SLA) research does not support the complete exclusion of the first language in educational settings, highlighting significant parallels between first and second language learning While age and context influence these processes, the presence of a second language in learners' consciousness distinctly separates it from first language acquisition He argues that if the first language is to be avoided in the classroom, it should be for reasons other than the learning processes of children Without compelling justification for this exclusion, utilizing the first language when necessary may actually enhance learning outcomes Similarly, Demir (2012) notes that many teachers adopt a communicative and pragmatic approach rather than strictly adhering to traditional methods that exclude the first language As education evolves, it is crucial to reevaluate the outdated prohibitions on first language use to find relevant justifications for current practices, as emphasized by Swain and Lapkin.

(2000, p.268) put it, “To insist that no use be made of the L1 in carrying out tasks that are both linguistically and cognitively complex is to deny the use of an

The use of the first language (L1) in immersion programs is a significant cognitive tool that should neither be prohibited nor actively promoted Instead, it is essential to ensure that L1 serves as a supportive resource rather than a substitute for second language acquisition.

2.4.2 Pedagogical functions of CS in teaching grammar

Many theorists and researchers support the use of the mother tongue in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms, highlighting its benefits for both learners and teachers These advocates emphasize the importance of code-switching (CS) in enhancing pedagogical effectiveness in English Language Teaching (ELT) environments.

Previous studies highlight the importance of using L1 in grammar instruction to enhance students' comprehension, with code-switching identified as a key strategy when linguistic challenges arise (Copland & Neokleous, 2011) Teachers often resort to L1 when complex explanations in L2 become too difficult for intermediate learners, as evidenced by a study where English-Greek translation was employed after unsuccessful attempts to clarify complicated rules in English This aligns with Lee's (2010) findings that code-switching aids weaker students in understanding instructional content Additionally, Hidayati (2012), Nguyen (2012), and Tang (2002) support the notion that teachers favor code-switching for conveying complex grammar points and assessing comprehension Ultimately, judicious use of L1 proves beneficial for enhancing student understanding in the classroom.

CS serves as a powerful tool for enhancing learners' awareness of potential errors, as well as the similarities and differences between their native language (L1) and the target language (L2), which is crucial for effective grammar instruction The comparison of L1 and L2, along with their equivalents, significantly contributes to the understanding of grammar.

Consciousness-raising and form-focused tasks exhibit 20 distinct differences, particularly in the context of contrastive beliefs While teachers in Copland and Neokleous’ (2011) research found direct comparisons between L1 and L2 unhelpful, researchers like Arshad et al (2015) and Demir (2012) argue otherwise They suggest that L1 can effectively aid consciousness-raising when introducing new grammatical constructs, especially for students with limited knowledge of the target language, by emphasizing the differences between L1 and L2 grammar Furthermore, when students consistently make errors that may fossilize due to L1 influence, clarifying in L1 or contrasting sentences can be beneficial Grammar serves as a framework for word and morpheme combinations, and consciousness-raising acts as a guide to identify potential problems and enhance grammatical understanding For instance, the phrase “She wa took her a month to get home yo” illustrates the use of Japanese markers to convey meaning in English, highlighting the motivational aspect of switching between languages.

Learners' proficiency levels significantly influence teachers' decisions when employing code-switching (CS) in language instruction Catherine Doughty, in her pivotal article on "the cognitive underpinning of focus on form," argues that using the first language (L1) is the most effective method for teaching grammatical concepts to beginners She emphasizes that for novice French learners, L1 translation is essential for grasping complex terms such as "La conjugaison pronominale," "Construction avec l’infinitif," and "Les adjectifs possessifs et démonstratifs." Furthermore, the grammatical reference section of English Unlimited highlights key phrases like "present," "questions," "pronouns," and "possessive adjectives," underscoring the necessity of clear explanations in teaching grammar.

Understanding singular and plural nouns, along with other essential EFL grammar terms, is crucial for language learners Without proper translation, these concepts may seem meaningless, particularly for learners from cultures with different grammatical structures, such as Japanese, where the concept of grammatical plural does not exist.

Code-switching (CS) can effectively clarify task instructions, especially in urgent situations where the primary goal is for students to complete assignments promptly, regardless of the language used For instance, in Unit 3 of Atlas 1, activities like “Listen and circle the occupations that you hear” demonstrate how comprehension of instructions in a second language can reduce the need for additional practice As Cook (2016) notes, using the first language can be beneficial when describing tasks Demir (2012) argues that relying solely on subconscious acquisition or L2 explanations for learning EFL grammar is impractical, advocating for a balanced approach of mostly L2 with minimal L1 when necessary Consequently, code-switching is a practical strategy for teachers aiming to save time and streamline instruction under time constraints (Nguyen, 2012; Lee, 2010).

Code-switching in teaching English in Vietnamese context

In Vietnam's academic community, the use of code-switching (CS) has garnered significant attention, with various studies highlighting its role as a crucial tool for teaching English This phenomenon is prevalent across diverse teaching contexts, demonstrating its importance in enhancing language education.

23 context, from primary schools to language institutions of higher education These studies significantly contribute to deeper understanding of CS in general.”

Nguyen & Yang (2010) re-evaluated the English-only policy in education, revealing that 70% of first-year English majors struggled to understand lessons under this approach While 92% acknowledged the importance of using English for learning, about 55% expressed discontent with the policy Notably, around 70% of students advocated for incorporating their native language (L1) as a supplementary teaching tool The researchers emphasized that teachers must be aware of their teaching contexts and consider all factors influencing language choice to enhance learning effectiveness, recommending the identification of specific scenarios for L1 use to facilitate practical assessment.

In a case study by Nguyen (2012), the impact of the tertiary education context on code-switching in Vietnamese classrooms was explored The research focused on one teacher's code-switching practices in two different settings: a private university and a public university The findings revealed significant differences in code-switching behaviors between the two educational environments.

Code-switching (CS) occurs more frequently in public schools than in private ones due to five key factors: teaching time in class, students' proficiency levels, cultural aspects, the teaching quality evaluation scheme, and teachers' cognition (Nguyen, 2012, p.21) While this study enhances the understanding of code-switching practices in a local context, its findings may have limited generalizability due to the single case study and small participant sample.

Research by Grant & Nguyen (2017) highlights that teachers implement code-switching (CS) in EFL classrooms primarily due to pedagogical concerns, such as clarifying instructions and scaffolding, as well as affective concerns, including responding to emotions and building rapport The study emphasizes that code-switching can be advantageous when used intentionally and selectively, rather than automatically Given that code-switching is a natural behavior among bilingual speakers, it is essential for teacher training programs to incorporate it as a deliberate teaching strategy Additionally, prior to the introduction of any government policies on code-switching, instructors should receive specialized training to ensure effective application in the classroom.

“Although also conducted in the university context, the study of Nguyen

A comprehensive study conducted in 2018 examined the attitudes of students and teachers towards the implementation of code-switching (CS) in classrooms, contrasting with previous research that often relied on shorter sessions The findings revealed a parallel between teachers' beliefs and practices, as they acknowledged the necessity of CS in specific contexts However, a notable inconsistency emerged, with two out of three teachers using CS more frequently than they perceived Only one teacher maintained a consistent frequency of CS throughout all course stages, while the others exhibited significant fluctuations over time This study enhances the understanding of teachers' attitudes toward CS and highlights the inconsistency between their perceptions and actual classroom practices, although the underlying reasons for this discrepancy remain largely unexplored.

“In the context of young learner classroom in language centers, Huynh

A 2018 study explored teachers’ attitudes towards code-switching (CS) as a teaching method, involving thirty educators from a private English center in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data gathered through questionnaires, the research revealed that teachers generally hold a flexible view of CS, recognizing its importance in the classroom They employed code-switching in specific contexts, such as when addressing challenging topics, maintaining discipline, and fostering rapport with students, driven by both pedagogical and emotional reasons Additionally, the study highlighted teachers' beliefs that code-switching should be a deliberate and strategic practice, rather than an unconscious habit, to maximize its benefits for young learners.

Research conducted in EFL classrooms in Vietnam highlights the significant role of code-switching (CS) as a valuable resource for teachers While most literature has focused on the general use of CS, it has primarily addressed lower proficiency students rather than those aiming to advance their skills Findings indicate that CS is particularly beneficial for students from beginner to intermediate levels Additionally, teachers emphasize the importance of applying CS selectively and purposefully, rather than unconsciously or habitually.

Research gap

While several studies have explored code-switching in grammar instruction internationally, there is a lack of research specifically addressing its use in Vietnam's EFL classrooms Most existing studies on code-switching in Vietnam tend to discuss the phenomenon broadly, rather than focusing on its application in teaching grammar.

Numerous studies have highlighted the importance of teachers' attitudes towards code-switching (CS) in grammar instruction, emphasizing the need for selective and purposeful use rather than unconscious habits Despite this, the varying applications of CS across different educational levels remain underexplored In Vietnam, there is a notable lack of official policies, guidance, or training materials to help teachers effectively utilize CS in the classroom This study aims to provide valuable insights into specific techniques that educators can adopt to maximize the benefits of code-switching while minimizing its overuse, ultimately fostering a more effective English-speaking environment.

Conceptual framework

The literature review reveals two contrasting perspectives on the use of code-switching (CS) as a medium of instruction, as outlined in the conceptual framework Proponents, including Cook (2016) and Demir, argue in favor of its effectiveness in enhancing communication and learning outcomes.

In the ongoing debate about code-switching (CS) in language instruction, proponents argue that it enhances comprehension and supports learners' cognitive development, while opponents, such as Franklin (1990) and Krashen (2003), caution against its overuse, advocating for an English-only approach This perspective has significantly influenced the English-only policies adopted by various language institutions Advocates of CS highlight its pedagogical benefits, including its role in raising learners' awareness of mistakes and facilitating comparisons between their native language and the target language These benefits align with principles of grammar teaching and focus on form instruction, making CS a valuable tool in the language learning process.

This research investigates teachers' attitudes toward the use of L1 in grammar instruction, considering contrasting perspectives from previous studies It aims to determine whether educators align with the supportive views on limited L1 usage while offering suggestions to mitigate its overuse in the classroom.

‘against’ views The following conceptual framework is visually presented in Figure 2.3

28 frequency of CS why CS

Figure 2.3: Two opposing viewpoints on using Code-switching in teaching grammar

Code-switching in teaching grammar

Principals on grammar teaching: consciousness- raising, focus on form instruction

Cognitive factors Learners’ proficiency level

Teachers’ suggestions on using CS in teaching grammar when CS amount of

METHODOLOGY

Context of the study

The study was conducted at the Vietnam USA Society Language Centers (VUS), which has 39 campuses across six cities in Vietnam, with five campuses selected in Ho Chi Minh City for data collection The coursebooks utilized are sourced from various publishers, primarily Cambridge, Oxford, and National Geographic, tailored to the learners' age and proficiency levels Different coursebooks are employed for learners at the same proficiency level but differing age groups Additionally, the Research & Development department designs, adapts, and adopts supplementary materials from diverse sources Learners range from Beginners to Upper-Intermediate levels, with new students placed in appropriate classes through a combination of written and oral placement tests, while existing students must pass mid-term and final exams each course to advance to higher-level classes.

At VUS, grammar instruction is incorporated across all classes and delivered by Vietnamese teachers using the PPP (Presentation, Practice, Production) method, which emphasizes the use of English To understand the effectiveness of this approach, the researcher aimed to investigate teachers' attitudes towards their language choices and their acknowledgment of code-switching (CS) as a beneficial teaching tool Additionally, an analysis of teachers' self-reported experiences was deemed essential.

30 classroom practices to determine the frequency, the factors behind teachers' use of CS and their suggestion to use CS in an effective way.”

Research design

The researcher utilized a quantitative research methodology to explore code-switching as a teaching tool, guided by Creswell's (2002) assertion that quantitative studies effectively reveal overall answer trends and variations among respondents A collective case study approach, as outlined by Stake (2000), was employed to investigate multiple cases, enhancing the understanding and theorization of broader phenomena This method is well-established in research, allowing for a detailed examination of a small sample, as noted by Tight (2010), and facilitating an in-depth investigation of real-life projects or systems from various perspectives to capture their complexity and uniqueness (Simons, 2009) Ultimately, this approach enabled the researcher to analyze teachers' tendencies in using code-switching within a specific context and summarize the findings numerically.

Participants

This study focuses exclusively on Vietnamese teachers, who are anticipated to engage in code-switching between their first and second languages Conducted at a language center with 39 campuses across various cities in Vietnam, including 25 in Ho Chi Minh City, the center employs over 2,000 expat and Vietnamese teachers Due to the extensive reach of the center's system, collecting data from all Vietnamese teachers is unfeasible, leading to the use of non-probability sampling to obtain a representative sample.

This study utilized a small-scale survey and interviews, recruiting 31 participants through purposive sampling While some argue that larger sample sizes are necessary for research accuracy and validity, this method allows for focused analysis of a specific group The pilot study included interviews with 8 full-time English teachers, each with a minimum of six years of teaching experience Detailed participant information is provided in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Pilot study participants Demographics

Participants Gender Age Years of experience

A total of 46 teachers from five campuses in Ho Chi Minh City were selected to participate in a survey, achieving a remarkable 93% response rate with 43 teachers completing the questionnaires The participants, aged between 22 and 45, all hold at least one bachelor's degree and possess teaching certifications such as CELTA, TESOL, or TKT These teachers, assigned to classes ranging from Beginning to Upper-intermediate levels, each have a minimum of two years of teaching experience, making them a well-qualified target population for the study.

32 to produce the most useful data for the research It was anticipated that this sample's data would produce significant findings about this field.”

Research instrument and pilot study

To investigate teachers' attitudes and tendencies regarding code-switching, a survey utilizing questionnaires was implemented as the primary data source Given that the research questions differ from previous studies, existing questionnaires could not be fully adopted Consequently, a pilot study was conducted involving semi-structured interviews with eight teachers, each lasting thirty to forty minutes This approach was crucial for gathering diverse responses, which informed the design of the survey questions The insights gained from these interviews not only shaped the questionnaire's structure but also facilitated the development of unique questions and options tailored to address the specific research inquiries, rather than relying solely on existing studies.

The semi-structured interviews utilized self-designed questions informed by a literature review on code-switching, drawing from previous studies by Cook (2016), Grant et al (2017), and Nguyen et al (2018, 2019) Specifically, question 3 was inspired by Nguyen et al (2019) regarding the perspectives of Vietnamese experienced and student teachers on code-switching, while question 5 was adapted from Cook (2016) Furthermore, question 8, addressing the teaching stages when teachers employ code-switching, was refined from common findings across the aforementioned studies to align with the thesis topic Other questions were developed based on the research framework.

33 questions, context of the study and the theoretical knowledge of CS taken from the literature review (see Appendix 1)

Following the pilot study, the next phase involved compiling the interview responses to create a self-designed questionnaire This questionnaire consisted of 25 meticulously crafted items divided into two sections: the first section focused on the demographics of the participants, while the second section aimed to collect teachers' insights on the frequency and contexts of Code-Switching (CS) utilized across three proficiency levels, along with their recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of CS in grammar instruction.

Adjustments were necessary for the interview questions and the design of the questionnaire items Interview responses indicated that teachers believe code-switching (CS) should be tailored to students' proficiency levels rather than their ages Based on their teaching experience at VUS, they categorized learners into three groups: Group 1 for Beginners, Group 2 for Elementary and Pre-Intermediate learners, and Group 3 for Intermediate and Upper Intermediate learners Consequently, the questionnaire was structured to reflect these three proficiency levels across questions 1 to 15, aiming to investigate how teachers utilize CS differently for each group.

During the interview, teachers expressed a desire to minimize their use of Vietnamese in grammar instruction, believing that code-switching (CS) should only occur as a last resort However, they found themselves resorting to Vietnamese more frequently than anticipated, especially when students struggled with English To investigate this phenomenon, the researcher developed two questions regarding the percentage of CS utilized by teachers at different levels: one addressing their actual usage and the other their perceived appropriate use in lessons These questions are detailed in items 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, and 13, aiming to uncover the relationship between teachers' practices and their beliefs about effective language instruction.

34 participants use more CS than they expected or can control the amount of CS that they intended to use when they teach grammar.”

The questionnaire incorporated both adapted items from previous studies and new questions derived from interview responses Specifically, questions regarding the reasons for using only English versus integrating both languages, as well as pedagogical factors influencing teachers' code-switching decisions, were adapted from Huynh, N.T (2018) Additionally, the rationale that "code-switching facilitates more active discussions between students and teachers compared to using English alone" was drawn from Almansour, A N (2016) Other question options were developed to further explore this topic.

Fifteen questions were derived from theoretical knowledge gathered in the literature review, while questions 17 to 21 were fully developed based on insights from interviews Table 3.2 illustrates the connections between data sources, participants, and the role of various instruments In the following section, I will elaborate on my data collection and analysis procedures, demonstrating how they align with the quantitative research design and the overall purpose of this study.

Table 3.2 Correspondence of Data sources, Participants and Role of the instruments

Data sources Participants Role of the instruments

Survey 43 Vietnamese teachers main data source

Data collection procedure

“My initial contact with the target population for the pilot study was made via social media Participants recruited for the pilot study signed the consent

Before participating in the interviews, 35 forms were completed, and one-on-one interviews with eight teachers were conducted online via Zoom within two weeks After gathering sufficient information, I concluded the pilot study, believing it was productive for designing the questionnaire The questionnaire underwent three rounds of adjustments with the supervisor's assistance, leading to the replacement of some interview questions, such as those regarding teachers' difficulties and students' grammatical errors influenced by their first language, as they were deemed inappropriate for addressing the research questions.

The questionnaire was distributed from August 4 to August 14 via Facebook and email, yielding an initial response rate of 82% by August 26 through Google Forms Each package included a consent form and a link to the questionnaire To improve participation, the questionnaire was sent out a second time, and I tracked unresponsive teachers using their email addresses I provided them with paper-based questionnaires during in-person meetings on campus, making it easier for them to complete and return the forms the same day, ultimately raising the response rate to 93%.

Data analysis scheme

The researcher conducted a statistical analysis by organizing responses to multiple-choice questions in an Excel spreadsheet To explore the relationship between teachers' background features and their responses, chi-square tests were performed using SPSS software (version 22) A Likert scale was employed to measure teachers' attitudes toward the use of code-switching (CS) To confirm the reliability and validity of the Likert scale, Cronbach’s α statistics were calculated using SPSS The findings were presented in tables for clarity.

36 and charts were utilized to give the readers a visual representation of the findings.”

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction

This chapter presents an analysis of data collected from forty-three participants, focusing on teachers' attitudes towards code-switching (CS) The findings are structured around the research questions and provide valuable insights into how teachers' practices regarding CS differ across three levels Additionally, the chapter examines the relationship between participants' years of experience, qualifications, genders, and their use of CS.

Teacher’s background information

A study involving forty-three Vietnamese lecturers focused on teaching English to various age groups, including young learners, teenagers, and adult students, ranging from beginners to upper-intermediate levels The demographic data collected from the participants included their gender, age, years of teaching experience, and ELT qualifications, providing a comprehensive overview of the sample's characteristics.

• Engaged more women than man with about twice as many women as men participated in the survey

• Mainly involved quite young participants with nearly 70% in the 22-30 age group

• Under half of the participated teachers have 5-9 years of experience (Figure 4.1)

• Given that the majority of teachers in Vietnam has Bachelor's and Master's degrees, they are highly qualified to teach English (Table 4.1)

Certificate (TESOL, CELTA, TEFL, TKT, etc)

Teachers’ attitude and teachers’ self-reported reality of using code-

4.3.1 The preference for language of instruction in teaching grammar

Table 4.2 highlights a notable contrast in teaching methods, showing that most teachers utilize both Vietnamese and English when instructing grammar.

The study reveals that English is predominantly used as the medium of instruction for teaching Beginners, with 90.7% of teachers favoring this approach In contrast, the use of Vietnamese is less common among educators at the elementary and pre-intermediate levels, as over one-fifth of teachers reported exclusively using English for grammar instruction For intermediate and upper-intermediate learners, a preference for exclusive English instruction is noted, with only 37.2% of participants supporting the use of code-switching Detailed statistics on teachers' preferred language use across these three levels are presented in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 The preferred language use to teach 3 levels

Beginners Elementary and pre-intermediate

The study examines the relationship between gender and preferred language choices for teaching grammar across three different proficiency levels A chi-square test was utilized to analyze the differences in responses between males and females, particularly focusing on Beginners, as detailed in Table 4.3 Due to two cells having an expected count of less than 5, a Fisher exact test was conducted instead The results indicated that the null hypothesis, which posits no significant relationship between language choice and gender, could not be rejected, with a Fisher exact probability of 602, falling well above the 05 significance level.

N of Valid Cases 43 a 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5 The minimum expected count is 1.40 b Computed only for a 2x2 table

Table 4.4 illustrates the relationship between gender and teacher preferences for language instruction in grammar for elementary and pre-intermediate levels Notably, one expected frequency is below 5, indicating a violation of chi-square test requirements Therefore, we utilize the Fisher exact test for analysis.

Table 4.3: Genders and preference for language use to teach Beginners

1) Do you use Vietnamese to teach grammar for beginners?

What is your gender? Female Count 2 26 28

A comparison of gender and language use in teaching elementary and pre-intermediate learners revealed a statistically significant difference The Fisher exact test produced a probability value of 046, indicating significance at the 05 level This analysis showed that males tend to prefer English-only instruction, while females are more inclined to use both Vietnamese and English for grammar teaching The chi-square value of 5.062 exceeds the critical value of 3.8, confirming the significant difference in language preferences between male and female educators.

Table 4.4 Genders and preference for language use to teach elementary and pre-intermediate leaners

6) Do you use Vietnamese to teach grammar for students at elementary and pre- intermediate levels?

N of Valid Cases 43 a 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5 The minimum expected count is 3.14 b Computed only for a 2x2 table

Table 4.5 presents the results of the correlation analysis examining the relationship between gender and teachers' preferences for language use in grammar instruction at the intermediate and upper-intermediate levels The data indicates that the percentage of male teachers who preferred exclusively teaching in the target language (TL) is nearly equivalent to the percentage of male teachers who favored other approaches.

In a study examining language instruction preferences among female teachers, nearly half opted for 'English and Vietnamese' integration compared to those favoring monolingual instruction A chi-square test was conducted to analyze the frequency of these choices, revealing no cells with an expected count below five, thus validating the test's application However, the results indicated no statistically significant difference, with a chi-square value of X² (1, NC) = 882, which is substantially below the critical value of 3.8 needed for significance at the 5% level Consequently, the hypothesis that language choice in grammar teaching for intermediate and upper-intermediate learners is influenced by gender must be rejected.

Table 4.5 Genders and preference for language use to teach intermediate and upper-intermediate learners.

11) Do you use Vietnamese to teach grammar for Intermediate and Upper-intermediate levels?

N of Valid Cases 43 a 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5 The minimum expected count is 5.58 b Computed only for a 2x2 table

Code-switching is favored for teaching grammar to beginner and pre-intermediate students, while nearly two-thirds of educators prefer using only English for intermediate and upper-intermediate learners The findings indicate no significant gender-related differences in language choice for teaching grammar across all levels, but a tendency exists where female teachers are more inclined to use code-switching for elementary and pre-intermediate students compared to their male counterparts Despite the limited sample size, these results highlight a potential trend in language instruction preferences within the studied context, particularly regarding gender influences on teaching strategies at the lower levels.

4.3.2 The frequency of using code-switching to teach Beginners and the reasons behind teachers’ preference of language use

The consistency between teachers' self-reported frequency of code-switching (CS) and their perceptions of its efficiency in teaching grammar to beginners requires further exploration Statistics reveal that a significant majority of teachers report using CS between 10-30%, with 35.9% indicating this range as their actual usage and 48.7% considering it the most effective Additionally, less than one-third of teachers claim to use 30-40% CS, while more than 40% CS is utilized by over 10% of educators Conversely, only a small fraction of teachers report using less than 10% CS in their instruction.

“In terms of the attitude of teachers towards the efficient amount of CS to teach Beginners, the proportion of teachers who think they should use 10-30%

CS quadrupled the ratio of teachers who prefer less than 10% CS in a lesson,

48.7 percent compared to 10.3 percent Ranked in second was teachers believe that it is efficient to use 30-40% CS What is striking about the figures in these two pie charts is that teachers are likely to use more CS in reality than the amount of CS they think the most efficient to teach grammar for Beginners The raw data also depicted that eight out of thirty-nine participants who supported the integration of L1 into TL use higher amount of CS than they think they should use.”

“Seven explanations were given to teachers who indicated ‘English and

Teachers prefer using Vietnamese as the instructional language for several key reasons: it facilitates easier understanding of English grammar concepts, fosters more active discussions compared to using only English, boosts learners' confidence and language production, and prevents confusion and demotivation among beginners who might struggle with 100% English instruction.

Figure 4.2b Teachers’ attitude about the most efficient frequency of CS (teaching beginners)

Figure 4.2a Teachers’ self-reported frequency of CS used in reality (teaching beginners)

Only four out of forty-three participants supported the exclusive use of the target language (TL) for teaching grammar to beginners Teachers favored TL-only instruction for several key reasons: it provides students with intensive exposure to English, facilitates language acquisition without interference from their mother tongue, and enhances listening practice Additionally, teachers expressed concern that code-switching (CS) could foster dependency on them Conversely, none of the participants believed that using only English for grammar instruction would improve students' spoken English at this level.

Figure 4.3 Reasons for using both English and Vietnamese to teach grammar for Beginners

4.3.3 The frequency of using code-switching to teach Elementary and Pre- intermediate learners and the reasons behind teachers’ preference of language use

A study on the use of code-switching (CS) in teaching grammar reveals a notable consistency between teachers' self-reported frequency of CS and their perceptions of its effectiveness for elementary and pre-intermediate learners Data shows that 30 out of 34 teachers reported using the same amount of CS as they believe is most efficient, with only a few using more or less than their perceived optimal level The majority of teachers utilized less than 30% CS, with over one-third using less than 10% This contrasts with their approach to teaching beginners, where under one-third reported using 30%-40% CS, indicating a trend towards reduced CS usage for higher-level learners.

The use of both L1 and L2 in teaching grammar to elementary and pre-intermediate students primarily aids in their understanding of English grammar context and concepts, with over 80% of participants supporting this approach Additional benefits include raising students' awareness of potential mistakes, fostering more active discussions between students and teachers, highlighting similarities and differences between their native language and English, and boosting learners' confidence in producing the target language While the least favored reason for employing code-switching (CS) is to save time in explanations, a higher percentage of teachers (43%) at this level prefer this rationale compared to those teaching Beginners (33%).

Figure 4.4a Teachers’ self-reported frequency of CS used in reality

Figure 4.4b Teachers’ attitude about the most efficient frequency of CS

Figure 4.5: Reasons for using both L1 and L2 to teach grammar for students at elementary and pre-intermediate levels

A survey revealed that 9 out of 43 participants opposed using code-switching (CS) for teaching grammar to elementary and pre-intermediate learners, citing six key reasons The most significant reasons included the belief that English-only instruction enhances exposure to the language (83.3%), facilitates understanding without interference from the mother tongue (75%), and reduces students' reliance on the teacher (75%) Additionally, half of the participants agreed that using only the target language improves listening practice for these learners Teachers also favored English-only instruction for elementary and pre-intermediate learners, with 58.3% believing it better supports their grammar learning needs, compared to just 16.7% for Beginners Furthermore, 41.7% of teachers preferred to avoid using Vietnamese in grammar instruction for elementary students.

90.0% context & concept comprehension create more active discussion save time aware of mistakes aware of L1&L2's similarities and differeces more confident to produce L2

51 and pre-intermediate learners because they think it is very helpful to students in improving spoken English, it is not the reason for avoiding Vietnamese to teach Beginners.”

4.3.4 The frequency of using code-switching to teach Intermediate and

Upper-intermediate learners and the reasons behind teachers’ preference of language use

“As discussed in the two previous levels, the question of whether there is an alignment in teachers’ self-reported frequency of using CS and the amount of

Teachers’ attitude towards the amount, frequency and situations applied CS

4.4.1 Pedagogical factors influencing the teachers’ decision of using codeswitching

Table 4.6 outlines several pedagogical factors influencing teachers' decisions to use code-switching (CS) in the classroom, adapted from Grant & Nguyen (2017) The most significant factor identified is students' proficiency level, with 93% of respondents indicating that this greatly affects their instructional language choice The findings from questions 1 to 15 reveal a notable preference for code-switching in grammar instruction for beginner to pre-intermediate students, while a fully English approach is favored for intermediate and upper-intermediate learners This aligns with Arshad et al (2015), which suggests that using students' mother tongue as a tool for grammar instruction is effective for beginners but less so for upper-intermediate students Consequently, the rationale behind choosing CS or exclusively English instruction varies based on the distinct needs and characteristics of different proficiency levels.

A significant majority of students (83.7%) agree that their ability to grasp complex grammar concepts impacts their use of code-switching (CS) This finding aligns with the research conducted by Anh, K.H., highlighting the importance of learners' comprehension in the educational context.

In their studies, Huynh (2012) and Huynh (2018) found that teachers tailor their use of code-switching (CS) based on students' comprehension levels When teaching grammar tasks in English, instructors may initially use only English in classes with higher proficiency If students demonstrate understanding, the lecture continues in English; however, if confusion arises, teachers utilize CS to clarify explanations This approach emphasizes enhancing students' awareness and comprehension of grammar concepts rather than solely focusing on their target language skills.

A significant 60.5% of respondents identified the linguistic gap between English and Vietnamese grammar as a key challenge, while 48.8% noted students' emotional states—such as bad moods, misunderstandings, and confusion—as influential factors Additionally, 41.9% highlighted the pressure teachers face to cover extensive lesson content within limited timeframes Only 15 out of 43 teachers recognized that the significance of teaching points affected their instructional choices.

CS, hence it was not one of the most popular factors

Table 4.6: Pedagogical factors influencing the teachers’ decision of using CS

Students’ ability to understand difficult concepts in grammar rules

Linguistic gap resulting from the difference between English and Vietnamese of the grammatical points

Amount of lesson content teachers have to cover in the allotted time

Importance of the teaching points 15 34.9

Students’ feeling (bad mood, misunderstanding, confusion, etc.)

4.4.2 Teachers’ self-reported frequency of using CS in particular situations

A pilot study revealed eight key situations where teachers frequently employ code-switching (CS) in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms The findings indicate that while teachers utilize CS to varying degrees, there are specific circumstances that see higher usage Notably, nearly half of the teachers reported 'sometimes' using CS to introduce new grammar points, whereas a significant percentage, 40% and 42%, admitted to 'never' or 'rarely' using CS for reviewing old grammar Conversely, CS is 'sometimes' and 'often' employed when providing instructions for unfamiliar activities during free practice These results align with the views of Cook (2016) and Demir (2012), suggesting that relying solely on second-language explanations for grammar learning is impractical, as comprehension of instructions in the second language can often negate the need for practice.

Teachers tend to favor using corrective feedback strategies on an individual basis rather than addressing mistakes for the entire class While half of the educators occasionally employ these strategies for individual corrections, the other half infrequently use them to highlight common errors in a group setting Additionally, most teachers indicated that they sometimes utilize these corrective measures.

Teachers frequently utilize collaborative strategies to provide individual support, suggesting that these methods are more convenient for circulating among students This aligns with findings from a pilot study, where educators expressed the need to save time while ensuring that learners achieve full comprehension during one-on-one assistance, particularly in classroom settings.

In a study involving over twenty students, it was found that a notable percentage of teachers 'never' or 'rarely' rely on L1 support for monitoring student practice and assessing comprehension This suggests that teachers may have alternative strategies to effectively manage these processes without code-switching, warranting further investigation in the remaining data.

Generally speaking, although there is no circumstance that teachers use

Teachers frequently utilize code-switching (CS) in essential situations, especially when introducing new grammar concepts, providing instructions for unfamiliar tasks, correcting errors, and offering individual support.

Table 4.7: Teachers’ self-reported frequency of using CS in particular situations

No In teaching grammar, teachers switch English to

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very often

3 correcting mistakes for the whole class 7% 47% 30% 16% 0%

5 reviewing old grammar points before moving on the new grammar points 40% 42% 9% 5% 5%

6 giving instruction for unfamiliar activities 14% 30% 40% 16% 0

4.4.3 Grammatical structures that teachers find necessary to use CS in instruction

A pilot study identified seven common grammatical structures that teachers struggle to teach without classroom support (CS) According to data from questionnaires, the 'mixed conditional' structure is the most challenging, with 53.5% of teachers agreeing on its difficulty Following closely is 'relative clauses,' which garnered agreement from 20 participants.

A significant percentage of teachers, ranging from 32.6% to 41.9%, believe it is essential to use code-switching (CS) for teaching grammar structures such as inversion, passive voice, and tenses While modal verbs and possessives ranked lower on the list, their importance is still acknowledged Furthermore, an analysis of the questionnaire data indicates the presence of an overlooked grammatical structure; over one-third of participants identified "modals of deductive in the past" as a crucial area where CS serves as an important auxiliary tool.

Teachers at the language center identified eight essential grammatical points that are crucial for utilizing code-switching (CS) as a teaching method This discovery offers valuable insights into the application of CS in grammar instruction, an area that has not been extensively explored before.

4.4.4 Teachers’ reflection about their amount of CS used in instruction

The study utilized a 5-point Likert scale to assess teachers' attitudes towards English-only instruction and their perceived use of code-switching (CS) in grammar teaching Table 4.8 illustrates the distribution of responses, ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1), while also providing descriptive statistics for each statement.

Figure 4.8: Grammatical structures teachers think are difficult to teach without CS

Table 4.8: Teacher’s reflection about their amount of CS used in teaching grammar

Code-switching should only be used as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted

The more English that is used, the better the results for the learners

Vietnamese use in teaching grammar, but I sometimes use

Vietnamese more than I expected when my students have much trouble with English instruction

I can control the amount of code-switching I intended to use when I teach grammar

According to the data, 34.9% of teachers agree and 25.6% strongly agree that code-switching (CS) should only be used as a last resort, with over 10% expressing disapproval The mean response for this statement is 3.47, indicating an overall agreement among teachers regarding this perspective While most participants recognize the benefits of CS and acknowledge the supportive relationship between the first language (L1) and target language (TL) in grammar instruction, they believe that the use of CS should be approached selectively.

Teachers tend to favor alternative techniques over corrective feedback (CS) to enhance students' grammar learning processes, as indicated by the findings in Huynh, N.T.'s study This preference arises from a desire to avoid habitual and unconscious learning patterns.

(2018) in the sense that teachers tend to use ways to make their instruction simpler rather than using Vietnamese immediately

On the other hand, what is striking about the figures in this table is that 41.9% of participants against the second Likert term with the idea that ‘the more

Teachers’ suggestions on efficiently employing code-switching in teaching

4.5.1 Suggestions to avoid using too much Vietnamese in teaching grammar

Teachers in this study express significant concern regarding the overuse of code-switching (CS) Previous research indicates that educators at the language center are mindful of managing both the frequency and contexts in which they employ code-switching.

Despite the lack of official guidelines on the effective use of code-switching (CS) while minimizing the reliance on the first language (L1), a study was conducted to gather suggestions from teachers at VUS Initial findings from a pilot study revealed five key suggestions, with participants not only selecting options but also contributing additional ideas, thereby enriching the practical foundation of the research Notably, the use of visual aids emerged as the most favored technique among teachers, receiving unanimous support for enhancing instruction in the second language (L2) This includes strategies such as drawing timelines to aid in understanding tenses and conditionals, and employing animations to contextualize grammar These results align with Gaikwad's (2013) assertion that visual representations, including diagrams and animations, facilitate the comprehension of grammatical structures by creating visual imagery Ultimately, this approach fosters a connection between verbal and pictorial models, integrating them with prior knowledge for better retention However, teachers emphasized the importance of carefully selecting visuals, as poorly chosen images can lead to confusion rather than clarity for students.

To enhance English instruction and reduce reliance on L1, simplifying language in teaching is essential, as it significantly improves students' comprehension of grammatical rules This approach is particularly beneficial for higher-level textbooks that often present complex grammar points Teachers should strive to replace confusing explanations with clear, straightforward ones Additionally, employing Concept Checking Questions (CCQs) is a favored strategy, with nearly 40 teachers using them to assess student understanding By asking both open-ended and closed-ended questions in English, teachers can gauge whether students grasp grammatical concepts, such as distinguishing between past simple and past perfect This method encourages student participation and discovery while minimizing L1 usage Another effective CCQs technique involves creating multiple-choice questions with three options to engage learners and clarify their understanding, all while maintaining simple language to further reduce unnecessary reliance on L1.

To avoid overusing code-switching (CS) in presentations, it is essential to provide personalized examples that resonate with students' interests and characteristics By linking grammar points to relatable contexts, students are more likely to remember the examples and understand the material better This personalized approach not only enhances retention but also reduces the need for CS, as students grasp the content more effectively Additionally, tailoring examples to specific students rather than addressing the entire class can further improve engagement and comprehension.

To effectively engage the best students, it's essential to encompass a diverse range of learners This approach doesn't have to be confined to a single lesson; rather, it can be integrated throughout the entire course, allowing for continuous practice and reinforcement.

In the production stage of language learning, it is crucial for teachers to engage students by asking questions and assigning tasks that require the use of target grammatical structures, fostering awareness of meaning and context Teachers often rely on code-switching (CS) to assist students facing vocabulary limitations that hinder their ability to express ideas accurately To address this challenge, many educators recommend pre-teaching essential vocabulary in the target language (L2) before practice sessions, reducing the need for L1 support Additionally, involving proficient students in demonstrations can effectively illustrate the use of grammar points and clarify activity rules, thereby minimizing reliance on CS during unfamiliar tasks.

4.5.2 Broader recommendation to use code-switching efficiently in teaching grammar

Teachers advocate for a balanced approach to code-switching (CS), emphasizing its importance as an instructional tool that benefits both educators and students While they recognize that excessive reliance on CS can lead to student dependence on Vietnamese explanations, they do not believe that the first language should be entirely removed from grammar instruction Instead, teachers at language centers promote a thoughtful and strategic use of CS to enhance learning outcomes.

Research by Willis (1996) and Demir (2012) suggests that rather than prohibiting the use of a native language, it is more beneficial to encourage the use of the target language One participant emphasized the importance of flexibility in using code-switching (CS) according to learners' needs and proficiency levels Identifying these needs is crucial for determining the appropriate amount of CS in each class The role of teachers has evolved from being authoritarian to becoming facilitators, minimizing unnecessary use of the first language (L1), while still recognizing that selective CS is essential in foundational situations Learners inevitably draw influence from their L1, making it vital for them to compare and contrast between their native language and the second language (L2) to understand grammatical structures Over two-thirds of participants indicated that teachers must develop observation skills to assess learners' needs effectively, which includes monitoring students' responses during grammar explanations in English and analyzing their application of grammar in productive tasks to provide timely support through CS.

To use code-switching (CS) efficiently in the classroom, teachers should adapt textbook tasks to align with their students' varying proficiency levels This adaptation is essential as classes often contain students with different language abilities, necessitating a tailored approach to challenging tasks to minimize reliance on L1 instruction It is recommended that teachers initially limit their use of Vietnamese to key words and phrases crucial for comprehension, rather than translating entire rules This strategy provides essential support while encouraging students to engage with the target language (L2) As students progress, teachers can observe their understanding and offer additional CS when necessary to assist those who continue to struggle.

CONCLUSION

Summary of findings

Overall, based on three research questions, the results of this study may be summarized as follows:

1 Code-switching is preferable in teaching grammar for students from beginners to pre-intermediate, but not at intermediate and upper-intermediate level There is not any relationship between two genders and their choice of language use to teach grammar for beginners, intermediate and upper intermediate learners However, females are more likely than male to use code-switching to teach grammar for elementary and pre-intermediate learners

2 Teachers are likely to use more CS in reality than the amount of CS they think the most efficient to teach grammar In addition, the higher level of the class, the less amount of CS teachers use in their class The reasons behind using both L1 and L2 in their instruction are varied based on characteristics of learners of different levels The most popular reasons were related to ensuring learners’ comprehension of the context and concepts of English grammar as well as learners’ awareness of the similarities and differences between L1 and L2 By contrast, only-English instruction is employed due to the concern about student’s reliance and dependency on teachers when they use CS

3 So far it is found that Vietnamese teachers at the center were aware of the pedagogical use of CS rather than using it unconsciously and habitually An interesting finding was found on their difficulty when teachers try to limit using

Experienced teachers with higher qualifications are better equipped to address the challenges posed by students with low English comprehension levels in the classroom This highlights a significant gap between theoretical approaches in computer science education and the practical realities faced by educators.

4 Teachers at the language center are aware of controlling the amount and situations they code-switch They provided numerous suggestions to help avoiding overusing CS, from broader recommendation to specific techniques

To sum up, reflecting to the previous studies about CS in the Literature Review chapter, it can be seen that the belief on English only policy and point of

Recent views on code-switching (CS) in grammar instruction, particularly in lower-level classes from Beginners to Pre-intermediate, challenge the perspectives of Franklin (1990) and Krashen (2003) Teachers at VUS maintain that CS remains a vital pedagogical tool for teaching grammar to beginners, highlighting its importance in facilitating understanding However, there is growing concern regarding the overuse of CS in higher-level classes and its potential negative impacts Consequently, teachers' insights on optimizing the use of CS are crucial for enhancing this study's contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

Implications

This research not only fulfills the requirements of a master's degree but also allows for a deeper exploration of code-switching (CS) in education, enhancing professional development The thesis offers valuable insights into the selective and effective use of CS in teaching students across various proficiency levels By contributing both theoretical and methodological frameworks, it aids educators in fostering student-centered learning Furthermore, the study compares teachers' CS practices among three proficiency groups and provides practical, population-based recommendations for maximizing the use of CS without over-reliance on this technique.

This study highlights that the effectiveness of teachers' code-switching (CS) in grammar instruction varies based on learners' proficiency levels, lesson stages, and specific grammar structures Teachers should continuously assess their students' progress to determine the appropriate amount of CS needed for effective target language (TL) instruction Additionally, the findings suggest that language training institutions should not implement policies prohibiting the use of the first language (L1) in classrooms, but rather encourage a flexible approach that accommodates learners' needs.

Organizing sharing sessions can effectively train teachers in observing and evaluating learners' progress while practicing code-switching (CS) techniques These sessions will address concerns about the excessive use of the first language (L1) by providing strategies to minimize it, ensuring a more balanced approach in the classroom.

Limitations of the study

Despite the researcher's extensive efforts in completing the study, certain limitations remain The small sample size of 43 teachers across five campuses restricts the ability to generalize findings about teachers' code-switching (CS) at the entire language center Additionally, a significant limitation is the lack of diverse research tools for a thorough investigation into teachers' actual use of CS, primarily due to time constraints and the observation policies of the language centers Consequently, with data primarily gathered from interviews in the pilot study and questionnaires as the main tool, the study is unable to effectively compare teachers' self-reported information with their actual practices.

Recommendations for further study

Future research should broaden the scope to include larger sites like public universities and schools, as well as increase participant numbers for better generalization Additionally, incorporating triangulation methods, such as observations, is recommended Researchers are also encouraged to conduct experimental studies to assess the impact of computer science teacher training programs on instructional practices and student outcomes Such investigations should aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of computer science education in Vietnam, extending beyond grammar instruction to encompass other language skills and knowledge.

(DES), Department of Education and Science (1990) Modern Foreign

Languages for Ages 11 to 16 London: Department of Education and

Science and the Welsh Office

Almansour (2016) Code Switching as a Grammar Teaching Strategy in Saudi

Arabian EFL Classrooms Doctoral dissertation, Western Sydney

Anh (2012) Use of Vietnamese in English Language Teaching in Vietnam:

Attitudes of Vietnamese University Teachers English Language

Arshad, Abdolrahimpour, and Najafi (2015) explore the effectiveness of utilizing the first language (L1) as a consciousness-raising tool in grammar instruction for beginner and upper-intermediate EFL students, highlighting its potential benefits in enhancing understanding and retention In a complementary study, Batstone and Ellis (2009) discuss the concept of principled grammar teaching, emphasizing structured approaches that align with learners' needs and contexts, ultimately aiming to improve language acquisition and teaching methodologies.

Bullock & Toribio (2009) The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code- switching Cambridge University Press

Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2018) Research methods in education (eight edition) Abingdon, Oxon

Cook (2016) Second language learning and language teaching Routledge

Copland & Neokleous (2011) L1 to teach L2: Complexities and contradictions

Creswell (2002) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative (Vol 7) Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ

Dailey-O’Cain & Liebscher (2009) Teacher and student use of the first language in foreign language classroom interaction: Functions and applications In

M Turnbull & J Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp.131-144) Multilingual Matters

De Mejía (2002) Power, Prestige and Bilingualism: international perspectives on elite bilingual education Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Demir (2012) The role of native language in the teaching of the FL grammar

Desoyo (2021) Code-Switching as a Language Teaching Strategy Based on the

Grammar-Translation Method for Comprehension Enhancement

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and Translation, 7(1), 1

Doughty (2001) Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form In P Robinson (ed.)

Cognition and Second Language Instruction Cambridge: Cambridge

Franklin (1990) Teaching in the target language Language Learning Journal

Gaikwad (2013) explores how integrating a visual approach into grammar teaching can enhance writing instruction The study focuses on the writing development of first-year Chinese university students enrolled in a British university in China, highlighting the effectiveness of visual aids in improving grammar comprehension and overall writing skills.

Gardner-Chloros (2009) Code-switching Cambridge: Cambridge University

Grant & Nguyen (2017) Code-switching in Vietnamese university EFL teachers’ classroom instruction: A pedagogical focus Language Awareness, 26(3),

Hall & Cook (2012) Own-language use in language teaching and learning

Harmer (2007) The practice of English language teaching Pearson Longman

Hidayati (2012) Evaluating the role of L1 in teaching receptive skills and grammar in EFL classes Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2),

Hidayati (2012) Evaluating the role of L1 in teaching receptive skills and grammar in EFL classes Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2),

Cambridge University Press & Assessment (2023) About the Common European

Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) Cambridge https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-and-tests/cefr/

Hummel (2020) Introducing second language acquisition: Perspectives and practices John Wiley & Sons

Huynh (2018) English and Vietnamese code-switching as a medium of instruction in young learner classrooms at a language centre in Ho Chi

Minh City, Vietnam Master Dissertation, University of Huddersfield

Krashen (2003) Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use Portsmouth:

Lee (2010) Code switching in the teaching of English as a second language to secondary school students Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 6(1), 45

Lynch (2001) Seeing what they meant: transcribing as a route to practicing ELT

Macaro (2013) Overview: Where should we be going with classroom codeswitching research? Codeswitching in university English-medium classes, 10-23

McArthur (1996) The concise Oxford companion to the English language

Nabifar & Khalilzad (2017) The effect of code switching on the acquisition of object relative clauses by Iranian EFL learners Journal of Studies in

Navidinia, Khoshhal, & Mobaraki (2020) Exploring the effectiveness of using

L1 in teaching grammar to English as a foreign language learner AJELP:

Asian Journal of English Language and Pedagogy, 8(1), 31-40

Nguyen, Jang, & Yang (2010) English-Only Classrooms: Ideology versus

Reality AARE Annual Conference Melbourne: Australian Association for

Nguyen (2018) Teachers' code-switching in pre-intermediate EFL classrooms : a case study at University of science Vietnam National University - Ho Chi Minh city M.A : 60.14.10

Nguyen, & Duy (2019) An exploratory study on perspectives of Vietnamese experienced teachers and student teachers toward teachers’ code- switching Cambridge Open-Review Educational Research Journal, 6, 66-

Nguyen (2012) English-Vietnamese Code-Switching in Tertiary Educational

Context in Vietnam Asian Englishes, 15(2), 4-29

Nguyen (2017) A study on the effectiveness of teachers' code-switching in teaching reading comprehension to Ton Duc Thang University students

Richards, & Renandya (2002) Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice Cambridge university press

Richards & Schmidt (2013) Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics Routledge

Scott, & FUENTE (2008) What's the problem? L2 learners' use of the L1 during consciousness‐raising, form‐focused tasks The Modern language journal,

Stake (2000) Case studies In N K Denzin & Y S Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage

Swain and Lapkin (2000) Task-based second language learning: the uses of the

Tang (2002) Using L1 in the English classroom English Teaching Forum, 40

Ur (1996) A Course in Language Teaching 2nd edition Cambridge: Cambridge Willis (1996) A Framework for Task-Based Learning Harlow: Longman

1 Is there any regulation at your work place about using L1 in class? What do you think about this regulation on using English only in English language teaching classroom?

2 Do you agree that using 100% English when teaching grammar brings full benefits for Ss of all levels? Why?

3 What do you think can be the benefits of switching from English to Vietnamese in teaching grammar?

4 How often do you use L1 during grammar lessons? How much code-switching do you think is the most helpful?

5 When (which stage) do you think the first language could be used profitably in teaching grammar? How?

6 What level do you often use more Code-switching than other levels when you teach grammar? Why?

7 What grammatical structure do you think is difficult to teach without code-switching?

8 Which stage of the lesson do you find difficult to teach without code-switching? (presenting new grammar point, managing students’ practice, correcting Ss mistakes…)

9 What difficulties do you have when teachers have to balance code-switching with English-only policy from VUS language centers?

10 What techniques or strategies do you suggest in teaching grammar to solve the above difficulties?

11 What can you do to face the situation that your students make grammatical mistakes because of being influenced by L1?

12 How do you avoid using too much L1 when you teach grammar?

Tran Thi Kim Anh, an M.A TESOL student at the University of Social Sciences and Humanities, is conducting a survey to explore language center teachers' attitudes towards code-switching between English and Vietnamese in grammar instruction.

Participation in this survey is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw at any time All responses will be kept anonymous and used solely for research purposes Please select the answer that best represents your views for most questions, and provide a short answer for any additional suggestions Note that the survey focuses on teaching grammar For further information, feel free to contact me at the email address provided below.

Thank you for participating in this survey

What is your gender? Tick one

 Male  Female  Please not to say

What is your age group? Tick one

How many years of experience as an English language teacher do you have?

What is your highest relevant qualification to English Language Teaching? Select one

 Certificate (TESOL, CELTA, TEFL, TKT, etc)

Section 2: Teachers’ attitudes towards code-switching

Code-switching (CS) refers to the practice of incorporating words or phrases from one language while communicating in another This technique involves teachers integrating students' first language (L1) into the instruction of the target language (TL), enhancing understanding and engagement in the learning process.

1) Do you use Vietnamese to teach grammar for beginners?

If your answer to Question 1 is A, please answer question 2 to 4 If your answer to

Question 1 is B, please answer question 5

2) How much code-switching do you use in your beginning-level grammar class?

3) How much code-switching do you think is the most efficient in a beginning-level grammar class?

4) What are your main reasons for using BOTH English and Vietnamese when teaching grammar for beginners? You may tick more than one

☐ It makes students understand the context and concepts of English grammar more easily

☐ It helps students and teachers to create more active discussion than using English only

☐ It helps teachers to save time in explaining what he/ she is teaching

☐ It helps learners be aware of the possible mistakes

☐ It helps learners be aware of the similarities and differences between their native language and the target language

☐ It helps learners be more confident and better produce the target language

☐ If I use 100% English to teach grammar for beginners, students will be confused and demotivated

5) What are your main reasons for using ONLY ENGLISH when teaching grammar for beginners? You may tick more than one

☐It gives students more opportunity to be exposed to English

☐It allows students to understand the teaching without any mother tongue’s interference

☐It gives students more listening practice in English

☐It is very helpful to students in improving spoken English

☐It boosts students’ needs to learn a particular grammar structure

☐The use of code-switching will increase the students’ reliance and dependency on the teacher

For teaching ELEMENTARY&PRE-INTERMEDIATE learners

6) Do you use Vietnamese to teach grammar for students at elementary and pre-intermediate levels?

If your answer to Question 6 is A, please answer question 7 to 9 If your answer to

Question 6 is B, please answer question 10

7) How much code-switching do you use in your elementary-pre- intermediate grammar class?

8) How much code-switching do you think is the most efficient in an elementary-pre-intermediate grammar class?

9) What are your main reasons for using BOTH English and Vietnamese when teaching grammar for elementary and pre-intermediate learners? You may tick more than one

☐It makes students understand the context and concepts of English grammar more easily

☐It helps students and teachers to create more active discussion than using English only

☐ It helps teachers to save time in explaining what he/ she is teaching

☐ It helps learners be aware of the possible mistakes

☐ It helps learners be aware of the similarities and differences between their native language and the target language

☐ It helps learners be more confident and better produce the target language

10) What are your main reasons for using ONLY ENGLISH when teaching grammar for elementary and pre-intermediate students? You may tick more than one

☐It gives students more opportunity to be exposed to English

☐It allows students to understand the teaching without any mother tongue’s interference

☐It gives students more listening practice in English

☐It is very helpful to students in improving spoken English

☐It boosts students’ needs to learn a particular grammar structure

☐The use of code-switching will increase the students’ reliance and dependency on the teacher

For teaching INTERMEDIATE AND UPPER-INTERMEDIATE learners:

11) Do you use Vietnamese to teach grammar for students at intermediate and upper-intermediate levels?

If your answer to Question 11 is A, please answer question 12 to 14 If your answer to Question 11 is B, please answer question 15

12) How much code-switching do you use in your intermediate and upper-intermediate grammar class?

13) How much code-switching do you think is the most efficient in an intermediate and upper-intermediate grammar class?

14) What are your main reasons for using BOTH English and

Vietnamese when teaching grammar for students at intermediate and upper-intermediate level? You may tick more than one

☐ It makes students understand the context and concepts of sophisticated grammar points more easily

☐ It helps students and teachers to create more active discussion than using English only

☐ It helps teachers to save time in explaining what he/ she is teaching

☐ It helps learners be aware of the possible mistakes

☐ It helps learners be aware of the similarities and differences between their native language and the target language

☐ It helps learners be more confident and better produce the target language

15) What are your main reasons for using ONLY ENGLISH when teaching grammar for students at intermediate and upper- intermediate? You may tick more than one

☐It gives students more opportunity to be exposed to English

☐It allows students to understand the teaching without any mother tongue’s interference

☐It gives students more listening practice in English

☐It is very helpful to students in improving spoken English

☐It boosts students’ needs to learn a particular grammar structure

☐The use of code-switching will increase the students’ reliance and dependency on the teacher

16) Which pedagogical factors do you think influence the teachers’ decision of using code-switching in teaching grammar? You may tick more than one

☐ Students’ ability to understand difficult concepts in grammar rules

☐ Linguistic gap resulting from the difference between English and Vietnamese of the grammatical points

☐ Amount of lesson content teachers have to cover in the allotted time

☐ Importance of the teaching points

☐ Students’ feeling (bad mood, misunderstanding, confusion, etc.)

17) For each statement below, please tick on ONE option which best reflects your view Do not select more than one answer per row

1= Strongly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly agree

1 Code-switching should only be used as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted

2 The more English that is used, the better the results for the learners

Vietnamese use in teaching grammar, but I sometimes use Vietnamese more than I expected when my students have much trouble with

4 I can always control the amount of code-switching I intended to use when I teach grammar

18) The following statements indicate the situations in which teachers are likely to code-switch between English and Vietnamese For each statement below, please tick on ONE option which best reflects your view Do not select more than one answer per row

No In teaching grammar, I switch English to

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very often

3 correcting mistakes for the whole class

5 reviewing old grammar points before moving on the new grammar points

6 giving instruction for unfamiliar activities

19) What grammatical structure do you think are difficult to teach without code-switching?

20) How do you avoid using too much Vietnamese when you teach grammar? You may tick more than one

☐ Use visuals (draw timelines, animation, etc.)

☐ Make use of CCQs (Concept checking questions)

☐ Simplify my English for instruction

☐ Teach vocabulary which is necessary for speaking and writing practice in the production stage so that I don’t need to use L1 for individual support

☐ Create sentences that link to my students’ character and interest as examples to introduce grammar points

21) What do you suggest to use code-switching efficiently to teach grammar? You may tick more than one

☐ Find out learners’ needs in each class to decide the appropriate amount of code-switching

☐ Modify and adapt the text book’s tasks to fit learners’ level in order to avoid relying much on Vietnamese