T. C. BURSA ULUDAG UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING PROGRAMME STUDENT CODE SWITCHING IN A PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL IN TURKEY: A CASE STUDY ON STUDENTS’ AND TEACHERS’ BELIEFS MASTER’S THESIS Ayça EROL 0000-0001-6649-2907 BURSA 2022 T.C. BURSA ULUDAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ YABANCI DİLLER EĞİTİMİ ANABİLİM DALI İNGİLİZ DİLİ EĞİTİMİ BİLİM DALI ÖĞRENCİLERDE DİLLER ARASI GEÇİŞ: ÖĞRETMEN VE ÖĞRENCİ İNANÇLARI ÜZERİNE BİR DURUM ÇALIŞMASI YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ Ayça EROL 0000-0001-6649-2907 Danışman Prof. Dr. Ayşegül Amanda YEŞİLBURSA BURSA 2022 BİLİMSEL ETİĞE UYGUNLUK Bu çalışmadaki tüm bilgilerin akademik ve etik kurallara uygun bir şekilde elde edildiğini beyan ederim. Ayça EROL 20 / 01 /2022 ı EĞİTİM BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ YÜKSEK LİSANS BENZERLİK YAZILIM RAPORU BURSA ULUDAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ EĞİTİM BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ YABANCI DİLLER EĞİTİMİ ANABİLİM DALI BAŞKANLIĞI’ NA Tarih: 20.01.2022 Tez Başlığı / Konusu: Öğrencilerde diller arası geçiş: Öğretmen ve öğrenci inançları üzerine bir durum çalışması Yukarıda başlığı gösterilen tez çalışmamın a) Kapak sayfası, b) Giriş, c) Ana bölümler ve d) Sonuç kısımlarından oluşan toplam sayfalık kısmına ilişkin, 20.01.2022 tarihinde şahsım tarafından (Turnitin)* adlı intihal tespit programından aşağıda belirtilen filtrelemeler uygulanarak alınmış olan özgünlük raporuna göre, tezimin benzerlik oranı 18’dir. Uygulanan filtrelemeler: 1- Kaynakça hariç 2- Alıntılar hariç 3- 5 kelimeden daha az örtüşme içeren metin kısımları hariç Uludağ Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Tez Çalışması Özgünlük Raporu Alınması ve Kullanılması Uygulama Esasları’nı inceledim ve bu Uygulama Esasları’nda belirtilen azami benzerlik oranlarına göre tez çalışmamın herhangi bir intihal içermediğini; aksinin tespit edileceği muhtemel durumda doğabilecek her türlü hukuki sorumluluğu kabul ettiğimi ve yukarıda vermiş olduğum bilgilerin doğru olduğunu beyan ederim. Gereğini saygılarımla arz ederim. Adı Soyadı: Ayça EROL Öğrenci no: 801410013 20.01.2022 Anabilim Dalı: Yabancı Diller Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı Programı: İngilizce Öğretmenliği Programı Statüsü: Yüksek Lisans Prof. Dr. Ayşegül Amanda Yeşilbur sa ıı YÖNERGEYE UYGUNLUK ONAYI “Öğrencilerde diller arası geçiş: Öğretmen ve öğrenci inançları üzerine bir durum çalışması” adlı Yüksek Lisans tezi, Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü tez yazım kurallarına uygun olarak hazırlanmıştır. Tezi Hazırlayan Danışman Ayça EROL Prof. Dr. Ayşegül Amanda Yeşilbursa Yabancı Diller Eğitim ABD Başkanı Prof. Dr. Zubeyde Sinem Genç ııı ıv ÖZET Yazar : Ayça EROL Üniversite : Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Ana Bilim Dalı : Yabancı Diller Eğitimi Ana Bilim Dalı Bilim Dalı : : İngiliz Dili Eğitimi Bilim Dalı Tezin Niteliği : Yüksek Lisans Tezi Sayfa Sayısi : xv + 111 Mezuniyet Tarihi : Tez : Öğrencilerde diller arası geçiş: Öğretmen ve öğrenci inançları üzerine bir durum çalışması. Danışmanı : Pr of. Dr. Ayşegül Amanda YEŞİLBURSA ÖĞRENCİLERDE DİLLER ARASI GEÇİŞ: ÖĞRETMEN VE ÖĞRENCİ İNANÇLARI ÜSTÜNE BİR DURUM ÇALIŞMASI. Bu durum çalışmasında, Türkiye’deki bir özel lisedeki öğrencilerin diller arası geçiş sebeplerinin ve fonksiyonlarının öğrencilere uygulanan bir anket ve hem öğretmen hem de öğrencilerle gerçekleştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelerin analiz edilerek bulunması amaçlanmıştır. Othman’ın (2015) Machaal (2012) ve Al-Nofaie (2010) araştırmalarından geliştirmiş olduğu ve Appel ve Muysken’in (2006) diller arası geçiş fonksiyonları modeline göre organize edilmiş diller arası geçiş anketi aracılığıyla toplanan nicel veriler ANOVA ile analiz edilmiş, 12 öğrenci ve 4 öğretmen ile gerçekleştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler söylem analizi yöntemiyle değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırmaya, Avrupa Dilleri Ortak Çerçeve Programına göre A1, A2, B1 ve B2 seviyelerindeki 217 adet 9, 10 ve11. sınıf öğrencileri katılmıştır. Kendilerine uygulanan anket sonrasında, farklı seviyelerden rastgele seçilmiş 12 öğrenci ile ve araştırmanın yapıldığı okulda çalışmakta olan 4 İngilizce öğretmeni ile gerçekleştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelerin tamamı yazıya dökülmüş ve içerik analizi yapılmıştır. Bu karma yöntem çalışması kullanılan araştırmada öğrencilerin diller arası geçiş sıklığı ve cinsiyetleri, yaşları, dil yeterlilik seviyeleri, dil öğrenim eğitim geçmişleri, yurtdışında bulunmuş ya da yaşamış olmaları arasında bir bağlantı olup olmadığı bulunması amaçlanmıştır. v Yapılan çalışmanın nicel sonuçları öğrencilerin, İngilizce derslerinde zor konuları açıklamak, yanlış anlamaları önlemek, uygun İngilizce bir karşılık bulamamak, kendini açıkça ifade etmek ve Türkçe (anadilde) tartışılması daha uygun olan konuları tartışmak gibi çeşitli sebeplerle diller arası geçiş yaptığını göstermiştir. Yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme sonuçlarına göre öğrencilerin diller arası geçiş yapma nedenleri kelime yetersizliği, kendini açıkça ifade etmek, duygularını ifade etmek, aktiviteleri daha kolay yapmak ve şakalaşmak, öğretmenlere göre öğrencilerin diller arası geçiş yapma nedenleri ise kelime yetersizliği, kendini açıkça ifade etmek, stresi azaltmak, şakalaşmak, kişisel meseleleri konuşmak, dikkat çekmek ve aktiviteleri kolayca yapmak olarak bulunmuştur. Öğrencilerin diller arası geçiş yapma sıklığı ile bulundukları sınıf seviyesi, yurtdışında yaşamış olmak ve dil öğrenim geçmişleri arasında korelasyon bulunmamışken, öğrencilerin dil yeterlilik seviyeleri, yaşı ve yurtdışında bulunmuş olma tecrübesi arasında pozitif korelasyon bulunmuştur. Anahtar kelimeler: Diller arası geçiş, diller arası geçiş nedenleri, diller arası geçiş fonksiyonları, ana dil kullanımı. vı ABSTRACT Author : Ayça EROL University : Bursa Uludağ University Field : Foreign Languages Education Branch : English Language Teaching Degree Awarded : Master’s Degree Page Number : xv + 111 Degree Date : Thesis : Student code switching and students’ and teachers’ beliefs in a private high school in Turkey: A case study Supervisor : Prof. Dr Ayşegül Amanda YEŞİLBURSA STUDENT CODE SWITCHING AND STUDENT AND TEACHER BELIEFS IN A PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL IN TURKEY: A CASE STUDY. This case study study aimed to investigate the reasons and the functions of student code switching and both according to teachers and students in a private high school in Turkey through the analysis of a questionnaire applied to students and interviews with both students and teachers. While the quantitative data was collected through Othman’s (2015) questionnaire which was adopted from Machaal's (2012) “investigation on the functions of code switching”, and Al-Nofaie's (2010) research on “the role of students' first language in class” and ordered following Appel & Muysken's (2006) model for functions of code switching according to the answers from students and analysed by ANOVA descriptive statistics, the qualitative data was obtained via semi-structured interviews, which were conducted by 4 teachers and 12 students and analysed by conversation analysis. 217 students participated in the study from 9th,10th and 11th grades from the predetermined levels according to the CEFR as A1, A2, B1 and B2. Following the questionnaire, 12 students from different proficiency levels and 4 teachers, who were currently teaching at the private high school where the study was conducted, were interviewed. All interviews were transcribed. Using a mixed method design, the study also aimed to reveal if there are any significant differences between the frequency of code switching and the learners’ gender, age, proficiency level, previous EFL learning experience (studying at a middle or high school before), having been and living abroad. The quantitative results of the study showed that students code switch for several reasons such as; explaining difficult concepts, to avoid misunderstanding, not being able to vıı find the English (L2) equivalent, expressing oneself clearly and to discuss certain topics that can be more appropriate to discuss in Turkish (L1). Analysing the results gained from the qualitative findings, which were obtained from semi structured interviews, for the reasons of student code switching were found to be limited vocabulary, expressing oneself clearly, expressing emotions, carrying out tasks easily and to crack jokes. The findings of the semi structured teacher interviews revealed that the main reasons for student code switching according to teachers are; limited vocabulary, expressing oneself clearly, decreasing anxiety, cracking jokes, to discuss personal issues, to attract attention and to carry out tasks easily. No correlation was found between the frequency of student code switching and the learners’ grade, living abroad and previous EFL learning experience, while positive correlation between the learners’ proficiency levels, age and experience of being abroad. Key words: code switching,CS, code switching functions, code switching reasons, L1 use. vııı ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr. Ayşegül Amanda YEŞİLBURSA for her never-ending belief in me, even when I thought that I would not be able to complete this thesis. Without her saying “You can do it” I would never have the strength to continue. Thank you for all your time, positive attitude and encouragement. Besides, I owe a big thanks to all the students and teachers who took time to participate in this study. Your great contributions are highly appreciated. I also would like to thank my dearest friends and colleagues Madina Hüseyinoğlu and İsmail Türk who have supported and helped me during the writing process of this very master’s thesis. I wouldn’t have been able to complete my thesis without their help. I would like to thank “the you can do it team” Güngör Türk, Günseli Saygı, Merve Yılmazer, Şengül Ateş and Banu Şenel and “team London” Ceyda Kovancı, Müge Koçak and Çiğdem Purkiss for their greatest support any time of the day. Thank you all, ladies. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my dear friend Sibel Akyıldız, my sister from another mother, for being the most supportive and inspiring person ever, especially when it comes to writing a thesis. I would also like to thank my whole family for all their support and patience. Thank you so much guys for taking care of me. And my biggest thanks is to my students that I have had the chance to teach so far. Thank you all for being there and being my life savers, thank you for everything you have taught me so far. Finally, I dedicate this thesis to my dearest student Ayça Azak, who I am sure is still finding reasons to be happy up there in the skies somewhere and keeps on smiling. Wish you were here my beautiful namesake. Ayca EROL ıx TABLE OF CONTENTS ÖZET ........................................................................................................................................ v ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................vıı ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .....................................................................................................ıx TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................................................x LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. xııı LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ xv CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background of the Study................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Purpose of the Study...................................................................................................... 6 1.3. Research Questions........................................................................................................ 7 1.4. Significance of the Study............................................................................................... 7 1.5. Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 2.........................................................................................................................10 Literature Review.................................................................................................................10 2.1. Introduction...................................................................................................................10 2.2. What is code switching?................................................................................................10 2.3. Functions of Code Switching...................................................................................... 12 2.4. Reasons for code switching ....................................................................................... 14 2.5. Types of code switching.............................................................................................. 16 2.6. Code switching and EFL............................................................................................. 18 2.6.1. International Studies on CS ................................................................................. 20 2.6.2. CS studies in Turkey ............................................................................................ 21 x 2.7. Conclusion................................................................................................................... 25 CHAPTER 3 ........................................................................................................................... 26 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 26 3.1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 26 3.2. Research design........................................................................................................... 26 3.3. Research setting........................................................................................................... 26 3.4. Participants.................................................................................................................. 27 3.5. Research instruments................................................................................................... 31 3.5.2. Interviews ............................................................................................................. 33 3.6. Data collection............................................................................................................ 34 3.7. Data analysis............................................................................................................... 35 3.8. Conclusion................................................................................................................... 35 CHAPTER 4 ........................................................................................................................... 36 Results .................................................................................................................................... 36 4.1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 36 4.2. Quantitative Results .................................................................................................. 36 4.2.1. Detailed descriptive analysis of all items ............................................................. 40 4.2.2. Detailed descriptive analysis of CS according to functions ................................. 49 4.3. Qualitative results........................................................................................................ 58 4.3.1 Findings from Interviews with teachers ................................................................ 59 4.3.2. Findings from interviews with students ............................................................... 69 4.4. Conclusion................................................................................................................... 80 xı CHAPTER 5 ........................................................................................................................... 81 Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 81 5.1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 81 5.2. Discussion on CS according to students..................................................................... 81 5.3. Discussion on CS according to teachers......................................................................84 5.4. Student code switching frequency according to.......................................................... 86 5.5. Conclusion................................................................................................................... 89 CHAPTER 6 ........................................................................................................................... 90 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 90 6.1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 90 6.2. Limitations of the study............................................................................................... 90 6.3. Implications for teaching............................................................................................ 91 6.4. Directions for further research.................................................................................... 92 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 102 ÖZGEÇMİŞ………………………………………………………………………………...111 xıı LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Demographic information of the student participants........................…..……...……28 2. Demographic information of the teacher interviewees...............................................29 3. Demographic information of the student interviewees...............................................30 4. Participant students’ proficiency levels according to CEFR Participant’s English specifications…….......................................................................................................30 5. Student Participants’ English specifications..............................................................37 6. Results of the data collection tool regarding normal distribution assumptions..........38 7. Descriptive Statistics of all items and total………………………………..……..….39 8. Item 1: To discuss personal issues………………….……………………...….……40 9. Item 2: To avoid misunderstanding………………….……………………....……..40 10. Item 3: To make others understand what I mean…………….……………………..41 11. Item 4: To attract attention………………….…………………………....…….…...41 12. Item 5: To quote something said by others……….………………………………....42 13. Item 6: To express loyalty to my culture……….…………………………….……..42 14. Item 7: To create a sense of belonging……….…………………………..……...….42 15. Item 8: To persuade others……….…………………………………....………...….43 16. Item 9: To discuss certain topics which can be more appropriate to discuss in Turkish.........................................................................................................................43 17. Item: 10 To make the lesson more enjoyable………......……………....………..…..44 18. Item: 11. To crack jokes…….……………………………………………...........….44 19. Item: 12. To express myself easily………………………………………............….45 20. Item: 13. To express personal emotions (anger, sadness, happiness, etc...) …..….…45 21. Item: 14. Because I feel comfortable in using more than one language when speaking.......................................................................................................................46 22. Item: 15. Because it helps explain difficult concepts……................………………..46 23. Item: 16. Because it helps make learning English easier……….....................……..46 24. Item: 17. Because it helps carry out tasks easily……....………...…………......…..47 25. Item: 18. Because it decreases my anxiety when speaking…...………………........47 xııı 26. Item: 19. Because it is hard to find proper English equivalents...…………...…......48 27. Item: 20. Because there are no similar words in English……......……………….....48 28. Item: 21. Because I think sometimes in Turkish…………...…......……......…..…....48 29. Item: 22. For habitual expressions…………...…......….....…...……………...…....49 30. Poetic Function Items…………....…………...…......…….........……………...…....50 31. Directive Function Items………....…………...…......…………….…………...…....50 32. Referential Function Items……....…………...…......…………………............….....51 33. Expressive Function Items……....…………...…......…………..………...…...….....53 34. CS according to gender……....…………...…......…………….....………...…..........54 35. ANOVA results of students' code-switching scores according to age…………..…..55 36. Multiple comparison between groups for code switching scores according to students' ages..............................................................................................................................55 37. ANOVA results of students' code-switching scores according to grade…….……....56 38. ANOVA results of students' code-switching scores according to English Level.......56 39. Multiple comparison between groups for code switching scores according to English Level............................................................................................................................57 40. Code switching according to previous EFL learning experience................................57 41. Code switching according to having been abroad.......................................................57 42. Code switching according to living abroad.................................................................58 43. Teachers’ beliefs on student CS..................................................................................62 44. Functions of student CS according to the data gained through teacher interviews....63 45. Student participants’ beliefs on CS………………………………………………….71 46. Functions of student CS according to the data gained through student interviews….72 47. Qualitative and quantitative results……………………………………………….…79 48. Findings from both teacher and student interviews……………………..………...…79 xıv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CEFR: Common European Framework CS: Code switching EFL: English as a Foreign Language ELT: English Language Teaching L1: First language L2: Second language MoNE: Ministry of National Education TL: Target Language xv 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction This chapter consists of four sections. The first part provides information on the background of the study. The second section explains the purpose of the study. The following section presents the research questions and the last section concludes the introduction chapter with the significance of the study. 1.1 Background of the Study There are approximately 360 million native English speakers and more than 430 million people speaking it as a second language which makes English one of the topmost spoken languages in the world (Klappenbach, 2019). English has been used as one of the leading languages in many business sectors. Statistically, English-speaking countries lead in the global economy (Zamora, 2020). As a result of this, the need and the use of English has increased. In Turkey, an OECD member, the situation is no different. Being a fluent speaker of this language is considered as one of the most necessary qualifications in most business scopes. “In addition to bringing high status to the individual in social terms, foreign language proficiency plays an important role in extending job opportunities for individuals” (Üstünel, 2016, p.6). That might be one of the main reasons why English is considered as one of the main subjects at all grades of school life in Turkey, which is a country where English is taught as a foreign language. Starting from primary school and even from kindergarten, especially at private schools, English is the foreign language scheduled in the curriculum by the Ministry of National Education all over the country. Starting from 2nd grade with a minimum of two hours a week, the English lesson hours gradually increase up to 4 hours in governmental schools. English is a compulsory lesson as a foreign language for 2nd, 3rd and 4th grades two hours a week, for the 5th and 6th grades three hours a week and for the 7th and 8th grades, 2 four hours a week in state schools (Karanfil, 2019). According to the information provided by MoNE foreign languages curriculum for foreign languages, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th grades’ the curriculums are designed based on four hours of English lessons weekly (MoNe, 2012). Yet, the weekly hour numbers vary at private schools, which are usually more than the hours in state schools. Karanfil (2019) stated that in private schools these numbers doubled or tripled. The phenomenon of code switching, CS hereafter, has mostly been related to the weakness or the inadequacy of proficiency or lack of information, sometimes by the school managements, foreign language departments, some of the teachers and the students. “English language teachers who teach in monolingual environments have for a very long time been concerned about reducing or even abolishing student use of the mother tongue in the language classroom” (Eldridge, 1996, p.303). As Macaro (2005) states the issue of CS is debated as it reminds grammar translation method to educators and the ones who are conducting researches. However, the use and the amount of CS has been decided by the school managements of the foreign languages departments, yet CS referred as “contentious” by Macaro (2015) because of the fact that some national agencies try to control what is being done by teachers in the classrooms. He continued “As, unfortunately, teacher autonomy in the past has not been shored up by strong research evidence, people in power have tried to impose certain methodologies regardless of the lack of evidence for their propagation” (p.66). With the light of these statements, it can clearly be understood that teachers should have the right to be autonymus, which is directly related to CS in ESL classrooms, because when teachers are under pressure in their working places whether to use L1 and L2 in the same classroom by CS, it might have an impact in their teaching and it would affect the students inevitably. Naturally, what is expected from a teacher by the administrations would be using a balanced amount of L1 and L2 so as to avoid over use of CS in classrooms. 3 Looking through the literature, it can be seen that in Turkish EFL environments CS is applied both by teachers and students (Çakmak, 2020; Demirci, 2014; Eldridge, 1996; Horasan, 2013; Karaca, 2019; Moran, 2009; Yatağanbaba, 2014). For example, Bilgin (2015) worked with five student teachers to investigate their way of thinking in relation to CS in their classrooms by video recording their classes and interviewing them on their beliefs in CS, which were followed by stimulated recall interviews. Using thematic analysis, the revealed findings were that “code switching is more than merely a linguistic matter; it is also indicative of a number of other dimensions including how teachers define themselves professionally, teacher beliefs, teacher identity, affective factors influencing teachers, and their relationships with supervisors” (p.xii). Another study conducted in Turkish EFL context on functions of student CS was by Kavak (2016). She observed classes of a private language course for adults for two months. Through observations, questionnaires and audio recordings it was revealed that CS was not always connected to learners’ ability levels, but it was used for communicative functions in the classroom. CS is observed on situational or contextual basis, and it is a concept that needs to be analysed from both teachers’ and learners’ perspectives separately and with its various reasons. Additionally, it should be kept in mind that CS is quite a multidimensional term, and should be studied from various aspects such as; teachers, students, and their beliefs etc... as well as CS functions and reasons. There are many studies on CS in the literature around the world on CS (e.g., Atkinson, 1993; Burden, 2011; Cole 1998; Macaro, 1997 & 2001; Shay, 2015; Weschler, 1997; Willis & Willis, 2007) and Turkey (e.g., Eldridge, 1996; Horasan 2013; Karataş, 2016; Sert, 2005; Tanrıseven, 2020; Ustunel, 2004; Yatağanbaba, 2014) . While some researchers analysed the issue only from the teachers’ perspectives (e.g., Duff & Polio, 1990; Yıltanlılar & Caganaga, 2015; İnan, 2016) others investigated the L1 use in the 4 classroom from the students’ perspectives (e.g., Galalı, 2017; Kharma & Hajjaj, 1989; Marwa, 2014; Sönmez, 2020; Swain & Lapkin, 2000). Macaro in a case study, with six student teachers in secondary school level (Macaro, 2001) , investigated the use of L1, which was English, aimed to analyse the amount of L1 usage of teachers and comparatively low levels of L1 use by the student teachers were revealed. Additionally, it was found out that the amount of teacher students’ L1 use did not affect the quantity of learners’ use of L1 or L2, which was French. Another study by Macaro (2020), in which the TL was Spanish, was conducted through an extensive survey that revealed that greater use of L1 was reported by teachers in England than the teachers in Spain. He explained that contextual factors such as the national policies and the social value of the target language being learned helps explaining the differences in teachers’ practices. Salı (2014), conducted a study in Turkish EFL context on “how Turkish teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) use the first language (L1) in their classrooms” to examine the functions of L1 in three EFL classrooms in a secondary school through audio- recorded observations and semi-structured interviews. The three major functions of teachers' use of L1 were stated as academic, managerial and social/cultural. Another example of relevant studies from the literature on student CS was carried out in Portugese context by Amorim (2021). He investigated CS in student-to-student interaction to illustrate how students CS from L2 to L1 especially while working together in group work etc. He stated that either consciously or unconsciously, CS helps students “perform different pragmatic functions” in the task being carried out. Sönmez (2020) studied the relationship between CS beliefs of university preparatory students and anxiety in Turkish EFL context. Using a quantitative data collecting model, she conducted her research on participants from two separate private universities from three proficiency levels. Analysing the data, one of the findings revealed that student CS and anxiety were related. 5 To my knowledge, the current study is one of the few studies that has been conducted in a private high school in Turkey. It adopts a mixed method approach that not only presents quantitative data but also qualitative data gathered by means of semi structured interviews to support the previous one. The semi structured interviews were applied to both students and teachers to have a broader perspective of their beliefs and the preferred functions of CS. Even though many studies focused on both teacher and student CS, it can be seen that researchers have focused more on the teachers’ CS use and its aspects. As the amount of CS has been determined by the teachers’ attitudes rather than the students’, it is still the teacher who sets the limits to balance the use of L1 in classrooms. The probability of why it has been searched in depth has been explained by Boztepe (2009) “Classroom interaction has long been narrowly defined from the perspective of teacher talk only. In the same vein, studies of CS in the classroom have for years focused almost exclusively on teachers' use of alternation” (p.11). Salı (2014) stated that it could be useful in terms of “comparing student and teacher use” of L1 to focus on L1 learners' views on L1 use. Yet, still a great number of research has been made aiming to investigate CS from the learner perspective. In the literature, it can be seen that both teachers and students apply CS in their learning environment with different purposes. Hence, there is the need to find out the reasons behind L1 usage and its amount in EFL classrooms so that teachers and the educational institutions can look for ways to benefit from it. Many researchers have come to the conclusion that use of L1 is beneficial for various reasons in language learning (Canagarajah,1995; Eldridge, 1996; Ferguson, 2009; Harbord, 1992; Macaro, 2001; Martin, 2005; Nation, 2003; Sert, 2005; Skiba, 1997; Turnbull, 2000). 6 Zulfikar (2018) stated that “Using L1 in the classroom does not hinder learning, and that L1 has a facilitating role to play in the classroom and can help L2 learning and acquisition” (p.43). Similarly, Mehdi and Münevver (2011) revealed in their study that “first language is one of the useful resources that students bring to the L2 classroom and can be used in a judicious fashion”. Another researcher claiming L1 use in EFL classrooms is Macaro (2020). He stated that while learning L2, L1 might contribute to the process of learning. Even though CS studies in Turkish EFLcontext have increased in number, there is still the need for further research at high school level. More studies have been suggested by Ustünel (2004) thus the present study has been designated to find out high school students’ CS beliefs and functions, and to reveal whether it can contribute to EFL classrooms and L2 learning process. The research aspires to find out if high school students and teachers can benefit from the findings on the amount of CS and the reasons why it is used. In order to reveal relevant findings 221 students will be asked to complete a questionnaire on the functions of CS, which will be followed by semi-structured interviews with four teachers and twelve students to elicit their beliefs and reasons for CS. As mentioned earlier, this study will provide analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data collected to gather information on various aspects of CS in the EFL context, such as functions of student CS and its correlation to age, gender, grade, proficiency level, previous EFL learning experience, having been and living abroad as well as student and teacher beliefs on CS. 1.2. Purpose of the Study The use of L1 in EFL classrooms plays a crucial role in EFL context. Thus, finding out why the members of the EFL classroom switch to L1 is of great importance in terms of maintaining valuable learning. The purpose of the study is to analyse the reasons for student CS from English to Turkish in EFL classes in a private high school from the students' and teachers’ perspectives. It will also reveal if there is a relationship between CS frequency and 7 the students' gender, age, proficiency level, previous EFL learning experience, having been and living abroad. Also, the study aims to investigate whether teachers' beliefs on the reasons and functions of student CS correspond with the data collected from the students through a questionnaire and fill the gap in the literature studies on CS in Turkish ELT context, specifically in high school level. Due to the scarcity of research on CS at private high schools, this study is also aiming to enable teachers, students and school managements to make use of CS in EFL classrooms. 1.3. Research Questions This study will aim to reveal answers to the following research questions. 1. What are the reasons for CS for students? 2. What are the reasons for students' CS according to teachers? 3. Are there any significant differences between the frequency of student CS according to their a. gender? b. age? c. grade? d. proficiency level? e. previous EFL learning experience (studying at private or governmental middle schools)? f. having been abroad? g. living abroad? 1.4. Significance of the Study Even though in the last decades, several studies have been conducted on CS, both in Turkey and all around the world, there is still a lot to investigate, especially at high school level in Turkish EFL context, as the studies conducted in Turkey have mostly been conducted 8 at universities until now (e.g., Ataş, 2020; Çakmak, 2020; Horasan, 2013; Kavak, 2016; Sönmez, 2020; Şahin, 2019; Moran, 2009). Therefore, there seems to be a gap in the literature in terms of high school EFL students’ CS. One of the significant aspects of this study is that even though there has been an increase in CS research in Turkey, no other studies to my knowledge in the private high school EFL classroom concept in Turkey have been conducted. By investigating the functions of student CS, the current study will aim to answer why high school students who participated in this case study CS in EFL classrooms and if their gender, age, grade, proficiency levels, previous EFL learning experience and having been or living abroad are related to their CS frequency. Moreover, the present study will seek answers for student CS from teachers’ perspectives by supporting the findings by semi structured interviews. The data gathered through student questionnaires in this study has been strengthened by semi-structured interviews which were carried out both by students and teachers, with the aim of providing an in-depth understanding of student CS reasons, their attitudes towards CS and students’ beliefs on CS. Using both quantitative and qualitative data collecting methods, this study will compare the answers got from teachers and the students, to find out if teacher and student beliefs on CS match. In addition to the previous significance, this study will contribute to the views in its setting, which is a private high school in Bursa, and other private high school settings on high school students’ CS functions and beliefs, which can contribute to the awareness of CS in high school EFL classrooms. Furthermore, being the first study carried out, the current study will be the first one to have been conducted at that private high school in Bursa, which hopefully contributes to L1 use of both students and teacher participants of the study and provides them insight. 9 Another significance of the study is investigating when to or whether to apply CS in EFL classrooms in the light of data collected both from teachers and students with the intention of contributing to the literature. This study will implement an analysis of student CS from the aspect of functions, and what is more, beliefs of both teachers and students on it. 1.5. Conclusion This chapter presented some background information about CS with references to the relevant literature. Then, the purpose of the study was presented, which was followed by the research questions of the present study. Following the research questions, the significance of the study was explained. In the following chapter, the literature review is presented. 10 CHAPTER 2 Literature Review 2.1. Introduction This chapter consists of five main sections. The first section provides some historical information about CS and its definitions. The second section gives information about the place of CS in the EFL context. The third section provides detailed information about functions of CS, which is followed by the fourth section where information about the types of CS is presented. The fifth section is on the reasons for CS. 2.2. What is code switching? Although CS has been a hotly debated topic in sociolinguistics for over four decades, it is only relatively recent that it has attracted the attention of researchers in the field of language teaching and learning (e.g., Eldridge, 1996; Macaro, 2005; Üstünel and Seedhouse, 2005). Hence, at this point it would be pertinent to present a definition of CS in general, and how it is defined within the specific context of language teaching. Before explaining the term CS, defining the term “code” is needed. Gardner and Chloros (2009) defined code as an umbrella term that includes the sub-dimensions of language. Wardaugh (2010) claims that a code can be defined as a system used for communication between two or more parties on any occasion. Bernstein (1971) stressed that in linguistic terms, one code is not superior to another. The term CS has been defined in numerous ways. One of the earliest definitions of CS was given by Hymes (1977), who defined CS as “the alternate use of two or more languages”. Another similar explanation has been made by Jingxia (2010) by referring to CS “as the shift from one language to another within a conversation or utterance.” According to Carter and Nunan, (2001) CS is a linguistic phenomenon in which “the speaker shifts from one language to another in the same discourse”. 11 There are more specific definitions of CS as it occurs between the teacher and the students, or student to student in the language classroom context. As Sert (2005) stated "In ELT classrooms, code switching comes into use either in the teachers’ or the students’ discourse" (p.1). However, it can be seen in the functions of CS that, sometimes it occurs undeliberately even though it is deliberate most of the time. Waris (2012) explains CS as; “Code switching is a widely observed phenomenon in multilingual and multicultural communities especially in foreign language teaching. In ELT classrooms, code switching comes into use either in the teachers’ or the students’ discourse” (124). Although Wardhaugh (1992) uses the word deliberate in his definition of code mixing which is usually confused with CS. However, CS does not only occur deliberately. There are many factors causing the speaker to code switch such as; the interlocutor, social role, domain, topic, venue, medium and type of interaction (Riehl, 2005). Bokamba (1989) explains the difference between CS and code mixing with his two separate definitions: “Code mixing is the embedding of different linguistic units such as affixes (bound morphemes), words (unbound morphemes), phrases and clauses from a cooperative activity where the participants, in order to in infer what is intended, must reconcile what they hear with what they understand.” He additionally states that “Code-switching is the mixing of words, phrases and sentences from two distinct grammatical (sub) systems across sentence boundaries within the same speech event” (p. 279).Whereas Lin (2013) states “Whether we refer to it as code mixing, switching or alternation, this “code-X'' terminology begs the question of whether language should, in the first place, be conceptualized as discrete “codes” with stable boundaries” (p.195). Looking through the literature on CS, there are many scientists who claim that CS and code mixing cannot be considered as the same term, whereas some others oppose. Horasan (2013), Muysken (2000), and Üstünel (2016) have all made separate 12 explanations for CS and code mixing. ” Appel & Muysken (1987) explained the confusion on CS which was referred as “being a grammarless mixture" by Time Magazine at the time might be stemming from the use of “the term mixing in scholarly discourse”.On the other hand, Üstunel (2004) stated that CS is also called by different names in the literature such as; code alteration, language mixing or language alternation. However, in this study, only the term “code switching” will be used for consistency. 2.3. Functions of Code Switching Similar to the definition of CS, many categorizations of its functions have been made by several scientists. As well as common categorizations, some scientists like Macaro and Hobbs categorized the functions of CS only from the teachers’ perspective. However, there are many sources in the literature, categorizing the functions of CS from the students’ perspectives. Bokamba (1989) explains CS as “the mixing of words, phrases and sentences from two distinct grammatical (sub)systems across sentence boundaries within the same speech event” (p. 278). Similarly, Myers-Scotton (2006), states that CS is the use of two language varieties in the same conversation and can occur between speakers, or between sentences in the same speaker’s turn, or within a sentence. Appel & Muysken’s (1987) categorization of functions of CS, which the questionnaire used in this study have been inspired from, is as follows, poetic functions, expressive functions, directive functions, referential functions, phatic functions and linguistic functions. Appel and Muysken (1987) did not specify the type of CS functions according to teachers or students. However, many researchers analysed the function of CS in that sense. From a distinctive point of view, Macaro (1997) lists the functions of CS after observing the teachers’ process of teaching for the teachers only as “to give instructions related to 13 activities, to translate and check comprehension to give individual comments to students,to give feedback, to maintain discipline”. It is believed that there are several functions of CS, some of which have been categorized by Huang (2008) as: “a linguistic gap, repeating the same patterns, tattle telling, translating, attracting attention, expressing emotions, avoiding punishment, turning to the L1 in the existence of native teachers”. Similar to Huang’s eight functions, Saville-Troike (1982) also put the functions of CS into eight categories which are; “softening or strengthening of a request or command intensification/elimination of ambiguity, humorous effect, direct quotation and repetition, ideological statement, lexical need, exclusion of other people within hearing, avoidance strategy, and repair strategy”. Even though some of the functions on these lists are similar to each other, some do not show any resemblance to each other. As mentioned, there are many researchers with different lists of the CS functions. With twelve different functions on his list Hobbs (2010) has the longest list of the CS functions. Hobbs categorized CS functions in mostly one-word phrases which makes it easier to understand: “Opening, warm-up, instructions, explanation, checking comprehension, translation, timekeeping, praise, elicitation, answering students’ questions and correction”. In contradistinction from Hobbs list, Flyman-Mattson and Burenhult (1999) categorized the functions of CS in only three ways: “Affective function, socializing and repetitive functions”. Reyes (2004) on the other hand, puts CS functions in two categories only as “situational CS and metaphorical CS”. Cook (2008), who is amongst the researchers who believes that CS in class is acceptable lists the CS functions as: reporting someone else’s speech, interjecting, highlighting particular information, switching to a topic more suitable for one language, changing the speaker’s role, qualifying the speech, singling out one person to direct speech at, ignorance of a form in one language (p. 176). 14 Twelve functions for teacher CS were concluded by Üstünel and Seedhouse (2005) as: “dealing with procedural trouble, dealing with classroom discipline, expressing social identity, giving an L1 equivalent, translating into the L1, dealing with a lack of response in the L2, providing a prompt for L2 use, eliciting an L1 translation, giving feedback, checking comprehension in the L2, providing meta-language information, and giving encouragement to participate”. Various researchers from both Turkey and around the world, have identified, analysed and listed the functions of CS from the students’ perspectives (e.g., Elridge, 1996; Sert, 2005; Iliana, 2004; Horasan, 2014; Prelovskaia, 2013). Elridge (1996) has been one of the few researchers that analysed functions of CS according to students. According to him, the functions of student CS can be grouped as; equivalence, floor-holding, reiteration, and conflict control. Sert (1998) explains equivalence as “equivalence functions as a defensive mechanism for students as it gives the student the opportunity to continue communication by bridging the gaps resulting from foreign language incompetence.” The following function is “Floor-holding”, which can be explained as the learner using L1, when he/she cannot come up with the right word to use at the time of speaking. ın other words, the learner uses the floor holding function when he/she cannot remember a word or cannot find the right structure to use. The third CS function of students is reiteration. Eldridge (1996) explains it as “messages are reinforced, emphasized, or clarified where the message has already been transmitted in one code, but not understood” (p.306). The last student CS function to be discussed is conflict control. Sert (1998) refers to CS as a strategy to help the student “transfer the intended meaning” (p.4). 2.4. Reasons for code switching To find out the reasons lying behind CS was one of the main aims of the present study. Going further deep in research, it was seen that two terms which are functions and reasons have been used by the researchers in the literature to explain why CS is used. While 15 some researchers used the term functions, others preferred to use reasons to mention the motives for CS. Reasons for CS have been categorized in numerous ways by many scientists in the literature. The functions and types of the two teachers’ use of CS for two proficiency levels has been explained by Greggio and Gloria Gil (2007) from both teachers’ and learners’ perspectives. They claimed that both pre intermediate and beginner group teachers use CS to facilitate and clarify grammatical structures, rules, words and expressions. Yet, a beginner group teacher uses CS to mark the beginning of a class and to get learners’ attention too. Findings from Greggio and Gil (2007) from the learners’ perspective provide data on pre intermediate and beginner student groups and their CS use. What was revealed in their study was both level students use CS to maintain the flow of the conversation, to ask for equivalents and grammatical rules. What was observed in pre intermediate group students was using CS to fill a linguistic gap. In the way Macaro (1997) listed the functions of CS only from the teachers’ perspective, Horasan (2014) categorized the reasons of CS based on teachers as: opening, warm-up, instructions, explanation, checking comprehension, translation, timekeeping, praise, elicitation, answering students’ questions, correction. Similar to the functions of CS, some researchers preferred to analyse the reasons of CS from teachers’ and the learner's perspectives separately, while many preferred to refer to the reasons of CS as a whole. Morris’ (1997) approach to CS reasons in EFL classrooms from both teachers’ perspectives is listed as cited by Bilgin (Bilgin, 2015, p.2). Reasons for teacher CS was stated by Morris in six items as: “1. Teachers’ limited ability to speak the language they teach. 2. Beliefs that students are incapable of understanding the target language given because of their limited proficiency level in that language. 16 3. Students’ low level of motivation. 4. Teachers’ difficulty managing the class with target language us 5. The intractability of certain teaching methods that privilege the use of mother tongue. 6. The profession’s traditional emphasis on reading and translation at the expense of teaching for the development of the ability to communicate”. The use of mother tongue in language classes has been debated for a while and it can be seen that the concept of using L1 in EFL classrooms is both a fragile and a contentious matter. What is more, the concept is multidimensional as the amount of it is crucial both for students and the teachers, while some oppose to the use of L1 in language classrooms entirely. “As the use of the mother tongue is a very delicate subject, the right time and place to use it seems to be rather complex” (Kafes, 2011, p.132). Many studies, as mentioned in the previous sections, in the literature aimed to find out if the use of L1 is acceptable in EFL classrooms or not. The ongoing debate on the L1 use in EFL classrooms formed the discussion on CS in EFL classrooms. Therefore, CS has been analysed through both from teachers and learners’ perspectives. Attitudes, perspectives, beliefs of CS users in EFL classrooms have been studied as well as CS functions. What was revealed after many studies on it, it was seen that CS exists in EFL classrooms and it has many functions, mostly beneficial. (Cole, 1998; Cook, 2001; Diaz, 2020; Ferguson, 2003; Horasan, 2014; Macaro, 2001,2005; Sert, 2005; Simasiku, Kasanda and Smit, 2015; Yletyinen, 2004). 2.5. Types of code switching Unlike CS definitions and functions, there are less classification lists on the types of CS. Bista’s and Poplack’s types of CS are distinctively the most recognized categorizations in the whole literature which show resemblance. Poplack (1980) classified CS in his study based on linguistic features as, "switching between sentences, switching in sentence and suffix and 17 exclamation switching". Poplack (1980), Bista (2010) and Hoffman (1991) all classified CS under three main categories, which are almost identical, which shows that there are three main types of CS in the literature. Bista (2010) explains inter-sentential, intra-sentential and extra-sentential / tag switching CS types as follows: Inter-Sentential CS: In inter-sentential CS, the language switch is done between two sentences. Inter- sentential CS can generally be observed in bilingual speakers’ contexts are the ones that this type of CS can mostly be seen. The speaker makes one sentence in the target language and the other one in their mother tongue. An example for inter sentential CS would be; You don’t study at all. Nasıl mezun olacaksın ki? (You don’t study at all. How will you even graduate?). Intra-Sentential CS: Intra- sentential CS on the other hand is usually done unconsciously at the time of speaking, and the speakers are usually not aware that they switch codes. For example: You cannot succeed in your exams, çünkü çalışmıyorsun (You cannot succeed in your exams, because you don’t study). Extra-Sentential CS or Tag Switching: Extra-Sentential or Tag Switching is usually performed by using just one word or phrase. And, it is a kind of Intra- sentential CS. For example: Yani what goes around, comes around (I mean what goes around, comes around). 18 2.6. Code switching and EFL Using L1 in English as a foreign language classes has been debated for a long time, however, it was not until the last few decades that the number of research conducted on the issue has increased. Salı (2014) states “The sustained debate as to the role of L1 in foreign language classrooms has sparked considerable research interest in the field of ELT” (p.309). The debate on the use of L1 in ELT, enabled the debates and research on CS in EFL context. For example, in his review of TESOL at 40 years, Canagarajah (2006) underlined that CS in the classroom necessitated careful thinking about “the appropriate corpus in acquisition planning in local communities” (p.22). Cook (2001), referred to CS as “a shift between languages in the middle of conversation when interlocutors knew these languages”. As many other issues in the literature, CS has been considered as a controversial one, as using L1 in L2 classrooms was even banned throughout the history of language teaching. Looking through the history of EFL, even though the use of L1 was encouraged when Grammar-Translation Method was on the rise, there has always been contradiction in the EFL methodology on the use of L1 in EFL classrooms. The Grammar Translation Method was followed by the Direct Method, which had some strong opinions as banning L1 in the classroom environment. After the Direct Method, there came the Audiolingual Method, which continued to emphasize the banning of L1 while learning the language. “Repetition and memorization” were some of the characteristics of the Audiolingual Method, as mentioned by Brooks (1964). The methods that argued on the benefits of the use of L1 on a limited amount in EFL classrooms were the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Task Based Method. Several studies have been made and several ideas have been quoted on L1 use in the classrooms through the EFL history. Not a final decision has been made, as the subject needs 19 to be studied by taking all the variables into consideration as the teachers’ and the students’ beliefs, perceptions, attitudes towards the issue, as well as the classroom environments and all of its variables. Macaro (2001) stated that “some national curricula appear to be quite assertive in their recommendations for use of the L1. Some advocate the total exclusion of the L1 on the grounds that it inhibits L2 acquisition and learning or that it communicates the wrong messages about the TL” (p. 532). After the adjustments and changes in the Turkish education system that were made by MoNE, the curriculum was designed included more English in the education system and it th was obligatory for all Turkish education institutions to teach English starting from the 4 grade. The new system also included “a communicative language approach” (Kırkgöz, 2005). Harbord (1992) states that L1 is a natural communication tool between teachers and students even though he strictly bans the use of L1 while explaining grammar. Even the classroom atmosphere and classroom interaction dynamics have an effect on the use of CS in a classroom both by teachers and the students. Atkinson (1993), who refers to CS as a “positive resource”, stated that L1 cusage can be beneficial if it is used in a balanced and appropriate way, however he also mentioned that it was hard to reach “the right balance or a perfect model” in L1 use. Cook (1991) stated that he believes that it is a good idea and a method to implement L1 into the activities used in second language learning classrooms. He even mentions a method that can be used in multilingual classrooms where the students code switch to learn each other’s languages. “Although it is not favoured by many educators, one should have at least an understanding of the functions of switching between the native language and the foreign language and its underlying reasons. This understanding will provide language teachers with a heightened awareness of its use in classroom discourse and will obviously lead to better 20 instruction by either eliminating it or dominating its use during the foreign language instruction" (Sert, 2005, p.1). As mentioned by Sert (2005), using CS in the classroom environment has and will have its pros and cons. Throughout the history of ELT, there have been times in the old days when the use of L1 in ELT classes was not approved, and also considered as inconvenient and disadvantageous. With the light of the research conducted and the changes in the methodology and approaches in English teaching, this shallow belief started to change. These days many researchers, for instance; Burden (2011), Dash and Tang (2002) and Scweers (1999) state that CS should be allowed whenever necessary with some learners in specific situations in order to enhance learning. Weschler (1997) and Willis (1981) are two examples of the researchers mentioning that the use of L1 can be beneficial in EFL classrooms. Weschler (1997) brings out that L1 can be used during brainstorming in warm-up periods of the EFL classes, while Willis (1981) claims we can take advantage of L1 on time efficiency. As Skiba (1997) comments, “code switching is not a language interference on the basis that it supplements speech. Where it is used due to an inability of expression, code switching provides continuity in speech rather than presenting an interference in language” (p.2). Similarly, Cole (1998) claims that avoiding the use L1 can cause “bizarre behavior” and learning a language is quite hard so it could be frustrating for the learners to be educated following the principles of direct method, which is target language only, whereas both students and teachers can save time by using L1 in the classroom. Teachers will find for themselves when L1 is genuinely needed and beneficial. “By regularly considering when and how to use L1, and the circumstances under which it will facilitate student learning without making it an onerous experience, teachers can provide a safe and stimulating environment for language learning” (Cole, 1998 ,p.12). 21 The fact that L1 has been used in EFL classrooms both by teachers and the students and will continue to be used cannot be denied, and throughout the history of CS it is obvious that as more research has been conducted, the ideas seem to be altering. By integrating L1 in EFL lessons and benefiting from it seems to be the growing belief, recognising usage balance and the reasons behind are crucial. Atkinson’s (1987) list of the necessary uses of CS is followed by some undesirable results as cited in Demirci (2014); “a. The teacher and/or the students begin to feel that they have not “really” understood any item of language until it has been translated. b. The teacher and/or the students may oversimplify to the point of using crude and inaccurate translation. c. Students speak to the teacher in their mother tongue when they are quite capable of expressing what they mean in the target language. d. Students fail to realize that during many activities in the classroom it is crucial that they use only English” (pp. 243-246). 2.6.1. International Studies on CS There is a considerable number of studies carried out on the topic of CS in the literature. What has been investigated on CS can be divided into three sections, the ones conducted on only students, only teachers and both. Through the literature there are examples of CS research on the amount, functions, perceptions, beliefs and lastly the attitudes towards it, some of which have only been carried out on students whereas some only on teachers, while some were aiming to analyse data on both teachers and students in the same study (Ahmad, 2009; Cole, 1998; Cook, 2001; Eldridge, 1996; Macaro, 2001; Sert, 2005; Stern, 1992; Skiba, 1997; Levine, 2011; 2014). There are several examples of CS studies around the world from the teachers’ perspectives. Macaro (1997) investigated the beliefs and attitudes of senior teachers in three 22 separate groups in Wales and found out that almost 50% of those newly graduated teachers would use L1 to give and clarify the classroom instructions and feedback, using questionnaires, semi structured interviews and classroom observations. Algarin-Ruiz (2014), conducted a study in the USA with the teachers of a K8 school to find out teachers' knowledge on CS and how they deal with it in the classroom. The results were that teachers used CS to improve learners’ language and whenever students needed assistance in vocabulary matters. Cancino and Diaz (2020) aimed to explore CS behaviours of EFL high school teachers in Chile and found out that L1 holds a significant place in EFL classrooms and it is used for various reasons. A similar study was carried out by Simasiku, Kasanda and Smit (2015) with twelve high school teachers in Namibia to find out if CS enhances students’ academic achievement. And the result revealed it definitely did. Other examples of studies conducted are handling the concept of CS from both teachers’ and students’ perspectives. (Al-Noifaie, 2010; Dykhanova, 2015; Fachriyah, 2017; Rathert, 2012). Zulfikar (2018), conducted his study in the Indonesian context. What was found out was that use of L1 in the classroom is beneficial both for students and teachers in terms of learning acquisition. There are also some studies that were conducted to find out information about student CS. Arenas-Iglesias (2016) conducted a study on “students’ opinions about the use of L1 in an intermediate level course” in Mexico using a mixed method design at a private university. Taking all the perspectives ( teachers’, students’ and both) into consideration, it can be seen through the literature there has been an increase in the number of studies on CS, as the interest in CS is arousing. 2.6.2. CS studies in Turkey A great deal of studies conducted in Turkey focused on the perceptions of CS (Uz, 2019; Karakaya, 2019), attitudes towards CS (Çakmak, 2020; Coşkun, 2006), functions of it 23 (Sert, 2005; Karaca, 2019, Kavak ,2016; Horasan, 2013; Ataş, 2012), beliefs on CS (Sönmez, 2020; Bilgin, 2015). However, there is a scarcity in studies conducted at private high schools. Therefore, this present research is aiming to fill this gap in the literature. Horasan (2013) conducted a case study to find out the amount of CS for both teachers and students, in terms of switch types, initiation patterns, and the discourse functions of code- switching, she also investigated the perceptions of the participants by using conversation analysis, classroom observations and interviews at a state university in Turkey, which revealed that CS is considered as a facilitator in class and students use it for equivalence, while teachers CS to check understanding. Ataş (2012), who conducted his study at a governmental university, and Yatağanbaba (2014), who conducted her study at secondary level, also listed giving equivalence as one of the reasons for student CS in their studies. Ataş (2012) studied the discourse functions of code-switching used by the students and the teachers in EFL classrooms in a Turkish university through classroom observations and video recordings. The findings of the study indicated: 1. “teachers and students use code-switching in the classes for educational and social reasons; 2. the most frequent form of code-switching was observed to be using discourse markers; and 3. there was not a significant difference in advanced and pre-intermediate levels in terms of the amounts and functions of code-switching”. Another researcher contributing to the literature by her study on investigating CS into the EFL young learner classroom was Yatağanbaba (2014). The findings revealed by her research were from both teachers and students’ perspectives stating both students and teacher code switched for various reasons such as announcing exam results, practicing vocabulary, greeting, and asking equivalence etc... 24 Othman (2015), whose questionnaire was used, by his permission (Appendix 1), in this very study to collect quantitative data, conducted a study for his master’s thesis at a private university in Cyprus with fifty students and nine instructors. He aimed to find out the reasons and functions of CS for both teachers and students using a mixed method design. The findings of the study were referential, expressive, directive, and poetic functions were the most commonly applied means of both teacher and student CS. Demirci (2014) is one of the few researchers who conducted her study in K8 level in Turkey. The aim of her study being to find out the perceptions towards L1 use in L2 classrooms and beliefs on CS. Apart from aiming to reveal the teachers’ and the students’ beliefs, she also collected data from the administration of the private school where the study was conducted.Using a mixed method design what she found was teachers used L1 to facilitate learning, students thought use of L1 in L2 classrooms had an important role and teachers’ and the school administration’s perceptions differed on CS. Seedhouse and Üstünel (2005) studied CS through classroom observation and found out by doing conversation analysis that students would CS for educational reasons in the classroom. As mentioned, even though there is not much research conducted at high school level in Turkey, Demirci (2014), has been one of the few researchers who conducted her research at K8 level. By applying questionnaires, classroom observations and interviews, both teachers’ and students’ perceptions and beliefs on CS were investigated and the indicated results were that teachers need CS to facilitate learning in the classroom and the use of the L1 had an important role in both learning and teaching. The use of L1 has been debated for along time, that might be ne of the reasons of the concept of CS has been arousing the interest of both teachers and researchers. Apart from the studies conducted on the use of L1 in language classrooms, CS itself has been being studied 25 recently,which is because the studies on it has started lightening up the path and made it necessary to reveal why and how or to what extend it can be useful. 2.7. Conclusion This chapter presented information about the theoretical background of CS, functions, reasons and types of it. Studies in the literature which have been conducted on CS have also been presented in this chapter. Even though there were numerous studies conducted on the reasons for student CS, studies conducted at high school levels were hard to find in the literature. In the next chapter an account into the methodological procedures in the study will be presented. 26 CHAPTER 3 Methodology 3.1. Introduction This chapter is dedicated to the methodological procedures followed in the current study. Research setting and research design, information about participant selection and research instruments are presented along with the description of data collection procedures and data analysis tools. 3.2. Research design The current study adopted a mixed method research methodology which used both quantitative and qualitative research designs. Specifically, it espoused a sequential QUAN-qual design (see, e.g., Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009) which enabled using qualitative data (i.e., semi-structured interviews) to provide deeper understanding of quantitative data (i.e., a survey). Tashakkori and Creswell (2007) explained that “For almost three decades, various scholars have discussed and debated the concepts, methods, and standards of quality for studies that utilize a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches” (p. 7). However, the mixed methodology concept is still growing. Preferring a mixed methodology design Dörnyei (2007) mentioned, mixed method research enables triangulation in terms of data collection instruments and therefore “has a unique potential to produce evidence for the validity of research outcomes through the convergence and corroboration of the findings” (p. 45). 3.3. Research setting This study took place at a private high school in Bursa, Turkey in the fall semester of 2020-2021 academic year, and it draws on data collected from a total of 16 classes, 217 students, from different English proficiency levels, which were two A1, seven A2, five B1 and two B2 level classes studying at a private high school in Turkey. The study is based on a student questionnaire (Appendix 2 in English and Appendix 3 in English) which was followed 27 by interviews with 4 teachers and 12 students (Appendix 4 semi structured student interview questions in English, Appendix 5 in Turkish, Appendix 6 semi structured teacher interview questions and Appendix 7 in Turkish) involved in the study at the same private high school. The purposes of this study were explained to the students and the teachers who took part in it. A mixed method approach was utilized in the present study. All the 9th and 10th grade students participating in this study are taught 7 hours of English in a week, 5 hours of which is the main course lesson and 2 of which are skills lessons. 11th grade students are taught 4 hours of English a week. The researcher acted as a participant and took part in the study both while applying student questionnaires and interviews. The researcher herself (T2) answered the teacher interview questions in a written way rather than oral. The researcher herself conducted all the interviews both with teachers and the students, which were all carried out using the Microsoft Teams programme and recorded. In this study, questionnaires are supported with interviews. For qualitative data collecting, a questionnaire was applied and to support the data gained, the quantitative data was collected through semi structured interviews. 3.4. Participants A total of 221 students and 4 teachers participated in this study. However, four of the students participants’ results were excluded from the total participant number. The reason for that was three of the student participants did not complete the questionnaire and one of them was an outlier.120 of the participants were females and 97 of them were males. As indiciated in Table 1, 59 of the participants were 14, 74 of them were 15, 71 of them were 16 and 13 of th them were 17 years old. The participant’s grades were another variable. 85 of them were 9 th th grade students, 63 of them 10 grade students and 69 of them were 11 grade students. The participant students’ proficiency levels was also asked to find out if it was a factor affecting their CS. 23 B1, 70 A2, 72 B1 and 52 B2 students took part in the study. 28 Table 1 Demographic information of the student participants Participant’s Demographics Groups F % Female 120 55.3 Gender Male 97 44.7 14 59 27.2 15 74 34.1 Age 16 71 32.7 17 13 6.0 9. Grade 85 39.2 10. Grade 63 29.0 Grade 11. Grade 69 31.8 B1 23 10.6 A2 70 32.3 English level B1 72 33.2 B2 52 24.0 Studied in private school 201 92.6 Yes before high school No 16 7.4 Total 217 100.0 Demographic information about the participants is given in Table 1. There were four English teachers participating in the study, who were all interviewed about their beliefs on student CS. All teachers who took part in this research were the teachers of at least two of each level of classes. The interviewed teachers of the study have all been teaching at private high schools with a minimum 3 years experience, with a total of 7-18 years of teaching experience. Besides teaching at high school level, previously they all taught at universities at prep departments between 3-6 years. All teachers interviewed were born and 29 raised in Turkey, except for one, T4. T4 was born and raised in Uzbekistan. Additionally, T4 is the only teacher amongst teachers who took part in the current study that has an MA degree, which is in ELT. T2, T3 and T4 all had been abroad and stayed abroad for 2-4 years. T1 was the only teacher with no foreign country experience and T2 was the only teacher with abroad teaching experience. All teachers except for T3, are graduates of ELT, however, T3 is a graduate of English literature department. Table 2 Demographic information of the teacher interviewees T1 T2 T3 T4 Experience 14 years 15 years 18 years 7 years Grades Taught University and University and University and University and high school high school high school high school BA University and University and University and University and high school high school high school high school MA X Thesis phase X a Degree in ELT Born and raised in Yes Yes Yes No Turkey Has been & lived No Yes Yes Yes abroad Taught abroad No Yes No No Age 37 38 42 35 Gender Male Female Female Female Apart from the teachers, twelve students from different English proficiency levels and grades were interviewed. To be more precise of the grade and the levels of the students; three students from A1 level, who were studying at 9th and 10th grades, three students from A2 level, who were from grades 9, 10 and 11, three students from B1 level, who students at 9th, 10th and 11the grades and lastly three students from B2 level who were from 9th, 10th and 11th grades. The reason why no students from 11th grades were not interviewed at the A1 level is because there are no A1 classes at the high school where the study was conducted. Amongst the participants, there was one Iranian student who has been studying in Turkey for more than 10 years, 4 bilingual students, 3 of whom were interviewed, whose one of the parents are British, however they were all born and raised in Turkey. 30 Table 3 Demographic information of the student interviewees Participant’s Demographics Groups Number of students Gender Female 6 Male 6 Age 14 3 15 3 16 3 17 3 Grade 9 3 10 3 11 3 Proficiency level A1 3 A2 3 B1 3 B2 3 Studied in private school Yes 9 before high school No 3 Having been abroad Yes 5 No 7 The students were from English proficiency levels defined as A1, A2, B1, B2 according to the CEFR (Common European Framework). The data analysed in the study was collected from 2 A1, 5 A2, 4 B1 and 1 B2 classes, which is 16 classes in total. Table 4 Participant students’ proficiency levels according to CEFR English proficiency levels 9th grades 10th grades 11th grades A1 19 students 12 students - A2 37 students 26 students 16 students B1 23 students 30 students 19 students B2 - 16 students 19 students The proficiency levels of the students were established by the placement test of the book used by the Foreign Languages Department at this private high school, which is Speak Out by Pearson Education (available at www.pearsonlongman.com/placementtest). 31 Apart from the placement test, individual speaking exam sessions (Appendix 8) were held for each student interlocutory by two teachers to make sure that the students are placed in the right level and to evaluate the productive skill of speaking. The only (productive) skill that has not been evaluated was writing during the level determination process. 3.5. Research instruments Both qualitative and quantitative methods were implemented during the data gathering process in order to obtain the necessary data to achieve the findings of the study. The data for this study was gathered through the questionnaire and interviews. Before applying the questionnaire on reasons for student CS, all permissions were taken from the concerned institution, which is the Ministry of Education, and person, who is the principal of the school where the study was conducted (Appendices 9 and 10). As the quantitative data collecting instrument, the questionnaire developed by Othman (2015) was applied to 221 students (four of whose results were excluded). Othman (2015) adopted the questionnaire from Machaal's (2012) investigation on the functions of CS, and Al-Nofaie's (2010) research on the role of students' first language in class. The first part of the instrument aimed to collect quantitative data on demographic background or the participant students such as their age, gender, grade, proficiency level, EFL learning background, having been and living abroad. The second part of the questionnaire consisted of 22 items asking participants about their views on CS reasons. The quantitative data collecting instrument asked the participants to express their opinions through a Likert- scale, choosing the prompt that show their degree of agreement on each item presented. The prompts presented to the students for each item were; “strongly agree”, “agree”, “not sure”, disagree” and “strongly disagree”. On the other hand, the qualitative data collection instrument of this study is interviews. Data collection and data analysis took ten weeks in total. 32 3.5.1. Questionnaires The purposes of the study were explained to students. The reason for the student CS questionnaire was the qualitative data collection instrument of this study and it was back translated from English to Turkish. The instrument used was taken from "Functions of Code Switching: A Case Study" by Othman (2015). Choosing from Strongly Disagree/ Disagree/Not Sure/ Agree/ Strongly Agree, a five-likert scale was used asking the participants why they code switch to L1. “The reasons offered by the participants were then ordered following Appel and Muysken's (2006) model for functions of code switching” (Othman, 2015, p. 38). The questionnaire has 22 items in total. And, all items were grouped into four categories. In the original study, the data of the questionnaires were analyzed by calculating frequencies and percentages. “Data elicited from the interviewees were categorized through a process of qualitative analysis. Moreover, the whole data finally was processed by triangulating the results of both students' questionnaires and teachers' interviews to draw closer conclusions on the findings, and to see if there was correspondence between the data obtained from the students with that of the teachers” (Othman, 2015, p.38). In addition, in the original study, the researcher included a question that is presented right under all questionnaire items which is “For what other reasons would you code switch? Please elaborate”. In the current study that question was not included. The reason for that is because, randomly selected students from each level were interviewed after the questionnaire was applied to the participants, with the aim of gathering in depth data on their views on CS. In this current study, following the data analysis of the questionnaires applied to the students, interviews both with teachers and students were conducted, and the data was analysed through conversation analysis to reveal if there is coherence between qualitative and quantitative data. 33 3.5.2. Interviews Semi-structured interviews have been used on a large scale in academic studies. Bilgin (2016) stated that that was mainly because semi-structured interviews gave both the interviewer and the interviewee freedom to find out many issues withing the context of the study (p.107). What Richards (2010) expressed about semi-structured interviews was praising semi-structured interviews like Bilgin (2015). Richards (2010) explains that semi-structured interviews enables people to show their “experiences, beliefs, perceptions, and motivations” in a deeper way than they can do by questionnaires. He also states that even though the interviewer has some questions prepared on the topic, semi-structured interviews allow new crucial areas to be discussed by expanding the topic (p.187-188). As the current research aims to present students’ reasons for resorting to CS, a semi structured interview is chosen to reveal the participants’ beliefs and perspectives on CS. Semi structured interviews were applied to both teachers and students and they were conducted orally in separate sessions and video recorded. Due to the limitations caused by the COVID Pandemic, the interviews were held online, using the Microsoft Teams programme. Fourteen students and four teachers were interviewed and all interviews were performed in L1, to make sure that the interviewees feel confident and comfortable while giving answers to the questions. 3 students from all levels and grades were randomly chosen, except for bilingual students. They were selected for the interview on purpose to gather some information about CS in a bilingual context. The students were asked to volunteer in the current study’s interview part and they were informed by the researcher that the interviews were being recorded, and all gave their permission to participate in the study. The interviewee students were all born and raised in Turkey, except for one, who was born and raised in Iran and has been living in Turkey for more than eight years now. Two of the interviewees are bilingual participants (born and raised in Turkey), whose mothers are British and fathers are 34 Turkish. As T2 was both a teacher participating in the study and the researcher herself, she answered the interview questions not orally but in a written way. 3.6. Data collection The data collection process was designed in two ways. The first step is the questionnaire completed by the students during their English lessons accompanied by their teachers. By the data gained from the questionnaires using descriptive statistics the reasons of students CS in language classes were identified. The second step was the semi structured interviews with both teachers and students participating in the questionnaire. The questions of the semi structured interviews aimed to find out the perceptions and beliefs of both students and teachers towards CS. All students participating in the study were briefly informed about the questionnaire, and it was explained to them that their id will not be seen by the researcher or their answers do not have anything to do with their academic knowledge and will not affect anything related to their school life. The concept of CS was explained to each class before they were given the questionnaire, which was presented through google forms. The aim of the study and how to answer the questionnaire were clearly explained. The students were also reminded that they did not have to participate in the study, it was emphasized that it was voluntary.And similar procedures have been followed about the interviews. Both students and teachers were informed about the study and its aim. The semi-structured interview questions were sent to the interviewees beforehand, for them to be familiar with and to help them feel more comfortable while answering. Only two of the students preferred to answer the interview questions on paper, because of their internet connection problems. All interviews were video recorded for obtaining the data in a reliable and practical way. The average time of a student interview was around twenty minutes and the average time of a teacher interview was fifteen minutes. 35 Permission to conduct the study was taken from the school principal. Additionally, permission was taken from each teacher, who were all previously informed about the study and its aims, before the questionnaire was utilized in their classes. 3.7. Data analysis To analyze the quantitative data ANOVA descriptive statistics was used to test significant differences between the variables. The descriptive statistics and frequency analysis were applied. All the findings from the quantitative analysis were reported in the form of tabulation. To report the participants’ demographic information, descriptive statistics frequency tests were conducted. The Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient of the data collection tool was calculated as .877, and this value being close to 1 indicated that the data collection tool was reliable. To find out what the reasons are that make students CS, which is RQ1, the interview including 22 items were applied to the participant questions. Following the semi-structured interviews were conducted both with four teachers and twelve students. To reveal the student CS reasons according to teachers, which is RQ2, four teachers participating in the study were asked questions to share their beliefs and perceptions on CS. Additionally, twelve participants from different proficiency levels of English language were interviewed to see the correlation between CS and gender, age, grade, proficiency level, previous EFL learning experience, having been abroad and living abroad, which is RQ3. 3.8. Conclusion In this chapter the details of the research methodology which included information about research setting, participant selection, data collection procedures, and data analysis were explained. The next chapter presents the results in accordance with the research questions. 36 CHAPTER 4 Results 4.1. Introduction This chapter consists of four sections. The first section reports the findings of quantitative data gathered through a student questionnaire. The second section presents the findings of qualitative data collected through interviews conducted both with four teachers and twelve students. The last section concludes with the summary of this chapter. RQ1 “What are the reasons for CS for students?” and RQ3“Are there any significant differences between the frequency of CS or student CS according to proficiency levels?” were assessed both qualitatively and quantitatively. RQ2 “What are the reasons for students' CS according to teachers?” has been answered qualitatively by processing the data gathered from the teacher interviews by conversation analysis. 4.2. Quantitative Results Students' questionnaires were processed quantitatively and the data collection tool used in the study was entered into the SPSS program with a 5-likert type (Strongly Agree, Agree, Not Sure, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree) coded. The Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient of the data collection tool was calculated as .877, and this value being close to 1 showed that the data collection tool was reliable. During the research process, data were collected from 217 students studying at a private high school in Bursa academic year 2020-2021. However, the data of three students who filled the data collection tool incompletely and one student determined to be an outlier were excluded from the analysis. In this context, 217 students constituted the study group of the research (or sample). 37 Table 5 Student Participants’ English specifications Participant’s English specifications Groups f % I like English Lesson 152 70.0 English lesson conditions I don't like English Lesson 14 6.5 I'm not sure 51 23.5 Necessary 213 98.2 Learning English Unnecessary 1 .5 I'm not sure 3 1.4 Yes 207 95.4 Interest in English No 10 4.6 Yes 57 26.3 English Skill No 72 33.2 I'm not sure 88 40.6 Yes 203 93.5 Parent’s language No 14 6.5 Yes 137 63.1 Being abroad No 80 36.9 Yes 24 11.1 Living abroad No 193 88.9 Total 217 100.0 Information about the English specifications of the participants is given in Table 5 . For the data collected in line with the purpose of the study, first of all, outliers and incomplete data were removed from the data set. In the determination of the outlier, Mahalanobis Distance values were calculated and values less than .01 probability values in the chi-square table were evaluated as extreme values. Afterwards, the suitability of the data collection tool used to benefit from parametric tests to normal distribution was tested. In order to say that the data are normally distributed, the values of skewness and kurtosis (Skewness, Kurtosis) should be between -1 and +1 (Huck, 2012). In this context, the results of the analysis conducted to test the compliance of the total score of the data collection tool to normal distribution are given in Table 6 and Figure 1. 38 Table 6 Results of the data collection tool regarding normal distribution assumptions Shapiro- p n sd Skewness Kurtosis Wilk Sum of the data 217 73.25 12.61 -.049 -.101 .995 .626 collection tool Figure 1. Histogram graphics for the sum of data collection tool When Table 6 and figure 1 are examined, it is seen that the skewness and kurtosis values of the data collection tool vary between -1 and +1 and the Shapiro-Wilk test is not significant, so it provides the normal distribution assumptions (p>0.05). Therefore, parametric tests were used for the analysis of the data collection tool. During the analysis process, descriptive statistics (percentage, frequency, mean etc.) - independent samples t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were conducted. 39 Table 7 Descriptive Statistics of all items and total n Min Max sd 1. To discuss personal issues 217 1.00 5.00 3.63 .94 2. To avoid misunderstanding 217 1.00 5.00 4.18 .78 3. To make others understand 217 1.00 5.00 3.46 1.09 what I mean 4. To attract attention 217 1.00 5.00 1.76 .97 5. To quote something said by 217 1.00 5.00 3.29 1.07 others 6. To express loyalty to my 217 1.00 5.00 3.37 1.08 culture 7. To create a sense of 217 1.00 5.00 2.70 1.05 belonging 8. To persuade others 217 1.00 5.00 2.82 1.09 9. To discuss certain topics which can be more 217 1.00 5.00 3.69 1.13 appropriate to discuss in Turkish 10. To make the lesson more 217 1.00 5.00 2.61 1.25 enjoyable 11. To crack jokes 217 1.00 5.00 3.14 1.27 12. To express myself easily 217 1.00 5.00 3.72 1.09 13. To express personal emotions (anger. sadness. 217 1.00 5.00 3.24 1.10 happiness. etc.). 14. Because I feel comfortable in using more than one 217 1.00 5.00 3.45 1.09 language when speaking 15. Because it helps explain 217 1.00 5.00 4.24 .85 difficult concepts 16. Because it helps make 217 1.00 5.00 2.84 1.05 learning English easier 17. Because it helps carry out 217 1.00 5.00 3.23 1.20 tasks easily 18. Because it decreases my 217 1.00 5.00 3.54 1.25 anxiety when speaking 19. Because it is hard to find 217 1.00 5.00 3.82 1.03 proper English equivalents 20. Because there are no similar 217 1.00 5.00 3.54 1.03 words in English 21. Because I think sometimes in 217 1.00 5.00 3 1.21 Turkish .53 22. For habitual expressions 217 1.00 5.00 3 1.15 .45 Total 217 39.00 105.00 7 12.61 3.25 40 According to the information shared in Table7, it can be stated that according to the questionnaire applied to 212 students, item 15 was the most chosen one, which says “I code switch because it helps explain difficult concepts”. Item 15 is followed by item 2 which states that students CS “to avoid misunderstanding”. Item 19 “Because it is hard to find proper English equivalents” is the third reason why students CS according to the results of the questionnaire applied. 4.2.1. Detailed descriptive analysis of all items Table 8 Item 1: To discuss personal issues f % sd Strongly Disagree 5 2.3 Disagree 21 9.7 Not Sure 59 27.2 3.63 .94 Agree 97 44.7 Strongly Agree 35 16.1 Total 217 100.0 As demonstrated in Table 8 44.7% of the participants agreed that they switch codes to discuss personal issues, while 16.1% of them strongly agreed on this. However 7.2% was not sure about the item. 9.7% of students disagreed to use CS to discuss personal issues while only 2.3% of them strongly disagreed on the issue. Table 9 Item 2: To avoid misunderstanding f % sd Strongly Disagree 2 .9 Disagree 6 2.8 Not Sure 20 9.2 4.18 .78 Agree 113 52.1 Strongly Agree 76 35.0 Total 217 100.0 41 When Table 9 is examined, it can be seen that the majority of students, with 35.0% strongly agree and 52.1% agree CS to avoid misunderstanding. Yet, 9.2% of the students are not sure about this. Opposing to CS to avoid misunderstanding with the percentage of 2.8 and strongly disagreeing percentage is only 0.9%. Table 10 Item 3: To make others understand what I mean f % sd Strongly Disagree 11 5.1 Disagree 35 16.1 Not Sure 48 22.1 3.46 1.09 Agree 89 41.0 Strongly Agree 34 15.7 Total 217 100.0 What Table 10 indicates is that 41.0% of the students agree and 15.7% of students strongly agree on the issue that they CS to make others understand what they mean. Despite the answers of the majority of the student group, 22.1% of students are not sure about it. Whereas 16.1% of the students disagree on using CS to make others understand what they mean, while 5.1% of them strongly disagree. Table 11 Item 4: To attract attention f % sd Strongly Disagree 114 52.5 Disagree 56 25.8 Not Sure 35 16.1 1.76 .97 Agree 8 3.7 Strongly Agree 4 1.8 Total 217 100.0 The findings which are presented in Table 11 reveals that 52.5% of the students strongly disagree and 25.8 of them disagree with the idea of CS to attract attention. Yet, 16.1% of them are not sure about this. On the contrary, 1.8% of the students who answered this questionnaire strongly agree, while 3.7% of them agree that they CS to attract attention. 42 Table 12 Item 5: To quote something said by others f % sd Strongly Disagree 10 4.6 Disagree 45 20.7 Not Sure 58 26.7 3.29 1.07 Agree 79 36.4 Strongly Agree 25 11.5 Total 217 100.0 As shown in Table 12, 36.4% of the students agreed and 11.5% of them strongly agreed on using CS to quote something said by others, however,20.7% disagreed with this and 4.6% of the students strongly disagreed, while 26.7% of the students were not sure if they used CS to quote something said by others. Table 13 Item 6: To express loyalty to my culture f % sd Strongly Disagree 16 7.4 Disagree 22 10.1 Not Sure 74 34.1 3.37 1.08 Agree 75 34.6 Strongly Agree 30 13.8 Total 217 100.0 As can be seen from Table 13, the majority of the students CS to express their loyalty to their culture. Although 34.1% of them are not sure about this. Also, 10.1% and 7.4% of the students expressed their disagreement on using CS to express their loyalty to their culture. Table 14 Item 7: To create a sense of belonging f % sd Strongly Disagree 33 15.2 Disagree 51 23.5 Not Sure 93 42.9 2.70 1.05 Agree 29 13.4 Strongly Agree 11 5.1 Total 217 100.0 43 Table 14 shows that the majority of the student group involved in this study are not sure if they use CS to create a sense of belonging with a percentage of forty two points nine (42.9%). What is more, students showing disagreement and strong disagreement on this is 23.5% and 15.2%. However, students who indicated agreement is 13.4% and students who indicated strong agreement is 5.1% of the whole group. Table 15 Item 8: To persuade others f % sd Strongly Disagree 29 13.4 Disagree 51 23.5 Not Sure 79 36.4 2.82 1.09 Agree 45 20.7 Strongly Agree 13 6.0 Total 217 100.0 In Table 15, it can be seen that the majority of the students are not sure about using CS to persuade others with the percentage of 36.4. The percentage of students disagreeing using CS to persuade others is 23.5 and the percentage of students that show strong disagreement is 13.4. Despite these percentages, there are still one third of the students who agree that they use CS to persuade others with the percentage of 20.7 and who strongly agree with the percentage of 6.0. Table 16 Item 9: To discuss certain topics which can be more appropriate to discuss in Turkish f % sd Strongly Disagree 11 5.1 Disagree 24 11.1 Not Sure 44 20.3 3.69 1.13 Agree 80 36.9 Strongly Agree 58 26.7 Total 217 100.0 44 The results in Table 16 show that the majority of the students agree or strongly agree that they CS To discuss certain topics which can be more appropriate to discuss in Turkish (63.6%). On the other hand, the students who are not sure about this is the 20.3% of the total, whereas students who disagree or strongly disagree on this is 16.2%. Table 17 Item: 10 To make the lesson more enjoyable f % sd Strongly Disagree 51 23.5 Disagree 57 26.3 Not Sure 50 23.0 2.61 1.25 Agree 43 19.8 Strongly Agree 16 7.4 Total 217 100.0 Table 17 shows that most of the students disagree (26.3%) or strongly disagree (23.5%) that making the lesson more enjoyable is not one of the reasons why they switch codes while 23.0% of students state that they are not sure about the issue. On the other hand, 19.8% of the students show agreement and 7.4% of them show strong agreement on CS to make the lesson more enjoyable. Table 18 Item: 11. To crack jokes f % sd Strongly Disagree 28 12.9 Disagree 44 20.3 Not Sure 47 21.7 3.14 1.27 Agree 66 30.4 Strongly Agree 32 14.7 Total 217 100.0 Based on the data in Table 18, it can be seen that the majority of the students show agreement and strong agreement towards the thought that they code switch to crack jokes with a total percentage of 45.1%, while the total percentage of the students showing disagreement 45 and strong disagreement is 33.2% in total. Additionally, the 21.7% of the students say that they are unsure about using CS to crack jokes. Table 19 Item: 12. To express myself easily f % sd Strongly Disagree 10 4.6 Disagree 22 10.1 Not Sure 41 18.9 3.72 1.09 Agree 90 41.5 Strongly Agree 54 24.9 Total 217 100.0 According to the percentages in Table 19, 41.5% of the students agreed and 24.9% of them strongly agreed that they CS expressed themselves easily, but 14.7% of the students expressed their disagreement, while 18.9% of them were hesitant. Table 20 Item: 13. To express personal emotions (anger, sadness, happiness, etc.) f % sd Strongly Disagree 12 5.5 Disagree 47 21.7 Not Sure 62 28.6 3.24 1.10 Agree 69 31.8 Strongly Agree 27 12.4 Total 217 100.0 The findings which are presented in Table 20 reveals that 44.2% of the students agreed that they CS to express personal emotions (anger, sadness, happiness, etc.), among whom 12.4% strongly agree. Even though most students agreed to CS to express emotions, a total percentage of 27.2 disagreed while 28.6% stated they are not sure about this. 46 Table 21 Item: 14. Because I feel comfortable in using more than one language when speaking f % sd Strongly Disagree 9 4.1 Disagree 33 15.2 Not Sure 68 31.3 3.45 1.09 Agree 66 30.4 Strongly Agree 41 18.9 Total 217 100.0 When Table 21. is examined, the majority of the students express that they feel comfortable in using more than one language when speaking with a total percentage of 49.3%,amongst whom 18.9% strongly agree.However, 31.3% of the students expressed that they are not sure,while the minority expressed their disagreement. Table 22 Item: 15. Because it helps explain difficult concepts f % sd Strongly Disagree 1 .5 Disagree 9 4.1 Not Sure 25 11.5 4.24 .85 Agree 85 39.2 Strongly Agree 97 44.7 Total 217 100.0 As shown in Table 22, a considerable amount of students agreed that one of the reasons why they CS is because CS helps explain difficult concepts.On the other hand, 11.5% students stated they were not sure,and only 4.1% expressed disagreement. Table 23 Item: 16. Because it helps make learning English easier f % sd Strongly Disagree 23 10.6 Disagree 51 23.5 Not Sure 98 45.2 2.84 1.05 Agree 27 12.4 Strongly Agree 18 8.3 Total 217 100.0 47 Based on the results in Table 23, it is clearly seen that the majority of the students are not sure CS makes learning English easier with 45.2%. 23.5% of them disagree on this while 10.6 shows strong disagreement. The total percentage of students agreeing with the statement is 20.7. Table 24 Item: 17. Because it helps carry out tasks easily f % sd Strongly Disagree 16 7.4 Disagree 55 25.3 Not Sure 43 19.8 3.23 1.20 Agree 70 32.3 Strongly Agree 33 15.2 Total 217 100.0 As can be seen from Table 24, a large number of students ,47.5%, believe that CS helps carry out tasks easily, while 19.8% of them are not sure and 32.7% disagree. Table 25 Item: 18. Because it decreases my anxiety when speaking f % sd Strongly Disagree 17 7.8 Disagree 33 15.2 Not Sure 39 18.0 3.54 1.25 Agree 71 32.7 Strongly Agree 57 26.3 Total 217 100.0 The percentages in Table 25 indicates that the majority of students participants agree and strongly agree that CS decreases their anxiety when they speak (59%). However, 18.0% of students state that they are not sure about this, while 23% show disagreement. 48 Table 26 Item: 19. Because it is hard to find proper English equivalents f % sd Strongly Disagree 5 2.3 Disagree 23 10.6 Not Sure 39 18.0 3.82 1.03 Agree 88 40.6 Strongly Agree 62 28.6 Total 217 100.0 As it can be seen in Table 26, a large group of students (69.2%) show agreement on the statement that it is hard to find proper English equivalents so they code switch. Yet, 18.0% of the students are not sure of this, and 10.6% disagree and only 2.3% strongly disagree with the statements as one of the reasons for CS. Table 27 Item: 20. Because there are no similar words in English f % sd Strongly Disagree 5 2.3 Disagree 32 14.7 Not Sure 62 28.6 3.54 1.03 Agree 77 35.5 Strongly Agree 41 18.9 Total 217 100.0 Results in Table 27 demonstrate that 35.5% of the students agreed and 18.9% strongly agreed on the use of CS when there are no similar words in English.On the other side, 14.7% disagreed and 2.3% strongly disagreed to use CS for this reason. And, 28.6% stated that they were not sure if this was one of the reasons why they CS. Table 28 Item: 21. Because I think sometimes in Turkish f % sd Strongly Disagree 16 7.4 Disagree 33 15.2 Not Sure 40 18.4 3.53 1.21 Agree 77 35.5 Strongly Agree 51 23.5 49 Total 217 100.0 As demonstrated in Table 28, the majority of the students, with a percentage of 59%, showed agreement to thinking in Turkish sometimes as one of the reasons for their CS. However, 15.2% disagreed and 7.4% strongly disagreed with the statement, while 18.4% expressed they are unsure. Table 29 Item: 22. For habitual expressions f % sd Strongly Disagree 16 7.4 Disagree 26 12.0 Not Sure 60 27.6 3.45 1.15 Agree 74 34.1 Strongly Agree 41 18.9 Total 217 100.0 As shown in Table 29, 34.1% showed agreement and 18.9% showed strong agreement that they CS for habitual expressions, while 12.0% disagreed and 7.4% strongly disagreed. Still, 27.6% of the students were skeptical about the issue. 4.2.2. Detailed descriptive analysis of CS according to functions Apple & Muysken's (2006) framework of functions of CS was adopted by Othman (2015), whose questionnaire including 22 items was used in this study. His study showed that students swith codes for four functions which are; “ poetic, referential, expressive and directive”. The questionnaire that Othman used lacked two of the functions of CS which are; “phatic and metalinguistic” as the “questionnaire did not include items which fall under the category of these two functions” (p. 59). 50 Poetic functions Table 30 Poetic Function Items Items Likert f % sd Strongly Disagree 10 4.6 Disagree 45 20.7 Item 5 Not Sure 58 26.7 3.29 1.07 Agree 79 36.4 Strongly Agree 25 11.5 Strongly Disagree 51 23.5 Disagree 57 26.3 Item 10 Not Sure 50 23.0 2.61 1.25 Agree 43 19.8 Strongly Agree 16 7.4 Strongly Disagree 28 12.9 Disagree 44 20.3 Item 11 Not Sure 47 21.7 3.14 1.27 Agree 66 30.4 Strongly Agree 32 14.7 Total 217 100.0 It can be seen in Table30 that students code switch for poetic functions.47.9 of the students participating in this study agreed that they code switch “to quote something said by others”. 45.1% of the students agreed that they code switch “to crack jokes”. Also, 27.2% of them stated that they code switch “to make the lesson more enjoyable”. Directive functions Table 31 Directive Function Items Items Likert f % sd Strongly Disagree 5 2.3 Item 1 Disagree 21 9.7 3.63 .94 Not Sure 59 27.2 Agree 97 44.7 51 Strongly Agree 35 16.1 Strongly Disagree 114 52.5 Disagree 56 25.8 Item 4 Not Sure 35 16.1 1.76 .97 Agree 8 3.7 Strongly Agree 4 1.8 Strongly Disagree 29 13.4 Disagree 51 23.5 Item 8 Not Sure 79 36.4 2.82 1.09 Agree 45 20.7 Strongly Agree 13 6.0 Total 217 100.0 As can be seen in Table 31, students who took part in this study preferred to code switch for poetic reasons. The table shows that item 1 which is “ Students code switch to quote something said by others” has been the poetic item that has been preferred by the majority of students participated in the study with a total percentage of 60.8, while item 8, which is “Students code switch to make the lesson more enjoyable” has been chosen by 26.7%. However, “Using CS to attract attention” which is item 4, has been chosen by only the 5.5% of the students participated in the study. Referential functions Table 32 Referential Function Items Items Likert f % sd Strongly Disagree 11 5.1 Disagree 24 11.1 Item 9 Not Sure 44 20.3 3.69 1.13 Agree 80 36.9 Strongly Agree 58 26.7 Strongly Disagree 1 .5 Disagree 9 4.1 Item 15 Not Sure 25 11.5 4.24 .85 Agree 85 39.2 Strongly 97 44.7 52 Agree Strongly Disagree 23 10.6 Disagree 51 23.5 Item 16 Not Sure 98 45.2 2.84 1.05 Agree 27 12.4 Strongly Agree 18 8.3 Strongly Disagree 16 7.4 Disagree 55 25.3 Item 17 Not Sure 43 19.8 3.23 1.20 Agree 70 32.3 Strongly Agree 33 15.2 Strongly Disagree 5 2.3 Disagree 32 14.7 Item 20 Not Sure 62 28.6 3.54 1.03 Agree 77 35.5 Strongly Agree 41 18.9 Strongly Disagree 16 7.4 Disagree 33 15.2 Item 21 Not Sure 40 18.4 3.53 1.21 Agree 77 35.5 Strongly Agree 51 23.5 Total 217 100.0 The table above reveals the referential functions of student CS. With the percentage of 83.9, item 15, which is “Because it helps explain difficult concepts” has been chosen by most of the students who participated in this study. Another referential function of student CS is item 9 “To discuss certain topics which can be more appropriate to discuss in Turkish” which was chosen by 63.6%. 54.4% of the students agreed that they tend to code switch as there are no similar words in English, while 59% agree that they use their mother tongue as they sometimes think in their own language. “Because it helps carry out tasks easily” which is 17, has been considered as another referential function of student CS according to the students participating in this very study with a percentage of 47.5. The last referential function of student CS according to the answers of the students participating in the questionnaire used in the study has been agreed by 20.7%, which is the belief that it makes learning easier. 53 Expressive functions Table 33 Expressive Function Items Items Likert f % sd Strongly Disagree 2 .9 Disagree 6 2.8 Item 2 Not Sure 20 9.2 4.18 .78 Agree 113 52.1 Strongly Agree 76 35.0 Strongly Disagree 11 5.1 Disagree 35 16.1 Item 3 Not Sure 48 22.1 3.46 1.09 Agree 89 41.0 Strongly Agree 34 15.7 Strongly Disagree 16 7.4 Disagree 22 10.1 Item 6 Not Sure 74 34.1 3.37 1.08 Agree 75 34.6 Strongly Agree 30 13.8 Strongly Disagree 33 15.2 Disagree 51 23.5 Item 7 Not Sure 93 42.9 2.70 1.05 Agree 29 13.4 Strongly Agree 11 5.1 Strongly Disagree 10 4.6 Disagree 22 10.1 Item 12 Not Sure 41 18.9 3.72 1.09 Agree 90 41.5 Strongly Agree 54 24.9 Strongly Disagree 12 5.5 Disagree 47 21.7 Item 13 Not Sure 62 28.6 3.24 1.10 Agree 69 31.8 Strongly Agree 27 12.4 Strongly Disagree 9 4.1 Disagree 33 15.2 Item 14 Not Sure 68 31.3 1.09 Agree 66 30.4 3.45 Strongly Agree 41 18.9 Strongly Disagree 17 7.8 Disagree 33 15.2 Item 18 Not Sure 39 18.0 3.54 1.25 Agree 71 32.7 Strongly Agree 57 26.3 Strongly Disagree 16 7.4 Disagree 26 12.0 Item 22 Not Sure 60 27.6 3.45 1.15 Agree 74 34.1 Strongly Agree 41 18.9 Total 217 100.0 54 As can be seen in Table 33, students who took part in this study preferred to code switch for expressive functions. The table reveals that 87.1% of the students agreed that they code switch “to avoid misunderstanding”, while 56.7 of them stated their reason for CS as “to make others understand what they mean”. Students expressing their code switch to express themselves easily is 66.4%. Item 18 which is “Because it decreases my anxiety when speaking” has been chosen by 59%, while item 22 “For habitual expressions” follows up by 53% and item 14 “Because I feel comfortable in using more than one language when speaking” by 49.3. The table shows that 48.4% of the students agreed that they CS to express their loyalty to their culture. “To express personal emotions (anger, sadness, happiness, etc.)” which is item 13 was chosen by 44.2% of the students participating in this study. Lastly, item 7, which is “To create a sense of belonging” was agreed to be one of the expressive functions of student CS by 18.5%. When Tables 33, 34, 35, and 36 were examined it can be seen that the students who participated in this study expressed that they use all four CS functions, which are referential, poetic, expressive, and directive. The independent samples t-test was used in order to answer RQ3 in which the difference between the student CS frequency scores according to gender, age, grade, proficiency level, previous EFL learning experience, having been abroad and living abroad were examined. The results obtained are presented in Tables 34- 42. Table 34 CS according to gender Group n sd df t p Code switching Female 120 73.08 11.21 180.17 -.23 .82 Male 97 73.47 14.21 55 When Table 34 is examined, it is seen that there is no significant difference between CS scores according to gender (t=-.23; p>.05). One-way ANOVA (one-way ANOVA) analysis was conducted for independent groups to determine whether the students' CS scores differ according to age. Analysis results are presented in Table 35. Table 35 ANOVA results of students' code-switching scores according to age Sum of Mean Source of variance df F p squares square Between Groups 1806.78 3 602.26 3.942 .009 Code switching 32540.28 213 152.77 Within Groups Total 34347.060 216 When Table 35 is examined, it is seen that there is a significant difference in the code- switching scores of the students according to their ages (F (3.213) =3.942; p<.05). Multiple comparison tests were used to determine among which groups these differences existed. First of all, the results of the Bonferroni test were taken into account because the requirement of homogeneity of variances for multiple comparisons for students' code-switching scores was met and the number of participants in the groups was not equal (Miller, 1977). Results are presented in Table 36. Table 36 Multiple comparison between groups for CS scores according to students' ages n=217 14 15 16 17 14 - .07 6.09* -.86 15 - - 6.02* -.93 16 - - - -6.95 17 - - - - When Table 36 is examined, it is seen that there is a significant difference between the age groups 14-16 and 15- 16. When the mean differences are examined, it can be said that 56 students in the 14 and 15 age group are significantly higher than the scores of the students in the 16-age group. One-way ANOVA (one-way ANOVA) analysis was conducted for independent groups to determine whether the students' CS scores differ according to their grade level. Analysis results are presented in Table 37. Table 37 ANOVA results of students' CS scores according to grade Sum of Mean Source of variance df F p squares square Between Groups 831.37 2 415.68 2.654 .073 Code switching 33515.69 214 156.62 Within Groups Total 34347.06 216 When Table 37 is examined, it is seen that there is no significant difference in the CS scores of the students according to their grade (F (2.214) =3.654; p>.05). One-way ANOVA (one-way ANOVA) analysis was conducted for independent groups to determine whether the students' CS scores differ according to their English level. Analysis results are presented in Table 38. Table 38 ANOVA results of students' code-switching scores according to English Proficiency Level Sum of Mean Source of variance df F p squares square Between Groups 4106.994 3 1368.998 9.643 .000 Code switching 30240.066 213 141.972 Within Groups Total 34347.060 216 When Table 38 is examined, it is seen that there is a significant difference in the CS scores of the students according to their English Level (F (3.213) =9.643; p<.05). Multiple comparison tests (Bonferroni test) were used to determine among which groups these differences existed. Results are presented in Table 39. 57 Table 39 Multiple comparison between groups for CS scores according to English Level n=217 A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 - 2.39 6.19 12.75* A2 - - 3.80 10.36* B1 - - - -6.56* B2 - - - - When Table 39 is examined, it is seen that there is a significant difference between the English Levels A1-B2, A2-B2 and B1-B2. When the mean differences are examined, it can be said that students in the A1, A2, B1 groups are significantly higher than the scores of the students in the B2. The independent samples t-test was used in order to see differences between the students' CS scores according to Private School (studied in private school before high school (primary school only, middle school only, or both).) was examined. The results obtained are presented in Table 40. Table 40 CS frequency according to previous EFL learning experience (studying at private or governmental middle schools) Group n sd df t p Studied in Private School 201 73.32 12.53 215 .268 .789 Code switching Not Studied in Private 16 72.44 14.03 School When Table 40 is examined, it is seen that there is no significant difference between CS scores according to Studied in Private School or not (t=-.268; p>.05). Table 41 CS frequency according to having been abroad Group n sd df t p Code switching Yes 137 71.77 13.16 215 -2.284 .023 No 80 75.79 11.25 58 When Table 41 is examined, it is seen that there is a significant difference between CS scores according to being abroad. (t=-2.284; p<.05). Being abroad no group is significantly higher than being abroad yes group. Table 42 CS frequency according to living abroad Group n sd df t p Code switching Yes 24 72.75 15.61 215 -.207 .836 No 193 73.32 12.23 When Table 42 is examined, it is seen that there is no significant difference between CS scores according to living abroad. (t=-207; p>.05). Since the numbers of some groups in English lesson conditions, Learning English, Interest in English and parent’s language variables were low (<15), no comparison was made for these variables. 4.3. Qualitative results In this section, the results obtained from the qualitative data are analysed in accordance with the interviews held with a total of 18 participants, amongst whom are 14 students and 4 teachers. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, all interviewees were interviewed and recorded by using video conferences on Microsoft Teams. Followingly, all interviews were fully transcribed for conversation analysis. Interviews have been considered a reliable way to obtain data in depth. That is why interviews were made use of during the data gathering process of the present study. Another reason why interviews were preferred is to present quantitative and qualitative data together. The main purpose of the qualitative part of the current study was to reveal the beliefs of both students and the teachers about CS descending to details and support quantitative data findings. 59 4.3.1 Findings from Interviews with teachers The interview aimed to reveal the teachers’ beliefs on CS and students’ CS reasons according to the teachers. There were six qualitative based questions applied to teachers. All four teachers first were asked about their education and teaching experiences which was followed by the second question which was if they had ever worked at an institution that bans the use of L1 and its effects on student and teacher relationships. They all agreed on the idea that banning the use of L1 in the classroom creates a stressful classroom environment, especially for the students. However, T1 commented that he believes it can be beneficial for the students at some point. The next question addressing the teachers who participated in the study was if they let their students code switch during their lessons and their attitudes towards CS. All teachers except for T1 stated that they felt with CS in the classroom was acceptable when necessary. They all expressed that they do not show a negative attitude towards student CS in their lessons and added balancing the amount of CS in class is essential. The results reached by Sert (2005) and Horasan (2014) who conducted research in Turkish EFL context on CS show that teacher CS can be used as a beneficial tool. Atkinson (1993) summarised by stating researchers think that teachers should use English where possible and the L1 where necessary summarizes the issue. T1 explained his thoughts on the issue as follows: T1: “Bence derste diller arası geçiş yapılmamalı mümkün olduğu mertebede. Çünkü özellikle bizim gibi ülkelerde günlük hayatta dile maruz kalamadıkları için öğrenciler sınıf içindeki veya hedef dilin kullanıldığı zamanlar çok değerli zamanlar ve bunlar anadil konuşularak boşa harcanmamalı bence. “In my opinion, CS should not be applied as much as possible during the lessons. Because, in countries, especially like our country, as the students cannot be exposed to the 60 target language in their daily lives, the period when L2 is used in the classroom is quite precious and it is not fair to spend that time speaking in Turkish.” T1 expressed their belief on the reasons why to limit CS in EFL classrooms. They also expressed their concern on wasting time by using L1 in a language classroom. Most of the teachers agreed that CS should be applied within limits and cautiously, and teachers should not CS longer than was necessary. Krashen (1985) insisted on the importance of target language use to provide more input in the target language and to maximize the exposure. He supported this hypothesis with a study conducted with intermediate level students at Ottawa University. The results showed that the students who took some courses by native teachers and only in the target languages both took successful results in those courses and improved their proficiency levels in the target languages (Uz, 2019). Similarly, Turnbull (2001) claimed that the teacher’s main role is “to make sure that the student is exposed to L2 as much as possible”, which is in line with the interviewed teachers’ beliefs. Question 4 was “Are there any pros and cons of CS? And if so, what are they?” When the participants’ replies were coded, it was seen that all of the participants agree that CS has both pros and cons. Mentioned by all four of the teachers, the pros of CS according to the teachers interviewed is that it makes the students feel stress-free and it strengthens the relationship between the teacher and the students. However, it has some disadvantages. Even though it is agreed that restrictions on L1 usage is not beneficial, the students are ready to take advantage of a single mother tongue utterance by the teacher and they definitely ask for more whenever the teacher code switches. Commenting on the pros and cons of CS T2 commented: T2: “Hem faydaları hem zararları olduğunu düşünüyorum. Önce faydalarından bahsedeyim. Öğrenci öğretmen ilişkilerini bence çok olumlu etkiliyor, sınıf ortamı, bir sınıfa ait olma olayını bence çok pozitif, çok güzel etkiliyor. Zararları neler? Öğrenciler her zaman 61 daha fazlasını istiyor. Tıpkı çocuklar gibi. Dolayısıyla siz onlara bir duyuruyu Türkçe yaptığınız zaman bir sonraki duyuru yapacağınız zaman onu da Türkçe istiyorlar. Veya sınavla ilgili bir şey açıklıyorsunuz illa Türkçesini de istiyorlar. Dolayısıyla bu iş biraz aşıyor hem öğrenciyi hem öğretmeni diye düşünüyorum. O yüzden de zararlı olduğunu düşünüyorum. Öğrenmeyi de geriye ittiğini, öğrenmeyi yavaşlattığını düşünüyorum.” “I believe, CS during lessons has both pros and cons. To start with its pros, I think it really affects student- teacher relationship, classroom environment and belonging to a class quite in a positive way. What about the cons? Students always ask for more. Just like kids. So, if you make an announcement in Turkish, they are going to expect the following announcement in Turkish as well. The same problem applies while giving the details of an exam. For this reason, these distresses both the teachers and the students, and starts to become harmful. That’s why I believe at this point, it slows the learning process down.” As seen in the extract above T2 believes that CS can be both advantegous and disadvantageous at the same time. All teacher participants seem to agree what Baytar & Timuçin (2014) states,which is ; “The use of mother tongue (L1) in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context is a controversial issue and there has been no absolute research outcome that indicates whether it should be avoided at all costs or not, but it is an incontrovertible fact that while some of the teachers avoid using mother tongue in language teaching classroom as they thought that using L1 hinders the target language (L2) acquisition, the others favor it for variety of reasons” (p.241). It can be concluded from the teachers’ responses that they all agree on the idea that CS has both pros and cons. One of the beneficial aspects of CS mentioned was ensuring a positive and friendly learning environment in the classroom. Yet, all teachers agreed that students get used to being exposed to L1 and ask for more whenever their teacher code switches. Yletyinen (2004), in her study conducted in a Finnish elementary school, the 62 findings indicated that CS was beneficial and a time saver. However, after the findings she mentioned that the use and the frequency of CS by the teachers was crucial as once done it could lead students to be in the expectation of everything to be repeated in L1 after the explanation made by the teacher in L2. Table 43 Teachers’ beliefs on student CS T1 T2 T3 T4 When to use CS Announcements Announcements Discussions To attract students’ Greeting Non course content on non course attention Non course content content Positive sides of Sense of Strengthens Strengthens Stress-free learning CS belonging relationship relationship environment between teacher between Positive learning and students teacher and environment students Stress-free learning environment Negative sides of Causing anxiety Having difficulty Lowering the Having difficulty in CS in balancing L1 amount of balancing L1 and L2 Lowering the and L2 use in exposure to L2 use in classroom amount of classroom exposure to L2 Frequency Yes Yes Yes Yes difference of CS between levels Attitude towards Slightly Negative Positive Positive Positive CS All teachers were then addressed the question of why their students CS during their lessons. The findings of the interviews showed a variety of reasons for student CS mentioned by the teachers who participated in the study. When the respondents’ replies were analysed, it was observed that the majority of the participants reported believing “limited vocabulary” being one of the main reasons for student CS. Decreasing the anxiety of the students, cracking 63 jokes, and discussing personal issues were the following most common responses of the interviewee teachers. Attracting attention, expressing oneself easily, and carrying out tasks easily were the other comments made by the participant teachers. When the interviewees’ replies were coded, a number of codes related were generated. To illustrate these codes were; limited vocabulary, to attract attention, to express oneself clearly, decreasing anxiety and stress, jokes, to discuss personal issues and carrying out tasks easily. Accordingly, these codes were categorised under four sub categories, which were expressive, poetic, referential and directive. The sub category expressive included limited vocabulary, decreasing anxiety and expressing oneself easily. The sub category poetic included cracking jokes. The next sub category referential included carrying out tasks easily. The last sub category directive included attracting attention and discussing personal issues. The same procedure was applied during the conversation analysis of the interviews with the students. To ensure continuity between the quantitative and the qualitative analysis the names of the sub categories were taken from the questionnaire applied to the students in this study. Furthermore, the codes emerging, have been named in accordance with the items in the questionnaire. Table 44 Functions of student CS according to the data gained through teacher interviews. Function types Reasons mentioned Total answers from teacher interviews Expressive functions Limited vocabulary 4 Expressing oneself clearly 2 Decreasing anxiety 2 Poetic functions To crack jokes 2 Referential functions To carry out tasks easily 1 64 Directive functions To attract attention 1 To discuss personal issues 2 All teachers stated their beliefs on student CS, and there were fourteen answers which shows that the participant teachers mentioned more than one reason for student CS. Even though all teachers agreed that CS should not be used other than specific cases such as announcements, greeting students, giving detailed information about theexams etc... T1 was the only teacher with the slightly negative view on CS in EFL classrooms, mentioning the difficulty of balancing L1 and L2 usage in his classes. He also mentioned the risk of students’ getting used to being exposed to L1 and demanding more of it in time. T1:” Tabi değişik sebepleri olmakla birlikte bence ilk sebebi dikkat çekmek için genelde yapıyorlar veya bir konuyla alakalı kişisel görüşlerini doğrudan, daha net ve kestirmeden aktarmak amacıyla da bunu yapıyorlar. Bir de genelde espri yapmak için arkadaşlarına takılmak, onları güldürmek amaçlı yaptıklarını düşünüyorum. Son olarak bilmedikleri bir kelime olduğunda direkt Türkçe soru soruyorlar. “Even though there are several reasons for student CS, I believe the first reason why students code switch is mostly to attract attention, and to express their ideas on a specific matter clearly and from a short cut. Additionally, another reason for student CS is to make jokes and to make their friends laugh. And lastly, when they do not know the meaning of a word, they instantly start speaking Turkish and ask the teacher. T1 stated the three reasons for student CS which were; attracting attention, expressing opinions and limited vocabulary. T2: “Bence başlıca sebebi, espri, komiklik, şaka. Bu tarz şeyler için çok fazla yapıyorlar. Benim en gözlemlediğim bu. Ve ya bir kelimenin anlamını bilmediklerinde. Özel durumlar için de çok fazla yapıyorlar mesela özellikle online eğitim sürecinde hocam kapı 65 çaldı gidebilir miyim? Kargo geldi gidebilir miyim? Hocam telefon çaldı, hocam yemek geldi falan gibi. Online süreçte böyle. Yüz yüze olan süreçte de işte lavaboya gidebilir miyim? Camı açabilir miyiz? Gibi şeyler söylerken kendi dillerini kullanmayı tercih ediyorlar. En çok karşılaştıklarım bunlar.” “In my opinion, the major reason for student CS is to make jokes. They do this very often for humour. That is what I have observed the most, so far. Or when they do not know the meaning of a word. The students also code switch on exceptional cases especially during online education periods, such as “teacher can I get the door?”, “Teacher, the mailman is here, can I leave?”, “teacher the phone is ringing, do you mind if i take it?”, “my lunch is here”. During face-to-face education the excuses were “Teacher can I go to the toilet?”, “Do you mind if I open the window?” etc. These are the cases that I had come across until now. T2 believed that the most commonly applied reasons for student CS were; humour, asking the meaning of an unknown word and non lesson content. T3: “Sebeplerinin en önemlisi toplumsal baskı, öğrenemeyeceğini düşünüyor ve korkuyor. ikincil sebebi de bana kalırsa eğitim sistemimizle alakalı. bunları eğiten öğretmenler de bu sistemde yoğrulduğu için, maalesef ki öğrencilerimiz, öğretmenlerimiz mesela müthiş gramatik yapıları öğretsinler çok iyi yapıyor bu çocuk geliyor B1, B2 seviyesi, kelime kapasitesi maksimum 100 kelimeyle konuşuyor, akademik hiçbir vocabulary kullanamıyor o çocuk. Çocuk uygulamayı bilmiyor, yani bilmediği bir kelime olunca CS yapıyor. “The main reason is the social pressure; the students think that they cannot learn and have fear of this. The following reason to me is the education system itself. As the teachers have been taught in this very system, even though they teach their students higher level grammatical subjects, even B1 and B2 students have problems with speaking in the target language, what’s more their vocabulary range is around 100 and they cannot use academic 66 vocabulary. So, the students do not know how to apply their knowledge into practice so they code switch. T3 expressed that she believed the most common reasons for student CS were social pressure which was categorized under the sub section of expressive functions. T4: Birçok sebebi var, bunların başında gelenler benim düşünceme göre birincisi, seviyeye göre değişecek olmakla birlikte birincisi bilmedikleri kelime. İkincisi, öncesinde almış oldukları İngilizceyle ilgili eğitim tarzıyla ilgili. Çok çok gramer bazlı giden öğrenci korkuyor, cümleyi doğru telaffuz edemeyeceğinden korktuğu için tıkanıyor ve anadile geçiyor. Bir diğeri ise, sadece korku. Dile karşı, öğretmene karşı, arkadaşlarına karşı - alay etmesinler diye duyduğu- korkudan dolayı oluyor. “There are several reasons to mention, the primary reason, in my opinion, that can differ according to proficiency levels of the student, is poor vocabulary knowledge. The following reason is about the education they have gotten. If the students received grammar- based language education during their school lives, they get stressed about mispronouncing a word an followingly switch to Turkish. Another reason is, students have fear against their teachers and friends- have the fear of being mocked by friends. According to T4 poor vocabulary, mispronunciation and anxiety were the most common reasons for student CS. Aydın and Zengin (2008) mentioned students being anxious when they do not know the right pronunciation of a word. It was revealed after the conversation analysis that, according to teachers interviewed, CS is used by students mostly for “poor vocabulary knowledge” or “vocabulary deficiency”. According to the results of the content analysis conducted, codes emerged from the teacher interviews. The most observed ones in the data were anxiety for L2 usage and humour. The other common replies on student CS were; attracting attention expressing opinions and exceptional instant situations. 67 Analysing the replies on the question “When do you think L1 use in the classroom is acceptable or necessary?” It was seen that all four of the teachers who participated in this study agreed that use of L1 in the classroom environment should be limited and used only on specific cases such as; announcements,small talk, giving instructions.Three out of four teachers were for announcements to be made in L1,especially about the exams and homework, which can be made in L1 to make sure no students are left behind in terms of being informed,as they have had problems regarding these issues during their teaching experiences. T1 expressed that he believes that even important announcements should be made in the target language as it would encourage students to use L2 at all times. Three out of four teachers replied that using L1 during small talk, especially in the beginning of a lesson , is crucial for developing a good relationship between the class and the teacher. However, T1 stated that even though he believes that using L1 while having a conversation with the students can be beneficial in terms of strong teacher-student relationships, he prefers to push the students to use target language during class time. It can be seen that all teachers agree on the belief that use of L1 during class strengthens the teacher student relationship. Commenting on when is CS acceptable or necessary T3 responded: T3: “Bence önemli duyurular yapılabilir, ya da sınavla ilgili açıklamalar yapılabilir.” “Important announcements can be made in L1 or informing the students about an exam.” One of the teachers, T1, reported the following about when to CS: T1: “Mesela bir duyuru yapılacaksa yapılabilir veya ders çok sıkıcı hale geldiyse sohbet amaçlı kullanılabilir”. “For instance, an announcement or when the lesson turns out to be a boring one, L1 can be used to have a conversation.” Both T3 and T1 expressed that it was appropriate to switch codes on special cases. 68 All teachers showed a positive attitude towards the use of L1 on specific occasions such as making announcements, giving instructions etc. That is to say, teacher participants believe the use of L1 could be beneficial in some cases. The last question directed to the teachers was if they think there is a significant difference between the students’ proficiency levels and their CS frequency. All of the teachers expressed their belief that lower levels are more likely to code switch reasonably more than the higher proficiency levels. The tendency of lower-level CS is related to their proficiency levels as agreed by all of them. Commenting on if there is a significant difference between the students’ proficiency levels and their code-switching frequency T2 stated: T2: Evet var. Daha ileri seviyelerde daha az diller arası geçiş yapılırken daha başlangıç seviyesinde daha fazla diller arası geçiş yapıldığını gözlemliyoruz yıllardır öğretmenler olarak. Dolayısıyla böyle bir ters orantı olduğunu düşünüyorum ve gözlemliyorum yıllardır. “Yes, there is. Having been teachers for many years, we have been observing that lower-level students have the tendency to CS more than the higher-level students. Thus, I believe there is this inverse ratio between the level and the frequency of CS. T4: Düşük seviyedeki öğrencinin bunu yapmasının bir bağlantısı olduğunu düşünüyorum. Yani A1 seviyesindeki bir öğrencinin daha sık yaptığını ben kendi adıma gözlemledim. I believe that lower-level students’ CS and their proficiency level is related. I myself have observed A1 level students CS more often. As seen in the extracts both T2 and T4 made similar comments on the connection between lower proficiency levels and the frequency of CS. It can be understood that both teachers experienced the issue during their teachings. 69 The analysis of this question showed that all teachers think proficiency levels and CS frequency are related. Lower-level students CS more frequently than the ones in higher proficiency levels according to the teachers. Willis & Willis, 2007 stated that L1 cannot be avoided in L2 classrooms since it can bring some benefits to the classroom, especially with beginners. Similarly, the university teachers who participated in the study by Akın (2016) expressed that the proficiency level was the most important reason for CS. Similarly, Büyükyazı and Solhi (2011) revealed in their study that a large number of teachers allow the use of L1 especially with low level students. 4.3.2. Findings from interviews with students There were fifteen open-ended interview questions applied to students. This instrument aimed to reveal the students’ beliefs on their CS reasons. Additionally, the instrument aimed to find out the students’ perceptions on CS, their previous EFL learning experience and their beliefs on language learning. The students interviewed were chosen randomly from all four levels existing at the private high school the study was conducted. Amongst the students interviewed, there were three A1 students, three A2 students, three B1 students, and three B2 students. All participants were first asked about their previous EFL learning experience. Nine out of twelve students studied only at private schools where they got more English lessons than the other three. The second question directed to the students was if they liked the English lesson or not, which was followed by the question if they thought English lessons were essential in education. Eleven out of twelve students replied they did like the English lesson and it was essential. Only one student stated that he did not like the lesson and did not think it was necessary at all, which was an A1 level male student. The following question in the interview was about doing extra curricular activities related to English apart from the lessons. Resembling the replies to the previous questions’ replies again eleven out of twelve students answered that they did. Highlighted 70 replies included watching movies and TV series, following some social media accounts on Instagram and Youtube, and reading in English. The students were also asked questions about their experience of being and living abroad. Two out of twelve students lived in other countries, where their mother tongue was not the native language of the country, they lived in. Ten out of twelve students had the chance to be abroad more than once mostly, and they all expressed their agreement on its positive effects on their language development and usage. Furthermore, those ten students pointed out that being abroad has contributed to their CS frequency in means of feeling more confident and having the need to code switch as they had no other option than using the language when abroad. That absolute necessity of using the target language while abroad contributed to their use of L2, which means less CS during language lessons. The following question in the semi structured interview conducted was “Do you code switch in EFL classes?”. All students stated that they code switched in EFL classes. The next question directed to the interviewees was their thoughts on CS and their attitudes towards it. All the participant students agreed that CS makes them feel more comfortable in the classroom during the lessons. However, five out of twelve students stated that they would prefer classes where teacher code switches less to reinforce learning and push them. Seven out of twelve students expressed their gladness about being a part of the classes where they can use L1 freely to code switch referring to it decreasing the stress level during lessons. Lee (2010) mentioned in his study that while learning CS made students feel more comfortable and confident. Another finding of his study was that teachers believed that teacher CS would make students feel more comfortable in classes. 71 Table 45 Student Participants’ Beliefs on CS Participant’s Beliefs on CS Groups f Attitude towards English lesson Yes 1 No 1 Necessity of learning English Yes 1 No 1 Extra curricular activities related to English Yes 1 No 1 Aptitude’s relation to language learning Yes 7 No 5 Relation between proficiency levels and CS frequency Yes 12 No 0 Thoughts on teacher CS Positive 7 Negative 5 All student interviewees were asked RQ1 “Why do you code switch?”. The results of the content analysis indicated that from the twelve students interviewed for the study, all gave at least two reasons for their CS. All the data was analysed taking the twenty-six answers into consideration. The answers were grouped under the category of functions as themes that were used while categorising the questionnaire taken from Othman (2015), which had been ordered according to Appel & Muysken (2006) categorisation as expressive, referential, poetic and directive. After the conversation analysis conducted according to the answers received from the interviewed students, it was seen that there were fifteen expressive, seven referential, three poetic and one directive reasons as responses from students for student CS. 72 Table 46 Functions of student CS according to the data gained through student interviews. Reasons mentioned Total answers from student interviews Expressive functions Limited vocabulary Expressing oneself clearly Expressing emotions Finding equivalents For sense of belonging Poetic functions To crack jokes To make the lesson more enjoyable Referential functions To carry out task easily To explain difficult concepts To discuss certain topics which can be more appropriate in Turkish Directive functions To discuss personal issues Expressive functions Expressive functions were the most commonly stated reasons for student CS according to the data analysed. The findings from the semi structured interviews with twelve students revealed that lack of vocabulary was the most given reason for CS When the interviews were transcribed to be analysed, it was conducted those five out of twelve students stated that they switch codes owing to the lack in vocabulary knowledge. Commenting on their reasons for CS one of the participants stated: S1: “Kelime yetersizliği. Kelime sormak için, kelime bazında. Bilmediğin kelimeleri kullanmak için.” “Lack of vocabulary. To ask what a word means and its definition. To be able to use the words that I don’t know the meaning of.” There was also one participant who stated: S8: “Uygun kelime bulamadığımda veya kelimenin İngilizcesini bilmediğimde.” “When I cannot find the right word or when I don’t know the meaning of a word.” 73 One interviewee noted: S 11: “Ben genelde ya bir kelimeyi hatırlayamadığımda.” “I usually code switch when I cannot remember a word.” S1, S8 and S11 all expressed their need to CS when they do not know or remember the equivalence of a word. It is implied by the students that they felt more comfortable, when they learned the meaning of the unknown word in L1. Most of the interviewees responded to the interview question on their reasons for CS, which is also research question 1, as poor vocabulary. That is to say, poor vocabulary is the most common answer in the category of expressive functions amongst the interviewed students. “To create a sense of belonging” was another reason under the category of expressive function commented by the students and another pointed out that they use CS to express themselves easily. One of the responds got from a participant student was: S3: “Arkadaşlarım Türkçe konuşunca muhabbet için ben de Türkçe konuşuyorum.” “When my friends speak Turkish, I speak Turkish too to have some small talk.” Another interviewed student answered: S4: “Öğretmen eğer geçtiyse tekrar İngilizce konuşmak istemiyorum. Belki bu sebep olabilir. Ya da ortamda Türkçe konuşuluyorsa ben de Türkçeden devam ediyorum. En büyük sebebi bu.” “The biggest reason is if the teacher speaks in L1, I don’t want to reply in English.This might be the reason. Or when the other students are speaking in Turkish, I speak Turkish, too.” As it can be seen from the extracts, even though S3 and S4 switch codes for expressive functions, they have different motives to CS. S4 switches to mother tongue if the 74 teachers speaks in L1 and states that they do not want to switch to L2, while S3 prefers to switch codes when their class mates speak in L1. One student responded: S11: “Kendini daha rahat ifade etmene yardımcı oluyor.” “It helps me express myself more easily.” Another participant similarly stated: S12: “Bazen kendimi tam olarak ifade edemiyorum ve tam olarak anlaşılmasını istediğim için Türkçe söylemek zorunda kalıyorum.” “Sometimes I cannot express myself. and I would like to be completely understood, so I feel like I have to speak Turkish.” It can be understood from the extracts that both S11 and S12 uses L1 to decrease the frustration of not being understood. They state that they want to be understood and that’s why they code switch. Some other replies on the expressive usage of CS were because students could not find the equivalent of the word in English and to express emotions. Commenting on their reasons for CS, one of the interviewees stated: S5: “Kelimenin İngilizce karşılığını bilmediğimde.” “When I don’t know the word's equivalence in English.” Another interviewee reported: S1: “Belki şey olabilir mesela Türkçedeki deyim atasözü gibi şeylerin İngilizcede olmaması”. “Maybe it is because some Turkish idioms do not have equivalence in English.” The use of CS in this sense could be an example of extra-sentential or tag switching, in which the learners use idioms or idiomatic expressions, when they cannot find the 75 equivalent or they prefer to use the expression in L1, as they think it fits the situation better, or sometimes even for for humour. As exemplified in the literature review, types of CS. For example: Yani what goes around, comes around (I mean what goes around, comes around). The reason why the learner prefers to switch could be humour or not being able to find the equivalent, or as they mostly expressed during the interviews, because it fits the situation so well. As can be seen from the results, expressive functions are the most common reasons for CS according to the participants in this study. Poetic functions Three of the participants replied to this question as to crack jokes which can be analysed under the category of poetic reasons. The replies of the interviewees on why they code switch that were analysed under the category of poetic functions of CS were to make the lesson more enjoyable and to crack jokes. One of the replies of an interviewee was: S8: “Espri yapmak için.” “To make a joke.” Another reason mentioned by the interviewees was: S1: “Derste şakalaşırken.” “While making jokes.” EXplaining why they code switch, one of the participants replied as: S12: “Dersi eğlenceli hale getirmek için.” “To make the lesson more enjoyable.” It can be inferred from the extracts that all three students use CS for the purpose of fun. 76 Humour is one of the essential elements of classroom interaction and a friendly class. Without making jokes, students would face boredom in their classes, however joking in TL is not something frequently even in higher proficiency levels. Braga (2000) stated in his study which was conducted at beginner level in Brazil, that to create a more comfortable atmosphere in the EFL classroom CS was used by using humor. Thus, students keep on making jokes in L1 in their EFL classes as it also creates a sense of belonging in their classroom between classmates and also showing a loyalty to their culture. Referential functions The conversation analysis of the interviews conducted with the 12 students revealed that student replies on why they code switch also has some reasons that could be categorized under the sub category of referential functions as the students believe that CS makes carrying out tasks easier. One of the interviewees reported that: S9: “Ben gramatik sebeplerle çok yapıyorum sanırım. Anlamadığım yeri sormak için” “I think I code switch due to grammatical reasons, to ask about rules etc. I do not understand.” As S9 states, they switch codes when they feel the need for further explanation especially on grammar points. Another reason stated by the students is closely related to the previous one, which is the students’ belief that CS helps explain difficult concepts. Stating the reason why they code switch, another student replied as: S10: “Arkadaşım bir şeyi anlamadığında.” “When a classmate did not understand something related to the lesson.” Mentioning the reasons of their own CS reason one of the participants reported that: S5: “Soruları (öğretmen tarafından sorulan soruları) daha açıklayıcı hale getirmek için diller arası geçiş yaptığım oluyor.” 77 “I code switch to explain the questions asked (by the teacher).” The last reason stated by the students was the belief of discussing certain topics which can be more appropriate to discuss in Turkish. One of the participants referred to their CS as: S7: “Bir de mesela derin konulardan bahsederken felsefi bir şey anlatırken ya da haberlerden bahsederken ya da sadece sohbet etmek için.” “For instance, while talking about something philosophical or the news or just for chit chat.” According to the reponses, there is no doubt that students feel more comfortable while talking about things that are not related to the lesson content. Talking to both classmates and the teachers in L1 in an EFL classroom environment also helps them strengthen their bond with both the classmates and the teacher and it helps mutual understanding as they comment. Directive functions Lastly, discussing personal issues was stated as one of the reasons for CS by two students. There was also a participant who stated: S11: “Genel olarak kişisel şeyler, çünkü öğretmen bir şey sorduğunda soruyorum biraz zaman alabilir miyim, araştırmak için.” “Mostly for personal issues such as can I have some extra time etc.” The next question asked to the participant students was their attitudes towards teacher CS. Five out of twelve students responded that they would not prefer the teacher to code switch during class. The rest of the students expressed that it was okay for the teacher to code switch especially while giving instructions, making announcements and small talks. The students were asked about their thoughts on institutions banning the use of L1 and so CS. Except for one student, all students shared the idea that this would create a negative 78 classroom environment and would cause negative attitudes both towards the lesson and the teacher. Additionally, eleven students stated that they would not like to be educated at an institution following the no L1 regulation. Only one of the students expressed that he would not mind as he was a bilingual person considering himself as a person with two mother tongues. The following question directed to the participants was if they found CS useful. All of the interviewees stated that balance was the key. Excessive use of L1 in the classroom or banning the use of L1 are both not appreciated by the students involved in this study. The following question was asked with the intention of having an idea of the current situation, which is online education during the COVID19 period. The students were asked if their CS frequency had increased during online education and if yes what could have been the reasons behind this. Seven out of twelve students responded to this question as no, while three of them responded to the question positively. And the reason stated by the three students commented that online education caused them to code switch more during lessons were the need to speak in L1 during technical problems, which occur several times during one lesson, personal issues such as getting the door or the need to visit the bathroom etc... However, two participants expressed that not only them but also the teachers and the whole classroom code switched more frequently owing to some reasons such as the need to talk, as everyone had to stay home due to the pandemic and the teachers’ need to be understood and checking understanding so as the students. The Final question of the interview was if the students believed there was a connection between the proficiency level of the students and the frequency of CS. All twelve interviewee students stated that they believed lower proficiency level students code switched more often than the ones in higher proficiency level classes and there was a connection between the students’ proficiency level and the frequency of CS. The interviewed students 79 stated that the lower the proficiency level, the more the need to speak your own language, owing to lack of vocabulary, feeling insecure etc. Table 47 Quantitative and qualitative results Findings from student questionnaire Findings from student interviews Explaining difficult concepts Limited vocabulary To avoid misunderstandings Expressing oneself clearly English (L2) equivalent. Expressing emotions Expressing oneself clearly Carrying out tasks easily Discussing certain topics that can be more Discussing personal issues appropriate to discuss in L1 Discussing personal issues Cracking jokes Decreasing anxiety Finding equivalents No similar words in English Sense of belonging Thinking in Turkish Explaining difficult concepts Making others understand what I say Discussing certain topics that can be more appropriate to discuss in L1 Feeling more comfortable Making the lesson enjoyable Cracking jokes As can be seen in Table 47, the quantitative results that show the finding of the student questionnaire applied and the qualitative results that were gathered through students interviews have been compared. The results gathered are mostly in line with each other. There are several common answers derived from the research such as; “expressing oneself clearly, cracking jokes, finding equivalents, discussing certain topics that can be more appropriate to discuss in L1, explaining difficult concepts” etc. Table 48 Findings from both teacher and student interviews. Findings from teacher interviews Findings from student interviews Limited vocabulary Limited vocabulary Expressing oneself clearly Expressing oneself clearly 80 Decreasing anxiety Expressing emotions Cracking jokes Carrying out tasks easily Discussing personal issues Discussing personal issues Carrying out tasks easily Cracking jokes Finding equivalents Sense of belonging Explaining difficult concepts Discussing certain topics that can be more appropriate to discuss in L1 Making the lesson enjoyable Analysing the data gained from both teachers and student interviews, it was revealed that limited vocabulary, expressing oneself clearly, carrying out different tasks, cracking jokes and discussing personal issues are some of the common answers. 4.4. Conclusion This chapter consists of the findings obtained in the current study. For this reason, the questionnaire analysis results were explained and the participants’ responses from the semi- structured interviews were integrated with the statistical findings through conversation analysis. In the next chapter, the findings of the study is discussed with relevant references from the literature. 81 CHAPTER 5 Discussion 5.1. Introduction The present study which implied both qualitative and quantitative research methods to reveal answers for the following research questions: 1. What are the reasons for CS for students? 2. What are the reasons for students' CS according to teachers? 3. Are there any significant differences between the frequency of student CS according to their a. proficiency levels? b. grade level? c. age? d. gender? e. having been abroad? f. previous EFL learning experience (studying at private or governmental middle schools)? In this chapter, the results obtained from both qualitative and quantitative data are discussed with regard to the relevant previous studies from the literature relating to the research questions. 5.2. Discussion on CS according to students The first research question attempted to find out why students code switch during their English lessons. With the aim of collecting data by using a mixed method design, all 217 students were first given a questionnaire, afterwards semi structured interviews were held with twelve of them. The findings of the present study revealed that students CS for various reasons. Eldridge (1996), conducted a research in Turkey with high school students and 82 during his study he observed one hundred reasons for CS during his classroom observations. What’s more, Elridge’s study has been one of the few studies in the literature that was conducted at high school level. The majority of the functions found out in the current study are consistent with other studies conducted (Al-Nofaie, 2010; Aydın and Zengin, 2008; Bram, Mety and Wijaya, 2020; Eldridge, 1996; Gumperz, 1982; Hussein, 1999; Malik, 1994; Othman, 2015; Tabassum and Muhammed, 2020; Yatağanbaba, 2014). Yatağanbaba (2014), grouped functions of CS as content-related and other purposes. Some of the content -related issues mentioned by her were; “giving equivalence, asking for clarification, translation, asking for grammar explanations” etc. And, some of the reasons for CS that were referred to as other or social purposes were; attracting attention, teasing a peer, signalling humorous situations etc. The findings of the present study indicated that students mostly CS for content-related issues. All the reasons for student CS found in this study can be listed as; “to discuss personal issues,to avoid misunderstanding, to make others understand what the speaker means, to attract attention, to quote something said by others, to express loyalty to one’s culture, to create a sense of belonging, ,to persuade others, to discuss certain topics which can be more appropriate to discuss in Turkish, to make the lesson more enjoyable, to crack jokes, to express oneself, for humour, to express personal emotions, to feel more comfortable, to make explaining difficult concepts easier, to make learning easier, to carry out tasks easily, to decrease anxiety while speaking, to find equivalents, for not being able to find similar words in L2, because of thinking in Turkish and for habitual expressions”. The quantitative data obtained by the students’ questionnaire revealed that the most common reasons for student CS were as follows in rank; explaining difficult concepts, avoiding misunderstanding, not being able to find the English equivalent, expressing oneself clearly and discussing certain topics that can be more appropriate to discuss in Turkish (L1). 83 It was stated by Ustünel & Seedhouse (2005) that L1 can be used to explain difficult grammar concepts. Even though their study was on teacher CS, this finding is still applicable to the findings discussed above. Even if the students do not CS themselves to explain difficult concepts, they stated that they need teacher CS in those cases. What is more, they CS to explain to their classmates what was not understood or misunderstood with the intention of helping each other. The current study also confirms the findings of Al-Nofaie (2010) in this respect, who revealed explaining difficult activities and explaining grammar were two of the most preferred reasons for student CS. The qualitative results drawn from the interviews conducted with the students indicated that the most preferred reasons for CS were in rank; limited vocabulary, expressing oneself clearly, expressing emotions, carrying out tasks easily, cracking jokes. Similar to what Yatağanbaba (2014) stated in her study, which was conducted with young learners at secondary school, it was seen that students CS for content-related issues as well as other purposes. Another finding that was gained by both quantitatively and qualitatively indicated that one of the reasons for student CS is to carry out tasks easily. It can be concluded that the results of the qualitative and quantitative data go hand in hand on the student CS reason carrying out tasks easily. There are many studies stating the use of L1 is beneficial while carrying out complex tasks (Al-Nofaie, 2010; Arenas-Iglesias 2016; Demirci, 2014; Othman, 2014; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003; Swain and Lapkin, 2000). The quantitative results obtained from the questionnaire applied to the students revealed that students code switch as it helps them understand difficult concepts. This finding is also in line with the data revealed in the interviews. In addition to that, the findings indicated similar results on this item. Thus, a similar result was found with Simasiku, Liswani & Kasanda, Choshi & Smit, Talita. (2015) They stated that “It is believed that learners would 84 be actively involved in their learning, understand the subject matter better and the difficult English concepts would be better interpreted by learners in the language that they fully understand”. Another finding of the study was CS to avoid misunderstanding. A similar finding was revealed in the master’s thesis of Ataş (2012). He stated that CS was used by students “to signal the extent of misunderstanding”. As suggested by Aydın and Zengin (2008), misunderstanding is what students worry about. Bram, Mety and Wijaya (2020) reached a similar conclusion on avoiding unintended misunderstandings being a common reason for student CS. Finding proper Englis equivalents is another function mentioned by the student participants. The findings of the study of Hussein (1999) at a Jordian University also revealed that the main reason for student CS was lack of equivalents. Similarly, one of the major findings of Elridge (1996) was CS by giving the Turkish equivalent of a word in L2 which is similar to the findings reached. What was revealed in the study of Tabassum and Muhammed (2020) was that the majority of students CS to overcome when they are incompetent in L2. This finding is in line with what was found in the present study. Students CS when they cannot come up with the equivalent of a word in L2 and they also CS when they would like to express themselves which both can be defined as issues of being incompetent in L2. 5.3. Discussion on CS according to teachers With the aim of analysing the qualitative data of the present study, four EFL teachers were interviewed. It was revealed by the interviews made with the teachers that teachers' beliefs on student CS are as follows: limited vocabulary, expressing oneself clearly, decreasing anxiety, making jokes, discussing personal issues, attracting attention and carrying out different tasks easily. The results drawn from the semi structured interviews with four teachers demonstrated that teachers believe that the main reason for student CS is poor 85 vocabulary. This finding is consistent with Algarin-Ruiz (2014) and Sönmez (2020). What is more, this finding overlaps with both the quantitative results of this study and the qualitative findings gained through the student interviews. It can be concluded that both teachers and students consider “limited vocabulary” as one of the main reasons for student CS. According to what the qualitative and the quantitative data findings indicated, students CS to express themselves clearly. This finding is consistent with some other studies (Bergsleithner, 2002; Bowles and Seedhouse, 2007; Çelik, 2008; Miles, 2004). Bowles and Seedhouse (2007) referred to allowing students to express themselves as being one of the pedagogical keys of the classroom. That is to say, the participating students in the study apply L1 when they believe they cannot be sure if their language proficiency is not adequate and feel the urge to be understood. Being one of the reasons for CS for students decreasing anxiety was revealed both through teacher interviews and the questionnaire. However, according to the data gained through student interviews decreasing anxiety was not expressed by the interviewee students as one of the reasons for CS. Whether CS and anxiety has been related or not has been studied by many researchers and it was stated that CS lowers learners’ anxiety levels (Arenas- Iglesias, 2016; Auerbach 1993; Levine, 2003; Hashwani, 2008; Uz, 2019; Çakmak, 2020). The findings indicated on student CS to attract attention are in line with several studies (Gumperz, 1982; Malik, 1994; Othman 2015; Alam, 2016; Karaca, 2019). They have all revealed in their studies which were conducted in different parts of the world that students CS to attract attention. Even though it was revealed in the quantitative findings that around 25% of students agreed that they CS to attract attention, more than 50% of them strongly disagreed and disagreed on this. Over and above, none of the students in the qualitative data gathering, stated that they CS to attract attention. An interpretation for this might be students do not think that they CS to attract attention or they find it difficult to say this outloud. 86 Even though the current study has only focused on student CS and its reasons, a result deduced from the teacher interviews that is worth mentioning is the participant teachers’ belief in the efficacy of teacher CS while making important announcements and giving instructions for classroom activities or exams. This finding demonstrates that teachers argue that there are some cases when CS is essential. This finding reveals a similarity between the studies of Ataş (2012) and Yatağanbaba (2014) who both conducted their studies in the Turkish context. 5.4. Student code switching frequency according to a. gender? b. age? c. grade? d. proficiency level? e. previous EFL learning experience (studying at private or governmental middle schools)? f. having been abroad? g. living abroad? The last research question aimed to reveal how students CS and their grades, levels, age, gender and previous EFL learning experience are related. Through the literature it can clearly be seen that the amount of CS differs according to age, proficiency levels, grades, gender and so on. One of the aspects this study examined was if there was a significant difference between CS frequency of students and gender. It was found that there were no significant differences between gender and CS frequency. This finding is in line with Coşkun (2016) findings on CS and gender relationship. She stated that there was no significant difference between students’ CS beliefs and their gender. In contrast to what was found, it was revealed 87 by Huang and Lyu and Lin (2020) that there were gender differences in the code-switching of Mandarin-English child bilinguals. Similarly, Kaddoura & Kaddour (2019) found out in their study, which was conducted with Arabic speakers of Emirati dialect, that gender had an impact on the case of CS. There might be several reasons why there was a statistical difference between gender and CS frequency, one of them being the total number of male and female students. 120 female students took part in the current study, while there were 97 male students contributing to the study. Additionally, both Kaddoura & Kaddour (2019) and Lin (2020) studied with specific bilingual groups. The quantitative data revealed that there is a significant difference between the age groups in terms of CS frequency. It can be seen that there is a significant difference between the age groups 14-16 and 15- 16. It can be concluded from the data that students in the 14 and 15 age group code switched more frequently than the scores of the students in the 16-age group. Ayeomoni (2006) and Kaddoura and Kaddour (2019) both claimed that age has an impact on an individual's tendency to CS and code-mixing. One of the reasons for this finding might be related to the grades of the participants. While students aged 14 are mostly 9th graders, students aged 16 are 11th graders. First of all, 9th graders are the group of students who come from different schools with different perceptions towards CS, whereas 11th graders are used to the school’s EFL classroom procedures. Second of all, 9th graders have 7 hours of English lessons, while 11th graders have only 4. Because of being exposed to the language and spending more time in English lessons, the 9th graders have the need to CS more especially for expressive reasons as they are less familiar with their classmates and the L2 teachers. The findings of the present study indicated that there is no significant difference between the grade of the students and their CS frequency. What earlier literature indicated is 88 that there are not many studies conducted aiming to find the relation between students’ CS frequency and their levels. Yet, Demirci (2016) stated that all teachers who participated in her study agreed that L1 usage is needed in lower grades. It should be noted that the grades of students are directly related to their age. Thus, the aspects of age and grade could be analysed under the same categorisation. Alahmadi (2015) revealed in his study that young learners CS more than older people. Even though there are no older people involved in the study, the study of Al Ahmadi (2015) could still set an example on the issue of age. Analysing the data collected, it was seen that the proficiency levels of the students have a role on the frequency of their CS. When the mean differences are examined, it can be said that students in the A1, A2, B1 groups are significantly higher than the scores of the students in the B2. It was seen that the quantitative results and the qualitative findings overlap. The results of the findings of the questionnaire showed that there is a significant difference in the CS scores of the students according to their English Level. What’s more, interviews made with both students and teachers revealed that both students and teachers believe that students in lower proficiency levels CS more than the students in higher proficiency levels. The results concerning the proficiency levels of the students showed resemblance with some other studies (Ahmad, 2009; Coşkun, 2016; Tien and Liu, 2006). The findings of the current research seem to be in line with another study (Coşkun, 2016). It shows a significant difference between learners' CS beliefs and their proficiency levels. However, this finding is not consistent with the data revealed in the study of Ataş (2012), as his research revealed the opposite, which was conducted in a Turkish university. Another sub-variable to be revealed in the present study was the previous EFL learning experience of the student participants. No significant difference was found between having studied at a private or governmental middle or high school. According to the quantitative data analysed, student participants did not think that attending private or 89 governmental middle or high schools contributes to their CS frequency. However, this finding can be considered as inconsistent with the data revealed in student interviews. When the interviewees previous EFL learning experience was analysed, it was seen that students at higher proficiency level classes have attended a private school before they started the private high school where the study was conducted. In the earlier literature, no studies on the issue seems to be carried out, for this reason this finding might have a contribution to the relevant literature. One of the aims of this study was to reveal if there were any statistical differences between the participants having been abroad or living abroad and CS frequency. The findings from both qualitative and quantitative data suggested that students who have been abroad have positive attitudes towards language learning and are less likely to code switch. Some of the responses gotten from the students about the issue were having more confidence in yourself, feeling more comfortable while using L2 and speaking free from the fear of making a mistake. Students who had been abroad stated that having the chance of using L2 in real life contributed to improving their speaking skills. In the literature, there seems to be no studies focusing on the relationship between having been abroad or living abroad and the frequency of CS. 5.5. Conclusion This chapter started with the discussion on the functions for CS according to students. Secondly, reasons for student CS according to the teachers were discussed. Lastly, CS frequency of students were discussed according to the variables gender, age, grade, proficiency level, previous EFL learning experience (studying at private or governmental middle schools), having been abroad and living abroad. Conclusion of the study will be presented in the next chapter. 90 CHAPTER 6 Conclusion 6.1. Introduction Having been investigated by many researchers, the role and the amount of L1 use in EFL classrooms is still an engaging issue. In the literature, it can be seen that there are many researchers who have come to the conclusion that use of L1 could be considered beneficial for EFL classrooms for various reasons such as; lowering learner anxiety, maintaining discipline, making grammar more understandable and difficult task easier. 6.2. Limitations of the study The first limitation is the absence of classroom observation video recordings. The current study aimed to investigate the functions of student CS in EFL classrooms through a questionnaire applied to students for collecting quantitative data and interviews held with both teachers and students to get qualitative data. However, classroom observation recordings could have been held to support the data gathered to see if student CS functions match. Even though it had been planned to record some classroom observations in each proficiency level classroom to see on which cases students felt the need to CS, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was not possible. The following limitation of the research is the questionnaire applied. More items could have been included by some adjustments in it. Additionally, phatic and metalinguistic functions were not given a place in the questionnaire created by Othman (2015). The questionnaire included the four functions: poetic, expressive, referential and expressive functions. If the questionnaire adopted from Appel & Muysken (2005), consisted all the functions of the model developed, more variety of functions of student CS might have been revealed. 91 The present study was carried out at one school only. If it had been carried out in a different setting such as a governmental secondary school, different results might have been obtained. Another limitation of the present study is that only four teachers participated in the qualitative data gathering process to find out the student CS reasons. The reason for that was the researcher was one of the teachers who participated in the study and there were only four English teachers working in the private school where the study was conducted. Interviewing more teachers to gain more data on student CS could have provided more generalizable data. Lastly, in the current study only students’ CS reasons and perceptions on CS were analysed. Further studies may address the issue from both teachers’ and students’ perspectives to enable making comparisons between them. 6.3. Implications for teaching One of the major purposes of this study was to analyse student CS from English to Turkish in EFL classes from the students' and teachers’ perspectives. The results revealed that there are many reasons why students switch codes in their EFL classrooms such as; limited vocabulary, expressing oneself clearly, expressing emotions, carrying out tasks easily, humour etc. as mentioned and discussed in the previous chapters. CS can be used as a learning tool and a time saver in EFL classrooms, as the results of this study show that students CS for many reasons and one of the most common one is their belief that they might learn easier and faster when L1 is used during teaching grammar. As it can be understood from both teacher and student interviews that, both teachers and students have a positive attitude towards CS and it is believed to be a useful facilitator in language learning. That is why school managements and teachers should pay attention to how the students feel towards their language teachers and the lesson itself when there is English only policy applied. It can be concluded that students might find it more difficult to connect with 92 their teachers when they cannot express themselves clearly. That would motivate the students towards the language lessons, too. According to the results of the study, it was revealed that both teachers and students think that lower proficiency level students have the need to switch codes. So why not turn using L1 into an advantage by making students feel more comfortable and saving time? Another finding of this study is that many students prefer to speak in their mother tongue to avoid misunderstandings or to be understood in a clearer way. In Turkish education context, we, as teachers, face many students that are too shy to speak even in L1. Expecting them to speak in L2 during the whole lesson would be nothing but a dream. Instead, by giving them the opportunity and freedom to switch codes during our classes, as language teachers we could create a sense of belonging, which is another finding of this study, and show them that they are safe. Last but not the least, language teachers should not underestimate the power of humour in the classrooms. It was revealed in this study that fun is one of the most crucial factors of the lessons. Many students responded to why they preferred to code switch in EFL classrooms as “making the lesson enjoyable”. 6.4. Directions for further research The findings of the current study on student CS have shown that most of the participants have a positive attitude towards it and they agree that CS in EFL classrooms is beneficial most particularly while learning new topics or doing different tasks. Therefore, teachers’ and foreign language departments’ and school managements’ attitude towards student CS is crucial as they are the ones who decide on the amount of CS in the EFL classrooms. Specifically private high school foreign languages departments could make use of the findings of this study to decide upon their CS policy at their institutions. 93 The findings of the current study could be useful for both teachers and school managements of private high schools and guide them on CS approaches both at schools and EFL classrooms especially in regard to proficiency levels. It seems that different approaches should be applied, differing according to the student proficiency levels, as there is a significant difference between the CS frequencies of higher and lower proficiency level students. The present study revealed that students CS for various reasons. In addition to that, many of the participants agreed that they feel more comfortable when their teachers let them CS in EFL classrooms. Therefore, further research can be carried out to find the connection between the academic success of students and the frequency of CS. This study investigated if having been or living abroad is related to CS frequency. The conclusion reached after the data analysis was that having been abroad has a positive effect on student CS. Further research could be carried out to find out the reasons and the variables affecting that relationship and a comparative study could be conducted to see if it is related to personality etc. 94 REFERENCES Abd Allah, M. J. (2019). Nature as Vehicle to Express Thoughts in the English Poetry of the Romantic Period (1757-1822). Journal of Literature, Language and Linguistics, 56. 10.7176/JLLL/56-018 Ahmad, B. H., & Jusoff, K. (2009). Teachers' Code-Switching in Classroom Instructions for Low English Proficient Learners. English Language Teaching, 2(2), 49-55. Akın, Ş. (2016), Attitudes of L2 English speakers in Turkey towards Turkish English code-switching in university and business setting (Master’s Thesis) İstanbul: Bahçeşehir University. Alahmadi, S. D. (2015). Loanwords in the Urban Meccan Hijazi Dialect: An Analysis of Lexical Variation According to Speakers' Sex, Age and Education. International Journal of English Linguistics, 5(6), 34. Algharabali, N. A., Alheidari, F. A., & Taqi, H. A. (2015). Code Switching in the French School: Examining a Multilingual Setting in Kuwait. English Language and Literature Studies, 5(4), 36. Algarin-Ruiz, K. M. (2014). Code switching: A tool in the classroom. Amorim, Rita. (2012). Code switching in student-student interaction; functions and reasons! Linguistica. 7. 177-195. Al-Nofaie, H. (2018). The attitudes and motivation of children towards learning rarely spoken foreign languages: a case study from Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(4), 451-464. Appel, R., & Muysken, P. (2005). Language contact and bilingualism. Amsterdam University Press. Arenas-Iglesias, L. M. (2016). Students´ opinions about the use of L1 in an intermediate level course.Auerbach, E.R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly. 27 (1), 9-32. Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching monolingual classes (Vol. 12).Longman. Aydın, S. & Zengin, B. (2008). Anxiety in foreign language learning: a literature summary, Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 4(1), 81-90. Ayeomoni, M.O. (2006). Code-Switching and Code-Mixing: Style of Language Use in Childhood in Yoruba Speech Community. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 15(1), 90-99. Azami, S. A. (2005). Linguistic Manipulations in the Bengali Language by the Bangladeshis in Manchester. SACS, 1 (1), 53-59. Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control: Vol. 1, Theoretical studies toward a sociology of education. London: Paladin. 95 Bokamba, E. G. (1989). Are there syntactic constraints on code-mixing? World Englishes, 8(3), 277–292. Bergsleithne, J. M. (2002). Grammar and interaction in the EFL classroom: a sociocultural study. 2002. Master Dissertation - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florian polis.. Bilgin, G. P., & Rahimi, A. (2013). EFL Teachers' Attitude toward Code Switching: A Turkish Setting. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(5),1. Bilgin, S. S. (2016). Code switching in English language teaching (ELT) teaching practice in Turkey: Student teacher practices, beliefs and identity. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(8), 686-702. Braga, M.C.O. (2000). Humor in the EFL classroom: a sociointeractionist perspective. Master Dissertation - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florian polis. Boztepe, E. (2009). Discourse analysis of language choice and code-switching: Classroom strategies. Teachers College, Columbia University. Boztepe, E. (2005). Issues in code-switching: competing theories and models. Teachers College. Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 3 (2). Bowles, H., & Seedhouse, P. (2007). Conversation analysis and language for specific purposes. Peter Lang. Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). TESOL at forty: What are the issues? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 9-34. Cancino, M., & Díaz, G. (2020). Exploraci n de las conductas de cambio de c digo lingüístico en profesores de lengua extranjera de secundaria: una perspectiva enfocada en las funciones/Exploring the Code-Switching Behaviours of Chilean EFL High School Teachers: A Function-Focused Approach. Profile, 22(2), 115. Cole, S. (1998). The use of L1 in communicative English classrooms. The Language Teacher, 22(12), 11-14. Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402-423. Cook, V. (2008). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching: Fifth Edition (4th ed.). 96 Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203770511 Çakmak, N. (2020). An investigation into the relationship between the attitudes of EFL instructors towards code-switching and their perceived self- efficacy levels. (Master’s Thesis) İstanbul: Bahçeşehir University, Institute of Educational Sciences, İstanbul. Celik, S. (2008). Opening the door: An examination of mother tongue use in foreign language classrooms. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(34),75-85. Karolin DEMIRCI, ., & Aylin Tekiner TOLU (2015). Functions and Functional Preferences of Code Switching: A Case Study at a Private K-8 School in Turkish Context. International Journal Of English Language and Translation Studies. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19631 Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press. Eldridge, J. (1996). Code-switching in a Turkish secondary school. ELT Journal, 50(4), 303-311. Ferguson, G. (2003). Classroom code-switching in post-colonial contexts: Functions, attitudes and policies. AILA Review, 16(1), 38-51. Greggio, S., & Gil, G. (2007). Teacher’s and learners’ use of code switching in the English as a foreign language classroom: a qualitative study. Linguagem &Ensino, 10(2), 371-393. Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal, 46(4), 350-355. Hashwani, M. S. (2008). Students’ attitudes, motivation and anxiety towards English language learning. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education, 2(2) 136-140. Horasan, S. (2013). Code-switching in EFL classrooms: a case study on discourse functions, switch types, initiation patterns, and perceptions (Master's thesis) Ankara: Middle East Technical University. Horasan, S. (2014). Code-switching in EFL classrooms and the perceptions of the students and teachers. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 10(1), 31-45. Huang, W., Lyu, D., & Lin, J. (2020). Seeking Gender Difference in Code-Switching by Investigating Mandarin-English Child Bilingual in Singapore. Hussein, R. F. (1999). Code‐alteration among Arab college students. World Englishes, 18(2), 281-289. Hymes, D. (1977). Foundations in sociolinguistics. London. 97 Reyes, I. (2004). Functions of code switching in schoolchildren's conversations. Bilingual Research Journal, 28(1), 77-98. Simasiku, L., Kasanda, C., & Smit, T. (2015). Can Code Switching Enhance Learners ' Academic Achievement?. English Language Teaching, 8(2), 70-77. Karaca, F. (2019). Türkçenin yabancı dil olarak öğretildiği sınıflarda öğretmenlerin kullandıkları dil değişimi fonksiyonları üzerine bir durum çalışması: A1 örneği. [Functions of teachers' code-switching in Turkish as a foreign language classrooms: A case study in a1 level]. Yıldız Technical University, İstanbul, Turkey. Karanfil, F. (2019). Burnout levels and reasons in English teachers working in state and private school in Turkey: A comparative study (Master's thesis) Bursa: Bursa Uludag University. Klappenbach, A. (2019). Most spoken language in the world 2020. İbrahim, U. Z. (2019). Teachers' uses of the target and first languages in second and foreign language classrooms. (Master’s thesis) Isparta: Suleyman Demirel University. Inan, H., Khosravi, K., & Socher, R. (2016). Tying word vectors and word classifiers: A loss framework for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01462. Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 343-364. Levine, G. S. (2011). Code choice in the language classroom. Multilingual Matters. Levine, G. S. (2014). Principles for code choice in the foreign language classroom: A focus on grammaring. Language Teaching, 47(3), 332. Lin, A. (2013). Classroom code-switching: Three decades of research. Applied Linguistics Review, 4(1), 195-218. Muysken, P. (2011). Code-switching. In Mesthrie, R. (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press. (pp.301-314). Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy (Vol. 5). Multilingual matters. Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85(4), 531-548. Macaro, E. (2005). Code switching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In Non-native language teachers (pp. 63-84).Springer, Boston, MA. 98 Mahbub-ul-Alam, A., & Quyyum, S. (2016). A Sociolinguistic Survey on Code Switching & Code Mixing by the Native Speakers of Bangladesh. Journal of Manarat International University, 6(1), 8-9. Martin, H. E. (2005). Code‐switching in US ethnic literature: multiple perspectives presented through multiple languages. Changing English, 12(3), 403-415. Marwa, M. (2014). Reasons for Students’ Code-Switching Between Informal Indonesian and English in ELT Contexts. ELT-Lectura, 1(1), 20-25. Solhi, M., & Büyükyazı, M. (2011, May). The use of first language in the EFL classroom: A facilitating or debilitating device. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on foreign language teaching and applied linguistics, Sarajevo,Bosnia and Herzegovina. Miles, R. (2004). Evaluating the use of L1 in the English language classroom. School of Humanities. Centre for English Language Studies Department of English.University of Birmingham. Muysken, P., & Muysken, P. C. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge University Press. Myers-Scotton, C. (2005). Multiple voices: An introduction to bilingualism. Wiley-Blackwell. Molway, L., Arcos, M., & Macaro, E. (2020). Language teachers’ reported first and second language use: A comparative contextualized study of England and Spain. Language Teaching Research, 1362168820913978. MoNE. (2012) Twelve-year of the education system: Questions and Answers http://www.meb.gov.tr/duyurular/duyurular2012/12Yil_Soru_Cevaplar.pdf MoNE. (2018). Turkey’s education vision 2023. MoNE: Ankara Moran, G. (2009). Teachers’ code switching and its functions in foreign language classrooms. Morris, M. (1998) Beliefs and practices of teaching assistants toward language use in elementary French classes. In Heinlenman, L. , editor, Research issues and language programs. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle , 101-141. Nation, P., 2003. The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Asian EFL Journal,5.2-5. Nunan, D., & Carter, R. (Eds.). (2001). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. Ernst Klett Sprachen. OECD (2008), “Social Expenditures aggregates”, OECD Social Expenditure Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/000530172303 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/000530172303. Othman, M. M. (2015). Functions of code switching: A case study. Unpublished MA Thesis. Gazimağusa: Eastern Mediterranean University. 99 Kafes, H. (2011). A neglected resource or an overvalued illusion: L1 use in the foreign language classroom. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 2(2), 128-140. Karatas, T. Ö. (2016). The Uses and Functions of L1 in ELT Settings: A Task-Based Study in Turkish Context. Online Submission, 4(2), 87-97. Kharma, N. N., & Hajjaj, A. H. (1989). Use of the mother tongue in the ESL classroom. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 27(3), 223. Kirkgöz, Y. (2005). Motivation and student perception of studying in an English- medium university. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 1(1), 101- 123. Prelovskaia, I. (2013). Functions of code-switching in multilingual student community. (Doctoral dissertation) University of Algrave, Portugal. Rathert, S. (2012). Functions of Teacher and Student Code-Switching in an EFL Classroom and Pedagogical Focus: Observations and Implications. Educational Process: International Journal (EDUPIJ), 1(1-2), 7-18. Sali, P. (2014). An analysis of the teachers' use of L1 in Turkish EFL classrooms. System, 42, 308-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.021 Saville-Troike, M. (2008). The ethnography of communication: An introduction (Vol. 14). John Wiley & Sons. Sert, O. (2005). The Functions of Code-Switching in ELT Classrooms.The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XI, No. 8, August 2005. Online Submission, 11(8). Shay, O. (2015). To switch or not to switch: Code-switching in a multilingual country. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 209, 462-469. Simasiku, L., Kasanda, C., & Smit, T. (2015). Can Code Switching Enhance Learners' Academic Achievement?. English Language Teaching, 8(2), 70-77. Skiba, R. (1997). Code switching as a countenance of language interference. The Internet TESL journal, 3(10), 1-6. Stern, H. H., & Allen, J. P. B. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford University Press, USA. Solhi, M., & Büyükyazı, M. (2011, May). The use of first language in the EFL classroom: A facilitating or debilitating device. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on foreign language teaching and applied linguistics, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. 100 Sönmez, B. (2020). The relationship between code-switching beliefs of university preparatory class students and their foreign language classroom anxiety (Master's thesis) İstanbul: Maltepe University.. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting?. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 760-770. Tabassum, F., Rafique, H., Akram, N., & Khan, M. A. Functions of Code Switching in the English Language Teaching Classroom Discourse: Perspectives of Lecturers and Students. Talmy, S., & Richards, K. (2011). Theorizing qualitative research interviews in applied linguistics. Applied linguistics, 32(1), 1-5. Tanrıseven, U. (2020). Investigating the teachers' use of L1 in EFL classes (Master's thesis) Mersin: Çağ University. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences.Sage. Timuçin, M., & Baytar, İ. (2015). The functions of the use of L1: Insights from an EFL classroom. Kastamonu Education Journal, 23(1), 241-252. Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but…. Canadian modern language review, 57(4), 531-540. Turnbull, M., & Arnett, K. (2002). 11. Teachers 'uses of the target and fırst languages ın second and foreıgn language classrooms. Annual review of applied linguistics, 22, 204. Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O'Cain, J. (Eds.). (2009). First language use in second and foreign language learning. Multilingual Matters. Uz, İbrahim (2019). Language iınstructors’ and teacher trainers’ perceptions of code-switching and code-mixıig ın foreign language classrooms.(Master’s thesis) Suleyman Demirel University,Turkey. Üstünel, E. (2016). EFL classroom code-switching. Palgrave MacMillan. Üstünel, E., & Seedhouse, P. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now? Code‐switching and pedagogical focus. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 302-325. Weschler, R. (1997). Uses of Japanese in the English Classroom: Introducing the Functional-Translation Method. Kyoritsu Women's University Department of International Studies Journal, 12, 87-110. Wijaya, K. F., Mety, N., & Bram, B. (2020). English Education Master's Program Students' Perceptions on the Use of Code-Switching in EFL Classroom Context. Journal of English Teaching, 6(1), 1-11. 101 Willis, J. (1981). Teaching english through english (Vol. 8). Harlow: Longman. YAŞAR, G. C., & YILDIZ, S. (2017). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin İngilizce Derslerinde Kod Değiştirmeye İlişkin İnançları ile İngilizce Dersine İlişkin tutumları arasındaki ilişki. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 7(13), 111-129. YAŞAR, G. C., & YILDIZ, S. (2017). The relationship between code-switching beliefs of the university students in English classes and their attitudes towards English. Abant İzzet Baysal University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Bolu. Yıltanlılar, A., Cyprus, N., Çağanağa, Ç. K., & Cyprus, N. (2015). The Perceptions of EFL Teachers on the Impact of the Usage of Code-Switching in EFL Classroom Management. Open Access Library Journal, 2(11), 1. Yletyinen, H. (2004). The functions of code switching in EFL classroom discourse. Zamora, K. R. (2020). Should English be taught as a Global Language?. 10.13140/RG.2.2.36504.21762. Zulfikar, Z. (2019). Rethinking the use of L1 in L2 classroom. Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities, 6(1), 42-51. 102 APPENDICES Apppendix 1: Permission from the owner of the questionnaire used in the study. 103 Appendix 2: Student Questionnaire Gender: Age: Read each of the following items carefully please and tick the answer which best describes your degree of agreement or disagreement. The information you provide will not disclosed to anyone and will only be used for research purposes. The following degrees are used: strongly agree, agree, not sure, disagree, and strongly disagree. If you code switch to Turkish in classroom, you do so for the following reasons: No Item Description Strongly Agree Not Disagree Strongly Agree Sure Disagree 1 To discuss personal issues 2 To avoid misunderstanding 3 To make others understand what I mean 4 To attract attention 5 To quote something said by others 6 To express loyalty to my culture 7 To create a sense of belonging 8 To persuade others 9 To discuss certain topics which can be more appropriate to discuss in Turkish 10 To make the lesson more enjoyable 11 To crack jokes 12 To express myself easily 13 To express personal emotions (anger, sadness, happiness, etc.). 14 Because I feel comfortable in using more than one language when speaking 15 Because it helps explain difficult concepts 16 Because it helps make learning English easier 17 Because it helps carry out tasks easily 18 Because it decreases my anxiety when speaking 19 Because it is hard to find proper English equivalents 20 Because there are no similar words in English 21 Because I think sometimes in Turkish 22 For habitual expressions 104 Appendix 3: Student questionnaire in Turkish Öğrenci Anketi Cinsiyet: _____ Yaş:____ İngilizce seviye grubunuzu işaretleyiniz: A1 A2 B1 B2 Lütfen aşağıdaki her bir maddeyi dikkatlice okuyunuz ve bu maddeye hangi derece katıldığınızı veya katılmadığınızı belirten cevabı işaretleyiniz. Paylaştığınız bilgiler kimse ile paylaşılmayacak ve sadece araştırma amacı ile kullanılacaktır. Ankette kullanılmış olan derecelendirme ifadeleri şöyledir: Kesinlikle katılıyorum, katılıyorum, emin değilim, katılmıyorum ve kesinlikle katılmıyorum. İngilizce dersinde Türkçeye geçiş yapıyorsanız, aşağıda verilen sebeplerden size uygun olanları işaretleyiniz. Kesinlikle Emin Kesinlikle No Item Description Katılıyorum Katılmıyorum katılıyorum Değilim katılmıyorum 1 Kişisel meseleleri aktarmak için 2 Yanlış anlaşılmaları gidermek için 3 Sınıftaki diğer kişilerin ne kastettiğimi anlaması için 4 Dikkat çekmek için 5 Başka birinin söylemiş olduğu bir sözü aktarmak için 6 Kültürel aktarım 7 Aidiyet hissi yaratmak için 8 Diğerler öğrencileri ikna etmek için 9 Türkçe tartışmanın daha uygun olduğu şeylerden bahsetmek için 10 Dersi daha eğlenceli hale getirmek için 11 Espri yapmak için 12 Kendimi kolay bir şekilde ifade etmek için 13 Ne hissettiğimi aktarmak için (kızgınlık, üzüntü, mutluluk vs.) 14 Konuşurken iki dil kullanırken daha rahat hissettiğim için 15 Zor konuların açıklanmasnda yardımcı olduğu için 16 İngilizce öğrenmeyi daha kolay hale getirdiği için 17 Etkinlikleri yaparken kolaylık sağladığı için 105 18 Konuşurken gerginliğimi azalttığı için 19 Kelimenin İngilizce karşılığını bulmak zor olduğu için 20 İngilizcede benzer kelimeler olmadığı için 21 Çünkü bazen Türkçe düşünüyorum 22 Gündelik kalıpları kullanırken Appendix 4: Semi structured interview questions for students 1. Could you please inform us about your previous EFL learning experience? How long have you been learning English? Which school have you attended so far? Have you studied at a private middle school or high school? etc. 2. Do you like English lessons? 3. Do you think it is essential to learn English? If so, why? 4. Do you do any extracurricular activities related to English language? If so, what do you do? 5. Do you think learning English is directly related to aptitude? If so, why do think so? 6. Have you ever been abroad for touristic or educational purposes? If so, do you think it has any effects on learning a language and CS? 7. Have you lived abroad? If so, do you think it has any effects on learning a language and CS? 8. Do you code switch in EFL classes? 9. What do you think of CS in EFL classes? 10. What are the reasons for your CS? 11. What do you think of teacher CS? 12. What do you think about institutions banning the use of L1 and so CS? 13. Do you think CS is beneficial? If so, why 14. Has your CS frequency increased during online education? If so, what might be the reasons? 15. Do you think proficiency levels and the frequency of student CS are related? 106 Appendix 5: Semi structured interview questions for students in Turkish 1. İngilizce öğrenme deneyiminizden bahseder misiniz? Kaç yıldır İngilizce öğreniyorsunuz? Hangi okullarda (özel okul/devlet okulu) eğitim aldınız? 2. İngilizce dersini seviyor musunuz? 3. İngilizce öğrenmenin gerekli olduğunu düşünüyor musunuz? Eğer öyleyse nedenleri nelerdir? 4. Ders dışında İngilizce dili ile ilgileniyor musunuz? 5. İngilizce öğrenmenin yetenek ile doğrudan alakalı olduğunu düşünüyor musunuz? Sizce nedenleri nelerdir? 6. Hayatınızın her hangi bir döneminde turistik, eğitim ya da farklı sebeplerle yurtdışında bulundunuz mu? 7. Hayatınızın her hangi bir döneminde yurtdışında yaşadınız mı? 8. Yabancı dil derslerinde diller arası geçiş yapıyor musunuz? 9. Yabancı dil derslerinde diller arası geçiş yapmak hakkında ne düşünüyorsunuz? 10. İngilizce derslerinde en çok hangi sebeplerle diller arası geçiş yapıyorsunuz? 11. Öğretmenlerinizin diller arası geçiş yapması hakkındaki düşünceleriniz neler? 12. Yabancı dil derslerinde ana dil kullanımı yasak olan bir kurumda eğitim aldınız mı? Bu tarz kurumlardaki dil eğitimi hakkında ne düşünüyorsunuz? 13. Yabancı dil derslerinde diller arası geçişi faydalı buluyor musunuz? 14. Online eğitimin hakim olduğu bu dönemde derste anadil kullanma isteğiniz/oranınız arttı mı? Eğer öyleyse, sebepleri neler olabilir? 15. Sizce öğrencinin İngilizce seviyesinin diller arası geçiş yapma sıklığı ile bir bağlantısı var mı? Appendix 6: Semi structured interview questions for teachers 1. Do your students code switch in your classes? 2. What are the main reasons for student code switching? 3. What is your attitude towards student CS in your classes? 4. In which cases do you think your student CS is acceptable? 5. Do you think student CS in EFL classes are beneficial? 6. Do you think student CS in EFL classes are disadvantageous? 7. Do you think proficiency levels and the frequency of student CS are related? 107 Appendix 7: Semi structured interview questions for teachers in Turkish 1. Öğrencileriniz İngilizce derslerinde diller arası geçiş yapar mı? 2. Öğrencilerin diller arası geçiş yapmasının nedenleri nelerdir? 3. Derslerinizde öğrencilerinizin diller arası geçiş yapmasına karşı tavrınız nasıldır? 4. Sizce diller arası geçiş yapılmasının kabul edilebilir olduğu durumlar nelerdir? 5. Sizce İngilizce derslerinde öğrencilerin diller arası geçiş yapması faydalı mıdır? 6. Sizce öğrencilerin İngilizce derslerinde diller arası geçiş yapmasının dezavantajları var mıdır? 7. Sizce öğrencilerin diller arası geçiş yapma sıklığı, öğrencilerin İngilizce seviyeleriyle ilişkili midir? 108 Appendix 8 : Speaking Exam Samples Speaking exam sample for A1 level Topic:Food ● What is your favourite food? ● Who in your family does the cooking? Why? ● What does healthy life mean for you? ● Tell something about your eating habits. ● Fast food - slow food. What is your opinion? Speaking exam sample for A2 level Topic: Holiday ● Which countries/cities are your favorite places to go on holiday? Why? ● Have you ever been there? ● Do you have any information about those places? ● What kind of activities can you do there? ● What kind of holiday is your favorite? Camp holiday, beach holiday, adventure holiday? Speaking exam sample for B1 level Topic: Television ● How often do you watch television? ● What do you think of the quality of television programmes today? ● What television programs are popular in your country? Why do you think they are popular? ● Do you prefer TV to Internet? Please support your reasons ● Do you think Internet has replaced TV? Please support your reasons. Speaking exam for B2 level Topic: Learning ● People have different learning styles. Some learn best by hands-on experience, others through reading about things, and others by listening to others talking about things. Which of these is your optimal learning style? Please support your response with examples and reasons. ● Some students prefer a lecture-based class (where teachers do all of the talking), while others enjoy classes where students also contribute to the discussion. Which of these do you prefer, and why? 109 Appendix 9 : Permission from Ministry of Education 110 Appendix 10: Permission from the principal of the high school where the study was conducted 111 ÖZGEÇMİŞ Adı-Soyadı Ayça Erol Doğum Yeri ve Yılı İstanbul 1983 Bildiği Yabancı Diller İngilizce Eğitim Durumu Başlama - Bitirme Kurum Adı Yılı Lise 1998 2001 Pendik Süper Lisesi Lisans 2001 2005 Bursa Uludag Üniversitesi Yüksek Lisans 2014 2022 Bursa Uludag Üniversitesi Doktora Çalıştığı Kurum (lar) Başlama - Ayrılma Çalışılan Kurumun Adı Yılı 1. 2005 2006 Wall Street Institute 2. 2006 2007 Mehmet Tekinalp Lİsesi 3. 2007 2010 Halic Universitesi 4. 2017 …… Özel 3 Mart Lisesi Üye Olduğu Bilimsel ve Meslekî Kuruluşlar Katıldığı Proje ve Toplantılar Yayınlar: Diğer: İletişim (e-posta): aycaerol@outlook.com.tr Tarih İmza 20.01.2022 Ayça Erol Adı-Soyadı