ISSN 1799-2591

Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 924-934, May 2016
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0605.03

Code Switching in EFL Classrooms: A

Bangladeshi Perspective
Md. Obaidullah
Department of English, Northern University Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Abstract—Code switching (CS) in classrooms, especially in bilingual classes, is a common phenomenon. This
paper tends to expose the plausible reasons behind the application of first language (L1) in English as Foreign
Language (EFL) classrooms where English is considered the medium of instruction in all spheres of
pedagogical issues. Another important aspect of this study is to reveal the perception of both students and
teachers towards their CS to L1. The findings of this survey show that a switch to L1, whether initiated by the
teachers or the students, makes the lesson or topic discussed in the class more comprehensible.

Index Terms—code switching, EFL classroom, reasons, attitudes, learning success

I. INTRODUCTION
Code switching (CS) requires an in depth inspection to be carried out in the country like Bangladesh. Undoubtedly,
Bangladesh is a country that has a glorious language history dated back to 1952. To walk with the change and to
amalgamate with the so called mainstream society, people here give English, a language of global interest, an
undeniable position in their every walk of life though English has not yet received any official status. Banu and Sussex
(1999) state that the role of English in Bangladesh is purely functional as English is used as an international link
language. They also claim English has been used for years and for different purposes and gradually it is becoming part
of the socio-cultural system.
Being a part of global community, English has an increasing demand here and, true to say, the necessity and
importance of learning English is growing more and more. In Bangladesh, English is taught at primary, secondary,
higher secondary and tertiary levels. With its outgrowing importance, English has become the medium of instruction in
most of the universities of the country, especially the private universities. Given priority to this language use,
Bangladesh has become, though unofficially, a bilingual country. As students at tertiary level belong to a bilingual
community, code switching in the classrooms, therefore, is a very common phenomenon which cannot be ignored in
any way. As Hudson (1996, p. 51) claims “code switching is the inevitable consequence of bilingualism”.

II. CODE SWITCHING

CS is defined as the alternation of two languages within a single discourse, sentence, or constituent (Jamshidi &
Navehebrahim, 2013). It can occur when a speaker starts his conversation in a language, then changes it to another
language in the middle of his speech.
Gumperz (1982, p. 59) refers to it as “the juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of passages of speech
belonging to two different grammatical systems or subsystems”. Cook (2001a) opines that code switching is the process
of “going from one language to the other in mid-speech when both speakers know the same languages” (p. 83).
Speakers start with second language (L2) but they switch code to their first language (L1) in the same discourse, that the
speakers balance both L1 and L2 simultaneously. Jan (1999) discusses that code switching is generated by a number of
socio-cultural factors such as role relationships, topics, intention and effect, attitude, values and beliefs, personal
emotions, situation, domain, setting and language choice.
Schmitt and McCarthy (1997, p. 2) state “a learner’s L1 is one of the most important factors in learning L2
vocabulary”. Teachers use code switching to make students understand difficult and new vocabularies in the text. They
use contextual reference using their L1 to make the topic enjoyable. Norrish (1997) claims that teachers switch code
when the level of English used in the textbook or to be taught is beyond the learner’s ability or when the teachers have
exhausted the means to adjust his speech to the learner’s level. Situation or learning context creates a significant
pressure on the teachers to use L1 in the classroom. Cook (2001b) referred to code switching in the classroom as a
natural response in a bilingual situation. Cole (1998) argues for selective, principled use of the L1 due to its practicality
and efficiency. A pragmatic/careful switch to L1 always creates a sense of solidarity and sameness. According to
Holmes (2001, p. 35), “A speaker may switch to L1 as a signal of group membership and shared ethnicity with an
addressee”. Therefore, mother tongue interference in classrooms, where English is considered the medium of instruction,
can have multiple constructive reasons.

III. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 925

The hypotheses to be tested under this study are as following:

1. Both teachers and students switch their code from English to Bengali in English as Foreign Language (EFL)
classrooms.
2. Learning outcome of the students largely depends on teachers’ careful code switching.
3. Students hold positive attitude towards mother tongue interference in EFL classroom.

IV. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

Very little attention is paid to the matter of using L1 in the context of EFL classrooms at the tertiary level in
Bangladesh. This interested me to conduct an in depth investigation into this field. The objectives of the study include:
1. to determine the reasons that lead to the use of code switching in the classroom discourse
2. to determine the perception of both students and teachers towards their incorporation of L1 in classroom setting
3. to measure the impact of teachers’ code switching on EFL learning and teaching
4. to determine the expected frequency of code switching
5. to add new insight to the existing literature on CS

V. METHODOLOGY
A. The Subjects
The survey for this study was conducted on 34 teachers and 175 students from two universities. All participants
including teachers and students are Bengali-English bilinguals. Among the teachers, 22 are from Northern University
Bangladesh (NUB), one of the leading private universities of Bangladesh, and 12 are from Khulna University (KU), a
reputed public university of the country. The medium of instruction of both universities is English. The teachers from
both NUB and KU were randomly chosen from the following departments: English, Business Administration (BA),
Law, Computer Science and Engineering (CSE), and Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE). Teachers
were taken into account from different disciplines in comparison to the students’ departments to find out if teachers
from different departments switch codes or CS is limited to few departments.
Student participants were also randomly chosen from different subjects as they come from several departments. All
students were attending EFL classes as part of their undergraduate and postgraduate programs. Among them 120
students are from NUB who are attending their undergraduate programs in three departments (English, Business
Administration (BA), and Law). All of them have completed their 1st year, i.e. at least 3 trimesters. The remaining 55
students from KU are completing their postgraduate program in English Language. Student participants were taught
English as a foreign language for twelve years as their compulsory subject at primary, secondary and higher secondary
levels before joining the university programs. Though they studied English as a compulsory subject from Class 1 to
Class 12, they achieved very low proficiency in English because of poor teaching, low contact hours, and poor teaching
curricula and methodology.
In the following tables, detailed information of the participants is given categorically.
TABLE 1
INFORMATION RELATED TO TEACHER PARTICIPANTS
NUB KU Total
Department/Discipline
English BA Law English CSE ECE
Gender Male Ph.D. 01 00 00 01 00 00 02
Master’s 02 06 03 06 01 01 19
Female Ph.D. 00 00 01 01 00 00 02
Master’s 02 07 00 01 01 00 11
Total 05 13 04 09 02 01 34

TABLE 2
MORE INFORMATION RELATED TO TEACHER PARTICIPANTS
Academic Rank Total
Professor 04 34
Associate Professor 05
Assistant Professor 11
Senior Lecturer 05
Lecturer 09

Teaching Experience Total

Less than 5 years 16 34
5-10 years 14
Above 10 years 04

© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

926 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

TABLE 3
INFORMATION RELATED TO STUDENT PARTICIPANTS
Table 3
NUB KU Total
Level
Graduate Post-graduate
Department/Discipline
English BA Law English
Gender Male 60 20 05 39 124
Female 20 00 15 16 51
Total 80 20 20 55 175

From tables 1, 2, and 3, it becomes visible that the male and female ratio was not maintained in any case, whether it
is student or teacher, as it does not fall into the objectives of this research. Four of the teachers hold Ph.D. degree and
the rest of them have master’s degree. The teaching experience of the teachers ranges from less than 5 years to above 10
years. Though this is not considered while analyzing data, it is important to be noted that teachers’ academic ranks
differ from Lecturer to Professor.
B. Methods and Procedures
The study was conducted using two different types of written questionnaires that were distributed among the
participants of the two distinct groups. The questionnaire designed for the teachers (see Appendix A) include 15
questions. Among these questions, some of them presuppose a number of obvious reasons for which the teachers switch
their codes. These questions try to validate and prove if the assumed reasons have evidence or not. Few questions are
set to find out what kind of attitude the teachers hold towards their own and towards the students’ code switching.
The second questionnaire (see Appendix B) comprises a set of questions, and most of them primarily pre-consider
code switching plays a positive role in favor of the students and aim at explaining students’ views on the use of Bengali
in EFL classrooms. This questionnaire also tries to find out why and how code switching bears a favorable appeal to
students and what their attitude towards teachers’ code switching is.
The questionnaires have been designed using the researcher’s personal experience and taking helps from previous
studies of code switching. A pilot study was also conducted on both of the questionnaires to ensure the reliability and
validity of the survey. The key purpose of this pilot study was to be sure if the questionnaires were feasible to bring out
the objectives of the present study. Considering the feedback elicited from 3 teachers and 10 students, some changes
were made in the questionnaires such as: deletion of some questions, rephrasing some sentences of few questions as
they became difficult to understand etc. Then, each of the questionnaires is prepared suitably and divided into two parts:
first part is related to the personal background of participants and second part is about research questions.
The data are analyzed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 16.0 in order of the questions’
appearance (Appendix A & Appendix B) and in terms of related studies (Alshammari, 2011; Jingxia, 2010; Tang, 2002).
The responses are shown in percentage using tables.

VI. LITERATURE REVIEW

In many cases, code switching is commonly viewed with suspicion in EFL classes (Yao, 2011). Many consider it a
crime for the teachers who employ L1, of course in a limited sense, for their lessons to be comprehensible. Teachers try
to continue their classes in the target language (TL), but when the situation demands, they are, to some extent, forced to
switch their codes. We know the prime purpose of a language is to serve the function of communication. For the sake of
communication between teachers and students to be fruitful, teacher has no alternative but code switching. Harbord
(1992) points out that many ELT teachers have tried to create English only classrooms but the result they have found is
students have failed to get the meaning across leading to incomprehension and resentment.
Eyes always speak the inner thoughts that most often remain unspoken. Teachers can feel, as they have the ability to
do so, the pulse of the students and understand that the English only class creates a barrier in students’ understanding in
certain cases. Therefore, code switching becomes a natural phenomenon and an inevitable part of Second Language
Acquisition (SLA), especially in EFL classrooms. If it is about the validity or usefulness of code switching, there are
many studies that speak in favor of CS. For example, Schweers (1999) investigated the validity of using L1 in EFL
classrooms at a university level. It was concluded that all teachers who participated in the study believed that L1 should
be used in EFL classes. Likewise the majority of the students agreed that their L1 should be used to clear any difficult
concept and they admitted that they felt less lost during the lesson when their teachers used L1.
Code switching is necessary in the classroom if the teacher and students share the same language and should be
regarded as a natural part of bilingual’s behavior (Jamshidi and Navehebrahim, 2013). When the teacher uses L1 in EFL
classrooms, it creates a rapport between teachers and students and it also signals solidarity and sameness among them.
A similar kind of study was conducted in a Saudi intermediate girls’ school and the study revealed that teachers and
students hold positive attitudes towards the use of their L1 Arabic in the classrooms (Al- Nofaie, 2010).
Rashid (2014) conducted a research on 13 teachers and 63 students from Shahjalal University of Science and
Technology (SUST), Bangladesh. The study shows that a high percent of the teachers (61.54%) and students (57.14%)

© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 927

agree with the use of code switching and when CS was investigated as a strategy of teaching and learning, the lion
portion of teachers (84.62%) and students (87.39%) believe that CS is an eminent strategy for teaching and learning
English in the university classrooms.
Teachers switch code when the level of English used in the text-book or course material is beyond the student’s
ability. CS is used to explain new terms or words and difficult grammatical items. Ahmad and Josseff (2009) found in
their survey that 72.4% of the respondents (total 257) acknowledged that CS helped them understand new words,
71.6% perceived that CS assisted them in understanding any difficult concepts while 68.8% agreed that teachers’ CS
helped them understand the grammar being taught.
Jingxia (2010) conducted a research on 259 students and 60 teachers from 3 Chinese universities. The results of the
research show that students (96.9%) think it is important for their teachers to use Chinese (L1) “ always, sometime, or
occasionally” to meet for their needs as their lessons are generally a little beyond their comprehension, and the majority
of teachers (81.7%) and students ( 75.3%) believe that CS to Chinese greatly benefit the class.
In accordance with the above mentioned studies, the present study also tries to shed light on CS in the context of
Bangladeshi EFL classrooms.

VII. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT

As mentioned before, the purpose of the present study is to bring the reasons behind CS classroom use into light and
it also attempts to uphold the attitudes of both teachers and students towards CS. First part of the analysis graphs the
teachers’ responses and the second portion demonstrates responses gathered from the student participants.
TABLE 4
STATISTICAL RESULTS OF TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
Response Always Sometimes Undecided Seldom Never Total
Q1 Frequency 00 27 00 06 01 34
Percentage 00 79.4 00 17.6 2.9 100
Q2 Frequency 03 26 04 01 00 34
Percentage 8.8 76.5 11.8 2.9 00 100
Response Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Total
Q3 Frequency 03 23 06 02 00 34
Percentage 8.8 67.6 17.6 5.9 00 100
Q4 Frequency 09 21 02 02 00 34
Percentage 26.5 61.8 5.9 5.9 00 100
Q5 Frequency 23 08 02 01 00 34
Percentage 67.6 23.5 5.9 2.9 00 100
Q6 Frequency 05 21 06 02 00 34
Percentage 14.7 61.8 17.6 5.9 00 100
Q7 Frequency 03 12 09 05 05 34
Percentage 8.8 35.3 26.5 14.7 14.7 100
Q8 Frequency 07 21 05 01 00 34
Percentage 20.6 61.8 14.7 2.9 00 100
Q9 Frequency 06 21 05 01 01 34
Percentage 17.6 61.8 14.7 2.9 2.9 100
Q10 Frequency 19 12 03 00 00 34
Percentage 55.9 35.3 8.8 00 00 100
Q11 Frequency 03 18 07 04 02 34
Percentage 8.8 52.9 20.6 11.8 5.9 100
Response Greatly Beneficial Undecided Not Harmful Total
Beneficial Beneficial
Q12 Frequency 18 11 03 01 01 34
Percentage 52.9 32.4 8.8 2.9 2.9 100
Response In English In Bengali They Switch Codes Total
Q13 Frequency 05 03 26 34
Percentage 14.7 8.8 76.5 100
Response Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Total
Q14 Frequency 00 00 01 09 24 34
Percentage 00 00 2.9 26.5 70.6 100
Response Frequently Not Undecided Very Little Not at All Total
Frequently
Q15 Frequency 00 02 04 10 18 34
Percentage 00 5.9 11.8 29.4 52.9 100
Q= Question

A. Teachers’ Response
In order to find out the frequency of CS, question 1 “I switch code from English to Bengali in the English as Foreign
Language (EFL) classes.” was administered, and among 34 teachers, 27 teachers (79.4%) gave consent that they use CS
“sometimes” and 6 teachers (17.6%) use it “seldom”. Only one teacher (2.9%) denied the use of CS in classrooms. So,

© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

928 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

almost all the teachers participated in this study use CS in EFL classrooms. Most of the teachers remain conscious while
switching to Bengali as they are aware of the careful implementation of CS in formal setting. Question 2 “I remain
conscious while switching to Bengali in the class.” ensures this awareness of the teachers.
To answer question 3 “Code switching is helpful in maintaining discipline in a large class. Do you agree?”, 23
teachers (67.6%) agreed and 3 teachers (8.8%) strongly agreed to the question. Teachers use CS to maintain large class.
It is easy to manage and communicate small classes. The teachers can easily engage a class if its size is small, but it
becomes difficult to manipulate a large class as controlling of such kind of class is really a challenge for teachers. In a
large class, students’ proficiency level of English varies significantly and teacher cannot give special attention to each
student. In this context, CS becomes helpful to handle every situation tactfully.
With the opinion of question 4 “I think code switching to Bengali is an effective strategy for learning and teaching
English.”, teachers tend to agree to it. The result displays that 30 teachers (88.3%) expressed agreement to this question.
This finding is in accordance with the study of Rashid (2014). As we know mother tongue always helps comprehend
any foreign language. So, CS serves as an eminent strategy for both learning and teaching English.
Teachers switch codes for some specific reasons that are widely accepted by researchers. Students are not always
familiar with new words, terms and expressions. Here, mother tongue interference becomes helpful. Responses to
question 5 “Code switching helps to explain unfamiliar, difficult and new words, terms or expressions.” indicate that 23
teachers (67.6%) strongly expressed their solidarity with this view and 8 teachers (23.5) ‘agreed’ to it.
English is not the mother tongue where the present study is conducted. Clarity of the things read is necessary to learn
them. Teachers clear things with the help of CS. Responses to question 6 “Code switching serves as an effective tool to
make things more clear to students.” display that 26 (76.5%) of the sample are ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ to this
statement. To reply question 7 “Code switching helps the teachers to make class more lively and enjoyable”, 15 (44.1%)
teachers think CS can make a class livelier and enjoyable where 9 teachers (26.5%) are uncertain about it and rest
(29.4%) of the teachers is not in favor of this belief.
English only class makes the class lifeless and students get bored with it. To keep away the monotony of the class,
teachers bring L1carefully. To respond to question 8 “Without code switching, the class becomes monotonous for the
students”, 28 teachers (82.4%) ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ where 5 (14.7%) are not sure about it.
Mother tongue in a foreign language environment always bears the mark of sweetness. We express our solidarity
using language in a foreign context. Learning is always related to psychology of the learners. Use of L1 in EFL
classrooms brings both teachers and students in a state of solidarity. The result collected from question 9 “Code
switching to Bengali creates an idea of solidarity and sameness among/with students.” also confirms that, for this belief
and reason, 27 (79.4%) teachers use CS in the classrooms.
Students, when they encounter any problem regarding their lesson or, sometimes, personal life, they come to teachers
for consulting or counseling. This is a friendly environment where both students and teachers can converse freely
without thinking about classroom language. Especially for teachers at NUB, everyday there is a fixed time (1 hour)
allotted for counseling students. Question 10 “Frequent code switching of teachers helps students when they come for
consulting or counseling. Do you agree?” brings out that 31 teachers (91.2%) acknowledge frequent code switching
helps students when they come for consulting or counseling. It becomes more personal and stimulates empathy when
teachers use CS to counsel them.
Question 11 “What kind of attitude do you hold towards teachers’ code switching to Bengali in the class?” tries to
capture the attitudes of teachers towards CS. The finding shows that 3 teachers (8.8%) ‘strongly agree’ and 18 teachers
(52.9%) ‘agree’ to the use of CS where 7 (20.6%) of the respondents are neutral and the remaining participants replied
negatively. So, we can see that most of the teachers hold positive attitude towards CS to Bengali. This finding correlates
with that of Jingxia (2010).
The result of question 12 “How does code switching to Bengali benefit the EFL class?” shows that the majority of
the teachers (85.3%) believe that CS to Bengali greatly benefit the EFL class where 3 teachers (8.8%) are not sure about
the benefit of CS and a small number of teachers (5.8%) consider CS to be ‘not beneficial’ or ‘harmful’.
The opinions to the question 13 “Students respond during the class” illustrate that 26 teachers (76.5%) confirm that
their students switch codes during class time while 3 teachers (8.8%) say that students use only Bengali and remaining 5
teachers (14.7%) approve that students respond only in English. Students feel comfortable when they switch codes as it
is found in the study of Yao (2011). Generating idea in English sometimes becomes difficult to them. Though teachers
believe CS helps students a lot in EFL classrooms, they do not want their students to be encouraged to use CS in
classroom. Nearly all the teachers (97.1%) ‘disagreed’ and ‘strongly disagreed’ to answer question 14 “Code switching
from students can be encouraged in the class. Do you agree?”. This finding discloses a surprising aspect of classroom
code switching. Though teachers sometimes switch codes, CS from students is not welcomed. If students switch codes
to Bengali, teachers remind them to use English for further response. Responses to question 15 “What should be the
frequency of code switching of students in the class?” confirm that 18 (52.9%) of teacher sample consider that CS from
students should not be permitted in the classrooms and 10 (29.4%) allow it “very little” while 4 (11.8%) show
uncertainty and 2 (5.9%) permit it but ‘not frequently’.

© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 929

TABLE 5
STATISTICAL RESULTS OF STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Response Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Total
Q1 Frequency 30 137 06 02 00 175
Percentage 17.1 78.3 3.4 1.1 00 100
Q2 Frequency 85 75 03 07 05 175
Percentage 48.6 42.9 1.7 4.0 2.9 100
Q3 Frequency 40 78 43 14 00 175
Percentage 22.9 44.6 24.6 8.0 00 100
Q4 Frequency 45 110 14 04 02 175
Percentage 25.7 62.9 8.0 2.3 1.1 100
Q5 Frequency 51 91 26 06 01 175
Percentage 29.1 52.0 14.9 3.4 0.6 100
Q6 Frequency 45 117 10 03 00 175
Percentage 25.7 66.9 5.7 1.7 00 100
Q7 Frequency 98 71 05 00 01 175
Percentage 56.0 40.6 2.9 00 0.6 100
Q8 Frequency 114 58 03 00 00 175
Percentage 65.1 33.1 1.7 00 00 100
Q9 Frequency 97 72 06 00 00 175
Percentage 55.4 41.1 3.4 00 00 100
Q10 Frequency 128 35 09 02 01 175
Percentage 73.1 20.0 5.1 1.1 0.6 100
Q11 Frequency 110 65 00 00 00 175
Percentage 62.9 37.1 00 00 00 100
Q12 Frequency 100 63 07 03 02 175
Percentage 57.1 36.0 4.0 1.7 1.1 100
Q13 Frequency 95 71 06 03 00 175
Percentage 54.3 40.6 3.4 1.7 00 100
Q14 Frequency 55 99 09 06 06 175
Percentage 31.4 56.6 5.1 3.4 3.4 100
Q15 Frequency 86 45 39 04 01 175
Percentage 49.1 25.7 22.3 2.3 0.6 100
Response Greatly Beneficial Undecided Not Harmful Total
Beneficial Beneficial
Q16 Frequency 99 60 11 04 01 175
Percentage 56.6 34.3 6.3 2.3 0.6 100
Response Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Total
Q17 Frequency 00 00 27 38 110 175
Percentage 00 00 15.4 21.7 62.9 100
Q18 Frequency 04 38 17 86 30 175
Percentage 2.3 21.7 9.7 49.1 17.1 100
Q= Question

B. Students’ Response
The first question “Teachers switch codes in the classroom.” concerns about the teachers’ code switching in EFL
classrooms. It ensures whether CS from teachers in classroom setting happens or not. 95.4% (167 respondents out of
175) of the students admitted that their teachers switch codes to Bengali. The following questions try to find out the
reasons behind this CS and the attitudes of students towards their teachers’ CS, that is, how they take this, what they
think of it.
Question 2 “Teachers use frequent code switching in the classes for beginner students.” and question 3 “Teachers
reduce the frequency of code switching when the students become more senior.” try to investigate if teachers use CS for
beginner students and gradually reduce it when students becomes senior. The results of both questions respectively
show that 91.4% of the participants believe CS is applied frequently in the classes for beginner students, quite similarly,
67.4% positively respond that, when they become seniors, the teachers reduce the frequency of CS. All students, except
two, participated in this study received their secondary and higher secondary education through Bangla medium.
Students get frightened when they come across English as their medium of instructions. Teachers easily understand, as
they come from the same social context, the fearful conditions of the students.
For learners of English, the grammar is always a matter that requires a greater understanding. It is very much
different from that of Bengali. To make grammatical structures easy, careful application of L1 becomes essential.
Without the help of L1, new terms and vocabularies do not become completely clear to the students. The responses to
the question 4 “By code switching from English to Bengali, teachers can better explain the grammatical terms, new and
unfamiliar topics and vocabulary in the text.” displays that 88.6% of the sample either ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ to this
opinion where 8.0% cannot decide and 3.4% ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ to it. This finding closely resembles the
study of Yao (2011).
Comprehension of the lesson taught in the class using English sometimes becomes difficult. To investigate this
statement, question 5 “By code switching from English to Bengali, teachers can make the lesson content taught in the

© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

930 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

class more comprehensible.” tries to have feedbacks from students. More than three quarters of the participants (81.1%)
respond positively where 14.9% of the subjects are uncertain, 3.4% ‘disagree’ and only one person (0.6) ‘strongly
disagrees’. In the replies of question 6 “By code switching from English to Bengali, teachers can better clarify task
instruction.” and question 7 “Teachers can better discipline the students by code switching from English to Bengali.”, it
comes out that both questions have almost similar percentage of positive responses 92.6% and 96.6% respectively. So,
the lion portion of the participants believes their teachers can better clarify task instruction and discipline the students
using CS. Therefore, classroom management is largely indebted to teachers’ careful use of CS.
English only in the class makes the class less enjoyable and monotonous. This assumption is supported by almost all
the participants in the responses of question 8 “Continuous use of English in the class makes the class tedious and
monotonous.”, question 9 “Code switching makes my lesson enjoyable.” and question 10 “I feel satisfied with my
learning process when teachers switch codes.”. As it is shown in the result, nearly all the participants (98.3%) ‘agree’ or
‘strongly agree’ to question 8, 96.6% are in favor of question 9 and 93.1% respond positively to question 10. It is
surprisingly true that none of the participants ‘disagrees’ to the statements of questions 8 and 9, and a very small
percentage of the subjects 1.7% and 3.4% express uncertainty respectively.
Anyone, when his/her mother tongue is kept absent from the learning environment, especially learning from
classroom setting, feels uncomfortable, tensed and lost. It becomes difficult for students of different levels to catch up
the lesson always in English. Language becomes burden for them and they feel less interest in the lesson only because
of classroom language. We know learning outcome of the students is largely related to the personality factors of
students, and student psychology is a part of the personality factors. Question 11 “Code switching gives me comfort
while understanding difficult topics or instruction.” gives a very surprising result, that is to say, all the participants
(100%) believe CS gives them comfort while understanding difficult topics or instruction. Another finding, in the
responses of question 12 “Code switching helps me feel less tensed.”, is that 163 (93.1%) participants indicate that they
feel less tensed when their teachers switch codes to Bengali. Next, almost ninety-five percent (94.9%) of the subjects, in
the question 13 “Code switching makes me feel less lost during the lesson.”, acknowledge that CS helps them in feeling
less lost when they receive lessons in EFL classes.
Question 14 “Do you favor teachers’ code switching from English to Bengali in the classroom?” tries to bring out the
standing of the students whether they favor teachers CS or not. A high percent of the respondents (88%) favor the use of
teachers’ CS while few of them (6.8%) consider CS to be detained from teachers’ end.
With L1 learners get psychological support and feel more relaxed and it accelerates learning process of the students.
A number of studies represent that CS in EFL classrooms is a useful learning tool. Rashid (2013) states “without the
exercise of code switching, learner’s alternate conceptions would remain unexplored.” The finding of question 15
“Teachers’ code switching accelerates learning process of the students.” shows that almost three quarter (74.9%) of the
students acknowledge that their learning process gets accelerated when their teachers switch code, where 22.3% are not
sure of it and a small number (2.9%) of them respond negatively to the statement.
The result processed from question 16 “How does code switching to Bengali benefit the class?” indicates that the
overwhelming majority of the students (90.9%) believe that CS to Bengali ‘benefits’ or ‘greatly benefits’ the EFL class
where 6.3% remain neutral in this view and only 2.9% think it harmful.
It is a matter of wonder, in the reply of the statement in question 17 “Class teacher encourages students to switch
their codes in the classroom.” 148 students (84.6%) admit that their class teachers discourage CS from students, where
the remaining of the sample (15.4%) show uncertainty. It makes clear that teachers prohibit CS from students in all
respects.
The finding of question 18 “Teachers’ code switching in the class should be reduced as much as possible.” displays
that among the respondents, 66.2% indicate that teachers’ CS in the class should not be reduced greatly as they believe
their learning environment becomes comfortable with the presence of CS. If the teachers stop switching codes, their
learning process might significantly get hampered. The finding also shows that 17 (9.7%) of the sample are uncertain
about it; and nearly one-fourth of the subjects (24%) ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ to the statement, that is, they think CS
from teachers should be reduced as much as possible.

VIII. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The very first limitation of the present study is the sources of primary data. To conduct this study, only two
universities were chosen for data collection with 34 teachers and 175 students. The sample size is very much small
compared to a vast number of available EFL teachers and learners. There are more than hundred public and private
universities in Bangladesh where English is the medium of instruction. Therefore, it is difficult to generalize and
illustrate the real scenario of CS using this little amount of data source. To have a vivid image of CS, maximum number
of subjects from maximum number of universities need to be involved in the research.
Second, to determine the effect of CS on ultimate language proficiency attainment, a long period of time should be
allotted for the study, what the present study surely lacks. CS is widely discussed issue that requires a lot of time to
investigate its contribution to learners’ linguistic competence.
Third, the study would be able to bring better motives behind the use of CS if interviews of the subjects and
observations of the classes could have been done. Fourth, variables of the participants e.g. department, gender, age,

© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 931

academic qualification, academic rank, teaching experience were not taken into consideration while analyzing data.
Consideration of these variables may add new findings to the existing literatures on CS.
Fifth, one of the hypotheses is not tested successfully. To measure the proper learning outcome of the students, two
groups, one with mixed L1 and L2 instruction and another with no L1 instruction, should be taken into consideration to
test which group achieves greater scores.

IX. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The present study investigates the general situation of CS in Bangladeshi universities from different points and
angles of CS practice from both teachers and students. Surely, this study represents the tip of an iceberg. It is only a
preliminary survey in the research field of CS in EFL classrooms at tertiary level in Bangladesh. Therefore, an in-depth
study is waiting to be carried out for interested researchers.
Depending on the findings, it can now easily be concluded that the hypotheses of the study are proved to be true.
Teachers use CS for various reasons and they do believe CS largely helps an EFL class to be successful. Both teachers
and students hold positive attitude towards it as they agree that it facilitates learning and provides a better understanding
of the lesson content. However, though teachers switch codes solely for effective teaching and learning purpose, they do
not allow students to switch codes frequently. CS has been found to serve, as Jingxia (2010) says, various functions like
translating vocabulary items, explaining grammar, managing class, and building close relations with students. Teachers,
sometimes, switch codes because of the mixed L2 abilities of the learners. To say more, students feel comfortable with
their learning process when their teachers switch codes.
English plays, both theoretically and practically, a dominant role in teaching and learning sectors of Bangladesh. To
teach English as a foreign language in classroom setting, mother tongue interference becomes admittedly obligatory.
While teaching English as a compulsory subject, extra care should be given at primary, secondary, and higher
secondary levels of Bangladesh. If students can be made competent well in using English from those levels, CS in
tertiary level will be an occasional phenomenon. This study is a small contribution to the research arena of CS.
Therefore, a vast amount of studies needs to be carried out to gain new insights regarding CS in the context of
Bangladeshi EFL classrooms.

APPENDIX A. TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Sir/Madam,
This survey is being conducted as part of a research work to find out the reasons and perception of both teachers and
students towards their Code Switching (i.e. using English and Bangla in the same discourse/dialogue) in classroom
setting. Your valuable opinion will greatly help me to design my research work effectively and to bring a new insight in
the fields or research. Honesty is highly expected while answering the questions below. Please, use your own
experience and opinion. Secrecy of your data provided will be strictly maintained.
Regards,
Md. Obaidullah
Lecturer, Dept. of English, NUB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal and Academic Information
[Please put tick-mark (√) on appropriate place]
Department: □ English □ BA □ Law □ CSE □ ECE
Age: □ Less than 35 years □ 35 years and above
Gender: □ Male □ Female
Academic Qualification: □ Bachelor’s □ Master’s □ Ph.D.
Teaching Experience: □ Less than 5 years □ 5-10 years □ above 10 years
Academic Rank: □ Lecturer □ Sr. Lecturer □ Assistant Professor
□ Associate Professor □ Professor
Level of Teaching: □ Undergraduate □ Graduate □ Both
Type of Institution: □ Private (NUB) □ Public (KU)
Medium of Instruction: □ English □ Bengali

Questions Regarding Code Switching

[Please put tick-mark (√) on appropriate place]
1. I switch code from English to Bengali in the English as Foreign Language (EFL) classes.
□ Always □ Sometimes □ Undecided □ Seldom □ Never
2. Code switching is helpful in maintaining discipline in a large class. Do you agree?
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
3. I remain conscious while switching to Bengali in the class.
□ Always □ Sometimes □ Undecided □ Seldom □ Never

© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

932 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

4. I think code switching to Bengali is an effective strategy for learning and teaching English.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
5. Code switching helps to explain unfamiliar, difficult and new words, terms or expressions.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
6. Code switching serves as an effective tool to make things more clear to students.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
7. Code switching helps the teachers to make class more lively and enjoyable.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
8. Without code switching the class becomes monotonous for the students.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
9. Code switching to Bengali creates an idea of solidarity and sameness among/with students.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
10. Frequent code switching of teachers helps students when they come for consulting or counseling. Do you agree?
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
11. What kind of attitude do you hold towards teachers’ code switching to Bengali in the class?
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
12. How does code switching to Bengali benefit the EFL class?
□ Greatly Beneficial □ Beneficial □ Undecided □ Not Beneficial □ Harmful
13. Students respond during the class-
□ In English □ In Bengali □ They switch codes
14. Code switching from students can be encouraged in the class. Do you agree?
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
15. What should be the frequency of code switching of students in the class?
□ Frequently □ Not Frequently □ Undecided □ Very Little □ Not at All

APPENDIX B. STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Student/Participant,
This survey is being conducted as part of a research work to find out the reasons and perception of both teachers and
students towards their Code Switching (i.e. using English and Bangla in the same discourse/dialogue) in classroom
setting. Your valuable opinion will greatly help me to design my research work effectively and to bring a new insight in
the fields or research. Honesty is highly expected while answering the questions below. Please, use your own classroom
experience and give opinion. Secrecy of your data provided will be strictly maintained.
Regards,
Md. Obaidullah
Lecturer, Dept. of English, NUB
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal and Academic Information
[Please put tick-mark (√) on appropriate place]
Department: □ English □ BA □ Law
Age: □ Less than 20 years □ 20 years and above
Gender: □ Male □ Female
Academic Qualification:
Secondary School Certificate (SSC): □ Bangla Medium □ English Medium
Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC): □ Bangla Medium □ English Medium
Graduation: □ B.A. (Hons.) in English □ B.A. (Hons.) other than in English
□ 1st Year □ 2nd Year
rd
□ 3 Year □ 4th Year
Post-Graduation: □ M.A. in English □ M.A. other than in English
Type of Institution: □ Private (NUB) □ Public (KU)
Medium of Instruction: □ English □ Bengali

Questions Regarding Code Switching

[Please put tick-mark (√) on appropriate place]
1. Teachers switch codes in the classroom.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
2. Teachers use frequent code switching in the classes for beginner students.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
3. Teachers reduce the frequency of code switching when the students become more senior.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree

© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 933

4. By code switching from English to Bengali, teachers can better explain the grammatical terms, new and unfamiliar
topics and vocabulary in the text.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
5. By code switching from English to Bengali, teachers can make the lesson content taught in the class more
comprehensible.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
6. By code switching from English to Bengali, teachers can better clarify task instruction.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
7. Teachers can better discipline the students by code switching from English to Bengali.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
8. Continuous use of English in the class makes the class tedious and monotonous.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
9. Code switching makes my lesson enjoyable.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
10. I feel satisfied with my learning process when teachers switch codes.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
11. Code switching gives me comfort while understanding difficult topics or instruction.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
12. Code switching helps me feel less tensed.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
13. Code switching makes me feel less lost during the lesson.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
14. Do you favor teachers’ code switching from English to Bengali in the classroom?
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
15. Teachers’ code switching accelerates learning process of the students.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
16. How does code switching to Bengali benefit the class?
□ Greatly Beneficial □ Beneficial □ Undecided □ Not Beneficial □ Harmful
17. Class teacher encourages students to switch their codes in the classroom.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
18. Teachers’ code switching in the class should be reduced as much as possible.
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Undecided □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree

REFERENCES
[1] Ahmad, B. H., & Jusoff, K. (2009). Teachers' code-switching in classroom instructions for low English proficient learners.
English Language Teaching 2.2, 49-55.
[2] AL-Nofaie, H. (2010). The attitudes of teachers and students towards using Arabic in EFL classrooms in Saudi public schools-
a case study. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language) 4.1, 64-95.
[3] Alshammari, M. M. (2011). The use of the mother tongue in Saudi EFL classrooms. Journal of International Education
Research 7.4, 95-102.
[4] Banu, R., & Sussex, R. (1999). English in Bangladesh after independence: Dynamics of policy and practice. Ph.D. dissertation,
Australian National University.
[5] Cole, S. (1998). The use of L1 in communicative English classrooms. The Language Teacher 22, 11-13.
[6] Cook, V. (2001a). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review 57.3, 402-423.
[7] Cook, V. (2001b). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Arnold.
[8] Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[9] Harbord, J. (1992). The use of mother tongue in the classroom. ELT journal 46, 350-355.
[10] Holmes, J. (2001). An introduction to sociolinguistics (2nd ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Longman.
[11] Hudson, R. A. (1996). Sociolinguistics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[12] Jamshidi, A., & Navehebrahim, M. (2013). Learners use of code switching in the English as a foreign language classroom.
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 7.1, 186-190.
[13] Jan, J. M. (1999). Malaysian talk shows: A study of power and solidarity in inter-gender verbal interaction. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Malaya.
[14] Jingxia, L. (2010). Teachers' code-switching to the L1 in EFL classroom. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal 3, 10-23.
[15] Norrish, J. (1997). english or English? Attitudes, local varieties and English language teaching. TESL-EJ 3.1, 1-14.
[16] Rashid, M. H. (2014). Bangla and English code switching in the university classroom: A sociolinguistic perspective. SUST
Journal of Social Sciences 22.2, 24-31.
[17] Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (1997). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
[18] Schweers, C. W. (1999). Using L1 in the L2 classroom. English Teaching Forum 37.2, 6-9.
[19] Tang, J. (2002). Using L1 in the English classroom. English Teaching Forum 40.1, 36-43.
[20] Yao, M. (2011). On attitudes to teachers' code-switching in EFL classes. World Journal of English Language 1.1, 19-28.

© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

934 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

Md. Obaidullah, born in 1988 in Bangladesh, received his MA degree in English Language in 2015 from
Khulna University, Khulna, Bangladesh and secured the second highest CGPA among fifty-two graduate
students. He did another MA in English majoring Literature in 2014 and holds a BA (honors) degree in
English Language and Literature with distinct CGPA respectively. His research interests cover sociolinguistics,
second language acquisition (SLA), world Englishes, discourse analysis, corpus linguistics, language
pedagogy and post-colonial study.
At present, he is a lecturer at the Department of English, Northern University Bangladesh. Previously, he
taught English as EFL in different schools and colleges. Currently, he teaches discourse analysis, SLA,
sociolinguistics, research methodology, and English grammar courses.

© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION