Code-Switching between English and Arabic in Saudi Arabia - Research Proposal Example

Code Switching Between English and Arabic in Saudi Arabia Student’s Name University Code Switching Between English and Arabic in Saudi Arabia Introduction/background Research into issues surrounding code switching has been focused on the grammatical and sociolinguistic aspects of its execution. Past research into sociolinguistic aspects has resulted in proposals that regard to numerous issues, including reasons for employing code switching, contexts of its execution, and the reasons for engaging in code switching (Jingxia, 2010). Grammatical aspects of code switching have increased the understanding of these issues, resulting in better understanding of intrasentential code switching and its constraints. Code switching in itself is an unavoidable consequence of communication processes between different language types. It has been in existence long as language contact has been taking place. This is especially common in multilingual and bilingual societies and communities, and with the advent of technology and globalization, these communities are as wide as an individual’s interest in the rest of the world (Wheeler & Swords, 2004). Over the years, code switching has been gaining increased popularity in research and deliberate practice. This interest made its way to be of interest to foreign language teachers in the 1980s. This interest has been followed by a heated debate about whether it is helpful or impeding to switch between foreign and native language when instructing language learners. Researchers who support the use of cross-lingual teaching or code switching, such as Tikunoff and Vasquez-Faria (1982), Chen Liping (2004) and Levine (2003), suggest that code switching has the ability to promote the learning of a particular target language (Mahmoud, 2010). Hence, L1 such as Arabic deserves a place within a foreign language classroom. Code switching is an efficient way of teaching a foreign or second language (Alshammari, 2011). The first mention of the subject was in 1917 when Espinosa wrote about speech mixture that she had observed in New Mexicans. Since this first mention, research has been focusing on different aspects of the issue. The concept of switching codes was first brought forward by Bernstein in 1971. The term describes a scheme of signals such as words, signals and numbers that have significant meaning (Al-Buraiki, 2004). In this context, code will be used to refer to any system that allows people to communicate. After a particular code has been decided upon, there is no obligation to stick to it alone. Codes can and should be shifted as needed. Using this as a strategy in teaching English within an Arabic classroom has been the subject of controversy and debate among scholars, as well as other professional teaching contexts. Like most fields in education, the teaching of L2 keeps evolving to meet the needs of different individuals. This can be traced back to the history of grammar teaching (Wheeler & Swords, 2004). In the era of grammar translation, using native L1 was considered a necessity for the acquisition of L2. Following this, there was the advent of audio-lingual methods of instruction; L1 was almost completely eliminated from the process of instruction. However, current approaches are changing, such that instructors are once again looking at the place of L1 in teaching L2 (Jingxia, 2010). Core countries such as Britain and the US strongly discourage using L1 in instructing L2. Supporters of using only L2 claim that students do not learn with reference to other languages. This argument has been the foundation of teaching methodologies in the 20th century. According to these arguments, the use of L2 means that learners have an opportunity to listen and speak English in an environment that allows for lots of practice, and meanings that were misunderstood were negotiated. On the other hand, supporters of L1 argued that while discussing abstract ideas and engaging in problem solving situations while giving instructions, students would be in a better place to learn L2 (Al-Buraiki, 2004). L1 is essential in instructing students in such case. This paper is the preparation of a community based language project. The design will be for a class of EFL students in Saudi Arabia. Literacy is an essential issue in the nation owing to demands of globalization and tourism. Research purpose The study will seek to investigate why and when Arabic should be used as L1 in a Saudi Arabian EFL classroom. Very little attention has been given to the issue of using L1 in instructing L2, and especially in the Saudi Arabian context. Research shows that context plays a major role in determining the why and when L1 would be appropriately used in L2 acquisition. It is, therefore, essential to find out this information as it not only fills a research gap, but also contributes to the modification of curriculum and pedagogical techniques in EFL. The study will contribute to research by identifying the most effective contexts that code switching should be employed in. Saudi Arabia is a unique context where interest in learning English has increased exponentially. The context is unique because it values code switching and approaches language as a social issue that should be learned by the family or community as a whole. Hence, it is essential to lean why and when this should be used. Cultural and social issues are highly relevant in the Saudi Arabian context (Jingxia, 2010). Hence, certain phrases and words mention in Arabic would motivate the students to learn English. Rationale English has become one of the most common means of communication between a majority of people in the world. Consequently, it also has the most amount of material published for use in education. Other than that, the Saudi Arabian hospitality industry has been expanding exponentially, demanding that those who are employed in this and other sectors are adequately instructed in the English Language. As the language most used in global exchange, it is essential to gain insight on the best ways that individuals can be instructed in the language most effectively. This has resulted in the employment of code switching in instruction. Code switching has been a persistent subject in educational research for decades. Recent efforts have been made in exploring code switching in classrooms. It has been found to be an effective means of teaching bilingual students. This study will fill a gap in literature. Research in instruction within Saudi Arabia is lacking. The research will contribute to reports about code switching within a context of fast growing and widespread instructional context of enhancing family literacy (Jingxia, 2010). Code switching is particularly analyzed in this study with respect to effective learning, communication and teaching strategies. The most appropriate form of language instruction is to teach it as it naturally occurs within a social context, as opposed to segmenting the teaching into pieces and bits. Since this cannot always be done at all time, the instruction of a second language should at least include L1 in instructing the learners’ (Wheeler & Swords, 2004). Lessons are only as good as the research that surrounds them; hence, it is essential to gain information on the technique of instruction. The use of L1 in instruction also has a psychological effect on students and the teacher, which is essential in the formulation of effective pedagogical strategies. This study will not only contribute to research, but the findings may shed light on areas of instruction that need to be addressed to make L1 use in L2 instruction more effective. Literature review In order to understand the importance of using L1 in L2 instruction, it is essential to review the historical journey of the concept’s traditional instruction methods, such as the Grammar Translation method that is highly prevalent. This was the most common teaching method of EFL in the previous century, and it often resulted in a student’s inability to speak the L2 fluently, even after years of studying EFL (Al-Buraiki, 2004). Following such sessions, the students tend to regard these classes as being irrelevant, pointless, boring and uncommunicative. The method was, thus, challenged for not enhancing the student’s knowledge in English. Following this, the use of Audio-lingual methods and Direct methods of instruction were employed. These methods, however, still saw the use of L1 as unnecessary, since the L1 and FL are seen as two different systems that need to be linked to deter interference. Al-Noifaie (2010) argued that using input that is comprehensible to the student provides the subconscious with opportunities of implicit learning, which often results in the achievement of language competence (Jingxia, 2010). Theorists against using L1 in L2 instruction argue that focusing on FL enhance the understanding of languages and messages, even when they may not understand the exact meaning of structures or words. Hence, they do not need to grasp all the phrases and words they hear. This view has come to change over the years as people learn more about L2 instruction (Alshammari, 2011). Hence, the previous issue that L1 use is a taboo has been changing owing to positive change. One of the debates amongst foreign language instructors revolves around using L1 in a L2 classroom. Researchers have suggested that the effectiveness of using L1 in a L2 classroom is dependent on a number of factors such as cultural and social norms, student goals and motivation, and whether or not the English language is a primary communication means in the context outside the classroom (Rajab, 2013). Other factors include the linguistic geography of the classroom and proficiency, as well as age of the students. Using Arabic in instructing English has been found to be useful for clarification purposes. Hence, a judicious and balanced use of L1 in an EFL classroom by students and teachers is useful in the processes of language acquisition, and is critical to a learner’s comprehension. Other benefits include language analysis, classroom management, discussion of cross-cultural issues, explaining errors to students, presenting rules of grammar, and checking for understanding. Cameron (2001) and McCann (2005) support this view as they suggest that L1 can be used in translation positively, such as through maintaining discipline in the classroom, giving feedback, and explaining structures of language (Mahmoud, 2010). Including L1 in these classes is essential owing to the fact that expecting a student to completely switch from one language to another is implausible. Excluding native language, especially when dealing with lower level English proficiency with monolingual students is impossible. Scholars suggest that the use of L1 in L2 instruction is a natural approach to instruction of language acquisition (Jingxia, 2010). Students learning a foreign language often follow the same strategies of language acquisition as they did when learning their mother tongue. Regardless, the use of L1 in a classroom should be kept at a minimum. Teachers who have attempted teaching EFL classes using only English have found it hard to communicate meaning to the students. Consequently, the students may get correct answers because of reproducing what they had seen before without having a clear understanding of what the question and the answers mean (Redouane, 2005). Lower levels of understanding are associated with student resentment and incomprehension. Transfer and translation is a natural part and phenomenon of second language acquisition. Eldridge (1999) found that there was no empirical evidence to suggest that withholding native language would improve the learning efficiency of the L2 (Mahmoud, 2010). Code switching is highly relevant to the achievement of pedagogical objectives. Code switching is also essential in building connected L1 and L2 knowledge in the mind of the learner. Other than that, it is also useful in gaining code switching skills that the learner can employ in future when the situation calls for it. Al-Nofaie (2010) found that students and teachers in Saudi Arabia have a general positive attitude towards using Arabic in instructing English. It enhances the understanding of what words mean, and puts them in a context (Mahmoud, 2010). For instance: I’m shuxi-ing with you …..joke-……………. I’m joking with you Research has identified different types of code switching. There are two main types. One of them involves switching between languages at clause or sentence boundaries, which is called intersentential (Wheeler & Swords, 2004). There are also switches that involve phrases or clauses within morpheme boundaries known as intrasentential. Additional research has identified a third type of witching known as tag switching, which involves including tags forms in code switching. These tag forms include words such as ‘isn’t it’. These often involve including different phrases within sentences. Language programs that employ L1 strategies give the learners a sense of respect. They feel like the program respects their cultures, making them more receptive to the language being taught. Research has concluded that there are various advantages of L1 in instructing English in an EFL classroom. This is an essential part of this study so that L1 is not taken for granted. Arabic is the national language of Saudi Arabia, and it is spoken in all educational institutions as the native language. In the instruction of L2, L1 is not taken for granted, but it is only used when it is deemed that it is necessary in explaining certain issues that are difficult to understand if explained only using English (Redouane, 2005). As for the nature of L1 used I this context, there are different issues that are considered. The manner, place and time that the Arabic highly determines the success rate of the instruction method and highlights areas that may need clarification on the part of the teacher. There are several benefits, including the fact that translation is preferred by learners. On the other hand, it also helps in revealing the feelings of the students; whenever the students wishes to express themselves in a certain way, code switching allows them to do this without fear of lacking the words to use, and with time, they will learn the correct English to use in each case (Van Dulm, 2004). Research aims and objectives This research aims to shed light on the unique situations that are the most suitable for use of L1 in instructing students of L2. This information will be based on information from test results. Knowing how useful Arabic is in the context ofL2 instruction will contribute to knowledge on when and why it is and should be used. Research questions The research question that will guide this research is: Why and when should Arabic be used in a EFL classroom in Saudi Arabia? Sub questions: Why do teachers engage in code switching in L2 classrooms? What unique circumstances warrant the use of Arabic in Saudi Arabian L2 classroom? When should Arabic be used in instructing within an English lesson with respect to the subject matter? Body Theoretical framework Research into code switching is shown to be more effective when carried out within the framework of certain theories. The theory that will be adopted for this research is the null theory of code switching. The Null theory of code switching was proposed by Mahootian (1993) in his analysis of intrasentential code switching (Mahootian, 2006). As opposed to other syntactic theories, he argues that there aren’t specific mechanisms for code switching. This is similar to what happens in the reality of code switching within different contexts, since it can be useful in particular contexts and not useful in others. Mahootian (1993) proposes that the two language lexicons – even with associated structures of phrase – stay separate. Consequently, accessing both the systems will not lead to the learner generating anomalous utterances to either of the languages. For instance, being that English is a head-first language, when it comes in contact with a head last language, it will not result in an outcome like ‘apple green’ instead of ‘green apple’. The null theory proposes that heads determine the syntactic characteristics of their complements, both in monolingual and code switching speech patterns. Once one understands the role of the heads in both languages, they are not likely to make mistakes. Using native language in instruction provides a reference point for the learner to remember the role of the head. Mahootian and Santorini (1996) suggest that the head determines the position of the phrase structure, the feature content of the complement and its syntactic category (Mahootian, 2006). The lexical head or verb dictates the position of the complement that comes after it. This allows for a swap between the complement V language and V-complement such as: You’ll buy xune-ye jaedid house-Poss new (you’ll buy a new house) Prior studies Studies that will be used as reference points in this research will include those that support the use of L1 and those that don’t. Using both points of view will shed better light on the true nature of issues in teaching, especially in a nation such as Saudi Arabia. Evidence from research has resulted in various conclusions regarding the use of L1 when teaching L2. One of the conclusions is that L1 should be used in the communication of abstract ideas. It is more effective in this respect. Abstract ideas should be used to augment other methods of introducing new vocabularies such as noises, drawing, explanation and pantomime (Rajab, 2013). Other than that, L1 can be used in the introduction phase of L2, especially in homogenous contexts. However, instructors should be cautious so that L1 is not used to rescue teachers who feel like they have no other way of instructing students. Additional research also suggests that using L1 with beginners is a good move because it helps in their assessment and makes them feel comfortable in a classroom setting. In addition, it encourages them to take more risks in learning, and is an effective tool for gauging how well the students are understanding their instruction of the L2 (Alshammari, 2011). In an experiment carried out by Drukovskis in 2002, she instructed a class of 34 students in English only and divided them into L1 groups. In the class, she spoke in English only, and noted that students in groups where they were of one nationality dropped out quickly (Jingxia, 2010). The groups that had L1 support finished their courses. Other researchers allowed students to carry out their discussion sessions using L1 then present their written answers in English. Banos (2009) and Kavaliauskiene (2009) carried out a study and concluded that the native language of students facilitates the teaching process and motivates younger learners (Mahmoud, 2010). Using mother tongue is useful as soon as it becomes useful to the learner. Banos (2009) justified the use of L1 as useful and at the discretion of the instructors. In essence, when they feel that it is essential to the understanding of a particular concept, then they can employ L1 in the process of resolving difficulty in comprehension (Mahmoud, 2010). This is especially important in explaining tasks for the students. L1 can also be used when dealing with issues that do not relate to the curriculum. It is effective when dealing with behavioral problems and conflicts between students, and in other occasions. Opponents of the use of L1 when instructing a L2 classroom are strict on the issue. Researchers have also suggested that using mother tongue in instruction impedes the thinking process and by extension, the execution of grammar. Thinking in one’s native language inhibits direct engagement with ideas in the targeted language (Quintero & Huerta-Macías, 1992). The native language will interpose as an intermediary between the concept presented and its presentation in the targeted language; hence, it hinders the learner’s ability to think in the targeted language. Cook (2001) has other arguments for avoiding L1 when instructing learners in L2 (Mahmoud, 2010). He argued that learning a second language involves separating the L1 and L2. In addition, if the teacher does not promote using the L2, the learners are not likely to be convinced that the L2 is a viable means of communication. Consequently, the students will remain unable to effectively communicate in L2 because of their focus on L1. Methodology Instrument The students were divided into two groups of 25 each. One of the groups was experimental, and the other was a control group. The two groups were instructed by the same teacher on topic matters from the North Star level 3. The teacher used English only when teaching the control group, and in the experimental group, he used Arabic. The Arabic was used in specific situations of instructions similar to those specified by Bano (2009). L1 was used in teaching L2 when: There was need to explain a concept further When there was need to help in solving difficulties in comprehension When offering explanations of tasks being assigned to the students When resolving behavioral issues and conflicts To provide the learners with an accurate and quick translation of an abstract idea in English Following this instruction, an English test will be administered to both groups. The test will be multiple-choice covering four chapters from 7 to 10 from the North Star Level 3. The test will have 25 questions. Procedure for testing Before the program for testing begins, the students will be given a pretest that has 25 multiple questions, and which is inclusive of four English language skills, including vocabulary and grammar. The test used in the study had a validity test done on it using a pilot group of 8 students who are outside the sample. In addition, specialists will look at the test and validate it as well. After eight weeks – which will be the end of the semester – the test will be administered to all students in the participating group. The same test was used for the pilot group, as well as the group participating in the study so as to ensure that there is validity, and that the test is comparable. The eight weeks between pre and post test was to allow for a period of instruction that is deemed long enough for short term memory effect on any new information given to students. The pre test group was not given the correct answers, and they also did not get their papers back. This was meant to reduce chances of contamination of the test results. The test groups were not informed that the other group would be getting the same test after eight weeks to ensure that the pre test group does not tell the post-test group about specifics of the test. Data analysis Data analysis will be carried out quantitatively and quantitatively. The scores for both tests will be recorded, and the mean from both groups will be recorded. This will be the data used for quantitative data analysis. The means will be compared to see if there is any significant difference between the two. A higher mean score on the control group will mean that using L1 does not improve the performance of students, while a higher score from the experiment group will mean that using L1 to teach L2 in certain areas of instruction improves the performance of students. The scores will also be analyzed using a student’s t test, which will help to determine if the differences in scores are statistically significant. Qualitative analysis will take place through looking at specific questions that involved the areas of instruction specified by Bano (2009). This will help in determining if the attitudes of the students and teacher were altered when using L1 in the instruction of L2 (Mahmoud, 2010). Research location The study will be carried out at King Abdulaziz University. Both the pre-test and post-test will be carried out in the exam rooms for level 3 instructions. Research participants This research paper focuses on a single classroom. This classroom was selected because it is the only class instructing students in English at the university. This selection of participants is involved in more code switching than other classes at the University. Hence, the classroom is offered a greater possibility for a study of this type that aims to gain insight into bilingual linguistic behavior. The participants in the study include 50 students from an EFL classroom at the King Abdulaziz University. The students who will be participants will be those who fall into the classification of level 3. Other participants include 3 specialists, 1 teacher, and me. Ethics Every study has ethical issues that should be considered when there are participants involved. One of the most essential issues is that the educational institution should give their permission to researchers to carry out their research. This means that the administration, as well as students, needs to be informed so that they can give their consent to researchers. The study will begin after getting permission from the administration and individual participants, as well as any other institution that is associated with educational and research aspects at the University. The students of the control and experiment group will each need to give their consent because they are over eighteen years of age. A letter will accompany the research proposal revealing the intent of the researcher. Following consent from the administration, another letter from the administration will also be used. The culture of Saudi Arabia is such that they value honesty and communal benefit. The intent of the research will be communicated clearly, as well as the ways that it will be beneficial to the society. Confidentiality will also be assured for all the students, and none of them will be mentioned by name. In addition, other participant such as the teacher and specialists will not be revealed. All the information collected from this study will be used for the purposes of academic merit and to contribute to research. All information pertaining to the research will be stored safely. Research schedule The research will begin with the gathering of a panel of specialists from the faculty of languages, who will design the test that will be used. This will take three days. Following this, the test will be administered to the pilot group, and this will be done in one day. This will be followed by an eight week instruction period with both the control and experiment group, after which the test will be administered and marked on the ninth week. The study will take nine weeks four days to complete. This will be fitted into the semester schedule for the school term. This will be the third term of the 2013 academic year starting in mid September. Conclusion In light of the studies and research that have been carried out on this issue, there are several suggestions that are relevant to the research that will be carried out. One of the recommendations is that L1 should be used in a limited manner when instructing L2. This limitation should be determined by the appropriate places, times and manner of instruction. English should be used as the curriculum dictates, while the L1 should be used as needed. The use if the L1 should be structured into the lesson plan, and not as a tactic for saving the teacher when they are unable to offer an explanation or translation as needed. The use of the L1 should be consistent so that it is effective in the teaching. It is essential to establish parameters that are based on building frameworks that are informed by using results from different countries and contexts to inform the nature of different learning situations. Issues that should be considered include context, the student’s level, the previous experience, and the stage of the course at which the student is learning English. This research will highlight the use of Arabic when instructing English in a Saudi Arabian classroom. References Al-Buraiki, M.A. (2004). “The L1 in Young Learner Classrooms: Teachers’ Views and Practices”. In Borg, S. (Ed.) (2008) Investigating English Language Teaching in Oman. Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. 10-18. Alshammari, M. M. (2011).The Use Of The Mother Tongue In Saudi EFL Classrooms. Journal of International Education Research, 7(4), 95-102. Jingxia, L. (2010). Teachers’ Code-Switching to the L1 in EFL Classroom. The Open Applied linguistics journal, 3, 10-23 Mahmoud, S. S. (2010). The Effect of Using L1 (Arabic Language) in the L2 (English Language) Classroom on the Achievement in General English of Foundation Year Students in King Abdulaziz University. Sino-US English Teaching, 9(12), 1733-1738. Mahootian, S. (2006). “Code Switching and Mixing”. In: Keith Brown, (Editor-in-Chief) Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Second Edition. 2, 511-527. Oxford: Elsevier. McSwan, J. (2010).Unconstraining Codeswitching Theories. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 44. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Quintero, E., & Huerta-Macías, A. (1992). Code-Switching, Bilingualism, and Biliteracy: A Case Study. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(3&4), 70-90. Rajab, H. (2013). Developing Speaking and Writing Skills of L1 Arabic EFL Learners through Teaching of IPA Phonetic Codes. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(4), 653-659. Redouane, R. (2005). Linguistic Constraints on Codeswitching and Codemixing of Bilingual Moroccan Arabic-French Speakers in Canada. Montclaire State University. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism Van Dulm, O. (2004). The role of syntactic theory in the Analysis of intrasentential Code Switching. Alternation, 11(2), 165-185. Wheeler, R. S., & Swords, R. (2004). Codeswitching: Tools of Language and Culture Transform the Dialectally Diverse Classroom. Language Arts, 81(6), 470-480. Read More