Code-switching in Japanese language classrooms: An exploratory investigation of native vs. non-native speaker teacher practice

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Linguistics and Education 21 (2010) 44–59

Code-switching in Japanese language classrooms: An exploratoryinvestigation of native vs. non-native speaker teacher practice

Valerie Hobbs a,∗, Ayumi Matsuo a, Mark Payne b

a School of English, University of Sheffield, Jessop West, 1 Upper Hanover St., Sheffield S3 7RA, United Kingdomb School of Education, University of Sheffield, 388 Glossop Road, Sheffield S10 2JA, United Kingdom

Abstract

Research on language classroom code-switching ranges from describing both teachers’ and learners’ first language and targetlanguage use to making connections between code-switching and student learning. However, few studies compare differences inpractice between native and non-native speaker teachers and even fewer consider culture of learning as a variable. This paper presentsrecent results of a study documenting how three Japanese teachers, one of British and two of Japanese origin, differed in their use ofclassroom language delivered in the target language vs. the students’ first language. Findings include that language teachers’ code-switching practices can and often do differ substantially, influenced by the teacher’s culture of learning. Incorporating examples fromdata in the form of classroom observation field notes and semi-structured interviews, this study adds to the discussion surroundingthe importance of language teacher education programs which prioritize investigation of teachers’ background and teaching contextin course content.© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Code-switching; Teacher language; Language teacher education; Japanese language teaching

1. Introduction

This paper reports findings from exploratory research focusing on the differences between native and non-nativespeaking Japanese teachers’ use of target language in a foreign language classroom, specifically within the Englishsecondary school system. The teaching of Japanese as a second language in English schools has markedly increased inrecent years. Entries for the Japanese General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examination at age 16 haverisen from 696 candidates in 2002 to 839 entries in 2006 (CILT, 2007). Considering entries at GCSE for all school,college and adult entries in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the number has risen from 571 entries in 1995 to 1184in 2007 (CILT, 2008). Over the same period (1995–2007), GCSE entries across all sectors for French have droppedfrom 350,027 to 217,525, whilst German has fallen from 129,386 entries in 1995 to 81,131 in 2007 (CILT, 2008).Spanish has made steady increases over the same period, rising from 40,762 entries in 1995 to 64,207 in 2007 (CILT,2008). The increase in numbers for Spanish and Japanese may be a result, partly, of the drop off for the ‘traditional’FLs (in England) of French and German. Other factors, particularly for Japanese, may come into play, such as the‘novelty’ of learning a non-European language with a markedly different script, or perhaps extrinsic motivation linkedto languages for business (e.g., Hagen, 1998). There are also other languages taught and learnt in England, such as

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 114 222 0228.E-mail address: [email protected] (V. Hobbs).

0898-5898/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.linged.2009.12.004

mailto:[email protected]

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.12.004

V. Hobbs et al. / Linguistics and Education 21 (2010) 44–59 45

Urdu, Italian and Chinese which are not considered here. The picture is complex but, on the basis of such figures, wesuggest that Japanese language teaching now has firm footings within the English (and British) education system, andis likely to expand.

The increase in the provision of Japanese and the subsequent increased uptake by pupils raises a number of issues.Some of these have been investigated, particularly in relation to Japanese and foreign language planning (e.g., Payne,2007) and Japanese and communicative methodologies (e.g., Sato & Kleinsasser, 1999). However, we still know littleabout what actually goes on in Japanese language classrooms, and we have found no studies that compare, for example,the methodological practices of native and non-native speaking Japanese teachers. As a result, therefore, this study setsout to describe and understand the underlying reasons behind code-switching practices of Japanese language teachersin the UK. We are aware that the term ‘native speaker’ is somewhat controversial (see Davies, 2003). But given thelack of a promising alternative and the continued use of these terms by most in the field, we use it here to refer to thosefor whom Japanese is a home language, following from Clark and Paran (2007).

As outlined in the title, this research is, in essence, exploratory. Rather than enter the field with a priori assumptions,the intention was to adopt a heuristic method aligned to the Glaser and Strauss (1967) grounded theory approach ofcollecting and then analyzing data for emergent themes and issues to be investigated further. We have attempted topresent the issues through the lens of three case studies (see Stake, 1995) where the practices of Japanese languageteachers are captured by observations and interviews. It is hoped that analysis of data will shed light on the linguisticand pedagogic practices of teachers of Japanese.

The paper is set out as follows: In Section 2, the wider theoretical base is considered, including relevant researchon code-switching and culture of learning. Section 3 details the research context, participants, and methodology. InSection 4; data are presented and analyzed; three case studies are discussed; and the findings are ‘embedded’ withinthe wider applied linguistics research. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 5.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Literature on language teacher code-switching

As Nilep (2006) notes, code-switching is often broadly discussed in every subfield of linguistic disciplines, and it isespecially alarming that researchers often do not agree on a clear definition of code-switching. In this paper, we presentcases where language teachers, who are speakers of both English and Japanese, alternate between these languages intheir classroom language. Our focus is restricted to cases when teachers alternate between English and Japanese inthe classroom; we are interested in the extent to which culture of learning and/or teaching philosophy influences thepattern of switching (see Section 2.2).

Research on language classroom code-switching ranges from describing both teachers’ and learners’ first language(L1) and the taught language or target language (TL) use to making (albeit scarce) connections between code-switchingand student learning. Within studies describing language teachers’ code-switching, most studies emphasize TEFLclassrooms (see Greggio & Gill, 2007); some exceptions are Duff and Polio (1990), Kraemer (2006), Polio and Duff(1994), Macaro (2001) and Sato and Kleinsasser (1999). The two studies by Duff and Polio, for example, reportobservations from 13 foreign language classrooms, finding that the use of TL differed from 92% to 100%. Polio andDuff (1994) investigated the functions for which native speaking language teachers use English in the classroom, a studysimilar to ours in that the authors categorized cases of using English into functions such as ‘classroom administrativevocabulary’, ‘grammar instruction’, and ‘classroom management’. Kraemer (2006) examined the amount and purposeof L1 (English) use by five language teaching assistants, both native (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) of German,concluding that a ‘fair amount’ of English was used, primarily for classroom management vocabulary and translation.Macaro (2001) observed six NNS French student teachers, reporting that the use of TL was between 65% and 86%.Macaro’s participants varied in their perspective on TL use in teaching practice, ranging from seeing no value in L1use to identifying some positive aspects of it. Finally, Sato and Kleinsasser (1999) observed and interviewed 10 (1 NS,9 NNS) Japanese teachers in Australian state high schools. Although they did not report an exact percentage of TLuse, they report that most of the teachers said that they tried to use Japanese as much as possible. Sato and Kleinsasserwent on to discuss the importance of teachers’ beliefs in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and report thatonly two out of 10 teachers actually used methods recommended in CLT (such as role-play); the other teachers reliedmore on the traditional method such as teacher-fronted grammar presentation (p. 509).

46 V. Hobbs et al. / Linguistics and Education 21 (2010) 44–59

Moving beyond description to prescription, a wide range of views exists with respect to optimum teacher TL use ina foreign language classroom; Macaro (2001) categorizes these views into the following three principles:

1. exclusive TL use (see Chambers, 1991)2. opposition toward an exclusive TL use (see Macaro, 1997)3. somewhere in the middle (see Gearon, 1997)

The first principle is based on Krashen’s (1981) proposal of making use of comprehensive input as well as naturalorder of acquisition in foreign language classrooms; these researchers listed in (1) support an exclusive use of the TLto enhance TL input to pupils. In contrast, Lin (2008, p. 279) summarizes a relatively small body of literature in favourof at least ‘some’ use of the native language of the students. The opposition towards the exclusive TL use listed in (2)stems from various reasons such that pupils might suffer from cognitive as well as processing burden if no L1 is usedin their classroom, or code-switching is a natural and useful skill to acquire in a foreign language classroom. Otherresearchers such as van der Walt (1997) argue for some L1 use in the classroom, arguing that the prohibition of L1 usemight cause an unequal power relationship or denial of the pupils’ cultural background. Finally, the researchers in (3)argue that a balanced use of pupils’ L1 is necessary provided there is no restriction on the opportunities of the pupilsto have TL input.

2.2. Literature on culture of learning

As part of a shift away from a research perspective, which presumed a causal link between teacher behaviourand student learning, issues like teachers’ background, experience, and social context have become crucial factors inresearch investigating language teachers. Works such as Woods (1989) have reinforced acceptance of the idea thatteaching involves complex thought processes, which often have deep roots in a teacher’s culture of learning. Cortazziand Jin (1996, p. 169) note, for example, that

“behavior in language classrooms is set within taken-for granted frameworks of expectations, attitudes, values, andbeliefs about what constitutes good learning, about how to teach or learn. . .”

Research on the implementation of CLT in various contexts, for example, has revealed that certain forms of CLTare incompatible with, for instance, China’s prevailing notions about the nature of teaching and learning (Hu, 2002).Further, there is evidence that language teachers filter teaching philosophies and methods through their culture oflearning, interpreting approaches like CLT in very different ways depending on their beliefs about teaching andlearning (Sato & Kleinsasser, 1999). Further, as Pajares (1992, p. 324) assumes, conceptions of educational belief are‘well established by the time a student gets to college’ and that ‘changes in beliefs during adulthood are rare.’

Surprisingly, however, much of the research on language teachers’ code-switching does not account for culturalbackground. For example, Polio and Duff’s (1994) investigation of when language teachers use the students’ L1 andfor what functions included interviews with the teachers, offering them an opportunity to explain their rationale forEnglish and TL use. However, the authors do not make any connections to the teachers’ cultural backgrounds, therebypresenting only a partial picture of the underpinnings of these teachers’ decisions. Similarly, other studies (see Macaro,2001) include teacher beliefs as a variable but, again, omit the impact of culture of learning on such beliefs. Oneexception is Dilin, Gil-Soon, Kyung-Suk, and Nan-Ok (2004) whose research on teachers’ code-switching in Koreanclassrooms supports the notion that cultural background has the potential to supersede even curriculum guidelines onTL use. Clearly, more research is needed that describes not only language teachers’ and students’ TL and L1 use butalso investigates the beliefs, assumptions, and attitudes which are linked to cultural background and underpin suchusage.

3. Context and methodology

This section lays out the details of this research project, including research framework, discussion of the participantsand their teaching and learning contexts, data collection and analysis, and, finally, discussion of the data and theirimplications for further research in code-switching.


Table 1Participants.

Name Nationality Age Degree Study area Years of teachingexperience

No. of lessonsobserved

Age/proficiency ofstudents

Katsumi Japanese 25–30 PGCE Japanese/Spanish 1 3 14–15 (2×)/advanced16–17/advanced

Saki Japanese 25–30 PGCE Japanese 3 2 14–15 (2×)/upperintermediate

Jeremy British 25–30 PGCE Japanese/German 1 3 14–15 (1×)/beginner14–15 (2×)/advanced

Jane British 25–30 PGCE Japanese 3 1 12–13/upper intermediate

3.1. Research framework

As stated in the introduction, this study adopted an ‘exploratory-interpretive paradigm’ (Borg, 1999, p. 100), involv-ing use of comprehensive field notes (Wolfinger, 2002, pp. 89–91) and unstructured and semi-structured interviews toallow us to narrow our research focus after observing emergent themes. Use of this paradigm also allowed for a moreholistic picture of student and teacher behaviour, a move beyond description to examination of ‘the personally definedpurposes, intentions, and goals’ that lie beneath (Borg, 1999, p. 100).

Our initial research question was intentionally broad, asking:

� How do NS and NNS Japanese language teachers in the UK differ in their interpretation of the methodologiespresented to them in pre- and in-service training and translation of these to their teaching environment?

As we began collecting and reviewing our data, we noted a significant theme related to the teachers’ use of TL inthe classroom. Our questions then narrowed to the following:

� How do NS and NNS Japanese teachers in the UK differ in the use of the TL, particularly within classroom language?� To what extent do these teachers voice a rationale for their code-switching and in what ways are their choices related

to their culture of learning?

3.2. Participants

Four secondary school teachers of Japanese (2 NS and 2 British NNS) participated in this study (see Table 1)and were all selected using convenience-case sampling. They were sampled ‘purposively’ in that they had to beteaching, or training to teach, Japanese in England. Furthermore, they represented a ‘convenience’ sample in that theywere ‘accessible, easy-to-contact, and well-known [to us]’ (Wellington, 2000, pp. 61–62). Two of the participantswere enrolled on a Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) course at the authors’ university, and the remainingtwo were acquaintances in partnership schools (schools working closely with the university on the teacher-trainingprogram). We experienced some difficulty finding further willing participants within 50 miles, which partially explainsour low participant numbers. It must be noted, also, that numbers completing teacher-training programs for Japaneseremain low. As an example, on average three per year complete the course at the authors’ institution. Therefore, thenational ‘pool’ of teachers is small. Additionally, due to difficulty in arranging observation of one of the teachers, wechose to develop case studies based on only three of the teachers, using the fourth primarily as a point of comparison.The resulting limitations will be discussed in the final section of this paper.

Despite these difficulties, the participant group was fairly homogenous except for their cultural-linguistic back-grounds. They were similar in age (25–30 years old). They had similar amounts of teaching experience. They all taughtstudents1 who were roughly the same age. They all worked in similar environments: classrooms at state schools in

1 T: teacher; S: student.


South Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and Nottinghamshire in the UK. They all went through a Postgraduate Certificate in Edu-cation course (PGCE) in the UK, two of them at Masters level. The PGCE is a one-year course involving 12 weeks ofuniversity-based work and 24 weeks of school-based work in partner schools. Two participants had less than one year’sexperience teaching Japanese, and the remaining participants had more than three years of experiences in teachingJapanese. The two Japanese participants completed BAs in Japan and one of the British participants, Jeremy, lived inJapan for approximately a year. Observing British educational ethical principles, the participants were informed aboutall aspects of the research, given information about the wider context, provided with the opportunity to ask questionsand also informed that they would be free to withdraw at any time. The project underwent rigorous ethical review atthe University of Sheffield.

3.3. Pedagogic background and context

The teachers in this study possess distinctive pedagogic identities, which certainly affect their teaching practices.Based upon evidence from the university application process and interview information, our British respondent, as aformer pupil, will have been exposed to a particular style and mode of what is known in England as ‘modern languageteaching’, invariably based on French, German, or Spanish as the salient languages. The teaching style in Englishschools can be described as broadly ‘communicative’, that is, function often takes precedence over form throughan emphasis on communication (e.g., Klapper, 2003). Activities in such classrooms are marked by an abundance ofspeaking activities, a focus on TL use, and teacher–pupil and pupil–pupil interaction. The English respondent in thisstudy may view this as the ‘norm’ when considering his own pedagogic viewpoints.

On the other hand, and based again, upon evidence from the university application process and interview information(as well as the first-hand experiences of one of the authors), our two Japanese participants grew up in Japan and wentthrough the Japanese educational system. Their first exposure to a foreign language was English; most Japanese startstudying English at the age of twelve when they enter junior high school and continue to study English for a minimumof six years. Although there was a recent movement of the Japanese Ministry of Education to change the focus ofEnglish teaching practice in Japan to a more communicative approach (Monbukagakusho, 1994), the traditional method(teacher-led, little use of the TL, heavy emphasis on grammar translation and memorization) dominated during the twoJapanese participants’ education. Even after the publishing of the new Course of Study Guidelines (Monbukagakusho,1994), which includes detailed objectives, contents of English education as well as recommended language activities, notmuch has changed in English teaching in both junior high and high schools in Japan possibly due to forms of assessment(see MacIntyre, 2007). The entrance exams to both high schools and universities in Japan focus on grammar, vocabulary,and idiom oriented questions, and this feeds back to the traditional practice in classrooms (MacIntyre, 2007). Tsukuma(2005, p. 166) argues that this also results in greater concentration on reading and writing, a focus which might bepartially responsible for Japanese students’ ranking as worst (155th out of 155 countries) in the speaking section in theTest of English as Foreign Language (TOEFL) (Koga-Browes, 2009).

Although coming from two contrasting pedagogic backgrounds, the participants converged at the ‘point’ of theirrespective PGCE courses. All four had taken the one-year Postgraduate Certificate in Education (Modern ForeignLanguages) at English universities. The PGCE model is broadly similar across the Russell group family of universitieswhere the respondents studied and often contains sessions on ‘CLT activities’, the ‘language learning cycle’, ‘commu-nicative methodology in context’, and ‘TL use in the classroom’. Essentially, the PGCE model is, then, communicativein outlook with an emphasis on use of the TL.

3.4. Data collection: interviews

Unstructured and semi-structured interviews were carried out throughout data collection. We interviewed our fourparticipants two times each: An initial interview, conducted before the first observation of each teacher, allowed us tocollect basic demographic information as well as an overview of salient views about teaching and learning languages.In a follow-up interview, we uniformly guided each participant to discuss the following topics:

• beliefs about students, the teacher, and the use of TL• lesson preparation processes


• comparisons between the culture of learning in Japan and the UK

Each interview lasted no more than 20 minutes and was audio recorded and later transcribed. We were also able tointerview a head teacher and another NS teacher, collecting their responses on the same issues.

3.5. Data collection: observations

We observed the classroom teaching of our three participants eventually selected for case studies a minimum of 2times (see Table 1). In almost all cases, these were upper intermediate or advanced classes, chosen due to the likelihoodthat beginner classrooms typically involve more L1 use. Classroom observations were carried out by two researchers.Each lesson lasted 50 minutes, and the researchers sat at the back of the classroom (as directed by the teachers) andmade comprehensive field notes (i.e., systematic and comprehensive description of all classroom events) that consistedof:

• general information of the class (year group)• number of students• seating charts• activities (as well as interaction types)• language used• verbal and non-verbal interaction

In order to capture as close a transcription as possible of all teacher language, one researcher transcribed teacherlanguage delivered in Japanese while the other researcher transcribed language in English. These field notes werelater analyzed by one of the researchers. Our field notes did not enable us to carry out the 5-s sampling method as inMacaro (2001) or the 15-s sampling method as in Polio and Duff (1994); however, we were able to capture a moreholistic perspective on classroom language, analyzing the teacher language used throughout each lesson, from openingto closing, without any 5-s or 15-s gaps in between.

3.6. Data analysis

In keeping with the exploratory nature of this study, data collected in the form of field notes and audio-recordedunstructured interviews were analyzed using data-driven methods, involving ‘making sense of, sifting, organizing,cataloguing, [and] selecting determining themes’ (Holliday, 2006, p. 99). Because of our inability to audio-record theteaching sessions (due to child protection and ethical issues), we were unable to analyze the data at the sentence-level,though our notes contained extensive examples of verbatim teacher language. Instead, we operated at the ‘functional’level as our data allowed us to later note each time the teacher moved from one function (e.g., opening the lesson)to another (e.g., explanation). Analysis was qualitative in nature in that, rather than imposing pre-determined sets ofcategories, general categories emerged from the data after careful examination, labelling, and confirmation with eachteacher. The resulting categories include the following (with explanations where necessary):

• opening (signaling the start of a lesson)• warm-up (i.e., formulaic questions and answers, usually in the TL, unrelated to a lesson’s content)• instructions (i.e., directing students to complete an activity)• explanation (elaborating on a point made, i.e., about grammar)• checking comprehension (making sure students understand)• translation (from L1 to TL or vice versa)• timekeeping (managing the time for each activity)• praise• elicitation (asking students for answers)• answering students’ questions• correction (pointing our student error)


Table 2Katsumi.

Type of classroom language Observation 1: age14–15 advanced

Observation 2: age14–15 advanced


Totals

L1 TL L1 TL L1 TL L1 TL

Opening n/a 1 1 2 1 1 4Instructions 3 – 8 – 3 5 14 5Explanation 1 – 1 – 6 – 8 –Checking comprehension 2 – – – – – 2 –Translation 1 – 1 – 4 2 6 2Timekeeping 3 – – – – 3 3 3Praise 2 – 2 – 2 5 6 5Elicitation 4 – 3 – 1 2 8 2Answering questions – – 3 – 8 1 11 1Correction – – – – 2 – 2 –Giving lesson objectives – – – – 1 – 1 –Closing 1 1 – 1 – 2 1 4

Totals 17 2 19 3 27 21 63 26

• giving objectives (providing aims of the lesson)• closing (signaling close of the lesson)

Similar categories appear in Kraemer’s (2006) study on the use of English in German language classrooms and inWajnryb’s (1992, p. 43) discussion of metalanguage, defined as ‘teacher talk which is not related to the language beingpresented’, although here we have chosen to use the term ‘classroom language’. However, it should be noted again thatpre-imposed categories were not used and that not all categories in the aforementioned studies appeared in our data.

Discussion of the data focuses primarily on teachers’ verbal use of the TL and his/her use of the students’ L1 sinceour notes do not contain a complete account of the language the teachers wrote on the board. In addition, we excludedutterances where the teacher was reading aloud from a worksheet/handout. For example, in the following interaction,the teacher directs the students to question number 3 (‘three ban’), reads aloud the sentence in Japanese, then in English(as it appears on the worksheet), and then directs a student to provide his answer. In this instance, we included theteacher’s use of Japanese for ‘number three’ in our analysis but not her reading of the worksheet content.

K: Three ban. Kyooshitsu ni hairimasu. I am entering the classroom. San ban Joe.

4. Presentation of findings

4.1. Case study #1: Katsumi

We observed three of Katsumi’s Japanese lessons (see Table 1). It became quickly apparent that she used the students’L1 a high proportion of the time, restricting TL use almost entirely to new lesson content (e.g., new lexical items orcontent on worksheets/handouts) and to formulaic expressions, such as those used to open and close her lessons andoffer praise. Despite Katsumi’s use of twelve categories of classroom language (see Table 2), in fact, we recorded only26 classroom language utterances in the TL over three lesson observations.

For example, Katsumi opened and closed each lesson in the TL by asking the students to bow and sit down (opening)and to stand up (closing). She frequently (5×) used ‘hai yokudekimashita’ [good, well done] or a similar variation tooffer praise but also offered praise in the L1 (6×). In fact, aside from these uses, we detected no use of TL classroomlanguage in either observation 1 or observation 2, although in the final observation, Katsumi used more of the TL. Inthis case, in addition to continuing to use the TL for praise, etc. as in previous lessons, she gave instructions in the TL(5×), offered translations from English to Japanese (2×), and engaged in timekeeping (3×). Some examples are asfollows:

• instructions


T: Mina san kotti muitekudasai. Yamete kudasai. Kotti mite. [Everyone, please look this way. Please stop. Pleaselook.]

• translation:S: Do you have a rubber?T: Keshigomu motteiru? Kashite agete. [Do you have a rubber? Can you lend yours?]

• timekeeping:T: Ato ni fun onegai shimasu. [Two minutes to go]

In interview, Katsumi revealed several beliefs about teaching and use of the TL which shed light on her classroombehaviour. First, she noted that classroom language (i.e., giving instructions) should be in the students’ native languagebecause they simply will not understand otherwise. She argued,

when it comes to directions, so ‘you have your worksheets now, what you have to do’, I can’t really do inJapanese, because they don’t have that much Japanese to understand that.

Katsumi later elaborated, telling us that there is simply not enough time to use the TL.

And doing that [giving instructions in Japanese] three or four times in Japanese, I can’t waste my time to do that,so it doesn’t work. When the time, when it does work, me talking Japanese, I will choose to speak Japanese, butthe times that it works well, for example, little things like ‘open textbooks’, that’s routine. Every lesson I say,‘now’ – they should know by now what I’m saying. The page number, again 137, that’s quite a big number, butby saying the page, they should follow it, that’s my philosophy.

Katsumi’s notions about TL use being a waste of time seemed rooted in an underlying belief that language teachersshould focus on the minimum required. At one point, she said, ‘I just don’t want to give them extra information fromwhat they’ll need’, choosing instead to focus on lists of vocabulary required for the exam.

Second, Katsumi seemed to believe strongly that a teacher-fronted, primarily L1-based methodology was the ‘best’way to learn languages. She said, ‘In a class. . .cause I’m Japanese, what I believe in is that the teacher-led teachingconstantly’ and later noted, ‘When I learned English for lesson, open textbook, teacher never said in English at all,’later criticizing student-led activities as a ‘waste of time [because the students] can talk to each other afterwards’.Despite this, Katsumi later acknowledged that because British students were used to a more ‘fun’ style of learning,she had to adapt her teaching somewhat to suit them, for example setting homework in a way that motivates studentsto complete it, although she made it clear that this was a reluctant change on her part.

A third, perhaps more complex, theme arising from interviews with Katsumi is that she seemed to believe that useof TL would result in lack of student understanding. At one point, she told us, ‘I know pretty much everything inJapanese, so I have to be careful how much I can teach them. I don’t want to bombard them and make them think thatoh, no, that’s just too much’.

In summary, our data reveal that Katsumi’s use of the TL in the classroom was powerfully influenced by her beliefthat investing the time needed to acquaint students with classroom language in the TL was impossible and unnecessary.

4.2. Case study #2: Saki

Our second NS teacher of Japanese, Saki, displayed a similar reluctance to use the TL in the classroom. She tendedto use the TL for giving praise (i.e., ‘hai iidesu’ [good]; ‘subarashii desu ne’ [wonderful]) and opening the lesson(‘konnitiwa’ [hello]); in a few instances, she also gave basic instructions and elicited answers in the TL, though shedid these in the L1 with greater frequency. Like Katsumi, she also demonstrated a tendency to use the TL primarily fornew lesson content (often presented in song format). In all, Saki used all 13 of the categories of classroom languagewe coded for, seven of which (opening, warm-up, instructions, translation, timekeeping, praise, elicitation) occurredin the TL at least once (see Table 3).

In her first lesson, Saki opened the lesson by using a warm-up in the TL, which she later noted was a typical startto her lessons, asking the following questions:

‘Nangatu desuka’ [What month is today?]‘Nanniti desuka’ [What day is today?]


Table 3Saki.

Type of classroom language Observation 1: age 14–15upper intermediate

Observation 2: age 14–15upper intermediate

Totals

L1 TL L1 TL L1 TL

Opening – 1 – 1 – 2Instructions 14 6 15 – 29 6Warm-up – 5 – – – 5Explanation 1 – 12 – 13 –Checking comprehension 2 – 2 – 4 –Translation 13 3 5 – 18 3Timekeeping – – 1 1 1 1Praise 7 7 2 4 9 11Elicitation 18 8 7 – 25 8Answering question 2 – – – 2 –Correction 1 – 1 – 2 –Giving lesson objectives – – 3 – 3 –Closing 2 – 1 – 3 –

Totals 60 30 49 6 109 36

‘Kokonoka desu. Nanyoobi?’ [Ninth. What day of the week is it?]‘Otenki wa?’ [What’s the weather?]

She also used the TL for giving instructions (6×), praise (7×), elicitation (8×), and translation (3×), though, as notedearlier, three of these forms of classroom language more frequently occurred in the L1 instructions (14×), praise(7×), and elicitation (18×). However, again, it is notable that Saki’s use of the TL for both elicitation and instructionsoccurred in contexts where the TL was already prominent. For example, in the following interaction, Saki had beenteaching the students a typical essay format and was now eliciting content for their first attempt at essay writing:

T: Next target is to write something similar. British and Japanese food. Daniel kun dooshite igirisu ryoori ga suki desuka. [Daniel, why do you like English food?]

S: oishii to yasui. [It’s delicious and inexpensive.]T: Nani ga suki desu ka? Tatoeba. [What do you like? For example,]S: Steeki to chips. [Steak and Chips]T: Hai iidesu ne. Hoka ni wa igirisu ryoori de ii tokoro. [Yes, good. What else do you like about English food?]S: oishii. [Delicious.]

Saki’s second lesson contained significantly less use of the TL, perhaps because the lesson involved explanationof Japanese verb forms, explanation being a form of classroom language that Saki believed should take place in thestudents’ L1. In fact, she used the TL for classroom language a total of only six times, for opening (1×), timekeeping(1×), and praise (4×). The remainder of her TL was again restricted to presenting new content, although the onlylengthy (i.e., longer than two words) utterances in the TL occurred when she sang a song to help the students rememberhow to form the ‘te-form’ of Japanese verbs. The majority of her lesson involved explaining verb forms, a form ofclassroom language which never occurred in the TL in either of Saki’s observed lessons. The following is an exampleof one of her explanations:

T: Ok, so when you look at these verbs, these are the verbs from earlier. Three different types of verbs, three differentgroups. Tabemasu is the easiest group. What did we say about Tabemasu? It’s the te-form.

S: What does that mean? [pointing to kanji on board]T: Hh, mimasu? To meet, to see.T: Konnitiwa. [greeting to student arriving late]


T: Ok, so here we have a little bit more verbs here, but look at this side where you can see rule two, so they verbs allin group two, so just follow the rule and make te-form. Try to make te-form.

As in all our interviews, we avoided asking Saki directly about her use of the TL since we did not want to influenceher classroom behaviour. Although the others we observed initiated discussion of this topic themselves, Saki was moreinterested in discussing a former teacher, who had inspired her to study English in the United States, and providingus with details about the level of flexibility she was given as a teacher in the UK as opposed to in Japan. That said,she revealed that in her own language learning experience, her ‘English teacher didn’t speak any English so, it wasn’texciting’, revealing that, like Katsumi, she had emerged from a culture of learning where TL use was minimal. Afterour final observation, we asked Saki for her opinion about the use of Japanese and L1 in the classroom. She seemedquite embarrassed, noting, ‘If you had told me this was your interest, I would have tried to use more Japanese’ andadding,

Ideally, I would use more Japanese, but it’s impossible. They won’t understand. To explain things I use Englishso they can understand. I have to use only simple Japanese to keep them with me in the lesson.

As in Katsumi’s case, Saki demonstrated a clear awareness of her actual use of the TL in the classroom and was ableto articulate a philosophy similar to Katsumi’s.

4.3. Case study #3: Jeremy

We were able to observe three of Jeremy’s Japanese lessons (see Table 1), all optional lunchtime classes, takenby students with a particular interest in Japanese. Throughout our observations, other teachers with connections to orinterest in Japan wandered in and out, creating a fairly casual and informal tone to the class. Although Jeremy wasteaching the same age group as the other teachers we observed, the lack of exam pressure was no doubt influentialon the teaching style and the way the students behaved in class. As Jeremy noted in one interview, ‘These classesare purely voluntary, not teaching towards a test, [with] no externally imposed requirements’. That said, viewingJeremy’s tendency to use more TL than L1 in light of the teaching philosophy he articulated, we believe that somegeneral conclusions can be reached. Like Katsumi and Saki, Jeremy was, in our second interview with him, fairlyclear about his philosophy of the use of the TL, and it seems likely that in a classroom environment geared moretowards exam preparation, Jeremy would exhibit the same overall tendencies. In fact, we were also able to attend oneof Jeremy’s German lessons, during which we observed that despite the focus on exam preparation, Jeremy used theTL for classroom language the majority of the time.

Table 4Jeremy.

Type of classroom language Observation 1: age14–15 beginner

Observation 2: age14–15 beginner


Totals

L1 TL L1 TL L1 TL L1 TL

Opening – 1 – – – – – 1Instructions – 5 – 8 – 4 – 17Warm-up – – – 3 – – – 3Explanation 2 – 1 – – 1 3 1Checking comprehension – – – – 1 – 1Translation 3 – – 1 3 1 6 2Timekeeping – – 2 – – – 2 –Praise – – – – – 4 – 4Elicitation 1 16 14 11 1 41Answering question 1 – – 1 – – 1 1Correction – – – – – 4 – 4Giving lesson objectives 2 – 1 – 1 – 4 –Closing 1 1 1 1 – 1 2 3

Totals 10 23 5 28 4 27 19 78


Jeremy used less classroom language than either Saki or Katsumi (see Table 4). The majority of his lessons involvedintroduction of new vocabulary, by placing pictures on an OHP and providing the word in Japanese or miming newactions (i.e., ‘Migite o agete kudasai’ [Raise your right hand]), and using total physical response to allow the studentsto practice the new forms. On average, he used only 8 forms of classroom language in each lesson, the most frequentlyused being elicitation (asking questions in the TL) and instructions (often consisting of a reminder in the TL to thestudents to speak Japanese). For example, in his first lesson for beginning speakers of Japanese, after a brief greetingin the TL, he held up a series of objects, asking the students in the TL (10×) to name each object. His other uses ofclassroom language in the TL were minimal, giving instructions as previously mentioned (5×) and closing the lesson.He used classroom language in the L1 only 10 times, offering explanations (2×), elicitation (1×), a response to aquestion (1×), giving L1 translations (3×), giving lesson objectives (2×), and closing the lesson. These were Jeremy’sonly uses of the L1 in the entire lesson.

Jeremy’s second lesson for advanced learners showed similar tendencies. Again, the majority of his lesson involvedteaching new lexis and conducting total physical response activities. His classroom language use in the L1 was restrictedto only five utterances: one explanation, two instances of timekeeping, one instance of giving objectives, and one closingutterance. He used TL classroom language, again, primarily for giving instructions (8×) and elicitation (14×), withonly a handful of other instances of classroom language: warm-up (3×), translation (1×), answering students’ questions(1×), and closing (1×).

Jeremy’s third lesson for advanced learners revealed the same patterns of behaviour as the previous two lessons.Jeremy’s lesson was again dominated by use of total physical response activities and introduction of new vocabulary,the first half of his lesson involving a review of location words using a Snoopy doll. The following interaction is typicalof Jeremy’s combination of elicitation in the TL and gesturing.2

T: Snoopy wa doko ni imasuka? [Where is Snoopy?]S: Kaban. [a bag]S: Naka. [inside] Snoopy kaban no naka [Snoopy inside the bag], naka kaban. [bag inside]T: [gestures to switch the constituent order]T: [gestures and points to his knee]F: Ni. [locative marker-at]T: Ima Snoopy wa doko ni imasuka? [Now, where is Snoopy]F: Tsukue no ue ni imasu. [He is on tip of the desk]T: Very good!

In this third lesson, Jeremy once more used classroom language in the TL primarily for elicitation (11×) and givinginstructions (4×), though he also issued correction (4×) and praise (4×) in the TL, a new pattern. In this third lesson,we recorded only four instances of L1 classroom language: translation into English (3×) and giving lesson objectives(1×).

Based on our interviews with Jeremy, our impression was that he was well-versed in the ‘buzz words’ he hadencountered in the PGCE course and that it was, at times, difficult to ascertain when he was adopting a neutral positionperhaps to avoid appearing extreme and when he was actually speaking frankly about his own beliefs about languageteaching. For example, when asked to comment on his use of the L1 and TL, he answered very carefully, noting, ‘Ithink it depends on the lesson and it depends on what you’re teaching. . .and it also depends on the questions that youget from the students.’ Another time, when asked whether he felt that rapport or respect weighed more heavily in histeaching approach, he again diplomatically responded, ‘I think all of those ought to go together really.’

That said, Jeremy seemed to relax towards the latter half of our two interviews with him, noting in particular hisbelief that ‘the gradual building up of target language is the ideal really’ and that while he didn’t feel that exclusiveTL use was necessarily a sound principle for beginner learners, he nevertheless tried to incorporate as much TL aspossible while remaining sensitive to students’ ‘affective filter’ (emotional response). Interestingly, Jeremy’s teaching

2 Our data clearly point to Jeremy’s preference to explain, ‘translate’ new vocabulary, and answer students’ questions by using gesture rather thanverbal communication, an aspect of teaching that is beyond the scope of this article. However, a follow-up study on the use of gesture by non-nativespeaker teachers would shed additional light on the results from this study.


experience in Japan seemed only to reinforce this belief, and he drew a strong distinction between what he felt was‘old-fashioned’ L1 use in typical classrooms in Japan and the importance placed on communicative competence inUK classrooms. Finally, because Jeremy also taught GCSE German, he was able to articulate his belief about what iscommonly called wash-back, namely, the influence of examinations on teaching and learning. Unlike Katsumi, Jeremyargued that a good test result should be a natural product of classroom teaching and learning and that the focus shouldbe on ‘language, not the test’. In summary, Jeremy’s strong tendency to use the TL both for content and classroomlanguage was echoed in his statements about his philosophy of teaching and learning.

4.4. Additional sources of data

As stated previously, we interviewed and observed the classroom teaching of a further NNS participant, Jane (seeTable 1). Although we were only able to observe one of Jane’s lessons (Year 8) and so have not focused on her as acase study, we found that her use of the TL and the L1 in her classroom teaching was remarkably similar to Jeremy’s,despite the greater formality of her GCSE-preparatory class as compared to Jeremy’s lunchtime lessons. Like Jeremy,she used fewer types of metalanguage (8) than Katsumi and Saki and uttered a recorded 30 instances of metalanguagein the TL with only 7 in the L1. In addition, again like Jeremy, her most frequently used types of metalanguagewere instructions (8×) and elicitation (19×), also offering two explanations and closing the lesson in the TL. Forexample, after introducing new vocabulary, she held up pictures and asked students in Japanese to tell her the nameof each. She also used the TL to ask students to open their textbooks and to explain activities. Her use of the L1 wasrestricted to explanation (1×), comprehension check (2×), translation into English (1×), timekeeping (3×), and givinglesson objectives (1×). In summary, she used the TL for the vast majority of the lesson, whose objectives included theintroduction of new vocabulary. Jane commented in interview that she tried to use as much TL as possible, noting thatsince the students had limited contact with the language outside the classroom, they needed ‘as much input as possibleand that includes instructions and things like that’. She noted that as a student of Japanese, she had learned the mostfrom experiences where she was forced to use the TL.

In order to supplement our small number of participants, we conducted brief interviews with two other Japaneseteachers, one NNS called Hilary with over 20 years of teaching experience and one NS teacher called Mikako with sixyears of experience. Hilary drew from her experience as a head teacher to remark on trends she had observed among NSlanguage teachers, noting that Japanese teachers in particular seemed to ‘have a hard time getting over’ what she calleda ‘lecture-oriented style’. She later pointed out that due to the typically greater respect for teachers and greater senseof student responsibility in Japan’s culture of learning, many Japanese teachers tend to have ‘classroom managementissues’ and often rely heavily on the L1 to maintain order.

When asked to talk about her experience being a NS teacher in a UK school, Mikako said,

Definitely the different educational system. In Japan, all student sit quietly. If they miss work, they ask a friend.In England, I have very low expectations of the students. In England, only the GCSE matters, so students are notmotivated to complete the assignments or respect the teacher as there seem to be no consequences.

She later echoed one of Hilary’s points, noting that for her, time and classroom management prevent her use of the TL,especially for giving instructions. She told us, ‘I am just avoiding the hassle. We don’t have time to build in the targetlanguage instruction, not like in Japan.’

5. Discussion

Our data point to a clear difference between use of TL classroom language by NS and NNS teachers of Japanese.In fact, when compared with their total use, Saki and Katsumi’s percentage of TL classroom language use was almostcompletely diametrically opposed to Jeremy’s (see Fig. 1). The reasons for this difference emerged in our interviewswith Saki, Katsumi, and Mikako, which reveal that although use of the TL may be somewhat desirable to themfor various reasons, timekeeping and classroom management issues interfere and make TL use, according to them,‘impossible’ but also ultimately ‘unnecessary’, echoing similar remarks by NS language teachers in similar studies(see Polio & Duff, 1994, p. 322). Beyond this, however, we suspect that, lacking a familiarity with British students’body language, classroom behaviour, etc., Katsumi and Saki lacked the cultural background to pick up non-verbalcues from the students regarding their level of understanding of teacher language, leading these two teachers to use


Fig. 1. TL vs. L1 classroom language use.

less TL. Although it is speculative, we suspect that we might find a different pattern of TL use in NS teachers who areteaching, for example, German in the UK. We claim that the distance between two cultures (here the UK and Japan)had a negative correlation to the use of TL. Ultimately, these ideas had links to the participants’ learning and culturalbackground which contributed to the formation of a certain philosophy about teaching and learning, specifically, theteachers’ limited use of the TL. Likewise, Jeremy’s notions of TL use were remarkably similar, including the beliefthat TL use was both possible and important for student learning, ideas which, again, seemed linked to his cultural andeducational background and experience.

Several interesting points arise when comparing NS and NNS teachers with regard to classroom language function.Examining Katsumi and Saki’s patterns of use reveals some interesting similarities, particularly their shared tendencyto utter instructions and praise in the TL more frequently than other forms of TL classroom language (see Fig. 2). Webelieve that this particular tendency may be because of the comparatively greater ease with which instructions andpraise can become formulaic (i.e., ‘open your book’; ‘good work’). That said, their instructions, overall, were muchmore frequently uttered in the L1, contradictory to Kraemer’s (2006) results related to ‘activity explanation’. Katsumiand Saki’s L1 classroom language use also peaked in the category of explanations (see Fig. 3), which echoes theavailable research on some NS language teachers’ tendency to deliver grammar explanations in the L1 (see Greggio& Gill, 2007; Polio & Duff, 1994).

By way of contrast, Jeremy uttered elicitations in the TL far more frequently than any other form of classroomlanguage, with instructions being the only other major peak in his use. These findings contradict Kraemer’s (2006)findings regarding NNS teachers’ activity explanations, which she found occurred more frequently in the L1.

Some anomalies exist in our data, which require explanation. For example, Katsumi’s use of TL classroom languageincreased dramatically in her third lesson, jumping from two and three in total in her first and second lesson to a much

Fig. 2. Japanese participants’ use of TL classroom language.


Fig. 3. Japanese participants’ use of L1 classroom language.

higher in the third lesson (21). Scrutiny of the lesson context suggests that she may have used more TL because theprimary interaction with her students in this particular lesson involved her checking their answers on a worksheet aboutJapanese verbs. A typical pattern in this lesson involved Katsumi uttering the answer to a particular worksheet questionin Japanese and then calling for the students’ attention in the TL. See, for example, the following interaction:

S: What is [number] seventeen?T: Okaasan [mother]. Mina san kotti muitekudasai. Yamete kudasai. Kotti mite. [Everyone, please look this way.

Please stop. Please look.] Three ban. Kyooshitsu ni hairimasu. I am entering the classroom. San ban, Joe.

We argue that something like Polio and Duff’s (1994, p. 320) account of reflexivity is at work here. They note thata teacher’s use of the TL tends to influence students to use the TL as well, a phenomenon they call the ‘reciprocalreinforcing effect’. Our data suggest that this effect may also occur within the teacher herself; in other words, a teacher’sown use of the TL may prompt him/her to use more TL, being ‘on a roll’, as it were. Our hypothesis about this ‘reflexive’reinforcing effect certainly requires further exploration as our data cannot firmly substantiate it.

That said, evidence of this effect exists in our data from Saki’s lessons as well. For example, a single classroominteraction contained six of Saki’s seven instances of elicitations in the TL, suggesting again that the aforementionedreflexive reinforcing effect was potentially at work. Saki’s instructions in the TL also potentially reinforce this notion,since three of the six instances occurred in one context where Saki was directing the students to read in turn.

‘Daniel kun yonde kudasai’ [Daniel, please read]‘Jyaa, yuukisan doozo’ [Then, Yuki, please]‘Jaa Julia san’ [Then Julia]

A final point of discussion is related to the relationship between amount of teaching experience and TL use. Contraryto the findings of Kraemer (2006) but consistent with Duff and Polio’s (1990) study, we found no significant increasein the percentage of TL classroom language when comparing the less experienced teachers with the more experiencedteachers NS teachers. We believe this to be related to fact that our experienced teachers had been teaching only two yearsmore than the less experienced ones. We suspect that, given our hypothesis about the relationship between familiaritywith students’ body language and TL use, our NS teachers are likely to use less L1 after gaining several more years ofpractice. However, as our seasoned teacher participant Hilary observed, culture of learning can have a strong impacteven after years of practice; even Mikako, a teacher with five years of experience, showed a strong inclination for L1use over TL use.


6. Conclusions

Our findings reveal that NS and NNS language teachers’ code-switching practices can and often do differ substan-tially and are influenced, at least in part, by teachers’ culture of learning. Regarding our first research question, the datarevealed, first, that our NS teacher participants used significantly less TL classroom language than the NNS teachers,and second, that certain patterns existed in the types of TL and L1 classroom language favoured by each group. Thisstudy expands on current understanding of the code-switching practices among both NS (particularly East Asian) andNNS language teachers, particularly in its ability to cast doubt on Polio and Duff’s (1994, p. 315) argument that forNNS, ‘it may be unreasonable to expect the exclusive use of the TL in the classroom’. Of course, the small number ofparticipants in this study limits its generalizability, and further research must be done with a larger sample in order tofurther substantiate and/or refine our findings.

Regarding our second research question, our interview data revealed that language teachers are powerfully influencedby their past experiences as language learners in specific cultural contexts. Our NS participants voiced strong opinionsrelated to what they saw as an important distinction between content, which should be delivered in the TL, and classroomlanguage, which, if delivered in the TL, would result in confusion and time-wasting. Their beliefs about code-switchingwere quite different from those of the NNS participants, who made code-switching choices consistent with their beliefsand opinions about the importance of TL input. In this way, our study adds to the literature on the interplay betweenculture of learning and teacher beliefs and practices and contributes to our understanding, in particular, of the ways inwhich these beliefs and practices can be inflexible in the face of conflicting philosophies presented on teacher educationcourses.

Finally, and relating back to our comments in the introduction, it is of some concern to us that we still do not reallyknow what goes on in the Japanese language teaching classroom in England. There is still work to be done to explore,examine, and understand the pedagogic practices and principles underpinning the teaching and learning of Japanese inthis context. However, studies such as ours have important implications for language teacher education, revealing thatemphasis must be placed on critically examining personal beliefs about teaching and language learning experiences.As Borg (1999, p. 122) points out, advice about language teaching practice must be grounded in ‘empirical accounts ofwhat teachers in classrooms actually do’. Our data reveal that, even when submersed in a language teacher educationcontext where TL use is considered optimal, certain language teachers are unlikely to change their practice unlesscritical examination of the effects of teaching practice on learning occurs (see Hobbs, 2007). Conclusions such asthese, we suggest, could be ‘fed back’ into the planning and delivery of language teacher education programmes toensure ‘remedial’ action can be implemented. The form that such action would take may require further research.

As previously mentioned, the limitations of our study include its focus on only three teachers and its lack of audio-recorded data to supplement and strengthen other forms of data. Certainly, a more substantial study is warranted whichinvestigates whether or not our findings can be generalized to a larger population. Further, questions remain surroundingthe effects of the code-switching practices we observed on student learning. We hope that this study encourages furtherresearch on the growing population of Japanese language teachers in the UK and more comparative studies on NS andNNS language teachers in various contexts.

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by a devolved research grant from the University of Sheffield, and we are grateful for theirassistance in carrying out this project. We also wish to thank Guy Cook for his encouragement and advice.

References

Borg, S. (1999). The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom: A qualitative study of teachers’ practices and cognitions.Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 95–126.

Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research (CILT). (2007). GCSE language entries trend analysis, all schools in England, 1994–2007.Retrieved May 16, 2008, from http://www.cilt.org.uk/research/statistics/education/gcse trends dfesdata2007.

Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research (CILT). (2008). GCSE JCQ Exam Entries Data. Retrieved May 16, 2008, fromhttp://www.cilt.org.uk/research/statistics/education/gcse JCQdata2007.xls.

Chambers, F. (1991). Promoting use of the target language in the classroom. Language Learning Journal, 4, 27–31.Clark, E., & Paran, A. (2007). The employability of non-native speaker teachers of EFL: A UK study. System, 35, 407–430.

http://www.cilt.org.uk/research/statistics/education/gcse_trends_dfesdata2007

http://www.cilt.org.uk/research/statistics/education/gcse_JCQdata2007.xls


Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp.169–206). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.Dilin, L., Gil-Soon, A., Kyung-Suk, B., & Nan-Ok, H. (2004). South Korean high school English teachers’ code switching: Questions and challenges

in the drive for maximal use of English in teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 605–638.Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 74(2),

154–166.Gearon, M. (1997). L’alternance entre l’anglais et le francais chez les professeurs de FLE en Australie. Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée, 108,

467–474.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.Greggio, S., & Gill, 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.Hagen, S. (1998). What does global trade mean for UK languages? In A. Moys (Ed.), Where are we going with languages? (pp. 14–23). London:

Nuffield Foundation.Hobbs, V. (2007). Faking it or hating it: Can reflective practice be forced? Reflective Practice, 8(3), 405–417.Holliday, A. (2006). Doing and writing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and

Curriculum, 15(2), 93–105.Klapper, J. (2003). Taking communication to task? A critical review of recent trends in language teaching. Language Learning Journal, 27, 33–44.Koga-Browes, M. (2009). How Much Can Pronunciation Sessions Improve Japanese English? Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Sheffield.Kraemer, A. (2006). Teachers’ use of English in communicative German language classrooms: A qualitative analysis. Foreign Language Annals,

39(3), 435–450.Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Lin, A. (2008). Code-switching in the classroom: Research paradigms and approaches. In K. A. King, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of

language and education, 2nd ed., vol. 10: Research methods in language and education (pp. 273–286). New York: Springer.Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon, UK: 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.MacIntyre, R. (2007). Noticing: Developing grammar awareness in the teaching of English at Japanese high schools. The Journal of Kanda University

of International Studies, 19, 347–366.Monbukagakusho. Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT). (2002). Developing a Strategic Plan to

Cultivate ‘Japanese With English Abilities. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://www.mext.go.jp/English/news/2002/07/020901.htm.Nilep, C. (2006). ‘Code switching’ in sociocultural linguistics. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 19(1), 1–22.Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.Payne, M. I. (2007). Foreign language planning: Pupil choice and pupil voice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37(1), 89–109.Polio, C. G., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target

language alternation. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 313–326.Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1999). Communicative language teaching (CLT): Practical understandings. The Modern Language Journal, 83(4),

494–517.Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage.Tsukuma, Y. (2005). Nihonjin eigo shokyu gakushusha no tame no eigo onsei shido (Phonological training for a beginning learner of English).

Ritsumeikan Hogaku, 3, 163–200.van der Walt, C. (1997). English as a language of learning in South Africa: Whose English? Whose culture? Language Awareness, 6, 183–197.Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom observation tasks: A resource book for language teachers and trainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wellington, J. (2000). Educational research: Contemporary issues and practical approaches. London: Continuum.Wolfinger, N. H. (2002). On writing fieldnotes: Collection strategies and background expectancies. Qualitative Research, 2(1), 85–95.Woods, D. (1989). Studying ESL teachers’ decision-making: Rationale, methodological issues and initial results. Carleton Papers on Applied

Linguistics, 6, 107–123.

http://www.mext.go.jp/English/news/2002/07/020901.htm

Documents

Code-switching in Japanese language classrooms: An exploratory investigation of native vs. non-native speaker teacher practice