An Effect of Teacher’s Use of Code-switching

on Students Vocabulary Learning

ABSTRACK
The study of the research is to know when and how to use code switching

and the effect of student’s Vocabulary Learning. The data will be taken

from students test achievement as a posttest after students were taught for

three session in one basic competence. The samples of students are chosen

randomly which is one of class that the researcher teaches; 8th grade

classes. The Class 8 A was chosen as an experimental group, while Class B

is as a control group. The test used is OPT (Oxford Placement Test) to

measure vocabulary and grammar.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACK 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
CHAPTER I 3
A. Background of The Study 3
B. Reserch Question 4
CHAPTER II 5
A. Definition of Code Switching 5
B. The Use of Code Switching In EFL Classroom 6
C. Vocabulary Retention 7

1
 D. An Implementation of Code Switching in Teaching Vocabulary 8
CHAPTER III10
A. Participants 11
B. Instrument 11
C. Procedure 12
CHAPTER IV12
REFFERENCES 15

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

A. Background of The Study

Now days in communicative approach; teacher should show how

to use the target language. Code switching is a tool to show how to use it.

In Indonesia, English is as foreign language, where most of students only

practice English in classroom interaction in oral. By performing code

switching, teacher can give student’s opportunity to maximize the learning

target language.
(Gholamhossein, 2016) argued that Being able to speak more than

one language, bilinguals can code-switch and use their languages as

resources to find better ways to convey meaning. While (Bista, 2010)

pointed out that code exchange occurrences are initiated and welcomed in

2
 the class by EFL teachers and learners and may promote English

competency provided that the frequency is not excessive.

Acording to (Folse, 2004) Vocabulary learning is dominant in

language acquisition, whether the language is second or a foreign

language. Vocabulary becomes a fundamental to acquire or to learn a

target language. It means that to develop it, instructor need to use a certain

strategy to be success of learning a new language.

Teaching a language means that showing the use of the target

language. Code switching is an alternative phenomenon to give student’s

opportunity to use the target language and able to develop students

knowledge of vocabulary.
Based on the explanation above, the researcher were interested to

do a research with the title “ The Effect of Teacher’s Use of Code-

switching on Students Vocabulary Learning”.

B. Reserch Question
1. How to Use Code-switching in EFL Classroom?
2. Is there any effect of teacher’s code switching on students general

knowledge of vocabulary?

3
 CHAPTER II
LITERARY REVIEW

A. Definition of Code Switching

According to (Jamshidi, 2013) Code switching is the alternation

of two languages within a single discourse, sentence, or constituent.

According to (Heller, 1988) code-switching happens when a person

combines two languages in a single sentence or a dialogue. (Valdes, 1978)

asserted that people can mix words, phrases and clauses. Based on the

explanation above, code switching is an alternative way to combine two

languages in a single sentence to emphasize a understanding meaning or

code in form of dialogue.

According to (Gumperz J. , 1982) in the juxtaposition within the

same speech exchange of passages of speech belonging to two different

grammatical systems or subsystems’ (Gumperz J. , 1982)

(Meisel, 1994) stated that Code-switching is the ability to select

the language accordingto the interlocutor, the situational context, the topic

of conversation, and so forth, and to change languages within an

4
 interactional sequence in accordance with sociolinguistic rules and without

violating specific grammatical constraints

B. The Use of Code Switching In EFL Classroom

In an EFL English class, the use of code switching bridges the

need to give students exposure and the accommodation of students with

low-proficiency of English (Brown, 2000; Harmer, 2007). While Brownlie

(2002) stated that Code switching represents another strategy teachers use

to simplify their speech in order to accommodate the learner’s level of

proficiency. It means by using code switching, teacher are able to develop

students proficiency in learning a target language. It is as a teacher strategy

to enrich students listening that showed a product of words, phrase or

sentence.
(Sert, 2005) found some classes of code-switching in a foreign

language classroom. The first one is named Equivalence, which happens

when the student doesn’t have the ability in the target language, for

instance when s/he feels that s/he is not skilled enough to clarify

something in the target language. The student, therefore, in its place

employs lexical items from the native language. This procedure is, based

on (Sert, 2005), a kind of defensive mechanism. The second category is

named Floor-holding. Here the students employ native language words to

fill breaks in the dialog to evade breaks or open spaces in the conversation.

Sert asserted that this process may have a negative effect on language

learning if students carry on with this kind of code-switching for a long

5
 period of time. They may be unable to find the capability of fluency in a

conversation. The third class is named Reiteration. Pupils employ this role

to strengthen and illuminate a message. Sert asserted that students may

replicate words and phrases in their native language because they sense

they did not elucidate a message in the target language but also to display

the teacher that s/he has comprehended the task or content in the situation.
According to (Gumperz J. , 1982) he identifies six functions of

code switching which are: Quotation, Addressee specification, Repetition,

Interjection, Message qualification and Personification.

Bilingual teachers use two languages to teach the academic

content. Within the context of lessons, they switch between the languages

in at least three ways: (a) spontaneously, (b) directly, (c) intentionally.

Teachers may decide immediately when L1 should be used and when a

switch to L2 is appropriate in order to enable comprehension and

meaningful involvement of the students (Cook, 2001). However, teachers

are unaware of the fact that they are switching; switches are made

unconsciously

C. Vocabulary Retention

Vocabulary is the main basic of learning a language that enables

students to master or use the language in communicative approach.

Without enriching and retention of vocabulary, students cannot prove their

skills; listening and reading as receptive skills or speaking and writing as

6
 productive skills. So, as a teacher, he or she should choose or decide a

strategy to enrich students vocabulary.

(Judy Willis, 2008) in his book stated how the brain works in

enriching vocabulary that The brain first recognizes the sensory input from

seeing, hearing, and visualizing in separate but interrelated regions. These

sensory response centers connect to higher cortical function for the

manipulation of words. It is this active processing (doing things with

words, from acting them out to creating graphic organizers) that brings

students ownership of the new vocabulary. So, to teach new vocabulary,

teacher should show the meaning, the pronunciation that student listen and

visualizing in another sentences. It creates vocabulary retention of students

that help them to enrich their vocabularies.

D. An Implementation of Code Switching in Teaching Vocabulary

According to (Wessels, 2011) he found that there are five

characteristics necessary for student’s vocabulary learning: assessing

background, connect unknown vocabulary to known knowledge, ensuring

opportunities for meaningful vocabulary use, providing multiple

exposures, and focusing on higher level knowledge. He also explained

that before reading the content, pupils need to activate their certain

knowledge vocabulary related to the text. During reading phase, they can

discuss some new vocabularies in authentic context. At the end, students

should focus on understanding some vocabularies of the content. All

activities can be used code switching by the teacher’s explanation.

7
 According to (E. Bullock Barbara, 2009) stated that there are

several functions of code-switching such as filling linguistic gaps,

expressing ethnic identity and achieving particular discursive aims. In

ethnic identity means sociolinguistic approach that focus on topic in

conversation or dialogue, the participant, setting. While particular aims are

a grammatical approach occur in clause or words.

According to (Brown, 2006), speakers use code-switching to

compensate their lack of fluency and proficiency in the target language by

using their first language to keep a flow during the communication. But

there are some teachers still uses much more their first language in

teaching activity, while they are as model of the use of the language. By

code switching both of first language (L1) and a target language (TL), it

gives student’s opportunity to listen words, phrases or sentence orally.

Code switching is a strategy to have a long term memory of some

vocabularies. It can develop student’s knowledge of vocabulary.

According to (Cook V. , 2001) when teachers’ code-switching is

planned ahead it can contribute to a more efficient understanding of a

specific topic or be a part of the (TL) learning. By using code switching,

students will be more motivated in every topic of learning. Teacher will

share about the topic by delivering code switching in the beginning or

input. While focus on input and output in the target language is an

important aspect of language acquisition, it has been pointed out that the

use of code-switching in the language classroom does not prevent students

8
 from acquiring their TL. According to him, not only vocabulary but also

grammar that will be facilitated in code switching.

A speaker may start speaking one language and then change to

another one in the middle of their speech, or sometimes even in the middle

of a sentence. The results also provide initial evidence that teacher code

switching may be superior to the teacher providing TL-only information

Regarding the effects of code-switching on vocabulary learning,

(Lin, 2013) indicated that code-switching serves to increase and expand

learners’ capacity of cognitive processing made. Lin reported that

processing words comprehension both through their explanation in the

learners’ L2 and a translation into the students’ L1 involve further

cognitive effort, meaning that the students are able to learn new

vocabulary more thoroughly.

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

This research uses experimental quantitative research that aims to

investigate the effect of code switching of vocabulary learning. A pre- and a post-

9
test were used to determine whether or not gains had been made in vocabulary

proficiency during the course of the study. The null hypothesis in this research

claimed that there was no relationship between teachers' code-switching and

vocabulary learning on students of eighth grade in MTs MII Cidangiang.

A. Participants
There are three English teachers at MTs MII Cidangiang included the

researcher. Because the researcher teaches eighth grade students, so the

participants are the eighth grade students. The eighth grade consists of six

classes and the total of eight grade students is 165 students. The sample of

this research is chosen randomly. The 8 A was chosen as the sample that

consist of 30 students that will be given test. They are who will be given

treatment as an Experimental group of the research. The others are the control

groups.

B. Instrument
An instrument is designed and used in this study in order to measure

the student vocabulary based on teacher use of code switching in their classes.

The materials used in current study were of three meeting. The test used is

OPT (Oxford Placement Test) that is administered for the pretest. It consisted

of several sections including vocabulary and grammar. It consist of 50

questions that spent 45 minutes. Also vocabulary test as posttest which

appropriate with the syllabus, each contained 10 vocabulary questions. Since

the study aimed at indicating the impact of using code switching on learning

of vocabulary, these two tests were administered in two different occasions.

10
 The time allowed for answering the vocabulary questions was 30 minutes.

The tests designed in the multiple choice format. The whole points were a

hundred. The reliability of teacher-made test estimated based on interrater

reliability (r=0.78). After administrating each test students’ answer sheets

were collected and were scored by the researcher. The scores in each test

were calculated separately, and then the mean score in each test was

calculated.

C. Procedure
To be sure of the effectiveness of the treatment, researchers gave a

vocabulary post-test both to the experimental and the control group. The

scores based on the results of the pre-and post-test showed the impact of the

two methods. Finally, a T-test was administered to examine whether the

difference of the mean score of the two groups was significant or not. They

were given posttest after taught one basic competence that consists of three

meeting. Each meeting or session was 95 minutes.

CHAPTER IV
RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The result of this research is a comparison of experimental and control

group that’s served by statistical basis using T-test both pre and Post-test. Before

11
analyze T-test both of them. Researcher showed the normality of the data of

Pretest in Table 1

Table 1 Data Normality of Test Statisticsa

Unstandardiz
ed Residual

Most Extreme Absolute .208

Differences
Positive .121

Negative -.208

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .820

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .512

a. Grouping Variable: Kelas

In the table above shows that significance of 2- tailed had 0,512. It is more

significance than 0,05. It means that the data or the result of the pretest is normal.
Beside normality of the data or the result of pretest, the researcher also showed

the homogenous of the data in Table 2

Table 2 Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Hasil_Pretest

Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

1.961 1 60 .167

In the table above shows that significance of Homogeneity of Variances

had 0,167. It is more significance than 0,05. It means that the data or the result of

the pretest is homogenous.

12
 Table 3 Descriptive Statistics: Pretest Experimental Vs. Control
Group
Kelas N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Hasil_Pretest 1.00 30 56.4667 13.22154 2.41391
2.00 32 57.1250 16.97579 3.00092

Table 4 Descriptive Statistics: Postest Experimental Vs. Control

Kelas N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Hasil Postest Kelas a 30 71.0333 16.27879 2.97209
Kelas b 32 61.8750 18.62317 3.29214

The results of the posttest showed that the experimental group had a mean

of 71.033 and the control group a mean of 61.875. It may therefore be claimed

that the experimental group outperformed the control group on the posttest.

Table 5 T-Test: Post-test Control Group and Experimental Group

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of

the Difference

Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 Hasil 69.39262 28.15 61 .000

Postest - 0
Kelas

The main determining factor for the effectiveness of the treatment in this

research was the difference between the performance of the Experimental Group

and the Control Group on the vocabulary test (as a posttest). Results showed that

the Experimental Group with a mean of 71.033 did outperform the Control Group

with the mean of 61.875. The T-test (28.150) was significant at .05 level. It could

13
be concluded that the treatment given to the Experimental Group had a positive

impact on enhancing the students’ performance on the vocabulary test.

REFFERENCES

Bista, K. (2010). Factors of Code Switching among bilingual English Students

in The University Classroom. English for Specific Purpose World , 29 (9).

Brice, A. (2001). Choice of language in instruction: One language or two?

Teaching of Exceptional Children , 10-16.

14
Cook, V. (2001). Secon Language Learning and Language Teaching. London:
arnold.

Cook, V. (2008). Third Language Learning and Language Teaching. London:

Arnold.

E. Bullock Barbara, B. a. (2009). Themes in The Study of Code-switching.

Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Folse, K. (2004). The Undesristimated Importance of Vocabulary in The

oreign Language Classroom. Clear News , 1-6.

Gholamhossein, S. (2016). a Study of Iranian EFL University Lecture's Practice

of Code-switching in English as Foreign Language Instruction. Journal of
Studies in Education ISSN 2162-6952 2016 , 2.

Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Gumperz, J. (1982). Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: CUP.

Heller, M. (1988). Code-switcching : anthroplogical and Sociolinguistic

Perspective. Mouton de Gruyter .

Jamshidi, A. (2013). Learner's Use of Code Switching in The English as

Foreign Language Classroom. Journal of Basic and Applied Science , 186-
190.

Judy Willis, M. (2008). Teaching the brain to Read, Strategies for Improving
Vocabulary and Comprehension. Beauregard St. lexandria USA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Lin, A. (2013). Classroom Code-switching. Three Decades of Research applied

Linguistics , 195-218.

15
Meisel, J. (1994). Code-switching in Young Bilingual Children. The acquisition
of Grammatical Constraints. Studies in Second language acquisition , 413-
439.

Sert, O. (2005). The Function of Code-switching in ELT Classroom. The

Internet TESL .

Tian, L. (2012). Comparing The Effect of Teacher Code-switching with

English-only Explanation on The Vocabulary acquisition of Chiness
university Students: A Lexical Focus-on-Form Study. Renmin University of
China. Language Teaching Research Vol. 16 no 3 , 367-391.

Valdes, F. (1978). Code-switching and Classroom Teacher. ERIC Clearinghouse

on Language and Linguistics , 1-31.

Wessels, S. (2011). Promoting Vocabulary Learning for English Learners.

Reading Teacher , 46-50.

16