This study investigated the effect of teacher codeswitching on second language (L2) vocabulary acquisition during listening comprehension activities in a lexical Focus-on-Form context. To date there has been research on teacher beliefs about first language (L1) use, its functions and its distribution in the interaction, but little on its effect on aspects of learning. Previous research on intentional vocabulary teaching has shown it to be effective, but whether the lexical information provided to learners is more effective in L1 or L2 has been under-researched and, moreover, has only been investigated in a reading comprehension context. Eighty first-year students of English as an L2, in a Chinese university, were stratified by proficiency and randomly allocated to a codeswitching condition or to an English-only condition, and their performance in vocabulary tests compared to a control group of 37 students that did not receive any lexical Focus-on-Form treatment. Results confirm previous studies that lexical Focus-on-Form leads to better vocabulary learning than mere incidental exposure. Results also provide initial evidence that teacher codeswitching may be superior to the teacher providing L2-only information. Contrary to some theories of the mental lexicon, proficiency level did not clearly favour one condition against the other.

Although there is a wealth of research on the use of the first language (L1) in English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms, there is as yet very little research of this kind in classrooms where the prime pedagogical objective is to teach academic content through English as a second language (English medium instruction; EMI). It is important to begin filling this gap because a purported aim of content-based programs is to expose students to large quantities of the target language. We investigated the practices of five EMI teachers in a Chinese university and measured the reactions of their students both quantitatively and qualitatively. Our findings show that these teachers switched to the L1 rarely (although with considerable differences among the teachers) and mostly to explain both simple and complex concepts in their academic disciplines. Although students were unperturbed by the switches to the L1, some felt that the teacher could have made more of an effort to explain it in L2 first.

No abstract

No abstract