Code-switching

Code-switching refers to the use of two or more languages in the same conversation (Adler, 2001). This practice can be done by the teachers themselves and/or the learners, between the LoLT and the learners’ home languages. According to Baker (1993) code- switching can be developed as a teaching method which gets teachers to balance the use of the two languages at specific points within a lesson. For instance, switching to the learners’ home language(s) can be done when a new concept is met, or to praise, to quote someone, to emphasize a point, or to reprimand a misbehaving member of the class. Code-switching can also be exploited as part of actual teaching methodology especially when the teacher knows the learners’ home language(s) (Cook, 1991). This implies that code-switching is to be anticipated in the classroom if the teacher and learners share the same home or main languages.

Research shows that code-switching is a common phenomenon in multilingual classrooms. For example, in Tanzanian classrooms, teachers often mix Kiswahili and English words in their sentences. Mwinsheikhe tells from her own Science teaching experience in secondary school in Tanzania:

I personally was compelled to switch to Kiswahili by a sense of helplessness born of the inability to make students understand the subject matter by using English (Mwinsheikhe, 2001, p. 16)

In other countries such as South Africa (Setati, 2005b) and Brunei (Martin, 1996) code- switching has been observed as the main linguistic feature in classrooms where the teacher and the learners share a common language, but had to use an additional language for learning. Cleghorn (1992), in a study of primary level science classes in Kenya, found a complex pattern of code-switching. She argues that important ideas were more easily conveyed when the teacher did not adhere strictly to the English only (p. 311). Murillo’s (2005) study that focused on the discourse practices of the Spanish language teacher and her 24 pupils aged 14 during a particular teaching/learning event in London found that the teachers sometimes code-switched during their teaching. This confirms the fact that code-switching is a common phenomenon in bi/multilingual classrooms.

Setati’s (2005b) analysis on language practices in multilingual primary mathematics classrooms shows that code-switching is encouraged, and that the learners’ home languages can be a resource and not a problem in the teaching and learning of mathematics. For example, the teacher introduces a topic in English and then gives further explanation in the learners’ first language. The use of the learners’ home languages in teaching and learning mathematics needs to be seen as a support needed while learners continue to develop proficiency in the LoLT, at the same time as learning mathematics. This may be seen as a resource and not as a problem, helping the learner get a deeper understanding of the mathematics being taught.

Code-switching in a multilingual classroom, however, might not be an easy task for teachers in a mathematics classroom. As Akindele & Letsoela (2001) note, code- switching has its merits and demerits depending on how well prepared for the lesson the teacher is. In Khisty’s (1993) study, teachers felt strongly about the need to use the two languages in their teaching. The method they used in their teaching was a code- switching involving concurrent translation approach. Khisty argues that this method made their speech very confusing as one of the teachers consistently code-switched very rapidly between the two languages, Spanish and English. Khisty reports that these teachers thought that the only method that was practical to use in their classrooms was concurrent translation approach, even though they easily became fatigued switching back and forth. The teachers had not thought about other possibilities for organizing instruction for the different languages. This shows that code-switching can be a complex task for mathematics teachers in a multilingual classroom more especially if they are not fluent in the learners’ home languages. It is an issue that needs serious consideration and teachers need to have time to organize instruction for different languages.

Code-switching in a mathematics classroom can be used for a number of purposes such as re-explaining the mathematical concepts or difficult concepts in the learners’ home language(s). Guthrie’s (1984) study considered in detail the interaction and language use of two teachers with a group of Chinese-American first graders. In his study, he found out that knowledge of the learners’ first language helped the teacher as both the

learners and the teachers could switch between the home language of the learners and the language of teaching and learning.

To unpack some of the functions of code-switching involved in the teaching and learning of mathematics in a multilingual classroom below, I present some of the following functions of code-switching according to Guthrie (1984, p.45). (i) Translation, (ii) for acting as a “we-code” (iii) clarification (iv) checking for understanding, and (v) giving procedures and directions.

Translation

In his study, Guthrie (1984) explains that the home language of the learners was used to translate particular English words which learners appeared not to know or which were obviously beyond the range of their vocabulary. This is done in order to ensure that learners have understood what the teacher is teaching. He gives an example of the word “aisles” of which the teacher provided the Chinese equivalent word in order to maintain learners’ understanding. In some instances, learners’ terminology in their own home language can help them to decipher meaning.

The process of translation, however, does not only happen when the teachers want to explain some words to their learners in a multilingual classroom. Learners also express mathematical thinking in their own language. For example, Orton (1992) explains that the language used for thinking is likely to be the first or home language. In Orton’s view we can assume that a learner has to translate the given mathematical statement or problem to his/her home language before solving the problem. Another example is where Halai (2001) explains that, while teachers were using everyday words in English, the learners translated these everyday words into their first language. This scenario compounded the issue of transfer from the everyday language to mathematical language.

This process of translation requires that learners have to understand the language in which the problem is given to make sense of the mathematics embedded in it (Halai, 2001). In her study, Halai observed that, for learners to understand a mathematical

statement, they need to understand the language in which the problem is given. The language that is being referred to here is the specific structure and usage of words. In as much as this can pose a problem to the learner whose main language is the same as LoLT, it is more difficult for the learner whose main language is different from the LoLT. A learner whose main language is different from the LoLT needs to understand the language in which the problem is given (LoLT) before s/he can understand the mathematics in it. Halai (2001, p. 3) illustrates this situation of understanding the language to make sense of the mathematics. She gives an example of a class where most learners were Urdu-speakers who were given a mathematical problem in English (LoLT), which stated that: “Sara will be 28 years old after nine years. Find her present age.” Halai showed that the learners’ understanding of the problem depended on the learners’ understanding of the meaning of the word ‘will’. For learners to successfully convert the statement into a mathematical equation knowing that ‘will’ is future tense was crucial. Those learners who could not understand this word failed to come up with the mathematical equation, while those who understood it obtained the correct answers. This is a clear indication that the understanding of a specific structure and usage of words in mathematics is crucial.

This issue of translation in multilingual classrooms cannot be avoided as most of the classrooms are expected to follow prescribed textbooks which are mostly used to guide the subject content as well as providing exercises for practice. The issue being raised here is about the language that has been used in the textbook and the language of the learners. Learners whose home language is not English are bound to translate the English words into their home languages. The challenge in most African countries, for example Malawi, is that currently there is no meaningful production of teaching and reading materials for the teachers and learners in home languages in most subjects including mathematics.

The translation process, though helpful, has its own challenges. For instance, some English words can become more complicated when words are not translatable between English and the home language of the learners. Some terms may not exist across languages, or if they do exist, they may not be used with the same frequency or manner.

At the same time, one word in a home language may be translated into many different English words. For example, in Malawi, the words “above”, “over”, “top” and “up” all have one Chichewa name “pamwamba” (Kazima, 2006). So the process of translation is complicated and the possibility of every learner coming up with meanings different from the meaning of the teacher or “true” meaning is very high. Apart from that, it is difficult to find an appropriate mathematical language in some indigenous languages since the mathematical vocabulary is not yet well developed in most cases. This means that there can be a possibility of getting a word that has a different meaning from the actual meaning of the English mathematical word.

In a study of the effectiveness of code-switching in the classroom, Akindele & Letsoela (2001) demonstrated how teachers in their sample made gross errors in their code- switching and translations from English to the home language of the learners, which, because of the highly technical nature of the discourse, misled learners during teaching. The teachers argued that the problem was caused by the fact that translation is a specialist skill which teacher preparation programmes do not provide student teachers. Despite this problem, code-switching and translation remain the immediate resource in such classrooms even when it is clear that speaking one's language is one thing; the ability to translate and explain concepts in English is another.

The other challenge in the process of translation is to ensure that mathematics is not diluted or watered down. In some cases learners may give the impression that they do not understand the words when they simply lack specific language or communication patterns to express precise meanings (Jarrett, 1999 p. 16). One wonders if mathematics teachers need to pay specific attention to translation in a mathematics classroom. Do the mathematics teachers need to teach vocabulary as part of their core instruction, not as a separate activity? What is the best way to support vocabulary learning in this case?

The discussion highlights the fact that translation in a multilingual mathematics classroom is inevitable. Teachers in general have to face this challenge in one way or another as the LoLT and the language of the textbooks used is not the first language of the learners. They need to assist their learners to understand the mathematics that they

are teaching. This is a huge challenge and its demands can affect mathematics teachers’ practices in different ways and the mathematics teacher educators as well.

For acting as a “we-code”

In his study, Guthrie explains that the home language of the learners was a language that indicates group membership and personal connections. For example, the teacher used Chinese in order to urge learners to behave. By so doing, the teacher was appealing to the learners as an insider. As a result of this action, learners and teachers built intimate interpersonal relationships among themselves in the classroom. In this respect, it may be claimed that, the use of the home language was a tool for creating linguistic solidarity (Sert, 2005) especially between individuals who share the same language identity. The language reflects their identity and functions as a bridge that built solidarity among them.

In her study, Setati (2005a) argued that while the learners’ home languages can be a resource for teaching and learning mathematics, teachers used it mainly for solidarity purposes. The home language, in the lessons she observed and analyzed, was used as the language of solidarity. To show this solidarity, Setati explains that with English the instructions given by the teacher were said in a loud and emphatic voice while the home language instructions were phrased as requests, with no shouting and with the pronouns “we” and “us” to suggest that the teacher counted herself with the learners. Setati further argues that in these classrooms English was, therefore, used as the language of authority. It was used by the teachers to control the learners’ behavior, and the learners would change their behaviors immediately. On the other hand, the home language was used as a language of solidarity where the teacher supported and advised the learners to show that the teacher was willing to help them.

Khisty (1993) also reports that Spanish in the mathematics classrooms was used as "markers of solidarity". The teachers would use Spanish to give encouragement or to motivate the class; it was also used when the teacher worked individually with a learner almost as a private but shared mode of expression. Similarly Flyman-Mattsson & Burenhult (1999) investigated the second language teachers of French in Sweden on the

features of code-switching. They found that the teacher would switch to the home language of the learners when signaling friendship and solidarity. This switching was directed to learners with a lower proficiency in the second language. The teacher also switched to the home language of the learners in order to fraternize with the learners to create a positive attitude towards the task under discussion. Solidarity was shown with the learners by expressing understanding of their problems in the home language. Thus the home language is used as a language of solidarity or as a “we-code”.

Thus code-switching may be used in order to build intimate interpersonal relationships among learners and teachers in a multilingual classroom. Holmes (1992) in Australia, observed that the teacher and her learners code-switched from English to Aboriginal during their conversation that reflected their ethnic identity and functioned as a bridge that built solidarity among them. In this sense, one may speak of code-switching as creating a supportive language environment in the classroom. The use of the home language can be viewed from the perspective of providing a linguistic advantage rather than an obstruction to communication in a mathematics classroom.

Clarification

Clarification is a situation where a teacher seeks to explain the word that has more than one meaning in different contexts. Guthrie (1984) gives an example where the teacher used Chinese to explain the word “lost” as used in two different contexts. The first one is “what does ‘I lost my pencil’ mean” and “I was lost in the park”. The explanations to these sentences were given in Chinese. Therefore, this teacher used the home language of the learners in order to clarify the meanings of words that have different meanings in different contexts. This implies that mathematics teachers may use code-switching in order to transfer the necessary knowledge to the learners for clarity.

Martin (2002) found that code-switching into Malay was used to unpack the meaning of the text. What occurred in what he observed was the default mode to talking around content area assists in the classroom. These findings support the ones from the study conducted by Lin (1996) in Hong Kong classrooms that relates how Cantonese was used to explain texts in English. Also Camilleri (1996) notes the way teachers and

learners in secondary schools in Malta switch between Maltese and English in interacting with English texts. Teachers switch between English and Malay to reformulate or restate an idea which is first expressed in the other language. In this case, the author argues that many switches do actually develop the discourse, introducing new content or providing exemplification or clarification.

Sert (2005) calls this functionality of code-switching in classroom settings as a repetitive function. The teacher uses code-switching in order to transfer the necessary knowledge to the learners clearly. Following instruction in the target language, the teacher code-switches to home language in order to clarify meaning. However, Sert reports that the tendency to repeat the instruction in the home language may lead to some undesired learner behavior. A learner who is sure that the instruction in the foreign language will be followed by a native language translation may lose interest in listening to the former instruction which will have negative academic consequences, as the learner has limited exposure to foreign language discourse.

Mathematics classroom studies show that there is a need to realize that there are some learners who need clarification of meaning even for common words that are being used in mathematics. For example, Kazima (2006), reports that learners gave different meanings to the word ‘impossible’ in a mathematics classroom. She conducted her study in Malawi where the LoLT was not the first language of the learners. The learners in her study were asked to come up with meanings for different mathematical words and ‘impossible’ was one of the words given to the learners. She explains that learners gave examples of impossible events such as “impossible to fight in school”, or “impossible my father will visit today” or “impossible to do mathematics work by myself” (p. 186). Kazima argues that, although the examples were not necessarily impossible events in mathematical terms, it was clear that the learners considered them as impossible events. This reflects the ordinary English meaning of the word ‘impossible’ rather than a mathematical meaning.

Clarification of mathematical concepts can also be done using different strategies in multilingual classrooms. For example, Moschkovich (1999) provides an analysis of the

strategies that teachers used in order to support the mathematical discussions in the class of young Spanish-speaking in the USA. The strategies included: modeling consistent norms for discussion; revoicing learner contributions; building on what learners said and probing what learners mean (p. 18). Revoicing and modeling of the learners words helps to clarify the meanings of the mathematical words and hence enhancing the understanding of the mathematical concepts. Moschkovich argues that subject-specific discussion as a focus of attention was not spontaneous for any mathematics learner. It was rather learnt in a context of participation with the teachers who translate, model, revoice and probe the contributions of the learners to school mathematical practice.

Khisty (1995), however, cautions that terms can be confusing in one language and not confusing in another language. Khisty argues that each language has its own way of expressing mathematics concepts. For learners whose LoLT is not their home language attention must be given to clarifying confusions that may be caused by mathematical