The role of code-switching in formal and informal learning

In formal learning classrooms there are different reasons of using code-switching. In

Setati (1998) an observational study on the different justifications for code-switching

used by teachers and learners in a South African classroom, identifies three types

of categories to classify the different forms of code-switching.

Language A refers to the language of teaching and learning.

Language B refers to the native or first language.

(i) Type A: Reformulation - rephrasing what has been said in language A without adding any new information. This is often used in a context where content is

given in language A and is not understood. It means that if the teacher wants

to explain learning content in detail, they will reformulate or rephrase the

content using language B.

(ii) Type B: Introducing activity content – explaining a new content in language A

then the same content in language B without rephrasing. This is often used

165

understanding of the topic. The teacher will use language A primarily and

later move to language B to explain the same content. This is not the same

as rephrasing or translation. The difference between reformulation and

content activity is that, in reformulation, content is rephrased, while in content

activity the content is initially created in both languages.

(iii) Type C: Translation: Direct translation of the text from language A to language B.

In her study, Setati (1998) found that most of the teachers used code-switching

Type B regularly (Introducing content activity), code-switching after a paragraph or a full sentence when introducing new concepts to learners. This teaching decision

reflects that, in formal learning, code-switching often has more boundaries and will

not occur regularly, particularly when a topic is being introduced. Type C

(Translation) in Setati (1998) was not commonly used by the participants because direct translation does not commonly serve to project the original meaning of the

text and so distorts understanding of the learning topic. Furthermore Setati (1998)

explains that some jargon in a specialist subject area might not be available in the

native languages of learners making it difficult for teachers to translate content

directly from the language of teaching into the native languages of the learners.

Studying the boundaries associated with switching in formal learning, Graedler

(1999) observes that the inter-sentential behaviour of code-switching in formally

written text is also presented with boundaries, just as with the verbal switching

practice. The switcher often limits the switch to one occurring after each paragraph

or sentence. For formal learning environments in this framework, code-switching

content would be created that supports a code-switching perspective which is inter-

sentential and includes boundaries when it occurs (Faltis, 1989; Graedler, 1999).

Fennama-Bloom, (2010:34) similar to Setati (1998) describes three different

166

(i) “Scaffolds further content acquisition”, substantiate language A learning content with a further explanation in learning language B.;

(ii) “Check and sustain comprehension” repeats content presented in language A by explaining it through language B;

(iii) “Scaffolds and or explains difficult elements targeted for language acquisition” in language learning subjects language B is used to explain complicated elements(i.e. words, jargon) of content presented in language

A.

In another related case study, Carless (2004) observes the progress made by

teachers in Hong Kong State schools in the process of implementing task based

teaching. In surveys conducted with teachers, Carless (2004) found that in the

formal class context teachers and learners code-switched between English and

Cantonese. Some of the teachers observed that learners often revert back to

Cantonese to understand a task, particularly if they found the task to be complicated

when taught in language A. Learners would also revert back to Cantonese to

explain concepts to fellow learners who were not proficient in language B.

In informal learning the characteristics become different. Code-switchers often

depict different linguistic behaviours when learning in an informal context. Setati

(1998) argues that code-switchers switch more often in informal environments as

schools place boundaries on the language that can be used in classrooms. Creating

an informal mobile learning activity for code-switchers requires an understanding of

their learning context.

One of the greatest challenges facing teachers in creating informal learning material

is also encouraging learners to learn beyond the classroom. In a closely related

research study of language learning, Krashen (1976) states that informal learning

167

activity. Pelletier & Normore (2007) argue that learning beyond the classroom

increases the performance of learners, especially in arithmetic related subjects.

Hager and Halliday (2006) present some unique characteristics of informal learning

that need to be considered. Informal learning often requires an understanding of the

context to engage the learner but it also promotes the creation of learning that

engages the pupil in the learning context. For this reason, informal learning is often

described as lifelong learning, and presents unique challenges for the design of

learning content.

7.5

Instructional design principles for mobile learning