Code-Switching in CLIL : the Students ’ Perception

The aim of the present study is to investigate the nature of code-switching in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classes from the students’ point of view. After a brief review of the literature concerning CLIL and the issue of code-switching, the implementation of CLIL in the school system of the Italian Autonomous Province of Trento (PAT) will be outlined as data, gathered by means of anonymous questionnaires were administered in four different high schools of this province. Data analysis will lead to deeper understanding of the reasons for students’ and teachers’ code-switching in CLIL classes. Ultimately, this paper contributes to the CLIL literature as it provides an insight into student’s perception of code-switching, which is a widespread linguistic strategy used in CLIL classes. Summary


Introduction
"Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of content and language with the objective of promoting both content and language mastery" (Marsh et al. 2010, 11).Thus, CLIL aims to develop proficiency both in a specific subject and in the foreign language that is used to teach it.
Research (Marsh 2000;Lasagabaster, Sierra 2009; Pavón Vázquez 2014) suggests that CLIL can generate a positive attitude towards foreign language learning, as "the CLIL language will itself only be a platform by which the youngster may ultimately take an interest in other languages and cultures as well" (Marsh 2000, 14).Moreover, not only does CLIL foster L2 proficiency as it provides additional meaningful exposure to it (Dalton-Puffer 2007), but it also fosters "intercultural knowledge, understanding and communication" (Jäppinen 2005, 148).
Thus, CLIL can be considered as an interactive cognitive and linguistic learning space that teachers and students share as active partners (Bier  2016).It is a space where the language is used as a tool to understand, negotiate and create meaning and where lessons are, above all, 'thinkingcentred', where teachers and learners are involved "in thinking about ways of 'reaching' content and the means of expressing and understanding it" (Pavón Vázquez, Ellison 2013, 73).In this participative space the teacher facilitates learning, by setting the right conditions for the students to create it by themselves through meaningful tasks and problem-solving activities where they actually have to work and use the given information in a creative and personal way.In fact, "it is the tasks that students are set that lead to learning rather than the sole input itself" (Coonan 2008, 31).Consequently, students stop perceiving content as a set of sterile data temporarily stored in their memory, and view it as a cognitively active experience where they actually manipulate, interiorise, and use content (Pavón Vázquez 2014).Therefore, they gradually train all levels of thinking skills (both LOTS and HOTS). 1 In fact, real learning occurs when students employ higher-order processing skills and not simply passive memorization.Indeed, when cooperative groups are employed, they behave as teams of researchers that create, share and apply knowledge.Ultimately, CLIL contributes to students' development of the Key Competences for Lifelong Learning 2 promoted by the EU, since effective CLIL creates a well-balanced "discovery place" where knowledge, cognitive skills, and communicative abilities have the chance to grow, through meaningful interaction.Thus, the challenge is to find a good equilibrium between linguistic and cognitive load (Berton 2008) since some shortage of linguistic proficiency might hinder working effectively (Pavón Vázquez 2014) and might lead to oversimplification and thus impoverishment of the content (Dalton-Puffer 2007).For this reason, adequate scaffolding is needed, in order to support understanding both in terms of content and in terms of language.In fact, first of all, input must be comprehensible for learning to occur (Krashen 1982).Therefore, language and content should always be intertwined.In fact, the innovative core of CLIL lies in this integration (Kiely 2011).

Code-Switching
Code-switching occurs when a speaker alternates more than one language in the same speech act (Jingxia 2010).Poplack (1980) developed one of the most popular taxonomies of code-switching and she identified three main types: tag-switching, which occurs at the level of single word or tag phrase, intra-sentential code-switching which occurs within the clause or sentence, and inter-sentential code-switching that is when different sentences/clauses are in one language or another.The principle of L1 exclusion has been adopted in many ESL/EFL school curricula all over the world (Lasagabaster 2013;Macaro 2001;McMillan, Turnbull 2009), on the basis of the fact that "the L1 may interfere in the L2 learning process, and secondly […], by increasing exposure to the L2, the learners will become more proficient" (Lasagabaster 2013, 3).However, this rigid monolingual principle has been recently questioned.First, research suggests that greater exposure to the L2 doesn't directly lead to greater intake (see Krashen's input hypothesis, 1982).Secondly, no evidence clearly shows a direct correlation between the exclusive use of the L2 and language-cognitive enhancement (Macaro 2001).Furthermore, when learners don't have the necessary language competence or adequate cognitive skills, they might struggle in understanding new content, if this is provided entirely in the L2 (Azlan, Narasuman 2013;Macaro 2001;Sert 2005;McMillan, Turnbull 2009;Jingxia 2010).For this reason, teachers are likely to resort to their L1 when "managing the overall discipline in the classroom, to make them understand, to give examples, to create humor, etc." (Bashir 2015, 2).Finally, evidence shows that "target language exclusivity can sometimes result in language being overly simplified, with an over-reliance on cognates" (McMillan, Turnbull 2009, 34).Therefore, code-switching to the L1 might have a specific pedagogical value: to maintain a high cognitive and linguistic level of the content being taught.
Consequently, it has been claimed that an appropriate use of the L1 in ESL /EFL classrooms might be an asset since, for example, it can help avoid breakdowns during interaction (Sert 2005;Macaro 2001), it allows the teachers to engage all students (Agolli 2014), and it reduces learners' cognitive load (Guo 2009).
This actually holds true not just for ESL and EFL contexts but also for CLIL.

Code-Switching in CLIL
CLIL integrates the learning of a specific discipline with the learning of a foreign language.Thus, the L2 serves as the means through which subject matter is learnt.
Since language plays such a major role in CLIL, it's important to investigate whether code-switching represents an asset or a liability for learners.In fact, similar to ESL/EFL classes, the presence of the L1 in CLIL classes is quite common (Lasagabaster 2013;Gené-Gil, Juan-Garau, Salazar-Noguera 2012) and the use of code-switching has generated a strong debate between code-switching supporters and opponents.Just like ESL/EFL teachers, CLIL teachers seem to code-switch to their L1 when tasks or concepts are cognitively demanding, and when learners' language level is rather low.Lasagabaster (2013) found that CLIL teachers code-switch "to help students understanding, to make L1 and L2 comparisons, to feel comfortable in the CLIL class, to boost debate, and to deal with disciplinary issues, with the most widely referred to situation being that of helping students' understanding" (Lasagabaster 2013, 8).This means that the L1 might be viewed as a form of scaffolding (Gené-Gil, Juan-Garau, Salazar-Noguera 2012) that can also allow teachers to consider students' individual pace and characteristics.In fact, "the use of the first language, if judicious, can serve to scaffold language and content learning in CLIL contexts, as long as learning is maintained primarily through the L2" (Lasagabaster 2013, 17).This means that, if on the one hand, it can be accepted that students (especially low level ones) resort to their L1, on the other hand students should be constantly exposed to rich L2 input (Domalewska 2017), which means that the CLIL teacher should use the L2 as much as possible (Ricci Garotti 2006).

Implementation of CLIL: Europe, Italy, Trentino
The term Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) was adopted in 1994 (Marsh 2012, 395) and, since the 1995 Resolution of Council,3 Europe has encouraged its implementation.This interest in CLIL is connected to the need for multilingual citizens and to the urgency of promoting integration through linguistic and cultural education in school.CLIL is recognised as a valuable methodology that can help young people to "be more effectively prepared for the (multi)lingual and cultural requirements of a Europe in which mobility is expanding" (Eurydice European Unit 2006, 55).
More recently in Italy the European call for internationalization has given rise to the implementation of CLIL.In fact, CLIL was introduced in the school curricula during the last school reform (L.169/2008).4Specifically, since the 2014-15 school year, the entire curriculum of a nonlanguage-subject (NLS) is supposed to be taught in an L2 adopting CLIL methodology, starting from Year 3 for Liceo Linguistico and from Year 5 (which is the last year) for the other types of Liceo and Technical Institutes.
However, transitional rules were issued in 20145 relaxing this requirement and instead adopting the measure that only at least 50% of one NLS curriculum had to be developed in CLIL.
Furthermore, also the very recent "Good School" legislation6 has clearly promoted the implementation CLIL, recognising the validity and innovative energy of this methodology which undoubtedly represents a challenge to traditional teaching.More time and effort is needed for CLIL to be appropriately implemented at all levels of school in the whole nation.However, CLIL represents a much needed opportunity to renovate outdated educational models and to contribute to foster the Key Competences for Lifelong Learning strongly supported by the EU.
As for Trentino, the promotion of multilingualism has always characterised the school system of the Autonomous Province of Trento (PAT), for historical, cultural and political reasons.Moreover, by virtue of its own autonomy, the statute also grants the Province the right to promote legislation on education.Thus, in order to meet the European need "to protect linguistic diversity and promote knowledge of languages, for reasons of cultural identity and social integration" (Extra, Yağmur 2012, 14), in 2014 the Project for a Trilingual Trentino7 was bravely lunched.The aim is to provide students, from a very early age, with the opportunity to learn Italian, German and English.CLIL has been chosen as educational approach to implement this project of triligualism and it is being widely implemented starting from nursery school up to the last year of secondary school.

Participants
As CLIL ultimately concerns students, this study believes that it is crucial to take into account their opinion in order to understand the reasons for code-switching.
The participants in the study were 127 students attending their last year of high school in four different cities of the Autonomous Province of Trento (PAT): 1. School 1: Istituto Tecnico.This type of high school focuses on the study of economics, accounting, and building constructions.Three classes were taken into consideration for the present study for a total of 38 students.2. School 2: Liceo Classico.This type of high school focuses on classical studies.Two classes were taken into consideration for a total of 22 students.3. School 3: Liceo Scientifico.This school focuses on scientific subjects.Two classes were taken into consideration for a total of 29 students.4. School 4:Liceo Scientifico.Two classes were taken into consideration for a total of 38 students.
The participants involved in the present study are an example of a convenience sample.8 In addition, one member of the staff responsible for CLIL in every school was briefly interviewed in order to gather relevant data regarding the school curricula and CLIL.
The following tables summarise the most relevant data about the participants.Students have been grouped according to their school of attendance (School 1, School 2, School 3, and School 4).General information about CLIL curricula was provided by a CLIL teacher for School 1, the deputy headmaster for School 2, and an English teacher for School 3 and 4.
In five cases, CLIL classes were held by the subject teacher alone (STA) who was a native-speaker in two classes, while in two cases CLIL was organised in a co-teaching format, meaning that the language and the subject teacher held the class together.All CLIL lessons were taught in English, unless otherwise specified below.All students were attending the final year of their secondary education (18 years old on average).
According to the information provided by the questionnaire, 16.8% of students had a certified A2 level of English, 24% had a certified B1, 32.8% a certified B2, 5.6% a certified C1, and 0.8% a certified C2 level.However, considering that 20% didn't have any official certification, 71% of those certified in English were at B1-B2 level.This situation is visually summarised in the following figure: Furthermore, 8 students started learning English in the kindergarten, 112 (88.20%) in the elementary school, and 7 in the middle school.45% of participants were studying only English when the questionnaire was administered, while 55% was studying at least one other foreign language, the most common being German.Finally, 30 students had some CLIL experience in the elementary and/or middle school, while 93 didn't have any CLIL experience before high school.

Data Collection
The present study took place between September 2017 and January 2018.Data was gathered by means of anonymous questionnaires addressed to students.The questionnaires were developed following Dörnyei (2003) guidelines.
Data collection for the present research had been previously approved by the administration of the four schools taken into consideration and it's worth mentioning that I've never worked in any of these schools.
The students involved in the study were assured of the confidentiality of their answers and that all data would be used for academic purposes only.Anonymity was guaranteed as no identifying information was asked; furthermore, students were given the option not to participate in the study.Finally, questions were formulated in Italian to ensure understanding.
127 students completed the questionnaire and all of them were deemed valid.
As for the administration of the questionnaires, I personally administered them to the students in school 1 and 3, while the deputy headmaster administered them in school 2, and an English teacher in school 4. Thus, group administration was employed since it has a very high response rate and it allows us to reach a high number of students in a limited time frame (Dörnyei 2003).Data was then examined to determine incidence and frequency.
The questionnaires were composed of 14 questions.The first part (questions 1 to 6) aimed to collect relevant information about students' personal background, current and previous school experiences with foreign languages and CLIL.The second part (questions 7 to 10) aimed to understand students' opinions about their CLIL experience, and the third part (questions 11 to 14) focused specifically on students' perception of code-switching in CLIL classes.For the purpose of the present study, only sections 1 and 3 were taken into consideration.
Furthermore, as previously stated, a short interview was conducted with one teacher in every school to have a clear understanding of how CLIL was implemented.

5.3.1
What are the reasons for students' code-switching in CLIL classes?
First of all, 38.8% of students believe it to be good for them to be allowed to use both their L1 and L2 in their CLIL classes, while 33% disagree.Moreover, a very high number of students (29%) don't know whether it is good or not to use both the L1 and the L2 in the CLIL class.Therefore, although slightly more students view code-switching in a positive way, they do not have a clear-cut opinion about it.Similarly, 43% of students believe it to be good for the CLIL teacher to use both the L1 and the L2 during CLIL classes and exactly the same percentage believe it not to be good.
Is it good for students to use both their L1 and L2 in CLIL classes?
Is it good for teachers to use both their L1 and L2 in CLIL classes?
Figure 2. Students' and teachers' code-switching in CLIL classes However, although they were not sure whether it was good or not, they clearly admitted to speak mainly Italian when they work in group (63%) and mainly English when prompted by the teacher (63%).These results are in line with those reported by Gené-Gil, Juan-Garau, and Salazar-Noguera (2012), Domalewska (2017), and Azlan and Narasuman (2013), and show that when students work autonomously, with no direct teacher's control, they readily tend to switch to their L1.As for the reasons why they code-switch, students' answers to question 14 of the questionnaire were considered; in fact, they were asked to select the main reasons why they switch to Italian during CLIL classes, out of a list of eight options.They were allowed to select more than one option.25% of students stated that they use their L1 because they believe their English competence doesn't allow them to express themselves as they'd like to.However, if we analyse the certified English level of the people who admitted their language inadequacy, it is interesting to see that there is no correlation between their self-perception and their real level of language proficiency.In fact, we would expect low English level students to state not to be able to adequately communicate in English, while, as we can see in figure 3, this opinion is shared by students regardless of their English level.This result seems to suggest that students don't always have a clear metacognitive perception of their actual English level and ability.
Furthermore, 35% of total answers given, show that students codeswitch to play around with their classmates (17.62%) and because it's easier and faster to speak Italian (17.18%).If we consider Malik's (1994) taxonomy for code-switching, the outlined behavior is consistent with Malik's communicative function of "showing identity with a group' (Malick 1994 in Azlan, Narasuman 2013).This data also suggests that the main reason why students code-switch to Italian is not their lack of language proficiency, but the fact that they all share the same L1 and, consequently, they don't perceive it natural to use another language to perform certain functions, such as joking or helping their classmates, in line with the findings reported by Azlan and Narasuman (2013).A graphical representation of reasons for students' code-switching is provided below.As the above figure shows, most students code-switch to Italian because they feel that they belong to an Italian community and it is more natural to use the L1, unless directly prompted by the teacher.Interestingly, 7.5% of students stated that they never speak Italian during CLIL classes and there is no correlation between this statement and having a native speaker as a teacher.However, there is a correlation with students' English level, since 14 out of 17 students have a certified level between B1 and C2.
Data analysis also reveals that, according to the great majority of students (83%), teachers should speak Italian only when strictly needed.This means that most of students feel that they are able to understand most of what the teacher says.In fact, only 7% stated that they would like the CLIL teacher to speak Italian more often, whereas 48% of students stated that they would like the CLIL teacher to speak exclusively English.This means that, although they believe that their English level is adequate to understand the lesson, yet they feel the need to have some form of linguistic scaffolding at times, especially when it comes to actively use the language (speaking), a competence that many students perceive as inadequate, as outline above.This result is in line with Ricci Garotti (2006), according to whom students' active bilingualism cannot be expected at the beginning of a CLIL experience and especially with low level learners.

5.3.2
What are the Reasons for Teachers' Code-Switching in CLIL Classes?
Two of the nine classes considered in the present study were experiencing CLIL with an English native speaker as their teacher, two classes were held by the language teacher and the subject teacher together (co-teaching), and in five classes the subject teacher held the CLIL classes by himself/ herself.In one class students experienced CLIL both in English and German.This great variety of teachers affected the amount of English and Italian being used during CLIL classes.
Taking into consideration students' opinion (question 11 of the questionnaire), where the native-speaker teacher is present, students perceive him to speak exclusively in English (22 students out of 22), whereas in the other cases students' perception was slightly less homogeneous.For example, in school 4, 74% of students stated that the CLIL teacher spoke exclusively or mainly English, while 26% stated that the teachers spoke mainly Italian or English and Italian equally.This slight variation might depend on personal perception of single lessons or activities.Nevertheless, not surprisingly, CLIL native-speaker teachers use slightly more English than teachers who use English as their L2.
Furthermore, the findings seem to suggest that, according to students' opinion, teachers code-switch mainly to explain or translate words that students do not know (35%) and to highlight particularly important concepts (30%), as visualised in the figure below.As visualised above, teachers seem to be very much concerned with students' understanding of the content, especially in the case of particularly complex concepts, as reported by Lasagabaster (2013), Gené-Gil, Juan-Garau, Salazar-Noguera (2012), and Domalewska (2017).This is why they seem to use code-switching in particularly challenging situations, for example when there is a term or a concept which is particularly difficult to understand.
On the contrary, students do not perceive code-switching as a useful strategy when they are given instructions to perform a task (classroom language), nor do they need the teacher to translate texts into their L1.Finally, 50% of students stated that they would like the teacher to explain a new concept or term in Italian, however, when asked if they'd prefer the teacher to explain a new concept/term in English with synonyms and further examples, 70% replied affirmatively.This suggests that students consider teachers' code-switching as a possible tool, however they often prefer other strategies not involving code-switching.This finding is in line with the fact that 83% of students stated that they would like the CLIL teacher to speak Italian only when strictly needed, as previously outlined.

Limitations of the Present Study
As for the limitations of the present paper, the conclusions drawn might not be generalizable to the rest of Italy since, as explained in section 4, PAT is an autonomous region with special legislative power on education where CLIL has recently been strongly implemented as part of the 'Project for a Trilingual Region.However, the aim of the present study was indeed to report and reflect on the specific reality of PAT which might serve as a stimulus for the implementation of good practices in CLIL in the Italian school system.

Conclusions and Teaching Implications
The purpose of this study is to investigate the reasons for students' and teachers' code-switching in the CLIL class.Just like for L2 classes (Macaro 2001(Macaro , 2009)), also in CLIL classes the optimal use of code-switching is still debated.In the present paper, students' perception of code-switching has been considered, in order to get an insight into the benefits, downsides, and reasons for code-switching.In fact, since students are the ultimate recipients of CLIL methodology, this study considers it important to take into account their opinion on the issue.
As far as teachers' code-switching is concerned, data suggests that students prefer the CLIL teacher to speak only or mainly English.Also in case of new contents or words, they seem to favor the teacher using alternative strategies, for example synonyms or examples provided in the L2, rather than code-switching to the L1.Nevertheless, students' answers suggest that sometimes code-switching might be a valuable tool to translate difficult concepts or words, if other strategies do not work.
As for students' code-switching, data analysis reveals that, in the case of group work, students see it as an essential communicative tool to interact with their peers.In fact, they share a strong linguistic identity and solidarity, which is more naturally expressed by means of the L1, regardless of students' L2 level.
Furthermore, although many students believe that they are not able to speak adequately, this seems to be subjective and often not a reliable perception.Consequently, students might need strong encouragement and appropriate linguistic scaffolding to be actively involved in the class, especially at the early stages of CLIL.Thus, teacher's use of an appropriate methodology seems to be crucial to assist the learners: what is needed is "a shift from a traditional methodology to a more communicative, participative and interactive methodology" (Pavón Vázquez, Ellison 2013, 74).where active participation is crucial.This must be appropriately supported by means of linguistic scaffolding and suitable activities and tasks.Therefore, the CLIL teacher's adequate competence both from a linguistic and a methodological point of view is paramount for CLIL to be successful.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. English Level of students who admit not to be linguistically adequate

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Reasons for Students code-switching

Table 1 .
Participants of the study: School 1

Table 2 .
Participants of the study: School 2

Table 3 .
Participants of the study: School 3

Table 4 .
Participants of the study: School 4