Chinese University Students’ Perceptions of teacher Code-switching in EFL Speaking Classrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While research on students’ perceptions of code-switching in EFL classrooms has proliferated over the past several decades, limited research has been conducted to understand students’ perceptions with different levels of language proficiency in English. Drawing on both quantitative and qualitative data collected from students with different English proficiency levels, the present research reports students’ perceptions of teacher code-switching in EFL speaking classrooms in Chinese tertiary context. The quantitative data collected from questionnaires show that students do not favor total immersion. Students believe that English should be the medium of instruction for activities and their opinions show mixed results under the circumstances of teaching grammar and usage of English. Mixed opinions are also found in terms of teacher switching to Chinese to give administrative information and test information. The qualitative data in the questionnaire suggest that students prefer Chinese teacher of English owning to better understanding, and they attribute their levels of English as the deciding factor of their preferences. No statistical differences achieved regarding the perceptions from Level One and Level Two students. Findings suggest that the systematic and effective use of learner’s L1 is beneficial for language teaching in speaking classrooms, and L1 can be regarded as a powerful tool to develop effective teaching approaches for English language teachers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".