Code-switching Versus Target-language-only for English as a Foreign Language: Saudi Students’ Perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selecting the medium of instruction to teach English as a Foreign Language (EFL) has been a controversial issue for several years. This article explores the impact of code-switching (CS) versus target-language-only (TL-only) teaching strategies on the learning and affective sustenance of EFL reading comprehension beginner students based on their perceptions. It also investigates whether there is a significant difference between the participants’ perceptions of these two teaching strategies’ possible impact on their learning and affective sustenance. Fifty-two female Saudi college students participated in the study. A questionnaire and follow-up interviews were used to collect the data. The results indicate that the participants had positive perceptions about the impact of CS on their learning and affective sustenance in the EFL reading classes as opposed to negative perceptions about TL-only instruction. The results also show that there is a significant difference between their perceptions of TL-only instruction and CS, indicating that they prefer CS to TL-only instruction in their EFL reading classes. We recommend that reading comprehension teachers for beginners utilize CS as a facilitating instructional strategy for EFL beginners to give them affective support and make the input more comprehensible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".