How do teachers strategically use code-switching in multilingual classrooms to manage
learning and engagement?
Code switching is described as the alternation between two or more languages within a
conversation, and it is something that is quite common within multilingual classrooms.
During English as a Second or Foreign Language classes (ESL/EFL), code-switching is a
pedagogical practice frequently challenged by scholars and institutions. Many teachers find it
to be an interference to their teaching and the students learning, however, many researchers
have found it to be a useful tool to support teacher practice, managing their classroom and
interacting better with their pupils. It is important to understand how teachers purposely use
code switching with the aim of optimising learning within multilingual classrooms. This
literature review analyses how teachers strategically use code switching in multilingual
classrooms to manage learning and engagement drawn from 4 scholarly studies. This review
is structured around three corresponding themes: the purpose and function of code switching,
the perspective of teachers and students and the methodological approaches and implications
of the research. By analysing these studies critically, it shows the benefits and challenges of
code switching, highlights patterns in teacher strategies and shows how this evidence may
improve classroom practice and further research on multilingual education. Throughout the
literature, teachers’ use of code switching in multilingual classrooms is repeatedly framed as
an intentional practice rather than an unplanned technique within the classroom. In Lin’s
(2013) review of three decades of classroom, the study examines the historical development
of teacher language use in multilingual classrooms using code-switching. She highlights how
scholars have analysed it through interactional and communicative approaches that show its
functional role in teaching, promoting student engagement, therefore highlighting its strategic
rather than unintentional use.
Classroom-based studies support this perspective, stating how teachers tend to switch
languages to achieve certain pedagogical goals including clarification and comprehension
support. Unlike the other empirical studies, Lin’s review provides a broader historical
perspective showing the shift in research from seeing code switching as a weakness to a
strong pedagogical tool. Lin (2013) comments that ‘In this paper I provide a review of the
historical development of different research paradigms and approaches adopted in studies on
classroom code-switching’ (p.1) emphasising the evolution of study in this topic and allows
1
the reader to see long-term data trends and gaps not picked up by the other individual studies
such as classroom variability. This illustrates how teachers’ purposeful use of code switching
is clearly recognised in historical and current research supporting the claim of its effective
role enhancing learning. Horasan (2014) conducts a qualitative study of code switching in
EFL classrooms involving two classes of 43 students and 4 teachers in a public university.
The study primarily includes classroom observations and questions, reporting how teachers
use code switching to support students’ comprehension and to give detailed support to make
tasks simpler for students. Horasan underlines that these benefits are conditional, stating how
it should be ‘a tool that serves to several functions that facilitate both learning and teaching’
(p.42). However, the study states that it is effective mainly at beginner level and can disrupt
independent language study if overused at advanced proficiency levels. This contrasts with
Juhairi and Sudrajad who focus on inclusive practices rather than proficiency levels and the
effects. This shows the need for teachers to adapt their code-switching strategies to align with
the students’ proficiency levels, improving their learning. Gulzar (2014) shows how code
switching is a tool used by teachers to solve problems experienced by students in the
classroom when studying English as a Second Language (ESL). This study explores the
relationship between code-switching and its success in education using quantitative and
qualitative data taken from ESL classrooms, from teachers and students. This depicts how
teachers and students both agree that this practice is pedagogically successful. Using mixed
methods reinforce the evidence, however, it does not track long-term language outcomes
therefore limiting conclusions about the lasting impact. Compared to Lin’s broad study and
Horasan’s focus on proficiency levels, Gulzar’s data leaves the reader questioning the overall
learning success. Despite this, the study shows us that teachers use of code switching is
intentional and practical for improving comprehension and engagement in multilingual
classrooms. In a qualitative study of code switching in bilingual classrooms involving a small
group of teachers and students from 2 different schools, Juhairi and Sudrajad (2024) report
how teachers use code switching for clarifying students’ understanding, classroom control
and customised support for learning. They also create an inclusive atmosphere that supports
students’ education and their mental and emotional wellbeing highlighting the emotional and
social advantages of code switching. The focus, however, is only on two schools and a small
group of participants which could limit the findings. Compared to Gulzar and Horasan who
use larger groups and mixed- method approaches in their studies, these results are context
specific and limited in data. Despite these limitations, this study reinforces that the strategic
use of code-switching can improve classroom management and support primarily beginner
2
proficiency classes. All these studies largely focus on the positive pedagogical functions of
code switching, in multilingual classroom education contexts, however there is limited
consensus on whether code switching is an appropriate method of practice or which strategies
work best in different classroom contexts and various teacher experience levels and
classroom settings. This suggests that teacher usage of code switching is beneficial for
students, however, if overused or applied in the wrong contexts, it could hinder students’
language development therefore indicating that it should be used carefully in context-specific
situations. Future research into this topic could investigate how contextual factors such as
students’ proficiency levels, class size or topics influence the use of code switching in lessons
by teachers; this could help contribute strategies for research for multilingual classroom
education.
Alongside analysis of the functional role of code switching, the literature also takes into
consideration how teachers and students perceive its use in multilingual classrooms
showcasing the importance of attitudes in shaping classroom practice. The views are
important as attitudes towards code switching influence the usage of the technique and its
effectiveness. Across all the studies there is a general agreement that code switching is
viewed as positive by both teachers and students, especially in contexts where students have
lower proficiency in the target language. Gulzar (2014) reports that students view code
switching used by teachers as supportive increasing students’ motivation and participation in
class primarily in ESL classrooms. Both teachers and students describe code switching as a
‘supportive tool in learning English’ (p.130) increasing inclusion and growing the learner’s
confidence by providing reassurance when dealing with challenging material. Teachers’
perspectives similarly emphasise views towards the practical use of code switching; they
regard it as a deliberate rather than a destructive practice. Juhairi and Sudrajad (2024) report
that teachers see it as ‘pedagogical resource’ (p.214) used to enhance comprehension,
controlling classrooms effectively and supporting communication to students of varying
proficiency levels. Teachers in their study view it as a necessary strategy rather than a
technique that could hinder the learners’ language development. These findings show positive
elements are not just intellectual benefits, social factors also improve including manner of the
classroom which again shows the strategic decision of teachers using it to teach. Horasan
(2014) takes a different view highlighting a shared view between teachers and students. They
view code switching as a supportive method at beginner proficiency levels, as it is a good
way to gain attention and bring forward humour. However, participants state their belief that
3
as the learner’s proficiency level increases, code switching should be removed gradually,
promoting independence in the target language. This reflects concerns over the excessive
reliance on the first language may obstruct learners’ development in the target language.
Horasan’s study therefore says that code switching can support learning, but this is
conditionally based on the learner’s proficiency level and content being taught. While the
literature has a general agreement on the supportive aspect of code switching it also reveals a
clash between short-term benefits and long-term language development. Students and
especially teachers, value code switching highly for its inclusive and motivational aspects but
overusing it could reduce growth in the target language, limiting independent learning and
opportunity to fully immerse in the language while studying it. There is also a lack of
research regarding these attitudes towards code switching and actual learning outcomes or
engagement in multilingual classrooms. We see how teachers and students perceive code
switching as beneficial but empirical evidence showing student success in language learning
is limited. Overall, there is clear nuance on the fact that code switching supports learning
effectively, yet it must be used in a purposeful and organised manner avoid hindering
cognitive learning. Existing studies provide valuable insight into the different perceptions of
code switching but methodological limitations affect the conclusions that can be drawn. Most
empirical studies such as Horasan (2014), Gulzar (2014) and Juhairi and Sudrajad (2024) rely
on qualitative methods, such as classroom observations, interviews or self-reports from
students and teachers. While these approaches are effective for obtaining detailed
perspectives on attitudes and classroom practices, they do not provide quantitative evidence
regarding observable learning outcomes, engagement or language proficiency. These small
context specific samples used in these studies limit the applicability of the findings to other
classroom contexts and multilingual settings. Lin’s (2013) review of the three decades of
classroom code switching research highlights how the field of study has evolved from earlier
studies showing code switching as a language weakness to now a strategic method for
communication and learning. She notes that while this shift in research focus has emphasised
understanding classroom practice in context, much of the research remains descriptive, more
describing existing studies and case studies rather than experimenting with new data and
ideas. Lin’s work therefore helps place the empirical studies by Horasan, Gulzar and Juhairi
and Sudrajad within the wider ways researchers have studied classroom code switching over
time. She indicates that despite decades of interest in the subject, there is limited empirical
evidence connecting code switching practices to learning outcomes as researchers don’t
choose to study new ideas. Moreover, the literature disregards how contextual variables such
4
as class size, subject manner or students’ prior proficiency influence both teachers’ strategies
and students’ perspectives. There is also a clear lack of longitudinal research, telling us how
code switching usage and attitudes has evolved overtime or how the repeated use affects the
learner’s language development. These limitations tell us that while studies teach us about the
basic strategic and social functions of code switching, there is limited resources to help us
understand the wider educational impact. Future research could close these gaps by
combining qualitative classroom observations with quantitative measurement of students’
engagement or participation. Longitudinal studies would allow us to see changes in
perceptions and learning over time and larger, more diverse groups allows for the findings to
be applied to other multilingual contexts. This research would show both how code switching
is used and the effectiveness of it as a pedagogical tool. Overall, although the literature
confirms to the reader that code switching is an effective tool for cognitive and social
developments within multilingual classrooms, the limited research into the wider picture and
lack of measurable outcomes indicates the need for research that combines teachers and
students’ perceptions with observable classroom results. Lin (2013) emphasises that without
more flexible research approaches, the field cannot further develop to improve bilingual
classroom practices.
This literature review has critically examined how teachers use code switching in
multilingual classrooms as a deliberate strategy to support learning and engagement. Across
the literature there is a strong consensus that teacher code switching is a purposeful practice,
deliberately used to manage comprehension and student engagement and interactions, rather
than a personal habit. The empirical classroom studies further show its value of codeswitching in supporting comprehension, managing classrooms and particularly supporting
learners with lower proficiency in the target language (Gulzar, 2014; Juhairi and Sudrajad,
2024; Horasan, 2014). Lin’s (2013) review contextualises these findings on a wider historical
scope, illustrating how research has recognised code switching as an impactful pedagogical
resource rather than something hindering studies over time. Despite the general agreement,
there is still heavy debate regarding the long-term effects of code switching for language
proficiency growth. While short term benefits are widely acknowledged throughout all the
studies, Horasan (2014) challenges them by highlighting concerns that the persistent use of
the first language may limit learners’ progress in their target language as their proficiency
increases. These issues highlight that a debate remains within this field with gaps in the
understanding behind the long-term impacts of code-switching that are yet to be fully
5
researched. There is also a clear gap in linking positive attitudes of teachers and students
towards code switching with learning outcomes. Although clear data of success is recorded,
limited empirical evidence demonstrating how these beliefs lead to significant language
progress is present. Future research should investigate how factors, such as student
proficiency level and classroom settings, effect the use of code switching practices for
guidance in teaching in multilingual classrooms. Overall, this review reports that using code
switching strategically in multilingual classrooms plays a big role in supporting student
comprehension and classroom engagement, directly answering the question of how codeswitching acts as a pedagogical tool.
Word count: 2198
Bibliography:
•
Gulzar, M. S. (2014). Teachers’ Code-Switching in a Content-Focused English as a
Second Language (ESL) Classroom: Patterns and Functions. International Journal of
Lingustics, 6(4), 130-153.
https://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijl/article/view/6162/4959
•
Horasan, S. (2014). Code switching in EFL classrooms and the perceptions of the
students and teachers. Journal of Language and Linguistics Studies, 10(1), 31-45.
https://www.jlls.org/index.php/jlls/article/view/159
•
Juhairi, I., & Sudrajad, W. (2022). Exploring the role of code-switching in bilingual
classroom interactions. At-Ta’lim : Jurnal Pendidikan, 8(2), 213-218.
https://ejournal.unzah.ac.id/index.php/attalim/article/view/1836/936
•
Lin, A. (2013). Classroom Code-Switching: Three Decades of Research. Journal of
Language and Linguistics, 9(2), 1-17.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274297611_Classroom_CodeSwitching_Three_Decades_of_Research
6