A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE USE OF ENGLISH AND SWEDISH AS THE LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION IN PRIMARY EFL CLASSROOMS IN SWEDEN

(1)

School of Education, Culture and Communication

A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE USE

OF ENGLISH AND SWEDISH AS THE

LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION IN

PRIMARY EFL CLASSROOMS IN

SWEDEN

FIDÉLIA SENGULANE- LINNMAN

Degree Project 1 for Teachers in Pre-School and Compulsory School Years 1-3, English

Undergraduate: 15.0 hp

Tutor: Olcay Sert

(2)

Abstract

It has been widely debated whether the use of the mother tongue is effective when learning a new language or if teachers should instead use the target language all the time in a language classroom. While some research shows that the use of the mother tongue is detrimental, other studies suggest that it can be used as a tool (e.g. for translations and for instructions) for teaching a new language. This study aims at exploring whether English or Swedish is predominantly used in English language teaching in Swedish primary schools and which factors contribute to the choice of language. Three primary school teachers and their pupils aged between 8 and 10 at two primary schools in Sweden participated in the study. The data were collected through surveys and observations and analyzed using a qualitative content analysis. The findings show that the Swedish language is predominantly used during the English lessons. Moreover, according to the participants in the study, this dominance is linked to the teachers´ need to create a positive classroom environment where the pupils feel safe, comfortable, and confident using their mother tongue as a tool for language learning.

(3)

1. Introduction

I was inspired to write on the language(s) used for instruction in Swedish primary schools when teaching English because during my first and second teaching placements, I observed that most of the time, the teacher spoke Swedish during English lessons. I have been curious about what research tells us about this topic. For instance, Pinter (2006) writes that the quantity and quality of English that children hear or use to interact and communicate are consequential when it comes to how easy they will learn the English language. Therefore, at least according to this way of thinking, teachers may need to employ different methods using the English language as the medium of instruction when teaching English in Swedish primary schools. This topic is particularly interesting because it may often be difficult or challenging to avoid using the mother tongue (L1) when teaching a new language (L2) to primary school pupils. Although the Swedish National Agency for Education (2018) states in its English syllabus that through English teaching, pupils should be given opportunities to develop their ability to employ language strategies to understand and make themselves understood, it does not exactly say that the use of L1 should be excluded from English language teaching. One possible interpretation of this is that in order for pupils to make themselves understood, they can use their L1 as an additional tool in the language classroom.

Eriksson (2019) argues that the use of the Swedish language is beneficial in giving

instructions, translating, and aiding pupils during exercises. Additionally, the author states that the use of English during English lessons motivates pupils to learn the language. On the other hand, Toth (2018) writes that translanguagingis the ability of multilingual speakers to switch between languages, a strategy used by both teachers and students to facilitate

communication and to improve understanding. The author further writes that translanguaging can be a valuable resource when learning a new language. During my practicum, I witnessed a variety of instances where both the teacher and the pupils used translanguaging to

communicate during English lessons, a practice that was often encouraged by the teacher. Children are creative and imaginative human beings; teachers can make English lessons an environment where different methods are used to motivate and stimulate the pupils’ creativity and enjoyment towards the language. As a result, the pupils can develop positive feelings and attitudes towards the English language. Against this background, the aim of this study is to explore how Swedish and English are used by teachers and pupils in English as a Foreign

(6)

2

Language (EFL) classrooms for young learners in Sweden and which factors contribute to the choice of language.

In order to fulfill this aim, the following research questions have been posed:

- Which language is predominantly used in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms for young learners in Sweden?

- Which factors contribute to the use of English or Swedish in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms for young learners in Sweden?

(7)

3

2. Background and review of literature

The Swedish National Agency for Education (2018) stated in its English syllabus that through teaching, pupils should develop their ability to understand spoken and written English and use a variety of strategies to make themselves understood. Further, it states that they should be given the opportunity to understand and interpret the content of spoken English in different types of texts, and to express themselves and communicate in speech and writing. Although there is no reference in the curriculum on the use of L1 when acquiring L2, the curriculum does suggest that pupils can use a variety of ways to convey their message. Furthermore, it suggests that learners should be exposed to the target language in as much depth as possible. Curriculum documents are important guides for teachers when it comes to language policies. However, research is needed to investigate practices of teaching and learning and observe how language policies are enacted in practice.

There are two approaches to language teaching that inspire strategies and methods used in language classrooms by learners and teachers: namely, the monolingual and the bilingual approach. According to Berlin & Hammarström (2016), the monolingual approach involves avoiding all available languages of the students and teachers except the target language. The authors further explain that monolingual education happens when the first language (L1) is completely excluded from foreign language classrooms, where lessons are conducted only in the target language. The monolingual approach supports the idea that translation practices have no place in the language classroom because this strategy makes language learners

weaker in the target language (Cummins, 2017). When it comes to the bilingual approach, it is important to mention code-switching and translanguaging. The former means alternating between (at least) two languages during a conversation, while the latter means practices used by bilinguals and multilinguals to assimilate, understand, communicate, and make sense of a new language.

2.1 Translanguaging and code-switching in the language classroom

In this section, I will introduce translangauging and code-switching in relation to their employment in language classrooms. Wei (2018) describes translanguaging as a process of knowledge construction that involves the use of different languages. According to Mazzaferro (2018), translanguaging involves a pedagogical strategy which supports the development of

(8)

4

language skills through the parallel use of several languages in classroom activities. On the other hand, code-switching (CS), a term introduced in 1967 by Gumperz, is an exchange between two or more language codes during a conversation (Avery, 2011).

Translanguaging is a strategy used by bilingual and multilingual language learners and teachers in language classrooms. Research shows that multilingual speakers do not keep their known languages apart and that they use their language experience according to the situation (Torpsten, 2018). Dahlberg (2017) conducted a study in Sweden on the translanguaging practices used in an English language classroom with multilingual learners and investigated how translanguaging practices could scaffold students’ language development. The

investigation was done in an English as a second language class with adult multilingual students. The researcher found that in the investigated classroom, translanguaging improved and supported learning structures and methods. In another study, Bourada (2019) investigated translanguaging as a teaching and communicative tool, with the participants being students aged 15 to 19 in the Språkintroduktion program, a system designed to teach students Swedish in parallel to English and Mathematics. The author argued that the introduction of an

additional language, English, so early in the learning process, could be detrimental to the language acquisition. The study found that translanguaging may be useful to resolve communication gaps between the teacher and the students. Furthermore, the author argued that it is important to take advantage of the benefits that translanguaging offers in the classroom.

García & Lin (2017) described translanguaging as the ability that multilinguals possess to navigate between languages to create their own system of speaking a new language. Hence, translanguaging contradicts the idea that solely using L2 is effective when learning a new language. Copland & Yonetsugi (2016), who carried out a study with 6- year-old first- graders, wrote that when teachers use L1 to support learners through understanding and by finding the extent to which they have developed, they (the teachers) show the learners how much they value their language. The authors further wrote that through translanguaging, the teacher can communicate and respond to the students’ personalised linguistic needs, meaning that as mentioned above, the teacher can be able to understand their development needs. Furthermore, Park (2013) pointed out that translanguaging allows learners to apply their linguistic abilities and to strategically combine them in a way that is beneficial to their language learning.

(9)

5

Torpsten (2018) suggested that incorporating translanguaging into the language learning classroom is a way to motivate and stimulate learners to easily learn a new language. Further, the author added that translanguaging is used in bilingual classrooms as a teaching method that changes the dynamics of the learning classroom, and it is a way for bilinguals to

extensively understand the language. Torpsten (2017) wrote that using the learners’ prior or existing language abilities enriches the process of new language development.

Although it has commonalities with the concept of translanguaging, code-switching is a phenomenon that sees languages as separate linguistic codes. Code-switching is used by bilinguals and multilinguals in a variety of situations to communicate a message or word consciously or unconsciously by alternating languages during a dialogue. It is a common practice for language learners. Avery (2011) carried out a study in grades 1 to 4 classrooms, in the context of introducing bilingual instruction in Swedish and Arabic where simplified language use, code-switching and relations between the use of Arabic and Swedish were analysed with respect to possible impact on learning practices. The results showed that,

despite the introduction of bilingual instruction, Swedish still appeared as the dominant school language and frequent code-switching within statements and expressions further aided in simplifying both grammar and content. Another study on code-switching was done by

Svendsen (2014) who investigated if code-switching was a beneficial language strategy when it comes to pupils’ oral language development in a second language (L2) classroom in

secondary school in Sweden. The author found that low-proficiency learners gained from first language (L1) usage, while high-proficiency students appeared to both prefer and benefit more from an English-only (L2) classroom. Üstünel & Seedhouse (2005) suggested that in the classroom, CS can be teacher-initiated and teacher-induced, with the former being defined as when teachers code-switch from L1 or L2 while the latter means that the teacher employs L2 to encourage and motivate the students to use it.

Oga-Baldwin & Nakata (2014) pointed out that when it comes to language teaching there is a continuous debate on the role the new language (NL) has and how often the NL is used versus the use and role of the own language (OL). Further, code-switching and the use of OL are considered effective methods as opposed to exclusively using the NL. The authors mentioned that to use OL to a certain degree in English as a Foreign Language lessons (EFL) can be effective to provide better understanding of the lesson’s content, it can save time and it can

(10)

6

create a positive classroom environment. Üstünel & Seedhouse (2005) stated that CS is used for a number of reasons such as: to help pupils understand the content of the lesson, to

motivate the pupils to participate in the lesson, to further explain the meaning of something, to translate, to give feedback, to give instructions and to create a positive classroom

environment.

Hultgren (2016) defined parallel language use as the simultaneous use of several languages with none of the languages replacing the other. Aus der Wieschen & Sert (2018) carried out a study in a Danish third-grade English as a foreign language classroom, where a pattern of different language alternatives was observed. The study found that learning English was more efficient when the teacher spoke English while in parallel the students spoke Danish; meaning that, the teachers encouraged and supported the students’ use of other languages other than the target language. Further, the teachers themselves provided input in the target language. In what follows, I will review research on the language choice dilemma in classrooms.

2.2 The dilemma of the use of L1 versus L2 in language teaching

According to Hall & Cook (2012), since the late nineteenth century, it has been assumed that a new language is best learned when students use it exclusively during language lessons. Moreover, this would be as an alternative to using their mother tongue to support language learning when translating and communicating with the teacher during a language lesson. However, the authors suggest that more recent research is not in favor of a monolingual approach (the use of only one language) when students are learning a new language, as it makes it challenging for learners to relate to what is being taught to them since they cannot make use of their mother tongue as an aid. For example, Hanáková & Metruk (2017) investigated the use of the mother tongue in the process of teaching and learning English at lower secondary and upper-secondary school levels in Slovakia. It was shown that L1 was always present in the observed classrooms and that the language used in the classroom is crucial to the process of learning EFL because it influences L2 acquisition. Furthermore, it was shown that it is important to have a set of rules on how and when L1 should be used in language learning classrooms. Zulfikar (2018) argues that using L1 in the language learning classroom does not negatively affect the way learners acquire knowledge; it, in fact, helps in the process of language acquisition. The author claims that L1 is an integral part of language teaching especially in teaching to low proficiency learners. The author further states that when

(11)

7

students are able to use L1, they tend to feel more confident. It is also advocated by the author that the use of L1 facilitates the communication between teachers and students in terms of what the pupils have learned and what areas they need to develop.

Copland & Yonetsugi (2016) carried out a study on the impact of teachers’ use of different languages in classrooms for young children (ages 5–10 years). The authors demonstrated that when it comes to young learners, it is important to consider sociolinguistic factors and

pedagogic factors when contemplating L1 classroom methods. Additionally, it was concluded that, even if the teachers should increase the amount of times that they use L2 in the

classroom, emphasis should be put on stimulating the child to develop his/ her inclination to and confidence in using L2.

Zulfikar (2018) explains that by using their first language, learners can discover and understand L2 grammatical concepts; they are able to translate and to comprehend the lesson’s content in a broader way because L2 becomes less complicated and more manageable. Nevertheless, Copland & Yonetsugi (2016) claim that children learn a new language differently from adults, which makes using L2 in language learning classrooms more valuable for language learning. Further, the authors state that compared to adult learners, young learners are easily motivated and will not experience the new language as uncomfortable.

(12)

8

2.3 Young learners’ use of L1 and L2 in the language classroom

Toth (2018) writes that the increased exposure to L2 results in a greater fluency in L2. The author conducted a study in an English-Swedish primary school class in grades 4–6, where English was the medium of instruction in several subjects. The study explored the

participants’ attitudes about English as a medium of instruction. It was found that the participants valued L2 and considered L1 as a source of support in the English language classroom. Toth (2018), based on his findings, suggests that a language is best learned when learners use that language as often as possible and when they are constantly exposed to it. However, Hanáková & Metruk (2017) claim that the use of the mother tongue (L1) can be beneficial to learners in a sense that it saves time, supports with communication, helps with student-teacher relationships and it is a vital resource when learning a new language (L2). Sultana (2018) states that L1 is particularly important as it is a child’s main tool for

communication and for mutual and cooperative interaction. This, the author continues, can provide support and facilitate L2 development, as well as facilitate the communication

between the students and the teacher in instances such as interactive activities and in group or pair tasks.

Lakey (2017) conducted a study about patterns of classroom languages used by both learners and teachers in the English learning classroom. The study’s participants were teachers and 36 young learners between the ages of 8 and 10. The study found that the more the teacher used English, the more English the pupils employed. Additionally, the study found that learners were neither allowed nor encouraged to use their L1 as a resource. Toth (2018) states that since the goal of studying L2 is to gain near native competence, L1 should not be employed in L2 lessons, because it can weaken the learning process. The author further suggests that teaching exclusively in L2 stimulates the learner’s ability to develop their own L2 approach. L1 can be considered to be a barrier for acquiring L2 as it can interfere with the learners’ ability to develop a high-level proficiency in the new language. However, Almoayidi (2018) writes that the mother tongue is beneficial because translations are not always negative, and elements of the different languages are similar to one another. Evidently, more research on the subject is needed, and this study will potentially aim to fill the gap.

(13)

9

3. Method

The aim of this study is to explore how Swedish and English are used by teachers by teachers and pupils in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms for young learners in Sweden and which factors contribute to the choice of language. In order to gather the data, a

qualitative approach was employed. The ways which qualitative data can be gathered, according to Tivenius (2015), are through interviews, surveys, and observations. Due to the current pandemic and the limitations that it brought, I opted to carry out surveys with three different teachers and observe their respective English lessons.

3.1. Data collection and participants

The participants consisted of three teachers from two different primary schools in Sweden. Teacher 2 and 3, who are in their 50s, worked in the same Swedish primary school, and have more than 10 years’ experience working as teachers. Teacher 1, who is in her 20s, was from another Swedish primary school, and has recently completed her education. Furthermore, observations of the teachers’ respective classrooms were carried out. The classrooms and teachers were chosen based on the grade level that the study covers. The two more

experienced teachers instructed grade 3 while the other teacher taught in grade 2 during the time of data collection in 2020.

Instead of doing interviews as I had originally planned, survey questions were sent to the teachers. This was due to constraints linked to the Covid-19 pandemic. The survey’s questions (see appendix 1) were sent in written form to the teachers and subsequently answered via audio recording by 2 of the teachers. Additionally, one of the teachers chose to answer the questions in written form. The audio recording and the written survey answers were sent to me a few days after the submission of the questions, via email. I thoroughly listened to the audio-recordings and transcribed and translated them into English. The informants, who were given the option to respond in either Swedish or in English, chose to do so in Swedish. Therefore, the written survey questions were translated into Swedish (See appendix 1) before the participants accessed and responded to them. This was to ensure that the informants read and answered the survey questions in the language that they were most comfortable with and to avoid misunderstandings during the course of the research. Denscombe (2018) writes that survey studies are presented in a variety of ways with the most common being one that asks

(14)

10

questions to people. The author adds that it can include questionnaires and observations for the researcher to have a broad view of the research subject and to cover the whole spectrum of the study.

The observations, which were carried out before the teachers answered the survey, were audio- recorded with the permission of all participants and later transcribed. The audio device was placed on the teachers’ front desk to make sure that the sound was of good quality. Additionally, I took notes on the phenomena that were related to my research questions and that transpired during the observed lessons. During the observations, I sat at the back of the classroom and discreetly took notes to ensure that the natural process and atmosphere of the classroom remained undisturbed by my presence. Further, I took notes using a checklist that was adapted from Al-Nofaie (2010), which included relevant points for observation that could possibly be encountered (See appendix 2). As each point on the checklist became noticeable during the lesson, I took notes under the corresponding topic, such as in the occasions when code-switching occurred, the languages/s that the teacher used to introduce the topic or to give instructions.

The observations were done in three different classrooms during English lessons. These observations lasted from 30 to 50 minutes, with a total of 137 minutes recorded. Two of the classrooms were grade three and one was a grade two; the observed group consisted of 8 to 10-year-old male and female pupils. Denscombe (2018) states that depending on the extent to which the researcher has disclosed what needs to be observed, there are three alternatives to observations, that is: full participation, participation as an observer and participation in the natural environment. Since the teachers had partially been informed of the purpose of the observations, I chose the participation as an observer approach, to make sure that the participants did not change their teaching/ learning patterns, and to preserve the natural environment of the classroom.

3.2 Analytical procedure

This study employs qualitative content analysis, described by Denscombe (2018) as a method used to, amongst other things, compress a complex text into simpler relevant parts, such as words and sentences. The author further mentions that when doing content analysis, it is

(15)

11

important to have a clear awareness of the ideas and the categories that are relevant to the study’s research questions (see section 1 above).

Content analysis was, therefore, used to analyse the transcribed audio- recorded survey

answers, the written survey answers, and observations. Relevant themes were highlighted, and the responses of the participants were organised into different categories that were relevant for the research. The categories included the language choice in the classroom, code-switching, and the teaching methods used; also, some of the points from the checklist were present. The process of categorization was a little challenging because some of the categories, such as language choice in the classroom, were complex; meaning that some of the categories

included other aspects, for instance, reasons why the choice of language was made. Moreover, the different survey questions were linked to one another and were almost similar so that it was difficult to assign them to just one category. Moreover, since the survey questions were originally written and answered in Swedish and later translated into English, the answers were translated into English as accurately as possible, following a close revision process.

3.3 Ethical Aspects

For this research project, the ethical guidelines of the Swedish Research Council were followed (Vetenskapsrådet, 2017) . The participants were informed about the purpose of the research and that the data collected was not to be used for other purposes and not be shared with third parties. Moreover, the participants gave consent for the observations to be audio- recorded. They were assured that their identities, the names of the schools and the

municipality would remain anonymous.

3.4 Limitations

There were some limitations regarding the way the study was done. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the schools and the teachers were reluctant to receive external visits; therefore, I chose to send to the informants the survey questions instead of conducting the interviews face-to-face. This meant that there was no opportunity to follow up on questions, to clarify a question that the informants might have had and to request the informants to elaborate on some of the answers. Another limitation was that only 2 schools are represented in the study which means that the number of participants is lower than I wished to be. This limited the spectrum of the research and likely impacted the study’s findings.

(16)

12

4. Findings

In this section the results and discussion will be presented. The presentation of the findings based on the survey questions and observations will be done in three subsections, namely: (4.1) Languages used for instruction in the classroom, (4.2) Factors contributing to the use of L1 and English in the classroom, and (4.3) Findings from the classroom observations. Each classroom number corresponds to the equivalent teacher number; for example, classroom 1 belongs to teacher 1.

4.1 Languages used for instruction in the classroom

The survey revealed that all 3 teachers use mostly Swedish during English lessons. All the excerpts from the survey were translated by me from Swedish to English, as precisely as possible to ensure that the original message was not lost in translation.

When it comes to the use of English or Swedish in the classroom, Teacher 1 (T1) said:

Excerpt 1:

In the textbook Happy there are a variety of exercises where I have the opportunity to speak English and clarify in Swedish what the different words mean. The most important thing is to be able to use both Swedish and English to help pupils develop their ability to communicate. (T1, grade 2)

As can be seen in excerpt 1, T1 indicated that although she follows the English text book (Happy), which is written in both English and Swedish, she tries to teach new words in

English before starting a new section in the book, so that the pupils can be familiar with them. T1 further stated that she uses Swedish to give instructions, to introduce the topic and to give individual feedback.

Similarly, Teacher 2 (T2), stated that she uses Swedish in situations where the pupils encounter a new word and sentence or when she notices that they do not understand the instructions, but she also stated that instructions are primarily given in English. Contrary to T1 who stated that she has not tried to speak English exclusively, T2 stated:

(17)

13

I have exclusively spoken in English but then have chosen as continuation of a chapter to use words or expressions that the pupils have already been exposed to. (T2, grade 3) She further indicated that she uses L1 when translating difficult words and sentences. She added that she employs L1 when introducing a new chapter or topic. T2 stated that she motivates the pupils to speak English by always beginning to speak English to them, at the same time as helping them with pronunciation.

Like T1 and T2, T3 also stated that she uses Swedish to give instructions, to translate and to get her message across:

Excerpt 3

I look at how the pupils react, how they react to the instructions. I translate so that they can participate in the lesson. (T3, grade 3)

Moreover, T3 stated that she is aware that the goal of the English lessons is for the pupils to hear and to speak English; however, according to her, the great majority of the pupils raise their hands as a sign that they do not understand when she speaks English:

Excerpt 4

There are many pupils that want me to translate when I speak English. After I have done that they are able to follow the lesson. (T3, grade 3)

Furthermore, T1 indicated that it is a disadvantage for her to solely speak English during the lesson because she is aware that the vast majority of pupils do not understand English.

Excerpt 5

I mostly use Swedish even in English lessons because I usually notice that not many are able to understand when I speak in English. I try to speak in English but then many pupils say that they cannot understand me. (T1, grade 2)

However, like T1, T3 stated that she has not tried to exclusively employ the English language during the lessons because it is important that pupils feel comfortable in the classroom.

(18)

14

I speak English 60% of the lesson. I really try to motivate the pupils to speak and to feel comfortable in the classroom irrespective of what we are working on. That is also valid when it comes to speaking English. (T3, grade 3)

The excerpts suggest that the teachers are reluctant to solely speak English because they are trying to encourage the pupils to participate and to feel comfortable during the lessons. Furthermore, the excerpts also suggest that the teachers try to speak English as much as the lesson’s progress or evolution allows; meaning that they seem to follow the pupils’ lead when it comes to the choice of language in the classroom. This suggests that the flow of

communication in the classroom works better when learners and teachers are able to navigate between the 2 languages.

When it comes to the choice of language when teaching to read, write and during listening activities, the teachers had various answers. T1 stated that writing is not a part of the English teaching plan for Grade 2, therefore she has not yet started to teach the pupils to write in English:

Excerpt 7

There are a variety of listening activities in the schoolbook (Happy) both in the form of CDs and activities where I have to talk, speak and read as the pupils listen. (T1, grade 2)

In these instances, she indicates that she tries to speak as much English as she can.

Furthermore, T1 stated that although she tries to encourage the pupils to speak English and not to laugh at one another when they do so, her first and foremost focus is to make sure that the pupils understand the content of the lesson:

Excerpt 8

I usually use code-switching as a way to control the lesson´s knowledge and to ensure that the pupils easily remember the content of the lesson. (T1, grade 2)

The excerpt above suggests that the teacher’s primary focus is to make sure that the pupils understand the content of the lesson and to help them remember what is required of them. Moreover, the goal seems to be to motivate the learner to be more involved and interested in the learning process even if that includes using their L1 while learning L2. This perspective supports the importance of acknowledging pupils’ L1 when learning an L2.

(19)

15

On the other hand, T2 stated, without substantial detail, that she does not use code-switching. She stated that she teaches the pupils to write in English but if necessary, she clarifies in Swedish. Further, she stated that the listening exercises are done in English:

Excerpt 9

When I read in English, they understand and answer in English, even if the group discussions and individual feedback are done in both Swedish and English. (T2, grade 3)

T3 revealed that she uses code-switching when explaining something or during instructions:

Excerpt 10

When I am saying something, I try to speak English and to use simple words. When they are learning to write in English, I try to make comments and translations using “double talk’’. (T3, grade 3)

T3 indicated that she uses both languages because she does a lot of translations while trying to encourage them to ask questions in English. According to this teacher, at the end of each topic, the pupils watch a movie in English related to the topic that they have been working on. They, according to the teacher, have different speaking exercises that involve dialogues with each other in English. Further, she stated that they often use iPads with a program called Bingel that has different listening exercises and repetition drills in English.

The use of L1 was encouraged and supported by the teachers during the lessons. All three teachers stated that the pupils can use L1 during the lesson when they deem necessary:

Excerpt 11

It is allowed to speak Swedish because I see a great number of pupils who are uncomfortable and doubtful to speak English. (T1, grade 2)

(20)

16

I always begin the lesson by speaking English with them. When we have agreed to only speak English, but something comes up that makes it difficult for the pupils to say something in English; for instance, due to pronunciation or vocabulary meaning problems, then we speak Swedish. (T2, grade 3)

Excerpt 13

Sometimes it feels good to be able to use your own language. (T3, grade 3) The 3 excerpts above show that one of the main goals in the observed language learning classrooms in this study was to make sure that the pupils felt comfortable using their L1 when they deemed necessary. It is also apparent that the teachers’ main focus is to make sure that the pupils understand the content of the lesson and that they feel motivated to participate in the lesson’s activities, even if that implies that the pupils are less exposed to L2 during language lessons.

4.2 Factors contributing to the use of L1 and English in classrooms

There are some factors contributing to the use of L1 in the language classroom.

Excerpt 14

There are many in the classroom who need clarification and simple instructions, therefore, I use a lot of Swedish to help them understand. (T1, grade 2)

Excerpt 15

When the pupils do not understand or when they ask in Swedish the meaning of something, or when I notice that they do not understand, then I choose to speak the language that they can understand. (T2, grade 3)

Excerpt 16

I need to speak Swedish in situations where the pupils encounter new words. When I notice that they are not following the lesson. It can be in a specific chapter that they are not familiar with. (T3, grade 3)

From the excerpts above, it is evident that even if the pupils do not always articulate their lack of understanding during the English lesson, the teacher notices, and changes to L1.

T1 stated that on the occasions when she has tried to use English to give instructions, she noticed that the pupils seemed confused:

(21)

17 Excerpt 17

I think that I do not get a lot of attention/ interest when I only speak English as they can not understand. (T1, grade 2)

Similarly, T2 indicated that she tries to use English:

Excerpt 18

It is difficult to get the pupils to dare to speak and to understand English. (T2, grade 3) T3 stated that she uses L1 to acknowledge the pupils, to motivate them and to make the learning experience less challenging:

Excerpt 19

It is a challenge for the pupils to speak English with me and with each other; often they want to translate what they cannot understand. (T3, grade 3)

T3 adds that she allows them to use Swedish as support in communication during English lessons. When pupils are in the process of learning a new language it is almost impossible for them not to try and make sense of the new language by referring to their L1; in other words, it is natural for young learners to translate terms and words from L2 to L1 and vice versa.

4.3 Findings from classroom observations

As shown in Appendix 2, the checklist used during the observations, covers aspects such as, the language used in the topic introduction, instructions, listening, reading, speaking,

clarifying, writing activities, and the occasions when code-switching happened. Moreover, it contains checking comprehension, feedback and answering questions. This prearranged checklist inspired by Al-Nofaie (2010) has as its focal point the teacher’s use of English versus Swedish. By using this checklist, I was able to complement the answers from the survey and see if there were any discrepancies between the teachers’ responses to the survey and the observations. The checklist was adapted to fit the purpose of the study and to the context to which the study takes place, an English classroom setting in Sweden where

Swedish and English are used. The checklist was crucial to observe several events and things happening during the lessons. Furthermore, it centred on the use of English and Swedish by teachers and pupils alike. The observation did not follow the sequential order in the checklist; but all the points present in the checklist occurred in the classroom. The lessons were audio-recorded.

(22)

18

In Classroom 1 (C1) which was a Grade 2, taught by T1, the topic ‘Toys’ was introduced in Swedish. Furthermore, the oral and written instructions were in Swedish. The first exercise was an oral one in which the teacher showed different cards, and then asked the pupils to take turns and name, in English, what was in them. Most pupils succeeded; those who struggled were helped by their classmates. In the subsequent exercise, the pupils were asked to repeat after the teacher, in unison, different words in English. They showed enthusiasm to do so together. As the lesson progressed, a translation exercise with pictures included was

presented. The pupils were asked to translate words such as ‘gunga’ into ‘swing’. I observed that when the pupils looked at the pictures, they remembered what they were called in English. Furthermore, the teacher asked questions in Swedish and the pupils answered in English. The questions, which were instances of teacher-initiated code-switching found in Üstünel and Seedhouse (2005) were, for instance,

Excerpt 20

Vad heter den här? (T1, grade 2) Car. (Pupil)

Thereafter, they repeated the word in English in unison. Although the instructions of the written exercise in the book were in Swedish, the topic titles were in English. In this exercise the pupils were asked to draw their favourite toy in their workbook, Happy. The teacher checked for comprehension in Swedish. Words such as, ‘draw’ were translated. The teacher also used code-switching when she asked,

Excerpt 21

Vet ni vad favourite means? (T1, grade 2)

Additionally, a speaking exercise was done where the teacher read a sentence which the pupils were asked to complete using the pictures of the toys from the book. The pupils were instructed to respond by using the phrase: My favourite thing is…They responded well to this exercise, they were enthusiastic and engaged. Further, I noted that the pupils communicated with one another and answered most of the questions in Swedish. Finally, I observed that the teacher spoke Swedish in almost all of the lesson’s time; she answered the questions, clarified and gave individual feedback in Swedish.

(23)

19

The data from the observation of C1 showed that L1 was predominant during the lesson and code switching was mostly teacher initiated. As Üstünel and Seedhouse (2005) state, teacher-induced code-switching happens when teachers use one language in their turn to encourage and persuade learners to switch to the other language. Moreover, although the pupils’ L2 proficiency is low, they were enthusiastic to participate in the lesson, the classroom atmosphere was positive, which corresponds to the teacher’s need to make the pupils feel comfortable and safe during the lesson by allowing them to use L1 when they felt necessary or when they found L2 challenging. The majority of T1’s answers to the survey correspond to the data obtained from the observation to C1. As the teacher stated and as evident in the observation, the pupils were allowed to communicate with the teacher and with one another during L2 lessons using their L1. Furthermore, as T1 stated and as evident from the

observations of C1, T1 encouraged the pupils to use L2 during the lesson even if the instructions and topic introduction were given in L1. There were observed instances of teacher-induced code-switching especially when clarifying and giving feedback; this

highlights the teacher’s answer concerning her constant use of Swedish as many are not able to understand when she speaks in English. Furthermore, from the observations and T1’s answer (excerpt 8), it is evident that the main goal is to make sure that the pupils understand the content of the lesson as opposed to focusing on them exclusively using the target language during the lesson.

In classroom 2 (C2), which was a grade 3, taught by T2, the topic was Fruits. I observed that the oral and written instructions were given in English. However, when the teacher checked for comprehension in Swedish, many of the pupils showed that they had understood the English instructions. All the subsequent instructions were given in Swedish. A listening audio exercise in English was done during which the teacher played the tape, paused it, and

explained what the words meant in Swedish. Further, an oral exercise was done where the teacher read an English dialogue and the pupils repeated in unison, in English. She

interrupted a few times to explain what the words meant in Swedish. Another exercise that was observed was a translation exercise where the teacher read a word in English and asked individual pupils to orally translate it into Swedish. They were able to do so even if some pupils needed encouragement to speak English. During this exercise, the pupils had available a book with different pictures as aid. The teacher explained the content of the pictures in

(24)

20

Swedish. When it comes to giving individual feedback, it was noted that it was done entirely in Swedish, as well the dialogue between pupils. During clarification and feedback, I noted teacher-induced code-switching occasions. When it came to the written exercises, the

instructions were given orally in both Swedish and English. In the workbook the instructions were written in Swedish. I also noted that during the dialogue between the pupils, the teacher checked comprehension and gave individual feedback to the pupils in Swedish.

From the observation in C2, it is evident that primary focus was put on making sure that the pupils understood what was expected of them, meaning that although the instructions were given in English, clarification and further explanations were done in Swedish. As T2 explained in her answers (excerpt 12), she tries to motivate the pupils to speak English by always beginning to speak English to them. This corresponds to the data collected from C2 where T2 started the lesson by giving instructions in English.

There is a discrepancy when it comes to T2’s use of code-switching. T2 stated that she does not use code-switching; however, the observation data showed a few instances were T2 used teacher-induced code-switching, when she occasionally interrupted the lesson to explain a few words in Swedish, during clarification and to give feedback. The observation checklist (see appendix 2) was valuable to accurately get the relevant data. The checklist also served as a focal point in the analysis because all the critical points in the checklist, such as language used for the topic introduction, instructions and the occasions when the teacher initiated code-switching (from L2 to L1 and vice versa) became apparent during the observations.

Furthermore, it served as a way to memorise and organise the different elements during the observations.

In classroom 3 (C3) which was a Grade 3 taught by T3, I observed that the lesson started with the teacher giving instructions for the pupils to take up their textbook (What’s up) in English. The pupils seemed to understand the instructions as they proceeded to do as the teacher had asked. The textbook was written in both Swedish and English. The topic introduction (Fruits) was done in English. There were pictures of the different fruits on the whiteboard.

Furthermore, the teacher had written different names of fruits in English. The first exercise was about listening and repeating. The teacher started by saying in both Swedish and English (using code-switching) as she indicated the picture,

(25)

21 Excerpt 22

Ananas, vad heter Ananas in English? (T3, grade 3) Pineapple. (Pupils)

As the exercise progressed, the teacher said the different names of fruits in English, and the pupils repeated in English. Throughout the lesson, further instructions were given in Swedish. Another exercise done was the oral exercise in which the teacher asked the pupils in English:

Excerpt 23

What is your favourite fruit? (T3, grade 3) The pupils replied in unison in English:

Excerpt 24

I like to eat… (Pupils)

During the lesson, the dialogues between the pupils were in Swedish. The teacher checked for comprehension in Swedish; however, when she interacted individually with a pupil, she spoke English even if the pupil spoke in Swedish. Whenever a pupil asked a question, regardless of what language the pupil used, the teacher answered in English. A writing exercise was also part of the day’s lesson. The exercise involved a crossword with pictures of fruits and with instructions written in Swedish. As aid, there were pictures and the names of the fruits in English. As the lesson progressed and the pupils worked on the exercises, the teacher went around and gave individual feedback in English, using expressions such as, Well done! Good job! The teacher spoke in English most of the lesson.

T3 stated that it is a challenge to get the pupils to speak English with one another. This corresponds to the observation in C3 which showed that the pupils talked to one another and with the teacher in Swedish. T3 also indicated that she uses L1 to motivate the pupils; this too was evident in the observed data. From the surveyed teachers, T3 is the one that spoke

English for most of the observed lesson. This relates to what T3 answered when she stated that to motivate and encourage the pupils to speak English, she speaks English 60% of the lesson.

(26)

22

The observations gave a greater insight into the teachers’ answers. They confirmed that L1 is greatly used during L2 lessons in the observed classrooms. Further, they gave an insight into the pupils’ attitude towards the language. Additionally, translanguaging was occasionally noticeable because some of the pupils involved in the study were multilingual, which meant that they spoke different languages other than English and Swedish to make sense of the lesson’s content. Those languages included Arabic and Somali.

5. Discussion

The data collected suggest that L1 is used as an aid when learning L2. Furthermore, it suggests that pupils at the researched grade level were enthusiastic to learn English even if they, many times, used Swedish during English classes. Regarding the occasions when the teachers use Swedish, they stated that they use it to give instructions and to introduce the day’s topic. From the answers of the survey, it is apparent that the teachers focus particularly on making sure that the pupils understand the instructions, so that they (the pupils) can do what is required from them, even if that means speaking Swedish a greater part of the lesson. Additionally, it is apparent that one of the ways used by the teachers to motivate and increase pupils’ participation is to allow L1 to be used during L2 lessons.

During the process of the observations, the process of translanguaging was occasionally noticeable, as the pupils used the language(s) that they were most comfortable in to make sense of the content of the lesson. That meant that they used Arabic and Somali as well as English and Swedish during the observed English lesson. Mazzaferro (2018) writes that translanguaging is an effective way to develop language skills using parallel languages during the lesson. Torpsten (2018) mentions that multilingual speakers tend to relate and make use of their language knowledge when learning an additional language.

It is important to create a positive environment, because when children feel secure and safe, they are able to develop the skills that they need. The observations suggested that in the instances when the teacher gave instructions in English, the pupils answered positively and showed that they had understood. This supports Toth’s (2018) notion that teachers need to

(27)

23

give learners the opportunity to engage, interact and get immersed into the target language, as this is valuable for second language learners’ development.

As mentioned in the survey answers and as I observed, the textbooks for both grade levels (2 and 3) were written in both Swedish and English. This supports the idea that using L1 when teaching and learning L2 may facilitate comprehension and clarify and elaborate thoughts and ideas. Hanáková & Metruk (2017) write that using L1 in English lessons is many times harmless and positively beneficial to learners, but that it should be used in an organized and structured way in the classroom. This suggests that there should be a set of procedures or structures and guidelines on how much L1 can be used in L2 classrooms.

Pinter (2006) wrote that at the beginning stages of language learning, the teachers are the main source of the language input; therefore, they ought to talk a lot in the target language to help learners get used to the intonation patterns and sounds of the language. As T1 stated in excerpt 7, she reads for the pupils in English and they use a variety of listening activities in English in the form of CDs. The observations did not provide a great range of insight when it comes to listening activities; however, T3 stated that the pupils usually speak English with one another during speaking dialogue exercises. They also, according to the teacher, often use iPads where they do listen and repeat activities in English. Seedhouse & Üstünel (2005) claim that many researchers believe that when learning a new language, it is important to interact in that language; in other words, it is crucial to speak the target language in the language

learning classroom as often as possible.

Code-switching was a strategy used by the teachers during two of the of the observed lessons. Avery (2011) writes that in the classroom code-switching can be used to mark that the lesson has started, to talk to individual pupils and to speak in small groups. While T1 said in her answer that she code-switches in order to help pupils memorise new words, and T3 during instructions or to clarify something, T2 stated that she does not use CS. Svendsen (2014) puts forward that teachers’ and pupils’ use of code-switching can be a helpful language strategy in the classroom. In C1 taught by T1 and C3 taught by T3, although it was difficult to determine from one observation how the pupils responded to code-switching, it was evident that they understood what the teachers said or asked; they became engaged in the dialogue and the

(28)

24

message seemed to have been received. On the other hand, it was also evident that the pupils followed the teachers’ lead when it came to the choice of language in the classroom, meaning that in some of the observed occasions when the teacher switched languages, the pupils did the same, which can suggest that if the teacher was to solely use the target language, the pupils would do the same. Toth (2018) mentioned that L1 should not be used in L2 lessons because it can delay the learning process and affect the learners’ ability to speak the new language fluently. Furthermore, the author writes that when learners have access to L1, they can become unmotivated to develop their own L2 approach.

Oga-Baldwin & Nakata (2014) wrote that one reason that is often given for the use of the students’ L1 in the classroom is to provide them with better clarity, and to improve

communication. As stated in subsection 4.2, the main reason why teachers chose to employ L1 in language classes was to ensure that the pupils understood the content of the lesson.

As T3 stated, she uses L1 to make the learning experience less challenging; she also admitted that it is a challenge to get the pupils to speak English with her and with one another. Fager (2020) wrote that when students are unwilling to speak English, teachers can create a topic of interest that allows the students to relate their own experiences to what is being said, thus making it easier for them to engage in the lesson. On the other hand, learning a new language is stressful enough. The use of L1 can be beneficial to decrease that stress, especially for younger learners. T1 emphasized the importance of using a language that the students are comfortable with as it creates a positive classroom environment. Also, the pupils are allowed to speak Swedish to one another and to the teacher during English lessons. Similarly, Oga-Baldwin & Nakata (2014) wrote that teachers may find it more effective and advantageous to use students’ L1 a greater part of the lesson to offer them a positive learning experience, especially when it comes to younger learners. However, the Swedish National Agency for Education (2018) mentions that the aim of English teaching is, amongst other things, to give pupils the opportunity to develop their confidence in using the English language and the ability to use different strategies that support communication. This might be a challenge to achieve since the textbooks and exercise books are in both Swedish and English and English lessons are taught in both English and Swedish, meaning that pupils are not as exposed to English as the curriculum recommends.

(29)

25

According to Fager (2020), Swedish learners of English are more likely to engage in conversations in the target language if they feel supported, confident, and able to convey a message. To refer to the L1 and to make comparisons when learning L2 is a common practice amongst learners; it is, therefore, important to allow learners to use L1 as aid in the language classroom. Using L1 is a source of motivation when learning a new language, because it helps learners to participate in the lessons, it saves time and it helps them to form an idea or a concept about the language, the author adds. L1 helps learners to make sense of the new language as by using L1 as support they can become more willing and comfortable to get involved in the learning process. Hanáková & Metruk (2017) state that students often attempt to use L1; therefore, it is pointless to ban it; they often use L1 to translate, especially at the beginners’ level, which implies that the use of L1 permits that the lesson runs well.

The intense presence of Swedish during English lessons was noticeable from both the survey answers and the observations. However, the teachers’ effort and willingness to speak the target language was noticeable during the observations, especially during the observed C3 where the teacher provided feedback, gave initial instructions, and introduced the topic using English. According to Üstünel & Seedhouse (2005) teachers may use L2 to get the learners to speak L2, meaning that the preferred language for learners to use is the one which positions them with what the teacher has as pedagogical focus in the specific stage of the dialogue. From the observations, it was evident that when the teacher spoke English to the pupils they were inclined to respond in English, even if some of them needed encouragement to do so. Therefore, this suggested that the pupils mimicked the teachers’ attitude or behavior towards the language.

In the 3 observed classrooms, the pupils were enthusiastic and participative during the lessons even if their L2 proficiency was limited. The observed data and the survey answers showed that focus is put on making sure the pupils feel comfortable and safe when learning L2 by allowing them to use their L1. However, the teachers encouraged the pupils to speak in the target language. The checklist was a valuable tool to guide and to effectively help to focus on the crucial aspects of the data collection, ensuring that relevant data was collected to the study.

(30)

26

6. Conclusion

The aim of this study was to explore how Swedish and English are used by teachers and pupils in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms for young learners in Sweden and which factors contribute to the choice of language. The findings showed that the Swedish language is predominant in the language learning classroom. It was also shown that even when teachers employ the English language during the lessons, the pupils respond positively, they mimic the teacher’s behavior, meaning that they begin to speak English. Al-Nofaie (2010) writes that teachers should raise learners’ awareness of the importance of maximising the use of L2, for the objective of avoiding the overuse of L1. The findings also showed that there are some factors contributing to the use of L1 in the language classroom. Furthermore, the study shows that when teachers notice that the pupils find L2 lessons challenging and confusing, they tend to adjust the lessons by employing L1. The teachers stated that their reasons for employing Swedish was to ensure that the pupils understood the content of the English lessons. During the observations, it was observed that the oral instructions and the textbook instructions were in Swedish. This is noteworthy, since the Swedish National Agency for Education (2018) states in its English syllabus that, the core content in grade 1- 3 should be, listening and reading simple instructions and descriptions.

Based on the findings, a few questions arise. What would happen to pupils’ L2 development if teachers were willing to speak L2 exclusively during language lessons? How are learners going to achieve a high level of L2 proficiency if L1 is present and even predominant in some textbooks, exercise books and language lessons? Yavuz (2012) wrote that when in the

process of learning a new language, learners usually try to find ways to understand the new components in the L2 by trying to find the equivalents in their L1. This, the author continues, is the very logical reason for taking the L1 reference. It is, therefore, important that learners understand the content of the lesson and what is expected of them in the language classroom; this is best achieved using pupils’ L1. Furthermore, Lakey (2017) wrote that when children have access to their L1, it aids the learning and development of other languages.

Perhaps, further research should be done on how teachers could balance the use of L1 while still exposing pupils to L2 as often as possible. Pan & Pan (2010) wrote that L1 helps learners

(31)

27

to understand the abstract and complicated vocabulary items in an effective manner that saves time. But, even if these questions arise, it becomes evident that by acknowledging pupils’ L1, the teacher creates a motivating, inclusive, participative, and positive classroom atmosphere. Therefore, further research could also focus on how teachers’ attitude towards English can impact pupils’ participation, attitude, and motivation to learn a new language.

(32)

28

List of References

Almoayidi, K. A. (2018). The effectiveness of using L1 in second language classrooms: A controversial issue. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(4), 375-379.

http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0804.02

Al-Nofaie, H. (2010). The attitudes of teachers and students towards using Arabic in EFL classrooms in Saudi public schools- A case study. Novitas-Royal, 4(1). Novitas-Royal, 4(1). Accessible: http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_4_1/al-nofaie.pdf

Amir, A. (2013). Doing language policy: A micro-interactional study of policy practices in English as a foreign language classes. (Publication No. 597) [Doctoral dissertation,

Linköping University] Diva portal. Accessible:

http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:660735/FULLTEXT01.pdf

aus der Wieschen, M. V., & Sert, O. (2018). Divergent language choices and maintenance of intersubjectivity: the case of Danish EFL young learners. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1447544

Avery, H. (2011). Lärares språkbruk i tvåspråkiga klassrum. Educare; 3.Accessible:

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?dswid=-6062&pid=diva2%3A510546&c=5&searchType=SIMPLE&language=en&query=code+switc hing&af=%5B%5D&aq=%5B%5B%5D%5D&aq2=%5B%5B%5D%5D&aqe=%5B%5D&n oOfRows=50&sortOrder=author_sort_asc&sortOrder2=title_sort_asc&onlyFullText=true&sf =research

Berlin, A. & Hammarström, K. (2016). First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Teaching. Accessible:

(33)

29

Bourada, R. (2019). The language introduction program in Sweden: How is translanguaging used in English education? (Publication No.169745) [Master’s thesis, Stockholm University]. Diva portal. Accessible:

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?dswid=-6540&pid=diva2%3A1326239&c=4&searchType=SIMPLE&language=en&query=translang uaging&af=%5B%22hasFulltext%3Atrue%22%5D&aq=%5B%5B%5D%5D&aq2=%5B%5B %5D%5D&aqe=%5B%5D&noOfRows=50&sortOrder=author_sort_asc&sortOrder2=title_so rt_asc&onlyFullText=false&sf=all

Copland, F. & Yonetsugi, E. (2016). Teaching English to young learners: Supporting the case for the bilingual native English speaker teacher. Classroom Discourse, 7(3), 221-238.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2016.1192

Cummins, J. (2017). Rethinking Monolingual Instructional Strategies in Multilingual Classrooms. Accessible:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228368309_Rethinking_Monolingual_Instructional _Strategies_in_Multilingual_Classrooms

Dahlberg, A. (2017). Translanguaging as a scaffolding structure in a multilingual group studying English in Sweden. Accessible:

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1083686&dswid=-6540

Densconbe, M. (2018). Forskningshandboken. För småskaliga forskningsprojekt inom samhällsvetenskaperna (4 uppl.). Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Eriksson, A. (2019). Target Language Use during English Lessons for Young Language Learners. Accessible: http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:1323249/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Fager, L. (2020). A qualitative study on students’ perceptions of (un) willingness to communicate in English as a foreign language.

Accessible: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1392800&dswid=-3544

(34)

30

García, O., & Lin, A. M. (2017). Translanguaging in Bilingual Education. ResearchGate, 117- 130. Accessible:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312053254_Translanguaging_in_Bilingual_Educati on

Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning: state of the art. Language teaching, 45(3), 271-308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000067

Hanáková, M., & Metruk, R. (2017). The use of l1 in the process of teaching English. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 7(8), 380–389. Accessible:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318826935_The_Use_of_L1_in_the_Process_of_Te aching_English

Hultgren, A. K. (2016) Parallel Language Use. In A. Linn (ed.) Investigating English in Europe: Contexts and Agendas. (pp 158-163). Berlin: Mouton.

Accesible: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308207965_Parallel_Language_Use

Lakey, R. (2017). Young bilingual Swedish learners in the English classroom: A study comparing the learners and teacher’s language use. Accessible: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1139491&dswid=-8784

Mazzaferro, G. (2018). Translanguaging as everyday practice. An introduction. In Translanguaging as everyday practice (pp. 1-12). Springer, Cham.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94851-5_1

Oga-Baldwin, W. Q., & Nakata, Y. (2014). Optimizing new language use by employing young learners’ own language. ELT journal, 68(4), 410–421.

(35)

31

Pan, Y. C., & Pan, Y. C. (2010). The use of L1 in the foreign language classroom. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 12(2), 87–96. Accessible:

http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0123-46412010000200007

Park, M. S. (2013). Code-switching and translanguaging: Potential functions in multilingual classrooms.Accessible:

https://journals.cdrs.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2015/04/3.6-Park-2013.pdf

Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching Young Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sultana, S. (2018). Role of first language in second language development. Accessible:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324243581

Svendsen, E. (2014). The influences of Code-switching in the Second Language Classroom in connection to language development. Accessible:

https://muep.mau.se/bitstream/handle/2043/18110/Svendsen,%20Emelie.pdf

Swedish Research Council. (2017). Good research practice. Accessible:

https://www.vr.se/download/18.5639980c162791bbfe697882/1555334908942/Good- Research-Practice_VR_2017.pdf

Swedish National Agency for Education (2018). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class, and school-age educare. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Education. Accessible: https://www.skolverket.se/getFile?file=3984

(36)

32

Torpsten, A. C. (2017). Preschool, Multilingualism and Translanguaging: Linguistic

Diversity, Language Strategies and Participation. US-China Foreign Language, 15(2), 81-90.

https://doi.org/10.17265/1539-8080/2017.02.003

Torpsten, A. C. (2018). Translanguaging in a Swedish multilingual classroom. Multicultural Perspectives, 20(2), 104-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2018.1447100

Toth, J. (2018). English-medium instruction for young learners in Sweden: A longitudinal case study of a primary school class in a bilingual English-Swedish school. (Publication No. 156273) [Doctoral dissertation, Department of Language Education, Stockholm University]. Diva portal. Accessible

http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:1205724/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Üstünel, E., & Seedhouse, P. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now? Code‐switching and pedagogical focus. International journal of applied linguistics, 15(3), 302-325.

10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00093.x

Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging as a Practical Theory of Language. Applied Linguistics. 39(1), 9-30. 10.1093/applin/amx039

Yavuz, F. (2012). The attitudes of English teachers about the use of L1 in the teaching of L2. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4339-4344.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.251

Zulfikar, Z. (2019). Rethinking the use of L1 in L2 classroom. Englisia: journal of language, education, and humanities, 6(1), 42-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.22373/ej.v6i1.2514

(37)

33

Appendices

Appendix 1 Survey questions

1. What influences your language choice in the classroom during English lessons?

2. What are the challenges that you face when you teach English?

3. Do you sometimes need to switch languages / speak Swedish to convey the message during English lessons? If so, in which situations?

4. Have you tried to solely speak English during an English lesson? What was the result? How did the pupils react?

5. Are there pupils in your classroom that are fluent in English or that are on a more advanced level of English language proficiency? How do you then adjust the lessons?

6. Do you think the use of pupils´ L1 is valuable when helping pupils acquire L2? In which instances?

7. How frequent do the pupils use L1 or in which situations do they use it?

8. How frequent do you use L1? In what instances?

9. Which language do you employ when giving instructions?

10. Are the pupils allowed to speak Swedish during English lessons? If so, in which situation?

11. How do you stimulate the pupils to speak English during the lesson?

12. Is L1 crucial to how a pupil learns L2? For instance, if a pupil´s mother tongue is Arabic versus one whose mother tongue is Swedish.

13. Do you think it is detrimental to only use L1 when teaching L2? If so, why?

14. In what situations do you most/ solely use L2 during the lesson?

15. When it comes to teaching methods:

 What is your language of choice when teaching the pupils to write?  What listening activities do you use? Do you translate?

A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE USE OF ENGLISH AND SWEDISH AS THE LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION IN PRIMARY EFL CLASSROOMS IN SWEDEN