LANGUAGE

TEACHING
Article RESEARCH

Language Teaching Research

Comparing the effect of

16(3) 367­–391
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.
teacher codeswitching with co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1362168812436909
English-only explanations on ltr.sagepub.com

the vocabulary acquisition of

Chinese university students: A
Lexical Focus-on-Form study

Lili Tian
Renmin University of China, China

Ernesto Macaro
University of Oxford, UK

Abstract
This study investigated the effect of teacher codeswitching on second language (L2) vocabulary
acquisition during listening comprehension activities in a lexical Focus-on-Form context. To date
there has been research on teacher beliefs about first language (L1) use, its functions and its
distribution in the interaction, but little on its effect on aspects of learning. Previous research on
intentional vocabulary teaching has shown it to be effective, but whether the lexical information
provided to learners is more effective in L1 or L2 has been under-researched and, moreover,
has only been investigated in a reading comprehension context. Eighty first-year students of
English as an L2, in a Chinese university, were stratified by proficiency and randomly allocated to
a codeswitching condition or to an English-only condition, and their performance in vocabulary
tests compared to a control group of 37 students that did not receive any lexical Focus-on-
Form treatment. Results confirm previous studies that lexical Focus-on-Form leads to better
vocabulary learning than mere incidental exposure. Results also provide initial evidence that
teacher codeswitching may be superior to the teacher providing L2-only information. Contrary
to some theories of the mental lexicon, proficiency level did not clearly favour one condition
against the other.

Keywords
classroom codeswitching, Focus-on-Form, vocabulary acquisition, second language

Corresponding author:
Ernesto Macaro, University of Oxford, Department of Education, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford, OX2 6PY, UK
Email: ernesto.macaro@education.ox.ac.uk

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

368 Language Teaching Research 16(3)

I  Introduction and background

This study had three principal aims:

• to explore the relative benefits of intentional vocabulary learning versus incidental

vocabulary learning in a Focus-on-Form context (Long, 1991);
• to contribute to the debate on the use of the first language (L1) in second language
(L2) classrooms by providing empirical evidence of the effect of teacher codes-
witching on student vocabulary learning; and
• to arrive at a good compromise between highly controlled experimental and/or
laboratory conditions of research and the naturally occurring L2 classroom.

1  Lexical Focus-on-Form
Intentional vocabulary learning that is contextualized in a communicative teaching
activity is what Laufer and Girsai (2008) propose constitutes Lexical Focus-on-Form.
Intentional learning is generally contrasted with incidental learning. In the case
of vocabulary, if the learner is learning ‘incidentally’, his or her attention is focused
predominantly (but not necessarily exclusively) on the message contained in a text or
utterance rather than the form through which that message is being conveyed. If the
learner is learning a word ‘intentionally’, the main focus of his or her attention is on
the form–meaning relationships and properties of that word, with the presumption that
it will be acquired to some degree.
Laufer and Girsai (2008) point out that Form-Focused Instruction was conceived and
developed in the context of the acquisition of morpho-syntax, but argue that it can be
extended to vocabulary as has been demonstrated in meaning negotiation studies by, for
example, de la Fuente (2002).
Virtually all conceptualized, intentional L2 vocabulary teaching and learning has
been researched in relation to written texts. We know of only one study (Toya, 1993)
where it has been researched in relation to oral text, as in this study. Yet, Laufer and
Girsai’s lexical re-conceptualization of Focus-on-Form can be applied to both uni-
directional spoken texts (e.g. audio or video recordings) or to teacher–learner discourse.
Here the pedagogical issue is the extent to which learning of vocabulary occurs when
different levels of attentional resources are being drawn, by the teacher, to specific
items in the input, either thanks to the sensitivity that a teacher has to the lexical diffi-
culty of a text/discourse, or the result of a communication breakdown (Ellis et al., 1994).
Recently Macaro et al. (2009) have proposed the concept of ‘teacher as dictionary
designer’, where the teacher, during interaction, provides the form–meaning connec-
tions that a dictionary offers but with the added advantage of the teacher having some
knowledge of the students’ current vocabulary store. In the case of the bilingual teacher,
he or she would be both a ‘monolingual and bilingual dictionary designer’.

2  Teacher codeswitching
Along with other researchers in the field (e.g. Ferguson, 2003; Üstünel & Seedhouse,
2005) we have adopted the term ‘teacher codeswitching’ rather than ‘teacher use of L1’

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

Tian and Macaro 369

in order to draw a distinction between them. In the naturalistic environment, codeswitching

is defined as the ‘alternation of two languages within a single discourse, sentence or
constituent’ (Poplack, 2000, p. 224), and there is a wealth of research evidence (see Auer,
1998; Tay, 1989) that codeswitching, far from being a sign of linguistic deficit, is a sign
of bilinguals having superior control of two or more languages compared to monolin-
guals. Naturalistic codeswitching, however, does not appear to be an ‘anything goes’
phenomenon but follows certain grammatical, lexical and social conventions, even
though some speakers at times violate these conventions (see a recent review by
Gardener-Chloros, 2009). As we argue below ‘teacher use of L1’ appears to have no
rules, conventions or limitations. ‘Codeswitching’ frameworks, therefore, can offer
formal classrooms a hook upon which to hang principled rather than ad hoc L1 use. One
such framework is Myers-Scotton’s Matrix Language Framework (1993; 2001). Here it
is generally possible to identify a predominant language in the interaction – i.e. one that
provides the morpho-syntactic structure – and an ‘embedded language’, i.e. one that
occurs less frequently, is characterized by content words rather than function words, and
is adopted for a number of purposes including the more effective communication of ideas
through ‘marked’ (i.e. switched) lexical items (see, for example, Chung, 2006 where it is
used for this purpose among family members).
To the possible objection that classroom codeswitching is incompatible, as a phenom-
enon, with naturalistic or ‘social’ codeswitching, we offer, albeit briefly, the following
theoretical arguments. Language classrooms are social situations where speakers ‘share
knowledge of communicative constraints and options’ and therefore can be ‘said to be
members of the same speech community’ (Gumperz & Hymes, 1986, p. 17). Classroom
discourse does not need to simulate naturalistic discourse in order for it to be authentic
but is ‘authenticated’ by the participants in the discourse (Van Lier, 1996). It is true that
in classroom discourse codeswitching occurs both for communication and for teaching/
learning purposes; but that is its actual discourse function. Moreover, there is evidence
that in naturalistic contexts where participants in the discourse have unequal proficiency
in one of their two languages, some codeswitching occurs for the purpose of linguistic
advancement as well as communication (David, 2004).

3  L2 exclusivity
The debate on whether the L1 of the learners should be used in the L2 classroom or
whether teachers should use the L2 exclusively stretches back well over a century when
alternative methods to a grammar–translation approach to language teaching were
introduced, inter alia, by the Direct Method in the late 19th century (Richards &
Rodgers, 1986). The debate appears to have subsided in the late 1970s and 1980s when
explorations of the communicative approach were being undertaken theoretically
(Canale & Swain, 1980), pedagogically (Widdowson, 1978), and empirically by the
proponents of what was to become known as the interaction hypothesis (for a recent
comprehensive account, see Mackey, 2007). The hypothesis with its attendant empirical
research attempted to demonstrate that the L2 could not only be comprehended but could
also be acquired through pre-modified input (Krashen, 1985), through interactionally-
modified input (Long, 1981; Pica et al., 1987), through forced output (Ellis & He, 1999;
Pica et al., 1989; Swain, 1995), and through negative input, such as feedback to learner

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

370 Language Teaching Research 16(3)

error (Dekeyser, 1993; Lyster, 1998). Interestingly, whilst pedagogical commentators

such as Widdowson (2003) have continued to reflect on the albeit limited role of the
L1 in these communicative classrooms, researchers in the interaction hypothesis at
best completely ignored its role (Mackey, 20071) and at worst considered it an aber-
ration to the learning process (see, for example, Lyster, 1998 who coded learner use
of L1 as an error). The reason for this may be that many of these studies have been in
contexts in which to use the L1 is difficult because of the mixed background of the
learners.
A re-evaluation of the L1’s contribution to communicative competence was devel-
oped in the 1990s, and it centred around a number of distinct areas. Researchers
working from a socio-cultural perspective pointed to important functions that the L1
had in facilitating L2 interaction (Antòn & DiCamilla, 1998; Brookes & Donato, 1994;
Hancock, 1997). The L1 was identified as a tool with which the individual not only
thought about language during use – the ‘inner voice’ for working out the task in
question – but also the tool with which he or she progressed the task with others. The
general claim, however, was that it facilitated classroom interaction, not acquisition.
This socio-cultural perspective began to run parallel, especially in the case of English
as a global language, with the belief that to exclude the learners’ L1 was an imposition
bordering on linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992) or that it undermined the per-
sonal identity bestowed by the L1 (Canagarajah, 1995; Ferguson, 2003; Lin, 1996).
These writings coincided with an increased questioning of the native speaker teacher’s
predominance, not only as the learners’ linguistic model (Cook, 1999; Moussu &
Llurda, 2008), but also as the best possible person to further the learner’s interlanguage
development. Finally, there was a growing recognition that the L2 develops alongside,
and interacts with, the already developed L1 rather than developing separately from it;
that the process of learning an L2 is a process of becoming bilingual (Cook, 1992).
Scholars have investigated teacher use of the L1 by researching teacher’s beliefs
regarding its inclusion or exclusion from the L2 classroom (e.g. Kharma & Hajjaj, 1989)
and have concluded two things. First, the majority of teachers favoured its inclusion.
Second, teachers could be classified into three fairly distinct groups:

• those that believe that it is perfectly possible to exclude it completely, and hold
that it is detrimental to allow it or use it (the ‘virtual position’; for this terminol-
ogy, see Macaro, 2000, 2001; McMillan & Turnbull, 2009);
• those that believe it is highly desirable to exclude it, but who are unable to do so
(the ‘maximal position’); and
• those who believe it should not be excluded, and that there are a number of prin-
cipled uses of the L1 that enhance L2 learning (the ‘optimal position’).

The maximal position (for an example of teachers expressing this belief, see Liu et al.,
2004) seems a-theoretical from a psycholinguistic perspective; a statement of inade-
quacy rather than a set of propositions that explain or predict language acquisition and
skill development.
Researchers have attempted to identify the functions to which the L1 is put
(Hosoda, 2000; Polio & Duff, 1994; Üstünel & Seedhouse, 2005). This research

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

Tian and Macaro 371

suggests that the functions are neither limited nor highly principled. For example, a
number of studies reported that the L1 is used as a short-cut to learning because of
the pressure of exams. Other functions reported are: contrasting L1 and L2 forms,
providing metalinguistic cues, translating, giving L1 explanations of previously used
L2 utterances, providing instructions for carrying out tasks, prompting L2 use, com-
menting on social events, eliciting learner participation, and classroom management.
The list seems open-ended (Ferguson, 2009), and somewhat ad hoc. Moreover, some
researchers argue that functions such as classroom management and content trans-
mission are ‘useful’ (Hosoda, 2000, p. 71), or that they can be ‘beneficial’ (Storch &
Wigglesworth, 2003, p. 761) but do not provide convincing definitions of ‘useful’ or
‘beneficial’.
A similar lack of guiding principle appears if one attempts to synthesize studies that
have observed and measured proportions of L1 use in teacher–class interaction. Findings
suggest a range of L1 use, within-study, from as narrow as 2%–5% (Kong & Zhang,
2005), 4%–12% (Macaro, 2001), 0%–18% (Rolin-Ianziti & Brownlie, 2002), 0%–60%
(Levine, 2003), to as wide as 0%–90% (Duff & Polio, 1990). Clearly this is not an accu-
mulation of research evidence that can inform practice. What seems to be happening is
that we have both an international and a context-specific (or local) situation where
apparently ‘anything goes’. But is that really the case? Or is it that researchers asking
the quantitative question have not categorized sufficiently the language classrooms they
have been observing? In a few studies, the general pedagogical approach is provided.
For example, in Guo (2007) it is measured by the use of the ‘COLT’ (communicative
orientation in language teaching) observation schedule (Fröhlich et al., 1985). In many
other studies the reader is given no indication (e.g. Brooks-Lewis, 2009) whether the
researcher has been measuring a classroom where the general pedagogical intent is the
communication of meaning or one where the teacher is simply comparing the L2 with
the L1 both grammatically and lexically. We see little value in measuring the amount of
L1 use during ‘grammar–translation’ lessons.
In order to arrive at some notion of optimal L1 use, it seems essential that research
provide a body of findings that document the effects of L1 use on L2 learning, a gap in
the research literature we are not alone in identifying (see Carless, 2008; Ferguson,
2003, 2009; Levine, 2003). Kaneko (1992) addressed the question by relating teachers’
L1 use with what students claimed to have learnt and reported that the more L1 use, the
less progress students made with pronunciation, but a mixture of L1 and L2 was beneficial
for vocabulary and grammar acquisition. Qian et al. (2009) reported a gradual reduction
in teacher codeswitching in primary schools over four grades, and claimed that this
progression benefited the students; however, the evidence they provide for acquisition
is largely anecdotal.
In sum, research on codeswitching in the L2 classroom needs to be conducted in a
pedagogical context in which accessing and communicating meaning are primary objec-
tives. At the same time we need to recognize that language classrooms are places where
the aim is to acquire linguistic knowledge as well as to use it. Therefore a tension regard-
ing both quantity of codeswitching and the functions to which it is put persists. This
tension ultimately can only be resolved through empirical evidence of the relative effec-
tiveness of codeswitching behaviour.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

372 Language Teaching Research 16(3)

4  L2 vocabulary acquisition
An important quest of vocabulary research has been to establish how the L2 word is
linked to the concept that the word represents (for a summary, see De Bot et al., 1995),
the concept itself being assumed to be stored in long-term memory as a non-language-
specific neural network (Blakemore & Frith, 2005; Libben, 2000). The vast majority of
concepts, however, will have been experienced through the L1 and are therefore strongly
linked to L1 lemmas. Studies investigating lexical development have therefore attempted
to establish differences in the bilingual lexicon between learners at different levels of
proficiency (Altarriba & Mathis, 1997; De Groot & Hoeks, 1995; Kroll & Stewart,
1994). Of interest for the purposes of the current study, is whether access to L2 lexis is
directly via the concept or via the L1 equivalent. Here evidence points to differences
among lower and higher proficiency L2 speakers in that the former are likely to be more
reliant on L1 equivalents to access L2 lexemes (Kroll et al., 2002; Lotto & De Groot,
1998). This tendency may be accentuated where the L2 being learnt is not cognate with
the learners’ L1, as is the case of Chinese and English (see a series of studies by Jiang,
2000, 2002, 2004).
Incidental vocabulary learning, as defined earlier, has not met with high levels of suc-
cess unless there is additional ‘intention to learn’ (Hulstijn, 1992; Mondria, 2003). Laufer
(2003) argues that to build up an adequate L2 lexicon entirely through, for example,
reading for pleasure, takes too long and, in her (Laufer, 2009) assessment of vocabulary
acquisition research, demonstrates the superiority of various types of intentional learning
over incidental learning. However, Lexical Focus-on-Form, in order to create the inten-
tion to learn, is not an easily defined notion in terms of time taken up. Particularly, in the
case of a listening comprehension activity (such as in the current study) we do not know
what are the cost-benefits of Lexical Focus-on-Form by the teacher.
Researchers have turned their attention towards different types of intentional vocabu-
lary learning in order to establish which is most effective. Thus the use of glosses in texts
has received considerable researcher attention. This is where learners are engaged in
examining written text, and where the intention is for them to learn vocabulary from the
inclusion of written definitions, paraphrases, or other textual enhancements. Findings
suggest (Hulstijn et al., 1996; Kim, 2006; Min, 2008) that vocabulary acquisition is fur-
thered by such glosses or enhancements. However these studies did not explore whether
an L1 or an L2 gloss was more effective. Three studies that did reported conflicting
results. Jacobs et al. (1994) provided university students with glosses in either L1 or L2,
but found no differences in the resulting vocabulary learning. In contrast, Laufer and
Shmueli (1997) investigated different ways of presenting new vocabulary to students in
high school classes both in terms of which language the item was glossed in, and the
amount and type of context it was presented in. They found evidence of better learning
via L1 glosses, but also in conditions where there was less surrounding text, suggesting
that the amount of effort expended on attending to a gloss may be mediated by the
demands of the comprehension task. In these studies, the proficiency level of the students
(at least at an international level permitting direct comparisons) was not a variable, and
therefore links with the above outlined theory are difficult to make. On the other hand,
Miyasako (2002) found that groups given L2 glosses outperformed their L1 counterparts
and that these results were mediated by proficiency level.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

Tian and Macaro 373

II  Research questions

In the light of the above literature review and the context of the study, we adopted the
following research questions:

1. To what extent is Lexical Focus-on-Form beneficial during a focus on meaning

activity (such as listening comprehension) in terms of students’ receptive vocabu-
lary learning?
2. Is students’ receptive vocabulary learning better facilitated by a teacher’s use of
codeswitching or by providing L2-only information?
3. Do lower proficiency students benefit more than higher proficiency students
from teacher codeswitching? In other words, is level of proficiency a covariate of
the potential gains made from either condition?

III Method
We used an experimental design with randomization to learning conditions in ‘extracted’
(i.e. non-intact) classes, and with pretests, posttests and delayed tests. We controlled for
teacher effect by having a single teacher (one of the authors) teach all conditions and we
controlled for activity type by centring the vocabulary teaching episodes around one task
type (listening comprehension).

1  Population and sample

The population for this study was first-year English-language majors in Chinese univer-
sities. We acknowledge that this is a vast population and that our sampling frame, one
particular type of university in Shandong Province, may not allow the selected sample to
accurately reflect the population. However, students enrolled in this university originated
from many of China’s provinces, so the sampling frame did take into account important
geographical and economic differences in that generally speaking students reach higher
levels of English proficiency in urban environments than in rural ones. Enrolment was
based on the national university entrance exam and we can report with some confidence
that they were all from the middle tier of proficiency, thus reflecting at least the middle
tier of the population in question.
In the university there were four classes in the first year, comprising 120 students
approximately 19 years of age who began taking courses (September 2007) for 20 hours
each week. Towards the end of September all students had the research project explained
to them, and received an informed consent letter. Subsequently 117 students agreed to
participate.

2  Allocation to groups
The 117 participants were first stratified into four proficiency levels and the stratified
random allocation established three conditions (the extracted classes) as shown in
Figure 1. As well as controlling for proficiency, stratified random allocation to three

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

374 Language Teaching Research 16(3)

Figure 1  Stratified random allocation to the three conditions

new groups was employed because each original class was being taught by different
teachers, and we wished to reduce original teacher effect.
Stratification was based on the combined scores of:

• a general (nation-wide) English proficiency test involving reading, writing,

vocabulary and grammar tests for which no reliability measures are available;
• a listening comprehension test, devised by the researchers. The test was piloted
to meet the level of the participants. A native speaker’s opinion was solicited on
the authenticity and accuracy of the test. The test revealed an alpha reliability
value of .75.
• a vocabulary baseline test, which was devised by the researchers and was piloted.
The test followed the same format as the posttests used to measure the effect of the
intervention (see Appendix 1). The test revealed an alpha reliability value of .67.

Statistical analysis (the p value set at < .05) was performed on these three groups to
establish that they were equal at baseline; descriptive statistics are reported in Table 1.
Following tests for Homogeneity of Variances (Levene’s test: F = .884, df = 2, p > .05)
and for normality of distributions (K-S test = .067, df = 114, p > .05), a one-way ANOVA
revealed that there were no significant difference between the three groups in the com-
bined scores, F(2,114) = .000; p = 1.000 ns, and for each of the three sets of scores:
vocabulary pretest, F(2,114) = .336, p = .715 ns; listening comprehension test, F(2,114)
= .082, p = .921 ns; general proficiency, F(2,114) = .142, p = .868 ns.
The three groups were then randomly assigned to three conditions: Non-codeswitching
condition (NCS); codeswitching condition (CS); control condition (CONT). The key
independent variable between the three conditions was as follows: CONT did not receive
any vocabulary-related explanation or information. NCS only received information or
explanation of vocabulary in L2. In the CS condition the teacher briefly switched to
Chinese in relation to the target lexical item. Put differently, NCS and CS received
Lexical Focus-on-Form, but CONT did not. NCS and CS received different types of
Lexical Focus-on-Form.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

Tian and Macaro 375

Table 1  Descriptive statistics for each baseline test and combined baseline tests for each
condition

Vocabulary Listening General Combined

test comprehension proficiency scores
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Range Range Range Range
Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum
NCS (n = 40) 33.5 (6.4) 72 (12.3) 91.5 (8.7) 197 (21.8)
R = 35 R = 44 R = 41 R = 101
Max = 48 Max = 92 Max = 106 Max = 231
CS (n = 40) 34 (8.1) 70.9 (12.7) 92 (7) 197 (22.3)
R = 35 R = 56 R = 32 R = 103
Max = 46 Max = 96 Max = 107 Max = 237
CONT (n = 37) 32.7 (7) 71.8 (13.5) 92.5 (9.4) 197 (22.6)
R = 31 R = 60 R = 39 R = 106
Max = 47 Max = 100 Max = 109 Max = 251

3 Procedure
After establishing the baseline proficiency tests, the vocabulary pretest was adminis-
tered. One week later the instructional intervention began, and this lasted for 6 weeks.
Two weeks after the end of the instructional intervention and last posttest a delayed
test was carried out; thus the study was carried out over a period of 9 weeks. For a
diagrammatic explanation of the study procedure, see Appendix 2.

4  The instructional intervention

The instructional intervention, for all three conditions, was additional to the students’
normal courses and was provided by an experienced bilingual teacher of English. It com-
prised 1.5 hours per week and was centred on listening comprehension activities. As well
as addressing the gap in the literature, we felt that teacher-fronted listening comprehen-
sion activities would provide good opportunities for initial focus on meaning, while at
the same time providing a much more tightly controlled framework than, say, general
question-and-answer interaction.
For each session the teacher played the recorded texts through once. Next, multiple-
choice comprehension questions were handed to students to complete and immediately
collected in by the teacher. The procedure so far was kept constant for all three condi-
tions, and the objective of the instruction was entirely focused on the general meaning of
the text. At this point the three conditions diverged.
For NCS and CS the teacher played the text again in segments. During this process,
new vocabulary contained in the texts was focused on, whether as a result of student
requests or not. The vocabulary was written on the board, thus isolating the word from
the speech stream and providing the students with grapheme–phoneme information. The
teacher then provided the NCS with information and explanation of the word in English

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

376 Language Teaching Research 16(3)

Table 2  Number of students in each group for each vocabulary test

Pretest Posttest Posttest Posttest Pretest Posttest Posttest Posttest Combined Delayed
I 1 2 3 II 4 5 6 posttests test
NCS 40 39 38 38 38 37 38 38 37 35
CS 40 39 39 35 35 31 35 34 30 32
CONT 37 – – – 34 – – – – 34

and the CS with equivalents in Chinese. Note that for a number of English words there is
no simple one-to-one relationship between English and Chinese, the latter being a
morpheme-based rather than lexically-based language, and that what amounts to an L1
paraphrase was given (see Appendix 3). For the vast majority of lexical items it took
longer for the teacher to put across the meaning via the NCS condition than the CS condi-
tion. For example, of the words classified as ‘unknown to the students’ (see target items
below) only 4 took longer to put across in CS than NCS. As a further example, the word
‘salient’ took 78 seconds in the NCS condition and 44 seconds in the CS condition.
For CONT, after the listening comprehension questions were collected in, the text was
played again, to mirror the other conditions, but the focus switched to a discussion of
listening comprehension strategies. This was ecologically valid, as well as ethically jus-
tifiable, as all students were required later to take an exam that included listening
comprehension.
All sessions were videotaped and, additionally, an assistant teacher sat in the class-
room and commented on fidelity to conditions. All information on lexical items was
‘pre-scripted’ in that the lessons were carefully pre-planned, and the information to be
given to the respective conditions was written down in advance and memorized by the
teacher prior to the lesson.
Due to inevitable attendance fluctuation over such a long period, not all 117 students
took part in every test, as is shown in Table 2, and in statistical analysis we therefore used
the list-wise method. CONT were only administered the delayed test not each posttest.
This was in order to avoid sensitizing them to the aims of the study at subsequent instruc-
tional sequences. Moreover, for ethical reasons, in a Chinese context, it was inappropri-
ate to test students on vocabulary not focused on during the instruction phases.

5  Listening texts
The listening texts needed to be at a level that was appropriately challenging and con-
tained target words that the students as a whole were unlikely to know. On the other
hand, they should not contain so many unknown or low-frequency words as to make the
texts impossible to comprehend. On the basis of some original listening passages taken
from a widely used English listening and speaking textbook (Zheng, 2003), a specially
tailored set of listening materials was therefore devised following piloting. The number
of target words in each text was approximately 10, that is under 5% of the overall tokens.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

Tian and Macaro 377

All except one instructional session comprised 3 separate texts, covering a wide range of
topics (for an example, see Appendix 4).

6  Selection of target vocabulary

A methodological challenge was how to include a sufficient number of target words to
make the tests rigorous while ensuring that they would be unknown to every student. In
order to do so we would have had to insert extremely low-frequency words rendering
the listening texts inauthentic. We therefore decided not to exclude words that were
shown, by the pretests, to be known to some of the students. The pretests identified 77
words that were not known by any of the students and 93 that were known by some. We
justify this pedagogically in that no teacher is able to ascertain what every student
knows in terms of every individual lexical item. This may, as one reviewer pointed out,
seem like a large number of words to learn, even only receptively. However, there were
in total of 17 listening passages over the six weeks, three for each intervention session,
and each passage was about 257 words in length, so there were for each passage only
about an average of 4.5 words new to all students, and around 10 words tested in all.
The target words included both concrete and abstract words and covered the full range
of content word class.

7  Vocabulary tests
We piloted and then adopted a simple receptive vocabulary scale as shown in Appendix
5. The scale allowed respondents to provide answers either in Chinese or in English in
order not to bias one instructional condition against the other. When we examined the
completed tests we observed that virtually all the CS group provided answers in their L1.
Half the NCS group also opted to provide answers in their L1, that is, in a manner not
congruent with their instructional condition.
Appendix 2 shows graphically the relationship between the instructional intervention
and the testing process. Although the delayed test was only two weeks after the last
instructional session, it should be noted that it contained words that the students had been
exposed to as long as 7 weeks earlier. Administration of all tests was supervised by the
researcher and another teacher.
Further details of the study design can be found in Tian (2009) but, in brief, the
following were subjected to piloting and revision prior to the main study:

•• Four of the listening passages were piloted to gauge comprehensibility level and
clarity of recording.
•• The time required to administer each listening text was calculated.
•• The teaching plan (the instructional sequence) was examined for its feasibility.
•• As note-taking was not to be allowed, the procedure was piloted to ensure that the
students would not react negatively.
•• The adapted vocabulary test was piloted for validity.
•• The information to be provided to the students regarding the target words was
piloted to ensure it was understandable.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

378 Language Teaching Research 16(3)

IV Results
Our first research question explored the extent to which Lexical Focus-on-Form was
beneficial during a predominantly meaning focused activity. Thus for this question NCS
and CS scores were combined. Table 3 provides descriptive statistics for the pre, post,
and delayed tests. As can be seen from Table 3, at posttest, the two groups receiving
Lexical Focus-on-Form appeared to make very large gains. However, this dropped quite
noticeably at delayed test. In order to examine these apparent within-group gains we first
carried out a series of tests to ensure that parametric statistics could be applied. Histograms
for both the vocabulary posttests and delayed test showed normal distribution curves.
These were confirmed by Kolmogornov–Smirnov tests of normality (K-S = .078; df =
61; p = .200 and K-S = .064; df = 61; p = .200 respectively).
We then carried out a repeated measures ANOVA. As the assumption of sphericity
had been violated (p < .05), the degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse–
Geisser estimates of sphericity. Results showed that there was a significant effect for
time of testing, with a very large effect size: F(1.17, 69.9) = 826.3, p = 0.000*, ηp2 =
0.93). The Bonferroni multiple comparisons result (Table 4) indicated a significant dif-
ference among the three tests. The performance of NCS + CS in the posttest was signifi-
cantly different from that in the pretest, there was a significant drop from posttest to
delayed test, but there was also a significant gain between the pretest and delayed test.
We then carried out an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) in order to examine
between-group differences at delayed test, using the pretest scores as the covariate and
found a significant group difference F(1,95) = 28.07, p < .001*, ηp2 = .23, with NCS +
CS outperforming CONT. There was a small-to-medium effect size.
Research question 2 examined which type of Lexical Focus-on-Form was more ben-
eficial during the interaction, one carried out exclusively in L2 or one introduced via
teacher codeswitching to Chinese. Descriptive statistics for NCS and CS separately are
also provided in Table 3. As we can see both groups appeared to improve their vocabu-
lary knowledge in the six combined posttests (66.9% and 78.3% respectively) as com-
pared to pretest (both at approximately 18%) but dropped at delayed test.
In order to establish whether there was a between-group difference, we carried out
an ANCOVA. There was a significant group effect on posttest scores after controlling
the effect of pretest scores, F(1,64) = 9.178, p = 0.01*, ηp2 = 0.13. A small effect size
was obtained. However, there were no significant differences between NCS and CS at
delayed test.
Our third research question asked the extent to which proficiency made a differ-
ence to the students’ ability to benefit from the Lexical Focus-on-Form treatment.
Recall that the students were classified into four general proficiency levels before
stratified random allocation was made to conditions. We therefore first calculated the
gain scores made by each of the two treatment groups in combined posttest. These
are presented in Table 5.
We then performed an ANCOVA with the Gain Scores as the dependent variable,
Group as the independent variable and Proficiency Level as the covariate. We found that
Proficiency was not a significant covariate of the Gain scores: F(1, 63) = 3.02, p = .08 ns.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

 Tian and Macaro

Table 3  Descriptive statistics comparing Lexical Focus-on-Form with meaning-only related instruction on vocabulary learning (posttests) and
retention (delayed test) (percentages)

Pretests Pretests Posttest Posttest Posttest Posttest Posttest Posttest All 6 6 Posttests Delayed Posttest
NCS & CS 1 2 3 4 5 6 Combined NCS & CS test NCS & CS
Combined posttests Combined Combined
NCS M 18.5 M = 19.0 56.9 63.6 75.1 59.8 67.8 82.0 66.9 M = 71.6 29.0 28.8
(SD) (5.3) SD = 5.7 (17.7) (16.4) (21) (21.5) (21.3) (15.6) (15.3) (15.0) (7.4) (7.0)
Range 22.9 Range = 26.5 83.0 70.0 74.0 87.0 84.0 72.0 65.9 Range = 68 30.6 Range = 31.2
Max 30.6 Max = 30.6 93.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 100.0 95.3 Max = 97 42.4 Max = 42.4
CS M 19.6 67.3 75.8 86.7 73.1 77.7 87 78.3 28.6  
(SD) (5.7) (16) (14.7) (11.6) (15.3) (18.7) (13.1) (12.6) (6.6)
Range 24.7 70.0 53.0 53.0 52.0 65.0 45.0 43.5 27.6
Max 28.8 97.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.1 38.8
CONT M 17.6 24.0  
(SD) (5.0) (6.0)
Range 27.1 30.0

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

Max 30.0 37.1
379
380 Language Teaching Research 16(3)

Table 4  Bonferroni Multiple Comparison results from the Repeated Measures analysis on
NCS+CS

(I) tests (J) tests Mean difference Std. error Sig.*

(I–J)
Pretest posttest –90.016 (*) 2.910 .001
  delayed posttest –17.115 (*) .951 .001
Posttest pretest 90.016 (*) 2.910 .001
  delayed posttest 72.902 (*) 2.687 .001
Delayed posttest pretest 17.115 (*) .951 .001
  posttest –72.902 (*) 2.687 .001
Note: *Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

Table 5  Proficiency levels and vocabulary gain scores in each treatment group (M with SD in
parentheses)

Proficiency level Total vocabulary gain scores Vocabulary gain (raw) scores
for each proficiency level by treatment group (theoretical
maximum = 170)
Lowest level 81.38 (24.08) NCS = 68.1 (22.3)
  CS = 92.0 (20.7)
Middle-low level 98.17 (15.39) NCS = 101.4 (13.2)
  CS = 94.5 (17.7)
Middle-high level 88.43 (21.54) NCS = 83.5 (22.5)
  CS = 99.4 (16.1)
Highest level 93.87 (24.90) NCS = 77.8 (18.5)
  CS = 114.6 (14.3)

There was also no significant interaction between group and proficiency: F (2, 63) =
2.12, p = .15 ns.
We can now summarize the results as follows:

1. The students receiving Lexical Focus-on-Form instruction made substantial

gains from pretest to posttests. These gains obtained consistently for each of the
six posttests. Although the gains were substantially reduced at delayed test, they
remained statistically significant compared to the pretest scores.
2. The students receiving Lexical Focus-on-Form instruction significantly
outperformed those students that did not receive Lexical Focus-on-Form
instruction. The effect size was high.
3. Among the students who received Lexical Focus-on-Form, students who received
lexical information that contained L1 equivalents – as a result of the teacher
codeswitching to Chinese – benefited more than students who received informa-
tion in L2 only. However, this advantage was not sustained in the long term.
4. An influence of general proficiency on vocabulary learning via one instructional
treatment or another was not confirmed.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

Tian and Macaro 381

V Discussion
This study investigated whether Lexical Focus-on-Form – that is, vocabulary learning
contextualized by a listening activity – produced better vocabulary learning than no
Lexical Focus-on-Form (incidental learning) and whether teacher codeswitching to L1 in
order to put across the meaning of lexical items or teacher remaining exclusively in L2
was more effective.
The results suggest that Lexical Focus-on-Form, during (or at least closely associ-
ated with) a comprehension activity, is beneficial for vocabulary acquisition. The two
treatment groups made significant gains over the control group in the long term. This
supports findings of previous studies. For example, Mondria (2003) found that, in addi-
tion to inferring meaning from context, verification and memorization processes
enhanced lexical acquisition. Thus, vocabulary learning appears to require attention to
its form–meaning connections rather than only the general ideas contained in a text.
However, this study supports these previous findings in a relatively under-explored
context of listening comprehension, which includes interaction between the teacher and
the whole class rather than reading comprehension which usually denotes a student-
centred activity. The implications of this are important. When Lexical Focus-on-Form is
adopted in a reading task, there is the possibility that a student may go beyond the sup-
porting information provided by the teacher by, for example, noting down the new word
and looking it up in the dictionary in class (if permitted). Moreover, time dedicated to
individual lexical items will vary considerably from student to student. In the case of a
listening comprehension activity with teacher–class interaction, both these variables can
be controlled much more effectively although not totally eliminated.
Our results also show some limited advantage for codeswitching as opposed to exclu-
sive use of the L2. This is one of the first pieces of research evidence to show a codes-
witching effect in an interaction context and merits further investigation.
This finding should, moreover, be considered in the wider debate on L1 use in the L2
classroom. The kind of L1 use adopted in this study respected the constraints to be found
in naturalistic codeswitching by limiting itself almost entirely to brief switches for con-
tent words, maintaining English as the predominant language (the vast majority being
intra-sentential switches), and by not violating the grammars of either language. To that
extent we believe that the study has made a contribution to establishing principles for
optimal use. Moreover, the findings related to codeswitching are located in a clearly
defined, communicative instructional context.
We now need to qualify these two results. First, the strong Lexical Focus-on-Form
effect, regardless of treatment type, was not as strong in the long term. The number of
lexical items that were recalled two weeks after the last posttest was under half compared
to the average posttest score. However, delayed test scores were still statistically
significant in relation to the pretest test. This supports Toya’s (1993) finding that explicit
information associated with items in listening input results in better vocabulary learning
in the short term but less so in the long term. The implication of this seems clear: a single
exposure to a new word does not permit enough consolidation in the mental lexicon
and needs to be ‘frequently activated’ (Hulstijn, 2001, p. 286). Future researchers may
wish to adopt the same design but adapt it so that target words are recycled over a num-
ber of sessions.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

382 Language Teaching Research 16(3)

When viewed against the instructional procedure, the results seem to demonstrate
that Lexical Focus-on-Form need not undermine the general communicative nature
of the classroom interaction as the amount of time dedicated by the teacher to it was
relatively small. In other words the whole lesson objective of listening comprehen-
sion was not abandoned in favour of carrying out lexis-based exercises. Time dedi-
cated to Focus-on-Form in general is a pedagogical issue needing constant
investigation. How much lesson time should be devoted to intentional vocabulary
learning, when one considers all the other demands made on teachers and learners
alike, is an important question. That codeswitching has some benefits for vocabulary
learning becomes significant therefore when it is considered in relation to time taken
up. Space has not allowed us a detailed analysis of the different time taken in the
codeswitch as opposed to the English-only condition, but the information provided
earlier (see method) and the examples provided in Appendix 5 clearly show that the
English-only information took longer to communicate. Further evidence of this is in
a linked report (Tian, 2009).
Our findings support the claim made by Ellis et al. (2001), who reported that teachers
and students could navigate in and out of focusing on aspects of the code while still
keeping the overall orientation of the message intact. Very importantly it also provides
some evidence for multicompetence theory (Cook, 1992) in that the findings signal no
obvious negative effect of mixing codes during classroom interaction, and support a
finding reported by Guo (2007) with a similar population where no deleterious effect of
the teacher mixing codes was reported by the students. Lastly, the findings contribute to
the bilingual teacher versus monolingual teacher debate in that the codeswitching
condition could only have been offered by a bilingual teacher.
The second qualification relates to the proficiency level of the students. According to
vocabulary acquisition theory cited earlier, the students in our sample with the lowest
proficiency should, hypothetically, have benefited the most from lexical information in
L1. Our results do not show this.
In order for this finding not to undermine the theoretical model, we could speculate
that differences in proficiency levels were not large enough to speak to the theory and
that the codeswitching treatment effect might only manifest itself in near-beginner learn-
ers. A second possibility is related to word type. Consider that most of the target words
were low-frequency words. It is possible that higher proficiency students were still only
able to learn these words via the codeswitch condition. Put differently, once learners get
above a basic level of proficiency, the theoretical relationship may lie more between
word type and instructional method than general proficiency level and instructional
method. This would fit better with Jiang’s (2002) hypothesis that even highly proficient
L2 users will retrieve the meaning of L2 words according to their L1 semantic specification.
Space in this article does not allow us to perform an analysis of word type and profi-
ciency level. However, as we observed earlier regarding the way that students provided
answers in the vocabulary tests; half of the students from the English-only group opted
to provide Chinese equivalents rather than English synonyms or definitions. This sug-
gests that, for a considerable number, despite the lexical information being presented to
them in English, they recalled it in Chinese.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

Tian and Macaro 383

VI Limitations
We will now consider our third research aim against the limitations of the study as a
whole. This study explored the research questions in an ecologically valid context, using
easily recognizable pedagogical activities. However, it adopted a rigorous experimental
design with stratified random allocation conditions, highly controlled instruction in order
to eliminate interactional confounding variables, and a single teacher in order to control
for teacher variables.
Perhaps the major limitation of the study, brought about by our attempts to adhere to
a ‘normal classroom context’, is that we were not able to administer immediate vocabu-
lary posttests to the control group. Thus, it is theoretically possible that they learnt an
equal number of words entirely incidentally whilst listening to the texts. They then forgot
what they had learnt and did significantly worse than the treatment group at delayed test.
We doubt this to be the case with such a high number of new words introduced, but it is
a possibility. Nevertheless we would maintain that for methodological considerations we
did not want to sensitize them to our outcome variable. Similarly it is possible that the
students in both CS and NCS conditions were sensitized to learning new words by the
series of posttests even though we inserted a number of additional words in each
treatment session as distracters in order to minimize this eventuality.
Another limitation of the study, this time brought about by our attempts to adhere to
an experimental approach, is that the students were deprived of the opportunity to write
down the target words and review them outside class, and this runs counter to normal
pedagogical practice. We have suggested ‘lexical-recycling’ to reduce the impact of this
limitation in future research.

VII Conclusions
This study proposes that the issue of teacher L1 use in the L2 classroom has to be inves-
tigated within tight parameters. For the debate to be meaningful, the classroom context
in which L1 use is investigated needs to be a broadly communicative one where the
pedagogical intention is to communicate meaning through the target language, although
at times some Focus-on-Form is required. The interaction between teacher and learners
should demonstrate that the predominant language (the ‘matrix language’) is the L2, and
that the participants in the discourse respect many of the conventions of codeswitching
found in the naturalistic environment. In the case of the current study the effect of codes-
witching was measured as a tool for focusing on Lexical Focus-on-Form, during a com-
bined pedagogical activity, listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition.
This study is one of a few to have shown a relationship between teacher codeswitch-
ing and learning outcomes. Our findings suggest some benefit for teacher codeswitching
over remaining in L2 thereby being compelled to put across form–meaning relationships
via definitions and paraphrases. But the beneficial effect was not huge and therefore
there is no implication here that teachers should constantly switch to L1 in order to pro-
vide the meanings of unfamiliar words. Further investigations need to be carried out
regarding what types of words are most amenable to being put across solely in L2 and

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

384 Language Teaching Research 16(3)

which require L1 equivalents, and this in relation to the cost–benefit of either approach.
Research could also investigate, by using verbal report, the mental processes that differ-
ent learners go through when being exposed to each of the two conditions. Moreover,
future research could investigate whether certain concepts in a particular L1 exist in quite
the same network of associations as they do in L2 (see the work of Jiang previously
cited) and how teacher codeswitching might be more effective with these words than
others. This brings us back to the notion of teacher as dictionary designer, mentioned
earlier, a notion to which this study has contributed.

Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to the two anonymous Language Teaching Research reviewers who provided
valuable advice for improving earlier drafts of this article.

Note
1. We were unable to find any reference to first language or codeswitching in the index of this
book on L2 interaction.

References
Altarriba, J. & Mathis, K.M. (1997). Conceptual and lexical development in second language
acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 550–68.
Antòn, M. & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interactions in
the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314–42.
Auer, J.C.P. (1998). Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity.
Routledge, London.
Blakemore, S-J. & Frith, U. (2005). The learning brain: Lessons for education. Oxford: Blackwell.
Brookes, F.B. & Donato, R. (1994) Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language
learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77, 262–74.
Brooks-Lewis, K.A. (2009). Adult learners’ perceptions of the incorporation of their L1 in foreign
language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics, 30, 216–35.
Canagarajah, A.S. (1995). Functions of codeswitching in ESL classrooms: Socializing bilingual-
ism in Jaffna. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6, 173–95.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second lan-
guage teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
Carless, D. (2008). Student use of the mother tongue in the task-based classroom. ELT Journal,
62, 331–38.
Chung, H.H. (2006). Codeswitching as a communicative strategy: A case study of Korean-English
bilinguals. Bilingual Research Journal, 30, 293–307.
Cook, V.J. (1992). Evidence for multi-competence. Language Learning, 42, 557–91.
Cook, V.J. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33,
185–209.
David, A. (2004). The developing bilingual lexicon. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University
of Newcastle, UK.
De Bot, K., Cox, A., Ralston, S., Schaufeli, A., & Weltens, B. (1995). Lexical processing in bilin-
guals. Second Language Research, 11, 1–19.
De Groot, A.M.B. & Hoeks, J.C.J. (1995). The development of bilingual memory: Evidence from
word translation by trilinguals. Language Learning, 45, 683–724.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

Tian and Macaro 385

Dekeyser, R.M. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral profi-
ciency. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 4, 501–14.
De la Fuente, M. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 24, 81–112.
Duff, P.A. & Polio, C.G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language
classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 74, 154–66.
Ellis, R. & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of
word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001) Preemptive Focus-on-Form in the ESL classroom.
TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407–32.
Ellis, R., Tanaka Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension and the
acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449–91.
Ferguson, G. (2003). Classroom codeswitching in post-colonial contexts: Functions, attitudes and
policies. AILA Review, 16, 38–51.
Ferguson, G. (2009). What next? Towards an agenda for classroom codeswitching research.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12, 231–41.
Fröhlich, M., Spada, N., & Allen P. (1985). Differences in the communicative orientation of L2
classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 27–58.
Gardener-Chloros, P. (2009). Codeswitching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J.J. & Hymes D.H. (1986). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of commu-
nication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Guo T. (2007). A case study of teachers’ codeswitching behaviors in mainland China’s university
EFL classrooms and students’ reactions to the code-switching. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Oxford, UK.
Hancock, M. (1997). Behind classroom codes switching: Layering and language choice in L2
learner interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 217–35.
Hosoda, Y. (2000). Teacher codeswitching in the EFL classroom. JALT Journal, 22, 69–93.
Hulstijn, J.H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental
vocabulary learning. In P.J.L. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics
(pp.113–25). London: Macmillan.
Hulstijn, J.H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A reap-
praisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson, (Ed.), Cognition and second
language instruction (pp. 258–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J.H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced
foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence
of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 327–39.
Jacobs, G.M., Dufon, P., & Hong, C.H. (1994). L1 and L2 vocabulary glosses in L2 reading
passages: Their effectiveness for increasing comprehension and vocabulary knowledge.
Journal of Research in Reading, 17, 19–28.
Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics,
21, 47–77.
Jiang, N. (2002). Form–meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 617–37.
Jiang, N. (2004). Semantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a second
language. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 416–32.
Kaneko, T. (1992). The role of the first language in foreign language classrooms. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Kharma, N.N. & Hajjaj, A.H. (1989). Use of the mother tongue in the ESL classroom. IRAL, 26,
223–35.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

386 Language Teaching Research 16(3)

Kim, Y. (2006). Effects of input elaboration on vocabulary acquisition through reading by Korean
learners of English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 341–74.
Kong, H. & Zhang, P. (2005). An investigation on teacher talk in an Extensive Reading classroom
for English majors. Education and Modernization, 76, 38–43.
Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman, London.
Kroll, J.F. & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence
for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory
and Language, 33, 149–74.
Kroll, J.F., Michael, E., Tokowicz, N., & Dufour, R. (2002). The development of lexical fluency
in a second language. Second Language Research, 18, 137–71.
Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most
vocabulary by reading? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 565–85.
Laufer, B. (2009). Second language vocabulary acquisition from language input and from
form-focused activities. Language Teaching, 42, 341–54.
Laufer, B. & Girsai, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning:
A case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics, 29, 1–23.
Laufer, B. & Shmueli, K. (1997). Memorizing new words: Does teaching have anything to do with
it? RELC Journal, 28, 89–108.
Levine, G. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first
language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal,
87, 343–64.
Libben, G. (2000). Representation and processing in the second language lexicon: The homogene-
ity hypothesis. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp.
228–48). Oxford: Blackwell.
Lin, A.M.Y. (1996). Bilingualism or linguistic segregation?: Symbolic domination, resistance and
codeswitching in Hong Kong schools. Linguistics and Education, 8, 49–84.
Liu, D., Ahn, G., Beak, K., & Han, N. (2004) South Korean high school English teachers’ code
switching: Questions and challenges in the drive for maximal use of English in teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 38, 605–38.
Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction and second language. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and
foreign language acquisition. New York: Annals of New York Academy of Science.
Long, M. (1991). Focus-on-Form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In
K. De Bot, R.B. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in Cross-
cultural perspective (pp. 39–51). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lotto, L. & De Groot, A.M.B. (1998). Effects of learning method and word type on acquiring
vocabulary in an unfamiliar language. Language Learning, 48, 31–69.
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and
learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218.
Macaro, E. (2000) Issues in target language teaching. In K. Field (Ed.), Issues in modern foreign
language teaching (pp. 171–89). London: Routledge.
Macaro, E. (2001) Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms:
Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 531–48.
Macaro, E., Guo, T., Chen, H., & Tian, L. (2009). Can differential processing of L2 vocabu-
lary inform the debate on teacher code-switching behavior: The case of Chinese learners of
English. In B. Richards, M.H. Daller, D.D. Malvern, P. Meara, J. Milton, & J. Treffers-Daller
(Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The interface between
theory and application (pp. 125–46). Palgrave Macmillan.
Mackey, A. (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

Tian and Macaro 387

McMillan, B. & Turnbull, M. (2009). Teachers’ use of the first language in French immersion:
Revisiting a core principle. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in
second and foreign language learning (pp. 15–34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Min, H. (2008). EFL vocabulary acquisition and retention: Reading plus vocabulary enhancement
activities and narrow reading. Language Learning, 58, 73–115.
Miyasako, N. (2002). Does text-glossing have any effects on incidental vocabulary learning through
reading for Japanese senior high school students? Language Education and Technology, 39,
1–20.
Mondria, J.A. (2003). The effects of inferring, verifying, and memorizing on the retention of L2
word meanings: An experimental comparison of the ‘meaning inferred method’ and ‘meaning
given method’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 473–99.
Moussu, L. & Llurda, E. (2008) Non-native English-speaking language teachers: History and
research. Language Teaching, 41, 315–48.
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Duelling languages: Grammatical structure and codeswitching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Myers-Scotton, C. (2001). The matrix language frame model: Developments and responses. In
R. Jacobson (Ed.), Codeswitching worldwide II (pp. 23–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an out-
come of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90.
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL
Quarterly, 21, 737–58.
Polio, C.G. & Duff, P.A. (1994). Teachers' language use in university foreign language classrooms:
A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. The Modern Language
Journal, 78, 313–26.
Poplack, S. (2000). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English y termino en español: Toward a
typology of code-switching. In L. Wei (Ed.), The bilingualism reader (pp. 221–56). London:
Routledge.
Qian, X., Tian, G., & Wang Q. (2009) Codeswitching in the primary EFL classroom in china: Two
case studies. System, 37, 719–30.
Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A
description and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rolin-Ianziti, J. & Brownlie, S. (2002). Teacher use of learners’ native language in the foreign
language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 402–26.
Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL
Quarterly, 37, 760–70.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook &
B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G.
Widdowson (pp. 125–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tay, M.W. (1989). Codeswitching and code mixing as a communicative strategy in multilingual
discourse. World Englishes, 8, 407–17.
Tian, L. (2009). Teacher codeswitching in a communicative EFL context: Measuring the effects on
vocabulary learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford, UK.
Toya, M. (1993). Form of explanation in modification of listening input in L2 vocabulary learning.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of English as a Second Language, University
of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Üstünel, E. & Seedhouse, P. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now?: Codeswitching and
pedagogical focus. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 302–25.
Van Lier, L. (1996) Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authentic-
ity. London: Longman.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

388 Language Teaching Research 16(3)

Widdowson, H.G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Zheng, S. (Ed.) (2003). New horizon college English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and
Research Press.

Appendix 1 Vocabulary posttest 1

Posttest 1
请看左边的单词。如果你完全不认识这个单词，请在其右边的数字中选择‘0’；如
果你知道这个单词的意思，请在右边的横线上填写出它的英语或者汉语意思，并
且在其后的从1 到 5 的数字中选择你对于所填写的意思的确定程度。‘1’ 指‘完全不
确定’，‘5’指‘非常确定’。从1 到 5 确定程度依次递增。

Reaction 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Encounter 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Boundary 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Wired 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Patently 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Kin 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Cultivate 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Denominator 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Conspicuous 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Conflicts 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Apprehension 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Rhetoric 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Transfer 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Ubiquitous 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Solitary 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Animosity 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Expand 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Indispensable 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Represent 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Unique 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Inalienable 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Assume 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Campaign 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Object to 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Subject to 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Stub 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Refrain 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Jeopardize 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Productivity 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
Spoil 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

Tian and Macaro 389

Appendix 2 Relationship between the instructional intervention and the testing process

Appendix 3 Examples of lexical information provided to the two treatment groups

(NCS and CS)
Capriciously:
L2: somebody makes a sudden decision without thinking very much, does it capriciously
L1: 冲动的
Mechanic:
L2: somebody who is skilled at using or mending machines
L1: 机械工，机械师
Silhouette:
L2: the shape or shadow or figure of a person or something
L1: 轮廓，影子
Example of target word ‘Assume’ in interaction context:
NCS group

Recording: ‘any assumed right to smoke ends where a non-smoker’s nose begins’.
Teacher: any assumed (writes ‘assumed’ on the board) right … ok assume means
think that something is true or taken for granted
Students: (silence)
T: so … assumed right to smoke ends … means the right stops … it means that he
thinks that he has a right to smoke, but actually there is no right to smoke.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

390 Language Teaching Research 16(3)

CS condition
Recording: ‘any assumed right to smoke ends where a non-smoker’s nose begins’.
T: any assumed (writes ‘assumed’ on the board) right to smoke
S: (echoing) assume
T: class, for assume we could say 假设 (tr: assume), 假定 (tr: assume), right?
S: yes
T: so assumed right to smoke ends … means the right stops

Examples where L1 information is an L1 paraphrase, because there is no equivalent

concept to match in L1 with the L2 new word

Subject to: 使某人遭受什么罪

Niche: 适当的位置
Tangible: 可以触摸到的

Appendix 4 Example of listening text (from session 3) showing target words

Although the relaxed American style is well known, many new visitors think that it
shows a “lack of respect”. This is especially true in the business world. Americans peren-
nially use first names upon meeting a stranger and do not always shake hands. They often
just feign a smile and say “Hi” or “Hello”, rather than using a more ritualistic handshake.
It is good to remember that to an American such a laissez-faire greeting really means the
same thing as a more official handshake somewhere else. In a similar way, Americans do
not usually give a special “good-bye” or shake hands to each person when they leave a
party or business meeting. They will often just wave good-bye to the whole group and
perhaps say, “Well, so long everybody, I’ll see you tomorrow.” They then will leave. No
handshakes.

Americans seem either totally frenzied and hard-working or totally relaxed and at ease.
Often you will see men working at office desks without their chairs and even putting
their feet up on the desk while they talk on the telephone. This is not meant to be pro-
vocative. Once Americans leave the busy streets, they are easy going and relaxed.

A visitor to the United States should, therefore, understand that being in a great hurry
does not denote unfriendliness, and being relaxed and being at ease does not show a lack
of respect. Americans have a myriad of customs and habits that at first may seem strange
to a visitor. In time you will learn these new ways.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015

Tian and Macaro 391

Appendix 5 Vocabulary knowledge scale used in all vocabulary tests

Note: instructions provided in L1; for an example, see Appendix 1

Please look at the words on the left. If you don’t know the meaning of them, please
choose “0”; if you know the meaning, please write down either the Chinese or
English meaning in the blank, and rate how confident you are about the meaning
you’ve provided, from “1” (not confident) to “5” (very confident).
accounting 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
adjust 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
alluring 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
amend 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
animosity 0 __________ 1 2 3 4 5
……

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at Leeds Beckett University on May 10, 2015