شهاب مرادخانی

This article reports on a study examining the reasons for teachers’ codeswitching from both teachers’ and students’ perspectives. To tap into participants’ cognitions regarding this issue, data were collected from 83 EFL teachers and 160 students of English through a questionnaire developed based on the reasons reported in previous studies. An exploratory factor analysis was run to find the underlying constructs. The results eventually unveiled five factors including pedagogical delivery, limitation in resources, learner variables, establishing rapport, and compensating for low proficiency. A set of independent samples t-tests were run so as to compare teachers’ and students’ views and the results revealed statistically significant differences in all the five identified factors. Pedagogical delivery seemed to be the most acceptable reason for codeswitching since it had the highest mean score in both groups. At the same time, teachers’ and students’ mean scores regarding establishing rapport showed their very different perceptions about this justification for the teachers’ L1 use. The lowest mean scores for teachers and students were observed to be related to limitation in resources and learner variables, respectively. The findings of the present study draw attention to the teachers’ and students’ different cognitions on L1 use and the urgent need for more comparative studies in order to provide more satisfying and effective learning environments.

Even though many classroom-based studies reported the possible advantages of oral corrective feedback (OCF) for language learning, little information is available about teachers’ beliefs about OCF in classrooms and its relationship with their experience. This study attempted to compare the stated beliefs and classroom practices of three female English as Foreign Language (EFL) teachers about OCF. In so doing, data was collected through video-recording three sessions of their teaching procedure and the follow-up stimulated recall interviews. The results of the study showed that irrespective of their teaching experience, the participating teachers unanimously believed that provision of OCF in the class is of prime importance. However, the use of all types of OCF practices was just observable in experienced teachers’ classes and the novice one preferred the duality of explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback and did not provide any recasts and elicitations. It was also found that learner-related issues seemed to be working within the limits of teaching experience in shaping the three teachers’ beliefs about providing OCF practices. Moreover, the novice teacher showed to resort to her own language learning in justifying her OCF practices. Implications of the findings are discussed and some suggestions are provided for further research.

In their attempt to shed light on the factors contributing to the incongruity between L2 reading teachers’ beliefs and practices, most of the researchers have resorted to teachers’ personal perspectives. As a partial replication of the research carried out by Karimi and Dehghani (2016), the current study sought to broaden this restricted scope by examining the role of teacher education in shaping L2 reading teachers’ beliefs/practices. Data were collected from 84 L2 reading teachers through a survey and follow-up classroom observations. Overall, both undergraduate and graduate teachers had an equally heightened tendency toward competence-based theoretical orientation. However, both groups substantially utilized instructional moves conforming to text-based orientation. There were also significant frequency differences between undergraduate and graduate teachers in their recourse to competence-based pedagogical moves. It is concluded that while the inclusion of a finite number of theoretical coursework may sway L2 teachers to sanction competence-based theoretical orientation, a more clinical approach to teacher education should be embraced to promote the symbiotic belief-practice relationship among L2 reading teachers.