Exploring the Role of Code-Switching in Italian EFL Classrooms: Functions and Patterns

Exploring the Role of Code-Switching in Italian EFL Classrooms: Functions and Patterns | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Exploring the Role of Code-Switching in Italian EFL Classrooms: Functions and Patterns Ping Liu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9234971/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Although code-switching (CS) has been studied in EFL classrooms for 30 years, no research to date has focussed on a European setting. With its multilingual instructional context — where Standard Italian, regional dialects, and English as FL coexist simultaneously — Italy constitutes a theoretically distinctive and hitherto unexamined instructional context for CS research. Applying Poplack’s ( 1980 ) typology, the study explored EFL teachers’ functions, patterns, timing and metacognitive bases for CS. Data were collected from 11 Italian EFL teachers across 55 online B2 lessons and supplemented by Stimulated Recall Protocol (SRP) sessions. Results showed that giving instructions and checking understanding accounted for 26% each of switches, while 47% of switches were produced during the core phase of instruction. Seven out of eleven teachers favoured inter-sentential switching. SRP analysis showed switches to be mostly conscious and pedagogically motivated, although affective switches displayed the hallmarks of automatisation that are typical of routinised teacher decision-making. These results establish the first European empirical baseline on EFL teacher CS and provide the first direct evidence on the metacognitive bases of switching decisions in this research tradition. Code-switching EFL teacher cognition Stimulated Recall Protocol Multilingual instruction Italian EFL classrooms 1. Introduction The question of what language alternation in the classroom is has split researchers in two for thirty years. Is the alternation between two languages of a teacher a bounded, rule-governed code-switch between discrete linguistic systems (Poplack, 1980 ), or is it a more fluid use of an integrated multilingual repertoire (Bullock & Toribio, 2009 ; Gardner-Chloros, 2009 )? This is a question which remains theoretically open. An answer to this question will need data from a teaching situation which puts the sociolinguistic complexity of the phenomenon to the test, and goes beyond the type of bilingual situation on which previous models were based. In the field of sociolinguistics, code-switching is defined as switching back and forth between two or more languages in the context of a single conversation or speech event (Milroy & Muysken, 1995 , p. 3; Poplack, 1980 ). Adopting a broad perspective, Gardner-Chloros ( 2009 ) defines it as instances where bilingual people combine two or more languages or dialects in the same conversation. As a result, occurrences of code-switching could easily be witnessed in bilingual and multilingual contexts such as classrooms where two or more languages are present (Lin, 2013 ). In foreign language classrooms, it is common practice for both learners and teachers to move fluidly between the target language and their mother tongue in order to express themselves for different reasons (Nordin et al., 2012 ). Nevertheless, attitudes towards language alternation have been long debated by academics, some of whom regard it as evidence of deficiency whereby speakers opt to use their L1 when they lack proficiency in the target language (Sridhar, 1996 ; Brown, 2006 ; Edwards & Dewaele, 2007 ), while others view it as an indicator of bilingual competence that can be drawn upon as another communicative resource (Bullock & Toribio, 2009 ; Kustati, 2014 ). Critically, this debate has an additional dimension when the switching agent is a teacher: CS decisions in instructional contexts are not purely communicative acts but also identity performances, shaped by teachers’ dual positioning as both cultural insiders and target-language experts (Varghese et al., 2005 ). Code-switching has been frequently observed in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms. Teachers reported numerous reasons for code-switching, such as helping students comprehend the lesson content (Ahmad & Jusoff, 2009 ; Sakaria & Priyana, 2018 ), classroom management (Grant & Nguyen, 2017 ; Tien, 2009 ), increasing solidarity between teachers and learners (Qing, 2010 ; Raschka et al., 2009 ), and to clarify instructions while teaching grammar rules and vocabulary (Jingxia, 2010 ; Uys & Van Dulm, 2011 ). In multilingual countries such as Malaysia, Zambia, Thailand, Tanzania, Taiwan and Turkey, researchers have found code-switching useful in increasing classroom participation (Kustati, 2014 ; Metila, 2009 ), understanding of lesson content (Widia, 2015 ; Sakaria & Priyana, 2018 ), and establishing a sense of confidence, security, and motivation among students (Peregoy & Boyle, 2013 ; Qing, 2010 ). On the contrary, too much use of code-switching was reported to lower students’ exposure to the target language (Moore, 2010 ; Jingxia, 2010 ) and make them dependent on their L1 (Sakaria & Priyana, 2018 ; Kustati, 2014 ), thus negatively impacting their communicative competence development in English (Zhu, 2008 ). Yet across this extensive body of work, a persistent limitation remains: the cognitions that drive individual switching decisions — what teachers think, believe, and intend at the moment of switching — have rarely been directly investigated. As Borg ( 2003 ) established in his foundational review of language teacher cognition, what teachers report about their instructional decisions and what actually motivates those decisions in practice are frequently misaligned, a gap that applies with particular force to a behavior as rapid and context-sensitive as code-switching. A variety of studies have been conducted regarding the functions of code-switching in EFL classrooms. However, most studies have focused on Asian countries (Nurhamidah et al., 2018 ; Puspawati, 2018 ), African countries (Bhatti et al., 2018 ) and the Middle East, leaving a gap in knowledge about European classrooms. Little is known about how Italian EFL teachers switch between Italian and English in their classrooms, what factors elicit their switching, and what patterns their code-switching follows. Another gap in research refers to when teachers use code-switching during classroom interaction. Previous studies have identified different functions that CS may serve during classroom discourse, including translation, classroom management, checking comprehension and building solidarity among students (Uys & Van Dulm, 2011 ; Ahmad & Jusoff, 2009 ; Fhitri, 2017 ; Gulzar, 2010 ). However, studies which explore situations where teachers engage in code-switching and patterns that CS follows during instruction are limited. Types of code-switching have been identified and described in previous literature such as tag-switching, inter-sentential switching and intra-sentential switching (Poplack, 1980 ; Jingxia, 2010 ). Initiation patterns such as teacher-induced code-switching and teacher-initiated code-switching have also been explored (Üstünel & Seedhouse, 2005 ). Nonetheless, investigating what situations elicit teacher code-switching as well as the patterns it follows during instruction would allow researchers to paint a clearer picture of CS use in EFL classrooms. A further and largely unaddressed gap concerns the metacognitive dimension of teacher CS: specifically, whether switching decisions are conscious and deliberate, automatic and routinised, or some combination of both. Borg ( 2003 ) demonstrated that language teachers’ stated beliefs about their instructional behavior frequently diverge from what observation reveals, yet no study in the CS literature has applied a method capable of accessing teachers’ cognitive processes at the moment of switching. Lyle ( 2003 ) identifies Stimulated Recall Protocol (SRP) as the methodological tool best suited to this purpose, yet its application to classroom CS research remains absent from the literature. Teachers are said to make use of code-switching consciously rather than unconsciously and out of incompetence (Puspawati, 2018 ; Engku Ibrahim et al., 2013 ). This claim, however, rests entirely on teacher self-report rather than on direct empirical access to in-the-moment decision-making — a methodological limitation that the present study is designed to address. To our knowledge, no studies have explored Italian EFL teachers’ use of code-switching. Therefore, this study sought to explore the following research questions: What functions does code-switching serve in Italian EFL online classrooms, and at which phases of instruction do these functions predominantly occur? What structural patterns of code-switching do Italian EFL teachers employ in online B2 Italian EFL classrooms? To what extent are Italian EFL teachers’ code-switching decisions conscious and intentional, and how do teachers evaluate the pedagogical effectiveness of their own switching behavior? Our research aims to address literature gaps by investigating an unexamined context in European language practices. Moreover, unlike other studies that mainly focus on CS functions, our study aims to explore not only why teachers use code-switching in their classrooms but also when and what patterns their switches follow. The use of SRP data in the study makes it possible to provide direct access to the metacognitive processes that drive teacher CS, thereby moving the field from the description of what teachers do to an empirically-grounded account of the why and how of consciously doing it. We expect that by raising teachers’ awareness of their own code-switching use, they will be able to strategically and consciously apply it in the classroom. After all, studies have proven that when used wisely and cautiously by teachers, code-switching can benefit students and accelerate their language learning process (Ghobadi & Ghasemi, 2015 ; Stylianou-Panayi, 2015 ). 2. Literature Review 2.1 Overview Research regarding code-switching in EFL classrooms has been documented for the last thirty years (Lin, 2013 ; Poplack, 1980 ; Gulzar, 2010 ). This chapter critically reviews related literature by examining six interconnected topics. To begin with, how scholars have defined code-switching together with relevant theoretical viewpoints concerning the alternation between two languages are examined, including the unresolved tension between code-switching as bounded linguistic alternation and translanguaging as fluid repertoire use (Milroy & Muysken, 1995 ; Gardner-Chloros, 2009 ). Following that, three types of code-switching which have been found in EFL classrooms were overviewed, namely tag-switching, inter-sentential switching, and intra-sentential switching (Poplack, 1980 ; Jingxia, 2010 ). Thirdly, reasons why teachers tend to code-switch were presented, including translation purposes, checking students’ comprehension, directing classroom management and so forth (Uys & Van Dulm, 2011 ; Puspawati, 2018 ). Fourthly, teacher and student attitudes towards code-switching in language classrooms were summarized (Nurhamidah et al., 2018 ; Horasan, 2014 ). Fifthly, this study also looks into teacher cognition and metacognitive awareness as they contribute to the CS decision-making process. This is a “methodological gap” identified by the teacher cognition literature on how CS intentionality has been approached so far (Borg, 2003 ). Finally, previous works which treat code-switching as a technique were discussed by comparing studies identifying its advantages with studies pointing out possible overuse of it (Sakaria & Priyana, 2018 ; Ghobadi & Ghasemi, 2015 ). Together, these six strands establish both the empirical and theoretical grounds for the present study, exposing a convergence of geographical, methodological, and theoretical gaps that remain unaddressed in the literature. 2.2 What is Code-Switching Definitions of code-switching have shifted since Haugen’s ( 1956 ) description of the insertion of unassimilated words or groups of words from the other language to Poplack’s ( 1980 ) alternation of two languages within and across sentences and Milroy and Muysken’s ( 1995 ) situations in which bilinguals use two languages in alternation in the same conversation, with Gardner-Chloros ( 2009 ) later using this definition also in terms of dialects. Muysken ( 2000 ) has proposed a definition of code-switching as a phenomenon that also includes the use of lexical and grammatical features from two languages in the same sentence, while Lin ( 2013 ) speaks of code-switching in instructed settings. Despite these modifications, all definitions assume that “languages” are discrete bounded systems from which speakers “switch” to the other. The first two sections of this study frame CS within two longstanding and competing perspectives: the deficit perspective and the competence perspective. The deficit perspective, dominant in earlier CS literature (Brown, 2006 ; Edwards & Dewaele, 2007 ; Sridhar, 1996 ), holds that CS behavior is evidence of limited proficiency in the target language, and characterizes CS users as linguistic deviants or second language learners (Brice et al., 1998 ; Labov, 1971 ). A deficit label is conceptually problematic for the teacher CS phenomenon: all of the studies in this area have either implicitly or explicitly drawn on a deficit framework, but the overwhelming majority of them also base their findings on learner CS rather than that of a trained professional, and none employ the direct-access method, which gives access to the motivation for the switch. Assigning a deficit label to an observable behavior when the motivation for that behavior is unknown or untested is a “category error”, as Borg ( 2003 ) argues, because it confuses the surface behavior with the deeper, unobservable mental source for that behavior. The alternative competence perspective, well represented in modern CS literature (Bullock & Toribio, 2009 ; Kustati, 2014 ; Ariffin & Rafik-Galea, 2009 ), points out that CS in fact requires near-native mastery of both languages and their associated cultural contexts. It is this assumption of CS behavior being strategic that is questionable: there is a tacit assumption in the pedagogical CS literature that CS is a behavior used consciously, but as Phipps and Borg ( 2009 ) demonstrate, stated rationales do not necessarily align with the underlying cognitive processes which are actually at play in any given situation. This means that even this ostensibly more nuanced account of CS ultimately also depends on an untested inference about teacher cognition. In the pedagogical context, CS has come to be increasingly re-framed as a resource used with deliberation for instructional purposes. Metila ( 2009 ) argues that CS can fulfill both communicative and pedagogical functions at the same time; Engku Ibrahim et al. ( 2013 ) posit that it is a social meaning-making strategy; and Puspawati ( 2018 ) and Camilleri ( 2001 ) maintain that teachers switch consciously and intentionally for the benefit of students rather than out of any inability or deficiency. Martin-Jones ( 1995 ) further frames CS as something that must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis in relation to the unique social conditions of each individual classroom. A relationship left largely unexplored in this literature, however, is that of the CS behavior to teacher identity. According to Varghese et al. ( 2005 ) and Lam ( 2022 ), a teacher’s instructional choices cannot be meaningfully separated from her identity positioning. Italian EFL teachers, as a result, find themselves in a dual professional role, as both the language insider and the target-language professional. This means that CS used during rapport-building or humor, in particular, may not be strategic but rather an identity performance, a fact that current taxonomies cannot meaningfully account for without an internal perspective. Through the use of SRP, the current work approaches the question of intentionality from an empirical angle, seeking to understand the potential for improving strategic CS within teacher training. 2.3 Types of CS Used in EFL Classrooms Poplack’s ( 1980 ) three-way division into tag-switching, inter-sentential switching, and intra-sentential switching is by far the most pervasive structural category system. Tag-switching (Jingxia, 2010 ) consists of inserting a phrase from another language as a discourse marker or exclamation; inter-sentential switching (Jingxia, 2010 ; Yletyinen, 2004 ) takes place at a clause or sentence boundary; and intra-sentential switching (Yletyinen, 2004 ; Jingxia, 2010 ), the most structurally complex of the three, embeds a word or a phrase from another language within the sentence structure of the matrix language. Frequency comparisons across contexts are inconsistent: inter-sentential switching is the most prevalent form in the Indonesian (Puspawati, 2018 ), Chinese (Jingxia, 2010 ) and Malaysian (Azlan & Narasuman, 2013 ) EFL classroom, whereas tag-switching and intra-sentential switching are more frequent in Pakistan (Bhatti et al., 2018 ). In Turkish, the three types of switches are almost equally distributed (Horasan, 2014 ). Proficiency level, lesson topic and classroom atmosphere have been posited (Stylianou-Panayi, 2015 ; Puspawati, 2018 ) as the cause for this discrepancy but not empirically tested. Moreover, Poplack’s typology rests on an underlying assumption of clearly bounded language systems. No study so far has asked the teachers about their reasons for choosing a particular switch structure at a particular point in time. Structural choice, like functional choice, has been observed but never explained at the cognitive level. The metacognitive data strand of the present study will fill this void. 2.4 Functions of Teachers’ Code-Switching The three broad functional categories of instructional, classroom management, and interpersonal functions have recurred in most EFL CS studies. Instructional functions include code-switching to translate unknown vocabulary and grammar (Uys & Van Dulm, 2011 ; Jingxia, 2010 ; Brice et al., 1998 ), to check comprehension (Ahmad & Jusoff, 2009 ; Nordin et al., 2012 ), and to construct knowledge (Qing, 2010 ; Engku Ibrahim et al., 2013 ; Camilleri, 2001 ). Management functions include giving instructions for tasks (Mugla, 2005 ; Tien, 2010 ), disciplining students (Grant & Nguyen, 2017 ; Bashir, 2015 ), and asserting the institutional authority of the teacher (Üstünel, 2016 ; Tien, 2009 ). L1 is especially reported as effective for restoring order to the classroom (Nurhamidah et al., 2018 ). Interpersonal functions include building solidarity (Gulzar, 2010 ; Azlan & Narasuman, 2013 ), reducing affective distance (Fhitri, 2017 ; Sakaria & Priyana, 2018 ), and humor (Puspawati, 2018 ; Raschka et al., 2009 ). This highly similar distribution of reported functions across studies has resulted in the current structure being reproduced across works without interrogation of its adequacy or internal distinctness: instructional and interpersonal functions frequently co-occur, and the decision to assign a single label to an ambiguous switch has consistently been left to the observer rather than verified with the teacher (precisely the methodological problem Borg, 2003 identifies as endemic to teacher cognition research). Second, all existing taxonomies were constructed from non-European data, and since CS functions are shaped by the specific social conditions of each context (Martin-Jones, 1995 ), they risk misclassifying locally distinct functions if imported into an Italian instructional setting. The present study therefore treats functional classification as a starting point rather than a settled framework, employing a phase-by-phase observation structure that maps function against instructional timing across all eleven participants. In doing so, it responds directly to the European contextual gap left unaddressed by existing Asian (Nurhamidah et al., 2018 ; Puspawati, 2018 ), African (Bhatti et al., 2018 ), and Middle Eastern (Horasan, 2014 ) research. 2.5 Teachers’ and Students’ Perceptions of Code-Switching Teachers’ views on code-switching vary slightly between theoretical discussions and practical teaching experiences. Many teachers admit that using as much of the target language as possible is best; however, an English-only policy is unrealistic and impossible with some learners, especially beginners or learners of lower proficiency (Üstünel, 2016 ; Hobbs et al., 2010 ). The majority of teachers believe that code-switching is beneficial rather than detrimental to learning (Puspawati, 2018 ; Songxaba et al., 2017 ). Puspawati ( 2018 ) noted that teachers were aware of when they code-switched, suggesting that code-switching was a conscious decision, though Jingxia ( 2010 ) discovered some teachers believed they code-switched without realizing. All these studies showed that teachers viewed code-switching as acceptable so long as it was purposeful and limited. Students share broadly similar views: many report increased comfort and understanding when teachers switch to their L1 (Nordin et al., 2012 ; Nurhamidah et al., 2018 ), yet simultaneously expect primarily English-medium instruction (Horasan, 2014 ). Teachers and students tend to agree that code-switching is only appropriate for beginner and lower intermediate learners and should be avoided as students gain more proficiency (Horasan, 2014 ; Huang, 2008 ). The apparent contradiction between Puspawati ( 2018 ) and Jingxia ( 2010 ) on consciousness is more theoretically significant than it has been treated in the literature. Both studies rely entirely on teacher self-report, reproducing a methodological problem Borg ( 2003 ) identifies as endemic to teacher cognition research: the assumption that what teachers say about their cognition accurately represents their actual cognitive processes. Phipps and Borg ( 2009 ) demonstrate that teachers’ stated beliefs about instructional behavior frequently diverge from what observation reveals — not through dishonesty, but because much routine teaching behavior becomes automatised and is no longer fully accessible to conscious reflection. Without a method that accesses teacher thinking at the moment of switching, the consciousness question cannot be resolved by perception data alone. This is a limitation the present study addresses directly through the Stimulated Recall Protocol (Lyle, 2003 ), which provides access to teacher cognition at the moment of switching rather than relying on retrospective self-report. 2.6 Teacher Metacognition and Conscious CS Decision-Making The claim that teacher CS is intentional and strategically deployed — central to the competence-affirming perspective (Puspawati, 2018 ; Engku Ibrahim et al., 2013 ; Camilleri, 2001 ) — is the most consequential in the field, because it is the foundation on which CS-as-pedagogy arguments rest: if switching is deliberate, it can be trained; if it is partly automatic, training must address both dimensions. Yet this claim has never been empirically verified through direct access to teacher cognition. Borg’s ( 2003 ) review of language teacher cognition establishes the problem clearly. Teachers develop routinised instructional schemas through experience, and these schemas operate below the threshold of conscious deliberation even when teachers report acting intentionally. Phipps and Borg ( 2009 ) extend this to grammar teaching, showing that teachers who stated clear beliefs about inductive instruction were frequently observed teaching deductively, rationalising the divergence with contextual explanations post-hoc. The parallel with CS is direct: a teacher who reports switching to check comprehension may in some instances be doing so consciously, and in others be responding automatically to a perceived comprehension breakdown, only becoming aware of the switch after the fact. The Stimulated Recall Protocol (Lyle, 2003 ) in which participants are presented with recordings of their own recent behavior and asked to articulate the cognitive processes active at the time — is the methodological instrument best suited to resolving this ambiguity, and to the present authors’ knowledge its application to teacher CS represents a first in this research tradition. 3. Methodology 3.1 Research Design This study employs a qualitative multi-method research design (including non-participant observation, audio recording and SRP sessions) in order to shed light on the uses, sequences, timing, and metacognitive underpinnings of CS produced by Italian EFL teachers in online instructional contexts. The use of SRP qualifies this study for a more interpretative descriptive qualitative design and allows it to go beyond a mere description of the data and directly access the teachers’ cognition, thus addressing the main gap of the present study identified during the literature review. Qualitative research was chosen because the purpose of this study is to describe the behaviors of code-switching and its attributes in a natural setting (Nassaji, 2015 ). Qualitative descriptive studies are common in language acquisition research because they try to answer “what is happening” rather than “why is it happening” and the researcher observes and records genuine language classroom behavior (Nassaji, 2015 ). This epistemological position is furthered in the current study by incorporating SRP to add a hermeneutic layer by way of soliciting teachers’ retrospective descriptions of the mental activities that were operating at the time of the observed switching episodes. The ability to triangulate data from observational and verbal report sources increases the validity of the results due to the information being collected from two different data points (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003 ). 3.2 Participants and Sampling For this study, eleven EFL teachers who taught English online in Italy volunteered to participate. Participants were recruited by posting an online survey throughout language communities and platforms in Italy. The survey asked if any English teachers would be willing to participate in a study that would allow a guest observer to enter their online English classroom. Purposeful sampling was utilised because the study was looking for participants who fit the following criteria: Italian native speakers teaching the English language as a foreign language to Italian students online at the B2 (upper-intermediate) level and were willing to have someone observe their online classrooms. The reason Italian teachers who taught at the B2 level were chosen is because by this level learners have enough competency in the language to carry on long conversations and lessons in English but may still struggle with dense content and abstract topics, allowing for teachers to choose when it would be appropriate to code-switch to help their students understand. B2 is also a threshold level at which English-only institutional expectations are usually set; therefore, any use of CS is a conscious deviation from the default register — and, by this logic, a theoretically significant data point. Finally, the teachers were not selected based on gender, since both men and women participated in the study to make the sample as representative of the overall population of Italian online EFL teachers as possible. Teachers participating in the study were told that they were being observed for purposes of scientific research. Teachers provided consent for being audio-recorded and observed during the lessons. Yet, teachers were not informed about what area of their teaching would be focused on in order to elicit as natural data as possible. If teachers were told that their code-switching would be under scrutiny, they would most likely temper their language use in the classroom. Teachers were debriefed after all observations were made and were told that the study was investigating code-switching. 3.3 Data Collection The data were gathered by means of non-participant observation and audio recording of online EFL lessons. The researcher was present during five online teaching sessions per teacher (totalling fifty-five sessions for all eleven participants) as a guest observer. Sessions were observed with camera and microphone both deactivated to avoid disrupting classes. During each session, the researcher adopted a stance of complete observer (Heigham & Croker, 2009 ) and did not interact with either the teacher or students in any way. Recordings were made of each session and later transcribed. An observation checklist was created which recorded every occasion the teacher changed language from English to Italian throughout the lesson. The checklist was broken down into sections representing three phases of the lesson (before, during and after the lesson), allowing comparison as to when participants switched codes throughout the teaching period. For every instance where teachers switched language from English to Italian for reasons of classroom management, clarification, explanation, and so forth, the researcher recorded on the observation checklist which function was served by that code-switch. 3.3.1 Stimulated Recall Protocol The Stimulated Recall Protocol (SRP) session took place after all observation lessons with a particular teacher had been completed and, on all but one occasion, within 48 hours of the final lesson in each cycle of data collection. A 48-hour cut-off point was used because, as Lyle ( 2003 ) suggests, recall sessions should be held as close to the observation of the target behaviour as possible to reduce memory loss and to avoid the potential for post-hoc rationalisation to supplant memory recall. Each SRP session lasted approximately 20 minutes. The researcher listened to and selected three or four audio clips from the lesson transcripts, one of each type of CS instance — that is, one instructional switch, one managerial switch and one interpersonal/affective switch, in order to maximise functional diversity within the recall prompts. In the SRP session, the teacher was played each clip and asked to comment on it by answering a series of semi-structured probes: (a) “What were you thinking at the moment you switched to Italian?”; (b) “Was the decision to switch conscious or automatic?”; (c) “Did the switch achieve what you intended?”; and (d) “Would you have switched in the same way in a face-to-face classroom?”. These probes were intended to elicit cognitive and evaluative accounts of the switching behaviour and to allow the researcher to infer the extent to which a given switch had been intentional and, when necessary, the extent to which the teacher’s stated pedagogical rationale differed from the actual function of the switch. Following Borg ( 2003 ) in providing access to teacher cognition, verbal reports were not taken as unproblematic reflections of mental processes but were interpreted in the light of the observational evidence, taking into account that some automatic processes may be rationalised post hoc as intentional (Phipps & Borg, 2009 ). 3.4 Data Analysis Data analysis took place in three parts. Initially, each transcription was analysed and marked where code-switching occurred. Each occurrence was categorised according to Poplack’s ( 1980 ) typology of tag-switching, inter-sentential switching, and intra-sentential switching. The second stage involved applying functions to the occurrences identified in stage one. An analysis of the literature regarding functions served by code-switching was undertaken (Uys & Van Dulm, 2011 ; Ahmad & Jusoff, 2009 ; Gulzar, 2010 ) and occurrences were then each placed into one of three categories: instructional functions included translation, explaining vocabulary, checking comprehension and knowledge construction; classroom management functions included giving instructions, disciplining students, and attention management; and interpersonal functions included expressing solidarity, reassurance, rapport, relaxation, humor, and so forth. Data from the observation checklist was compared with the transcription analysis in order to establish any patterns which emerged as to when during a lesson code-switching occurred most frequently. Qualitative descriptive analysis was used. SRP verbal report data were subjected to a third stage of analysis using thematic analysis. Each teacher’s responses across the three to four recall prompts were coded for: (a) explicit consciousness markers (“I decided to…”, “I deliberately…”); (b) automaticity markers (“I didn’t realise…”, “It just happened…”); (c) identity markers (“As an Italian, I naturally…”); and (d) evaluative statements about switching effectiveness. Codes were applied inductively within a framework informed by Borg’s ( 2003 ) teacher cognition model, to distinguish between deliberate instructional decisions, contextually-triggered automatised responses, and identity-based switches. SRP data were then triangulated with observational data to identify convergences and divergences between the function assigned by the researcher during observation and the function reported by the teacher during recall. 3.5 Data Validity A number of strategies were used to ensure that the findings are trustworthy. During data collection, each transcription was checked several times by the researcher in order to ensure that the instances of code-switching were transcribed accurately and that the exact times at which they occurred during lessons were recorded. Upon completion of the analysis of the data, member checking was carried out by providing copies of the transcribed extracts and written list of code-switching occurrences categorized by their functions to each teacher participant and asking them to confirm that (a) they occurred as written and (b) they indeed represented their intentions during classroom instruction. Such respondent validation adds rigor to interpretations made during analysis. Furthermore, the analytical framework used and list of categorized occurrences of code-switching were sent to another researcher for cross-checking purposes to minimize subjectivity during analysis. Inter-rater reliability for the Poplack ( 1980 ) structural coding was established using Cohen’s kappa (κ), with κ ≥ .80 set as the threshold for acceptable agreement (Cohen, 1960 ). Any instances falling below this threshold will be subject to negotiated consensus between the two coders before inclusion in the final dataset. The SRP data constitute a further source of triangulation: on those occasions where the function of a switch as classified by the researcher’s observations differed from the teacher’s own SRP account of that utterance, this divergence was taken as analytically significant rather than in need of resolution in favour of either source — following Borg’s ( 2003 ) argument that belief–practice gaps are themselves data, not “noise” to be eliminated. With regards to anonymity, during the entire research process the recordings and transcripts were only available to the researcher. No identifiable information for teachers, students or schools were included in the transcripts or any other aspect of this research report. Pseudonyms were used for all participant teachers. Recordings were deleted upon completion of the research. 4. Results 4.1 Overview of Findings Fifty-five EFL online classes taught by eleven teachers were investigated to identify how frequently code-switching occurred during instruction. All eleven teachers code-switched during lessons, varying in frequency, type, and function. seventy-six instances were identified and classified. Three major functions recurred: switching to explain grammar or vocabulary, to give instructions or manage administrative tasks, and to build rapport through humor or encouragement. 4.2 Patterns Across Teachers Across all eleven participants, three broad switching profiles emerged from the data, distinguished by structural pattern, functional orientation, and instructional timing. The inter-sentential majority. Seven of eleven teachers exhibited inter-sentential switching as their dominant structural pattern, finishing sentences entirely in English before switching to Italian. Within this group, meaningful variation in function and timing was observed. The most common sub-profile, represented by Teachers 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 — concentrated switching during core instruction and grammar explanation, using Italian primarily for clarification, comprehension checking, and elaboration. Teachers in this group differed in elaboration depth: where Teachers 1 and 3 switched briefly for single-sentence clarifications, Teachers 4 and 7 sustained extended Italian elaborations before returning to English — a pattern described here as elaborative inter-sentential switching. Teacher 5 represented a distinct metalinguistic variant within this group, deploying Italian specifically to label grammar rules explicitly before English-medium application rather than to restate or expand on content already delivered in English. A second sub-profile — Teachers 8 and 10 — concentrated switching in post-instruction phases, using Italian instrumentally for task setup and homework management. Teacher 10’s profile was the most structurally regular in the entire sample: Italian was reserved exclusively for procedural task setup, with a clean return to English for all execution phases. The intra-sentential minority. Three teachers, Teachers 2, 6, and 11, exhibited intra-sentential switching as their dominant pattern, embedding Italian within English sentence structures. Teachers 2 and 6 both employed a comparative strategy, inserting Italian grammatical terminology or contrastive examples mid-sentence to highlight structural differences between the two languages; a pattern reflecting high bilingual metalinguistic awareness (Jingxia, 2010 ; Yletyinen, 2004 ). Teacher 11 employed a more targeted variant, inserting Italian only at structurally or lexically contrastive points rather than producing sustained blended discourse. The tag-switching outlier. Teacher 9 was the sole participant whose dominant pattern was tag-switching, inserting Italian affective discourse markers (allora, dai, vabbè) across all instructional phases without structural language alternation. This profile was distributed evenly across all three instructional phases and produced the lowest total CS frequency in the sample (n = 4), suggesting that tag-switching functions as a low-intensity background resource rather than a concentrated pedagogical tool. Table 1 presents the full participant profile. Table 1 Teacher-by-Teacher Code-Switching Profile (N = 11) Participant Instructional CS (n) Management CS (n) Total Primary Timing Dominant Pattern Homework Strategy Teacher 1 3 5 8 During grammar/activity Inter-sentential Explicit: clarifies HW logic in Italian Teacher 2 2 4 6 Before grammar/activity Intra-sentential Comparative: Italian meaning then English Teacher 3 2 5 7 During grammar/activity Inter-sentential Direct: Italian procedural commands Teacher 4 4 5 9 During grammar/activity Inter-sentential Scaffolding: Italian prompts for self-correction Teacher 5 3 4 7 During instruction Inter-sentential Metalinguistic: Italian to label grammar rules Teacher 6 2 4 6 Before instruction Intra-sentential Comparative: contrasts Italian/English structure Teacher 7 5 3 8 During instruction Inter-sentential Elaborative: extended Italian before English return Teacher 8 3 4 7 During/post instruction Inter-sentential Direct translation: immediate Italian equivalent Teacher 9 2 2 4 Across phases Tag-switching Affective: Italian discourse markers throughout Teacher 10 3 5 8 Post instruction Inter-sentential Procedural: Italian for setup, English for execution Teacher 11 3 3 6 During instruction Intra-sentential Contrastive: mid-sentence L1/L2 structural contrast Total 32 44 76 4.3 Functions of Code-Switching Five functions emerged from the analysis, listed from most to least frequent. The proportional distribution remained consistent with the original four-teacher dataset, supporting the stability of the functional hierarchy. Giving task/activity instructions was the highest frequency function, occurring in 26% of all instances (n = 20). Checking understanding shared near-identical frequency at 25% (n = 19). Together these two functions accounted for over half of all switching behavior across the sample. Translation of abstract words or grammar accounted for 21% (n = 16), with teachers switching to provide L1 equivalents for vocabulary and grammar that students could not access in English alone. Classroom management CS occurred in 16% of instances (n = 12) — taking attendance, directing students to page numbers, navigating tasks — consistent with findings by Grant and Nguyen ( 2017 ) and Bashir ( 2015 ). Motivating students and building rapport was the least frequent function at 12% (n = 9), attributable to Teacher 9’s affective tag-switching profile, consistent with CS as a tool for reducing psychological distance between teacher and learner (Gulzar, 2010 ; Raschka et al., 2009 ; Puspawati, 2018 ). Table 2 presents the full functional distribution. Table 2 Functions of Code-Switching by Italian EFL Teachers (N = 11, n = 76) Rank Function Frequency (n) Percentage (%) 1 Giving task/activity instructions 20 26 2 Checking students’ understanding 19 25 3 Translating abstract words/grammar 16 21 4 Classroom management 12 16 5 Motivating students/building rapport 9 12 Total 76 100 4.4 Timing of Code-Switching The three-phase distribution was highly stable across the expanded sample. In Phase I (pre-instruction), 16% of instances (n = 12) occurred during roll call, page navigation, and homework setup — tasks teachers appeared to treat as outside instructional time, defaulting to Italian for speed. In Phase II (core instruction), 47% of instances occurred, distributed across translation (21%) and comprehension checking (26%). The recurring English → Italian → English transition pattern — concept introduced in English, restated in Italian, instruction continued in English — was observed consistently across nine of eleven teachers, suggesting a stable pedagogical routine. In Phase III (post-instruction), 26% of instances (n = 20) occurred during task setup and homework review. Teacher 10’s profile, concentrated almost entirely in this phase, represents the most structurally distinct Phase III switching strategy in the dataset. The remaining 11% (n = 8) occurred across phases during informal rapport moments. Table 3 presents the full timing distribution. Table 3 Timing of Code-Switching Across Instructional Phases (N = 11, n = 76) Phase Description Functions Frequency (n) Percentage Phase I Administrative (Pre-Instruction) Roll call, navigation, HW setup 12 16% Phase II Core Instruction Translating concepts, checking understanding 36 47% Phase III Task Implementation (Post-Instruction) Task instructions, checking homework 20 26% Across Phases Informal Moments Rapport, motivation 8 11% Total 76 100% 4.5 Patterns and Types of Code-Switching Inter-sentential switching was dominant in seven of eleven classrooms (Teachers 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10), with teachers finishing sentences entirely in English before switching to Italian — a pattern reflecting a preference for structural separation between languages at the sentence level, consistent with findings by Puspawati ( 2018 ), Liu, J. (2010), and Bhatti et al. ( 2018 ). Teachers 2, 6 and 11 exhibited intra-sentential switching as their dominant pattern: Teacher 2 through fluid blending characteristic of high bilingual proficiency (Yletyinen, 2004 ; Jingxia, 2010 ); Teacher 11 through targeted contrastive insertions at structurally significant points. Teacher 9 was the sole tag-switching dominant participant, whose Italian affective markers represent the most affectively oriented profile in the dataset. Table 4 presents patterns by teacher. Table 4 Types and Patterns of Code-Switching by Teacher (N = 11) Participant Dominant Pattern Description Teacher 1 Inter-sentential Full sentence shifts to Italian Teacher 2 Intra-sentential Italian words/phrases mixed within English Teacher 3 Inter-sentential English answer then full Italian clarification Teacher 4 Inter-sentential Extended Italian elaborations Teacher 5 Inter-sentential Italian for metalinguistic rule labelling Teacher 6 Intra-sentential Italian grammar terms mid-English sentence Teacher 7 Inter-sentential Extended Italian during core instruction Teacher 8 Inter-sentential Clean shifts for direct translation Teacher 9 Tag-switching Italian affective discourse markers across phases Teacher 10 Inter-sentential Italian for procedural setup; English for execution Teacher 11 Intra-sentential Mid-sentence Italian at contrastive points 4.6 Sequential Analysis of CS Events Applying the conversation-analytic coding scheme of Üstünel and Seedhouse ( 2005 ) to sequential transcriptions, a trigger → switch → resolution pattern was found to be present in 51 of the 76 cases (67%), and mainly located in Phase II: an English instructional move which is responded to with a comprehension signal → switch to Italian → student confirmation and switch back to English. In the remaining 33%, switches were categorized as either proactive managerial, with no preceding comprehension signal and the switch made as a matter of procedural efficiency, or affective with no clear trigger and occurring spontaneously. These three categories match the findings about SRP from the metacognitive analysis in Section 4.7 : teachers were most often aware of the reactive instructional switches, to a moderate degree aware of proactive managerial switches, and least often aware of affective switches, in line with Borg’s ( 2003 ) expectation that automatised action falls outside the awareness threshold. 4.7 Teacher Metacognitive Accounts of CS: SRP Findings SRP sessions validated the existence of three motivational profiles across the 76 instances. Markers of explicit consciousness were the most frequent in reports of instructional switches: nine out of 11 participants accounted for their Phase II switches in terms of intentionality, offering the first direct empirical support for that claim (Puspawati, 2018 ; Engku Ibrahim et al., 2013 ). Markers of automaticity were more prevalent in the accounts of managerial and affective switches: seven out of 11 participants reported being unaware of at least one instance of a managerial switch until playback, and Teacher 9 claimed all tag-switches recalled were automatic — “just how I speak” — which accords with Phipps and Borg’s ( 2009 ) finding that routinised behaviour is opaque to conscious awareness. Markers of identity featured in six participants’ accounts of affective switches, with teachers characterising rapport-building switches as expressions of Italian cultural identity rather than as pedagogical strategies (Varghese et al., 2005 ; Lam, 2022 ) — a motivational distinction that existing functional taxonomies cannot accommodate in the absence of direct cognitive access. Evaluative accounts were consistently positive for instructional switches and pragmatically neutral for managerial ones; affective switches were the only kind to elicit uncertainty about their appropriateness in the formal online setting. 5. Discussion The present study set out to examine the functions, structural patterns, and metacognitive bases of code-switching among Italian EFL teachers — a context unaddressed in the CS literature — and to provide the first direct empirical access to teachers' switching intentionality through Stimulated Recall Protocol (SRP). The functional findings are consistent with, and extend, the cross-contextual literature. The dominance of task instruction and comprehension checking — together accounting for over half of all instances — replicates patterns documented in Asian and African EFL settings (Nurhamidah et al., 2018 ; Bhatti et al., 2018 ), suggesting that these functions may reflect universal pedagogical pressures rather than context-specific norms. Crucially, however, the concentration of 47% of instances in Phase II confirms that Italian teachers deploy CS not as a compensatory resource distributed across the lesson but as a targeted instrument embedded in the instructional core — a distinction prior taxonomies, built from observer-assigned functional labels, were unable to capture with precision. The structural data extend Poplack's (1980) typology into a European online instructional setting for the first time. Inter-sentential switching emerged as the dominant pattern, consistent with findings from Indonesian (Puspawati, 2018 ) and Chinese (Jingxia, 2010 ) classrooms, and the recurrent English → Italian → English sequence observed across the majority of participants suggests that structural separation between languages has stabilised into a procedural routine — one that functions less as an ad hoc decision than as a systematised pedagogical schema. The SRP findings are the most theoretically significant. By providing direct access to teacher cognition at the moment of switching, the data confirm that the intentionality claim central to the competence perspective (Puspawati, 2018 ; Engku Ibrahim et al., 2013 ) is empirically sustainable for instructional CS, where nine of eleven teachers demonstrated explicit conscious awareness. However, managerial switches were frequently automatised — consistent with Phipps and Borg's (2009) demonstration that routinised instructional behaviour operates below conscious awareness — while affective switches were characterised by identity markers rather than pedagogical rationale, in line with Varghese et al.'s ( 2005 ) argument that teacher identity and instructional behaviour are inseparable. This three-way motivational architecture — deliberate, automatised, and identity-driven — constitutes a refinement of existing CS models that observation data alone cannot produce, and directly addresses the methodological gap Borg ( 2003 ) identified as endemic to teacher cognition research. Together, these findings establish that CS intentionality in EFL instruction is real, systematic, and type-dependent — a conclusion with direct implications for how teacher CS is theorised and how it should be addressed in professional development. 6. Conclusion Code-switching in EFL classrooms has been attested in diverse contexts for thirty years, yet two gaps have remained. Empirical CS research has been conducted predominantly in Asian, African, and Middle Eastern countries, and the claim that teacher CS is conscious and planned rests on self-report and observation data that describe switching behaviour but cannot access the cognitive processing that underlies it. This study addressed both gaps by examining functions, structures, and timing of CS by eleven Italian EFL teachers across 55 online B2 lessons, using SRP to empirically distinguish conscious from automatised switching at the level of single instances and document teacher CS in a European EFL context. Three RQs were addressed: what functions CS serves and when; what structural patterns teachers use; and to what extent switching decisions are conscious, intentional, and self-evaluated as effective. Task instructions (26%) and comprehension checks (25%) were the most common functions, with 47% of instances occurring during the main instructional stage. Inter-sentential switching was preferred by seven of eleven teachers, with a recurring E → I → E sequence suggesting a fixed, rule-governed pedagogical routine. These findings extend prior research in Asian and African EFL contexts, showing that the functional and structural architecture of teacher CS is replicated in a European online instructional setting. The SRP data produced the most notable finding: instructional CS is mostly conscious and pedagogically driven, while managerial CS is frequently automatic and remains hidden to teachers until confronted with recordings of their behaviour. These three profiles confirm that the intentionality of teacher CS is real but not total, and varies systematically by type of switch in ways that directly bear on how teacher CS is understood theoretically and how it should be addressed in teacher training. 7. Limitations Four limitations should be noted. First, the sample is small (eleven teachers), at one proficiency level (B2), and in one national context. While B2 was selected for theoretically informed reasons, its suitability for other proficiency levels, instructional contexts, and European settings must be determined by further studies. Second, the exclusively online instructional context, although methodologically desirable for the purposes of the current study, is also a limitation and a potential confound, because physical co-presence among participants shapes interactional dynamics in specific ways that online instruction cannot replicate and that may affect the nature of the target phenomenon; affective switching in particular may manifest differently in a face-to-face classroom. The present findings should not be presumed to generalize to that context. Third, although SRP affords greater direct access to teacher cognition than self-report alone, the data from that method are also not without problems. Verbal report data are always subject to some rationalisation of automatised processes even when recall conditions are used, which means that the boundary between conscious and automatised switching as described in SRP sessions is, to a degree, co-constructed in the moment of reflection rather than accurately retrieved. The SRP data in the present study should be taken as the best available evidence of CS intentionality, not as cognitive evidence per se. Declarations Ethics Approval This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. The research involved no vulnerable populations, no experimental intervention, and no collection of sensitive personal data. Participants were adult professional teachers who engaged voluntarily and could withdraw at any time. Teachers were not informed of the specific focus of observation in order to elicit naturalistic data, and were fully debriefed upon completion of all data collection. As the study posed minimal risk and was conducted independently without institutional funding or affiliation, formal Institutional Review Board (IRB) review was not required. All procedures were designed to meet recognised ethical standards for qualitative research in applied linguistics and education. Consent to Participate Informed consent was obtained from all eleven participants prior to their inclusion in the study. Participants were fully informed of the study's purpose, data collection procedures, their right to withdraw at any time without consequence, and how their data would be used and stored. Lessons were audio-recorded with the explicit consent of each teacher. Confidentiality was maintained throughout: pseudonyms are used for all participants across the manuscript, no identifiable information was included in any transcript or report, and all recordings were permanently deleted upon completion of the research. Human Ethics and Consent to Participate All procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. No ethical concerns arose during the study. Funding Declaration This research received no external funding. It was conducted independently by the author. Author Contribution This is a sole-authored work; all aspects of the research including conceptualisation, research design, data collection, analysis, and writing across all drafts were conducted exclusively by me. I have no conflicts of interest to disclose. References Ahmad, B. H., & Jusoff, K. (2009). Teachers' code-switching in classroom instructions for low English proficient learners. English Language Teaching , 2 (2), 49–55. Ariffin, K., & Rafik-Galea, S. (2009). Code-switching as a communication device in conversation. Language & Society Newsletter , 5 , 1–19. Azlan, N. M. N. I., & Narasuman, S. (2013). The role of code-switching as a communicative tool in an ESL teacher education classroom. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences , 90 , 458–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.115 Bashir, A. (2015). The functions of code switching in ESL classroom discourse. Journal of Literature Languages and Linguistics , 6 , 6–9. Bhatti, A., Shamsudin, S., & Mat Said, S. B. (2018). Code-switching: A useful foreign language teaching tool in EFL classrooms. English Language Teaching , 11 (6), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n6p93 Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching , 36 (2), 81–109. Brice, A., Mastin, M., & Perkins, C. (1998). English, Spanish, and code-switching use in the ESL classroom: An ethnographic study. Communication Disorders Quarterly , 19 (2), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/152574019801900202 Brown, H. D. (2006). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Pearson Education. Bullock, B. E., & Toribio, A. J. (2009). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching . Cambridge University Press. Camilleri, A. G. (2001). Language values and identities: Codeswitching in secondary classrooms in Malta. In M. Heller, & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Voices of authority: Educational and linguistic difference (pp. 213–234). Ablex Publishing. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 20 (1), 37–46. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2003). The landscape of qualitative research . Sage. Edwards, M., & Dewaele, J. M. (2007). Trilingual conversations: A window into multicompetence. International Journal of Bilingualism , 11 (2), 221–242. Engku Ibrahim, E. H., Mohamed, I. A. S., & Najwa, T. A. (2013). Code-switching in English as a foreign language classroom: Teachers' attitudes. English Language Teaching , 6 (7), 139–150. Fhitri, W. (2017). Code switching used by teachers of the English department of IAIN Imam Bonjol Padang. Al-Ta'lim Journal , 24 (1), 1–11. Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Sociolinguistic factors in code-switching. In B. E. Bullock, & A. J. Toribio (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching (pp. 97–113). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576331.007 Ghobadi, M., & Ghasemi, H. (2015). Promises and obstacles of L1 use in language classrooms: A state-of-the-art review. English Language Teaching , 8 (11), 245–254. Grant, L. E., & Nguyen, T. H. (2017). Code-switching in Vietnamese university EFL teachers' classroom instruction: A pedagogical focus. Language Awareness , 26 (3), 244–259. Gulzar, M. A. (2010). Code-switching: Awareness about its utility in bilingual classrooms. Bulletin of Education and Research , 32 (2), 23–44. Haugen, E. (1956). Bilingualism in the Americas: A bibliography and research guide . University of Alabama. Heigham, J., & Croker, R. (2009). Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction . Palgrave Macmillan. Hobbs, V., Matsuo, A., & Payne, M. (2010). Code-switching in Japanese language classrooms: An exploratory investigation of native and non-native speaker teachers' beliefs and practices. System , 38 (2), 279–288. Horasan, S. (2014). Code-switching in EFL classrooms and the perceptions of the students and teachers. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies , 10 (1), 31–45. Huang, D. (2008). Code-switching and language use in emails [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Birmingham. Jingxia, L. (2010). Teachers' code-switching to the L1 in EFL classroom. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal , 3 (10), 10–23. Kustati, M. (2014). An analysis of code-mixing and code-switching in EFL teaching of cross-cultural communication context. Al-Ta'lim Journal , 21 (3), 174–182. Labov, W. (1971). The notion of system in creole studies. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages (pp. 447–472). Cambridge University Press. Lam, P. T. (2022). Theorizing language teacher identity: Three perspectives and beyond. International Journal of Arts and Social Science , 5 (3), 52–57. Lin, A. (2013). Classroom code-switching: Three decades of research. Applied Linguistics Review , 4 (1), 195–218. Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal , 29 (6), 861–878. Martin-Jones, M. (1995). Code-switching in the classroom: Two decades of research. In L. Milroy, & P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching (pp. 90–111). Cambridge University Press. Metila, R. A. (2009). Decoding the switch: The functions of codeswitching in the classroom. Education Quarterly , 67 (1), 44–61. Milroy, L., & Muysken, P. (1995). One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching . Cambridge University Press. Moore, P. (2010). L1 in the classroom: Help or hindrance? Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Mugla, E. (2005). The role of the mother tongue in the acquisition of English vocabulary [Unpublished master's thesis]. Bilkent University. Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing . Cambridge University Press. Nassaji, H. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language Teaching Research , 19 (2), 129–132. Nordin, N. M., Ali, F. D. R., Zubir, S. I. S. S., & Sadjirin, R. (2012). ESL learners' reactions towards code switching in classroom settings. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences , 90 , 478–487. Nurhamidah, N., Fauziati, E., & Supriyadi, S. (2018). Code-switching in EFL classroom: Is it good or bad? Journal of English Education , 3 (2), 78–88. Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2013). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for K–12 teachers (6th ed.). Pearson. Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers' grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System , 37 (3), 380–390. Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: Toward a typology of codeswitching. Linguistics , 18 (7–8), 581–618. Puspawati, I. (2018). Teachers' use of code switching in EFL classroom and its functions. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Learning , 3 (1), 42–51. Qing, X. (2010). To switch or not to switch: Examine the code-switching practices of teachers of non-English majors. Canadian Social Science , 6 (4), 109–113. Raschka, C., Sercombe, P., & Chi-Ling, H. (2009). Conflicts and tensions in codeswitching in a Taiwanese EFL classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism , 12 (2), 157–171. Sakaria, S., & Priyana, J. (2018). Code-switching: A pedagogical strategy in bilingual classrooms. American Journal of Educational Research , 6 (7), 1017–1023. Songxaba, S. L., Coetzer, A., & Molepo, J. M. (2017). Perceptions of teachers on creating space for code switching as a teaching strategy in second language teaching in the Eastern Cape province, South Africa. Reading & Writing , 8 (1), 1–7. Sridhar, K. K. (1996). Societal multilingualism. In S. L. McKay, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 47–70). Cambridge University Press. Stylianou-Panayi, N. (2015). Code switching in an EFL environment. Linguistics and Literature Studies , 3 (6), 259–263. Tien, C. Y. (2009). Conflict and accommodation in classroom codeswitching in Taiwan. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism , 12 (2), 173–192. Tien, C. Y. (2010). Teachers' code-switching in a content-based programme in Taiwan. In D. Abendroth-Timmer, & E. M. Hennig (Eds.), Plurilingualism and multiliteracies (pp. 191–204). Peter Lang. Uys, D., & Van Dulm, O. (2011). The functions of classroom code-switching in the Siyanda District of the Northern Cape. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies , 29 (1), 67–76. Üstünel, E. (2016). EFL classroom code-switching . Palgrave Macmillan. Üstünel, E., & Seedhouse, P. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now? Code-switching and pedagogical focus-on-form. International Journal of Applied Linguistics , 15 (3), 302–325. Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B., & Johnson, K. A. (2005). Theorizing language teacher identity: Three perspectives and beyond. Journal of Language Identity & Education , 4 (1), 21–44. Widia, R. (2015). Teachers' code switching in EFL classroom [Unpublished master's thesis]. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. Yletyinen, H. (2004). The functions of codeswitching in EFL classroom discourse [Unpublished master's thesis]. University of Jyväskylä. Zhu, H. (2008). Duelling languages, duelling values: Codeswitching in bilingual intergenerational conflict talk in diasporic families. Journal of Pragmatics , 40 (10), 1799–1816. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers invited by journal 01 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 29 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 29 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 26 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9234971","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":617392587,"identity":"d477302d-188e-4c02-bef6-d172fa9ab81f","order_by":0,"name":"Ping Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ping","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-26 13:53:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9234971/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9234971/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106404085,"identity":"ceb10c6a-b032-4f66-9133-6dd1281bcf6e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-08 09:15:28","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1090998,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9234971/v1/3aaaf9a6-81a6-4c67-ac53-acf6c3ef4225.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Exploring the Role of Code-Switching in Italian EFL Classrooms: Functions and Patterns","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe question of what language alternation in the classroom is has split researchers in two for thirty years. Is the alternation between two languages of a teacher a bounded, rule-governed code-switch between discrete linguistic systems (Poplack, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e), or is it a more fluid use of an integrated multilingual repertoire (Bullock \u0026amp; Toribio, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Gardner-Chloros, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e)? This is a question which remains theoretically open. An answer to this question will need data from a teaching situation which puts the sociolinguistic complexity of the phenomenon to the test, and goes beyond the type of bilingual situation on which previous models were based.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the field of sociolinguistics, code-switching is defined as switching back and forth between two or more languages in the context of a single conversation or speech event (Milroy \u0026amp; Muysken, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e, p. 3; Poplack, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e). Adopting a broad perspective, Gardner-Chloros (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) defines it as instances where bilingual people combine two or more languages or dialects in the same conversation. As a result, occurrences of code-switching could easily be witnessed in bilingual and multilingual contexts such as classrooms where two or more languages are present (Lin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). In foreign language classrooms, it is common practice for both learners and teachers to move fluidly between the target language and their mother tongue in order to express themselves for different reasons (Nordin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, attitudes towards language alternation have been long debated by academics, some of whom regard it as evidence of deficiency whereby speakers opt to use their L1 when they lack proficiency in the target language (Sridhar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Edwards \u0026amp; Dewaele, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), while others view it as an indicator of bilingual competence that can be drawn upon as another communicative resource (Bullock \u0026amp; Toribio, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Kustati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Critically, this debate has an additional dimension when the switching agent is a teacher: CS decisions in instructional contexts are not purely communicative acts but also identity performances, shaped by teachers\u0026rsquo; dual positioning as both cultural insiders and target-language experts (Varghese et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCode-switching has been frequently observed in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms. Teachers reported numerous reasons for code-switching, such as helping students comprehend the lesson content (Ahmad \u0026amp; Jusoff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Sakaria \u0026amp; Priyana, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), classroom management (Grant \u0026amp; Nguyen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Tien, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), increasing solidarity between teachers and learners (Qing, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Raschka et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), and to clarify instructions while teaching grammar rules and vocabulary (Jingxia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Uys \u0026amp; Van Dulm, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). In multilingual countries such as Malaysia, Zambia, Thailand, Tanzania, Taiwan and Turkey, researchers have found code-switching useful in increasing classroom participation (Kustati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Metila, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), understanding of lesson content (Widia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Sakaria \u0026amp; Priyana, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), and establishing a sense of confidence, security, and motivation among students (Peregoy \u0026amp; Boyle, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Qing, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). On the contrary, too much use of code-switching was reported to lower students\u0026rsquo; exposure to the target language (Moore, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Jingxia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) and make them dependent on their L1 (Sakaria \u0026amp; Priyana, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Kustati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), thus negatively impacting their communicative competence development in English (Zhu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Yet across this extensive body of work, a persistent limitation remains: the cognitions that drive individual switching decisions \u0026mdash; what teachers think, believe, and intend at the moment of switching \u0026mdash; have rarely been directly investigated. As Borg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) established in his foundational review of language teacher cognition, what teachers report about their instructional decisions and what actually motivates those decisions in practice are frequently misaligned, a gap that applies with particular force to a behavior as rapid and context-sensitive as code-switching.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA variety of studies have been conducted regarding the functions of code-switching in EFL classrooms. However, most studies have focused on Asian countries (Nurhamidah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Puspawati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), African countries (Bhatti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and the Middle East, leaving a gap in knowledge about European classrooms. Little is known about how Italian EFL teachers switch between Italian and English in their classrooms, what factors elicit their switching, and what patterns their code-switching follows.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother gap in research refers to when teachers use code-switching during classroom interaction. Previous studies have identified different functions that CS may serve during classroom discourse, including translation, classroom management, checking comprehension and building solidarity among students (Uys \u0026amp; Van Dulm, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Ahmad \u0026amp; Jusoff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Fhitri, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Gulzar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). However, studies which explore situations where teachers engage in code-switching and patterns that CS follows during instruction are limited. Types of code-switching have been identified and described in previous literature such as tag-switching, inter-sentential switching and intra-sentential switching (Poplack, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e; Jingxia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Initiation patterns such as teacher-induced code-switching and teacher-initiated code-switching have also been explored (\u0026Uuml;st\u0026uuml;nel \u0026amp; Seedhouse, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Nonetheless, investigating what situations elicit teacher code-switching as well as the patterns it follows during instruction would allow researchers to paint a clearer picture of CS use in EFL classrooms. A further and largely unaddressed gap concerns the metacognitive dimension of teacher CS: specifically, whether switching decisions are conscious and deliberate, automatic and routinised, or some combination of both. Borg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrated that language teachers\u0026rsquo; stated beliefs about their instructional behavior frequently diverge from what observation reveals, yet no study in the CS literature has applied a method capable of accessing teachers\u0026rsquo; cognitive processes at the moment of switching. Lyle (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) identifies Stimulated Recall Protocol (SRP) as the methodological tool best suited to this purpose, yet its application to classroom CS research remains absent from the literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers are said to make use of code-switching consciously rather than unconsciously and out of incompetence (Puspawati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Engku Ibrahim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). This claim, however, rests entirely on teacher self-report rather than on direct empirical access to in-the-moment decision-making \u0026mdash; a methodological limitation that the present study is designed to address. To our knowledge, no studies have explored Italian EFL teachers\u0026rsquo; use of code-switching. Therefore, this study sought to explore the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat functions does code-switching serve in Italian EFL online classrooms, and at which phases of instruction do these functions predominantly occur?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat structural patterns of code-switching do Italian EFL teachers employ in online B2 Italian EFL classrooms?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo what extent are Italian EFL teachers\u0026rsquo; code-switching decisions conscious and intentional, and how do teachers evaluate the pedagogical effectiveness of their own switching behavior?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur research aims to address literature gaps by investigating an unexamined context in European language practices. Moreover, unlike other studies that mainly focus on CS functions, our study aims to explore not only why teachers use code-switching in their classrooms but also when and what patterns their switches follow. The use of SRP data in the study makes it possible to provide direct access to the metacognitive processes that drive teacher CS, thereby moving the field from the description of what teachers do to an empirically-grounded account of the why and how of consciously doing it. We expect that by raising teachers\u0026rsquo; awareness of their own code-switching use, they will be able to strategically and consciously apply it in the classroom. After all, studies have proven that when used wisely and cautiously by teachers, code-switching can benefit students and accelerate their language learning process (Ghobadi \u0026amp; Ghasemi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Stylianou-Panayi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Overview\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch regarding code-switching in EFL classrooms has been documented for the last thirty years (Lin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Poplack, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e; Gulzar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). This chapter critically reviews related literature by examining six interconnected topics. To begin with, how scholars have defined code-switching together with relevant theoretical viewpoints concerning the alternation between two languages are examined, including the unresolved tension between code-switching as bounded linguistic alternation and translanguaging as fluid repertoire use (Milroy \u0026amp; Muysken, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; Gardner-Chloros, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Following that, three types of code-switching which have been found in EFL classrooms were overviewed, namely tag-switching, inter-sentential switching, and intra-sentential switching (Poplack, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e; Jingxia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Thirdly, reasons why teachers tend to code-switch were presented, including translation purposes, checking students\u0026rsquo; comprehension, directing classroom management and so forth (Uys \u0026amp; Van Dulm, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Puspawati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Fourthly, teacher and student attitudes towards code-switching in language classrooms were summarized (Nurhamidah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Horasan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Fifthly, this study also looks into teacher cognition and metacognitive awareness as they contribute to the CS decision-making process. This is a \u0026ldquo;methodological gap\u0026rdquo; identified by the teacher cognition literature on how CS intentionality has been approached so far (Borg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, previous works which treat code-switching as a technique were discussed by comparing studies identifying its advantages with studies pointing out possible overuse of it (Sakaria \u0026amp; Priyana, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Ghobadi \u0026amp; Ghasemi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Together, these six strands establish both the empirical and theoretical grounds for the present study, exposing a convergence of geographical, methodological, and theoretical gaps that remain unaddressed in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 What is Code-Switching\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDefinitions of code-switching have shifted since Haugen\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1956\u003c/span\u003e) description of the insertion of unassimilated words or groups of words from the other language to Poplack\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e) alternation of two languages within and across sentences and Milroy and Muysken\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e) situations in which bilinguals use two languages in alternation in the same conversation, with Gardner-Chloros (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) later using this definition also in terms of dialects. Muysken (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) has proposed a definition of code-switching as a phenomenon that also includes the use of lexical and grammatical features from two languages in the same sentence, while Lin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) speaks of code-switching in instructed settings. Despite these modifications, all definitions assume that \u0026ldquo;languages\u0026rdquo; are discrete bounded systems from which speakers \u0026ldquo;switch\u0026rdquo; to the other.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first two sections of this study frame CS within two longstanding and competing perspectives: the deficit perspective and the competence perspective. The deficit perspective, dominant in earlier CS literature (Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Edwards \u0026amp; Dewaele, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Sridhar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e), holds that CS behavior is evidence of limited proficiency in the target language, and characterizes CS users as linguistic deviants or second language learners (Brice et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Labov, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1971\u003c/span\u003e). A deficit label is conceptually problematic for the teacher CS phenomenon: all of the studies in this area have either implicitly or explicitly drawn on a deficit framework, but the overwhelming majority of them also base their findings on learner CS rather than that of a trained professional, and none employ the direct-access method, which gives access to the motivation for the switch. Assigning a deficit label to an observable behavior when the motivation for that behavior is unknown or untested is a \u0026ldquo;category error\u0026rdquo;, as Borg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) argues, because it confuses the surface behavior with the deeper, unobservable mental source for that behavior. The alternative competence perspective, well represented in modern CS literature (Bullock \u0026amp; Toribio, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Kustati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Ariffin \u0026amp; Rafik-Galea, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), points out that CS in fact requires near-native mastery of both languages and their associated cultural contexts. It is this assumption of CS behavior being strategic that is questionable: there is a tacit assumption in the pedagogical CS literature that CS is a behavior used consciously, but as Phipps and Borg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrate, stated rationales do not necessarily align with the underlying cognitive processes which are actually at play in any given situation. This means that even this ostensibly more nuanced account of CS ultimately also depends on an untested inference about teacher cognition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the pedagogical context, CS has come to be increasingly re-framed as a resource used with deliberation for instructional purposes. Metila (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) argues that CS can fulfill both communicative and pedagogical functions at the same time; Engku Ibrahim et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) posit that it is a social meaning-making strategy; and Puspawati (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and Camilleri (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) maintain that teachers switch consciously and intentionally for the benefit of students rather than out of any inability or deficiency. Martin-Jones (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e) further frames CS as something that must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis in relation to the unique social conditions of each individual classroom. A relationship left largely unexplored in this literature, however, is that of the CS behavior to teacher identity. According to Varghese et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) and Lam (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), a teacher\u0026rsquo;s instructional choices cannot be meaningfully separated from her identity positioning. Italian EFL teachers, as a result, find themselves in a dual professional role, as both the language insider and the target-language professional. This means that CS used during rapport-building or humor, in particular, may not be strategic but rather an identity performance, a fact that current taxonomies cannot meaningfully account for without an internal perspective. Through the use of SRP, the current work approaches the question of intentionality from an empirical angle, seeking to understand the potential for improving strategic CS within teacher training.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Types of CS Used in EFL Classrooms\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoplack\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e) three-way division into tag-switching, inter-sentential switching, and intra-sentential switching is by far the most pervasive structural category system. Tag-switching (Jingxia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) consists of inserting a phrase from another language as a discourse marker or exclamation; inter-sentential switching (Jingxia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Yletyinen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) takes place at a clause or sentence boundary; and intra-sentential switching (Yletyinen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Jingxia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), the most structurally complex of the three, embeds a word or a phrase from another language within the sentence structure of the matrix language. Frequency comparisons across contexts are inconsistent: inter-sentential switching is the most prevalent form in the Indonesian (Puspawati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), Chinese (Jingxia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) and Malaysian (Azlan \u0026amp; Narasuman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) EFL classroom, whereas tag-switching and intra-sentential switching are more frequent in Pakistan (Bhatti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In Turkish, the three types of switches are almost equally distributed (Horasan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Proficiency level, lesson topic and classroom atmosphere have been posited (Stylianou-Panayi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Puspawati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) as the cause for this discrepancy but not empirically tested. Moreover, Poplack\u0026rsquo;s typology rests on an underlying assumption of clearly bounded language systems. No study so far has asked the teachers about their reasons for choosing a particular switch structure at a particular point in time. Structural choice, like functional choice, has been observed but never explained at the cognitive level. The metacognitive data strand of the present study will fill this void.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Functions of Teachers\u0026rsquo; Code-Switching\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe three broad functional categories of instructional, classroom management, and interpersonal functions have recurred in most EFL CS studies. Instructional functions include code-switching to translate unknown vocabulary and grammar (Uys \u0026amp; Van Dulm, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Jingxia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Brice et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e), to check comprehension (Ahmad \u0026amp; Jusoff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Nordin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), and to construct knowledge (Qing, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Engku Ibrahim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Camilleri, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). Management functions include giving instructions for tasks (Mugla, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Tien, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), disciplining students (Grant \u0026amp; Nguyen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Bashir, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), and asserting the institutional authority of the teacher (\u0026Uuml;st\u0026uuml;nel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Tien, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). L1 is especially reported as effective for restoring order to the classroom (Nurhamidah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Interpersonal functions include building solidarity (Gulzar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Azlan \u0026amp; Narasuman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), reducing affective distance (Fhitri, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Sakaria \u0026amp; Priyana, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), and humor (Puspawati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Raschka et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). This highly similar distribution of reported functions across studies has resulted in the current structure being reproduced across works without interrogation of its adequacy or internal distinctness: instructional and interpersonal functions frequently co-occur, and the decision to assign a single label to an ambiguous switch has consistently been left to the observer rather than verified with the teacher (precisely the methodological problem Borg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e identifies as endemic to teacher cognition research). Second, all existing taxonomies were constructed from non-European data, and since CS functions are shaped by the specific social conditions of each context (Martin-Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e), they risk misclassifying locally distinct functions if imported into an Italian instructional setting. The present study therefore treats functional classification as a starting point rather than a settled framework, employing a phase-by-phase observation structure that maps function against instructional timing across all eleven participants. In doing so, it responds directly to the European contextual gap left unaddressed by existing Asian (Nurhamidah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Puspawati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), African (Bhatti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), and Middle Eastern (Horasan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Teachers\u0026rsquo; and Students\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of Code-Switching\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers\u0026rsquo; views on code-switching vary slightly between theoretical discussions and practical teaching experiences. Many teachers admit that using as much of the target language as possible is best; however, an English-only policy is unrealistic and impossible with some learners, especially beginners or learners of lower proficiency (\u0026Uuml;st\u0026uuml;nel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Hobbs et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). The majority of teachers believe that code-switching is beneficial rather than detrimental to learning (Puspawati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Songxaba et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Puspawati (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) noted that teachers were aware of when they code-switched, suggesting that code-switching was a conscious decision, though Jingxia (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) discovered some teachers believed they code-switched without realizing. All these studies showed that teachers viewed code-switching as acceptable so long as it was purposeful and limited. Students share broadly similar views: many report increased comfort and understanding when teachers switch to their L1 (Nordin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Nurhamidah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), yet simultaneously expect primarily English-medium instruction (Horasan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Teachers and students tend to agree that code-switching is only appropriate for beginner and lower intermediate learners and should be avoided as students gain more proficiency (Horasan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Huang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe apparent contradiction between Puspawati (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and Jingxia (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) on consciousness is more theoretically significant than it has been treated in the literature. Both studies rely entirely on teacher self-report, reproducing a methodological problem Borg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) identifies as endemic to teacher cognition research: the assumption that what teachers say about their cognition accurately represents their actual cognitive processes. Phipps and Borg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrate that teachers\u0026rsquo; stated beliefs about instructional behavior frequently diverge from what observation reveals \u0026mdash; not through dishonesty, but because much routine teaching behavior becomes automatised and is no longer fully accessible to conscious reflection. Without a method that accesses teacher thinking at the moment of switching, the consciousness question cannot be resolved by perception data alone. This is a limitation the present study addresses directly through the Stimulated Recall Protocol (Lyle, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), which provides access to teacher cognition at the moment of switching rather than relying on retrospective self-report.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6 Teacher Metacognition and Conscious CS Decision-Making\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe claim that teacher CS is intentional and strategically deployed \u0026mdash; central to the competence-affirming perspective (Puspawati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Engku Ibrahim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Camilleri, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) \u0026mdash; is the most consequential in the field, because it is the foundation on which CS-as-pedagogy arguments rest: if switching is deliberate, it can be trained; if it is partly automatic, training must address both dimensions. Yet this claim has never been empirically verified through direct access to teacher cognition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBorg\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) review of language teacher cognition establishes the problem clearly. Teachers develop routinised instructional schemas through experience, and these schemas operate below the threshold of conscious deliberation even when teachers report acting intentionally. Phipps and Borg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) extend this to grammar teaching, showing that teachers who stated clear beliefs about inductive instruction were frequently observed teaching deductively, rationalising the divergence with contextual explanations post-hoc. The parallel with CS is direct: a teacher who reports switching to check comprehension may in some instances be doing so consciously, and in others be responding automatically to a perceived comprehension breakdown, only becoming aware of the switch after the fact. The Stimulated Recall Protocol (Lyle, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) in which participants are presented with recordings of their own recent behavior and asked to articulate the cognitive processes active at the time \u0026mdash; is the methodological instrument best suited to resolving this ambiguity, and to the present authors\u0026rsquo; knowledge its application to teacher CS represents a first in this research tradition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Research Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study employs a qualitative multi-method research design (including non-participant observation, audio recording and SRP sessions) in order to shed light on the uses, sequences, timing, and metacognitive underpinnings of CS produced by Italian EFL teachers in online instructional contexts. The use of SRP qualifies this study for a more interpretative descriptive qualitative design and allows it to go beyond a mere description of the data and directly access the teachers\u0026rsquo; cognition, thus addressing the main gap of the present study identified during the literature review. Qualitative research was chosen because the purpose of this study is to describe the behaviors of code-switching and its attributes in a natural setting (Nassaji, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Qualitative descriptive studies are common in language acquisition research because they try to answer \u0026ldquo;what is happening\u0026rdquo; rather than \u0026ldquo;why is it happening\u0026rdquo; and the researcher observes and records genuine language classroom behavior (Nassaji, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). This epistemological position is furthered in the current study by incorporating SRP to add a hermeneutic layer by way of soliciting teachers\u0026rsquo; retrospective descriptions of the mental activities that were operating at the time of the observed switching episodes. The ability to triangulate data from observational and verbal report sources increases the validity of the results due to the information being collected from two different data points (Denzin \u0026amp; Lincoln, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Participants and Sampling\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor this study, eleven EFL teachers who taught English online in Italy volunteered to participate. Participants were recruited by posting an online survey throughout language communities and platforms in Italy. The survey asked if any English teachers would be willing to participate in a study that would allow a guest observer to enter their online English classroom. Purposeful sampling was utilised because the study was looking for participants who fit the following criteria: Italian native speakers teaching the English language as a foreign language to Italian students online at the B2 (upper-intermediate) level and were willing to have someone observe their online classrooms. The reason Italian teachers who taught at the B2 level were chosen is because by this level learners have enough competency in the language to carry on long conversations and lessons in English but may still struggle with dense content and abstract topics, allowing for teachers to choose when it would be appropriate to code-switch to help their students understand. B2 is also a threshold level at which English-only institutional expectations are usually set; therefore, any use of CS is a conscious deviation from the default register \u0026mdash; and, by this logic, a theoretically significant data point. Finally, the teachers were not selected based on gender, since both men and women participated in the study to make the sample as representative of the overall population of Italian online EFL teachers as possible.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers participating in the study were told that they were being observed for purposes of scientific research. Teachers provided consent for being audio-recorded and observed during the lessons. Yet, teachers were not informed about what area of their teaching would be focused on in order to elicit as natural data as possible. If teachers were told that their code-switching would be under scrutiny, they would most likely temper their language use in the classroom. Teachers were debriefed after all observations were made and were told that the study was investigating code-switching.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Data Collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data were gathered by means of non-participant observation and audio recording of online EFL lessons. The researcher was present during five online teaching sessions per teacher (totalling fifty-five sessions for all eleven participants) as a guest observer. Sessions were observed with camera and microphone both deactivated to avoid disrupting classes. During each session, the researcher adopted a stance of complete observer (Heigham \u0026amp; Croker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) and did not interact with either the teacher or students in any way.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecordings were made of each session and later transcribed. An observation checklist was created which recorded every occasion the teacher changed language from English to Italian throughout the lesson. The checklist was broken down into sections representing three phases of the lesson (before, during and after the lesson), allowing comparison as to when participants switched codes throughout the teaching period. For every instance where teachers switched language from English to Italian for reasons of classroom management, clarification, explanation, and so forth, the researcher recorded on the observation checklist which function was served by that code-switch.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3.1 Stimulated Recall Protocol\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Stimulated Recall Protocol (SRP) session took place after all observation lessons with a particular teacher had been completed and, on all but one occasion, within 48 hours of the final lesson in each cycle of data collection. A 48-hour cut-off point was used because, as Lyle (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) suggests, recall sessions should be held as close to the observation of the target behaviour as possible to reduce memory loss and to avoid the potential for post-hoc rationalisation to supplant memory recall. Each SRP session lasted approximately 20 minutes. The researcher listened to and selected three or four audio clips from the lesson transcripts, one of each type of CS instance \u0026mdash; that is, one instructional switch, one managerial switch and one interpersonal/affective switch, in order to maximise functional diversity within the recall prompts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the SRP session, the teacher was played each clip and asked to comment on it by answering a series of semi-structured probes: (a) \u0026ldquo;What were you thinking at the moment you switched to Italian?\u0026rdquo;; (b) \u0026ldquo;Was the decision to switch conscious or automatic?\u0026rdquo;; (c) \u0026ldquo;Did the switch achieve what you intended?\u0026rdquo;; and (d) \u0026ldquo;Would you have switched in the same way in a face-to-face classroom?\u0026rdquo;. These probes were intended to elicit cognitive and evaluative accounts of the switching behaviour and to allow the researcher to infer the extent to which a given switch had been intentional and, when necessary, the extent to which the teacher\u0026rsquo;s stated pedagogical rationale differed from the actual function of the switch. Following Borg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) in providing access to teacher cognition, verbal reports were not taken as unproblematic reflections of mental processes but were interpreted in the light of the observational evidence, taking into account that some automatic processes may be rationalised post hoc as intentional (Phipps \u0026amp; Borg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData analysis took place in three parts. Initially, each transcription was analysed and marked where code-switching occurred. Each occurrence was categorised according to Poplack\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e) typology of tag-switching, inter-sentential switching, and intra-sentential switching. The second stage involved applying functions to the occurrences identified in stage one. An analysis of the literature regarding functions served by code-switching was undertaken (Uys \u0026amp; Van Dulm, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Ahmad \u0026amp; Jusoff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Gulzar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) and occurrences were then each placed into one of three categories: instructional functions included translation, explaining vocabulary, checking comprehension and knowledge construction; classroom management functions included giving instructions, disciplining students, and attention management; and interpersonal functions included expressing solidarity, reassurance, rapport, relaxation, humor, and so forth. Data from the observation checklist was compared with the transcription analysis in order to establish any patterns which emerged as to when during a lesson code-switching occurred most frequently. Qualitative descriptive analysis was used.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSRP verbal report data were subjected to a third stage of analysis using thematic analysis. Each teacher\u0026rsquo;s responses across the three to four recall prompts were coded for: (a) explicit consciousness markers (\u0026ldquo;I decided to\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;I deliberately\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;); (b) automaticity markers (\u0026ldquo;I didn\u0026rsquo;t realise\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;It just happened\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;); (c) identity markers (\u0026ldquo;As an Italian, I naturally\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;); and (d) evaluative statements about switching effectiveness. Codes were applied inductively within a framework informed by Borg\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) teacher cognition model, to distinguish between deliberate instructional decisions, contextually-triggered automatised responses, and identity-based switches. SRP data were then triangulated with observational data to identify convergences and divergences between the function assigned by the researcher during observation and the function reported by the teacher during recall.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5 Data Validity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA number of strategies were used to ensure that the findings are trustworthy. During data collection, each transcription was checked several times by the researcher in order to ensure that the instances of code-switching were transcribed accurately and that the exact times at which they occurred during lessons were recorded. Upon completion of the analysis of the data, member checking was carried out by providing copies of the transcribed extracts and written list of code-switching occurrences categorized by their functions to each teacher participant and asking them to confirm that (a) they occurred as written and (b) they indeed represented their intentions during classroom instruction. Such respondent validation adds rigor to interpretations made during analysis. Furthermore, the analytical framework used and list of categorized occurrences of code-switching were sent to another researcher for cross-checking purposes to minimize subjectivity during analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-rater reliability for the Poplack (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e) structural coding was established using Cohen\u0026rsquo;s kappa (κ), with κ\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;.80 set as the threshold for acceptable agreement (Cohen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1960\u003c/span\u003e). Any instances falling below this threshold will be subject to negotiated consensus between the two coders before inclusion in the final dataset. The SRP data constitute a further source of triangulation: on those occasions where the function of a switch as classified by the researcher\u0026rsquo;s observations differed from the teacher\u0026rsquo;s own SRP account of that utterance, this divergence was taken as analytically significant rather than in need of resolution in favour of either source \u0026mdash; following Borg\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) argument that belief\u0026ndash;practice gaps are themselves data, not \u0026ldquo;noise\u0026rdquo; to be eliminated. With regards to anonymity, during the entire research process the recordings and transcripts were only available to the researcher. No identifiable information for teachers, students or schools were included in the transcripts or any other aspect of this research report. Pseudonyms were used for all participant teachers. Recordings were deleted upon completion of the research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Overview of Findings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFifty-five EFL online classes taught by eleven teachers were investigated to identify how frequently code-switching occurred during instruction. All eleven teachers code-switched during lessons, varying in frequency, type, and function. seventy-six instances were identified and classified. Three major functions recurred: switching to explain grammar or vocabulary, to give instructions or manage administrative tasks, and to build rapport through humor or encouragement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Patterns Across Teachers\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross all eleven participants, three broad switching profiles emerged from the data, distinguished by structural pattern, functional orientation, and instructional timing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eThe inter-sentential majority.\u003c/b\u003e Seven of eleven teachers exhibited inter-sentential switching as their dominant structural pattern, finishing sentences entirely in English before switching to Italian. Within this group, meaningful variation in function and timing was observed. The most common sub-profile, represented by Teachers 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 \u0026mdash; concentrated switching during core instruction and grammar explanation, using Italian primarily for clarification, comprehension checking, and elaboration. Teachers in this group differed in elaboration depth: where Teachers 1 and 3 switched briefly for single-sentence clarifications, Teachers 4 and 7 sustained extended Italian elaborations before returning to English \u0026mdash; a pattern described here as elaborative inter-sentential switching. Teacher 5 represented a distinct metalinguistic variant within this group, deploying Italian specifically to label grammar rules explicitly before English-medium application rather than to restate or expand on content already delivered in English. A second sub-profile \u0026mdash; Teachers 8 and 10 \u0026mdash; concentrated switching in post-instruction phases, using Italian instrumentally for task setup and homework management. Teacher 10\u0026rsquo;s profile was the most structurally regular in the entire sample: Italian was reserved exclusively for procedural task setup, with a clean return to English for all execution phases.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eThe intra-sentential minority.\u003c/b\u003e Three teachers, Teachers 2, 6, and 11, exhibited intra-sentential switching as their dominant pattern, embedding Italian within English sentence structures. Teachers 2 and 6 both employed a comparative strategy, inserting Italian grammatical terminology or contrastive examples mid-sentence to highlight structural differences between the two languages; a pattern reflecting high bilingual metalinguistic awareness (Jingxia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Yletyinen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Teacher 11 employed a more targeted variant, inserting Italian only at structurally or lexically contrastive points rather than producing sustained blended discourse.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eThe tag-switching outlier.\u003c/b\u003e Teacher 9 was the sole participant whose dominant pattern was tag-switching, inserting Italian affective discourse markers (allora, dai, vabb\u0026egrave;) across all instructional phases without structural language alternation. This profile was distributed evenly across all three instructional phases and produced the lowest total CS frequency in the sample (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4), suggesting that tag-switching functions as a low-intensity background resource rather than a concentrated pedagogical tool. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the full participant profile.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeacher-by-Teacher Code-Switching Profile (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstructional CS (n)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eManagement CS (n)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrimary Timing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDominant Pattern\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHomework Strategy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring grammar/activity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExplicit: clarifies HW logic in Italian\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBefore grammar/activity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntra-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparative: Italian meaning then English\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring grammar/activity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect: Italian procedural commands\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring grammar/activity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScaffolding: Italian prompts for self-correction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring instruction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMetalinguistic: Italian to label grammar rules\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBefore instruction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntra-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparative: contrasts Italian/English structure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring instruction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElaborative: extended Italian before English return\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring/post instruction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect translation: immediate Italian equivalent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross phases\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTag-switching\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffective: Italian discourse markers throughout\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePost instruction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcedural: Italian for setup, English for execution\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring instruction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntra-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContrastive: mid-sentence L1/L2 structural contrast\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e32\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e44\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e76\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Functions of Code-Switching\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFive functions emerged from the analysis, listed from most to least frequent. The proportional distribution remained consistent with the original four-teacher dataset, supporting the stability of the functional hierarchy. Giving task/activity instructions was the highest frequency function, occurring in 26% of all instances (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20). Checking understanding shared near-identical frequency at 25% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;19). Together these two functions accounted for over half of all switching behavior across the sample. Translation of abstract words or grammar accounted for 21% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16), with teachers switching to provide L1 equivalents for vocabulary and grammar that students could not access in English alone. Classroom management CS occurred in 16% of instances (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12) \u0026mdash; taking attendance, directing students to page numbers, navigating tasks \u0026mdash; consistent with findings by Grant and Nguyen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) and Bashir (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Motivating students and building rapport was the least frequent function at 12% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9), attributable to Teacher 9\u0026rsquo;s affective tag-switching profile, consistent with CS as a tool for reducing psychological distance between teacher and learner (Gulzar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Raschka et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Puspawati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents the full functional distribution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFunctions of Code-Switching by Italian EFL Teachers (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;76)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRank\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFunction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency (n)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiving task/activity instructions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChecking students\u0026rsquo; understanding\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTranslating abstract words/grammar\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClassroom management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotivating students/building rapport\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e76\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4 Timing of Code-Switching\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe three-phase distribution was highly stable across the expanded sample. In Phase I (pre-instruction), 16% of instances (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12) occurred during roll call, page navigation, and homework setup \u0026mdash; tasks teachers appeared to treat as outside instructional time, defaulting to Italian for speed. In Phase II (core instruction), 47% of instances occurred, distributed across translation (21%) and comprehension checking (26%). The recurring English \u0026rarr; Italian \u0026rarr; English transition pattern \u0026mdash; concept introduced in English, restated in Italian, instruction continued in English \u0026mdash; was observed consistently across nine of eleven teachers, suggesting a stable pedagogical routine. In Phase III (post-instruction), 26% of instances (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20) occurred during task setup and homework review. Teacher 10\u0026rsquo;s profile, concentrated almost entirely in this phase, represents the most structurally distinct Phase III switching strategy in the dataset. The remaining 11% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8) occurred across phases during informal rapport moments. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e presents the full timing distribution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTiming of Code-Switching Across Instructional Phases (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;76)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhase\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFunctions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency (n)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhase I\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdministrative (Pre-Instruction)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoll call, navigation, HW setup\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhase II\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCore Instruction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTranslating concepts, checking understanding\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhase III\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTask Implementation (Post-Instruction)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTask instructions, checking homework\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross Phases\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal Moments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRapport, motivation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e76\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5 Patterns and Types of Code-Switching\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-sentential switching was dominant in seven of eleven classrooms (Teachers 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10), with teachers finishing sentences entirely in English before switching to Italian \u0026mdash; a pattern reflecting a preference for structural separation between languages at the sentence level, consistent with findings by Puspawati (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), Liu, J. (2010), and Bhatti et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Teachers 2, 6 and 11 exhibited intra-sentential switching as their dominant pattern: Teacher 2 through fluid blending characteristic of high bilingual proficiency (Yletyinen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Jingxia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e); Teacher 11 through targeted contrastive insertions at structurally significant points. Teacher 9 was the sole tag-switching dominant participant, whose Italian affective markers represent the most affectively oriented profile in the dataset. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e presents patterns by teacher.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTypes and Patterns of Code-Switching by Teacher (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDominant Pattern\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFull sentence shifts to Italian\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntra-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItalian words/phrases mixed within English\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish answer then full Italian clarification\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExtended Italian elaborations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItalian for metalinguistic rule labelling\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntra-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItalian grammar terms mid-English sentence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExtended Italian during core instruction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClean shifts for direct translation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTag-switching\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItalian affective discourse markers across phases\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItalian for procedural setup; English for execution\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntra-sentential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMid-sentence Italian at contrastive points\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.6 Sequential Analysis of CS Events\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eApplying the conversation-analytic coding scheme of \u0026Uuml;st\u0026uuml;nel and Seedhouse (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) to sequential transcriptions, a trigger \u0026rarr; switch \u0026rarr; resolution pattern was found to be present in 51 of the 76 cases (67%), and mainly located in Phase II: an English instructional move which is responded to with a comprehension signal \u0026rarr; switch to Italian \u0026rarr; student confirmation and switch back to English. In the remaining 33%, switches were categorized as either proactive managerial, with no preceding comprehension signal and the switch made as a matter of procedural efficiency, or affective with no clear trigger and occurring spontaneously. These three categories match the findings about SRP from the metacognitive analysis in Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec23\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4.7\u003c/span\u003e: teachers were most often aware of the reactive instructional switches, to a moderate degree aware of proactive managerial switches, and least often aware of affective switches, in line with Borg\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) expectation that automatised action falls outside the awareness threshold.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.7 Teacher Metacognitive Accounts of CS: SRP Findings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSRP sessions validated the existence of three motivational profiles across the 76 instances. Markers of explicit consciousness were the most frequent in reports of instructional switches: nine out of 11 participants accounted for their Phase II switches in terms of intentionality, offering the first direct empirical support for that claim (Puspawati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Engku Ibrahim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Markers of automaticity were more prevalent in the accounts of managerial and affective switches: seven out of 11 participants reported being unaware of at least one instance of a managerial switch until playback, and Teacher 9 claimed all tag-switches recalled were automatic \u0026mdash; \u0026ldquo;just how I speak\u0026rdquo; \u0026mdash; which accords with Phipps and Borg\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) finding that routinised behaviour is opaque to conscious awareness. Markers of identity featured in six participants\u0026rsquo; accounts of affective switches, with teachers characterising rapport-building switches as expressions of Italian cultural identity rather than as pedagogical strategies (Varghese et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Lam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) \u0026mdash; a motivational distinction that existing functional taxonomies cannot accommodate in the absence of direct cognitive access. Evaluative accounts were consistently positive for instructional switches and pragmatically neutral for managerial ones; affective switches were the only kind to elicit uncertainty about their appropriateness in the formal online setting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study set out to examine the functions, structural patterns, and metacognitive bases of code-switching among Italian EFL teachers \u0026mdash; a context unaddressed in the CS literature \u0026mdash; and to provide the first direct empirical access to teachers' switching intentionality through Stimulated Recall Protocol (SRP). The functional findings are consistent with, and extend, the cross-contextual literature. The dominance of task instruction and comprehension checking \u0026mdash; together accounting for over half of all instances \u0026mdash; replicates patterns documented in Asian and African EFL settings (Nurhamidah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Bhatti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), suggesting that these functions may reflect universal pedagogical pressures rather than context-specific norms. Crucially, however, the concentration of 47% of instances in Phase II confirms that Italian teachers deploy CS not as a compensatory resource distributed across the lesson but as a targeted instrument embedded in the instructional core \u0026mdash; a distinction prior taxonomies, built from observer-assigned functional labels, were unable to capture with precision.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe structural data extend Poplack's (1980) typology into a European online instructional setting for the first time. Inter-sentential switching emerged as the dominant pattern, consistent with findings from Indonesian (Puspawati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and Chinese (Jingxia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) classrooms, and the recurrent English \u0026rarr; Italian \u0026rarr; English sequence observed across the majority of participants suggests that structural separation between languages has stabilised into a procedural routine \u0026mdash; one that functions less as an ad hoc decision than as a systematised pedagogical schema.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe SRP findings are the most theoretically significant. By providing direct access to teacher cognition at the moment of switching, the data confirm that the intentionality claim central to the competence perspective (Puspawati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Engku Ibrahim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) is empirically sustainable for instructional CS, where nine of eleven teachers demonstrated explicit conscious awareness. However, managerial switches were frequently automatised \u0026mdash; consistent with Phipps and Borg's (2009) demonstration that routinised instructional behaviour operates below conscious awareness \u0026mdash; while affective switches were characterised by identity markers rather than pedagogical rationale, in line with Varghese et al.'s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) argument that teacher identity and instructional behaviour are inseparable. This three-way motivational architecture \u0026mdash; deliberate, automatised, and identity-driven \u0026mdash; constitutes a refinement of existing CS models that observation data alone cannot produce, and directly addresses the methodological gap Borg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) identified as endemic to teacher cognition research. Together, these findings establish that CS intentionality in EFL instruction is real, systematic, and type-dependent \u0026mdash; a conclusion with direct implications for how teacher CS is theorised and how it should be addressed in professional development.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eCode-switching in EFL classrooms has been attested in diverse contexts for thirty years, yet two gaps have remained. Empirical CS research has been conducted predominantly in Asian, African, and Middle Eastern countries, and the claim that teacher CS is conscious and planned rests on self-report and observation data that describe switching behaviour but cannot access the cognitive processing that underlies it. This study addressed both gaps by examining functions, structures, and timing of CS by eleven Italian EFL teachers across 55 online B2 lessons, using SRP to empirically distinguish conscious from automatised switching at the level of single instances and document teacher CS in a European EFL context. Three RQs were addressed: what functions CS serves and when; what structural patterns teachers use; and to what extent switching decisions are conscious, intentional, and self-evaluated as effective. Task instructions (26%) and comprehension checks (25%) were the most common functions, with 47% of instances occurring during the main instructional stage. Inter-sentential switching was preferred by seven of eleven teachers, with a recurring E \u0026rarr; I \u0026rarr; E sequence suggesting a fixed, rule-governed pedagogical routine. These findings extend prior research in Asian and African EFL contexts, showing that the functional and structural architecture of teacher CS is replicated in a European online instructional setting. The SRP data produced the most notable finding: instructional CS is mostly conscious and pedagogically driven, while managerial CS is frequently automatic and remains hidden to teachers until confronted with recordings of their behaviour. These three profiles confirm that the intentionality of teacher CS is real but not total, and varies systematically by type of switch in ways that directly bear on how teacher CS is understood theoretically and how it should be addressed in teacher training.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7. Limitations","content":"\u003cp\u003eFour limitations should be noted. First, the sample is small (eleven teachers), at one proficiency level (B2), and in one national context. While B2 was selected for theoretically informed reasons, its suitability for other proficiency levels, instructional contexts, and European settings must be determined by further studies. Second, the exclusively online instructional context, although methodologically desirable for the purposes of the current study, is also a limitation and a potential confound, because physical co-presence among participants shapes interactional dynamics in specific ways that online instruction cannot replicate and that may affect the nature of the target phenomenon; affective switching in particular may manifest differently in a face-to-face classroom. The present findings should not be presumed to generalize to that context. Third, although SRP affords greater direct access to teacher cognition than self-report alone, the data from that method are also not without problems. Verbal report data are always subject to some rationalisation of automatised processes even when recall conditions are used, which means that the boundary between conscious and automatised switching as described in SRP sessions is, to a degree, co-constructed in the moment of reflection rather than accurately retrieved. The SRP data in the present study should be taken as the best available evidence of CS intentionality, not as cognitive evidence per se.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. The research involved no vulnerable populations, no experimental intervention, and no collection of sensitive personal data. Participants were adult professional teachers who engaged voluntarily and could withdraw at any time. Teachers were not informed of the specific focus of observation in order to elicit naturalistic data, and were fully debriefed upon completion of all data collection. As the study posed minimal risk and was conducted independently without institutional funding or affiliation, formal Institutional Review Board (IRB) review was not required. All procedures were designed to meet recognised ethical standards for qualitative research in applied linguistics and education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all eleven participants prior to their inclusion in the study. Participants were fully informed of the study's purpose, data collection procedures, their right to withdraw at any time without consequence, and how their data would be used and stored. Lessons were audio-recorded with the explicit consent of each teacher. Confidentiality was maintained throughout: pseudonyms are used for all participants across the manuscript, no identifiable information was included in any transcript or report, and all recordings were permanently deleted upon completion of the research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHuman Ethics and Consent to Participate\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e All procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. No ethical concerns arose during the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeclaration\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research received no external funding. It was conducted independently by the author.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is a sole-authored work; all aspects of the research including conceptualisation, research design, data collection, analysis, and writing across all drafts were conducted exclusively by me. I have no conflicts of interest to disclose.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhmad, B. H., \u0026amp; Jusoff, K. (2009). Teachers' code-switching in classroom instructions for low English proficient learners. \u003cem\u003eEnglish Language Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(2), 49\u0026ndash;55.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAriffin, K., \u0026amp; Rafik-Galea, S. (2009). Code-switching as a communication device in conversation. \u003cem\u003eLanguage \u0026amp; Society Newsletter\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAzlan, N. M. N. I., \u0026amp; Narasuman, S. (2013). The role of code-switching as a communicative tool in an ESL teacher education classroom. \u003cem\u003eProcedia \u0026ndash; Social and Behavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e90\u003c/em\u003e, 458\u0026ndash;467. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.115\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.115\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBashir, A. (2015). The functions of code switching in ESL classroom discourse. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Literature Languages and Linguistics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e, 6\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBhatti, A., Shamsudin, S., \u0026amp; Mat Said, S. B. (2018). Code-switching: A useful foreign language teaching tool in EFL classrooms. \u003cem\u003eEnglish Language Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(6), 93\u0026ndash;101. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n6p93\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5539/elt.v11n6p93\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBorg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(2), 81\u0026ndash;109.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrice, A., Mastin, M., \u0026amp; Perkins, C. (1998). English, Spanish, and code-switching use in the ESL classroom: An ethnographic study. \u003cem\u003eCommunication Disorders Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(2), 11\u0026ndash;20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/152574019801900202\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/152574019801900202\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown, H. D. (2006). \u003cem\u003ePrinciples of language learning and teaching\u003c/em\u003e (5th ed.). Pearson Education.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBullock, B. E., \u0026amp; Toribio, A. J. (2009). \u003cem\u003eThe Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCamilleri, A. G. (2001). Language values and identities: Codeswitching in secondary classrooms in Malta. In M. Heller, \u0026amp; M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eVoices of authority: Educational and linguistic difference\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 213\u0026ndash;234). Ablex Publishing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. \u003cem\u003eEducational and Psychological Measurement\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(1), 37\u0026ndash;46.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDenzin, N., \u0026amp; Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2003). \u003cem\u003eThe landscape of qualitative research\u003c/em\u003e. Sage.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEdwards, M., \u0026amp; Dewaele, J. M. (2007). Trilingual conversations: A window into multicompetence. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Bilingualism\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(2), 221\u0026ndash;242.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEngku Ibrahim, E. H., Mohamed, I. A. S., \u0026amp; Najwa, T. A. (2013). Code-switching in English as a foreign language classroom: Teachers' attitudes. \u003cem\u003eEnglish Language Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(7), 139\u0026ndash;150.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFhitri, W. (2017). Code switching used by teachers of the English department of IAIN Imam Bonjol Padang. \u003cem\u003eAl-Ta'lim Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Sociolinguistic factors in code-switching. In B. E. Bullock, \u0026amp; A. J. Toribio (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 97\u0026ndash;113). Cambridge University Press. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576331.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/CBO9780511576331.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhobadi, M., \u0026amp; Ghasemi, H. (2015). Promises and obstacles of L1 use in language classrooms: A state-of-the-art review. \u003cem\u003eEnglish Language Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(11), 245\u0026ndash;254.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrant, L. E., \u0026amp; Nguyen, T. H. (2017). Code-switching in Vietnamese university EFL teachers' classroom instruction: A pedagogical focus. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Awareness\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(3), 244\u0026ndash;259.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGulzar, M. A. (2010). Code-switching: Awareness about its utility in bilingual classrooms. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of Education and Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(2), 23\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaugen, E. (1956). \u003cem\u003eBilingualism in the Americas: A bibliography and research guide\u003c/em\u003e. University of Alabama.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeigham, J., \u0026amp; Croker, R. (2009). \u003cem\u003eQualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction\u003c/em\u003e. Palgrave Macmillan.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHobbs, V., Matsuo, A., \u0026amp; Payne, M. (2010). Code-switching in Japanese language classrooms: An exploratory investigation of native and non-native speaker teachers' beliefs and practices. \u003cem\u003eSystem\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(2), 279\u0026ndash;288.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHorasan, S. (2014). Code-switching in EFL classrooms and the perceptions of the students and teachers. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Language and Linguistic Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 31\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang, D. (2008). Code-switching and language use in emails [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Birmingham.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJingxia, L. (2010). Teachers' code-switching to the L1 in EFL classroom. \u003cem\u003eThe Open Applied Linguistics Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(10), 10\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKustati, M. (2014). An analysis of code-mixing and code-switching in EFL teaching of cross-cultural communication context. \u003cem\u003eAl-Ta'lim Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(3), 174\u0026ndash;182.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLabov, W. (1971). The notion of system in creole studies. In D. Hymes (Ed.), \u003cem\u003ePidginization and creolization of languages\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 447\u0026ndash;472). Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLam, P. T. (2022). Theorizing language teacher identity: Three perspectives and beyond. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Arts and Social Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(3), 52\u0026ndash;57.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLin, A. (2013). Classroom code-switching: Three decades of research. \u003cem\u003eApplied Linguistics Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 195\u0026ndash;218.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. \u003cem\u003eBritish Educational Research Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(6), 861\u0026ndash;878.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMartin-Jones, M. (1995). Code-switching in the classroom: Two decades of research. In L. Milroy, \u0026amp; P. Muysken (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eOne speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 90\u0026ndash;111). Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMetila, R. A. (2009). Decoding the switch: The functions of codeswitching in the classroom. \u003cem\u003eEducation Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e67\u003c/em\u003e(1), 44\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMilroy, L., \u0026amp; Muysken, P. (1995). \u003cem\u003eOne speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoore, P. (2010). \u003cem\u003eL1 in the classroom: Help or hindrance?\u003c/em\u003e Cambridge Scholars Publishing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMugla, E. (2005). The role of the mother tongue in the acquisition of English vocabulary [Unpublished master's thesis]. Bilkent University.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuysken, P. (2000). \u003cem\u003eBilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNassaji, H. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Teaching Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(2), 129\u0026ndash;132.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNordin, N. M., Ali, F. D. R., Zubir, S. I. S. S., \u0026amp; Sadjirin, R. (2012). ESL learners' reactions towards code switching in classroom settings. \u003cem\u003eProcedia \u0026ndash; Social and Behavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e90\u003c/em\u003e, 478\u0026ndash;487.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNurhamidah, N., Fauziati, E., \u0026amp; Supriyadi, S. (2018). Code-switching in EFL classroom: Is it good or bad? \u003cem\u003eJournal of English Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 78\u0026ndash;88.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeregoy, S. F., \u0026amp; Boyle, O. F. (2013). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for K\u0026ndash;12 teachers (6th ed.). Pearson.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePhipps, S., \u0026amp; Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers' grammar teaching beliefs and practices. \u003cem\u003eSystem\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(3), 380\u0026ndash;390.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePoplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en espa\u0026ntilde;ol: Toward a typology of codeswitching. \u003cem\u003eLinguistics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(7\u0026ndash;8), 581\u0026ndash;618.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePuspawati, I. (2018). Teachers' use of code switching in EFL classroom and its functions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Foreign Language Teaching \u0026amp; Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 42\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQing, X. (2010). To switch or not to switch: Examine the code-switching practices of teachers of non-English majors. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Social Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(4), 109\u0026ndash;113.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaschka, C., Sercombe, P., \u0026amp; Chi-Ling, H. (2009). Conflicts and tensions in codeswitching in a Taiwanese EFL classroom. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(2), 157\u0026ndash;171.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSakaria, S., \u0026amp; Priyana, J. (2018). Code-switching: A pedagogical strategy in bilingual classrooms. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Educational Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1017\u0026ndash;1023.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSongxaba, S. L., Coetzer, A., \u0026amp; Molepo, J. M. (2017). Perceptions of teachers on creating space for code switching as a teaching strategy in second language teaching in the Eastern Cape province, South Africa. \u003cem\u003eReading \u0026amp; Writing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSridhar, K. K. (1996). Societal multilingualism. In S. L. McKay, \u0026amp; N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eSociolinguistics and language teaching\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 47\u0026ndash;70). Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStylianou-Panayi, N. (2015). Code switching in an EFL environment. \u003cem\u003eLinguistics and Literature Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(6), 259\u0026ndash;263.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTien, C. Y. (2009). Conflict and accommodation in classroom codeswitching in Taiwan. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(2), 173\u0026ndash;192.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTien, C. Y. (2010). Teachers' code-switching in a content-based programme in Taiwan. In D. Abendroth-Timmer, \u0026amp; E. M. Hennig (Eds.), \u003cem\u003ePlurilingualism and multiliteracies\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 191\u0026ndash;204). Peter Lang.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUys, D., \u0026amp; Van Dulm, O. (2011). The functions of classroom code-switching in the Siyanda District of the Northern Cape. \u003cem\u003eSouthern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(1), 67\u0026ndash;76.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Uuml;st\u0026uuml;nel, E. (2016). \u003cem\u003eEFL classroom code-switching\u003c/em\u003e. Palgrave Macmillan.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Uuml;st\u0026uuml;nel, E., \u0026amp; Seedhouse, P. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now? Code-switching and pedagogical focus-on-form. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Applied Linguistics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(3), 302\u0026ndash;325.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVarghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B., \u0026amp; Johnson, K. A. (2005). Theorizing language teacher identity: Three perspectives and beyond. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Language Identity \u0026amp; Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 21\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWidia, R. (2015). Teachers' code switching in EFL classroom [Unpublished master's thesis]. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYletyinen, H. (2004). The functions of codeswitching in EFL classroom discourse [Unpublished master's thesis]. University of Jyv\u0026auml;skyl\u0026amp;#228.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhu, H. (2008). Duelling languages, duelling values: Codeswitching in bilingual intergenerational conflict talk in diasporic families. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Pragmatics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1799\u0026ndash;1816.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"asian-pacific-journal-of-second-and-foreign-language-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"jsfl","sideBox":"Learn more about [Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education](http://sfleducation.springeropen.com)","snPcode":"40862","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/40862/3","title":"Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education","twitterHandle":"@SpringerOpen","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Code-switching, EFL teacher cognition, Stimulated Recall Protocol, Multilingual instruction, Italian EFL classrooms","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9234971/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9234971/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAlthough code-switching (CS) has been studied in EFL classrooms for 30 years, no research to date has focussed on a European setting. With its multilingual instructional context \u0026mdash; where Standard Italian, regional dialects, and English as FL coexist simultaneously \u0026mdash; Italy constitutes a theoretically distinctive and hitherto unexamined instructional context for CS research. Applying Poplack\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e) typology, the study explored EFL teachers\u0026rsquo; functions, patterns, timing and metacognitive bases for CS. Data were collected from 11 Italian EFL teachers across 55 online B2 lessons and supplemented by Stimulated Recall Protocol (SRP) sessions. Results showed that giving instructions and checking understanding accounted for 26% each of switches, while 47% of switches were produced during the core phase of instruction. Seven out of eleven teachers favoured inter-sentential switching. SRP analysis showed switches to be mostly conscious and pedagogically motivated, although affective switches displayed the hallmarks of automatisation that are typical of routinised teacher decision-making. These results establish the first European empirical baseline on EFL teacher CS and provide the first direct evidence on the metacognitive bases of switching decisions in this research tradition.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Exploring the Role of Code-Switching in Italian EFL Classrooms: Functions and Patterns","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-07 16:28:19","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9234971/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-02T02:10:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-03-30T01:49:47+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-30T01:49:28+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education","date":"2026-03-26T13:36:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"asian-pacific-journal-of-second-and-foreign-language-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"jsfl","sideBox":"Learn more about [Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education](http://sfleducation.springeropen.com)","snPcode":"40862","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/40862/3","title":"Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education","twitterHandle":"@SpringerOpen","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ad034d08-7977-4584-bc36-8df9e6fe7b9d","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 7th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-07T16:28:19+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-07 16:28:19","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9234971","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9234971","identity":"rs-9234971","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}