functions and cognitive processes associated with code-switching in teachers' discourse in grade seven lebanese mathematics classrooms
The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between teachers' mathematical discourse and their use of code-switching and how and to what extent they make use of code-switching as a cognitive resource to promote students' mathematical understanding. The sample consisted of five grade seven teachers in Greater Beirut Area, Lebanon. Two sessions of classroom mathematics instruction,one including explanation of a new lesson and one including classwork or homework correction, were recorded for every teacher, and then it was transcribed using time sampling methods. The transcribed discourse was segmented into utterances which were coded as mathematical or non-mathematical depending on whether or not they reflected mathematical content, and the mathematical utterances were coded as "remember", "apply", "understand", or "analyze" which are the four cognitive processes in the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002). Findings from the study indicated that the extent of teachers' code-switching varied significantly in the mathematical context across the different cognitive processes of Bloom's taxonomy: Teachers used code-switching most frequently when their discourse was directed towards enhancing students' understanding and analytical skill, less frequently when their discourse was directed towards stimulating students' memory about a prior learning, and least frequently when their discourse was directed towards getting students to apply certain procedures. Moreover, teachers used code-switching mostly to initiate their discourse and explain mathematical concepts, procedures, and situations, and to a lesser extent to interact with students. Finally, the extent of teachers' code-switching did not vary significantly between the mathematical and non-mathematical contexts which may imply that code-switching does not hold a special function in teachers’ mathematical discourse as compared to non-mathematical discourse (Author’s Abstract)