Asian Journal of Education and e-Learning (ISSN: 2321 – 2454) Volume 05– Issue 02, April 2017 Asian Online Journals (www.ajouronline.com ) 36 Discourse Analysis of Teacher Talk: Code Switching in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms in Thailand Dorota Domalewska War Studies University Warsaw, Poland Email: d.domalewska [AT] akademia.mil.pl _________________________________________________________________________________ ABSTRACT— This paper presents the results of a study on pedagogical functions of code switching in teacher discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classroom in a Thai university. The data was collected by means of structured classroom observation, field notes, and audio recordings. The findings suggest that code switching is used primarily for a preventive purpose; the explanation is given in L1 because otherwise the lesson would not be understandable for the students, mainly due to the students’ low proficiency level. The instructor alternates languages in order to substitute words and phrases in another language and to emphasize content words and learning points that are the focus of the lesson. Self-repetition is the most frequently used emphasis technique. Furthermore, the lecturer code switches in order to give lucid clarification of difficult concepts and clear confusion, which facilitates learning. Keywords— Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), foreign language, code switching, Thai university _________________________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), i.e. teaching curricular content through a foreign language, most frequently English, has become commonplace in Thai schools. Bilingual programs are offered at various levels of education; at primary and secondary levels CLIL is most frequently introduced in the following subjects: math, science, health, computer science, and art, but usually around 50% of the class time is devoted to the instruction given in L2 (Forman, 2005). The fundamental aims of these programs are to increase exposure to L2 and develop overall L2 competence as well as to improve academic achievement, increase cognitive flexibility, develop cross-cultural understanding, and prepare for internationalization. However, Lin and Man (2009: 15) maintain that in Thailand the aim of bilingual instruction is to develop communicative competence in L2 in addition to, not in replacement of, developing the dominant Thai language. CLIL programs are not homogenous and depending on the amount of continued L1 and L2 use in the lesson the following models can by differentiated. First, lessons are delivered mainly in L2. The use of Thai is limited; it might be used merely to translate difficult concepts or wrap up the main points of the lesson. Second, code switching between Thai and English is frequent; however, English is the dominant language of the lesson. The mother tongue is used moderately mainly to explain difficult or fundamental concepts. Code switching takes place when the teacher believes it is necessary in order to meet the goals of the lesson at the same time developing high level of L2 competence. The characteristic of the third model is the use of the mother tongue as the language dominating the lesson. The teacher focuses on teaching the content of the subject rather than on the language of instruction. That is why, code switching is frequent with delivering the lesson content in L2 taking less than a half of lesson time. Finally, some bilingual schools favor the model of teaching when the lesson is delivered mainly in Thai but the students use textbooks and other resources in L2. The teacher presents the lesson in L1 because the students would otherwise have difficulties with understanding the subject’s content. All in all, varying amounts of L2 used as the language of instruction may be implemented in different CLIL schools. That is why, overall achievement level in both the subject knowledge and L2 competence differs. The question of how much of teacher talk in effective bilingual classrooms can be delivered in L1 proves to be crucial. Because patterns of language use enhance learning process, code switching in classroom discourse needs to be well considered in order to make teaching more effective. For this reason the present study sets out to analyze classroom discourse. More specifically, the research has been deigned to investigate to what extent code switching takes place and to analyze the reasons for code switching in teacher discourse.