Teachers' and Students' Attitude Toward Code Alternation in Pakistani English Classrooms

This research is an attempt to explore students‟and teachers‟ attitude towards code alternation withinEnglish classrooms in Pakistan. In a country like Pakistanwhere official language is English, the national language isUrdu, and every province has its own language, most of thepeople are bilinguals or multilingual. Therefore, the aim ofthis study was to find out when and why teachers codeswitch in L2 English classrooms. It has also exploredstudent‟s preferences of language during learning secondlanguage. It has also looked into teachers‟ code-switchingpatterns and the students‟ priorities. Ten teachersresponded to an open ended questioner and 100 studentsresponded to a close ended questioner. Results of teacher‟sresponses indicated that they mostly code switch whenstudent‟s response in relation to the comprehensibility isnegative and they do not grasp the concepts easily in L2.They never encourage students to speak Urdu. Student‟sresults showed that they mostly prefer code-switching intotheir L1 for better understanding and participation in class.Analysis revealed that students only favored English whilegetting instructions of test, receiving results, and learninggrammatical concepts. In most of the cases, studentsshowed flexibility in language USAge. Majority of students(68%) agreed upon that they learn better when theirteachers code switch in to L1.


INTRODUCTION
In speech patterns, both code-switching and code mixing are eminent traits of any bilingual society. People of bilingual or Tahir, Fatima, & Abuzar, 7HDFKHUV· and 6WXGHQWV· $WWLWXGH toward Code Alternation in Pakistani English Classrooms multilingual societies can speak more than one language in order to communicate with one another and they constantly keep on moving back and onwards between two dialects or languages. This is called phenomenon of code-switching. Jamshidi & Navehebraim (2013) GHILQHG LW DV ´WKH DOWHUQDWLRQ RI WZR ODQJXDJHV ZLWKLQ D VLQJOH GLVFRXUVH VHQWHQFH RU FRQVWLWXHQWµ &RGH PL[LQJ UHIHUV WR WKH XVH RI two or more languages within the same sentence. Sridhar and Sridhar (1980) described this term as "the transition from using linguistic units (words, phrases, clauses, etc.) of one language to using those of another within a single sentence".
The present study focuses on the attitudes of English teachers and students towards code-switching as it is frequently used in the English classrooms of Pakistan. It helps the teachers to convey their point of view in an appropriate way because some concepts are so ambiguous that it becomes difficult for them to pass on the students without switching into L1. Malekela (2004) conducted a study in Tanzania where native language was Kiswahili. Findings revealed that CS not only occurs at school level but up to university level among the teachers and students for communication. According to Malekela: Experienced and realistic teachers often switch to Kiswahili if they realize that their students are not getting the message being conveyed in English, and this happens despite the direct that teachers should use English only when teaching subjects that require the use of English medium. (Malekela, 2004, p.4) It was observed that teachers and students both use this technique in English classrooms whereas generally it is considered necessary that in English classrooms no L1 should be allowed. So, this study addresses those problems in which it becomes necessary to switch the code along with the effects of code-switching. As Pakistan is a multilingual country, this research also deals with the issue that either there is a code-switching from English to Urdu or any other language as well. What teachers do and what their student wish them to do.
The purpose of this paper is to carry out a study of codeswitching in English classrooms of Pakistan at university level. It is intended to prove the hypothesis whether at university level, VWXGHQW·V DWWLWXGH WRZDUGV FRGH-switching is more flexible than WHDFKHU·V LQ (QJOLVK FODVVURRPV 7R EH PRUH VSHFLILF WKLV VWXG\ LV intended to answer the following questions: 1). When and why do teachers code-switch in the English classroom? 2). What language do students prefer in the English classroom within different situations?

LITERATURE REVIEW
Code-switching is a phenomenon that people of bilingual societies use in order to convey their meanings in more appropriate way because they have opportunity to speak different languages. Similarly, it also exists in English classrooms of upper secondary schools as teachers and students feel easy to communicate in L1 and they find classrooms more natural. Johansson (2014) looked into the reasons why teachers and students preferred to code-switch in different classrooms. 96 students were asked to fill the questioner and 5 selected teachers were interviewed as well. 3 out of 5 teachers strictly pointed that Swedish (Native language) should not be allowed in English classrooms while 2 teachers were of the view that English is neither their mother tongue nor of the students. So, according to their opinion, one can never clearly understand a concept in L2 as he can in L1. They also stated that they mostly use combination of both languages when they give the grammar instructions and 54% students also wanted the combination of both languages while learning grammar. 82% students wanted English language in class but only 1/5 students needed explanation in Swedish when they do not understand any concept DIWHU WKUHH WLPHV WHDFKHU·V UHSHWLWLRQ RI WKDW FRQFHSW Lin (2013) indicated another area where effects of codeswitching can be seen. He stated that code-switching increases the amount of cognitive processing as students have to put more cognitive effort when they get explanation in L2 and try to translate the concepts in L1. In this way, students can learn the new vocabulary items more comprehensively. Rukh (2014) LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH VWXGHQWV· DWWLWXGH WRZDUGV WKH code-switching by their EFL teachers. He did the comparative DQDO\VLV RI VWXGHQWV· DSSURDFK RI WZR GLIIHUHQW GLVFLSOLQHV (QJOLVK and Commerce. After a quantitative analysis through a close ended questioner, researcher came to the conclusion that students of Commerce wanted their EFL teachers more to use L1 in English classrooms and they showed somewhat positive attitude towards it. While students of English Department showed the negative attitude towards it and they wished to have all instructions in L2. Tabaro (2013) explored the phenomenon of code-switching in a monolingual country Rwanda where French is taught as second language and Kinyarwanda is a mother tongue. In schools, both these languages were used as teaching and giving instructions as well as to communicate with students until 2009. When government of Rwanda introduced the English language as a medium of instructions in school, it was a great challenge for them to comprehend it and they started to employ the strategy of code-switching in order to overcome the hindrance in communication. Through questioner, researcher tried to find out the consequences under which teachers and students use code-switching in three different schools of Kigali city. After compiling the results, he came to the conclusion that because English is a new language for learners and they have no vocabulary for using LW DFFXUDWHO\ WKDW·V ZK\ WKH\ OLNH WR FRGH VZLWFK DV WKH\ DUH DOZD\V dictated in their mother tongue. Some students regarded it as useful strategy because some of them came from different countries and having different backgrounds, the usage of code-switching helps those who do not understand English language. Ling, Jin, Tong, Tarmizi, & Sahiddan (2014) aimed to find out the two main objectives through their studies. First objective was to investigate either use of code-switching of English professor creates LPSDFW RQ VWXGHQW·V FRQILGHQFH GXULQJ OHFWXUH RU QRW DQG VHFRQGO\ WR investigate whether students take use of code-switching of their English professor as an in effective strategy in order to enhance their understanding during lecture. They used a questionnaire to get VWXGHQW·V UHVSRQVH RQ SURIHVVRU·V FRGH-switching from English to Bahasa Malaysia. After analysis they came to conclusion that firstly, E\ NQRZLQJ SURIHVVRU·V SXUSRVH EHKLQG FRGH-switching, students do not take it as an influential method which enhances their attention to the class. Secondly, students do not take code-switching as a helping drill because it does not create any interest in learning and make them unable to achieve solidarity with their own professors. Lastly, students must keep this view in mind that professors do codeswitching in order to enhance the understanding of students. If students relate this code-switching with professors incompetency in (QJOLVK WKHQ LW PD\ FUHDWH WKH HIIHFW LQ WKH SURIHVVRU·V WHDFKLQJ 6R LI students would not have EHOLHI LQ SURIHVVRU·V FRPSHWHQFH LW FDQ DIIHFW VWXGHQW·V SHUIRUPDQFH DQG WKHLU PRWLYDWLRQ OHYHO LQ WKH FODVV Bista (2010) explored those factors which affect codeswitching. A research through questionnaires was conducted from15 international students in Troy. The findings stated that the main factor of code-switching in classrooms is that students do not have competence in English language. The other noticed factors were to avoid misinterpretation, easy to tell in their native language than to tell in target language. So, code-switching can be beneficial in English classrooms if the main purpose of code-switching is to convey the knowledge to the students in an effective mode and to create a complete sense or meaning to the students.
Ahmad & Jusoff (2009) worked to find out the perception of WKH OHDUQHUV WRZDUGV WKH WHDFKHUV· FRGH-switching in the English classrooms of Malaysia. A questionnaire was filled from 257 students of low English proficient who were attending communication proficiency course 1 in public university of Malaysia. The analysis VKRZHG WKDW WHDFKHU·V FRGH-switching is an influential tactic while dealing with low English proficient students. This exposed that by keeping in view of the functions of code-switching, students perceive it as a positive method in the English classrooms.
Mujiono, Poedjosoedarmo, Subroto, & Wiratno (2013) explored factors that why teachers practice code-switching in English classroom where English is taught as a foreign language. A qualitative research was conducted by observation, recording, and interviews. The findings of this research revealed that English teachers practiced code-switching for to clarify the message, for closeness, to create stability in language competence of students and as well as to strengthen the lecture, questions or command.

What is code-switching?
Phenomenon of code-switching exists in multilingual societies where people can use two or more than languages to communicate with others. Multilinguals use to do code-switching by using their languages in order to convey the meanings in better way. Codeswitching can be defined as: "Code-switching... is the selection by bilinguals or multi-linguals of forms from an embedded variety (or varieties) in utterances of a matrix variety during the same conversation" (Myers-Scotton 1993:3). Code-switching has different functions like to fill linguistic gaps, to represent the cultural identity and obtaining specific objectives (Bullock & Toribio, 2009, p. 2). All these functions can be categorized into two approaches; grammatical and sociolinguistic approach (Auer 1998, p. 3;Hamers & Blanc 2000, p. 260). In sociolinguistic approach, code-switching explains variables OLNH ´WKH WRSLF RI FRQYHUVDWLRQ WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV WKH setting, and the DIIHFWLYH DVSHFW RI WKH PHVVDJHµ +DPHUV %ODQF, 2000, p. 266). Both, Gender and code-switching are the elements of sociolinguistic approach.
The grammatical approach is divided into three subclasses (Hamers & Blanc 2000, p. 259, 260): intrasentential code-switching that happens within words and clauses; extra-sentential codeswitching wherever to add common feature in order to tag a question VXFK DV ´\RX ZLOO EH DUULYLQJ RQ )ULGD\ ULJKW"µ )RU PXOWL-OLQJXDO·V code-switching is being used as an asset with a high proficiency in both languages and code-switching is taken as reparation tool because of inefficiency in the L2. This is so called restricted codeswitching (Hamers & Blanc 2000, p. 267

Code-Switching In Learning and Teaching
While learning a language it is important not only learn inaccessible areas of L2 but also to use those areas when you talk, read, write and listen in L2 language (Cook 2001). In addition, she DOVR VWDWHG WKDW WHDFKHU·V FRGH-switching is a strategy used to give more understanding of a particular topic or a part of second language. In this case, Cook (2001) gave her point of view that it is necessary to avoid the use of second language in several situations and to discover when and why code-switching should ensue. Kumar and Arenda (2012) set out that teachers mostly use L1 in order to teach the portion of grammar. Cook (2001) found in her research from 2001 that showed usage of L1 while teaching the grammar to the students can make clear understanding and even the students with high L2 competence absorbed information in better way about the grammar.
/LQ·V , p. 205-UHVXOWV VKRZ WKDW ´FRGH-switching ORRNV WR LQFUHDVH WKH FRJQLWLYH SURFHVV RI WKH VWXGHQWVµ +H DOVR WHOOV that when students are supposed to give both an explanation in the VWXGHQW·V / DQG D WUDQVODWLRQ LQWR WKH VWXGHQW·V / When a great cognitive effort is essential to process the words. In this matter, Cook VWDWHG WKDW ´WKH PDLQ FDXVH IRU DYRLGLQJ FRGH-switching is that students become poor while interacting in L2 and do not give LQSXW LQ WKH / ODQJXDJHµ ,Q DGGLWion, she further stated that if there would be more than one L1 in the groups then teachers easily would prefer to give lectures in L1. Even though one method since the 1970s has become most accepted teaching method in the whole world that does not allow using L1 that is Communicative Language Teaching Method (Song & Andrews 2009). However the strongest argument against the code-switching is that students do not give input in L2 as they are supposed to given.

METHOD
In order to know code-switching used by teachers in the class and attitude of students towards it, both teachers and students were investigated. It is a quantitative research based on random sampling at university level. This section will elaborate the description of participants and data collection procedures and tool.
Participants of this study were both teachers and students. All of them were selected from University of Sargodha, Pakistan. There were ten teachers participated in this study. Five male and five female teachers participated willingly. Their teaching experiences varied from 1 year to 42 years at university level. They were from English Language and Literature Department of University of Sargodha, Pakistan. The detailed of the teachers-respondents are presented in the following table. In line with the respondents from students, it is known that 100 students who DUH VWXG\LQJ DW EDFKHORU·V OHYHO LQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI Sargodha filled questionnaire. Out of 100 participants, 30 were males and 70 were females in which 46 students of second semester, 31 students of forth, 16 students of sixth and 7 students of final semester of their studies. In addition, mother tongue of 59 % students was Urdu, 30 % Punjabi and 11 % had mother tongues other than this. Mother tongue is somehow an extraneous variable in attitude towards code-switching.
Open ended questionnaire was used as tool for collecting WHDFKHU·V GDWD DQG D FORVH HQGHG TXHVWLRQQDLUH ZDV XVHG IRU FROOHFWLQJ VWXGHQW·V GDWD It consisted of 15 subjective type questions. Teachers were asked about their own attitudes towards code-switching in L2 English classroom under different situations. Their views about advantages and disadvantages of code-switching in English classroom and their effects on students were also taken into account. Besides, close ended questionnaire was used in this study as well. It consisted of two sections each based on 10 questions. Section A was mainly related to students priorities towards selection of language according to various situations. Section B was based on some observations and their response or conformity from students was demanded.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This section presents the findings and data analysis. First, it SUHVHQWV WKH WHDFKHU·V YLHZV RQ FRGH-switching. Second, it elaborates WKH VWXGHQW·V ODQJXDJH SUHIHUHQFHV LQ (QJOLVK FODVVURRPV

7HDFKHU·V YLHZV RQ DQG XVH RI FRGH-switching
The basic purpose of questionnaire taken from English teachers was to examine their general views on code-switching. Why do they code switch? If they do then what are the reasons and purposes behind that. According to needs and demands of L2 classrooms and learners, it is considered necessary to use target ODQJXDJH LQ (QJOLVK FODVVURRPV :H FROOHFWHG WHDFKHU·V RSLQLRQV RQ different aspects of code-switching and subdivided them into different categories according to questions asked from them.

7HDFKHU·V JHneral views about the use of Urdu in English classrooms
When teachers were asked about the usage of Urdu in English classrooms, 6 out of 10 teachers were of the view that it should not be used in the English classrooms. It is totally unacceptable and it should be strictly avoid because it can create hindrance in natural process of English learning. One teacher gave his view in this way.

´,W LV WRR SDWKHWLF IRU DQ (QJOLVK WHDFKHU WR WHDFK LQ 8UGX ,W VKRXOG QRW H[LVW LQ WKH (QJOLVK FODVVURRPVµ
While on the other hand, 4 teachers gave their opinion in favor of code-switching. According to them, there are certain situations when you have to use it for the better understanding of concepts and ideas under discussion. One teacher said that:

Times and situations when teachers choose to speak Urdu
While explaining the situations when teachers prefer to speak Urdu, 5 out of 10 teachers clarified that they speak Urdu when their students face difficulty in understanding the lessons, so they switch into L1. One teacher responded in this way

´<HV , FKRRVH WR VSHDN 8UGX ZKHQ WKH IHHGEDFN IURP WKH VWXGHQWV LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKH FRPSUHKHQVLELOLW\ LV QHJDWLYHµ
Two teachers clearly negated this idea and put in plain words that they never use Urdu in English Classrooms while delivering lecture whereas 2 teachers were of the view that they use to switch code while cracking a jock. According to one of them

´:KHQ , QHHG WR FUDFk a jock or I want to have some comic relief in the class so at those times I adopt Urdu as a medium of communication because translated version of jock can lessen its KXPRURXV HIIHFW 6R LW LV JRRG WR KDYH D EHWWHU WDVWH RI VLWXDWLRQµ
On the other hand, one teacher pointed that he uses Urdu while discussing something outside the course, for example, giving some extra information about the related field. He often switch to Urdu while explaining the rules and regulation regarding course or introducing the new subject or semester.

Times and situations when teachers never speak Urdu
In answering this question, most teachers explicated that they never use Urdu in seminars as well as highly formal situations. One teacher said that

´<HV , QHYHU VSHDN 8UGX ZKHQ the background knowledge of VWXGHQWV LV DPSOH HQRXJK WR JUDVS WKH FRQFHSWµ
Secondly, in class of communication skills, teacher should always use English because the main purpose of this class is to develop the better communication skills among students. Thirdly, some teachers also focused on the point that they use English while teaching in departments other than English. The reason is that, students of sciences and commerce are usually weak in written and spoken expression of English so we should use L2 as much as possible in order to develop the listening or speaking skills in them.

Advantages or disadvantages of code-switching
Teachers were asked if there are advantages of code-switching or disadvantages. Among 10 respondents, 4 teachers clearly said that there are no advantages of code-switching in the English classrooms rather it has many disadvantages. One teacher said that ´,W LV QRW D JRRG VLJQ LQVWUXFWRUV PXVW DGRSW GLUHFW PHWKRG Teachers act like a torch bearer for students so they must maintain their rhythm of English language speaking. Secondly, it is not beneficial because students would have to attempt paper LQ (QJOLVK QRW 8UGXµ Three teachers simply wrote that it is helpful and there are no disadvantages of switching the code while remaining 3 gave mixed opinions. One teacher put forward her point in this way

´<HV WKHUH DUH DGYDQWDJHV RI FRGH-switching. Students, who are not much fluent in vocal expression, can also put forward good opinions and there may be a scope for rich discussion. Disadvantage is that students develop weak capacity to speak in English and they usually have weak critical thinking in English. Secondly, students feel liberty to speak Urdu in (QJOLVK &ODVVURRPV WKDW LV QRW DFFHSWDEOHµ
An FLT teacher replied this question in this way

Language usage distinction from class to class and among students
The results show that only 2 (two) teachers responded that they never alter their way of teaching or language practice among students and classes rather they remain constant. 8 teachers were strongly agreed in replying to this question. According to them, in some classes, they never have to switch to Urdu but in some classes it becomes important. So, they have to take up both languages side by side. They explained that

´,W WRWally depends upon the standard and caliper of students. Situations matter a lot. In Pakistan, some students belong to the rural areas and their basics of English language use to be very ZHDN VR LW EHFRPHV GLIILFXOW WR WDFNOH WKHP LQ (QJOLVK 7KDW·V
why their vocabulary and lexis vary among students. As far as class difference is concerned, yes it happens. Clear difference can be noticed between students of English department and others. They want explanation of lecture in Urdu or they find difficulty in comprehension as compared to language students. So in these situations, it becomes necessary to switch into Urdu in order to PDNH WKHP FOHDU LQ WKHLU FRQFHSWVµ

Situation when teachers encourage students to speak Urdu
Seven out of 10 teachers severely opposed this notion. They said that it is totally unacceptable to encourage students to speak Urdu. Only 3 teachers showed flexibility in this regard. Students should not always be encouraged in speaking Urdu but there are certain conditions when they can be asked to have a discussion in Urdu.

Learning L1 is possible without switching into L2
Instructors were asked if it is possible to teach second language without switching into L1. 6 teachers stated yes. If there is a use of some authentic resources like good sound labs and audio visual methods then it is possible to teach L2 without the help of L1. We generally see that when nonnative speakers of English go to European countries, they could learn to speak English fluently without proper classes and learning. The reason is that ´HQYLURQPHQWµ PDWWHUV D ORW ,I DXWKRULWLHV RI (QJOLVK 'HSDUWPHQW ensure that there must be a use of English language while talking with peers and teachers even in an informal setting, then it would become very much easier. In contrast with this view, 4 teachers wrote that it is impossible to teach L2 without interference of L1 because some concepts are so tricky in which, sometimes it becomes difficult to find alternative words in English to explain them. So, L1 intervention is required in such cases.

Code-switching into languages other than Urdu
Last question of interview given to the teacher was that; do you code switch into languages even other than Urdu? 8 teachers plainly said that they never code-switch into any other language. If they have to switch code they prefer only Urdu. One teacher gave her view that in Socio-linguistics class, she has to give the examples from different languages. So only in that condition, she switches to other languages like Punjabi or Sraiki. Only one teacher accepted that he uses Punjabi language while cracking any jock or comic relief but according to him, it does not harm any language because it is not related to that specific topic under discussion. Its purpose is just to create some sort of amusement among students.

6WXGHQWV· ODQJXDJH SUHIHUHQFHV LQ WKH (QJOLVK FODVVURRP
This section will present the results of questionnaire filled by the students. As it is seen from this pie chart that majority of students (55%) preferred a combination of English and Urdu while learning 16% 29% 55% grammar. Urdu was least preferred (16%) whereas only (29%) preferred English. So it means that students learn better grammar when a combination of their L1 and L2 is used.

Figure 2. 6WXGHQWV· ODQJXDJH SUHIHUHQFHV when the teachers give instruction
As displayed in the above pie chart, we could observe that most students (40%) want a combination of English and Urdu while getting instructions from teachers. English was preferred (33%), while Urdu was least preferred (27%). So, it is clear that students get better understanding of instructions when a combination of L1 and L2 is used.   Based on the above pie chart, it could be seen that majority of the students (50%) preferred to use English language while getting the result from teachers. Urdu was preferred in minimum percentage (20%), whereas (30%) students preferred a combination of both English and Urdu while getting the result from teachers. It means that students get more understanding when teachers use L2 while giving results and its explanation.

30%
42% 23% 35% 50% 20% Figure 5. 6WXGHQWV· ODQJXDJH SUHIHUHQFHV when the teachers discuss about grade with the students This pie chart shows that majority of the students (42%) preferred a combination of both English and Urdu during the discussion of their grade with the teachers. Urdu was slightly preferred (23%), whereas (35%) students preferred English during the discussion with the teachers. It is stated that during discussion with teachers, students prefer a combination of both L1 and L2. The data revealed that most students (46%) preferred Urdu while getting the answer of the question from the teachers. English was least preferred (22%), whereas (32%) students preferred a combination of both L1 and L2 to get the answer from the teachers. It is clearly stated that most students wish the teachers to use Urdu while giving the answers of their questions. 32% 46% 22% Figure 7. Languages normally spoken by the teachers This chart shows that majority of the students (67%) admitted that their teachers normally speak a combination of both languages, Urdu and English. Only 12% students said that their English teachers normally speak English in L2 classrooms and 21% students disclosed that their teachers use Urdu language frequently in English classrooms. It could be seen from the above chart that most students (54%) use Urdu language with their classmates. English was less preferred by students (5%) whereas (41%) students preferred a combination of both Urdu and English while communicating with other students or classmates. It shows that student always give preference to Urdu while communicating with their classmates. 12% 67% 21% 41% 54% 5% Figure 8. Languages utilized by the students to interact with the English teachers The above pie chart indicates that almost a half of the students (49%) prefer a combination of both Urdu and English while interacting with English teachers. English was preferred by 34% students, however (17%) students preferred Urdu while interacting with the English teachers in the classroom. It means that most of the students prefer to use a combination of both English and Urdu while interacting with English teachers. Figure 9. Languages expected to be used by the teachers when they did not understand teachers explanation It could be seen from the above chart that majority of the students (46%) preferred Urdu to get better understanding of the difficult concepts. English was least preferred by students (18%) 49% 34% 17% 36% 18% 46% whereas (36%) students preferred a combination of both Urdu and English for the better understanding of tricky concepts. So, it means that the students prefer Urdu for the better understanding when they are unable to understand the difficult aspects of lectures.
7KH IROORZLQJ LV WKH GHWDLOHG RI WKH VWXGHQWV· DQVZHU Rn their views and preferences of code switching use in the English classroom. It could be seed from the above data that (75%) students agreed to switch into Urdu when they are unable to understand any concept in English. Majority of the students (61%) agreed when their teachers speak Urdu during English class because they get better understanding of the concepts. Almost a half of the students (47%) agreed to speak English only in English classrooms. The majority of the students (68%) agreed on this point that they can learn more easily when their teacher code switch to explain the contents. In addition, 43% students agreed that they can learn L2 without codeswitching into L1. Furthermore, majority of the students (51%) agreed that they switch into Urdu in their conversations because they do not have proficiency in English. Next, 63% students agreed on this point that mostly they use Urdu to express their loyalty towards their Pakistani culture. Besides, majority of the students (69%) agreed that they switch into Urdu in order to add a sense of humor to their utterances to get attention of others. (50%) students agreed that they mostly switch to Urdu because sometimes they do not get proper English equivalents in English classroom. Almost a half of the students (47%) agreed that they switch to Urdu in order to show that they are well-educated.

CONCLUSION
The aims of this study were to examine when and why teachers code switch and what students want in their L2 classrooms. 5HVXOWV RI WHDFKHU·V UHVSRQVHV LQGLcate that they mostly code switch ZKHQ VWXGHQW·V UHVSRQVH WRZDUGV WKH FRPSUHKHQVLELOLW\ LV QHJDWLYH and they do not grasp the concepts easily in L2. They never encourage students to speak Urdu except when they want the share opinions of students in any academic discussion. Most teachers showed resistant in the use of L1 in English classrooms as compared to the students. According to the majority of teachers, they do not prefer to speak Urdu during lecture except in the few cases, such as for comic relief. There is no difficulty for them to use L2 while delivering a lecture but LW WRWDOO\ GHSHQGV XSRQ WKH OHDUQHU·V XQGHUVWDQGLQJ $V 3DNLVWDQ LV D multilingual country, teachers do not prefer to switch into any other language except Urdu as it is a national language of Pakistan. When it came to the students, they mostly prefer a combination of Urdu and English in instructions and grammar teaching.
,Q OLQH ZLWK WKH VWXGHQWV· YLHZV DQG SUHIHUHQFHV RQ WKH XVH RI code switching in English classroom, the students prefer to use L1 when they have a discussion of grades with teacher. In addition, the students prefer to use a combination of both English and Urdu while interacting with their teachers. Furthermore, the students only favored English while getting instructions of test and receiving results. In most of the cases, students showed flexibility in language usage. A noteworthy fact is that none of the teachers ever tried to ask the student that what languages they prefer in different situations because according to them, latest policies of education and new syllabus of English does not allow L1 in English classrooms. So, they follow rules.
After all the analysis and results, our hypothesis has been proved that indeed DW XQLYHUVLW\ OHYHO VWXGHQW·V DWWLWXGH WRZDUGV code-VZLWFKLQJ LV PRUH IOH[LEOH WKDQ WHDFKHU·V LQ (QJOLVK FODVVURRPV They do not want compulsion of English usage in many situations rather they want a discussion in both languages for better understanding. There are many students whose language proficiency is low but they want to participate in class. For this reason, they want a flexibility in language usage. On the other hand, according to our viewpoint, the basic purpose of language classes is to build up fluency and command on that language. That is why students should do more effort in order to have a better authority of L2 instead of wishing the flexibility and usage of both languages.