This sentence prevents an overly broad claim that all code-switching is helpful. Context and purpose determine its value.

Code-switching may help learning when it is purposeful and responsive to students rather than habitual.

The conclusions describe Iranian EFL teachers perceptions and should not automatically be applied to all countries, subjects, or student populations.

The authors do not support unlimited language mixing. They support deliberate code-switching with a clear instructional reason.

Purposeful code-switching may support inclusion and reduce barriers in educational settings.

Code-switching is not limited ti beginners. Advanced students may still benefit when the purpose is rapport, emphasis, or cultural explanation.

Teachers should adjust the amount and purpose of code-switching according to learner proficiency and context.

This shows that code-switching is not only about vocabulary. It can bridge gaps in cultural background knowledge.

Language and culture are linked to identity, so code-switching may help explain ideas that lose meaning when separated from students cultural background.

Code-switching can reduce tension, add humor, and make students feel more connected to the teacher.

Rapport is a trusting, comfortable relationship between teacher and students.

A teacher can temporarily switch languages to clarify difficult grammar while still keeping English as the main classroom language.

Code-switching may increase participation by lowering the language barrier that causes students to withdraw from discussion.

Comprehension takes priority when examples, gestures, or synonyms in English are not enough.

L1 means the learner's first or native language. L2 means the second or target language being learned.

Teachers switched languages when learners lacked enough target-language proficiency to participate or understand.

Avoiding misunderstanding accounted for the largest share of coded responses.

These findings reflect what teachers said they do and believe. The study did not directly observe classrooms or test student learning.

Two assistants compared how they categorized responses and aimed for at least 80% agreement.

Thematic analysis identifies repeated ideas and organizes interview responses into themes.

Volunteers may have been especially interested in code-switching and may not represent teachers who oppose or rarely use it.

The sample is balanced by reported gender and includes teachers from multiple private institutes, but all participants are from one national context.

The authors argue that classroom-specific motivations for code-switching need closer study.

Allowing students to use more than one language may support belonging and authentic self-expression rather than forcing them to hide part of their identity.

Previous research groups classroom code-switching into comprehension, management, and emotional or relationship functions.

Unnecessary or poorly planned switching may reduce language practice or appear to reflect weak proficiency.

Code-switching is most defensible when it is delibarate, limited, and matched to learners needs rather than use automatically.

Scolars disagree about whether code-switching supports learning or interferes with target-language practice.

Classroom code-switching means alternating between two languages during teaching and learning.

The purpose changes from basic comprehension to relationship-building. Code-switching therefore has both academic and social functions.

Code-switching was used more with beginning or lower-proficiency learners, suggesting that its usefulness depends on student needs.

Teachers most often switched languages to prevent confusion. This supports the idea that code-switching can help students understand instruction.

The evidence comes from interviews with 30 English as a foreign language teachers in Iran. This is useful, but the setting limits how broadly I can generalize.

Purpose statement: this study examines teachers views and uses of code-switching, not students direct experiences or measured outcomes.

Each participant was observed for 16 hours for three days, adding real-world observation to the interview evidence.

A collective case study compares a few individual cases to understand a bigger issue.

code-switching is used strategically to control how others perceive the students. That strategy may help them fit in but may hurt or create identity conflict.

LatinCrit looks at how people can experience marginalization because of their culture, immigration status, or social class. BlackCrit is added to address anti-Blackness specifically.

This article is not studying all bilingual students but focuses on AfroLatin undergraduates specifically in music education.

Treating Latin identity as one uniform category hides important differences.

Research Annotation: The author connects code-switching to both academic success and belonging.

The research shows an important statistic that certain groups are underrepresented in college music programs. This shows WHY representation and feeling like you belong are important.

When students have to constantly have to change the way that they speak depending where they are or who they are around can make them feel pressured to change parts of themselves.

The study focuses on the students experience on how they deal with their identity, negotiation, and code-switching.

Students should be allowed to keep some authentic voice in writing.

Students may need SAE for admissions situations.

Johnsons doesn't say students should not use SAE but says they should learn when SAE is expected while still respecting AAVE.

If a student use's an at home dialect it shows how unfair admissions expectations can be to students.

ESL: English as a second language.

Students may not practice SAE that often because of their environment/community. Students are expected to adjust langauge depending on their setting wich connects to Standard English.

Johnsons gives advice based on the audience they are writing for.

Although Johnson respects AAVE but knows that admissions readers expect SAE.

AAVE is not broken English. It has rules and is structured.

AAVE: African American Vernacular English.

Johnson changes her view on her students writing as errors but AAVE as a language/dialect.

If AAVE has its own grammar why do schools treat it as incorrect instead of different?