• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Codeswitching in East Asian University EFL Classrooms:Reflecting Teachers’ Voices①

    2013-12-04 07:42:42
    當(dāng)代外語研究 2013年12期

    The University of Waikato, New Zealand

    During the 20th century, it was commonly assumed that the best way to teach English as a foreign language was through the exclusive use of English as the medium of instruction. Although recent publications have challenged this view, many educational policy-makers in schools and universities still tend to to insist on “English only”, and decry the practice of codeswitching between the target language and the first languages of learners and teachers. Findings from a recent volume of case studies clearly show that codeswitching is a common practice across a wide range of university EFL classrooms in Asian contexts. In many cases, this codeswitching may be regarded as a “flexible convergent approach”, where languages are switched more or less spontaneously and at random. Often, however, the teachers reported in Barnard and McLellan (2014) responsibly alternated between languages in a principled and systematic way. This paper presents and discusses observational data and extracts from interviews with teachers on the rationale for codeswitching. Thus codeswitching is both normal and can be pedagogically justifiable. The paper will then suggest how teachers can reflect in-, on- and for-action (Farrell, 2007) by systematically recording, listening to, and analysing their use of language(s) in their own classrooms, using a set of interactional categories (Bowers, 1980). Reflective practitioners may then develop collaborative action research projects (Burns, 1999, 2010) which could empower them to critique and challenge monolingual language-in-education policies.

    Keywords: codeswitching, East Asia, universities, teacher beliefs, teacher practice.

    Correspondence should be addressed to Professor Roger Barnard, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Gate 1 Knighton Road, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand. Email: rbarnard@waikato.ac.nz

    INTRODUCTION

    This article uses the following broad definition of code switching:

    a change by a speaker (or writer) from one language or language variety to another one. Code switching can take place in a conversation when one speaker uses one language and the other speaker answers in a different language. A person may start speaking one language and then change another in the middle of their speech, or sometimes even in the middle of a sentence (Richards & Schmidt, 2002, p. 81).

    The latter form of code switching is sometimes referred to as code mixing which, according to the same authors (2002, p. 80), is “quite common in bilingual or multilingual communities and is often a mark of solidarity”. Despite its frequent and natural use in bilingual communities—and, after all, language teaching classrooms are essentially bilingual communities—code switching is frowned upon by many educational policy-makers in teaching English as a foreign language (EFL). The origins of this attitude lie in the rejection by language teaching theorists in the early 20th century of Grammar-Translation as a valid way of teaching modern languages—even though this approach is still widely used by EFL teachers in many contemporary classrooms. The rejection was most clearly enunciated in a conference organised by the British Council in 1961 at Makarere University in Uganda, where those present enunciated several principles for teaching ESL/EFL, among which were that English is best taught monolingually- and also the best teacher of English is a native speaker of that language (Phillipson, 1992). Since then, it has been widely assumed by many textbook writers, methodologists, and researchers into Second Language Acquisition that English should be taught through English, and that the first language of the learners, and that of many of their teachers, should be kept to a minimum if not altogether prohibited. This principle has been adopted by methodologists and teacher trainers advocating such approaches as the Direct Method, Audiolingualism, the Silent Way and more recently Communicative Language Teaching. Hall and Cook (2012, pp. 274-277) provide a comprehensive review of the origins and development of this monolingual approach to teaching English.

    However, the monolingual principle has increasingly come under scrutiny. Atkinson (1987, p.24) contended that “the potential of the mother tongue as a classroom resource is so great that its role merits considerable attention and discussion.” The arguments that he outlined in this article and a later one (Atkinson, 1993) have been reinforced at greater length by other applied linguists. V. Cook argued that “treating the L1 as a classroom resource opens up several ways to use it, such as for teachers to convey meaning, explain grammar, and organise the class and for students to use as part of their collaborative learning and individual strategy use” (2001, p. 402). More recently, Macaro (2009) and Levine (2011) have argued for the ‘optimal’ use (i.e., the best balance) of both English and other languages in order for the language learners to become “truly bilingual and bicultural” (Levine, 2011, p. 172). In his recent book on the subject, G. Cook (2010) has provided detailed arguments for the use of languages other than English on three grounds. Firstly, there is little or no evidence that supports a monolingual position; he points out that very few Second Language Acquisition studies have ever considered whether translation might aid the acquisition of grammar, and “the rightness of monolingual teaching was never scrutinized” (2010, p. 91). Secondly from an educational point of view, “[t]ranslation can answer both societal and individual needs, further personal fulfilment and development, promote positive social values such as cross-cultural understanding, and extend linguistic knowledge.” (2010, p. 91). Thirdly, he reinforces the point made by Atkinson (1987, 1993) and V. Cook (2001) that “translation can help and motivate students in a variety of pedagogical contexts ... (and) is suited to different types of teachers, and different ages and stages of students” (2010, p. xvii). Butzkamm and Caldwell (2009, 13) even insist that the learners’ first language is “the greatest pedagogical resource” that learners bring to foreign language learning. Hall and Cook (2012, p. 273) have taken the issue more broadly, arguing “the monolingual teaching of English has inhibited the development of bilingual and bicultural identities and skills that are actively needed by most learners, both within the English-speaking countries and in the world at large”. These views have to some extent modified the attitude of some methodologists and textbook writers as may be seen, for example, in the way in which the matter has been treated over recent years in the four editions of Harmer’s (2007)ThepracticeofEnglishlanguageteaching.

    Despite these criticisms, many policymakers such as those in ministries of education, schools and universities in East Asia (as elsewhere) have maintained the “English only” position in their mandated curricula and textbooks. For example, in 2001, all universities under the control of the Chinese Ministry of Education “were instructed to use English as the main teaching language in the following subjects: information technology, biotechnology, new-material technology, finance, foreign trade, economics and the law (Nunan, 2003, pp. 595-6). At much the same time, about ten of the most famous Chinese universities decided to buy and use almost all of the textbooks being used at MIT, Harvard and Stanford Universities (Liu, 2009). The Vietnamese Ministry of Education instructed universities there to make plans to “use English as a medium in their training programs. Priority should go... to science, economics, business administration, finance and banking” (MOET, 2005; objective 3, output 2). Public universities in Malaysia mandated the use of the English language in Science and related subjects (Mohini, 2008), and the government allowed, indeed encouraged, an increasing number of private universities to introduce EMI programmes, partly to attract international students-from 87,000 in 2010 to “a target of 150,000 by 2015” (Tham, 2013, p. 4). In Hong Kong, English language teachers are urged to use English “in all English lessons and beyond: teachers should teach English through English and encourage learners to interact with one another in English” (Curriculum Development Council, 2004, p. 109, cited in Swain, Kirkpatrick & Cummins, 2011, p. 3). It is to be hoped that such views could be modified not only by arguments such as those outlined above, but also by empirical evidence. A number of studies have investigated first language use in various Asian school settings (e.g., Canh, 2011; Carless, 2008; Dailey-O’Cain & Liebscher, 2009, Forman, 2007, 2008; Hobbs, Matsuo & Payne, 2010; Kang, 2008; Lin, 1996; Littlewood & Yu, 2011; Liu, Ahn, Baek, & Han, 2004; Pennington, 1995; Qian, Tian, & Wang, 2009, Yoshida,etal., 2009). However, relatively few studies have investigated case studies in East Asian tertiary contexts (e.g., Burden, 2000, 2004; Tian & Macaro, 2012; van der Meij & Zhao, 2010).) The findings reported in this paper are intended to be a modest contribution to inform educational practitioners at all levels about what university teachers actually do and believe about code switching in their regular classrooms. It is also hoped that foreign language teachers both in universities and other contexts will collect and analyse empirical evidence from their own classrooms so as to be able to make principled decisions (Macaro, 2009, p. 38) about the use of their students’ first language.

    THE PRESENT STUDY

    The data which follow were taken from recorded lessons and interviews with a convenience sample of EFL teachers in four Asian University contexts. These extracts were selected from a wider number of specially-commissioned case studies, fully reported in Barnard and McLellan (2014) and the four authors have kindly given their permission to use the data in this article. The language policies in these institutions were either ‘English only’, or else the maximum use of the target language. One or two teachers, all of whom shared the same first language as their students, were observed in EFL settings in China, Japan, Thailand and Vietnam. All the participating teachers were native speakers of the students’ first language; the students in all these examples were non-English majors.

    Table 1 Settings and Participants (pseudonyms are used)

    The questions which drove the individual case studies were as follows:

    1. How often did code switching occur in these lessons?

    2. In what ways were languages mixed?

    3. For which interactional purposes did the teachers use the students’ first language?

    4. What reasons did the teachers give for their use of the learners’ first language?

    To address these questions, two approaches to data collection were adopted: firstly, following informed consent, intact (i.e., complete, uninterrupted, normal) lessons taught by the students’ usual teacher were observed and audio-recorded by a researcher—the author of the relevant case study in Barnard and McLellan (2013). In most cases, this observer-researcher was a peer colleague of the participant

    teachers; in the Vietnamese setting, the observer was an experienced teacher educator and researcher from another university. After the lesson observations, each researcher calculated the amount of time that L1 and L2 were used, transcribed the codeswitching episodes that occurred in the lessons, and analysed the extent of different levels of code switching, and examined the purposes served by these episodes. Secondly, each teacher was individually interviewed shortly afterwards by the same researcher. Summaries of the interviews were given to the teachers for respondent validation.

    OBSERVATIONAL FINDINGS

    The data collected in regard to the first two questions are provided in Table 2 below.

    Table 2 Proportions of Teacher Talk and Code Switching by the Teachers

    As can be seen from the table above, there was considerable variation in language use among the teachers. The length of lessons ranged from 35 minutes to well over 2 hours, during which-with the exceptions of the four lessons taught by Hanh in Vietnam-the teacher talked most of the time. (See column 4 above.) In the other six classes, there was much more teacher-talk: an overall average of 75.3%, which is rather higher than indicated in empirical research into classroom interaction elsewhere. Wragg (1999, p. 8) estimated that, on average, teachers spoke for two-thirds of lessons. All the teachers to a greater or lesser extent used code switching: as can be seen from column 6 above, first language use ranging from 4.63% (Hanh) to 90% (Akira), and their reasons for their use will be discussed when the interview data are considered below.

    The third question was considered in terms of the extent to which the two languages were mixed or switched, according to the three categories originally devised by Sankoff and Poplack (1981), to which a fourth was added to cover longer code switching utterances in the observed lessons, as indicated in table 3 below.

    Table 3 Levels of Code Switching

    Note: the use of the word “sentence” is somewhat inappropriate here, as code switching occurred in spoken utterances; however, for the sake of convenience “sentence” is retained throughout this paper.

    The fourth question, concerning interactional purposes, was addressed with reference to six categories of classroom interaction originally devised by Bowers (1980). These are provided in table 4 below.

    Table 4 Classroom Interactional Categories

    Sample data regarding the extent of code switching are presented in table 5 below, which shows that the teachers used their shared first language at different levels for a range of interactional functions.

    Table 5 Examples of Extent of Code Mixing /Code Switching According to Speech Categories

    Note: plain font=teacher’s original speech;italics=teacher’s use of alternative code; [...]=translation into English of original first language.

    From the above table, and other observational data, the following broad statements can be made. Firstly, code switching was most frequently used to explain (a) vocabulary, usually realized by short tags-typically, a translated word, and (b) grammatical forms, realised by inter-sentential code switching and longer terms, such as Ring’s explanation of subject and predicate above. Secondly, both elicitation and directives occurred very frequently; the former was mostly used to check students’ understanding through tags and inter-sentential switching; directives telling students to do a task occurred mostly in inter-sentential switching, and occasionally longer turns such as that of Chikara in Table 5 above. Thirdly, inter-sentential switching and longer terms were used to organise, or structure, learning and also to keep discipline. Finally, evaluation of students’ production was mostly given in English, and where the first language was used it occurred in tags and inter-sentential switching. There was very little sociating going on in most classes and the few teachers who did so tended (as shown above) to use the first language in inter-sentential switching and longer turns. In summary, the above findings indicate that code switching to a greater or lesser extent was a common practice in these EFL settings, and suggest that the code switching practices of university teachers do not substantially differ from those of EFL teachers in primary and secondary school contexts, despite the fact that their own proficiency in English was usually of a high order. Although Walsh (2011, p. 35) argued that “a quantitative view of teacher talking time (TTT) is, to a large extent, redundant”, the significantly higher proportion of TTT displayed in these lessons may be worthy of investigation in other university EFL contexts. The findings relating to the alignment of levels of code switching with the six interactional categories (Bowers, 1980) may indicate that further empirical study in this area would also be useful.

    INTERVIEW FINDINGS

    It is equally, or perhaps more, important to find out what the teachers believed about their use of the first language, and the following extracts give some indications of this. While there were examples of spontaneous, random and perhaps unnecessary codeswitching, referred to by Garcia (2009) as a “flexible convergent approach”, it was also evident that the teachers made principled decisions about their use of the first language as a means of making language learning more effective.

    People’sRepublicofChina

    Both teachers switched to Chinese mostly to clarify the meaning and usage of vocabulary in the light of their perceptions of students’ English competence. Jeng explained that “I gave Chinese meanings because the Chinese equivalents correspond well with these English words, and if I used English explanation for these English words I’m afraid that the students would be even more confused.” Likewise, Ring said, “If there is a criterion for me to choose between Chinese and English explanation, it is to judge students’ needs upon their English proficiency level.” She stated in her interview that switching to Chinese was necessary in order to make the point clearer and to save time. Although Ring also switched codes to explain grammatical points (as in table 5 above), Jeng did not use English for this purpose at all, saying that her main focus was on giving information about the content of the lesson, and organizing matters such as assigning homework, for which Mandarin was a more efficient medium.

    Japan

    Both of these Japanese teachers had a high command of English, but spent a lot of classroom time speaking Japanese. Chikara believed he should use as much English as possible and encourage the students to do likewise. However, he admitted that he actually used Japanese frequently and explained that his students struggled to produce English sentences:

    Asking them, sometimes I use English and Japanese, and but for their answers always, I ask them to use English.

    His colleague, Akira asserted that students needed a sound foundation in grammar and vocabulary before they could converse in English:

    But you see conversation is OK. When you have no solid ground for understanding English, it’s really bad. So before you start teaching, there’s a battle going on how mentally making them turn around to listen to you/or the class, but you know some kids are not interested in listening at all.

    Thailand

    Although the institutional norm required them to speak as much English as possible, neither of the teachers agreed with the use of only one language, whether English or Thai. However, they showed significant differences in their code switching levels and functions. Elspeth argued:

    The Thai language serves as a link to make students better understand what they are learning. Using English only is not a good idea either because students are at different levels. Only some students can cope with English-speaking classes, while the others may not be benefited from this.

    She added: “They may roughly understand what the teacher says in English, but Thai makes them understand things more deeply.” Like Elspeth, Bessie sometimes switched codes to explain grammar features or vocabulary items, but she also used Thai to lighten the atmosphere in class:

    I codeswitch when students are not so involved in learning. When I speak Thai either to explain or to chitchat, the classroom atmosphere will change. Thai is good for joking. They do not laugh when we make jokes in English.

    Vietnam

    Hanh’s use of Vietnamese varied from 4.3% to 31.7%. To explain her relatively high use in her first and fourth lessons, she said that it depended on the students’ competence in English:

    In my opinion, the students’ reading comprehension would be improved if I explained the important information or difficult sentences in the reading text in Vietnamese.

    She added:

    In teaching grammar if only English is used, the students just sit quietly with a vague look. They understand nothing. ...I usually switch to Vietnamese to explain grammar or pronunciation because if I use only English the students cannot understand, especially the terminology. If there are words the students don’t know in the rules, I define the words in Vietnamese. If the students don’t understand the grammar point, I explain everything in Vietnamese. If I am correcting the grammar exercises, I use English first and then translate it into Vietnamese.

    Like the other teachers reported above, her primary concern was to make the content of the lesson intelligible to her students.

    DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

    Every teacher observed in these studies switched to a greater or lesser extent between the target language (English) and the students’ first language, which was also their own. In all cases, although to different extents, code switching occurred at the three levels identified by Sankoff and Poplack (1981): from mixing two languages within one sentence, and switching languages at the clause level, to mixing languages intersententially; there were also often longer turns spoken entirely in the mutual first language. Code switching was seen to serve different interactional functions (Bowers, 1980): presenting, eliciting, organising, directing, evaluating, and sociating, although, as is typical of many EFL classes, very little socialising occurred in either first or target language. Finally, in their interviews, teachers presented various beliefs about the value of code switching in their specific context, but all acknowledged that using the first language facilitated language learning and teaching, especially in regard to their perceptions of the competence and motivation of their students. Evidently, there are many contextual variables to take into account when seeking to evaluate code switching practices, among them: the strictness of an “English only” institutional policy; whether or not the students are English majors; the type and purpose of the lesson; the backwash effect of examinations; the learners’ English language competence; and the professional background of the teachers, including their own competence in the target language. As the observational and interview data show, it is the interrelationship between these factors, rather than any single one, that holds the key.

    The findings of the case studies reported in Barnard and McLellan (2014) provide firm empirical support for those applied linguists who have recently called into question the rigid application of “English only” policies in language classrooms. Therefore, the issue to be considered by both educational policy-makers and practitioners is not a question of whether teachers do or do not switch languages in their EFL classes. Rather, it is about “optimal use” (Macaro, 2009). Because each of these examples is a case study, and snapshots taken of only single lessons, no generalisations can be drawn from their findings, either individually or collectively. However, readers in relatable situations may consider that many of the ways that these teachers switch codes, and the explanations they give, do resonate with their own language teaching beliefs and practices.

    In particular, it is recommended that language teachers, whether in universities or schools, engage in systematic reflective practice (Sch?n, 1983; Farrell, 2007) on their language use in classrooms. It is suggested that, every now and then, a teacher audio-record a lesson and afterwards listen to the recording to calculate the total teacher talking time (TTT) during the lesson, and calculate the percentage of the whole lesson-as is done at the start of Table 2 above. This can be done by coding who is talking (T=teacher, Ss=student/s, or S=silence) every five seconds; to get into practice, this could be done every ten seconds. Then the teacher should listen again, and this time code each of his/her utterances as L1, L2 or U (=unintelligible). The teacher may then transcribe the L1 utterances and identify each firstly in terms of Sankoff and Poplack’s (1981) three levels; this would make them aware of the extent of each codeswitched turn. It needs to be emphasized, perhaps, that not all of the teacher’s talk need be transcribed-only the codeswitched episodes. A further analysis could be carried out by relating the data to Bowers’ (1980) interactional categories; again, this will take some practice. Even experts find that the categories are not “water-tight”: some utterances will fall into more than one category, and some will be difficult to fit into any of the categories. However, after such an analysis, it should be possible for the reflective teacher to identify trends in his/her codeswitching practice, and to consider the extent of appropriateness of either the target language or the students’ first language for the particular categories it was used. For example, the teacher may reflect that it might have been better to use the target language for function X, while the first language might have been more appropriate for function Y. After such reflective analyses, and on the basis of empirical data from their actual classroom use, the teacher might then be able to make principled decisions (Macaro, 2009, pp. 38-39) about the “optimal” use of both languages. After all, as McMillan and Rivers (2011) argue, teachers (and learners) are best placed to decide what is appropriate in their own classrooms. Extremely practical examples of how teachers might judiciously use the mother tongue in their classrooms are suggested in Swainetal. (2011). The above suggestions do require time and effort on the part of teachers, but could be undertaken occasionally, perhaps as part of a professional development programme exploring the use of language in the classroom.

    An obvious extension to this would be for a group of colleagues in the same, or similar, setting to undertake a collaborative action research project (Burns, 1999; Burns, 1999, 2010). They would follow the same reflective procedures as above, and after a reasonable amount of data from their classes has been collected and analysed, they could discuss the implications and share their reasons for their (inevitably) differential use of first and target languages. They need not agree with each other’s point of view, but it is important that they realise, and appreciate, the range of beliefs and practices about code switching that can occur in the same institutional setting. It would also be useful to triangulate their perspectives with the views of students, as did Fuad Hamied in Barnard and McLellan (2014). They could then collaborate to co-construct plans to optimise language use in their classes, or members may do this individually, based upon a wider understanding of the issues involved. Importantly, they should collectively review these plans after putting them into practice to consider the effectiveness their use of the first and second languages. The action research cycle should continue with further planning, implementation and review in order to enhance student learning, and extend their own understanding of sound language education practice. Importantly, they should disseminate their findings within and beyond their specific context to contribute to greater professional understanding of language use in the EFL classroom.

    However, the major action that the team can make, thus empowered with empirical data and shared experience, is to apply pressure on their institutional policy-makers to adopt appropriately context-sensitive regulations or guidance on code switching in language classrooms.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    I am deeply indebted to Lili Tian, Chamaipak Tayjasanant, Simon Humphries and Le Van Canh, contributors to Barnard and McLellan (2014) for permission to use data from their case studies, and to anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on earlier drafts.

    NOTE

    1 A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the 47th RELC International Seminar,Multi-LiteraciesinLanguageEducation, Singapore, 16 to 18 April 2012, participation in which was facilitated by a travel grant NZ C1221 from my university.

    REFERENCES

    Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: A neglected resource?EnglishLanguageTeachingJournal, 4, 241-247.

    Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching in the target language: A problem in the current orthodoxy.LanguageLearningJournal, 8, 2-5.

    Barnard, R. & McLellan, J. (Eds.). (2014).CodeswitchinginuniversityEnglish-mediumclasses:Asianperspectives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Bowers, R. (1980).Verbalbehaviourinthelanguageteachingclassroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Reading, England.

    Braine, G. (2010).NonnativespeakerEnglishteachers:Research,pedagogy,andprofessionalgrowth. New York: Routledge.

    Burden, P. (2000). The use of the students’ mother tongue in monolingual English “conversation” classes at Japanese universities.LanguageTeacher-Kyoto-JALT, 24, 5-10.

    Burden, P. (2004). An examination of attitude change towards the use of Japanese in a university English ‘Conversation’ class.RELCJournal, 35, 21-36.

    Burns, A. (1999).Collaborativeactionresearchforlanguageteachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Burns, A. (2010).DoingactionresearchinEnglishlanguageteaching:Aguideforpractitioners. New York: Routledge.

    Butzkamm, W. & Caldwell, J.A.W. (2009).Thebilingualreform:Aparadigmshiftinforeignlanguageteaching. Tübingen: Narr Studienbücher.

    Canh, L. V. (2011).Form-focusedinstruction:AcasestudyofVietnameseteachers’beliefsandpractices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

    Carless, D. (2008). Student use of the mother tongue in the task-based classroom.EnglishLangaugeTeachingJournal, 62, 331-338.

    Cook, G. (2010).Translationinlanguageteaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom.CanadianModernLanguageReview, 57, 399-423.

    Dailey-O’Cain, J. & Liebscher, G. (2009). Teacher and student use of the first language in foreign language classroom interaction: Functions and applications. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.),Firstlanguageuseinsecondandforeignlanguagelearning(pp. 131-144). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Farrell, T.S.C. (2007).Reflectivelanguageteaching:Fromresearchtopractice. London: Continuum.

    Forman, R. (2007). Bilingual teaching in the Thai EFL context: One teacher’s practice.TESOLinContext, 16, 20-25.

    Forman, R. (2008). Using notions of scaffolding and intertextuality to understand bilingual teaching of English in Thailand.LinguisticsandEducation, 19, 319-332.

    Garcia, O. (2009).Bilingualeducationinthe21stcentury:Aglobalperspective. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Hall, G. & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning.LanguageTeaching, 45, 271-308.

    Harmer, J. (2007).ThepracticeofEnglishlanguageteaching(4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.

    Hobbs, V., Matsuo, A., & Payne, M. (2010). Code-switching in Japanese language classrooms: An exploratory investigation of native vs. non-native speaker teacher practice.LinguisticsandEducation, 21, 44-59.

    Kang, D.-M. (2008). The classroom language use of a Korean elementary school EFL teacher: Another look at TETE.System, 36, 214-226.

    Kim, E.-Y. (2011). Using translation exercises in the communicative EFL writing classroom.ELTJournal, 65, 154-160.

    Levine, G. S. (2011).Codechoiceinthelanguageclassroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Lin, A. (1996). Bilingualism or linguistic segregation? Symbolic domination, resistance and code switching in Hong Kong schools.LinguisticsandEducation, 8, 49-84.

    Littlewood, W. & Yu, B.-H. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom.LanguageTeaching, 44, 64-77.

    Liu, S. (2009). Globalization, higher education, and the nation state. InProceedingsoftheChinaPostgraduateNetworkConference, 23-24 April, 2009 (pp. 91-100. Manchester, England: Luther King House. http:∥www.bacsuk.org.ik/cpn/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Proceedings20091.pdf#page=91

    Liu, D., Ahn, G.S., Baek, K.-S., & Han, N.O. (2004). South Korean High School English teachers’ code switching: Questions and challenges in the drive for maximal use of English in teaching.TESOLQuarterly, 38, 605-638.

    Macaro, E. (2001). Analyzing student teachers code-switching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision-making.TheModernLanguageJournal, 85, 531-548.

    Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of code switching in the L2 classroom: Exploring ‘optimal’ use. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.),Firstlanguageuseinsecondandforeignlanguagelearning(pp. 35-49). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    McMillan, B. & Rivers, D. (2011).The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes to ‘English only’.System, 39, 251-263.

    MOET (2005).Vietnamhighereducationrenovationagenda:Period2006-2020. Hanoi: Ministry of Education and Training.

    Mohini, M. (2008). Globalisation and its impact on the medium of instruction in higher education in Malaysia.InternationalEducationStudies, 1, 89-94.

    Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia Pacific region.TESOLQuarterly, 37, 589-613.

    Pennington, M. (1995). Pattern and variation in the use of two languages in the Hong Kong secondary English class.RELCJournal, 26, 89-102.

    Phillipson, R. (1992).Linguisticimperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Qian, X., Tian, G., & Wang, Q. (2009). Code switching in the primary EFL classroom in China: Two case studies.System, 37, 719-730.

    Sankoff, D., & Poplack, S. (1981). A formal grammar for code-switching.PapersinLinguistics:InternationalJournalofHumanCommunication, 14, 3-45.

    Sch?n, D. (1983).Thereflectivepractitioner. New York: Basic Books.

    Swain, M., Kirkpatrick, A., & Cummins, J. (2011).Howtohaveaguilt-freelifeusingCantoneseintheEnglishclass:AhandbookfortheEnglishlanguageteacherinHongKong. Hong Kong: Research Centre into Language Acquisition and Education in Multilingual Societies, Hong Kong Institute of Education.

    Tham, S. Y. (2013). From the movement of Itinerant Scholars to a strategic process. In S. Y. Tham (Ed.),InternationalizinghighereducationinMalaysia:Understanding,practices. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

    Tian, L. & Macaro, E. (2012). Comparing the effect of teacher codeswitching with English-only explanations on the vocabulary acquisition of Chinese university students: A Lexical Focus-on-Form study.LanguageTeachingResearch, 16, 361-385.

    van der Meij, H. & Zhao, X. (2010). Code switching in English courses in Chinese universities.TheModernLanguageJournal, 94, 396-411.

    Walsh, S. (2011).Exploringclassroomdiscourse:Languageinaction. London: Routledge.

    Wragg, E. C. (1999).Anintroductiontoclassroomobservation(2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Yoshida, Y., Imai, H., Nakata, Y., Tajino, A., Takeuchi, O., &. Tamai, K. (Eds.). (2009).Researchinglanguageteachingandlearning:Anintegrationofpracticeandtheory. Oxford: Peter Lang.

    男女下面插进去视频免费观看 | 视频中文字幕在线观看| 亚洲av男天堂| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 22中文网久久字幕| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 日本与韩国留学比较| 国产精品成人在线| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 久久久久精品人妻al黑| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 制服诱惑二区| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频 | 国产毛片在线视频| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 少妇的逼水好多| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 欧美国产精品va在线观看不卡| 蜜桃国产av成人99| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 精品酒店卫生间| 色网站视频免费| 久久女婷五月综合色啪小说| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 色网站视频免费| 在线看a的网站| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 丝袜喷水一区| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 亚洲,一卡二卡三卡| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看| 精品国产一区二区久久| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 美女主播在线视频| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 日本午夜av视频| 搡老乐熟女国产| 9热在线视频观看99| av黄色大香蕉| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 高清欧美精品videossex| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 少妇高潮的动态图| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 永久网站在线| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 伦精品一区二区三区| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 桃花免费在线播放| 美女福利国产在线| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 美女主播在线视频| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 成年av动漫网址| 捣出白浆h1v1| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 久热这里只有精品99| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 午夜激情av网站| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 一级片免费观看大全| 国产精品免费大片| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕 | 国产xxxxx性猛交| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 久久免费观看电影| 国产亚洲最大av| a级毛片黄视频| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 少妇熟女欧美另类| av在线app专区| 亚洲国产精品999| av有码第一页| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频 | 高清av免费在线| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 久久久欧美国产精品| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| www.熟女人妻精品国产 | 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| av不卡在线播放| 日韩电影二区| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 超碰97精品在线观看| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看 | 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 少妇的逼水好多| 午夜av观看不卡| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 在线观看人妻少妇| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 男女国产视频网站| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 国内精品宾馆在线| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 一级黄片播放器| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 一级黄片播放器| 黄色一级大片看看| 高清av免费在线| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 高清av免费在线| 在线观看www视频免费| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 久久久国产一区二区| 性色av一级| 免费av不卡在线播放| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 性色av一级| 波野结衣二区三区在线| av天堂久久9| 18禁动态无遮挡网站| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 少妇人妻 视频| 国产在视频线精品| 久久久欧美国产精品| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 高清不卡的av网站| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 国产探花极品一区二区| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 伊人亚洲综合成人网| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 人妻系列 视频| 看免费成人av毛片| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 午夜免费观看性视频| 精品福利永久在线观看| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 久久久久久久国产电影| www.av在线官网国产| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 亚洲内射少妇av| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院 | 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 国产成人欧美| 国产成人精品在线电影| 中文欧美无线码| 亚洲成人手机| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 国产av精品麻豆| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 亚洲性久久影院| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 色5月婷婷丁香| 久久99精品国语久久久| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀 | av在线播放精品| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 黄色一级大片看看| 精品一区二区免费观看| 99九九在线精品视频| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区 | 久久久久人妻精品一区果冻| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 两个人看的免费小视频| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 久久久久视频综合| 成人无遮挡网站| 51国产日韩欧美| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 男人操女人黄网站| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 高清毛片免费看| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 久久狼人影院| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 久久女婷五月综合色啪小说| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 夜夜爽夜夜爽视频| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 91精品三级在线观看| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 久久久久久久精品精品| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 亚洲精品视频女| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 欧美3d第一页| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 中国三级夫妇交换| 999精品在线视频| 精品酒店卫生间| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 国产成人一区二区在线| av福利片在线| av电影中文网址| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 一级片免费观看大全| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 久久狼人影院| av福利片在线| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 岛国毛片在线播放| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 久热这里只有精品99| 1024视频免费在线观看| 久久久久视频综合| 少妇的逼好多水| 国产成人aa在线观看| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 国产在视频线精品| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 亚洲性久久影院| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| av福利片在线| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院 | 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 看免费成人av毛片| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到 | 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| av.在线天堂| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 亚洲精品第二区| 色5月婷婷丁香| 国产片内射在线| 成年av动漫网址| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| av免费观看日本| 精品久久久精品久久久| 午夜视频国产福利| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 制服人妻中文乱码| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 免费观看在线日韩| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久 | 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 午夜激情av网站| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 飞空精品影院首页| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 性色avwww在线观看| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| 久久久久久人人人人人| 国产福利在线免费观看视频| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 日日啪夜夜爽| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 午夜福利,免费看| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 色94色欧美一区二区| 黄片播放在线免费| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 热re99久久国产66热| 午夜视频国产福利| 男女国产视频网站| 91成人精品电影| 中国三级夫妇交换| 一级爰片在线观看| 成人国产麻豆网| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| freevideosex欧美| 国产乱来视频区| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 春色校园在线视频观看| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区 | 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 亚洲第一av免费看| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 亚洲精品视频女| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 成人综合一区亚洲| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 宅男免费午夜| 少妇的逼好多水| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 亚洲中文av在线| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 亚洲精品一二三| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 婷婷成人精品国产| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看| 久久久久国产网址| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 欧美3d第一页| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看 | 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 色吧在线观看| 18禁观看日本| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 插逼视频在线观看| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 久久精品久久久久久久性| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看 | 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 18在线观看网站| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 精品久久蜜臀av无| av视频免费观看在线观看| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 久久久久久人人人人人| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 18禁动态无遮挡网站| 男女边摸边吃奶| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 熟女电影av网| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到 | 日日啪夜夜爽| 少妇的逼好多水| 一级黄片播放器| 永久网站在线| 草草在线视频免费看| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 人妻系列 视频| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 精品国产国语对白av| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 国产成人精品在线电影| 老司机影院毛片| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 欧美成人午夜精品| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 桃花免费在线播放| 午夜免费鲁丝| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 在线看a的网站| 一级片'在线观看视频| av卡一久久| 国产成人精品福利久久| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精 国产伦在线观看视频一区 | 中文天堂在线官网| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 精品国产一区二区久久| 国产 精品1| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| 一级毛片电影观看| 国内精品宾馆在线| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 久久久精品94久久精品| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在 | 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区 | 国产 精品1| 成年人免费黄色播放视频| 日韩伦理黄色片| 亚洲国产色片| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 免费大片18禁| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 欧美精品av麻豆av| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| av在线app专区| 大香蕉久久成人网| 久久午夜福利片| 久久久欧美国产精品| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 综合色丁香网| 18禁观看日本| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频 | 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 久久久久久久久久成人| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 高清毛片免费看| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 国产又爽黄色视频| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| av在线播放精品| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 久久久久国产网址| 日本午夜av视频| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 五月天丁香电影| 秋霞伦理黄片| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 美女中出高潮动态图| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 两个人看的免费小视频| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 美女主播在线视频| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 国产在线免费精品| 伦理电影免费视频| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 黄色配什么色好看| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 日本黄大片高清| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 国产麻豆69| 亚洲图色成人| 草草在线视频免费看| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 男女高潮啪啪啪动态图| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 国产成人精品无人区| 亚洲四区av| 91国产中文字幕| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 日韩伦理黄色片| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 九色成人免费人妻av| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| av片东京热男人的天堂| 人妻一区二区av| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 熟女av电影| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在| 一区二区av电影网| 国产高清三级在线| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | 日韩一区二区三区影片| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 久热久热在线精品观看| 亚洲综合色惰| 日本欧美视频一区|