The Use and Recourse of L1 in the EFL Classroom
-
Upload
freddy-villaseca -
Category
Documents
-
view
14 -
download
0
Transcript of The Use and Recourse of L1 in the EFL Classroom
Acknowledgements
Freddy: In first place, I would like to thank my parents, who despite some
difficulties were capable of helping me in this new stage in my life. Secondly, to
our instructor, whose willingness and disposition helped us to succeed in our
thesis. Also, I would like to thank the people who I have met through these four
years. Finally, thanks to Leslie, Guissel, and Javier for dealing with some of my
ideas and always being a support to me. Thank you all.
Guissel: I would like to say thanks to my family for their constant support and
encouragement during this semester, for believing, and trusting in me. I also would
like to show gratitude to our instructor, who believed in us, gave us support, and
led us wisely thought this difficult, but enriching process. My thanks to my thesis
partners, who knew how to back me up and work together to finish this process.
Thanks for the joyful moments, thanks for accepting ideas and criticism, and for
being the way you are. Finally, my thanks to everyone who participated in these 4
years full of happiness, hard moments, challenges, and lessons.
Leslie: I have to say thanks to my family for giving me the opportunity to study this
mayor, I feel so lucky for having their support in each one of my decisions. Also to
my dear classmates who have helped me in this important process, especially to
Freddy, Guissel, and Javier for being there in difficult and stressful moments as
well as in relaxing times. In addition, to the wonderful teachers I have had and
have helped me to achieve my goals, particularly, to Miss Flora for her time,
disposition, and commitment with us. I am grateful that I could have finished this
i
stage of my life with such a great team.
Javier: I want to thank to my family for the unconditional support in every aspect of
my life which has allowed me to grow up as a person and as an artist. To our
instructor for her intelligence and dedication, and to the people who left a mark in
my life, and generally to all the people at the University with which I have shared
special moments of my life. Also thanks to my thesis partners which I would
choose again if I had the chance. Thanks for the memories and the good times
during this period of my life
ii
Table of contents
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................i
Table of contents................................................................................................... iii
Abstract..................................................................................................................vi
Resumen................................................................................................................vi
Introduction...........................................................................................................vii
Chapter I..................................................................................................................1
1.1 Problem Statement..........................................................................................1
1.2 Research question..........................................................................................1
1.3 Objective of the study......................................................................................2
1.3.1 Specific objectives....................................................................................2
1.4 Limitations.......................................................................................................3
1.5 Delimitations....................................................................................................3
Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework.........................................................................4
2.1 From the Bilingual method to CLT approach...................................................4
2.1.1 Universal Grammar..................................................................................4
2.1.2 Bilingual method.......................................................................................4
iii
2.1.3 Communicative language teaching...........................................................5
2.2 Second language acquisition theory...............................................................6
2.2.1 Krashen’s hypotheses..............................................................................6
2.2.2 The importance of the role of input in second Language Acquisition .......8
2.3 English as a foreign Language .....................................................................10
2.3.1 The role of the second language in Second language acquisition .........10
2.4 Use of L1 in EFL classroom .........................................................................11
2.4.1 Vivian Cook ............................................................................................11
2.4.2 David Atkinson .......................................................................................13
2.4.3 John Harbord..........................................................................................16
2.4.4 Important considerations about L1 use ..................................................18
2.4.5 Jim Cummins .........................................................................................19
2.5 Code- switching.............................................................................................21
2.6 Previous studies............................................................................................27
Chapter 3 Methodological Framework................................................................35
3.1 Research approach.......................................................................................35
3.2 Instrument.....................................................................................................38
3.3 Context and participants................................................................................40
3.3.1 Ethnography...........................................................................................40
iv
3.4 Pilot study......................................................................................................41
3.5 Validity...........................................................................................................43
3.6 Procedure......................................................................................................44
Chapter 4 Results of the investigation...............................................................46
4.1 Analysis section 1..........................................................................................46
4.2 Analysis section 2..........................................................................................49
4.3 Analysis of open ended questions.................................................................55
4.4 Discussion ....................................................................................................68
Conclusion............................................................................................................70
Bibliography..........................................................................................................73
Appendix A............................................................................................................79
Appendix B............................................................................................................83
Appendix C............................................................................................................84
Appendix D............................................................................................................89
v
Abstract
This study attempts to share the different perspectives regarding the use of
L1 in the different ALTE levels according to experienced professors at Universidad
Nacional Andres Bello in Viña del Mar, in light of the leading theories about the use
of L1. Through qualitative and quantitative data analysis, this study will show when
and in which situations professors believe that L1 can be used.
Resumen
Éste estudio intenta compartir las distintas perspectivas en cuanto al uso de
la L1 en los diferentes niveles ALTE según experimentados profesores del la
Universidad Nacional Andrés Bello en Viña del Mar, a la luz de las principales
teorías sobre el uso del L1. A través de un análisis cualitativo y cuantitativo de
datos, éste estudio demostrará cuándo y en qué situaciones los profesores creen
que se puede utilizar la L1.
vi
Introduction
The use of L1 is a relevant issue to discuss due to the many different
perspectives and beliefs regarding the appropriateness of its use in different EFL
classroom settings. Therefore, for future English Teachers, and also for
experienced teachers, this is a sensitive matter that gives cause for concern and
arouse interest. Therefore it seems sound to ask for experienced teachers’
opinions and perspectives to take them into account for future performances in
EFL classrooms. The matter of debate relies on how advisable it is to recourse to
L1 in different EFL contexts.
There are several theories about teaching a second/foreign language, and
how the learner should respond to it. One of the most important theoreticians,
Stephen Krashen, 1981, suggests some reasons why the exposure to L1 has not
always been successful in terms of facilitating the acquisition of second or foreign
language. In his work “Second Language Acquisition and Second Language
Learning” Krashen explained the fact that when learners have access to their L1
either in class, or out of it, they tend not to make an effort to use the target
language. Nevertheless, current theories have retaken the role of L1 in L2 classes.
One of the groundbreaking theories, that support the use of L1 in EFL classroom,
is the Common Underlying Proficiency Theory also known as Language
Interdependency, or Bilingualism developed by Jim Cummins in . Cummins
referred to the use of the primary language (L1) as a cognitive basis for proficiency
in the second language (L2). Even though the actual importance and implications
of learning English as a communicative and commercial tool, English in Chile is
vii
completely different from countries that have taken English as a second language.
The Chilean reality is focused on the learning of English as a foreign language
because of important factors such as time constraints related to the hours of
English in classrooms, and the isolation of the country.
This explorative-descriptive research aims at showing the teachers’
perception of Universidad Nacional Andres Bello, Viña del Mar campus about the
use of L1 in L2 classrooms. In order to frame this analysis in light of the leading
theories, authors such as Stephen Krashen, Jim Cummins, Vivian Cook, David
Atkinson, among others will be introduced and discussed. While some of them
believe that the use of L1 can harm the learning process of students, others
believe that it can be a useful tool to promote language and acquisition that can
also be used in specific situations in a classroom context.
The focus of this research is set on the different six ALTE levels in which
professor’s recourse to L1, as well as on their opinion about whether L1 is
considered to be a positive or negative tool to use, and under which circumstances
the mother tongue can be recoursed to by teachers and learners.
viii
ix
Chapter 1
1.1Problem statement
The use of the mother tongue has been the matter of debate among,
teachers, theoreticians, and practitioners, especially in the last two decades since
the Grammar Translation method proved not to be efficient in developing
communicative competences. Even thought the debate has been abundant, and
the lack of research, the lack of agreements concerning the use of the mother
tongue in the classroom make it an interesting topic to be a subject of study.
There is an important discussion on how a teacher has to handle the
influence of L1 in an EFL class. As it was mentioned, different points of view and
beliefs have been set, starting with the theories that recommended the complete
eradication of L1 in the class, until some new methodological approaches that
allow the use of instant translation, among other tools that can be used in the
classroom. Therefore, there is a need to distinguish, determine, and analyze from
different perspectives, how advisable it is to recourse to L1, as well as to identify
situations in which L1 can affect positively or negatively in the acquisition of a new
language. Furthermore, to be more precise in terms of determining in which
contexts this study will focus the analysis of the use of L1, six different ALTE levels
will be considered as part of the target of this study.
1.2 Research question
Considering that the use of L1 in EFL settings is a matter of debate, two
different questions have been formulated, namely:
1
• Is it appropriate to use L1 in the classroom when teaching EFL at a
university level according to professors of English at Universidad Nacional
Andrés Bello, Viña del Mar?
• When and to which extent is it advisable to use L1 in the EFL classroom
considering the six different ALTE levels?
1.3 Objective of the study
Considering that this study is focused on the English Department professors
perspectives regarding the use of L1 in an EFL classroom; the general objective of
this study is:
• To find out what English Department professors think about the use of L1
according to the different ALTE levels.
1.3.1 Specific objectives
Having stated the main objective of this study, the specific objectives have
been set as follows:
• The design and application of a questionnaire in order to identify in which
situations and with which levels it is advisable to recourse to L1 according to
the professors' perspective
• To identify the leading tendencies regarding the use of L1 to base the
question on an updated theoretical background.
2
1.4 Limitations:
Time constraints and predisposition of teachers to answer.
1.5 Delimitations:
The questionnaire will be applied only to professors of the English
Department of Universidad Nacional Andrés Bello due to their vast experience in
the educational field, regardless if they are native or non-native speakers, either
male or female.
The following chapter has been developed focused on EFL
settings/contexts, although most of the theoretical studies and references, in
general, are focused on English as a second language (ESL).
3
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
The aim of this theoretical framework is to present and explain the ideas
behind the approaches to ESL and how these approaches have changed and have
been adapted to teaching English as a Foreign Language.
2.1 From the bilingual method to CLT approach
In order to contextualize the debate around the use of L1 in EFL learning, it
is necessary to trace back the theories that have set the basis for ESL/EFL
teaching and learning methods and practice in the last decades.
2.1.1 Universal grammar
According to Noam Chomsky (1975), Universal Grammar is defined as “the
system of principles, conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all
human languages… the essence of human language” (Chomsky, 1975, p. 29). In
this way, Universal Grammar Theory is based on the premise that linguistic
competence is shared by all the human beings since they are born and the use of
language, in general terms, is acquired in an unconscious way. This process
allows children to communicate orally without having studied the grammar
structures previously.
2.1.2 Bilingual Method
The Bilingual Method is based on audio-visual method (formulated in the
60’s) which was developed by C. J. Dodson. In this method, students listen to
English while looking at the transcriptions, and they have to repeat a number of
lines after the teacher as a way to recognize patterns of sounds according to their
written form. The mother tongue is used orally to transfer meaning of complicated
4
words or structures, so students learn through imitation. Therefore, the mother
tongue is shown to be effective to get the meaning fast by contrasting and
comparing and it also helps to avoid some errors that may surge.
2.1.3 Communicative language teaching
According to Richards and Rodgers (2001), Communicative language
teaching (CLT) refers to a communicative approach which has purposeful
principles in relation to a communicative view of language and language learning.
This approach can be used to encourage and improve methods and procedures of
the EFL classroom, in order for the learner to accomplish communicative
competences. Hymes defines the theory of communicative competence as “what a
speaker needs to know in order to be communicatively competent in a speech
community.” (Richards and Rodgers, 2001, p. 159)
Richards and Rodgers (2001) mention four different characteristics
regarding this approach:
- Language is seen as a way to express meanings.
- The aim of language is to facilitate a better interaction and communication
between learners.
- The structure of the language reflects its functional and communicative uses
- The basis of language not only involves grammar patterns or structures, it also
deals with discourse that includes communicative meanings
(Richards and Rodgers, 2001, p. 161)
5
There are some CLT practices that can be applied inside the classroom
context:
- Activities that promote communication are useful when learning.
- Richards and Rodgers (2001) quote Johnson (1982), who refers to task principles
as a manner to promote meaningful and beneficial learning.
- Richards and Rodgers coined the expression “meaningfulness principle” which is
related to what a learner considers a useful learning that will later on support the
learning process. (Richards and Rodgers, 2001).
To summarize this, the three CLT practices lead the learner to a better
“meaningful and authentic language use” (Richards and Rodgers, 2001, p. 161).
2.2 Second Language Acquisition Theory
2.2.1 Krashen hypotheses
Stephen Krashen in his book “Principles and Practice in Second Language
Acquisition” (2009) explains five hypotheses:
The acquisition learning distinction
In the first hypothesis, he makes a distinction between Second Language
Acquisition and Second language Learning. On the one hand, second language
acquisition is an unconscious and natural process, so it does not require much
effort from the learner and he/she is not aware of the grammatical rules, therefore it
is acquired in the same way that children acquire their native language, because
being immersed in a place or context make them naturally fluent. On the other
6
hand, second language learning is a conscious process in which learners are
taught the rules of a language and error correction is present, so it requires mental
effort which can be exhausting for learners.
The natural order hypothesis
In this hypothesis, Krashen states that some grammatical rules of a second
language can be acquired by children following a certain order, and there are some
similarities in the order with the acquisition of the first language.
The Monitor hypothesis:
Once the acquisition/learning distinction has been made and as acquisition
is subconscious and learning is a conscious process, the learner makes use of the
input to correct knowledge. When the learner compares the input received with
his/her knowledge, the learner is able to self-manage the production of a better
output.
The input hypothesis:
This hypothesis states that the acquisition of the language is present when
“comprehensible input” (Krashen, 2009) is provided to the learner. Accuracy and
therefore grammatical structures will be developed through the learning process.
“A necessary (but not sufficient) condition to move from stage i to stage i + 1 is that
the acquirer understand input that contains i + 1, where "understand" means that
the acquirer is focused on the meaning and not the form of the message”
(Krashen, 2009). In other words, if the learner achieves a good reception of input,
7
i + 1 will be provided.
The Affective Filter hypothesis:
It explains some internal factors that can affect the learner's SLA:
motivation, anxiety, and self-esteem. When the affective filter decreases, the
learner processes comprehensible input in a more efficient way.
SLA is focused on acquiring a language with communicative purposes,
which means that its primary goal is that learners can speak using the second
language fluently.
2.2.2 The importance of the role of input in Second Language Acquisition
An important role that corroborates Krashen’s Second Language
Acquisition theory (SLA) is the fact that the constant and comprehensible input is
essential for the acquisition of a second language. As Krashen mentioned
“language is best taught when it is being used to transmit message, not when it is
explicitly taught for conscious learning” (S. Krashen and T.D Terrel, 1995, p. 55).
According to this theory, SLA is a process by which the social context plays an
important role, because second language learners should receive a continuous
and unconscious input. This theory could be easily applied in immersion programs,
since students are taken to other countries, in which the language they are learning
is spoken not only during classes, but also outside the classroom in daily life.
“Immersion is used in two very different ways in educational discourse. In the first
8
sense, immersion programs are organized and planned forms of bilingual
education in which students are “immersed” in a second-language instructional
environment with the goal of developing proficiency in two languages” (Cummins,
2009, p. 174). Therefore, immersion programs are designed to provide
comprehensible input and prepare learners to face SLA contexts/environments.
It is important to clarify that “educational discourse” mentioned by Cummins
(2009) is, according to Nuthall and Church (1973), a communicational situation in
which teachers and students interact orally, using L2 in conversation. Hall (2001)
explains that interaction will provide patterns that students will adopt when
interacting, and will also determine how the learning process takes place.
Nevertheless, the linguistic reality of South America is far from what an ESL
reality is, neighboring countries are all Spanish speaking, and despite the fact that
English is a universal language; the social background and the national Curricula
do not provide the necessary tools and methods to acquire a second language.
However, according to the Chilean reality, the differences regarding the
socio-economic context, the geographical placement, and the exposure to the
target language (TL) are astonishing. Therefore, the expectancy that this theory
(ESL) can be applied in Chile is difficult due to the nature of our reality, besides
that, the amount of hours of English in schools’ curriculum fluctuates from 2 hours
a week to 16 hours a week (approximately) depending on the type of school
(public, subsidized, and private), so the exposure to the TL outside the classroom
is not sufficient compared to an ESL reality.
9
2.3 English as a Foreign Language
According to Zhang and Ding (2011), English as a foreign language (EFL)
refers to “a term for the use or study of the English language by non-native
speakers in countries where English is not generally considered a local medium of
communication” (A preliminary study on Chinese EFL learner’s attitude towards
their accent, 2011, p. 2300). In this learning process, the learner is not immersed in
a second language atmosphere; therefore, the learner must go through a
conscious process.
In this way, in EFL as opposed to ESL, input is not sufficient to promote
acquisition; hence, teachers must find ways to compensate this lack of input.
Gunderson (2009) defined the differences between ESL and EFL. “ESL is
based on the premise that English is the language of the community and the
school and students have access to English models. EFL is usually learned in
environments where the language of the community and the school is not English.
EFL teachers have the difficult task of finding access to and providing English
models for their students” (Gunderson, 2009, p.205).
2.3.1 The role of the first Language in Second Language Acquisition
Krashen in his book “Second Language Acquisition and Second Language
Learning” claims that the influence of L1 in SLA hinders acquisition, and the
“interference” of the native language leads to mistakes in performance (Krashen,
1981). In the Monitor model case, the learner recourses to L1 as a manner of
replacing some L2 utterances. The influence of the target language may evidence
10
the absence of a proper acquisition and a deficient result in producing language.
Moreover, “silent period” helps learners positively shaping the acquired skills
through constant listening.
2.4 Use of L1 in EFL classroom
In previous works of theoreticians as Vivian Cook, David Atkinson, John
Harbord, Jim Cummins, among others, share the opinion that the first language
may be used in certain situations to facilitate learning as a foreign language, but it
should not be overused considering that students need to used mostly the target
language to practice and learn it. Clearly, L1 can be recourse to only in contexts in
which learners share the same native language or have enough knowledge of a
language apart from the one being taught.
2.4.1 Vivian Cook
Vivian Cook has written several articles in which he analyses language
teaching. In one of them, he explains Krashen's SLA idea that is related to banning
L1 in classrooms. In “Questioning Traditional Assumptions of Language Teaching”
(2010), Cook exposes three principal assumptions about the focus of teaching
English as a Second Language, tackling some paradigms about the role of the
teacher in ESL classroom and the role of L1 in the class itself, considering that
behind every change, in terms of method and approaches, the ESL theory remains
intact. The first assumption explains that “the basis for teaching is the spoken, not
the written language” (Cook, 2010, p.1), the second assumption explains that “the
aim of language teaching is to make students like native speakers” (Cook, 2010,
11
p.3). The two previous assumptions mentioned by Cook, consider aspects as the
linguistic competencies and the former preparation of the learner (scaffolding),
comparing their development stage, to the biological and cognitive process of
language acquisition, which is more complex as long as we grow. The third
assumption, the most conflictive one, is that “teachers and students should use the
target language rather than the L1 in the classroom” (Cook, 2010, p.5).
He further explains that Krashen believes that the aim of language teaching
is that students be able to communicate and speak a second language at the same
level that native speakers do, without considering grammar to improve accuracy. It
is easier to acquire a second language and talk as a native speaker when
someone is constantly exposed to L2 in early stages, since children have not yet
assimilated their first language. In the case of adults, they have more difficulties in
acquiring second language.
For Cook, it is obvious that there are differences between native and non-
native speakers, and sometimes L2 users are able to understand each other, but
not native speakers because of their accent and/or slangs. Therefore, the
pronunciation is different and also language knowledge, especially when one is a
monolingual speaker and the other an L2 user. He also claims that it is impossible
for an L2 user to separate, in his/her mind, the first and the second language.
Vivian Cook also wrote the paper “Using the First Language in the
Classroom” (2001) in which he discusses some beliefs about how the old
paradigms have changed over time and how the inclusion of the mother tongue in
the EFL classroom has become an important part of the learning process. He also
12
justifies its use in terms of developing a direct relationship between knowledge, in
terms of use, and grammar in learner’s mother tongue. In this way, he
demonstrates that Krashen’s perspective about banning the L1 in the classroom, to
enhance the learning process of L2, are obsolete according to the global reality
and the actual situation of English as a global language. In addition, Cook does
some asseverations about when and how to recourse to L1 using different authors’
perspectives.
He also gives some suggestions related to using L1, namely:
- To provide a short-cut for giving instructions and explanations where the cost of
the L2 is too great.
- To build up interlinked L1 and L2 knowledge in the students’ minds.
- To carry out learning tasks through collaborative dialogue with fellow students.
- To develop L2 activities such as code-switching for later real-life use.
(Cook, 2001, p. 418)
He concludes that the use of L1 is possible depending on situations and
contexts and if teachers use it properly, L1 turns into a useful tool to make the new
language useful, and to convey meaning.
2.4.2 David Atkinson
Even though Atkinson in his article “The mother tongue in the classroom: a
neglected resource?” (1987), takes as it own some disadvantages of using L1
mentioned by Krashen, he asserts that there are also good reasons to recourse to
L1 under some circumstances. The first one is that learners at lower levels prefer
and feel more comfortable using translation. While learning a foreign language,
they often try to find an equivalent or similar structure in their mother tongue, either
13
consciously or unconsciously. The second one is that in some cases professors
allow students to make questions like “How can I say “cuaderno”? as a way to help
students to express their ideas.
According to Atkinson (1987), an important advantage when using L1 that
may facilitate the acquisition and learning of a foreign language is translation,
which can be considered as part of a positive strategy in learning. Atkinson (1987)
quotes Bolitho (1983) who sees the use of L1 as a manner of expression in which
students can express what they want. Therefore, the teacher will encourage
students to say what they said in L1, but now, using L2.
Atkinson (1987) is clear in stating specific moments where it is advisable to
use L1. Those are:
“Eliciting language (all levels)”, which goes straight to say that it is an
effective tool when explaining some L2 patterns (concepts, ideas).
“Checking comprehension (All levels)” is a useful and practice technique
that will allow students to distinguish between different patterns of language. Giving
a task in the student’s mother tongue will demonstrate rapidly comprehension,
instead of corroborating learning using activities in L2.
“Giving instructions”, which is used at lower levels to give instructions in L1
and then make students repeat those instructions to ensure understanding.
“Discussion of classroom methodology (early levels)” is an important
strategy to make learners express what they think about the teaching method used
by the teacher. This will demonstrate what students feel and prefer, and it can be
14
either using students’ L1 or mixing L1 and L2.
“Presentation and reinforcement of language (mainly early levels)”, this type
of method involves translation of an activity that was already given in L2. This will
enhance students a better comprehension of L2 patterns, and will help students to
improve accuracy and grammar.
“Development of useful learning strategies” means that when students
attempt to utter a full idea by translating word by word until they form a sentence,
sometimes it may be grammatically wrong and may also lack coherence; this
happens mostly in oral speech. Therefore, the teacher must encourage students to
think in English and express those ideas in English, instead of thinking in their
mother tongue and expressing them in English. So, Atkinson promotes “the skills of
circumlocution, paraphrase, explanation and simplification” (Atkinson, 1987, p.
245). The following example will provide a better explanation of what has been
said:
Figure 1, “The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource? (Atkinson,
1987, p. 245).
15
The strategy given before is an option to encourage students to express
what they want to say or mean but being aware of “the limits of their competence in
the target language” (Atkinson, 1987, p. 245).
Finally, Atkinson (1987) concludes his article explaining some risks of an
excessive use of L1. Firstly, he explains that the teacher or student can create a
certain dependency in using the mother tongue in cases where there is not a need
to use it. Secondly, students will talk using their mother tongue “as a matter of
course” even though they can talk to the teacher using L2 (Atkinson, 1987, p. 246).
Finally, students will lose the importance of the use of the foreign language. The
objective of Atkinson with this article was to demonstrate that although the use of
L1 is a questionable strategy to use, it can be helpful at certain situations.
2.4.3 John Harbord
Harbord in his article “The use of the mother tongue in the classroom”
(1992) explains that the advent of the “Direct method” influenced the avoidance of
the use of L1. He describes the use of the mother tongue as a “humanistic
approach” (Harbord, 1992) in which students are allowed to express anything they
want using their mother tongue. He also explains that using L1 in classrooms can
be seen as a positive strategy when saving time and enhancing student and
teacher understanding. Harbord also uses Atkinson’s ideas (1987), which were
mentioned before, regarding the dependency that the use of the mother tongue
can create not only in students, but also in teachers.
There are three important strategies mentioned by Harbord, in which the
mother tongue plays an important role: 1) facilitating teacher-student
16
communication, 2) facilitating teacher-student rapport, and 3) facilitating learning
(Harbord, 1992, p. 352).
The first one is associated with Atkinson’s (1987) belief about the use of L1
as a time saving resource. To make it as clear as possible, Harbord classified three
different groups with different strategies that functions as facilitators in
communication, as follows:
Figure 2: group strategies. The use of the mother tongue in the classroom,
(Harbord, 1992, p.352).
In simple words, group A allows the use of L1 either by the teacher or the
students in specific situations that may need the use of the mother tongue as a
way to facilitate learning. In group B, the strategies are focused on translation.
They are not likely to be used in lessons, but they are a proper tool to use when
teaching a foreign language. Finally, in group 3, the use of L1 is centered in
situations that are apart from learning, particularly relevant in interaction among
17
students. This can be a beneficial method for learners, as a way to encourage a
certain independency and teamwork (Harbord, 1992).
The second strategy mentioned by Harbord (1992) is the use of L1 in
"facilitating teacher-student rapport", in other words, to “facilitate teacher-student
relationship” (Harbord, 1992, p. 354). This strategy is not likely to be allowed by
teachers due to a possible negative effect that it can have in the process of
learning a foreign language. Similar strategies that use L2, as a manner to avoid
an excessive use of L1, would be to identify proper situations that take place after
a lesson; such as telling jokes to students or talking in L2 as well as be prepared
as a teacher to give some personal information if a student asks. The last strategy
given by Harbord (1992) is “facilitating learning”, which in other words, is “using L1
to facilitate learning of L2” (Harbord, 1992, p. 354). This strategy is used mainly to
create awareness of using too much translation, and to avoid word by word
translation that is commonly used out of the learning contexts.
Harbord explains that translation and the use of the mother “provoke
discussion and speculation, to develop clarity and flexibility of thinking” (Harbord,
1992, pg. 355).
2.4.4 Important considerations about L1 use.
As it was explained before, there are different perspectives according to the
use of L1 in foreign language classes. María Olivares (2009) in her article called
“Mother tongue in the classroom: a positive or negative tool?” distinguished two
important contexts/environments, that are determinant, when learning a second
language. Firstly, according to Olivares (2009), there is a “Formal L2 classroom”,
18
and secondly, “Domestic Immersion Classroom”. The first one is related to a
common classroom context in which students are exposed to L2 at least two or
three hours per week. The second one deals with practically a total exposure to L2,
where students spend at least 8 hours every day using the second language, and
the predominant language is used not only when learning the foreign language, but
also in other contexts (such as learning maths, history, science, etc).
The two contexts mentioned before are important and determinant when
learning a foreign language.
2.4.5 Jim Cummins
A recurrent topic, in terms of ESL or EFL, is how useful it is to recourse to
the mother tongue. In his work “Bilingual Children’s Mother tongue: why is it
important for education?”, Cummins explains the importance of the mother tongue
and what we know about it in EFL development. Despite of the fact that a bilingual
class has been considered an obsolete practice, Cummins states that “bilingualism
has a positive effect on children´s linguistic and educational development”
(Cummins, 2001, p. 17).
The basis for his beliefs, are found in many other theoreticians such as
Cook (2001), Harbord (1992), and Atkinson (1987) that made a direct relationship
between the linguistics and grammatical skills and how these skills developed a
deeper comprehension in more than one language. To make this more relevant,
Cummins (2001) cited Goethe (a German philosopher) who said that “the person
who knows only one language does not truly know that language” (Cummins,
19
2001, p.17). Based on this statement, Cummins´s investigation and theories of
bilingualism turned to be crucial in the discussion of the use of L1.
Under the new perspectives, in terms of methodology when recoursing to
L1, Cummins refutes Krashen’s statement that the influence of L1 in SLA produces
a poor acquisition, and the interference of the native language leads to mistakes in
performance (Krashen, 1981).
Cummins proves his point of view explaining the interdependence theory in
which the interdependence between L1 and L2 (TL) is the core of his bilingualism
theory, being two of them the central structure of Cummins bilingualism theory:
The interdependence theory, as the name suggests, is an interconnected
relationship between L1 and L2, this theory has also been known as the iceberg
model. This model states that “languages reside in the same part of the brain,
differing at the surface yet connected on the base” (Lysunets, 2011, p. 27).
The interdependence hypothesis supposes that a learner with a poor
foundation in terms of grammar, linguistics, and basic language units will face
difficulties to manage a second language under the same circumstances.
Common Underlying Proficiency hypothesis, also known as “one balloon
theory”, can be represented by a double iceberg scheme (Lysunets, 2011), in
which the CUP is the common base to develop a bilingual subject. Cummins
(2001) states that a learner acquires a set of skills that, later on, can be used in
another language.
20
The following diagram illustrates how the Common Underlying Proficiency
hypothesis supports, at the same time, the superficial features of L1 and L2.
Furthermore, this diagram can explain how the linguistic interdependence works.
Based on the same principle, inter-linguistic dependence works under a
conscious process in which the teacher demands more complex tasks based on
content.
Figure 4: Cummins, Jim (1984). Bilingualism and Special education: Issues in
Assessment and Pedagogy.
2.5 Code- switching
In the same line to the previous theories, Code-switching is a practice
commonly used and explained by authors, theoreticians, and practitioners who
intent to clarify and define this practice, as well as to give some specific moments
to use it, or just deny its use. Some definitions and assumptions have been set and
explained according to the different classroom contexts in which code-switching
can be applied.
21
Chad Nilep (2006) defined code-switching as “the practice of selecting or
altering linguistic elements so as to contextualize talk in interaction” (Nilep, 2006,
pag 1). He also explains that this concept takes place in different classroom
environments, and can be used not only with linguistic purposes, but it can also be
used in social contexts, and when exploring new identities.
According to Lin (2008), classroom code-switching is related to a switch between
two different language codes among students and teachers, and vice versa.
The authors that were mentioned before, and others such as Grosjean
(1982), Myers-Scotton (1988), Cook (2001), and Meyer (2008) agreed that code-
switching is the use of two languages in a specific context for different purposes
and in different situations; in other words, the recourse to the mother tongue (L1) in
an L2 context.
According to Macaro (2005), it is simple for the speaker to talk and
communicate using both languages (L1 and L2) at the same time, instead of
attempting to communicate using the foreign language. In the case of a teacher
that resorts to code-switching, Macaro (2005) argues that due to the bilingual
management that he or she has, learning, and therefore learning a foreign
language, will be helpful for both teacher and learner.
Moreover, the study of code-switching has different perspectives, and uses.
According to Bailey (2000), CS has been categorized in three different manners: 1)
syntax, 2) discourse/conversation management, 3) social/metaphorical functions.
Syntactic approaches are related to what is permissible during a conversation
and/or linguistic patterns in the code-switching significance. In the case of
discourse management and social functions, these are related to the use of code-
22
switching in social contexts as well as their multiple functions regarding social and
conversation functions (Bailey, 2000).
It is important to clarify what discourse, and therefore classroom discourse
involves. The classroom context can be associated with a more formal and precise
concept: Classroom Discourse. According to Hall, classroom discourse is “the oral
interaction that occurs between teachers and students and among students in
classrooms. Through their interactions with each other, teacher and students
construct a common body of knowledge” (Hall, 2001, p.78). Students will develop
and achieve successful communicative competences that will allow them to
interact better in a situational context, roles inside the classroom will be clear, and
not only teachers but also students will be aware of what is needed to manage a
proper classroom discourse. Therefore, in the case of code-switching, Macaro
(2005) explains that although there are some approaches in which the use of L1 is
allowed, it is still seen as an unreliable method in teaching a foreign language. He
also explains that code-switching can be seen as a “communication strategy” that
will lead to certain moments of a lesson in which that communication strategy will
be more effective than other methods such as “repetition”.
Code-switching is commonly associated with translation. In FL classrooms,
according to Flyman-Mattson and Burenhult (1999), teachers use this method to
make students understand some language patterns that may not guarantee a full
understanding using just L2. But Macaro (2005) makes an important distinction
when using code switching; he classifies teachers in monolingual and bilingual, the
first ones are native speakers, and the second ones are non-native speakers.
23
Moreover, code-switching can only be used by bilingual teachers.
Atkinson (1987) and Macaro (2005) identified an important and strong
reason why there is a tendency to avoid the use of L1 when teaching, and
therefore reluctance about code-switching. They consider that the use of the
mother tongue and consequently, code switching was commonly associated with
the Grammar-translation approach (which had its origins in Germany during the
19th century), due to the fact that this method is based on the study of grammatical
patterns that were, later on, translated as a way to verify comprehension.
To support this, Macaro (2005) explains that the use of code-switching by
bilingual teachers was a matter of discussion due to the “cut down on the amount
of exposure that the learner has to the L2” (Macaro, 2005, p. 66).
Macaro (2005) also provides some rationales in which teachers can use
code-switching, those are:
- To create a relationship that goes beyond the learning context.
- To give complex and often confusing instructions about a tasks
- To maintain discipline and each student behavior.
- To translate and check comprehension of activities, that sometimes, require more
time than the usual.
- To teach grammar and/or complex contents
To situate the use of code-switching in a context, Macaro (2005) mentions
Kern (1994) who resorted to the language of thought in a reading task. Macaro
(2005) explains the advantages of the use of L1 to:
24
- Prevent from losing the main idea of the text.
- Reduce working memory constraints.
- Consolidate meaning in long term memory.
- Clarify the syntactic roles of certain lexical items.
(Macaro, 2005, p. 74).
When it comes to categorizing types of code-switching, researchers such as
Poplack (1980) and Romaine (1995) have agreed upon two types of code-
switching: inter-sentential switching, and intra-sentential switching. The first type
draws on a switch of L1 and L2 between sentences or clauses. A clear example is
from Poplack (1980): “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en
Español”. The second type of code-switching relies on switching between L1 and
L2 within a sentence. In other words, this is related to “to the underlying syntactic
rules of two languages which bridge constituents and link them together
grammatically” (Poplack, 1980, p.589). An example to this type is the given by
Poplack (1980): “Why make Carol SENTARSE ATRAS PA' QUE (sit in the back
so) everybody has to move PA' QUE SE SALGA (for her to get out)?” (Poplack,
1980, p.589)
A third type of code-switching that Poplack (1980) distinguished was tag-switching.
It is related to a little switch between L1 and L2, often between nouns and single
words. A brief example of this type is: “Salian en sus carros y en sus (They would
go out in their cars and in their) SNOWMOBILES” (Poplack, 1980, p.589).
To make it as clear as possible, the following figure explains simply the three types
of code-switching mentioned before and their interference when using the two
languages.
25
Figure 5. Representation of bilingual code-switching grammars (Poplack, 1980, p.
615).
As it was explained before, situation A represents code-switching but not
within a sentence, therefore L1 and L2 take place but in different sentences. In
situation B, there is a minimum switch of languages, and finally in situation C, the
use of code-switching is bigger, and determinant.
26
2.6 Previous studies
The aim of this chapter is to present information and results of previous
researches about the use of L1 in L2 classrooms. The main studies found are from
China, Turkey, and Taiwan, as there is very little research from Spanish speaking
countries.
In the research paper “How Much the First Language is There in Teachers’
Talk in EFL Classroom?” by Liu Jingxia in 2008 the objective of the study was “to
investigate the situation of the amount of teachers’ use of Chinese (the L1) in
different lesson contents of Chinese universities and attempts to provide empirical
evidence on how much Chinese there is in EFL classroom of Chinese universities”
(Jingxia, 2008, 60). The subjects chosen were teachers and students from three
different universities, and the analysis is both qualitative and quantitative.
The instruments for the investigation were “two questionnaires, classroom
recording and teachers’ interviews” (Jingxia, 2008, p. 61). Both questionnaires
consisted on four sections, the first one to fulfill personal information, the second
one clarifies the concept of code-switching in order to make subjects answer more
accurately, the third one contains “general situations of the L1 use in EFL
classroom” (Jingxia, 2008, p. 61), in this section the respondents give their
perception of the amount of L1 used according to three different lesson contents
which were: “theme-based activities, text analysis and discussion of tests and other
assignments”. In the fourth section the respondents offer their point of view about
the quantity of L1 that should be used for each lesson contents to facilitate
learning.
27
The questionnaires were applied to 50 teachers and 127 students. Liu
recorded four teachers, and afterwards the recordings were transcribed and
analysed. The teachers chosen for class recording also answered the interview, so
they had the opportunity to explain the reasons behind the use of Chinese at
certain moments of English classes.
The results of the questionnaire show agreement between students and
teachers in the fact that code-switching is present in English teaching at
universities. Both students and teachers also stated that there are variables in the
quantity of Chinese used among the different lesson contents mentioned before.
According to the results, the discussion of tests and other assignments require
more L1 use than the other ones. Furthermore, the results of the fourth section of
the questionnaire show their expectations, and both parts believe that Chinese
should be used less than a 20% during English classes. In conclusion, the amount
of Chinese use that participants believe should be appropriate is lower than the
percentage they perceive that is being used in their English classes.
The classroom recordings show that “The four teachers have different
percentages of Chinese use in different lesson contents” (Jingxia, 2008, p. 64).
However, there is a tendency to use more Chinese for discussion of texts and
other assignments and less for theme-based activities coinciding with the
questionnaires results.
For the last part of this study, the recorded teachers were also interviewed
to explain the reasons of the results. They explain that for theme based activities it
is not necessary that students understand every single word and they can use
other sources and strategies to facilitate input. One of them believes that as
28
students participate in the activities they feel more motivated to practice L2,
therefore there is no need to use L1. They also explain that for text analysis and
discussion of tests and other assignments the vocabulary is more complex and
using nonverbal methods may lead students’ confusion getting lower results. It is
essential to ensure all students’ understanding; this is the reason why these
teachers believe that Chinese use becomes more helpful and time-saving in these
lesson contents.
To sum up, the results of the study show that there are differences in the
amount of L1 use according to the lesson contents. In general terms, the teachers
had to adapt according to students need and the complexity of what is being
explained at some moments of the class.
In the same line, the research paper “Code-switching as a strategy used in
an EFL classroom in Taiwan” by Pei-shi Weng (2012) aimed to study the use of the
code-switching tool in an EFL context.
In this study, 36 non-English college secondary students and an English
lecturer who had 20 years of experience teaching in a school participated. Due to
the initial exam in Taiwan, the students were divided in different classes (A, B, C
level). The class that is part of this study corresponds to level B.
There were three different instruments used. Firstly, there was a classroom
observation and video recording that lasted 30 minutes. The teacher’s speech was
recorded, and the researcher wrote down instances where code-switching between
Chinese and English occurred.
Secondly, a questionnaire consisting on seven questions about the use of
code-switching in the classroom was applied to students. They had to give their
29
opinion to realise the importance of L1 during the teaching process. The version of
the questionnaire was in Chinese in order to avoid some language
misunderstandings and to be as clear as possible. The purpose of the
questionnaire was to “investigate students’ feedback and attitude to the code-
switching use (L1 use) in the English classroom” (Weng, 2012, p.3).
Thirdly, there was a post-interview in which the lecturer had to answer some
questions related to his teaching believes, philosophy, and consequently, his
opinion related to the use of code-switching. It is important to mention that the
questions the researchers used were taken and adapted from Hou’s (2006) study.
When applying the questionnaire, the three parts of the study were timed.
Classroom observations took 30 minutes, student’s questionnaire took 15 minutes,
and the post-interview took 10 minutes.
The results and the discussion of the instruments were divided in 3 different
parts. The first part refers to “the different functions of the teacher’s code-switching
used during teaching” (Weng 2012, p.4). The researcher based the analysis
following Hymes’s (1962) framework that included specific functions such as
expressive function, directive function, metalinguistic function, poetic function, and
referential functions when using code-switching in a classroom context.
Considering the previous explanation, the researcher found out that “most of
the time, the teacher uses code-switching to give students’ instructions, to explain
complex concepts, and to explain difficult words” (Weng 2012, p.6). In the case of
the lecturer’s perspective, the teacher recourses to code-switching in order to
make students understand what the teacher was explaining. “The teacher uses
code-switching of direct functions to control his students to ensure they can
30
understand the instructions and then follow the class schedule” (Weng 2012, p.6).
The second part of the results and the discussion involved the questionnaire
that students answered. As a general analysis, students stated that the use of
code-switching was necessary. 61% of students preferred the use of Chinese in
the English class, 22% of students said that the teacher should use code-switching
to give explanations, and 36% said that it is a useful too to explain vocabulary.
“Students perceived that the use of code-switching has helped them understand
difficult concepts faced in their learning” (Weng, 2012, p.7).
The third part of his results and analysis correspond to the lecturer’s
interview. In this part, the lecturer explained that he would use L1 to explain
complex concepts, but that his major idea is that students should use just L2.
As a general conclusion, the researcher explained that “the strategy of code-
switching in EFL classroom is not always a deficiency in language learning, but
may be considered as a kind of useful strategy in learning a language” (Weng,
2012, p.9)
A third study, conducted by M. Naci Kayaoglu, is called “The Use of Mother
Tongue in Foreign Language Teaching from Teacher’s Practice and Perspective”
and aimed at the exploration and discussion of the practical and theoretical
perspectives about the use of the mother tongue in the L2 classroom. In his
attempt to gather the necessary information, Dr Kayaoglu developed a
questionnaire containing thirty five items referring to particular classroom situations
in which the professors may recourse to L1
Even though, some theorists had mentioned that the mother tongue should
31
be avoided based on the premise that “L1 was or has been associated with
inadequacy and lack of experience in language teaching” (Kayaoglu, Ozturk and
DagAkbas, 2010), the inclusion of L1 in the classroom has been tolerated for the
supporters of the maximization of the target language given to the learners. This
obvious “Krashian” point of view, in which the learner has to be immersed in a
simulated second language reality, has been an on-going debate.
In Kayaoglu’s investigation, 44 teachers of English at Karadeniz Technical
University showed an agreement in the use of L1. In general lines, Kayaoglu’s
investigation demonstrated that a slight influence and use of L1 turns into a useful
tool in terms of motivation and to make a connection between the L1 and L2
grammar; In addition, the use of the mother tongue has been frequently used to
accomplish a friendly classroom environment that is essential to improve the
language learning process.
Under these circumstances, among others, the inclusion and use of mother
tongue in the EFL classroom has recently been opened to debate between
teachers and many investigators; they have agreed that “L1 for teaching grammar,
vocabulary, reading, and writing is indispensable while its employment for speaking
and listening courses is not tolerable” (Giannikas, 2011, Gulzar 2010).
To summarize, the purpose of Kayaoglu´s work, was to expose the new
trends of EFL classes. Especially, the perception of one of the main players in the
learning process: the teachers. Kayaoglu’s findings have shown that, in the Turkish
reality, the avoidance of the L1 was associated with good teaching during the days
of Direct and Audio-lingual methods (Kayaoglu, 2012). In those days, the judgment
about teaching practices was based on how much English was used in the
32
classroom, and teacher’s abilities to perform an entire class using the target
language.
Opposed to this old fashioned perspective of banning the mother tongue
from the EFL classroom, Kayaoglu exposes how this concept has changed,
allowing the teachers to be reflective about the circumstances and how to use the
L1 in favour of the class, having also considered that teachers must not abuse of
the use of L1.
However, Kayaoglu’s work leaves the option open of choosing between the
use of L1 for EFL teaching purposes or leave it aside. This allows us to reflect
about the irony of teaching a foreign language without references to the mother
tongue and make us cautious and aware of the abuse of using this pedagogical
resource.
Finally, there is another research paper called ‘’Teacher´s and Learner´s
use of code switching in the English as a foreign language classroom: a qualitative
study” by Saionara Greggio and Gloria Gil. The objective of this article is ‘’to show
the results of a qualitative study which investigated the use of English and
Portuguese in interactive exchanges between the teacher and the learners in both
a beginner and a pre- intermediate EFL classroom’’ (Greggio and Gil, 2007, p.371).
The subjects chosen were teachers and learners in two EFL classrooms.
The instruments for the investigation were: “classroom observation, informal
talks with participants, field notes, and audio recordings” (Greggio and Gil, 2007,
p.374). “The following four questions were addressed in the data analysis: 1)
whether the teacher and the learners use code switching in the EFL classroom or
33
not; 2) the types of code switching they use; 3) the moments when there is
frequent use of code switching; and 4) the functions of code switching. The data
analysis was done with a qualitative perspective, that is, the selected data were
analyzed, described and interpreted under this perspective” (Greggio and Gil,
2007, p.374). “The data recorded were transcribed and used for analysis” (Greggio
and Gil, 2007, p.374). “A total of twelve classes were observed, audio-recorded
and analyzed in each group” (Greggio and Gil, 2007, p.374).
“The results of this study suggested that code switching in teacher-learner
interaction may have an important role in facilitating interaction among classroom
participants as well as in facilitating foreign language learning” (Greggio and Gil,
2007, p.374).
34
Chapter 3 Methodological Framework
The following chapter describes the development, procedure, instruments,
and methodology used to obtain and analyze the required data.
3.1 Research approach
The perception of the use of L1 in the EFL classroom has been debated
since English turned into a language used around the world. For this reason, the
purpose of this study is to find out if it is advisable to recourse to L1 in specific
situations, and also to become aware of some perspectives and beliefs of a proper
use of it, according to the professors at Universidad Nacional Andres Bello. The
best way to analyze and categorize the results is through a qualitative and
quantitative research in order to gather and analyze the required information and to
fulfill the objectives of this study.
This study is framed into the qualitative tradition and the data analysis is
both qualitative and quantitative.
- Qualitative data collection because in the instrument, there are two open ended
questions focused on identifying the reasons, perspectives, and/or beliefs about
the use of L1. Therefore, the respondents write down their answers.
- Quantitative because the instrument itself contains some items in which the
respondents have to choose alternatives according to the question given. Data is
analyzed empirically, following a specific criterion of analysis.
35
In this study, we have considered as a referential tool an important language
framework called ALTE levels.
ALTE is referred to the Association of Language Testers in Europe, which
was founded in 1989 by the University of Cambridge. This association is in charge
of “produce language examinations in their native language” (Halvorsen, 2009,
p.3). The main objectives are, namely:
- “To promote the transnational recognition of language certification in Europe;”
- “To establish and maintain common levels of language proficiency in Europe;”
- “To establish and maintain common standards for all stages of the language
testing process.” (ALTE partner presentation, 2009, p. 8).
The ALTE framework is made up of six different levels related to
language proficiency (Breakthrough-5), and they go along with the Council of
Common European Framework (From A1 to C2). Each level measures
different minimum conditions that a language user can accomplish, they are
explained in general terms and are followed by Can-do statements. The
following chart was taken from the official web page of ALTE (2007), and is
explained as follows:
Council of Europe Levels
Description
C2 (ALTE 5) The capacity to deal with material which is academic or
cognitively demanding and to use language to good effect at a
36
level of performance which may in certain respects be more
advanced than that of an average native speaker.
Example: CAN scan texts for relevant information, and grasp
main topic of text, reading almost as quickly as a native
speaker.
C1 (ALTE 4) The ability to communicate with the emphasis on how well it is
done, in terms of appropriacy, sensitivity and the capacity to
deal with unfamiliar topics.
Example: CAN deal with hostile questioning confidently.
B2 (ALTE 3) The capacity to achieve most goals and express oneself on a
range of topics.
Example: CAN show visitors around and give a detailed
description of a place
B1 (ALTE 2) The ability to express oneself in a limited way in familiar
situations and to deal in a general way with non-routine
information.
Example: CAN ask to open an account at a bank, provided that
the procedure is straightforward
A2 (ALTE 1) An ability to deal with simple, straightforward information and
begin to express oneself in familiar contexts.
37
Example: CAN take part in a routine conversation on simple
predictable topics
A1 (ALTE
breakthrough)
A basic ability to communicate and exchange information in a
simple way.
Example: CAN ask simple questions about a menu and
understand simple answers
3.2 Instrument
The information and data have been collected using a questionnaire
designed as a research tool that combines a quantitative and a qualitative data
collection, in which open and close ended questions are used. The semi-structured
type of questionnaire and the use of Likert scale came off as an understandable
and easier way to quantify and qualify the data.
The instrument was based on a combination of two types of questionnaires
taken from: “Using L1 in the L2 classroom” by C. Williams Schweers, and “Use of
the mother tongue in foreign language teaching from teacher’s practice and
perspective” by Dr. M. Naci Kayaoglu. The last author mentioned gave us
permission via email to use the entire questionnaire or to use part of it (see
appendix B). Therefore, the questionnaire included some of the situations
suggested by the previous researchers and it has been adapted to our observable
reality.
38
The questionnaire has been divided in four sections. The first section is
about the personal information of the respondent in which he or she has to write in
detail some aspects related to academic degree, years of experience as a
professor, places where he or she has worked, and English courses they are
teaching at UNAB.
The second section of the instrument consists on 12 common classroom
situations in which the respondents have to answer according to their perception
using a Likert scale (always, often, seldom, rarely, and never). Some of the
questions are: “Do you allow students to make comments using L1?”, “Do you
allow students to recourse to L1 when discussing topics?”, or “Have you noticed
that using L1 increases students’ confidence?”,
In the third section, there are 20 probable situations in which the
respondents may recourse to L1. The respondents have to consider that each
situation is measured according to the six different ALTE levels.
The fourth section consists on two open ended questions in which the
respondents write down their answers on the questionnaire itself. The respondents
are asked to write accurately what is being asked; namely, to focus on determining
if there is a positive or negative effect on the learning process when using L1, as
well as determining in which ALTE levels they consider proper or advisable to
recourse to L1.
These questionnaires are going to be analyzed qualitatively and
quantitatively.
39
3.3 Context and Participants
Universidad Nacional Andres Bello English department was created in 2003,
and depends on the Faculty of Education. This department does not only work with
the English Pedagogy career, it also provides other careers that include English in
their curriculum with English instruction courses. A remarkable aspect of the
English department is the continuous integration of native speaker teachers as part
of their staff.
English department is formed by thirty four professors, dedicated to impart
English classes in areas such as linguistics, methodology, language courses,
culture, among other subjects.
3.3.1 Ethnography
This study was conducted in Universidad Nacional Andres Bello. Nineteen
English professors were part of this study. Their experience range in teaching
varies from 3 and a half years to more than 40 years, and the average is 21 years
of teaching experience. Fifteen of them are non-native speakers, and 4 are native
speakers. There are 10 males, and 9 females.
These professors teach in the following careers: English Pedagogy,
Commercial Engineering, Ecotourism, Law, Business Administration, Nursing,
Psychology, Kinesiology, Geology, Industrial Engineering, Social Work, Civil
Engineering, Sciences Bachelor, Accounting, Tourism, and Mining. Nine of them
have worked in primary schools, 13 have worked in high schools, 16 of them have
40
worked in institutes, all of them have worked in Universities either undergraduate
or postgraduate, and 5 of them have worked in other places such as: Codelco,
Shipping Companies, SENSE Courses, Army, and Crash Courses.
The following chart, explains the amount of male/female professors that participated in
this questionnaire, as well as their years of experience.
Medium Experienced Experienced
Years of
experience1 - 10 11 – 30 31 – 40+
Male 0 9 1
Female 4 3 2
3.4 Pilot study
For the pilot study, we chose three English professors from the English
department, at Universidad Nacional Andrés Bello in Viña del Mar, who were
available to answer the first unofficial draft of the questionnaire (see appendix A)
and give us some suggestions related to the structure, use of English, questions
proposal, and the sequence of the items. The aim of the pilot study was to validate
the questionnaire, improve the instrument, polish the proposals and make it as
clear, easy to answer, and precise as possible for the teachers.
Firstly, when handing the questionnaire to those three professors, there was
a previous oral explanation to each of them in order to make them understand and
realize the context of the study and the reasons why we were doing this 41
questionnaire. We also explained what we expected them to do (in terms of giving
feedback), and what the instrument consisted on. Secondly, we agreed on a
specific date to get back the questionnaire with all the suggestions made. Each of
them gave us an oral feedback explaining briefly the reasons of those suggestions
which are explained in detail as follows.
The first professor gave us three suggestions: the first one was related to
the amount of lines given to respond in the first item (personal information). The
second suggestion was to modify two question proposals, in the second item,
which could not be answered using frequency adverbs and did not fit with the
format of the instrument. Questions such as “Do you think” or “Do you believe” are
commonly answer with “yes” or “no”, so due to that, we adapted those questions
maintaining their main idea. The last suggestion was given in the third item, and it
meant to clarify the instructions and be more precise in what and how to respond.
The second professor gave us a specific suggestion related to changing two
frequency adverbs that were similar in the second item. Those adverbs changed
were “seldom” and “rarely”, and they were replaced by “sometimes” and “seldom”.
In terms of the structure of the instrument, and types of questions, he did not have
any objection and/or suggestion.
The third professor did not have any suggestions either with the structure of
the questionnaire or the question proposals. He advised us to omit the question
related to the age of the respondents, which is in the first page of the
questionnaire, explaining that it was not that relevant to the study.
Having considered all the suggestions, the unofficial version of the
questionnaire was revised, and corrected. The instructions were set clearly and
42
each item was introduced to clarify the contexts of the questions.
3.5 Validity
As it was mentioned before, our instrument was based on two types of
questionnaires found during the theoretical research. After having done the pilot
and made some changes to improve the instrument suggested by the three
professors, we met three times with a research methodology professor with a vast
experience on methodology. He guided us in the steps to follow in order to validate
the instrument. There were three meetings with the professor. In those meetings,
the instrument was showed and explained, some suggestions were given in order
to improve and contextualize the questionnaire. It was proper to include a brief
introduction to the questionnaire in order to contextualize it and create awareness
when responding to it, as well as to include a brief introduction to each item of the
questionnaire as a way to define what we expected from the respondents to do,
and to internalize the purpose of the instrument.
Finally, he revised the instrument, and authorized us to start applying the
questionnaire. The pilot study and an oral presentation to the Academic Secretary
of the career, which included all the advances in our investigation even the
explanation of the instrument, were more than enough to validate the
questionnaire, and start doing the investigation.
The quantitative instrument used is one of the Likert scale. This is a scale
used to measure the level of agreement or disagreement in a set of statements a
respondent is. This is not a comparative tool, and the respondents have to mark
43
their option according to the statement. This scale was created in 1932 by Dr.
Rensis Likert who wanted to measure somehow psychological behaviors in a very
precise way.
In general terms, this scale is composed by 5 different ranges that can vary
from “Strongly disagree” until “Strongly Agree”, “Always” until “Never”, etc. An
example explains how the items are structured:
Figure 6. Sample of scale used in a Likert scale question.
3.6 Procedure
Three sections are going to be analyzed and quantified, those are: general
perspectives, specific situations, and two open questions that are related to the
effectiveness of the recourse to L1, and ALTE levels in which L1 can be used. It is
important to mention that the analysis of the instrument was only released with 19
questionnaires. The data collected will be analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2013.
Microsoft Excel software is a technological tool that has helped researchers
all over the world to analyze and tabulate quantitative data. The analysis process
will start with the section two of the questionnaire that will be written on individual
44
cells followed by the variables to evaluate. The second section, which is related to
ALTE levels in which L1 is allowed, will be graphed considering the highest
percentage of items for each ALTE level. Graphs will be used in order to organize
data and make it attractive when reading. The last section, the open ended
questions, will be transcribed. The first one will be categorized into positive,
negative, and neutral according to their point of view about the use of L1. For the
second question, the main reasons will be considered when using L1 in the
different ALTE levels. This method of analysis will allow us to analyze and
comprehend in a better way the results and tendencies mentioned by the
professors.
45
Chapter 4: Results of the investigation
In this chapter the results and findings of the three sections of the question-
naire are presented, namely, general perspectives, situations, and questions.
4.1 Analysis Section 1
Items Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never
1. Do you allow students to make comments using L1?
5,3% 15,8% 42% 31,6% 5,3%
2. Do you allow students to ask questions using L1?
5,3% 15,8% 31,6% 36,8% 10,5%
3. Do you allow students to use L1 during group works?
5,3% 10,5% 36,8% 26,3% 21,1%
4. Do you allow students to use L1 for presentations?
0% 5,3% 0% 0% 94,7%
5. Do you allow students to use translation for a better understand-ing (written and orally)?
0% 0% 42,1% 31,6% 26,3%
6. Do you allow students to re-course to L1 when discussing top-ics?
0% 0% 52,6% 26,3% 21,1%
7. Do you allow students to re-course to L1 when expressing agreement/disagreement?
5,3% 5,3% 15,8% 42% 31,6%
8. Do you allow students use L1 when talking about likes and dis-likes?
5,3% 0% 5,3% 26,2% 63,2%
9. Have you noticed that students get more engaged in a given task when they are allowed to recourse to L1?
5,3% 0% 68,4% 21% 5,3%
10. Do you use code-switching during your classes?
5,3% 0% 42,1% 26,3% 26,3%
11. Have you noticed that using L1 increases students’ confidence?
0% 10,5% 57,9% 26,3% 5,3%
12. According to you, can the use of L1 be time saving for certain cir-cumstances?
5,3% 31,5% 0% 5,3% 57,9%
46
In the first item, the highest percentage (42%) shows that most teachers
“sometimes” allow students to make comments using L1. Only 5,3% states that
they “never” permit students to comment using their mother tongue during classes.
In the second item that corresponds to allow students to make ques-
tions using L1, 36,8% of the teachers say they “seldom” allow them to do so, and
only a 5,3% say they “always” permit it.
In the third one, which asks if they allow students to use L1 for group
works, teachers mostly 36, 8% answered “sometimes”. Only 5,3% answered that
they “always” let students to use it in this case.
In the fourth item about allowing students to use L1 for presentations,
the option “never” obtained the highest percentage of the entire section of the
questionnaire with 94,7%. None of them answered “always”, “sometimes”, or “sel-
dom”.
For the fifth item, which asks teachers about allowing students to use
translation for a better understanding, the majority (42,1%) answered “sometimes”,
and none of them replied to “always” or “often”. There is a similarity seen in the
sixth item that corresponds to allow students to recourse to L1 when discussing
topics, the highest percentage responded “sometimes” (52,6%), 26,3% marked
“seldom”, and 21,1% said “never”.
The seventh item is related to the opportunity for students to use their
mother tongue to express agreement or disagreement. The acceptance of L1 for
this purpose is quite low, being demonstrated with a 42% of preferences for “sel-
dom”. Under the same suggested situation, there was a percentage of teachers
47
that “often” and “always” allow students to recourse to the mother tongue, with a
5,3% of preferences each.
In the eighth item, the major preference among teachers about allowing stu-
dents to use the mother tongue to express likes or dislikes was “never” with a
63,2%. Besides, a 5,3% chose either “always” or “sometimes” to the same ques-
tion.
In the ninth item, 68,4% of teachers answered “sometimes” when
noticing that learners feel more engaged using their L1 in a given tasks. On the
contrary, 5,3% chose “always” or “never”.
In the tenth item, a 42,1% of teachers agreed that “sometimes” they
use code-switching during their classes. In the same item, 26,3% of teachers
chose “seldom” and “never”.
In item 11 that was related to noticing if the use of the mother tongue
increase students’ confidence, 57,9% of teachers said “sometimes”, 26,3% marked
“seldom”, and 10,5% marked “often”.
In the last question of this section that was related to use L1 as time saving
for certain circumstances, 57,9% marked “never” meaning that the use of L1 can-
not be time saving. On the contrary, 31,5% of them marked “often”, and 5,3%
marked either “always” or “seldom”.
To sum up the analysis for this section, the highest percentages are seen in
the option “sometimes” followed by the option “seldom”. A 94,7% reject the use of
L1 for presentation, a 63,2% when talking about likes and dislikes, and 57,9% as
time saving. While a 68,4% are prone to allow students to use L1 when noticing
that they get more engaged in a given task using the mother tongue, a 57,9%
48
when they notice that using L1 increases students’ confidence, and a 52,6% when
discussing topics.
It is also possible to read the frequency factor to conclude that the option
“sometimes” is present in almost all the answers and it is as well as the one with
the highest average. This would imply that professors’ opinions are not radical
when considering the use of L1, but they leave the possibility opened to its use ac-
cording to the circumstances. These results are aligned with the current tendencies
to balance and rationalize the use of the mother tongue.
4.2 Analysis Section 2
This section corresponds to specific situations in which teachers can re-
course to L1 according to the ALTE levels.
In figure 7, 79% of teachers believe that it is useful for clarification, 74%
agree to use L1 in situations such as to avoid waste of time, to explain differences
between L1 and L2, to give instructions, and to explain grammar.
Almost half of them agree in the use of L1 in order to develop students´ con-
fidence, to check for comprehension, to express sympathy/concerns, and to define
new vocabulary.
In figure 8, the graph presents the 7 most recurrent items. 74% agree in the
use of L1 to explain difficult concepts. 68% believe that the mother tongue can be
used for clarification and to explain grammar. 63% agree that it can be helpful
when explaining differences between L1 and L2.
Almost half of them approved to use L1 as a manner to avoid waste of
time, to express sympathy/concerns, and to give instructions.
49
Figure 7: “ Graph of results for level A1”
Figure 8: “Graph of results for level A2”
In these two graphs, the items related to the use of L1 for clarification, to ex-
plain grammar and to explain differences between L1 and L2 either in levels A1 or
A2 got the highest percentages. Opposed to this, the item 14, about the use of L1
to express sympathy/concern, obtained 53% in levels A1 and A2.
50
In figures 9 and 10, there is a significant decrease in terms of the percent-
ages of teachers that agree in using these specific items.
In graph B1, just 26% of professors believe that L1 can be used to joke
around with students, to explain differences between L1 and L2, and for clarifica-
tion. 21% of them approve the use of the mother tongue to express sympathy/con-
cern, and to explain difficult concepts. Finally, 16% of them agree in using L1 to en-
courage students, for discipline, to define new vocabulary, and to explain grammar.
In graph B2, 16% still believe that L1 can be used to explain differences be-
tween L1 and L2. 11% accept to use L1 to joke around with students, to encourage
students, for discipline, and to express sympathy/concern.
Figure 9: “Graph of results for level B1”
51
Figure 10: “Graph of the results for level B2”
Although in figure 9, level B1, item 19 got just a 26%, and in figure 10, level
B2, item 11 got 16%, there can be concluded that there is a strong tendency to
avoid the teacher’s use of L1 in classroom contexts.
In case of graph C1, 16% of teachers agree in using L1 to joke around with
students, and to explain differences between L1 and L2. 11% of them believe that
L1 can be used to encourage students, and to express sympathy/concern. Finally,
just 5% approve to use L1 for discipline, to define new vocabulary, to explain diffi-
cult concepts, and to explain grammar.
In case of graph C2, 16% use L1 to joke around with students. 11% of them
approve the use of L1 to encourage students, and finally, 5% of them believe that
L1 can be still used for discipline, to express sympathy/concern, to define new vo-
cabulary, to explain differences between L1 and L2, and to explain grammar.
52
Figure 10: “Graph of results for level C1”
Figure 11: “Graph of results for level C2”
53
Although figure 10 and 11, related to levels C1 and C2, are the advanced
levels, the use of L1 has a role, and can be seen in that item 19, 11, and 16 remain
more or less the same percentages (between 11% to 16%).
As a general analysis of section 3, the highest percentages of items chosen
were seen in levels A1 and A2, because they correspond to beginner and elemen-
tary levels. In case of levels B1, and B2, there is an important decrease in terms of
the items chosen, and the amount of teachers that agree in using L1 in those
items. As those two levels belong to intermediate and upper intermediate stages, a
slight tendency to avoid as much as possible the recourse to L1 is perceived.
In levels C1 and C2, there are still some situations in which L1 is still used,
considering that the percentages are lower.
Another important aspect to consider in the analysis of the graphs is that
there were some items that were chosen in all levels, such as to express sympa-
thy/concern, to explain grammar, to joke around with students, for clarification,
among others.
4.3 Analysis of open ended questions
54
First question: According to your experience teaching English for different
ALTE levels, does native language (L1) use affect the students’ learning process
positively or negatively? Why?
The answers of this question are going to be divided in three different tables:
the first table shows all the teachers’ answers related to the positive effects in stu-
dents’ learning process when using L1, the second table shows the negative ef-
fects in students’ learning process, according to the professors, and finally, the
third table shows the answers that were not that clear in terms of defining if the re-
course to L1 had either positive or negative effects on students’ learning process.
Positives effects in students’ learning process when using L1.
Teacher 1: According to my experience the use of L1 in certain circumstances is
always welcome by learners they seem to feel more motivated and
less stressed or intimidated.
Teacher 3: In my opinion, L1 affects positively in the students’ learning process,
especially in lower levels of proficiency. Mainly because ss. need to
feel confident in a difficult situation.
Teacher 7: It might have a positive effect on the students since they may feel they
may recourse to L1 in case they do not know some specific grammar
pattern and/or vocabulary thus diminishing the stress on the part of
the students.
55
Teacher 8: In my experience, using L1 with beginner levels, in very specific cir-
cumstances has been positive.
Students feel that they confirm what the teacher has said in L2 and
thus they feel more confident.
I have never used L1 to much, because I strongly believe that stu-
dents most try to be immerse in L2, the more the better.
Teacher 9: I think there’s no harm in using L1 to break the ice and establish rap-
port with the students. L1 can be an excellent tool to contrast gram-
mar and make students more aware of the two codes of communica-
tion. Language students need to have some knowledge of L1 in terms
of technicalities: what’s subjunctive? And how do we use it? cuando
tengo tiempo / cuando tenga tiempo. I have noticed that when the stu-
dents improve their knowledge of L1 their lives can become much
easier in L2.
In short, I don’t see negative effects if the teacher uses L1 in 10%,
15% of the class to clarify, compare or contrast some issues.
Teacher 12: When used appropriately, it can affect the students' program posit-
ively.
It is usually time-saving, especially when the teacher must give in-
structions.
On the other hand, there are situations in which the use of L1 can ap-
peal to the emotional side of learning. Students can feel more en-
56
gaged on motivated when the teacher recourses to this mother
tongue.
Teacher 14: Using L1 in the English classroom affects positively when teaching
zero beginners. It avoids prestation, dropouts and promotes a posit-
ive attitude towards further learning. However, the use of L1 has to
be restricted to the fewest situations possible, only when it is really
needed to explain a word or concept too difficult to mimic, para-
phrase, etc. If used too much, students don't make an effort to learn
by themselves or use vocabulary learning strategies.
Teacher 16: It gives more confidence.
Teacher 17: It affects positively in key situations (like explaining a certain gram-
matical structure or example) but making sure you provide plenty of
exercising afterwards, meaning exercising what you explained.
It affects positively, because for a great number of students under-
standing word order, the use of non-existent auxiliary in L1, definitely
supports the new language acquisition.
When they have to produce the language I never encourage the use
of L1 or when we use English for English I never encourage L1.
Teacher 19: In my opinion, the use of native language affects the students learn-
ing process in a positive way. When needed it lowers anxiety levels,
re-engage weak students that have difficulties to follow a class
taught in English. It also keeps a natural communication channel open
57
to express concern and sympathy when dealing with the necessary
teacher-student affective bond.
Negative effects in students’ learning process when using L1.
Teacher 4: It affects negatively with the case of cognates, it also affects the syn-
tax. Another negative aspect is the lack of connection between
phonetics and spelling.
Teacher
11:
It depends on the situation. In general, I do not rely on L1 to make the
contents more accessible. It discourages students. It is a way of
showing the task it's too difficult for them.
Teacher
13:
If it is used too often, I believe it will adversely affect the students as
they will come to depend on it as a crutch.
Neutral opinions related to the positive or negative effects in students’ learn-
ing process when using L1.
Teacher 2: It will depend on the level. Maybe beginners and elementary
learners can gain kind of confidence or self- confidence. They
58
would feel more connected with the lesson. Actually, I think about
the contextualized the lesson must be.
However, with advanced students is totally different. They can feel
demotivated if you as a teacher rely on their L1 more frequently
than expected.
Teacher 5: First of all, I strongly believe that the L1 can be used in a lesson only
in certain circumstances. There are two different dimensions that oc-
cur in a classroom. The first one is the pedagogical, which includes
instructions, classroom management, etc. In this dimension, I be-
lieve the L1 can be used. The second dimension is the communic-
ative one. In this dimension i think only the TL can be used with all
the levels.
Teacher 6: In general, L1 use affects the learning process negatively. However,
to say it always is so would be a mistake. The goal of the learning
process is to enable to not only know “about” but use the language.
However, this is the goal of the process; not something that can be
guaranteed along the way. For the assimilation of language to hap-
pen that is necessary to reach the goal, sometimes some clarifica-
tion in L1 is necessary or helpful.
In general, in our classrooms we should remember that ‘’compre-
hensible input’’ is what we want to provide. So, if they really cannot
understand, some recourse to L1 can help. Sometimes they need to
59
use L1 in order to learn to use new L2 language tools. Patience and
discretion are appropriate.
Teacher 10: It depends on how often and for what reason recourse to L1 is used.
It affects them negatively if the recourse is consistently used. It
keeps the learner in a comfort zone they are not willing to abandon;
particularly if they are at a Beginner-Intermediate level. The student
needs to reach a certain level of frustration in order to “break
through” a barrier in language learning so, to this end, they will re-
quire patience (on their past) and commitment in L2.
If, however the learner is having great difficulty some L1 is neces-
sary to encourage the student along. To clarify vocabulary (Begin-
ner-Elementary). The overall learning process is hastened when L2
dominates the classroom.
Teacher 15: According to my point of view, it affects because if you insert stu-
dents into contexts where L2 is used, it is not difficult to teach it or to
get it. The matter is how well we, teachers, can do it.
Teacher 18: According to my teaching experience of the English language, the
use of the native language (L1) can be more harmful that beneficial
for the students’ learning process. Although sometime especially for
the beginners and elementary levels, it is really necessary to employ
the use of L1. Eventually the students get used to having transla-
tions and they have more difficulties in the language run to over-
60
come their weaknesses on lexical, phonetic and syntactic levels.
According to the teachers’ answers collected, ten professors believe that us-
ing L1 in the EFL classroom is positive and the main reasons are: Students in-
crease of confidence and motivation, diminution of stress and anxiety, and time-
saving. In general terms, it is useful to promote a positive attitude on students to-
wards L2 learning, or by decreasing their anxiety and feelings of frustration when
they do not understand L2 well.
Most of these teachers believe that it is better to use L1 just in certain situa-
tions of EFL classes. The ones mentioned were: explaining grammatical patterns,
giving instructions, explaining difficult concepts, and for clarification when students
have difficulties to understand the TL. Therefore, they agree in using them at cer-
tain situations but if it is used in excess, some of them explain that it could have the
opposite effect.
On the contrary, three professors believe that using L1 in the EFL classroom
has negative effects because of the lack of connection between both languages in
terms of phonetics, spelling, and linguistic structures. Students can find major diffi-
culties with English phonetics, for example; one of the reasons is that there are
more vowels in English than in our language, and the sounds and written forms are
unequal, therefore the use of L1 may lead to confusion and to have difficulties with
L2. Apart from this, some of them state that it discourages students, and they be-
come dependent on using the mother tongue because when there is an excessive
61
use of it, they get used to recourse to it in situations in which it is not necessary,
therefore, it affects their L2 learning missing valuable opportunities to practice and
improve their language skills.
Six professors think that it is neither positive nor negative. On the one hand,
L1 can be used in certain situations effectively. Some professors agree in using L1
for clarification in order to help students to comprehend difficult concepts and sub-
ject matters. In addition, they agree in using it to give instructions, classroom man-
agement, to clarify vocabulary and to encourage students who have more difficul-
ties to learn L2. The appropriate use of L1 can be helpful only for beginners and el -
ementary level students. On the other hand, the same professors think that the use
of L1 can have negative effects. In the case of advanced students, if the teacher
uses too much L1, students might feel demotivated. Moreover, for communicative
purposes it should not be used as its goal is to speak in the target language.
To sum up, despite of the differences of opinions and attitude towards the
use of L1 in EFL classes, there are some agreements among UNAB English teach-
ers which have to do with using it appropriately and only when necessary. In gen-
eral, the positive effects that it may have are related to increasing positive feelings
like motivation and confidence. Clearly, in their opinion, the negative effects arise
when students overuse L1 in the classes instead of taking advantage of the oppor-
tunities to practice L2, and this type of situations should be avoided.
Second question: For which ALTE levels do you consider useful to recourse
to the native language and why?
62
The following answers are the ones that best explain and determine in which
levels L1 can be used.
Teacher 1: Not at beginner levels when learners are between the ages of 5
and 12 i.e. critical period. However to find it useful at beginners
and elementary levels for older learners ages over 16. Then as
these older students advance in their proficiency, the use of L1
should decrease considerably to avoid linguistic interference.
Teacher 2: Actually, I think just for beginners or elementary levels to clarify
instructions when they are doubt (just a little percentage) to keep
discipline (in case of working with high school students)
Teacher 3: A1 and A2, mainly.
Teacher 4: Only for A1 and A2, because since their vocabulary range is limited
it is very difficult and time consuming to explain in English. More-
over, most of the time they don’t understand what is being ex-
plained.
Teacher 5: As I explained previously, only in the first dimensions levels A1, A2,
B1. When using the language communicatively, in none the levels.
Teacher 6: I think it is much more appropriate for beginning to beginner- in-
termediate levels.
Starting B2, the use of L1 in the classroom should sharply decline.
Teacher 7: The beginning levels only because students should leave enough
63
language in the upper levels so it might not be necessary to have to
use L1 any longer.
Teacher 8: It is useful for A1 in order to make students feel confident, but once
they had reached A2, it is no longer needed.
Nonetheless, I remember a few occasions (when teaching at high
school) b1 and b2 students switching to L1 because a discussion or
debate when beyond their knowledge of English.
I think that when students get so involved in a discussion/debate
they can end up using L1, because in my point of view, we (teach-
ers) also have to contribute to develop critical thinking no matter the
language.
I would not allow these with B1-B2 students at the pedagogy pro-
gramme, because they should be able to express their thoughts in
L2.
Teacher 9: I prefer to keep the option open for all levels, having in mind that
the more you advance in the new language, the less you should re-
course to L1.
Teacher 10: The Beginner, Elementary and Lower Intermediate levels defi-
nitely require reversion to L1. Particularly if there is an underlying
problem of confidence, fear of making a mistake or a lack of com-
prehension.
Certainly with older students the fear of mistakes is fundamental
and, therefore, necessary for the teacher to use encouragement,
64
joking, setting a relaxed and “safe” classroom environment, etc. to
put students at ease. This would also require recourse to L1.
I believe it is more beneficial for all levels to have a L2 response to
a L1 problem, query or lack of comprehension for example, despite
a learner unable to understand something and responds in L1 the
teacher should still maintain their response in l2.
Teacher: 11 Ideally, for none. The class should be planned in such a way that
L1 should be unnecessary.
Teacher 12: I personally feel that the use of L1 is most suitable for A1, A2 and
B1 when students are still straggling with elements of the founda-
tion of the L2.
Explanations, instructions and occasional translation could not only
save valuable time but also bridge the gap of motivation. I have no-
ticed that some students get very discouraged when they fail to un-
derstand what is expected of them in a task, for example.
Teacher 13: I think it can help in the beginning levels where the students do not
have a grasp of the material.
Teacher 14: Zero beginners or other higher levels under certain circum-
stances, as explained above. Sometimes it's useful to use L1 for
time-saving purposes
Teacher 15: Perhaps for beginner level but I insist in the teacher’s skills to get
L2.
The only problem is the cultural or social level of the students in
65
some schools, but even that your “methodologies” are the point. I
don’t justify the use of L1 because of the level of the school.
You, teacher, must try to give all the tools to guide the acquisition of
L2.
Teacher 16: B2, for better understanding.
Teacher 17: For beginners and for all levels, because at all levels you need to
solve some unsolved mistakes that will eternally stay there if not ex-
plained and exercised thoroughly (in English).
Also, I think some teachers may waste some precious time of class
when trying to explain every time something that is not easily under-
stood.
However, when I use English, I use English throughout a whole
segment, because I may consider it necessary to acquire
a certain skill that can only be achieved by using L2.
Teacher 18: As I mentioned, I consider that occasionally beginner and
elementary levels truly need to recourse to their native language,
due to the great lack of comprehension, lexical level and poor
grammar. Therefore, it is sometimes essential to guide the students
in their learning process by providing them with some help in the
native language.
Teacher 19: I consider useful to recourse to the L1, with beginners, elementary
students and sometimes with intermediate because there are times
when one needs to make sure that what you have tried to teach has
66
been understood correctly.
Most professors believe that it is more appropriate the use of L1 just for
beginner or elementary levels (A1 and A2) to clarify instructions when learners are
unable to understand something, to keep discipline when dealing with older
students, to joke, to set a relaxed and ''safe'' environment in which students do not
feel fear of using L2, in order for students to feel confident when they have to
communicate with others in the classroom and in general terms, for a better
understanding.
There are four professors that have strong points of views regarding the use
of L1: professor 8 believes, according to his own experience, that students can
switch to L1 in situations such as a debate or a discussion in which the knowledge
of English is not enough to communicate what students want. He says that, as
teachers must contribute to develop critical thinking no matter the language.
Professor 11 believes that, ideally, the use of L1 must be abolished in all the
levels. On the contrary, professor number 17 claims that, professors can recourse
to L1 in order to save time and solve some unsolved mistakes that will stay there if
they are not explained.
Professor 9 prefers to keep the option open for all the levels, having in mind
the more you advance in the new language; the less you should recourse to L1.
In general terms, starting B2, the use of L1 should start to decrease in
order to avoid, as some professors mentioned, linguistic interference, and it should
67
be used in certain situations which that were already mentioned.
4.4 Discussion
It has been demonstrated through the data collection and the analysis of
results that, there is a tendency to recourse to L1 in different situations in the ALTE
framework. In the 20 situations given, the most recurrent were: to explain grammar,
for clarification, to explain difficult concepts, to explain differences between L1 and
L2, to define new vocabulary, to express sympathy/concern, for discipline, to
encourage students, and to joke around. In relation to the use of L1 in the ALTE
levels, the professors agreed in using L1 for A1 and A2 corresponding to beginner
and elementary levels.
Considering the situations mentioned above, it has been observed that
professors tend to coincide with Harbord when mentions three strategies which
are: facilitating teacher-students communication, facilitating teacher-students
rapport and facilitating learning. Figure 2 (p. 17) composes most of the situations
professors allude such as explaining grammatical patterns, asking and giving
administrative information, explaining the meaning of difficult concepts and
vocabulary, eliciting vocabulary by giving the L1 equivalent, and helping weaker
students and those who do not understand. It is important to mention that having
read all the results and the point of views given by the 19 professors, we have
realized that the use of L1 is part of learning a second language, and do not
necessary affect negatively the learning process of students if it is used
appropriately, even native speakers agree in allowing students, mainly at lower
levels, to use L1 when they have difficulties to express themselves in the TL. In
68
situations when it is really needed, a successful learning of L2 can be achieved.
Conclusion
As it has been discussed through the development of this thesis, the use of
the mother tongue has been a subject of continuous debate between the Krashian
positions about banning the use of the mother tongue, and the modern positions
that allow the inclusion of L1 to promote L2 learning.
The position of banning the mother tongue in the EFL classroom has been
assumed as a better way to improve the language learning process as the input
relies solely on the teacher. In addition, the quality of a teacher has been
associated to how they manage to conduct a complete class in L269
On the other hand, the modern positions give relevance to the use of L1 as an
important learning strategy to foster a better learning climate, to encourage
students, and to increase learner’s motivation.
Hence, the main objective of this study was, to find out what English
department professors think about the use of L1 according to the different ALTE
levels. Accordingly, the first specific objective was to design and apply a
questionnaire. As a second specific objective a literature review was done in order
to identify the leading tendencies regarding the use of L1 in order to frame the
questions in a current theoretical background.
The original sample considered the total amount of teachers; however 19 out
of 34 were willing to answer the questionnaire. As this represents more than a half
of the original sample expected, it can be considered as a representative sample.
After the analysis, it can be said that there is a high level of agreement on
the positive effects of the use of L1 in beginning and elementary levels. There is
also a consensus about the need to gradually avoid the recourse to L1 as students
reach higher levels of competences in L2.
The leading tendencies obtained from the open ended questions showed to
be in favour of a rational use of the mother tongue which seems to be aligned with
modern theories.
In response to the two research questions set in chapter 1, the recourse to
L1, in the case of teacher and student, was permissible in the starting levels,
mainly because there is a need to build a basis in terms of vocabulary and
elaborate grammar structures, as well as to encourage confidence and increase
motivation. In order to avoid an overuse of L1, certain circumstances are narrowed
70
down, in which the common ones were related to clarify, to explain grammar, to
express sympathy/concern, among others.
After summarizing, quantifying, and analysing the questionnaire’s data. We
understood that the relatively new teaching process has been continuously
evolving to an inclusion of the mother tongue. Surprisingly, despite of the general
belief that teachers should encourage students to use only L2 inside the
classroom, professors are not completely against the use of L1.
After the complete analysis of this thesis, the principal questions of this work
can be answered as it follows:
Answ1: according to (certain number of professors) it is actually advisable the use
of L1 in a rational way in the following circumstances: clarification, explain difficult
concepts, to explain grammar, to explain differences between L1 and L2, to joke
around with students, and to express sympathy/concern.
Anws2: the second question can be answered stating that according to the
professors, the recourse to L1 it is appropriate in A1 and A2 ALTE levels in a
certain extent while in levels B1 and B2 it has to be gradually avoided, regarding
levels C1 and C2 it should be totally avoided inside the classroom and only used in
socializing and building bonds with students through colloquial interaction such as
joking outside the classroom
71
Bibliography
Atkinson, David (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: A neglected re-
source? ELT Journal Volume 41/4 Oxford University Press, 241-247.
ALTE, Official Webpage http://www.alte.org/resources/filter
Bailey, Benjamin (2000). Social/Interactional Functions of Code Switching among
Dominican Americans. Pragmatics. Vol 10, No 2, 165-193.
72
Bertram, Dane. Likert Scales …are the meaning of life. CPSC 681 – Topic Report
http://poincare.matf.bg.ac.rs/~kristina/topic-dane-likert.pdf
Byram M. and Hu A (2013). Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and
Learning, Routledge.
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York, Pantheon books.
Cook, Vivian (2001). Using the first language in the classroom The Canadian Mod-
ern Language Review, 402-423.
Cook, Vivian (2010). Questioning Traditional Assumptions of Language Teaching,
Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique francaise.
Cummins, J. (2003). Bilingual children’s mother tongue: Why is it important for edu-
cation? SPROG Forum, pp. 15-20
Cummins J (2009). Bilingual and immersion programs, Handbook of language
teaching, Edited by Michael H. Long and Catherine J. Doughty, 161-180.
Flyman-Mattson A. and Burenhult N. (1999). Code-switching in second language
teaching of French. Lund University, Dept. of Linguistics Working Papers 47
(1999), 59-72.
73
Greggio S. and Gil G. (2007). Teacher's and learners' use of code switching in the
English as a foreign language classroom: a qualitative study, 371 – 393.
Grosjean, François. 1982. Life with two Languages: An introduction to bilingualism.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Gunderson, Lee (2009). ESL (ELL) Literacy Instruction: A Guidebook to Theory
and Practice, 2nd ed. Routledge.
Hall, J. K (2001). Chapter 5: Classroom Discourse. Methods for Teaching Foreign
Languages: Creating a Community of Learners in the Classroom, 77-84.
http://www.learner.org/workshops/tfl/resources/s2_classroom1.pdf
Halvorsen B. Chair, Executive Committee, ALTE (2009). ALTE partner presenta-
tion, ECML, Graz January 2010.
Harbord, J. 1992. The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal,
46/4, 350-355.
Jingxia, L. (2008). How Much the First Language is There in Teachers’ Talk in EFL
Classroom?, China, The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 59-67.
74
Kayaoglu, Naci M. (2012). The Use of Mother Tongue in Foreign Language
Teaching from Teacher’s Practice and Perspective. Pamukkale University Journal
of Education, Number 32, 25-35.
Krashen S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning,
University of Southern California.
Krashen S. (2009). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, Uni-
versity of Southern California.
Krashen S. and Terrell T. (1995) The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in
the Classroom, Prentice Hall Europe, 185p.
Kirkpatrick, A (2007) World Englishes: Implications for International Communica-
tion and English Language Teaching September 2008 — Volume 12, Number 2
Lin, Angel M.Y (2008). Code-switching in the classroom: research paradigms and
approaches, Encyclopedia of Language and Education. 2nd edition, Volume 10:
Research methods in Language and Education, 273-286.
Lysunets T.B. (2011). To the problem of second language acquisition. The young
scientist Monthly scientific journal, 27-31
75
Macaro, E. (2005) Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learn-
ing strategy. In E. Llurda (ed.) Non-Native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Chal-
lenges, and Contributions to the Profession. Boston, MA: Springer, 63-84.
Meyer, H. (2008). The pedagogical implications of L1 use in the L2 classroom.
Maebashi Kyodai Gakuen College Ronsyu, 8, 147–159.
Myers-Scotton, Carol. (1988). Code Switching as Indexical of Social Negotiations.
In M. Heller (ed.), 151-186.
Nilep, Chad (2006). Code-switching in sociocultural linguistics, Colorado Research
in Linguistics. June 2006. Vol. 19. Boulder: University of Colorado.
http://www.colorado.edu/ling/CRIL/Volume19_Issue1/paper_NILEP.pdf
Nuthall, A. and Church, R. J (1973). Classroom discourse, cognitive perspective -
Students, Teacher, Questions, and Comprehension - StateUniversity.com.
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1916/Discourse.html#ixzz2j4bCXxYh
Olivares, M (2009). Mother tongue in the L2 classroom: a positive or negative
tool?. Revista Lindaraja, n°21.
http://www.realidadyficcion.es/revista_lindaraja/Mar%C3%ADa_Olivares/
Mother_tongue.pdf
76
Poplack, Shana. 1980. Sometimes I’ll Start a Sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO
ESPANOL: Toward a Typology of Code-switching. Linguistics. Vol. 18, Nos 7/8,
581-618.
Remenyi D., Onofrei G., and English Joe (2009). An introduction to statistics using
Microsoft Excel. Published by Academic Publishing Limited. Curtis Farm, Kidmore
End Nr Reading. RG4 9AY. UK
Richards J. and Rodgers T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching, Cambridge University Press, 270 p.
Romaine, Suzanne. (1995). Bilingualism. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schweers, Williams C. (1999). Using L1 in the L2 classroom. English teaching fo-
rum, 6-13.
Universidad Nacional Andrés Bello (UNAB). Departamento de Inglés.
http://www.unab.cl/ingles/departamento/presentacion.asp
Weng, Pei-shi (2012). Code-switching as a strategy use in an EFL classroom in
Taiwan, Tamkang University, Taiwan. US-China Foreign Language, ISSNN 1539-
8080, Vol. 10, No. 10, 1669-1675.
77
Zhang W. y Ding L. (2011). A preliminary study on Chinese EFL learner’s attitude
towards their accent. The 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences
(ICPhS XVII), 2300-2303.
http://www.icphs2011.hk/resources/OnlineProceedings/RegularSession/Zhang,
%20Wei/Zhang,%20Wei.pdf
Appendix A
Pilot questionnaire
Dear English Professor:
We need to know your perception about the use of L1 in EFL classroom for our investiga-
tion so we would appreciate if you take your time to give us some personal information and
answer the following questionnaire.
1. Personal information
Nationality: ______________________________ Age: _________________
Gender: Male _____ Female ______
78
Academic degree(s):
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Years of experience as an English Professor: ___________________________________
English courses you are currently teaching at UNAB and for which careers:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. General perspectivesMark with a ´´X´´.
Items Always Often Seldom Rarely Never
1. Do you allow students to make com-ments using L1?2. Do you allow students to ask ques-tions using L1?3. Do you allow students to use L1 dur-ing group works?4. Do you allow students to use L1 for presentations?5. Do you allow students to use transla-tion for a better understanding (written and orally)?
79
6. Do you allow students to recourse to L1 when discussing topics?7. Do you allow students to recourse to L1 when expressing agreement/dis-agreement?8. Do you allow students to use L1 when talking about likes and dislikes?9. Do you feel that students get more engaged in a given task when they are allowed to recourse to L1?10. Do you use code-switching during your classes?11. Do you think that switching be-tween L1 and L2 may confuse stu-dents? 12. Do you think that using L1 in-creases students’ confidence? 13. Do you think that using L1 reduces the amount of time wasted?
Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.
A1 = BeginnerA2 = Elementary
B1 = IntermediateB2 = Upper intermediate
C1 = AdvancedC2 = Upper advanced
Situations in which you can recourse to L1 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
To explain grammar
To give instructions
For discussion
For clarification
80
To explain difficult concepts
To develop students’ confidence
To check for comprehension
To introduce new material
To summarize material
To give advice
To explain differences between L1 and L2
To define new vocabulary
For closure
To express sympathy/concern
To avoid waste of time
For discipline
To give feedback
To encourage students
To joke around with students
To give assignments
3. General questions
Answer according to your point of view.
a) According to your experience teaching English for different ALTE levels, does the native language (L1) use affect positively or negatively the students’ learning process? Justify.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
81
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b) For which ALTE levels do you consider useful to recourse to the native language and why?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix B
82
Naci Kayaoglu’s email
Appendix C
83
Final version of the questionnaire:
The relevance of the use of L1
Brief introduction to the topic and questionnaire
The use of L1 is a relevant issue to discuss due to the different perspectives and
beliefs according to its application in EFL classrooms. Therefore, it is a debatable topic
that we would like to investigate. Through this questionnaire, we will find out if it is
advisable to recourse to L1 in EFL classrooms according to English Pedagogy professors'
perspective at UNAB in Viña del Mar, as well as to determine when and to which extent it
is appropriate to use L1.
The main objective of this questionnaire is to find out what English Professors of
the English Department think about the use of L1 in the different ALTE levels. Therefore,
the specific objectives are:
- To determine the advisable amount of L1 use in the different EFL classes of the English
Department.
- To identify the leading tendencies regarding the use of L1 in ALTE levels at Andres Bello
University.
- To identify in which situations it is advisable to recourse to L1 according to the professors’
perspective.
Finally, the purpose of this introduction is to give you the general contexts and
reasons behind our study, as well as to create awareness when responding to this
questionnaire.
84
Questionnaire
Dear English Professor:
We would appreciate if you take your time to respond this questionnaire that aims at collecting
information about the use of L1 in EFL classroom, according to your perspective. The results will be used as
part of our thesis. It is completely anonymous and absolutely confidential. Please fill in the required
information.
1. Personal information
This part aims at gathering some personal information about you as a professor to analyze the results
of this questionnaire in a more precise way.
Nationality: _____________________________ Gender: Male _____ Female _____
Academic degree(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
Years of experience as an English Professor: ___________________________________
Mark with an “X” places where you have worked as an English teacher:
Primary School ____
High School ____
Institute ____
University ____ Undergraduate ____ Postgraduate ____
Other(s) ____ Specify ______________________________________________________
English courses you are currently teaching at UNAB and for which careers:
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
85
2. General perspectives
The use of L1 has been a matter of debate among theoreticians and practitioners. That is why we would like to know your perception regarding the use of L1. Read the following items carefully, and mark with an “X” how frequently you allow the use of L1 during EFL classes.
Items Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never
1. Do you allow students to make comments using L1?
2. Do you allow students to ask questions using L1?
3. Do you allow students to use L1 during group works?
4. Do you allow students to use L1 for presentations?5. Do you allow students to use translation for a better understanding (written and orally)? 6. Do you allow students to recourse to L1 when discussing topics?7. Do you allow students to recourse to L1 when expressing agreement/disagreement?8. Do you allow students use L1 when talking about likes and dislikes?9. Have you noticed that students get more engaged in a given task when they are allowed to recourse to L1?10. Do you use code-switching during your classes?
11. Have you noticed that using L1 increases students’ confidence? 12. According to you, can the use of L1 be time saving for certain circumstances?
86
3. Situations
Some theoreticians suggest that teachers can recourse to L1 under specific situations according to the
ALTE levels. Please, read each statement carefully and mark with an “X” on the levels and situations in which
you would, eventually, use L1. (If it is necessary, you can mark more than one).
A1 = BeginnerA2 = Elementary
B1 = IntermediateB2 = Upper intermediate
C1 = AdvancedC2 = Upper advanced
Situations in which you can recourse to L1 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
To explain grammar
To give instructions
For discussion
For clarification
To explain difficult concepts
To develop students’ confidence
To check for comprehension
To introduce new material
To summarize material
To give advice
To explain differences between L1 and L2
To define new vocabulary
For closure
To express sympathy/concern
To avoid waste of time
For discipline
To give feedback
To encourage students
To joke around with students
To give assignments
87
4. Questions:
The aim of this part is to find out whether the use of L1 causes positive or negative effects on the learning
process, according to your perspective, as well as, identify in which levels you consider advisable to recourse
to the mother tongue. Please write as clear as possible .
a) According to your experience teaching English for different ALTE levels, does native language (L1) use affect the students’ learning process positively or negatively? Why?________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
b) For which ALTE levels do you consider useful to recourse to the native language and why?________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
88
Appendix D
Questionnaires’ Transcriptions: Open-ended questions
Teacher 1: a) According to my experience the use of L1 in certain circumstances
is always welcome by learners they seem to feel more motivated and
less stressed or intimidated.
b) Not at beginner levels when learners are between the ages of 5 and
12 i.e. critical period. However to find it useful for beginners and
elementary levels for older learners ages over 16. Then as this older
students advance in their proficiency, the use of L1 should decrease
considerably to avoid linguistic interference.
Teacher 2: a) It will depend on the level. Maybe beginners and elementary
learners can gain kind of confidence or self- confidence. They would feel
more connected with the lesson. Actually, I think about the
contextualized the lesson must be.
However, with advanced students is totally different. They can feel
demotivated if you as a teacher rely on their L1 more frequently than
expected.
b) Actually, I think just for beginners or elementary levels to clarify
instructions when they are doubt (just a little percentage) to keep
discipline (in case of working with high school students)
Teacher 3: a) In my opinion, L1 affects positively in the students’ learning process,
especially in lower levels of proficiency. Mainly because ss. need to feel
89
confident in a difficult situation
b) A1 and A2, mainly.
Teacher 4: a) It affects negatively with the case of cognates, it also affects the
syntax. Another negative aspect is the lack of connection between
phonetics and spelling.
b) Only for A1 and A2, because since their vocabulary range is limited
it is very difficult and time consuming to explain in English. Moreover,
most of the time they don’t understand what is being explained.
Teacher 5: a) First of all, I strongly believe that the L1 can be used in a lesson only
in certain circumstances. There are two different dimensions that occur
in a classroom. The first one is the pedagogical, which includes
instructions, classroom management, etc. In this dimension, I believe
the L1 can be used. The second dimension is the communicative one. In
this dimension i think only the TL can be used with all the levels.
b) As I explained previously, only in the first dimensions levels A1, A2,
B1. When using the language communicatively, in none the levels.
Teacher 6: a) In general, L1 use affects the learning process negatively. However,
to say it always is so would be a mistake. The goal of the learning
process is to enable to not only know “about” but use the language.
However, this is the goal of the process; not something that can be
guaranteed along the way. For the assimilation of language to happen
that is necessary to reach the goal, sometimes some clarification in L1 is
necessary or helpful.
90
In general, in our classrooms we should remember that
‘’comprehensible input’’ is what we want to provide. So, if they really
cannot understand, some recourse to L1 can help. Sometimes they
need to use L1 in order to learn to use new L2 language tools. Patience
and discretion are appropriate.
b) I think it is much more appropriate for beginning to beginner-
intermediate levels.
Starting B2, the use of L1 in the classroom should sharply decline
Teacher 7: a) It might have a positive effect on the students since they may feel
they may recourse to L1 in case they do not know some specific
grammar pattern and/or vocabulary thus diminishing the stress on the
part of the students.
b) The Beginning levels only because students should leave enough
language in the upper levels so it might not be necessary to have to use
L1 any longer.
Teacher 8: a) In my experience, using L1 with beginner levels, in very specific
circumstances has been positive.
Students feel that they confirm what the teacher has said in L2 and
thus they feel more confident.
I have never used L1 to much, because I strongly believe that students
most try to be immerse in L2, the more the better.
b) It is useful for A1 in order to make students feel confident, but once
91
they had reached A2, it is no longer needed.
Nonetheless, I remember a few occasions (when teaching at high
school) b1 and b2 students switching to L1 because a discussion or
debate when beyond their knowledge of English.
I think that when students get so involved in a discussion/debate they
can end up using L1, because in my point of view, we (teachers) also
have to contribute to develop critical thinking no matter the language.
I would not allow these with B1-B2 students at the pedagogy
programme, because they should be able to express their thoughts in
L2.
Teacher 9: a) I think there’s no harm in using L1 to break the ice and establish
rapport with the students. L1 can be an excellent tool to contrast
grammar and make students more aware of the two codes of
communication. Language students need to have some knowledge of
L1 in terms of technicalities: what’s subjunctive? And how do we use it?
cuando tengo tiempo / cuando tenga tiempo. I have noticed that when
the students improve their knowledge of L1 their lives can become much
easier in L2.
In short, I don’t see negative effects if the teacher uses L1 in 10%, 15%
of the class to clarify, compare or contrast some issues.
b) I prefer to keep the option open for all levels, having in mind that the
more you advance in the new language, the less you should recourse to
L1.
92
If there’s a possibility, I would like to discuss this interesting topic with
you face to face in order to share experiences and contrast different
points of view.
Good luck in your work.
Teacher 10: a) It depends on how often and for what reason recourse to L1 is
used. It affects them negatively if the recourse is consistently used. It
keeps the learner in a comfort zone they are not willing to abandon;
particularly if they are at a Beginner-Intermediate level. The student
needs to reach a certain level of frustration in order to “break through” a
barrier in language learning so, to this end, they will require patience (on
their past) and commitment in L2.
If, however the learner is having great difficulty some L1 is necessary to
encourage the student along. To clarify vocabulary (Beginner-
Elementary). The overall learning process is hastened when L2
dominates the classroom.
b) The Beginner, Elementary and Lower Intermediate levels definitely
require reversion to L1. Particularly if there is an underlying problem of
confidence, fear of making a mistake or a lack of comprehension.
Certainly with older students the fear of mistakes is fundamental and,
therefore, necessary for the teacher to use encouragement, joking,
setting a relaxed and “safe” classroom environment, etc. to put students
at ease. This would also require recourse to L1.
I believe it is more beneficial for all levels to have a L2 response to a L1
93
problem, query or lack of comprehension for example, despite a learner
unable to understand something and responds in L1 the teacher should
still maintain their response in l2.
Teacher 11: a) It depends on the situation. In general, i do not rely on L1 to make
the contents more accessible. It discourages students. It is a way of
showing the task it's too difficult for them.
b) Ideally, for none. The class should be planned in such a way that L1
should be unnecessary.
Teacher 12: a) When used appropriately, it can affect the students' program
positively.
It is usually time-saving, especially when the teacher must give
instructions.
On the other hand, there are situations in which the use of L1 can appeal
to the emotional side of learning. Students can feel more engaged on
motivated when the teacher recourses to this mother tongue.
b) I personally feel that the use of L1 is most suitable for A1, A2 and B1
when students are still straggling with elements of the foundation of the
L2.
Explanations, instructions and occasional translation could not only save
valuable time but also bridge the gap of motivation. I have noticed that
some students get very discouraged when they fail to understand what is
expected of them in a task, for example.
94
Teacher 13: a) If it is used too often, I believe it will adversely affect the students
as they will come to depend on it as a crutch.
b) I think it can help in the beginning levels where the students do not
have a grasp of the material.
Teacher 14: a) Using L1 in the English classroom affects positively when teaching
zero beginners. It avoids prestation, dropouts and promotes a positive
attitude towards further learning. However, the use of L1 has to be
restricted to the fewest situations possible, only when it is really needed
to explain a word or concept too difficult to mimic, paraphrase, etc. If used
too much, students don't make an effort to learn by themselves or use
vocabulary learning strategies.
b) Zero beginners or other higher levels under certain circumstances, as
explained above. Sometimes it's useful to use L1 for time-saving
purposes.
Teacher 15: a) According to my point of view, it affects because if you insert
students into contexts where L2 is used, it is not difficult to teach it or to
get it. The matter is how well we, teachers, can do it.
b) Perhaps for beginner level but I insist in the teacher’s skills to get L2.
The only problem is the cultural or social level of the students in some
schools, but even that your “methodologies” are the point. I don’t justify
the use of L1 because of the level of the school.
You, teacher, must try to give all the tools to guide the acquisition of L2.
95
Teacher 16: a) It gives more confidence.
Comprehension-conversion method.
b) B2, for better understanding.
Teacher 17: a) It affects positively in key situations (like explaining a certain
grammatical structure or example) but making sure you provide plenty of
exercising afterwards, meaning exercising what you explained.
It affects positively, because for a great number of students
understanding word order, the use of non-existent auxiliary in L1,
definitely supports the new language acquisition.
When they have to produce the language I never encourage the use of
L1 or when we use English for English I never encourage L1.
b) For beginners and for all levels, because at all levels you need to
solve some unsolved mistakes that will eternally stay there if not
explained and exercised thoroughly (in English).
Also, I think some teachers may waste some precious time of class when
trying to explain every time something that is not easily understood.
However, when I use English, I use English throughout a whole
segment, because I may consider it necessary to acquire a
certain skill that can only be achieved by using L2.
Teacher 18: a) According to my teaching experience of the English language, the
use of the native language (L1) can be more harmful that beneficial for
the students’ learning process. Although sometime especially for the
96
beginners and elementary levels, it is really necessary to employ the use
of L1. Eventually the students get used to having translations and they
have more difficulties in the language run to overcome their weaknesses
on lexical, phonetic and syntactic levels.
b) As I mentioned, I consider that occasionally beginner and elementary
levels truly need to recourse to their native language, due to the great
lack of comprehension, lexical level and poor grammar. Therefore, it is
sometimes essential to guide the students in their learning process by
providing them with some help in the native language.
Teacher 19: a) In my opinion, the use of native language affects the students
learning process in a positive way. When needed it lowers anxiety levels,
re-engage weak students that have difficulties to follow a class taught in
English. It also keeps a natural communication channel open to express
concern and sympathy when dealing with the necessary teacher-student
affective bond.
b) I consider useful to recourse to the L1, with beginners, elementary
students and sometimes with intermediate because there are times when
one needs to make sure that what you have tried to teach has been
understood correctly.
97