Understanding the role of the first language (L1) in instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): Effects of using a principled approach to L1 in the beginner foreign language classroom

Abstract

This study investigated whether second language (L2) classroom instruction that incorporates a principled approach into the use of the first language (L1) by students and instructors has an effect on beginning learners’ development of L2 speaking and writing proficiency, compared to L2-only instruction, over the course of one semester. Participants were 54 students of Spanish enrolled in six sections of a university-level Elementary Spanish course. The six intact classes, exposed to the same task-based curriculum, were randomly assigned to two experimental groups (–L1 and +L1). For the –L1 group, instruction and interaction were conducted exclusively in the L2, whereas instruction and interaction in the +L1 group included specific uses of the L1. A pretest–posttest design was used to measure change in speaking and writing proficiency. Effects were assessed using the STAMP 4 test, a standardized measure of proficiency. Results indicated that courses under both conditions promoted improvements in speaking and writing. However, students in the +L1 condition improved significantly more than those in the control –L1 group, both in speaking and writing. This points to a potentially more important role for the L1 in the development of an L2. Pedagogical implications are discussed, and directions for further research are offered.

Keywords

first language instructed second language acquisition optimal use of L1 principled approach to L1 use task-based pedagogy

I Introduction

From the end of the nineteenth century onwards almost all influential theoretical works on language teaching have assumed without argument that a new language (L2) should be taught without reference to the student’s first language (L1). (Cook, 2009, p. 112)

Foreign language (FL) classroom pedagogy has been dominated by the assumption that instruction must be done in the target language, drawing on students’ first language (L1) only when difficulties arise, and as a last resource (Hall & Cook, 2012). Indeed, the use of L1 has been referred to in the literature as ‘the skeleton in the cupboard’ (Prodromou, 2002, p. 6) or ‘the elephant in the room’ (Levine, 2014, p. 332), thus, relegating L1 use to the role of necessary evil.

From the late 19th to the late 20th century, second language (L2) only teaching was of widespread acceptance. The emergence of second language acquisition (SLA) theory strengthened the monolingual position. Krashen (1981) argued that using L1 deprived students of the opportunity to receive L2 input, especially in contexts of instructed second language acquisition (ISLA). This was based, in part, on the idea that adult L2 learning took place in the same way as child L1 learning; thus, the L2 should be acquired, rather than consciously learned. Up to the late 1990s, psycholinguistics-based SLA research conceived of foreign language students as L2 learners, ‘non-native speakers striving to acquire an L2’ (Kramsch & Whiteside, 2007). In other words, the target was the acquisition of the native speaker’s language. Firth and Wagner (1997) referred to this as a ‘monolingual orientation of SLA’, which depicted a monolingual, monocultural community of native speakers as pedagogical norm and the basis of SLA research. The monolingual orientation started to be questioned in the late 20th century, when Krashen’s principles were challenged by new SLA research. Today, we know that equating L1 acquisition to L2 acquisition is questionable (Cook, 2001), and the goals rarely are the same: ‘L1 children achieve native speaker competence in one language; L2 users achieve competence in more than one language’ (p. 407). In fact, as bilingualism has become central to many SLA theories, so has the essential bilingual nature of the foreign language classroom. Cook’s Multicompetence Model (2002, 2008), for example, changes the way we should view L2 learners: from ‘deficient monolinguals’ to ‘multicompetent learners’. The L1 is part of the L2 learner, and it is ‘inextricably bound up with their knowledge and use of the second’ (Cook, 2002, p. 339). According to Cummings (2007), this interdependence of the L1 and L2 promotes an ‘enhanced metalinguistic awareness’, as a result of dual language processing, in addition to a ‘transfer of cognitive/academic or literacy-related proficiency from one language to another’ (p. 232). This can be seen in codeswitching, a common practice in situations where speakers share two languages, and also common in FL classrooms.

The dominant pedagogical approaches in the last 30 years or so – communicative language teaching and task-based language learning – have advocated for minimizing L1 use in order to maximize classroom exposure to the L2, further promoting the resistance to the use of L1 in FL classrooms and forgetting the essential nature of an FL classroom. As underscored by Widdowson (2003): ‘our students come to class with one language (at least) and our task is to get them to acquire another one’ (p. 149). Thus, monolingual learning in the FL classroom is impossible: students cannot ‘switch-off’ their L1. The use of the L1 is a natural phenomenon and it will occur in the classroom, no matter the conditions of the teaching approach. Based on all this, some scholars have argued for a reconceptualization of the foreign language classroom as a bilingual environment, and of language learners as aspiring bilinguals (Dailey-O’Cain & Liebscher, 2009; Edstrom, 2006). In other words, the social and intercultural aspects of the FL classroom setting cannot be ignored, the use of students’ L1 being the most salient. This has important implications for current pedagogical approaches such as task-based language learning.

Classroom research on L1 use in instructed FL environments has focused on documenting the presence and purposes of the L1, both by teachers and students (e.g. Antón & DiCamilla, 1999; Brooks & Donato, 1994; de la Campa & Nassaji, 2009; Littlewood & Yu, 2011; Nakatsukasa and Loewen, 2015; Tognini & Oliver, 2012). This descriptive research is a necessary first step prior to investigating effects of L1 in L2 grammar and vocabulary development; this is a small, but growing, area of research (Ammar, Lightbown & Spada, 2010; de la Fuente, 2015; Horst, White, & Bell, 2010; Laufer & Girsai, 2008; Lee & Levine, 2018; McManus and Marsden, 2017; Scott & de la Fuente, 2008, Tian & Macaro, 2012; Zhao & Macaro, 2014). This research, conducted in different instructional environments, points out the value of L1 as a pedagogical resource. However, because of the still prevalent idea that L1 hinders classroom-based L2 learning, more research on the actual effects is needed, both cross-sectional and, especially, longitudinal. Thus, studies are needed that examine, with higher ecological validity, if and how the use of L1 helps or hinders development of L2 proficiency. This research ‘contributes to building a pedagogical model’ of principled L1 use in the classroom (Lee & Levine, 2018, p. 3). The primary aim of this study is to contribute to this body of research by investigating whether (and how) L1 use in a task-based learning environment has a positive (or detrimental) effect on language learning. In the next section, arguments advanced by ISLA research in support or against the use of L1 in L2 classrooms are examined.

II Review of the literature

The use and potential benefits of the L1 in the FL classroom has been an understudied topic in ISLA literature. From a psychocognitive perspective, the interactionist approach to ISLA (a theory that considers L2 development as a mainly internally driven process) maintains that L2 is acquired via interactionally modified input (Long, 1981), modified output (Swain, 1985) and error correction (Dekeyser, 1993). With its emphasis on maximizing L2 input and use (considered the ‘motors’ of SLA) this mainstream research has ignored a role for the L1. Yet, research on bilingualism and language processing has shown the interconnectness of L1 and L2 in the minds of bilinguals (de Bot, 2008; Grosjean, 1989). In addition, development of proficiency in the L1 helps in the development of proficiency in the L2. This is also the case with incipient bilinguals (i.e. L2 learners), for which connections with the L1 are much stronger than connections with the L2 (Cummings, 2007). Thus, any SLA theory that views L2 learning as a mainly cognitive – internal – process must acknowledge and include learners’ L1 as a variable.

Another important body of ISLA research is based on a sociocultural perspective (see Lantolf, 2000). Under this framework, L2 learning occurs as a result of social interaction, with the L1 (and the L2) mediating this learning process. Learners’ competence in the L2 is determined by the social context and, for this reason, language variation and codeswitching are considered beneficial for the learning of the L2.

Both social and cognitive aspects need to be considered in ISLA. For this reason, in this section we review relevant studies from both dimensions.¹ This gives us a more complete picture of the state of the research in this area. The studies reviewed are divided into two groups: (1) descriptive research that focuses on the presence, use and functions of the L1 in ISLA contexts; and (2) inferential research that tries to establish links between L1 use and L2 development.

1 The use of L1 in FL classrooms

An important body of research has focused on documenting the presence and purposes of the L1 in the FL classroom setting (e.g. Antón & DiCamilla, 1999; Brooks & Donato, 1994; Dailey-O’Cain & Liebscher, 2009; de la Campa & Nassaji, 2009; DiCamilla & Antón, 2012; Duff & Polio, 1990; Kim & Elder, 2005; Littlewood & Yu, 2011; Nakatsukasa and Loewen, 2015; Polio & Duff, 1994; Rolin-Ianziti & Brownlie, 2002; Tognini & Oliver, 2012). This descriptive research is a necessary first step prior to investigating effects of L1 in L2 development. A good number of these studies has described teachers’ use of L1 and the main functions it serves.

Duff and Polio (1990) studied instructors’ use of the target language in college FL classrooms in which the teacher was a native speaker (NS) of the L2. On average, teachers used the students’ L1 for 32.1% of the time; however, a surprising amount of variation was found depending on the class. In a follow-up study (Polio & Duff, 1994) they identified different uses of the L1: administrative vocabulary items, grammar instruction, classroom management, empathy/solidarity (rapport building), unknown vocabulary (translation), and lack of comprehension. The authors reported ‘a lack of awareness on the part of the teachers as to how, when, and the extent to which they actually use English in the classroom’ (p. 320). Many studies have identified similar functions of the L1, which could be classified into three categories: linguistic, managerial, and social purposes. Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002) identified three main purposes: translating words into the L1, metalinguistic awareness (contrasting L2 and L1 forms), and classroom management. Kim and Elder (2005) established an important distinction between core goals (teaching the L2) and framework goals (managing the classroom) as a basis for analysing L1 use. Last, de la Campa and Nassaji (2009) identified similar main functions of the L1: translation of vocabulary, comparing the two languages, giving instructions and classroom management, and personal interactions between teachers and students. Overall, this research indicates that instructors use the L1 in the L2 classroom and, even when they do not have an explicit principled or informed approach, they all coincide in a series of purposes for such use. It also shows that explicit grammar instruction and focus on form (Long, 1996), i.e. drawing learners’ attention to linguistic items during meaning-based interaction, are arguably the most reported uses of L1 in L2 classrooms.²

The new view of L2 learners as multicompetent users has also promoted a substantial number of studies that have focused on the learners’ use of the L1. Brooks and Donato (1994) used a sociocultural approach to study the classroom interaction of learners of Spanish. The study revealed that learners used their L1 for metatalk (talk about the task and the L2 needed to complete the task) and to ‘gain control of the task’ (p. 271). From a similar theoretical background, Antón and DiCamilla (1999) studied the social and cognitive functions of L1 in beginning students’ collaborative interaction during L2 language tasks. They noted the benefits of L1 use for scaffolding and establishing participant relations (managing the task, discussing solutions to problems). The L1 also proved to be a critical tool for accessing L2 lexical or grammatical forms. Dailey-O’Cain and Liebscher (2009) studied two German as FL classrooms where L1 use was allowed, concluding that students used the L1 and the L2 in similar ways that bilinguals do, which promoted ‘both second language learning and bilingual language behavior’ (p. 143). DiCamilla and Antón (2012) observed and quantified language functions typically encountered in student–student collaborative interactions (2012, p. 177):

content: creating, discussing, and/or agreeing about it;

language: L2 focus, either form or meaning, including solving lexical or grammatical problems, and understanding words or utterances;

task management: defining, limiting and managing a task; and

interpersonal relations: social environment, rapport building.

Last, Tognini and Oliver’s study (2012) revealed the same functions of L1 mentioned above, indicating also that L1 was used for learner–learner, as well as teacher–learner, exchanges and tasks about aspects of L2 culture (presentation and discussion). This last aspect is of special relevance as foreign language instruction continues to evolve into content-based, cross-cultural pedagogy. This means that exchanges about L1 culture, as well as and cross-cultural analysis, are common in the FL classroom even at introductory levels.

In a review of the main research findings on classroom use of L1 by both teachers and learners (Levine, 2014), Levine argues that the primary functions of the L1 clearly emerge from this research, but raises the question of how to control code choice (L1 or L2) in the classroom, as there seems to be a shortage of a principled basis in the FL classroom for the use of the L1. He argues that a principled approach to L1 is needed, where students and instructors have awareness of when and why to use the L1 (2014, p. 337).

In sum, a growing body of descriptive research evidences that exclusive or near exclusive use of the L2 is rarely encountered in the FL classroom. These studies offer indirect evidence of the potential cognitive, social, and pedagogical value of the L1, especially if used in a systematic manner. They do not, however, offer an answer to the central question, namely whether L1 use in the classroom facilitates L2 acquisition.

2 Effects of L1 in ISLA

As mentioned above, the concept of access to L1 during L2 learning is relevant to current cognitive-psycholinguistic perspectives of ISLA. Yet very few studies have empirically addressed the effects of the use of L1 on L2 learning. Evidence from bilingual language processing studies points that (1) at the early stages of L2 learning, L1 governs language processing (Grosjean, 2001); (2) there are links between learners’ L1 and the development of language awareness (Widdowson, 2003); and (3) L1 use facilitates processing by reducing the cognitive load on learners’ working memory (Kern, 1994).

The most widely reported uses of L1 have to do with L2 forms: teachers and learners use the L1 to convey and check the meaning of new words (translation), and to convey metalinguistic information about the L2 (grammar). This, along with the importance of the focus on form construct in ISLA (Long, 1991) explains the focus of existing studies on grammar information (Ammar, Lightbown & Spada, 2010; de la Fuente, 2015; Horst, White, & Bell, 2010; Kupferberg & Olshtain, 1996; McManus and Marsden, 2017; Scott & de la Fuente, 2008), or vocabulary (Laufer & Girsai, 2008; Lee & Levine, 2018; Tian & Macaro, 2012; Zhao & Macaro, 2014). These studies assume a positive role of explicit metalinguistic knowledge in the development of ISLA processes.

Kupferberg and Olshtain (1996) conducted a study with 137 intermediate FL learners, showing that the use of contrastive metalinguistic input (input given by the teacher that focuses on the differences between the learner’s L1 and L2) facilitated the acquisition of difficult target structures, as shown in subsequent recognition and production tasks. Ammar et al. (2010) examined the performance of L2 learners on metalinguistic tasks followed by interviews, finding a positive correlation between students’ awareness of L1–L2 differences and their ability to correctly judge and form questions in the L2. The authors concluded that the provision of explicit information about L1–L2 differences positively affects learners’ performance. Scott and de la Fuente (2008) researched learners’ use of the L1 by two groups of intermediate-level college learners of French and Spanish who were engaged in paired, metalinguistic, form-focused tasks. The study explored the ways in which students used their L1 and the L2 to solve grammar problems. Findings from stimulated recall sessions suggested that the ‘ban’ of the L1 posited significantly greater cognitive demands on L2 learners during task completion, concluding that the use of L1 to talk about grammatical aspects of the L2 (metatalk) facilitates cognitive processing of L2 by reducing cognitive load of the learners. McManus and Marsden (2017) used an experimental design to investigate the effectiveness of providing L1 explicit information with practice on both online and offline processing of a French grammar structure. Two experimental groups were provided with L2 explicit grammar information, but one of the groups received additional L1 explicit instruction combined with L1 practice (grammaticality judgement tasks). The results showed that the group where L1 was included improved online L2 processing of the target grammar form and also accuracy in grammaticality judgement tasks. The authors hypothesized that the L1 explicit information clarified concepts and form–meaning mappings, and the L1 practice reinforced these concepts and mappings. This crucial role for explicit information in the L1 was also observed in a quasi-experimental study by de la Fuente (2015), who examined its effects on language awareness of target L2 forms. In this case, the explicit information was given as corrective metalinguistic feedback. The results showed significant gains in recognition and production for those who received metalinguistic feedback in the L1. Online think-aloud protocols (concurrent to students’ feedback processing) also showed a higher awareness of the target forms for students who received this feedback in the L1. The author hypothesized that the L1 provided additional cognitive support in the form of high awareness to analyse complex L2. All these studies examined an important function of L1: to convey or discuss metalinguistic information about the grammar of the L1, and they seem to agree on the following: L1 metalinguistic input and feedback facilitates awareness of L1–L2 differences and cognitive processing, and may aid ultimate acquisition.

In terms of learning of vocabulary forms and meanings, a few studies have investigated this empirically. Laufer and Girsai (2008) addressed the effect of explicit contrastive analysis on the incidental acquisition of single words and collocations, finding an immediate advantage of contrastive analysis. Tian and Macaro (2012) investigated L1 use in lexical focus on form. They compared the differential effects of teacher’s L1 use with teacher’s L2-only explanations of new words during listening comprehension activities, and found that those learners who received L1 translation equivalents outperformed those who did not on the immediate posttest, but not on the delayed posttest. Zhao and Macaro (2014) conducted a similar study but included a control group; they also compared concrete and abstract works. According to their results, teacher’s L1 use led to greater vocabulary gains both in immediate and delayed posttests (recalling of words). Finally, Lee and Levine (2018) also focused on instructor’s L1 use for lexical explanation. The study exposed intermediate and advanced language learners to three instructional conditions: L1 explanations for vocabulary purposes, L2-only instruction, and no explanation of vocabulary items (control group). Both experimental groups outperformed the control group in terms of gains in learning of phrasal verbs, but the use of L1 benefited especially intermediate learners, who showed similar levels of vocabulary learning and listening comprehension to those of advanced learners. This research indicates a positive impact of L1 use over L2-only instruction.

The research on effects reviewed above, while needed, does not offer evidence of what a sustained principled approach to L1 would do in terms of enhancing (or not) students’ proficiency, the end goal of L2 ISLA. In other words, they offer cross-sectional evidence. No study, to our knowledge, has attempted to investigate what a principled approach to L1 in the classroom would look like, and what effects it would have over time, i.e. over the course of a semester. This type of research is warranted in order to ‘contribute to building a pedagogical model’ of principled L1 use in the classroom (Lee & Levine, 2018, p. 3).

III Rationale for the study and research question

The present quasi-experimental study incorporates optimal uses of the L1 (Macaro, 2009) identified in the literature, implemented in a systematic, principled manner (Levine, 2014) as a variable. The goal of the study was to test the optimal position to L1 use in the FL classroom by identifying its effects on the development of L2 proficiency after one semester of instruction.

L2 proficiency has been defined and measured in different ways in the SLA literature (e.g. Leclercq, Edmonds & Hilton, 2014). For the purposes of this study, proficiency was defined, according to the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Proficiency Guidelines (2012), as what individuals can do with the L2 (functional ability) in terms of speaking and writing in real-world situations in a spontaneous and non-rehearsed context, regardless of where, when, or how the L2 was acquired.

The research question guiding this study was: to what extent does L2 classroom instruction which incorporates a principled approach to the use of L1 by students and instructors have an effect (positive or negative) on the development of speaking and writing L2 proficiency by elementary learners, compared to L2-only instruction, over the course of one semester?

IV Methodology

1 Participants

A total of 52 undergraduate students aged between 18 and 29 years old participated in this study, which took place within a Spanish language program at a private research university located in the northeast area of the US. Of the 52 students, 44 had English as L1; the other eight students had tested as advanced high/superior English speakers according to the ACTFL scale,³ and were fully immersed in an English-speaking academic environment.⁴ Participants belonged to six intact classes of an intensive Elementary Spanish course. Two sections were dedicated to ‘true’ beginner students and the remaining four to ‘false’ beginners.⁵ For the purposes of the study, the six classes were assigned to either of two groups or conditions: plus L1 (+L1) or minus L1 (–L1). The +L1 group had a total of 27 students (11 male and 16 female participants), and consisted of one section of true beginners and two sections of false beginners. The –L1 group had a total of 25 students (8 male and 17 female participants), and consisted of one section of true beginners and two sections of false beginners. Participation in the study was optional. Students were informed about the existence of the study and its characteristics, and they also received a consent form that detailed their role and responsibilities in the study. Those who decided to sign up, committed to take two standardized language proficiency tests, one at the beginning and one at the end of the semester; and to complete an online survey at the end of the semester. Participation in all three instances of the study resulted in extra credit (2%) in the final grade. Students who did not want to participate in the study were offered the chance to complete a series of activities throughout the semester instead, for a comparable extra credit.

2 Pedagogical context

The language program’s pedagogical framework is task-based L2 learning. As such, frequent exposure to, and use of the L2 are non-negotiable conditions for proficiency development. The program has a spiral curriculum to ensure constant content recycling and scaffolding of language items. The core Spanish language curriculum consists of five semesters of language instruction, or 18 credit hours in total. The Elementary Spanish course comprises the first six credit hours. This is an intensive course with six contact hours per week and approximately 10 independent work hours per week. The course emphasizes the development of interactional speaking and writing. As a task-based course, it revolves around the notion of meaningful interactions and problem-solving collaboration as key resources for the development of L2 competence. At the end of the course (90 hours of language instruction), learners are expected to achieve, at least, a Novice-High level on the ACTFL scale in speaking and writing skills.⁶ Students are placed into the course following a three-step placement process that includes an online placement test, classroom observation by the instructor (first week) and one-on-one interviews with a placement advisor if needed.

Six instructors were involved in the delivery of classes, including one researcher, who was also in charge of the design and set up of the courses and instructional materials. Four instructors were native speakers of Spanish, and the other two were native speakers of English. All instructors were university trained and experienced in teaching Spanish as a foreign language using the task-based pedagogy. The participating instructors in both groups volunteered to teach these classes and agreed to adhere to the +L1 or –L1 policy accordingly. Depending on the group they were assigned (+L1 or –L1) they received training on the role that the L1 (English) would have in their class during the semester. In the case of the +L1 group, the three instructors were trained on the principled approach to English use (see next section) that would be present in their classrooms.⁷ The –L1 group had to maintain an L2-only classroom environment and was trained on strategies to implement this instructional approach.

3 The principled approach to L1

Following Levine (2014), and based on the existing literature, we established a set of functions for which instructors would use the L1 as a potentially beneficial tool: ‘L1 is used . . . for procedural communication, for establishing or maintaining control of the group, for reducing anxiety . . . and for explicit focus on grammatical forms or vocabulary for comprehension and/or learning’ (2014, p. 337). The idea behind this is that the instructor can consciously control his/her choice of language because s/he has an awareness of this principled approach. Likewise, based on prior literature, we decided on a set of functions of the L1 typically encountered in beginner student–student classroom interactions (see DiCamilla & Antón, 2012; Tognini & Oliver, 2012). Based on the above, we selected the components of our principled approach to L1, which constituted the main variable of the study (see Table 1). As can be seen in Table 1, eight functions were identified for instructor–student interaction. This includes student’s use of the L1 in interactions with the instructor. In terms of student–student interactions, we identified five main uses of the L1.

Table 1.

Functions of the first language (L1) in the second language (L2) classroom.

Functions of L1	Instructor–student	Student– instructor	Student– student
Metalanguage (explicit grammar teaching, solving grammar problems, analysis of L2 grammar)	✓	✓	✓
Vocabulary comprehension, meaning of L2 utterances	✓	✓	✓
Task management (instructions, procedural questions/clarifications, task planning)	✓	✓	✓
Course policies	✓	✓
Discussing classroom pedagogical approach	✓	✓
Developing learning strategies	✓	✓
Talking about (inter)cultural aspects	✓	✓	✓
Interpersonal relations (off-task interactions)	✓	✓	✓

The first two functions focus on language (grammar forms, lexical problems); numbers three to six have to do with procedural communication, although given the essential task-based nature of the course we decided to have an individual task management category. Category seven refers to content, and category eight has to do with other social functions of the L1 (rapport building, reducing anxiety, social interaction).

4 Procedure

The study was conducted over the course of one semester (15 weeks of instruction). As explained earlier, the +L1 group (three intact sections with three different instructors) was marked by the presence of the L1 in the classroom for the specific purposes outlined in Table 1. In contrast, instructors in the –L1 group (three intact sections with three different instructors) implemented an L2-only approach, and students were highly encouraged to use the L2 extensively for the functions identified in Table 1. Compliance with the condition established for each group was monitored through periodic classroom observations and meetings with instructors.

In order to measure speaking and writing proficiency, we used the STAMP 4 (Standards-based Measurement of Proficiency)⁸ computer-administered, adaptive test, created at the University of Oregon and aligned to the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Given that the test measures proficiency in terms of functional ability, and that writing and speaking responses are scored by certified ACTFL raters, we considered this test to be a valid and reliable instrument to gather quantitative data related to participants Spanish proficiency.

The test was administered at the beginning (pretest) and at the end of the semester (posttest). Based on their proficiency level, test-takers encountered a series of speaking and writing tasks. Each test-taker was assigned a benchmark level on a scale of 1 (Novice-Low) to 8 (Advanced Mid/High) that is aligned with the ACTFL proficiency levels descriptor (see Table 2). Table 2 shows the Avant STAMP 4S scoring rubric.⁹

Table 2.

STAMP 4S writing and speaking level key.

Writing and speaking level key
Novice	Intermediate	Advanced
1. Novice-low2. Novice-mid3. Novice-high	4. Intermediate-low5. Intermediate-mid6. Intermediate-high	7. Advanced-low8. Advanced-mid/high

The pretest was administered at the beginning of the third week of the semester, after 12 hours of instruction, and the posttest took place right after the end of the semester (week 16), after 90 hours of instruction. The posttest allowed the researchers to observe any changes in L2 proficiency due to the semester-long pedagogical intervention. Appendices C and D show two sample test items.

Additional instruments used to collect data were student and instructor report surveys. The students report survey (see Appendix A in the Supplemental material) was administered at the end of the semester. Students were asked to reflect on what had happened in class throughout the period of instruction. This way the researchers could further verify whether the premises of the intervention had been maintained in each classroom. The survey’s questions were based on the three types of interaction that identified in the principled framework, and addressed teaching of the specific functions of L1: five questions referred to student–student interaction, six questions to student–instructor interaction, and eight to instructor–student interaction. Respondents in both groups were instructed to read a series of statements and select the options (Likert scale) that best described their classroom situation in terms of instructor–student, student–instructor, and student–student communication. The survey included a total of 38 statements that reflected the use (or lack of use) of the L1 in the classroom and included the functions of the L1 as described in Table 1 above.

Instructors were also asked to complete an anonymous survey at the end of the semester (see Appendix B) aimed to confirm the treatment conditions in their classrooms throughout the semester. The survey consisted of a set of 39 paired questions in which instructors were asked to estimate the use of the L1/L2 in their classrooms for the functions identified for the principled approach to the L1 above. Based on the existing evidence that there is no L2-only beginning FL classroom, the options in the Likert scale were percentage ranges of L1/L2 usage (i.e. 0%–20%, 20%–40%, etc.).

V Results

The scores obtained from the STAMP pretests and posttests were submitted to descriptive and statistical analyses. There was a variation in the number of participants in each productive skill section (Speaking, n = 44; Writing, n = 50), depending on the availability of ratable samples for speaking. The means and standard deviations of the student’s scores on the STAMP tests at the beginning and at the end of the semester are shown in Table 3. The descriptive statistics show how students who received classroom instruction incorporating a principled approach to the use of the first language (+L1) scored higher on the posttest than students who received instruction only in the foreign language (–L1), both in speaking and writing proficiency (see also Figure 1).

Table 3.

Summary statistics per group: Speaking and writing.

Group	N	Pretest		Posttest
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Speaking:
+L1	25	2.80	0.88	4.20	0.71
–L1	19	2.74	0.82	3.74	0.65
Writing:
+L1	27	3.30	0.87	4.67	0.78
–L1	23	3.26	0.96	4.13	0.63

Figure 1.

Improvements in foreign language speaking and writing proficiency by type of instruction.

Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were conducted to determine if foreign language (L2) classroom instruction incorporating a principled approach to the use of the first language (L1) by students and instructors has an effect on beginning learners’ development of speaking and writing L2 proficiency, compared to L2-only instruction, over the course of one semester. The independent variable consisted of the type of instruction given, mainly using first language (+L1) or not (–L1). The dependent variables were proficiency scores in speaking and writing after one semester of instruction. The pretest scores were the covariate.

Prior to conducting the analyses, the proficiency scores were assessed for normality using z-scores formed by dividing skewness by the standard error of skewness. Values within +/– 3.29 are indicative of normality in a sample size of 50 (West, Finch, & Curran, 1995). Table 4 presents summary statistics for the proficiency scores. The z-scores were all well within the range indicating that the proficiency scores were normally distributed. Additional assessments were made to ensure that the data met the underlying assumptions of the analysis with regard to homogeneity. Levene’s tests for homogeneity of variance indicated that there were no significant differences between group variances. These are also reflected in Table 4.

Table 4.

Summary statistics for language proficiency scores.

Proficiency	n	Mean	SD	Skewness	SE	z	F	df	p
Scores	n	Mean	SD	Skewness	SE	z	F	df
Speaking:
Pretest	44	2.77	0.85	0.34	0.36	0.96	0.14	1,42	0.713
Posttest	44	4.00	0.72	0.00	0.36	0.00	0.07	1.42	0.795
Writing:
Pretest	50	3.28	0.90	0.27	0.34	0.79	0.14	1.48	0.710
Posttest	50	4.42	0.76	0.28	0.34	0.84	3.43	1,48	0.070

Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) revealed significant differences in post instruction scores for speaking (F(1,41) = 6.78, p < 0.013) between the +L1 (EMM = 4.19, SE = 0.11) and the –L1 (EMM = 3.76, SE = 0.13) group. The eta squared (η²) value of .142 may be interpreted as medium effect (Cohen, Cohen, West and Aiken, 2003). Cohen’s d (d) value of .8 may be interpreted as large effect (Cohen, 1988). Likewise, significant differences in post-instruction scores were also found for writing (F(1,47) = 9.07, p < 0.004), between the +L1 (EMM = 4.66, SE = 0.12) and the –L1 (EMM = 4.14, SE = 0.13) group. The eta squared (η²) value of .162 may also be interpreted as medium effect. Cohen’s d (d) value of .9 may be interpreted as large effect (Cohen, 1988). Table 5 provides the results of the analysis of covariance on the speaking and writing proficiency scores. Tables 6 indicates questions with significant differences in the student survey.

Table 5.

Analysis of covariance on foreign language speaking and writing proficiency.

Group	n	EMM*	SE	95% CI	F	df	p	η ²	d
Speaking:
+L1	25	4.19	0.11	3.96–4.41	6.78	1, 41	0.013	0.142	0.8
–L1	19	3.76	0.13	3.50–4.01
Writing:
+L1	27	4.66	0.12	4.42–4.90	9.07	1, 47	0.004	0.162	0.9
–L1	23	4.14	0.13	3.88–4.39

Note. * Estimated marginal mean.

Table 6.

Questions with significant differences in student survey.

Type of interaction	Number of questions	Number of questions with significant differences (*p > 0.1)
Student–student	10	0
Student–instructor	12	4
Instructor–student	16	16

VI Discussion

1 Effects of principled approach to L1

The results of this quasi experimental study show that instruction in all six Elementary Spanish sections (regardless of +L1 or –L1 conditions) promoted improvements in speaking and writing L2 language proficiency, as shown by the adjusted mean scores (see Figure 1). At the very least, these results do not support any of the current pedagogical concerns regarding the potentially detrimental role of L1 in the classroom for beginning instruction (speaking or writing skills). Neither do they substantiate the claim that exclusive use of L2 translates into more L2 learning in the case of beginning learners. The fact that half of the sections of this beginners intensive Spanish class showed strong results in speaking and writing proficiency, ‘despite’ the presence of the L1 in the classroom, has great significance. More importantly, the fact that significant differences in post-instruction scores (speaking and writing) were found between the +L1 and the –L1 group point to a potentially more important role for the L1 in the development of L2 by beginning learners. A principled use of L1 may have a beneficial effect in the development of speaking and writing proficiency by beginning learners. Without a doubt, this is something worth pursuing further. These results are in line with the instructional implications of the growing body of empirical research both framed under psychocognitive theories as well as sociocultural theories of ISLA.

An important question, and one that this study did not seek to address, is which types of L1 use (by students, by instructors) and which specific functions had a bigger impact on learning. In other words, what within the +L1 condition (principled approach to L1 use) accounts for the significant gains in learning? The results of the surveys administered to students and instructors at the end of the semester could help us shed some initial light on what transpired in the classrooms.

To recall, the students’ survey did not seek students’ opinions or perceptions, but rather evidence of what happened in the room in relation to L1 use over the course of the semester. The fact that no statistical differences were found between groups in any of the 10 questions related to student–student interaction, seems to indicate that the use of L1 by students during peer interactions was not controlled in the classrooms. Students in these beginning Spanish classrooms, regardless of condition, relied heavily on their L1 to mediate their performance during tasks and their understanding of the L1 (in line with most studies).

In terms of student–instructor interactions, the fact that significant differences were found in four questions (out of 12) may indicate that the use (or ban of) the L1 to talk to the instructor was more controlled in the classroom. Nevertheless, it is clear that students made use of English in both groups either to interact with other classmates or, to some degree, with their instructor.

However, the significant differences between groups for all 16 questions related to instructor–student communication strongly suggest that instructors were able to implement the assigned approach in a consistently enough manner that students clearly saw a pattern of +L1 or –L1 use by their teacher. It can be hypothesized, then, that the results of the study could not be attributed to differences in what transpired in the classes in terms of peer interaction, but rather to the effect of the instructors using the L1 for several functions.

The results of the additional instructor’s survey lend support to this idea: the responses to questions #2 to #17 (those related to the use of L1 or L2 by the instructor) show high consistency with the assigned pedagogy: the percentages of use of L1 or L2 for the different functions vary, and offer a pattern of consistency with very few exceptions. There were instances when instructors in the –L1 group used the L1 (as reported) but the percentage of reported usage was low. In contrast, responses related to use of L1/L2 by students show much lower consistency. For example, in response to Question 21: ‘My students use Spanish to ask vocabulary questions about ____ of the time we spend on those activities’, the three instructors in group +L1 reported 40%–60%, 20%–40%, and 80%–100%, respectively; and the three instructors in the –L1 group reported 40%–60%, 80%–100%, and 20%–40%. A similar variation was found in many other responses to questions referred to learners’ communication. This further illustrates that, while instructors may be able to implement a principled approach to their own use of the L1, it is much harder to control how learners operate within a given framework.

This study does not address how much the instructors’ use of the L1 impacts the quantity of L1 or L2 use by learners but, judging by the results of the surveys, it seems that not significantly. This was also observed by Macaro (2001), who points out that learners with low proficiency in the L2 benefit from the instructor’s L1 use because it helps lighten the cognitive load on working memory (Macaro, 2005, p. 75). Thus, the argument that the instructor’s use of the L1 undermines the L2 learning process is not supported by this study.

In sum, although the present study is far from demonstrating links between particular uses of the L1 and students’ progress in language learning, it shows that the principle of avoidance of the L1 in the classroom is not supported in the context of beginning FL instruction that is based on a task-based pedagogical approach and incorporates a role for grammar instruction and focus on form. The results lend support to Macaro’s ‘optimal position’ to L1 use, which recognizes the benefits of the learner’s first language as a meta-cognitive tool and a scaffold for language development (Macaro, 2009, p. 36).

2 Pedagogical implications

The findings of this study have important implications for conceptualizing the role of the L1 in the FL classroom. First, they invite practitioners to rethink exclusive reliance on monolingual instructional strategies in FL teaching and engage in an open discussion about the use of the L1 for pedagogical purposes. They also show that a task-based, interaction-oriented pedagogy is not incompatible with the introduction of a principled use of L1 at the lower levels of instruction. In fact, and in light of the new insights from both psychocognitive and sociocultural ISLA research, task-based pedagogy can be more efficiently implemented if the L1 is brought to the class ‘as a cognitive and linguistic resource’ (Cummings, 2007, p. 238). In particular, the L1 could be used to develop ‘focus on form’ strategies and teach about the L2 during the completion of tasks designed to maximize exposure to the L2 (Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008, p. 270).

The growing body of evidence about the benefits of certain L1 uses in the FL classroom should be included in teacher development training in order to demystify its detrimental effect, and help teachers understand the functionalities of the L1 as a learning tool while promoting quality exposure and use of the L2 in the classroom.

Both teachers and educational policy makers should be encouraged to adopt a learner-centered approach that acknowledges the complex nature of the adult L2 learner’s mind and recognizes that the L1 ‘is a valuable resource, just like the L2 grammar, the textbooks, the teacher’ (Levine, 2014, p. 346). The starting point for FL teaching needs to be a recognition of the learner as a multicompetent L2 user.

VII Conclusions, limitations, and future directions

The results of this quasi-experimental study seem to align with both observational and experimental ISLA research (psychocognitive as well as sociocultural-based) on the benefits of certain uses of the L1 in the FL classroom. In the case of beginning learners, exclusive use of L2 may be a roadblock for maximizing proficiency development, understood as speaking and writing ability.

Also, in line with current research, the study evidences a reality of FL classrooms: beginning learners use their L1, and instructors have a hard time ‘controlling’ this. However, they are able to articulate and implement their own informed, principled approach to L1 once they develop an informed awareness. And once they can view their students as L2 users who have two languages available in the same mind they can also become aware of the reasons behind their L1 use.

Being, to our knowledge, the first one to explore the potential effects of L1 use over the course of one semester, this study had several limitations, such as the relatively small sample of participants, and the inclusion of eight participants whose L1 was not English and were, in fact, operating through two – not one – foreign languages. Excluding students whose L1 is not the same may have yielded different results. In fact, the increasing linguistic diversity in the foreign language college classroom may posit a challenge to this line of research, as well as an opportunity to investigate what happens in instructional contexts where the L1 is the medium of instruction in the institution in which the participants are studying, but not participants’ L1.

For this reason, it raises more questions than it answers, opening multiple paths for future research. First, the study operationalized proficiency as ability to speak and write in the target language; however, it would be important to investigate the effects of classroom L1 use on listening and reading proficiency. Second, more studies of this same nature are needed that address the potential effect of L1 use at intermediate and advanced levels of language instruction. Cross sectional studies are also needed that examine the potential effect of specific L1 functions, especially those having to do with metalanguage and focus on form; as well as research that continues to examine online language (L1/L2) processing data from students.

We are a long way from understanding the role of L1 in ISLA, but a reconsideration of the L1 as a pedagogical tool is long overdue. The L1 needs to be included as a variable in cognitive and sociocultural accounts of ISLA, so that instructional practices can be based on an informed understanding of its benefits.

Supplemental Material

Appendixes – Supplemental material for Understanding the role of the first language (L1) in instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): Effects of using a principled approach to L1 in the beginner foreign language classroom

Supplemental material, Appendixes for Understanding the role of the first language (L1) in instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): Effects of using a principled approach to L1 in the beginner foreign language classroom by María J. de la Fuente and Carola Goldenberg in Language Teaching Research

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to the anonymous reviewers for all their helpful comments on this paper. We would like to thank all the participant teachers and students. We also would like to acknowledge the financial support for this project from the “Nick-of-Time” grant of the Columbian College of Arts & Sciences at the George Washington University.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

María J. de la Fuente

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Ammar

Lightbown

P.M.

Spada

(2010). Awareness of L1/L2 differences: Does it matter? Language Awareness, 19, 129–146.

Antón

DiCamilla

F.J.

(1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 233–247.

Brooks

Donato

(1994). Language and language learning. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Cohen

West

S.G.

Aiken

L.S.

(2003) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge.

Cohen

1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition. Routledge.

Cook

(2009). Use of translation in language teaching. In Baker

Saldanha

(Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 112–115). New York / London: Routledge.

Cook

(2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 402–423.

Cook

(ed.) (2002) Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cook

(2008). Second language learning and language teaching. 4th edition. London: Hodder Education.

10.

Cummins

(2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 221–240.

11.

Dailey-O’Cain

Liebscher

(2009). Teacher and student use of the first language in foreign language classroom interaction: Functions and applications. In Turnbull

Dailey-O’Cain

(Eds.), Use of second language and foreign language learning (pp. 131–144). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

12.

de Bot

. (2008). Introduction: Second language development as a dynamic process. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 166–178.

13.

de la Campa

Nassaji

(2009). The amount, purpose, and reasons for using L1 in L2 classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 742–759.

14.

de la Fuente

M.J.

(2015). Explicit corrective feedback and computer-based, form-focused instruction: The role of L1 in promoting awareness of L2 forms. In Leow

Cerezo

Baralt

(Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning (pp. 173–199). Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.

15.

Dekeyser

(1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 501–514.

16.

DiCamilla

F.J.

Antón

(2012). Functions of L1 in the collaborative interaction of beginning and advanced second language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22, 160–188.

17.

Duff

P.A.

Polio

C.G.

(1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 74, 154–166.

18.

Edstrom

(2006). L1 use in the L2 classroom: One teacher’s self-evaluation. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 275–292.

19.

Firth

Wagner

(1997). On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 286–300.

20.

Grosjean

(1989). Neurolinguistics, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15

21.

Grosjean

(2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In Nicol

(Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 1–22). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

22.

Hall

Cook

(2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45, 271–308.

23.

Horst

White

Bell

(2010). First and second language knowledge in the language classroom. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14, 331–349.

24.

Kern

(1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in second Language Acquisition, 16, 441–461.

25.

Kim

S.H.

Elder

(2005). Language choices and pedagogic functions in the foreign language classroom: A cross-linguistic functional analysis of teacher talk. Language Teaching Research, 9, 355–380.

26.

Kramsch

Whiteside

(2007). Three fundamental concepts in second language acquisition and their relevance in multilingual contexts. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 907–922.

27.

Krashen

(1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

28.

Kupferberg

Olshtain

(1996). Explicit Contrastive Instruction Facilitates the Acquisition of Difficult L2 Forms. Language Awareness, 5(3–4), 149–165.

29.

Lantolf

J.P.

(2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

30.

Laufer

Girsai

(2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning: A case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics, 29, 694–716.

31.

Leclercq

Edmonds

Hilton

(Eds.) (2014). Measuring L2 proficiency: Perspectives from SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

32.

Lee

J.H.

Levine

G.S.

(2018). The effects of instructor language choice on second language vocabulary learning and listening comprehension. Language Teaching Research, 24, 250–272.

33.

Levine

G.S.

(2014). Principles for code choice in the foreign language classroom: A focus on grammaring. Language Teaching, 47, 1–17.

34.

Littlewood

(2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44, 64–77.

35.

Long

(1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 379, 259–278.

36.

Long

(1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot

Ginsberg

Kramsch

(Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

37.

Long

(1996). Authenticity and learning potential in L2 classroom discourse. In Jacobs

G.M.

(Ed.), Language classrooms of tomorrow: Issues and responses (pp. 148–169). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

38.

Macaro

(2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision-making. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 531–548.

39.

Macaro

(2005). Reading strategies of young-beginner learners of French: An intervention study. Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics, Bristol, UK.

40.

Macaro

(2009). Teacher codeswitching in L2 classrooms: Exploring ‘optimal use’. In Turnbull

Dailey-O’Cain

(Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 35–49). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

41.

McManus

Marsden

(2017). L1 explicit instruction can improve L2 online and offline performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 459–492.

42.

Nakatsukasa

Loewen

(2015). A teacher’s first language use in form-focused episodes in Spanish as a foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 19, 133–149.

43.

Polio

C.G.

Duff

P.A.

(1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 313–326.

44.

Prodromou

(2002). Prologue: The liberating role of the mother tongue. In Deller

Rinvolucri

(Eds.), Using the mother tongue: Making the most of the learner’s language (pp. 6–8). Peaslake: Delta Publishing.

45.

Rolin-Ianziti

Brownlie

(2002). Teacher use of learners’ native language in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 402–426.

46.

Rolin-Ianziti

Varshney

(2008). Students’ views regarding the use of the first language: An exploratory study in a tertiary context maximizing target language use. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 249–273.

47.

Scott

de la Fuente

M.J.

(2008). What’s the problem? L2 learners’ use of the L1 during consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 100–113.

48.

Swain

(1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass

Madden

(Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

49.

Tian

Macaro

(2012). Comparing the effect of teacher codeswitching with English-only explanations on the vocabulary acquisition of Chinese university students: A lexical focus-on-form study. Language Teaching Research, 16, 367–391.

50.

Tognini

Oliver

(2012). L1 use in primary and secondary foreign language classrooms and its contribution to learning. In Alcón Soler

M.-P

Safont-Jordà

. (Eds.), Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication, volume 24: Discourse and language learning across L2 instructional settings (pp. 53–78). Leiden: Brill.

51.

West

S.G.

Finch

J.F.

Curran

P.J.

(1995). Structural equation models with non-normal variables: Problems and remedies. In Hoyle

R.J.

(Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

52.

Widdowson

H.G.

(2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

53.

Zhao

Macaro

(2014). What works better for the learning of concrete and abstract words: Teachers’ L1 use or L2-only explanations? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26, 75–98.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.27 MB