0% found this document useful (0 votes)
37 views15 pages14
Uploaded by
h.khbz1990Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
37 views15 pages14
Uploaded by
h.khbz1990Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 15
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (2002) 22, 204-218. Printed in the USA.
Copyright © 2002 Cambridge University Press 0267-1905/01 $9.50
11. TEACHERS’ USES OF THE TARGET AND FIRST LANGUAGES IN
SECOND AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS'
Miles Turnbull and Katy Arnett
‘This chapter reviews recent theoretical and empirical literature regarding
teachers’ uses of the target (TL) and first (L1) languages in second (SL)
and foreign (FL) language classrooms. Theoretically, the article explores
several issues related to teachers” use of the LI and the TL. in the
classroom: exposure to TL input, student motivation, cognitive
considerations, code-switehing, and appropriate teacher use of the L1. A.
review of recent discourse analysis studies examines how much, when,
and why FL and SL teachers use the L1 and TL in their pedagogy. The
article also presents findings from studies that have considered teachers"
self-reports and teachers’ and learners’ beliefs and atiudes regarding the
use ofthe L1 and the TL in FL and SL classrooms. ‘The paper concludes
‘with recommendations for furure research,
This chapter reviews both recent and earlier research related to teachers’
use ofthe target language (TL) and first language (L1) in second (SL) and foreign
language (FL) teaching contents.” The chapter is divided into three main sections
Drawing on theoretical perspectives and empirical work, the first section examines
teachers’ use of the TL and LI in the classroom from a theoretical perspective.
‘The second section reviews recent quantitative and qualitative studies that have
used discourse analysis to examine how much, when, and why teachers use the TL.
and the Ll in SL and FL classrooms. Studies that have focussed on teachers’ and
Jeamers’ beliefs and atitudes toward TL and L1 use are also reviewed. The final
section inthe article proposes future research directions on this topic.
‘Theoretical Perspectives
Research has examined several issues related to teachers’ use of the L1
and TL in the classroom: exposure to TL input, student motivation, ways in which
teacher use of the L1 can promote TL learning at cognitive levels, code-switching,
and when itis appropriate for teachers to introduce the LI into their pedagogies.
204 ‘TEACHERS’ TL/L USES IN SL/FL CLASSROOMS 208
Exposure to Target Language Input
Carroll (1975) and others (c.g. Burstall, 1968, 1970; Burstall, Jamieson,
Cohen, & Hargreaves, 1974; Carroll, Clark, Edwards, & Handrick, 1967; Wolf,
1977) found a direct correlation between FL achievement and teacher use of the
TL; some regard this as the most persuasive theoretical rationale for maximizing
the teacher’s use of the TL in the classroom (Turnbull, 2001b). Since teachers are
often the students’ primary source of linguistic input in the TL, it is therefore
reasonable to argue that maximizing the TL in the classroom is a favorable
practice.”
However, Turnbull (2001b) and others (e.g., Macaro, 1997; Polio &
Duff, 1994; van Lier, 1995) question what “maximize” means in terms of
“optimal” L1 and TL use. Most SL and FL. educators agree that students need t0
bbe exposed to input in the TL if they are expected to learn (Krashen, 1982), but
how much exposure to TL input is optimal from a theoretical and pedagogical
standpoint? Ellis (1994) and Sharwood-Smith (1985) suggest that mere exposure to
the TL input does not entirely guarantee that it becomes internalized as intake (see,
€.g., Chaudron, 1985; Ellis, 1994; Gass, 1988). Long (1996) argues that learners
internalize the TL input once they have been given the opportunity to interact with
and negotiate the meaning of the input. Swain (1985, 1993, 1995) argues that
learners need to be provided not only with the opportunity to interact with the TL
input, but also with the opportunity to produce written or spoken output related to
the input, because she contends (1995) that producing the TLL is an important
aspect of the learning process.
Cook (2001) and van Lier (1995) observe that the idea of maximizing the
‘TL im the classroom has been interpreted by most teachers to mean that they should
avoid the LI altogether or restrict its use to grammar lessons or classroom
management. Cook (2001) contends that the long-held tradition of discouraging
the integration of the L1 in the TL classroom has sharply limited the “possibilities
of language teaching” (p. 405). Even though he agrees that using considerable
amounts of the TL is critical, he believes that the L1 deserves a place in the TL
classroom, Based undoubtedly on his experiences as an English as a foreign
language educator, he argues that treating the students’ Ll as a resource instead of
a hindrance to successful learning will help to create more authentic users of the
TL. Van Lier (1995) agrees, contending that teachers" use of the leamers’ L1
helps to create more salient input for the learner, hence promoting intake. In his
view, (1995), the quality of the input is more important than the quantity of the
input when it comes to intake, and introducing the L1 can enhance the quality of
the input, Turnbull (2001b) agrees that the first language cam be used
“judiciously” to help facilitate the intake process, allowing input to more readily
become intake (p. 533). The teacher's use of the L1 thus provides an enhanced
form of input that is more salient for the learner, more easily processed, and 206 MILES TURNBULL AND KATY ARNETT
consequently results in a greater understanding of the TL (see also Dickson, 1992;
Py, 1996).
‘Motivation
‘Second language educators and researchers have long acknowledged the
influence of student motivation on TL learning (¢.g., Crookes & Schmidt, 1991;
Démnyei, 1994; Gardner & Lambert, 1972). MacDonald (1993) argues that the
teacher's maximized use of the TL in the classroom has an impact on student
motivation, as the learners can see how knowledge of the TL will be immediately
useful to them. Turnbull (2001a) offers anecdotal support of this argument, adding
that his students felt that they had learned more by the end of the year because of
his insistence on maximizing his own use of French in the classroom. Macaro
(4997) found that students were more likely to learn French as a means of
furthering personal goals (instrumental goals) than learn the language because they
were genuinely interested in the TL and its culture (integrative goals); he argues
that if teachers use the TL exclusively in the classroom, the students are more
likely to set instrumental goals (Gardner & Lambert, 1972), thus enhancing
learning. MacDonald (1993) also contends that relying too much on the L1 can
lead to student de-motivation; if the teacher overuses the L1 to convey meaningful
information, the students have no immediate need to further their understanding in
the TL.
Cognitive Issues Related to Li Use in the Classroom
Drawing on the ideas of Vygotsky (1978), Anton and DiCamilla (1998)
contend that when a teacher uses the L1 in the TL classroom, the learner uses the
LI as a cognitive tool to help “scaffold” his/her learning. Brooks and Donato
(1994) argue that learners sometimes use the L1 to negotiate meaning. They
propose that using the Lt helps learners produce the TL and to sustain interactions
in the TL, thus making it reasonable to argue that teachers’ use of the L1 may
prove to be beneficial to the students’ TL acquisition.”
‘Swain and Lapkin (2000) report that student use of the L1 during
collaborative tasks occurred for three primary reasons— increasing efficiency,
focusing attention, and facilitating interpersonal interactions. They contend that
student access to the L1 input possibly enabled students to accomplish their tasks
more successfully. Therefore, it would be possible to extend the argument that
teachers can facilitate student learning by making the L1 available to them,
However, Bllis (1984) argues that when a teacher chooses to use the L1 as part of
the usual pedagogy, he/she is depriving learners of input in the TL; Swain and
Lapkin (2000) suggest that denying students access to the L1 deprives them of an
invaluable cognitive tool ‘TEACHERS’ TLILI USES IN SLIFL CLASSROOMS 207
(Code-Switchi
Alternating rapidly between two languages in either oral or written
expression is known as “code-switching” (Coste, 1997). Cook (2001) contends
that teaching methods that enable the teacher to use the L1 and the TL concurrently
(€.g., incorporate some form of code-switching) create particularly authentic
learning environments, as they acknowledge the influence of the L1 on the TL.
Furthermore, Cook argues that code-switching is a natural phenomenon in settings
in which the speakers share two languages, so teachers should not necessarily
discourage it. Castelloti and Moore (1997) agree that code-switching can be an
effective teaching strategy, as they acknowledge the LI of the students to be an
important pedagogical tool, but encourage teachers to make conscious decisions
about when they introduce the Ll into their pedagogy. They believe that code-
switching should be deliberate if itis to benefit the students’ TL proficiency;
teachers should decide before a lesson when they are going to use the Li (e.g., to
clarify vocabulary). Coste (1997) also concurs that code-switching can be used to
help further student proficiency in the TL by using the LI as a reference point.
However, he stipulates that the L1 should only be used to help construct
knowledge in the target language and should not be accorded the same status and
role as the TL in the classroom.
When Teachers Should Use the L1
Both Cook (2001) and Turnbull (2001b) agree that the L1 can be used as a
resource in the TL classroom, but to varying degrees. Cook describes several
scenarios in which teachers should consider introducing the LI into their
pedagogy. He argues that teachers should resort to the L1 if itis apparent that
using the TL would be inefficient and/or problematic for the learner. He
encourages teachers to use the Li when explaining grammar, organizing tasks,
disciplining students, and implementing tests; Cook believes teachers should use
the L1 when “the cost ofthe TL is too great" —whenever iti too difficult or time-
consuming for the students to process and understand the TI. (2001, p. 418).
‘Turnbull (2001b) agrees that using the L1 to help ensure that students
understand a particular grammatical concept or vocabulary term can be an efficient
practice, but he cautions against teachers relying too much on the L1. Teachers
should use the TL as much as possible in their teaching, especially in “contexts in
which students spend only short petiods of time in class on a daily basis, and when
they have little contact with the TL outside of class,” such as core French
programs in Canada and Spanish programs on the U.S. northeastern coast
(Cumbull, 2001b, p. 535). (Core French is defined by LeBlanc as “a basic
program in French as a second language where French is the subject being studied
and the language is taught in periods that vary between 20 and $0 minutes a day”
1990, p. 2). Turnbull argues that if teachers are “licensed” (Cook, 2001, p. 410)
to use the L1 in their teaching, it will result in an overuse of the Li. Furthermore, 208 MILES TURNBULL AND KATY ARNETT
‘Turnbull questions Cook's suggestions about which classroom functions should be
implemented in the TL, contending that Cook’s suggestions leave “few classroom
functions left to be conducted in the TL” (2001b, p. 537). Therefore, the question
then becomes how and when teachers should use the first language in their
pedagogy and what impact this has on the students’ learning,
Empirical Studies
Since the early 1980s, considerable research has examined how much and
in which contexts teachers use the TL and the L1 in SL and FL classrooms (e.g.
Aston, 1983; Duff & Polio, 1990; Fleming, 1994; Franklin, 1990; Kharma &
Hajjaj, 1989; Macaro, 1995; MacDonald, 1993; Mitchell, 1988; Papaefthymiou-
Lytra, 1990; Polio & Duff, 1994)
Recent work has continued to address similar questions in different
teaching contexts, using similar discourse analysis techniques, but a variety of units
of analysis. Two recent studies have also attempted to understand teachers’ beliefs
and attitudes towards their use of the TL and LI in their SL and FL classes.
Learners’ perspectives on the teacher's use of the TL and L1 use have also been
explored in one recent study.
Analysis of Classroom Discourse: Teachers’ Uses of TL and Ll
Three recent studies" have drawn on the sociolinguistic notion of code-
switching to examine teachers’ uses of the TL and Ll. Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie
(in press) analyzed transcripts of four university-level French instructors’ language
use recorded over five class periods. Two of the instructors were native speakers
of French and two were nonnative, but highly proficient speakers of the TL.
Using a word-count approach, the authors determined how much French and
English each instructor used. Qualitative analyses of the recordings used the
utterance as unit of analysis. The researchers used prosodic features of the
teachers’ speech to help determine the beginning and end of utterances. The data
‘were coded into three main functional categories (translation, metalinguistic uses,
communicative uses) and either intersentential or intrasentential code-switching
Unlike most other studies, all four teachers used the L1 relatively infrequently and
the range of LI use among these teachers was also quite low (from 0% to 18.2%).
No notable differences were observed according to the instructor's Li
Incrasentential translation and language contrast were the most common reasons for
code-switching. The authors hypothesize that teachers who code-switch within the
same sentence to contrast the TL and the L1 may help avoid negative transfer.
Strategic translation may contribute to enhanced input, drawing learners’ attention
to specific features of the TL and hence promoting vocabulary uptake.
Gearon (1997) used Myers-Scotton’s (1993) Matrix Language-Frame
‘model to describe the code-switching identified in six secondary French teachers’ ‘TEACHERS’ TLILI USES IN SLIFL CLASSROOMS 209
discourse. Gearon examined intrasentential and intersentential code-switching,
relating it to language dominance, based on frequency of words in a sentence, and
to the morphosyntax of the code-switched sentences. Gearon found that most
code-switching occurred within the same sentence, wherein English (the students’
L1) was considered the dominant language by four of six teachers and the TL was
used to talk about French. lll teachers reported in follow-up retrospective
interviews that they were generally not aware of the extent of their code-switching,
‘They reported being aware that they used the L1 to help students understand when
they see puzzled looks on their faces. They also felt that using the L1 allowed
them to move through the curriculum more quickly.
Castellott (1997) analyzed recordings from four secondary foreign
language classes, Spanish and English, in order to promote conscious and
principled code-switching in SL and FL classes. Using examples drawn from her
Corpus, she argues that itis beneficial for teachers to switch from TL to Li as a
‘way of enhancing the input to which students are exposed. She refers to code-
switches to help students understand, as a way to check comprehension, to
highlight important points of salient vocabulary, to draw students” attention to what
they already know or have studied, and to help students make the transition from
uunilingualism to bi- or plurilingualism.
Three more recent studies have examined teachers’ TL and L1 uses within
a pedagogical, functional framework. For example, Turnbull (2000) conducted
exploratory analyses of four secondary level French second language teachers’ uses
of English (L1) and French (TL). The teachers’ discourse was coded by dividing
the teacher talk into units of analysis corresponding to their communicative or
pedagogical function. ‘The functional units were first coded as one of three macro-
categories (social, academic, managerial), then on a microlevel, and then
according to language (L1, L2, or mixed). ‘The four teachers differed in the
amount of L1 and L2 used (¢.g., ftom 24% to 72% of L2 functional units). The
qualitative functional analyses revealed considerable variation and few
commonalties among the four teachers.
Macaro (1997) used surveys, semistructured interviews, and classroom
‘observation to explore TL and L1 use amongst experienced, beginning, and student
teachers of foreign languages at the secondary level in England and Wales.
Classroom observations revealed that teachers resorted to the L1 most often to give
and clarify instructions for classroom activities, to give feedback to students, for
translating, and for checking comprehension,
Ina study to examine how a grade 9 teacher accommodated the needs of
students with learning disabilities in a core French classroom, Arnett (2001) found
the most prevalent modification strategy to be ‘use English to clarify.” Through
classroom observation and transcript analysis, Arnett determined that the teacher
used English to clarify difficult points of the TL (e.g., grammatical concepts and 210 MILES TURNBULL AND KATY ARNETT
vocabulary) in 44.9% of the episodes in which French was the primary language of
instruction. Arnett also reports that, during a semistructured interview, the
Participating teacher stated that she felt that she needed to use the LI as a reference
ppoint to help the students, especially those with learning disabilities, process the
TL information more easily and more readily.
‘Teachers’ Beliefs and Self-Reports about TL and LI Use
Macaro’s 1997 study also included a focus on the teachers" beliefs and
attitudes about TL and L1 use. In general, most of Macaro’s participants reported
in the survey component of the study that it was impossible and undesirable to use
the TL exclusively with all but the most motivated classes. A majority of teachers
felt, however, that using the TL was an important component of good FL
Pedagogy. A majority of teachers reported that the TL was useful and important
for giving basic instructions and giving feedback and a near majority (47%)
indicated the same for organizing classroom activites. However, these teachers
preferred the L1 for disciplining, socializing, or relationship building and for
explaining difficult grammar. During the interview component of Macaro’s study,
‘most teachers indicated that students” ability in the TL, regardless of age, most
consistently affected the amount of TL teachers could use. The teachers also
reported that it was much easier to use the TL with younger as compared to older
learners.
‘The Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) reported the results of a
national survey completed by more than 3000 elementary and secondary school
principals and foreign language teachers in the United States (see Rhodes &
Branaman, 1997). The survey was designed to provide a national and state-by-
state profile of foreign language education in the United States. The survey also
replicated CALs 1987 survey, thus enabling researchers to make comparisons
with the 1997 results and to show trends in FL education over the preceding
decade. A range of topics was covered by the survey, including use of the TL in
secondary classrooms. Just over a fifth of respondents indicated that teachers used
the TL most of the time (defined as 75% to 100% of the time). ‘This represents a
slight increase since 1987 when 18% of respondents indicated using the TL most of,
the time
‘Turnbull (2001) and Turnbull and Lamoureux (2001) investigated pre-
service teacher candidates’ second and foreign language experiences before
beginning their preservice program, as well as these students” beliefs and attitudes
about the use of the TL and the L1 in second language teaching, before and after
their practicum in a SL classroom. Results from surveys and interviews completed
before the students’ practicum experiences revealed that the participants seemed to
have clearly formed notions about the teacher's TL use. Most of them felt itis
desirable for a teacher to use the TL, many referring to a belief that immersing
oneself in the TL is the most effective way to learn a language. This belief did not ‘TEACHERS’ TL/LI USES IN SLIFL CLASSROOMS 211
change over time. However, before the practicum, the participants were not as
certain about how realistic it would be to implement their beliefS in the classroom.
Many perceived that the LI might be useful, especially for teaching grammar,