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