Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the professors of the Facultad de Educación y Humanidades, Universidad de Granada, Campus Universitario de Melilla for being willing informants for his Master’s dissertation, the results of which have made this article possible. I would also like to thank the following students for being a great bunch of kids and their parents for allowing me to record the class. Alejandro Belmonte, Luis Castañeda, Miguel Angel de las Nieves, Miguel Dueñas, Angel Martines, Cesar Muñoz, Javier Perez de Ureta and Julian Sanchez.

Towards a Principled Use of L1

Roger O’Keeffe, Spain

Roger O’Keeffe runs and teaches at Valley Language Centre. He has worked in Poland, China and Spain. His interests include Humanistic Approaches to Language Teaching and Multicompetence Theory. He has an MA in TESOL from Sheffield Hallam University. E-mail: The_okeeffes@yahoo.co.uk

Menu

Introduction
Why do students use L1?
The teacher and L1
How does it work?
Background to this class
The video
Conclusion
Bibliography

Introduction

The mere mention of L1 use can conjure up images of classrooms dominated by the students’ mother tongue and where the L2 is reduced to a relatively minor role. Weschler (1997) argues that the reason why L1 is viewed so negatively is because of the failure of the Grammar Translation Method. He opines that because students, after years of instruction could not use the language then the method was flawed. Therefore, the answer was to throw out the “method completely on the unstated assumption that it was the act of translation itself which lay at the root of the problem”. This I would argue is a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

It is my intention to try and dispel these images by discussing the research into L1 use from the perspectives of both students and teachers and then showing, by means of a video, how I have incorporated L1 use into my teaching practice.

Why do students use L1?

Since the early 90s researchers have strived to answer this question. Swain and Lapkin found that students in their study used L1 for “three principal purposes: (1) moving the task along, (2) focusing attention, and (3) interpersonal interaction” (2000:257).

They also found that the majority of the use of L1 was for “important cognitive and social functions” (2000: 268). Here it would seem that L1 is the natural vehicle for such functions and to deny its use, I would argue, is to hinder the students’ development or their ability to complete a task effectively. As Ellis (2000: 209), reporting on the work of Brooks and Donato (1994) notes, even though the teacher had carefully explained a task to a group of students there still followed a protracted negotiation in L1 as to what was required to complete the task. This example is typical of what I have noted in my classes, and I have found that stepping back and allowing quick explanations is more effective than long over simplified explanations in L2.

Lameta-Tufuga (1994) investigated the effects L1 use had with regard to written tasks. He found that students who were able to discuss and plan the task prior to putting pen to paper highlighted some interesting results. The students, during the initial discussion phase in L1, were able to understand what was required of them and also used much of the L2 lexis that would be needed later in the written task. That is to say they used L1 to understand the rubric and experiment with relevant L2 vocabulary. Knight (1996) reported similar findings in that students who had the opportunity to discuss a written task in L1 outperformed those who were restricted to L2 use (cited Robertson et al 2005:36).

It is also necessary to take into account research into students’ perceptions of L1 use. Prodroou (2002a) investigated the attitudes of 300 Greek students and found that lower level students were more willing to accept the use of L1 while advanced students viewed its use negatively. Dujmovic (2007) examined the attitudes of 100 Croatian students and reports that the students reacted positively to L1 use in their L2 classes.

One reason that has been suggested by some researchers in the field is that students, either consciously or subconsciously, are aware that using their mother tongue can reduce some of the mental processes needed to function in an L2 classroom. This is referred to as ‘cognitive load’ which has been defined by Bo Yin et al (2007) as:

the amount of mental demand imposed by a particular task, and has been associated with the limited capacity of working memory

Nation argues that “[M]eaning focused tasks can carry a heavy cognitive load. Not only do learners have to focus on what to say or what is being said, they also have to focus on how to say it or how it is being said” (2003). Similarly, Scott and de la Fuente studied the use of L1 in consciousness raising tasks and concluded that “use of L1 for these kinds of tasks may reduce cognitive overload…” (2008: 111).

Taking the above points into consideration I would suggest that by accepting the students’ natural need to use L1 we are allowing them to be more efficient with regards to task completion. This in turn, it could be argued, would free-up precious class time as we can be more certain that the students have understood what has gone before. As Weschler (1997) argues, the use of L1 can turn “incomprehensible messages in the target language” into language that is readily understood and usable.

The teacher and L1

Unfortunately for students important decisions about the use of L1 are made ‘above their heads’ by researchers and teachers. For example Atkinson (1987) claims that the use of L1 should be limited to 5% of class time. However Schweers (1999) found that Spanish students asked for 39% of class time to be allocated to L1 use.

Likewise, the teacher’s prior learning/teaching experience can have an effect on their view of L1. Mattioli (2004) states teachers’ views on the use of L1 depend on their own language learning experiences and their training.

Robertson et al when summarising studies into the use of L1 for language focused learning argue that “…studies comparing the effectiveness of various methods for learning always come up with the same result that an L1 translation is the most effective” (2005: 36). Furthermore they go on to state that “[A]lthough there are frequent criticisms raised of learning L1-L2 word pairs, these criticisms are not supported by the research” (ibid).

While the literature is quite small there seems to be agreement on when the teacher should employ L1. Atkinson (1987) argued for the following: 1) Eliciting Language; 2) Checking comprehension; 3) Giving instructions; 4) Cooperation among learners; 5) Discussion of classroom methodology; 6) Presentation and reinforcement of language; 7) Checking for sense, and 8) Testing.

Piasecka (1988) found that there were other areas where it could benefit the teacher: 1) Negotiation of the syllabus; 2) Record keeping; 3) Classroom management; 4) Scene setting; 5) Language analysis; 6) Presentation of rules governing grammar, phonology, morphology and spelling; 7) Discussion of cross-cultural issues; 8) Providing instructions or prompts; 9) Explanation of errors; and 10) Assessment of comprehension.

Prodromou (2002b) found that the L1 was used for certain procedures for example, explaining difficult concepts, checking comprehension, raising confidence, explaining the rationale of language learning activities, error analysis, or vocabulary clarification.

While all three of the above concur, it is only Prodromou that cites 'raising confidence' as a noteworthy procedure. I feel that this is one of the most important uses of L1 as it can generate and maintain the motivation of the learners because if the individual is at ease in the classroom they are more likely to participate.

In the following section I will show how I have incorporated L1 use into my teaching practice.

How does it work?

I recently recorded the input section of one of my classes. The learners are 8 year old students whose first language is Spanish. They are studying for the Trinity Exam in Spoken English Grade 2. The students do not follow a coursebook and I produce all my own materials drawing from a number of sources.

Willis states, "teachers and teaching materials must adapt to the learner rather than vice versa" (1990: 53). I have found that by using my students’ imaginations as a resource and fitting in with what they want has led to increased motivation for both the students and myself as we construct meaning together.

Background to this class

As part of my normal teaching practice I have introduced the idea of Sillylandia to the students. Sillylandia is a fictitious place that we are developing together. The students love the concept as it allows them to use their imaginations and be silly. We have developed an outline of my ‘friend’ Plipplop in a previous class and in this class I introduce Plipplop’s father to the students. In this session we are working through the language of descriptions together. For more detailed information on Sillylandia see O’Keeffe 2009.

The video

The first use of L1 is by one of the students who mistakenly says ‘madre’ (mother) when I am asking about father. The second use is by me, the teacher, when I use L1 to compare L2. The next use is again comparing greengrey to ‘verdegris’ then I check understanding of curly by asking for an L1 translation from the students. There then follows a joke when I say “he’s ‘guapo’ (good looking) like you”, to one of the students. I then check comprehension again by asking “que significa” what does that mean? A student asks “¿qué es eso huge?” (what’s that) – but it goes unnoticed. I then use L1 to show an incorrect us of L2 – long ‘largo’ and follow with “in Spanish es un hombre largo, es un tío alt… alto. What’s alto?” Here it used to fill a gap in L2 knowledge. Then in reply to an error “he’s got ten hundred years old” I say ‘¿tiene?’ (got) to question the error. As the exchange unfolds there is another error with ten hundred which I question in Spanish. I supply the unknown number by translating ‘diez mil’ to 10 thousand. I end the session by using L1 to set up the next activity ‘dibujar’ draw.

As can be seen in the video L1 is used in conjunction with paralinguistic cues (mime, reference to written form on board), L2 explanation and ….

Due to the freer nature of student led input it is necessary to sound a note of caution. The teacher will not have ‘meticulously’ prepared his/her materials and therefore mistakes will be made, for example, in the video, the person may very well have glasses the meaning was he wears glasses. But that’s input for another class!

At the end of the input session I ask the students to draw the person in their books this is something that I have learned from Jamie Keddie’s website teflclips.com and the video Passive Drawings. I have found this activity very useful for checking comprehension. Thanks Jammie!

Conclusion

As discussed above research has consistently proven that the L1 has a valuable role to play in the L2 classroom. In fact Nation argues that. It is foolish to arbitrarily exclude this proven and efficient means of communicating meaning. To do so would be directly parallel to saying that pictures or real objects should not be used in the L2 class (Nation 1978 cited in Nation 2003).

In this respect I would argue that if we want the best for our students then it is vital that we use all available tools to do so and not let unfounded ideology make us feel guilty.

Bibliography

Aljaafreh, A and Lantolf, J, P. (1994). Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal 78 (4) 465 – 483.

Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: A neglected resource ? English Language Teaching Journal 41 (4), 241- 247.

Bo Yin, Natalie Ruiz2,, Fang Chen, M. Asif Khawaja. (2007). Automatic Cognitive Load Detection from Speech Features
www.nicta.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/16233/ozchi07_load_speech.pdf

Brooks, F, B and Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to understanding foreign language discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania 77 (2) 262-274. Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 402–423.

Dujmovic, M. (2007). The use of Croatian in the EFL classroom. Metodicki Obzori 2(1), 91 – 100

Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research. 4 (3) 193-220

Keddie, J. Passive Drawings. www.teflclips.com/?p=293

Knight,T. (1996). Learning Vocabulary Through Shared Speaking Tasks. The Language Teacher 22(1). 24-29

Lameta-Tufuga, E. 1994. Using the Samoan Language for Academic Learning Tasks. Unpublished MA thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Asian EFL Journal On¬line, 5(2).
www.asian-efl-journal.com/june_2003_ PN.php

O'Keeffe, R. (2009). Process Teaching. Another arrow in your quiver. TESOL-Spain Newsletter 33 (1), 11-13

Piasecka, K. (1988). The bilingual teacher in the ESL classroom. In S. Nicholls & E. Hoadley-Maidment (Eds.), Current issues in teaching English as a second language to adults. London: Edward Arnold.

Prodromou, L. (2002a). From mother tongue to other tongue
www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/mother-tongue-other-tongue

Prodromou, L. (2002b). “The role of the mother tongue in the classroom”, IATEFL ISSUES: 6- 8.

Robertson, P. Ellis, R. and Nation, P. (2005) 2nd Ed. English Language Learning in the Asian Context. Tortola: Asian EFL Journal Press.

Schweers, W. Jr. (1999). Using L1 in theL2 classroom. English Teaching Forum, 37(2), 6 -9.

Scott, V. M., and De la Fuente, M. J., (2008). What is the problem? L2 learners' use of the L1 during consciousness-raising form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92 (1), p. 100-113.

Swain, Merrill and Lapkin, Sharon. (2000). Task-based second language learning: the use of the first language. Language Teaching Research. 4 (3) 251 -274

Weschler, R. (1997)Uses of Japanese (L1) in the English Classroom: Introducing the Functional-Translation Method. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. III, No. 11, November 1997
http://iteslj.org/Articles/Weschler-UsingL1.html

Please check the Train the Trainer course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the How to be a Teacher Trainer course at Pilgrims website.