Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-9
Understanding the role of the first language (L1) in instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): Effects of using a principled approach to L1 in the beginner foreign language classroom
This study investigated whether second language (L2) classroom instruction that incorporates a principled approach into the use of the first language (L1) by students and instructors has an effect on beginning learners’ development of L2 speaking and writing proficiency, compared to L2-only instruction, over the course of one semester. Participants were 54 students of Spanish enrolled in six sections of a university-level Elementary Spanish course. The six intact classes, exposed to the same task-based curriculum, were randomly assigned to two experimental groups (–L1 and +L1). For the –L1 group, instruction and interaction were conducted exclusively in the L2, whereas instruction and interaction in the +L1 group included specific uses of the L1. A pretest–posttest design was used to measure change in speaking and writing proficiency. Effects were assessed using the STAMP 4 test, a standardized measure of proficiency. Results indicated that courses under both conditions promoted improvements in speaking and writing. However, students in the +L1 condition improved significantly more than those in the control –L1 group, both in speaking and writing. This points to a potentially more important role for the L1 in the development of an L2. Pedagogical implications are discussed, and directions for further research are offered.
AmmarA.LightbownP.M.SpadaN. (2010). Awareness of L1/L2 differences: Does it matter?Language Awareness, 19, 129–146.
2.
AntónM.DiCamillaF.J. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 233–247.
3.
BrooksN.DonatoR. (1994). Language and language learning. New York: Harcourt Brace.
4.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS.G.AikenL.S. (2003) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3rd edition.New York: Routledge.
5.
CohenJ.1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition. Routledge.
6.
CookG. (2009). Use of translation in language teaching. In BakerM.SaldanhaG. (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 112–115). New York / London: Routledge.
7.
CookV. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 402–423.
8.
CookV. (ed.) (2002) Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
9.
CookV. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching. 4th edition. London: Hodder Education.
10.
CumminsJ. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 221–240.
11.
Dailey-O’CainJ.LiebscherG. (2009). Teacher and student use of the first language in foreign language classroom interaction: Functions and applications. In TurnbullM.Dailey-O’CainJ. (Eds.), Use of second language and foreign language learning (pp. 131–144). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
12.
de BotK. (2008). Introduction: Second language development as a dynamic process. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 166–178.
13.
de la CampaJ.NassajiH. (2009). The amount, purpose, and reasons for using L1 in L2 classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 742–759.
14.
de la FuenteM.J. (2015). Explicit corrective feedback and computer-based, form-focused instruction: The role of L1 in promoting awareness of L2 forms. In LeowR.CerezoL.BaraltM. (Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning (pp. 173–199). Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.
15.
DekeyserR. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 501–514.
16.
DiCamillaF.J.AntónM. (2012). Functions of L1 in the collaborative interaction of beginning and advanced second language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22, 160–188.
17.
DuffP.A.PolioC.G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom?The Modern Language Journal, 74, 154–166.
18.
EdstromA. (2006). L1 use in the L2 classroom: One teacher’s self-evaluation. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 275–292.
19.
FirthA.WagnerJ. (1997). On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 286–300.
20.
GrosjeanF. (1989). Neurolinguistics, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15
21.
GrosjeanF. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In NicolJ. (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 1–22). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
22.
HallG.CookG. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45, 271–308.
23.
HorstM.WhiteJ.BellP. (2010). First and second language knowledge in the language classroom. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14, 331–349.
24.
KernR. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in second Language Acquisition, 16, 441–461.
25.
KimS.H.ElderC. (2005). Language choices and pedagogic functions in the foreign language classroom: A cross-linguistic functional analysis of teacher talk. Language Teaching Research, 9, 355–380.
26.
KramschC.WhitesideA. (2007). Three fundamental concepts in second language acquisition and their relevance in multilingual contexts. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 907–922.
27.
KrashenS. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
28.
KupferbergI.OlshtainE. (1996). Explicit Contrastive Instruction Facilitates the Acquisition of Difficult L2 Forms. Language Awareness, 5(3–4), 149–165.
29.
LantolfJ.P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
LauferB.GirsaiN. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning: A case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics, 29, 694–716.
LeeJ.H.LevineG.S. (2018). The effects of instructor language choice on second language vocabulary learning and listening comprehension. Language Teaching Research, 24, 250–272.
33.
LevineG.S. (2014). Principles for code choice in the foreign language classroom: A focus on grammaring. Language Teaching, 47, 1–17.
34.
LittlewoodW.YuB. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44, 64–77.
35.
LongM. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 379, 259–278.
36.
LongM. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de BotK.GinsbergR.KramschC. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
37.
LongM. (1996). Authenticity and learning potential in L2 classroom discourse. In JacobsG.M. (Ed.), Language classrooms of tomorrow: Issues and responses (pp. 148–169). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
38.
MacaroE. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision-making. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 531–548.
39.
MacaroE. (2005). Reading strategies of young-beginner learners of French: An intervention study. Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics, Bristol, UK.
40.
MacaroE. (2009). Teacher codeswitching in L2 classrooms: Exploring ‘optimal use’. In TurnbullM.Dailey-O’CainJ. (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 35–49). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
41.
McManusK.MarsdenE. (2017). L1 explicit instruction can improve L2 online and offline performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 459–492.
42.
NakatsukasaK.LoewenS. (2015). A teacher’s first language use in form-focused episodes in Spanish as a foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 19, 133–149.
43.
PolioC.G.DuffP.A. (1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 313–326.
44.
ProdromouL. (2002). Prologue: The liberating role of the mother tongue. In DellerS.RinvolucriM. (Eds.), Using the mother tongue: Making the most of the learner’s language (pp. 6–8). Peaslake: Delta Publishing.
45.
Rolin-IanzitiJ.BrownlieS. (2002). Teacher use of learners’ native language in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 402–426.
46.
Rolin-IanzitiJ.VarshneyR. (2008). Students’ views regarding the use of the first language: An exploratory study in a tertiary context maximizing target language use. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 249–273.
47.
ScottV.de la FuenteM.J. (2008). What’s the problem? L2 learners’ use of the L1 during consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 100–113.
48.
SwainM. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In GassS.MaddenC. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
49.
TianL.MacaroE. (2012). Comparing the effect of teacher codeswitching with English-only explanations on the vocabulary acquisition of Chinese university students: A lexical focus-on-form study. Language Teaching Research, 16, 367–391.
50.
TogniniR.OliverR. (2012). L1 use in primary and secondary foreign language classrooms and its contribution to learning. In Alcón SolerE.M.-PSafont-Jordà. (Eds.), Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication, volume 24: Discourse and language learning across L2 instructional settings (pp. 53–78). Leiden: Brill.
51.
WestS.G.FinchJ.F.CurranP.J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-normal variables: Problems and remedies. In HoyleR.J. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
WiddowsonH.G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
ZhaoT.MacaroE. (2014). What works better for the learning of concrete and abstract words: Teachers’ L1 use or L2-only explanations?International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26, 75–98.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
