CULTURE-LANGUAGES-MEDIA
Independent Project with Specialization in English
Studies and Education
15 Credits, First Cycle
Teacher Experiences and Attitudes
Towards First Language Use in Foreign or
Second Language Teaching
Lärares Erfarenheter och Åsikter om Användningen av Modersmål i
Främmande- eller Andraspråksundervisning
Mimmi Karlberg
Jonathan Eriksson
Master of Arts in Primary Education: School Years 4-6, 240 credits
English Studies and Education 2021-01-17
Examiner: Maria Graziano Supervisor: Shaun Nolan
Abstract
This paper examines empirical studies regarding teachers’ and teacher-trainees’ perceptions toward the use of first language (L1) when teaching a second or foreign language. The presence of the students’ first language when teaching a foreign or second language has been a disputed topic in relation to different theoretical approaches. The aim of this study is to gain knowledge about this issue by answering the research question “What are teachers’ and teacher-trainees’ experiences and attitudes regarding L1 when teaching in the second or foreign language classroom?” The method used has been to review empirical studies from several different countries from the databases ERIC (Education Resource Education Center) and ERC
(Education Research Complete). The overall results reveal that the majority of the participants had positive attitudes toward the use of L1. Additionally, there was an agreement about the need for some level of exposure to the target language (TL). Furthermore, it was shown that teachers saw the first language as something unavoidable and that it should not be seen as a hindrance when it comes to learning another language. However, there are some differences with regard to when it is appropriate to use the students’ L1. Our results agree with the field of research in general and is a small contribution to the discussion of how teachers’ beliefs may have an impact on their pedagogical decisions.
Key words: experiences, attitudes, first language, second language, foreign language, teachers, teacher-trainees.
Individual Contributions
We certify that all parts in this paper have been equally contributed by both signatories. The parts include:
● Planning
● Selecting research question
● Searching for articles and deciding the outline of this paper ● Presentation of findings, discussion and conclusion
Authenticated by:
Mimmi Karlberg Jonathan Eriksson
Table Of Contents
1. Introduction………..5
2. Aim and research question………..8
3. Methods and descriptions of sources……….9
3.1 Search terms used……….……….9 3.2 Date range………...9 3.3 Inclusion criteria………...……10 3.4 Exclusion criteria………..10 3.5 Table of results………...…...10
3.5.1 Table 1: selected articles………...10
4. Results and discussion………13
4.1 Summaries of empirical studies………....……….13
4.2 Comparison and contrast based on L1 use in L2 teaching………17
4.2.1 Positive attitudes towards L1 use………...………….…....17
4.2.2 Judicious use of L1………....….18
4.2.3 Positive attitudes toward TL use…………...……….………...18 4.2.4 Experiences………...18 4.3 Discussion………....19 5. Conclusion………...22 6. References………24
1.Introduction
The use of students' first language in second or foreign language teaching is a highly discussed subject. Regarding the impact of L1 use when teaching English as a second or foreign language there are two opposing approaches, the bilingual and the monolingual (Galali & Cinkara, 2017). One approach advocates the use of L1 during L2 (second language) teaching and the other advocates avoidance of learners’ L1 (Yildiz & Yesilyurt, 2016). Ghobadi and Ghasemi (2015) present a study that highlights the benefits of L1 use in the classroom when learning L2.
Additionally, Pinter (2017) mentions the importance of not neglecting the L1 to make room for the L2.
On the contrary, Ellis (2005) states that the more exposure the students get to the language, the faster they will learn. To be able to achieve this, the teachers need to maximise the use of L2 in the classroom. The L2 needs to be the medium as well as the object of instruction. With the help of the teachers' linguistic scaffolding, students get supported in constructing their meaning in the L2. Further, linguistic feedback leads to the use of L2 in authentic communication
(Larsen-Freeman, 2000). The condition of learning a language varies depending on their age, where young language learners tend to not use the TL as much as older language learners. In many L2 classrooms, teachers often switch to the students’ L1 for discipline or classroom management, leading to missed opportunities to experience the language in real communications (Lightbown & Spada, 2013).
The Grammar-Translation method (GTM) is a method that can be used in foreign language teaching where focus lies on form rather than function. Larsen Freeman (2000) presents the principles that are used in this method where the fundamental purpose is to be able to read literature written in the foreign language. Students are taught to translate from one language to another, and learn grammar rules in isolation by memorizing native-language equivalents for vocabulary words in the TL. The language used in the classroom is the students’ L1 where emphasis lies on vocabulary, grammar and the ability to read and write. An opposing method which emphasizes TL use is the direct method that according to Larsen Freeman (2000) has one essential rule: no translation allowed. In addition, students should learn to think in the TL in order to communicate successfully. Rather than memorizing words, vocabulary is learned by using it in sentences, and grammar should be taught inductively. The language used in the
classroom is the TL and every lesson should contain an activity where the students get the opportunity to practise their TL in a real context. The teacher should use realia, pictures or other visual support instead of using the students’ L1 when teaching. Stephen Krashen’s theory about successful second language acquisition argues from a perspective that lays focus on TL. Students acquire a language by exposure to a language that is both understandable and meaningful to them. Through “comprehensible input” where focus lies on meaning, students subsequently acquire form. The most valuable input for acquisition is to be exposed to a language that is just above the students’ current level of competence (Taylor Tricomi, 1986).
The tension between form and function can be seen in communicative language teaching (CLT), which is an umbrella term where the focus on function does not mean that form is neglected (Lundahl, 2014). The main focus in CLT lies on creating meaning-focused communicative tasks, where students are involved in realistic communication. Larsen-Freeman (2000) explains that a judicious use of the students L1 is permitted in CLT. It can be used to initiate a sense of security, using it to provide a bridge from the familiar to the unfamiliar. However, the TL should be used whenever possible, for example when explaining activities and in assigning homework as well as in communicative activities.
In the Swedish National Curriculum (Skolverket, 2018) the aim of English as a subject is for the pupils to get the opportunity to develop all-round communicative skills. Although the curriculum decides the core content and sets the goals to achieve, it is based on the idea that the
methodology should not be determined (Lundahl, 2014). Regarding whether to use the students L1 or the English language when teaching English is up for interpretation. However, there are elements that would benefit from L2 teaching in the classroom. For example, being able to use “language strategies to understand and make oneself understood when language skills are lacking, such as through reformulations” (Skolverket, 2018, p. 34). The author further indicates that the syllabus has clear implications for CLT in years 4-6, and accounts for several reasons why English should be used as much as possible. Firstly, when the teaching is in English the students get greater exposure to the TL which encourages them to use English in the classroom in a real time context and develop communication strategies. Secondly, not all students have Swedish as their first language and teaching in a perspective based on Swedish is often not meaningful to those students. Thirdly, there are no requirements for translating or interpreting between English or Swedish set by the syllabus for English.
During our internship in two Swedish primary schools in years 4-6, we made the observation that teachers often tended to switch to the students’ L1. This was not only limited to discipline or classroom management, but in instructions as well as in informal conversations, further depriving pupils of opportunities for natural exposure to the TL. The School Inspectorate (2011) showed in a survey on learning and teaching English that Swedish students are estimated to learn about 50 percent of their English language in school. The rest comes from a variety of sources in their spare time, such as TV, movies and music, but also computer games and through the internet. This contributes to the understanding that exposure to the TL is essential for learning in the communicative English classroom. In almost half of the observed lessons, however, the Swedish Schools Inspectorate estimates that activities that develop communicative ability should have existed to a greater extent. Additionally, they noted individual lessons where neither teacher nor students said a word in English although they state that the most common was a mix of Swedish and English. Only one in five lessons were estimated to have enough communicative activities despite the teachers’ knowledge of how important the communicative capacity is.
Both the terms ESL (English as a second language) and EFL (English as a foreign language) are used regarding language learning. EFL means that the language does not have a status as an official language in the country, yet it is taught as a subject in school. ESL on the other hand is used when English is seen as one of the official languages spoken in the country (Nayar, 1997). Although English does not have an official status in Sweden, the proficiency level in Sweden is ranked high according to Education First organization (EF, 2020) which might contribute to defining English as a second language in Sweden.
As two teacher trainees, our perspectives on L1 use in L2 teaching in Swedish schools has led us to question the theories concerning the amount of TL exposure in the classroom. This has led to a contradiction between our observations and experiences when it comes to L1 use when teaching in the second or foreign language classroom.
2. Aim and Research Questions
The aim of the present paper is to examine teachers’ and teacher-trainees’ attitudes towards the use of L1 in the classroom. In addition to that, their experiences of teaching a second language by using L1 will be taken into account. Conflicted views on this matter have led to a question on how different the theoretical versus the practical use of L1 is discussed by teachers and
researchers on the subject. The purpose is to discuss the following research question:
“What are teachers’ and teacher-trainees’ experiences and attitudes regarding L1 when teaching in the second or foreign language classroom?”
The first aspect of this discussion will be based on the attitudes of teachers regarding the use of L1 when teaching English as a second or foreign language. The second aspect will focus on their own experiences in the classroom.
3. Methods and Descriptions of Sources
The method used in this research has been to search for articles and studies through different databases. We have used keywords in our research question to find relevant and accurate studies. The databases used to locate empirical studies have been ERIC (Education Resource Education Center) and ERC (Education Research Complete) which we accessed through the MAU (Malmö University) library database.
3.1 Search Terms Used
The search terms first used were “L1 use” and “L2 teaching” in the database ERIC where we got 17 hits. As a result of only choosing to include studies that have been peer-reviewed, it resulted in 15 hits. After reading the abstracts in relation to our research question we ended up with one article relevant to our study. We used “L2 learning in L1” together with “obstacles or barriers or challenges or difficulties or issues or problems”. This led us to 35 articles where we decided that one was of use. We continued with the first search term, but entered it together with “benefits or advantages or positive effects or importance or impact” but did not find any articles suitable. Due to the need of more accurate articles, we changed our search term to “target language use” which resulted in more relevant results. We narrowed the search down by combining it with “L1 use” where two articles were related to our research question. To extend our search we used the same search in ERC to see if it resulted in any other articles than those we found in ERIC. After comparing the results, we found two new articles relevant to our research question. The need to be more specific in relation to our research question led us to use “L1 use” and “L2 teaching” together with “teacher or teacher trainees” and “attitudes or experiences” in both ERIC and ERC. They gave us different results and we ended up with one article from ERIC and two articles from ERC. This resulted in a total of nine empirical studies that were useful to address our research question.
3.2 Date Range
The search was limited to the years 2000-2020, as an active choice to use more recently
published articles, which we continued with throughout the rest of our searches. The reason was that we wanted to have an updated view of how L1 is used when teaching a L2 and the role that the social context plays in our school system nowadays.
3.3 Inclusion Criteria
The choice to only include peer-reviewed articles gives this study a reliability with valid empirical data. We started our search with a focus exclusively on the primary school level. However, we could not find sufficient empirical studies to answer our research question in relation to our own teaching age which is years 4-6. Therefore, we widened our focus and chose to include studies from primary to university level to see if L1 use was reoccurring at different education levels, independent of the students' age. The studies investigating higher-level education teachers were conducted in Turkey and China which according to Education First (2020) are rated from moderate to low English proficiency. Because of Sweden being ranked as very high it is arguable to say that results from higher language level studies are relevant in order to address our research question. In addition, our purpose is to examine teachers’ attitudes toward L1 use regardless of students’ age which makes it possible to consider the results in the context of primary English teaching in Sweden. Both of the articles regarding teacher trainees focus on the participants being prospective teachers in general rather than specifying their future teaching level. Finally, analysis of the chosen articles indicated differences in approach to the use of L1 in the language classroom according to age, level of education and level of student knowledge which are relevant to our research question.
3.4 Exclusion Criteria
The first decision we made was to exclude all articles focused on the learners’ point of view and instead only focus on articles from teachers’ or teacher-trainees’ point of view. The reason for this was to make sure that the findings could be resourceful to answer our research question. We have made a choice to exclude some articles that were primarily focused on specific areas such as grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary and instructions. Our focus has been to review articles focused on the use of a single L1 in L2 teaching. Therefore we have excluded articles that were focused on multiple L1’s in the classroom.
3.5 Table of Results
In the table below our nine articles are displayed in order of teaching context, from teacher trainees to university level teachers. The author(s) of the articles are presented, as well as the country of origin, number of participants, teaching context and keywords of the article.
Name of author(s), year
Country of origin
Participants Teaching context Keywords of the article Yıldız & Yeşilyurt,
(2016)
Turkey n=374 Teacher trainees L1 use, L2 use, L2 class, teaching English Wach, A. & Monroy, F, (2020) Poland & Spain. n=206
Teacher trainees Beliefs, EFL, L1, L2, learners’ native language, Polish, Spanish, teacher trainees
Taşçı S. & Aksu,
Ataç, B, (2020)
Turkey n=3 Teachers at primary
level Language teaching, first language, foeign language, perception Crawford, J, (2004) Australia. n=581 Teachers at primary
and secondary level
Foreign Countries, English (Second Language), Language Acquisition, Language of Instruction McMillan, B. A. & Rivers, D. J, (2011) Japan n=29 Teachers at university level Communicative language teaching; First language use; Language policy; Learner autonomy; Teacher attitudes; Teacher autonomy; Teacher beliefs Ekmekçi, E, (2018) Turkey n=20 Teachers at tertiary level
L1 use, foreign language classes, target
language-only policy Inal & Turhanlı,
(2019)
Turkey n=18 Teachers at
university level
L1 use, English language, teachers, attitude,
purpose Song, Y, (2009)
China. n=61 Teachers at
university level Second language acquisition; Foreign language education in universities & colleges; Teacher attitudes; Curriculum; Educational standards; Educational
programs; Instructional systems; Education research; China Oguro, S, (2011) Australia. n=27 Teachers at
university level
Language policy; Universities & colleges; Classroom environment; Communication;
Outcome-based education; Teachers; Australia
4. Results and Discussion
In this section we will start by presenting our findings regarding teacher’ and teacher-trainees’ attitudes and experiences in second or foreign language teaching. We have encountered articles that had some differences in their findings and they are summarized below. They will, in the second part, be discussed in relation to theory and previous findings, the National Curriculum, the communicative English classroom, and whether they support or work in opposition to claims in teaching training programs.
4.1 Summaries of Empirical Studies
In a study by Yıldız and Yeşilyurt (2016), they investigated Turkish prospective teachers' attitudes toward using their L1 while teaching English. 374 prospective teachers answered an anonymous questionnaire where the result showed that over 60 percent of the participants thought that their L1, Turkish, should be used while teaching English. The reasons were while explaining
grammatical points, explaining new words, giving instructions, checking for understanding, discussing classroom methods, giving feedback, testing and joking with the students. However, around 30 percent of the prospective teachers thought L1 should be avoided while teaching English. The reasons were: it decreases the exposure to the TL, it restricts opportunity to make practice, it blinds speaking ability, it exits as a barrier to language learning, it makes students lazy, it becomes a bad habit and it inhibits L2 acquisition. The authors concluded that this study has aligned with previous research findings regarding why L1 should be used when teaching L2 and is a contribution to this evidence although they comment that further studies need to be
conducted.
Another study that investigated prospective teachers was Wach and Monroy (2020) study where they investigated the beliefs of Polish and Spanish teacher-trainees’ use of L1 when teaching English as a foreign language. 206 participants answered an online questionnaire and the result revealed that both Polish and Spanish teacher trainees agreed on the use of L1 in the classroom when it comes to organizational matters. Regarding giving instructions, the Spanish trainees saw L1 as more useful than the Polish trainees. Furthermore, both groups agreed that using L1 lowers students’ anxiety levels towards TL use. The authors concluded that the Spanish group did not appreciate the use of L1 when helping learners to develop the TL, although they did not reject its usefulness in some aspects in language teaching. On the contrary the Polish group
indicated that they see L1 as useful in performing management, in affective functions and in didactive functions in the L2 classroom. This study was conducted as a non-random sampling of participants which prevents the result from being generalized. Additionally, the authors
recommended further study on a larger number of universities from different countries.
Taşç and Aksu Ataç’ (2020) compared teachers' experiences and thoughts on the use of L1 when teaching English in a primary school context. Three English language teachers with experiences ranging from 2-11 years were interviewed and observed. The results of the interviews showed that teachers had positive attitudes towards the use of L1 in their classroom, however they indicated that L1 should be used judiciously. The authors concluded that teachers in lower grades used L1 more often, compared to higher grades. They further concluded that teachers have the perception that the use of L1 in their classroom is necessary but yet undesired. As the classroom is the only place where students are exposed to TL, the teachers wanted to expose the students to as much TL as possible. The authors implied that the fact that the study was
conducted on only 3 EFL-teachers led to the results not being able to generalize.
A study that focused on teachers at the same teaching level as Taşç and Aksu Ataç’ was
Crawford (2004) study where she investigated teachers' views of their TL use in their own class and if they desired to use the TL as their main medium of instruction. 581 primary and
secondary teachers in Queensland, Australia, answered a questionnaire. The responses were grouped in three: the L1-dominant group, the TL-dominant group and the bilingual group. Many respondents appeared to have reservations about the desirability of TL use or even actively oppose it. The result showed that teachers that supported proficiency as an outcome in the program were more likely to support the use of TL. The data indicated that many students experienced very little interaction with their teacher in the TL. The author concluded that the teacher is an important part of real-time TL interaction and the lack of exposure to the TL will not encourage the students to use the language themselves. In the end of her study she stated that further research is needed to be able to examine why teachers choose their medium of instruction and what the appropriate ratio of L1 and TL use might be.
McMillan and River’s (2011) conducted a study regarding native English-speaking teachers' attitudes toward English-only practice at a university in Japan. The university promoted a policy where both students and teachers are expected to follow the English-only policy. An anonymous online survey with six open-ended questions were answered by 29 teachers. The result showed
that a majority of the participants were in favour of L1 use by the teacher and some teachers thought that L1 use could facilitate successful communication between students and teachers. Moreover, some teachers argued against the use of L1. The arguments where that prohibited use of the L1 would lead to more negotiation in the TL, and that L1 use could be a sign of laziness or off-task behaviour. The authors concluded that student proficiency levels and the difficulty of the task should be taken into account when using the TL. Additionally, the teachers who
participated and believed that L1 use could benefit L2 learning, were cautious toward the overuse of L1. Finally, the authors stated that many of the beliefs among teachers when it comes to judicious L1 use are supported by research.
Continuing with studies conducted on university level teachers was Ekmekçi (2018) who investigated English, French and German language teachers’ perspective towards L1 use in foreign language classes. The study was conducted on ten English, seven German, and three French language instructors in a tertiary level Turkish state university. The 20 instructors were given a questionnaire on target language-only policy with a convenience sampling type. The results showed that a majority of the instructors were usually in favour of using L1 for providing feedback and clarification, explaining grammar, announcing administrative issues, dealing with discipline problems, negotiating the syllabus, building relationships with the students, and
making distinction between L1 and L2. Furthermore, while giving written corrective feedback on learners’ compositions, while conducting pre-task activities and while teaching new words some of the instructors were opposed to using L1. The author concluded that there is no statistically significant difference among the different language instructors regarding the use of L1 in class. Additionally, he concluded that these findings can highlight the potential benefits of L1 use for teacher educators, syllabus designers, materials and language teachers.
Just as in the previous study Inal and Turhanlı (2019) studied the attitudes of university teachers working in Turkey. Although this study was focused on the use of L1 in English classes solely. Eighteen teachers participated in the study by answering a questionnaire and 11 of them were interviewed. The result of the questionnaire showed an overall slightly negative attitude towards using L1 when teaching English although the interviews showed that the general opinion among teachers about L1 was positive. Explaining difficult points, solving difficult problems, clarifying concepts, teaching grammar and teaching vocabulary were factors where using L1 was supported by the teachers in L2 learning. The authors concluded that L1 was seen as a facilitator when learning L2, although the teachers did not approve of their own use of L1 in the classroom. The
authors proposed that teachers and practitioners can use these results where L1 facilitates L2 learning and observe the effectiveness.
In a study that Song (2009) carried out, she investigated whether the monolingual approach in L2 teaching is the most appropriate when the students and the teacher have the same L1. The study was conducted through a questionnaire where 61 tertiary-level English teachers from a university in China answered. The results showed that the teachers recognized both positive and negative effects of using the students’ L1 in L2 teaching, although a majority of the participants had an almost neutral attitude towards L1 use. Both consistency and inconsistency were shown between the teachers’ stated beliefs compared to their classroom practice. This led to the author’s
assumption that teachers sometimes use L1 because of contextual restraints or other
considerations. The author concluded that because of the small range of participants and the lack of a broader inclusion of other universities in the same country the results could not be
generalized. Moreover, she stated that the complexity of the situation of L1 use in L2 teaching demonstrates the need of further investigation on a larger scale of participants.
Lastly, Oguro (2011) conducted a study on teachers at an Australian university regarding their language choices when communicating with their beginner-level students from six different language programs. 20 out of 27 teachers answered an anonymous online-questionnaire, and the remaining seven teachers took part in semi-structured interviews. Overall, the findings revealed that many of the teachers reported their concern with regards to their students’ emotional state including the use of TL in the classroom in relation to students’ reactions. Another finding was that teachers addressed the need to be aware of individual differences within the group of students regarding their reactions to the use of TL in the classroom. Finally, the teachers varied in how they responded in their classroom practice despite their feelings toward their students’ emotional state. The author concluded that this study has shed light on one example of how L1 can be used as a valuable tool. Which was to pay attention to the anxiety that students perceive when using the TL to create an atmosphere where the TL is used more extensively. Additionally, there is a need for further investigation when it comes to teachers’ attitudes and practices in different teaching contexts regarding the viability of the strategy.
4.2 Comparison and Contrast Based on L1 Use in L2 Teaching
4.2.1 Positive Attitudes Toward L1 Use
A majority of the studies found that teachers and teacher trainees had positive attitudes toward L1 use when teaching a foreign language. Mcmillan and Rivers’ (2011), Yıldız and Yeşilyurts’ (2016) and Taşçı and Aksu Ataçs’ (2020) results showed that more than half of the participants in their studies were in favour of using L1 when teaching a foreign language. However, the fact that the studies are done in relatively small scales has to be taken into consideration and
contributes to the difficulty of generalizing the results. In addition to these authors, Wach and Monroy (2020), Oguro, (2011) and Ekmekçi (2018) presented results where the participants to some extent perceived L1 to be beneficial. For example, when dealing with organizational or administrative matters, explaining or providing grammar rules and establishing relationships with the students. Although the results of Inal and Turhanlı (2019) study showed an overall slightly negative attitude toward L1 use, the majority of the teachers interviewed expressed a positive attitude. They support L1 use when solving difficult problems, teaching grammar and
vocabulary, clarifying concepts and explaining difficult points. This shows that in view of previously mentioned authors, factors where L1 is supported by teacher and teacher trainees are comparatively equivalent. Additionally, Crawford (2004) showed results where the participating teachers revealed their reservations toward the desirability of using TL as their main medium of instruction. This was most certain among teachers in the primary program and the desire to use the TL increased the older the students got.
Regarding attitudes toward students’ anxiety in the classroom while learning a second or foreign language both Wach and Monroy (2020), and Oguro (2011) showed consistency in their findings. They presented that teachers were concerned regarding the students' emotional state toward using the TL in the classroom and indicated that the use of L1 or switching between L1 and L2 can reduce students’ anxiety level. Moreover, Oguro (2020) reported that students who come from monolingual backgrounds where the majority of the people have the same native language tend to feel more anxious about using the TL in the classroom. Compared to people who come from bi-or multilingual countries with different native languages. Additionally, Inal and Turhanlı (2019) revealed that 27 percent of the teachers that participated in their study expressed concerns regarding the students’ being psychologically detrimental if they were exclusively exposed to English.
4.2.2 Judicious Use of L1
Taşç and Aksu Ataç’ (2020) revealed that all three teachers interviewed were positive regarding the use of L1 when teaching a foreign language although they commented that the use of L1 should be judicious. This is in line with what Ekmekçi (2018) presented in his study on 20 teachers where the result showed that when providing clarification, dealing with discipline concerns and showing differences between the L1 and L2, the sensible use of L1 was in favour. Wach and Monroy (2020) presented that when providing grammar rules, affective functions and didactic functions were also seen as favorable factors. Furthermore, they indicated that when teaching lower proficiency students, teachers’ attitudes became more positive toward using their L1. This indication existed in several articles, including Taşç and Aksu Ataç’ (2020) where they showed that teachers in lower grades, in comparison to higher grades, used L1 more often. Additionally, McMillan and Rivers (2011) concluded the need to take proficiency into account when using L1.
4.2.3 Positive Attitudes Toward TL Use
All of the articles contain results that provided factors or situations where the use of L1 when teaching a foreign language were not perceived to be appropriate by some participants. For example, McMillan and Rivers (2011) accounted for maintaining an English environment to contribute to a meaningful and necessary communication atmosphere. Crawford (2004) emphasized the students’ limited exposure to the TL and showed concern toward the students not feeling encouraged to use the TL themselves. Furthermore, the author indicated that the teacher has an important role when it comes to exposing the students to the TL. By reducing the students’ opportunity to use the TL they will be deprived of the language as a means of
communication. This is in conformity with what Yıldız and Yeşilyurt (2016) claimed regarding decreased amounts of exposure to the TL. It inhibits speaking ability, it exists as a barrier to language teaching, it limits teaching in real-time and it restricts the opportunity to make practice. The authors gave additional factors, such as the use of L1 becomes a bad habit and makes the students lazy which is also seen in McMillan and Rivers (2011) results. The previous mentioned authors further claimed that using an English-only policy could be beneficial in a country where the classroom consists of multiple L1s. Using the TL as much as possible could be more efficient than having to change their focus to their students’ different L1s.
When it comes to the teachers’ and teacher trainees’ actual experiences from their own use of L1 in the classroom they reported slightly different results. For instance, the teachers that
participated in Inal and Turhanlı’s (2019) study reported that the overall opinion toward L1 use was positive although they did not approve of their own use of L1 in the classroom. However, one teacher interviewed reported that it is better to use the students L1 instead of trying to find the right word or meaning in the TL, because it takes a lot of time. Additionally, one teacher reported that the students felt pressured when she used the TL to get their attention. This is in line with what Oguro (2011) reported from her study where findings showed that despite the teachers' concern of the students' affective state towards their teachers' use of TL, they varied how they responded in their actual classroom practice. Several teachers reported that they discuss the grounds for using the TL with their students to unease anxiety while others did not. Further Song (2009) has reported that the teachers stated beliefs compared to their classroom practice showed both consistency and inconsistency. He concluded that teachers sometimes use L1 because of contextual restraints or other considerations.
4.3 Discussion
Amongst our findings, we have identified teachers’ and teacher trainees’ attitudes toward L1 use in L2 teaching that advocate the students' amount of exposure to the TL as a beneficial factor. This aligns with Stephen Krashen’s theory concerning meaningful TL exposure as a way of acquiring a language (Harmer, 2001). Whether the amount of exposure to the TL leads to faster learning could not be established. However, Ellis (2005) indicated that teachers need to maximise their use of the TL in the classroom to achieve language acquisition. This aligns with Crawford’s (2004) indication about the teacher being an important part of real-time TL interaction.
Therefore, the teacher becomes an important part of the communicative English classroom where the students are exposed to the language they are learning. Without exposure and communication in the TL, the students will be deprived of opportunities to use the language themselves which could result in no communicative desire with no communicative purpose.
One could argue that the English-only policy is a form of teaching with the direct method because of the exclusive exposure to the TL although the amount of communicative activities could vary among the lessons. Both approaches advocate absolute avoidance of translating to the L1 and sees the exposure to the TL as communicating in a meaningful context. In McMillan and Rivers’ (2011) study a teacher reported that using the English-only approach improves students'
listening and speaking ability in the TL. This is a way of preparing the students to use the TL communicatively which is the sole goal of the direct method (Larsen Freeman, 2000).
The majority of the findings shows that both teachers and teacher trainees believe that the use of L1 should in some way be present in the classroom while teaching a second or foreign language. This aligns with previous findings such as in the Ghobadi and Ghasemi (2015) article where they present a study that highlights the use of L1. With regard to when it is appropriate to use the students’ L1, Lightbown and Spada (2013) state that teachers often use learners’ L1 for
disciplinary actions or classroom management. This was also shown in the result of the empirical studies, where Yıldız and Yeşilyurt (2016) concluded that a reason for using L1 was when
discussing classroom methods. Inal and Turkhanli (2019) found that it was for solving difficult problems and Taşç and Aksu Ataç (2020) established that it was for managing the classroom and drawing attention.
Regarding GTM, none of the studies showed results where focus lies on form exclusively although several of the authors conclude that teachers believe the L1 to be useful when
providing and explaining grammar rules, teaching vocabulary and clarifying difficult issues (Wach and Monroy 2020, Oguro, 2011, Ekmekçi 2018 & Inal and Turhanlı, 2019). This could be an indication that focus is on form and learning words, sentences and structures separately before using them in a meaningful context.
The fact that the Swedish National Curriculum does not determine how the core content should be taught opens up for interpretation. In line with what Lundahl (2014) indicates regarding as much English as possible during English lessons, one could draw the conclusion that there are parts of the core content that would be beneficial to teach in the TL. Several examples that indicate the necessity of using the TL is regarding the core content of listening and reading: “Clearly spoken English and texts from various media”, “Different types of conversations, dialogues and interviews” and “Strategies to understand key words and context in spoken language and texts, for example, by adapting listening and reading to the form and content of communications” (Skolverket, 2018, p. 33). All these areas are in relation to exposure to the TL which can be supported by what Yıldız and Yeşilyurt (2016) report about the use of L1 leading to the decreased amount of exposure to TL.
The findings we discovered layed little focus on whether the teacher and teacher-trainees teach through a communicative approach, however we could draw some conclusions from the results. McMillan and Rivers (2011) indicated that teachers using L1 could lead to the students using their L1 more often instead of aiming for meaningful communication in the TL. Results shown from Yildiz and Yeşilyurt (2016) study announced that using the L1 as a communicative tool would reduce the learners’ exposure to the TL, restrict the learners’ opportunity to use the TL in real-time communication and blind speaking ability. These are all components that should be included in CLT. The judicious use of L1 in the communicative language classroom is
considered acceptable according to Larsen Freeman (2000) and is shown in the majority of the articles as well. For example, Ekmekçi’s (2018) study showed that the teachers thought using L1 when explaining grammar, providing feedback and clarification, building relations with the students and showing differences between the L1 and the TL was favourable. Song (2009) indicated that explaining difficult points, solving problems, clarifying concepts and teaching grammar and vocabulary were factors supported by the teachers participating in her study. These findings advocate the controlled and regulated use of L1 when teaching a second or foreign language. However, some studies showed when it is favourable to use L1 and when not to use it. The overall result showed that L1 should be used in the classroom. In a way, this works in opposition of our studies in the teacher training program where focus has been on the
communicative English classroom with exclusively TL use. The use of L1 was supported by Song (2009) who suggested that the monolingual approach, as advocated by major theories as the primary example on how language teaching should be carried out, might be wrong. It has been observed by a teacher interviewee (referred to in Harmer, 2007), that school inspectors might consider teachers as bad teachers for using their L1 in second language teaching. This view on language teaching is potentially impractical for many teachers in an everyday teaching setting. Ultimately, teachers have a tough job interpreting the learning goals that are set for them, taking students’ proficiency level into account when teaching a second or foreign language. There is a responsibility for the teacher to use L1, and get the ratio and balance right, so that the students are engaging actively in the L2 and can obtain the ultimate learning goals.
5. Conclusion
These results found are a part of a larger, not yet sufficiently researched area and is a subject that requires further empirical data analyses. What we can establish is that there is still a conflicted matter among teachers regarding whether to use or not to use L1 in the classroom when teaching a second or foreign language. However, most of the teachers and teacher trainees advocate that L1 should be present in some way. The use of students’ L1 was seen as a facilitator when establishing relationships between teachers and students, when managing the classroom and when explaining grammatical points. It was revealed that teachers tend to use more L1 when teaching younger students or lower proficiency level students. As their students’ language use advances, L1 is used less. Overall, all articles agreed on the need of some level of exposure to the TL. Based on found research, the use of L1 when teaching a second or foreign language is not in line with the approach that is advocated for in the teacher programs in Sweden. The program supports a teaching view where the second- or foreign language should be taught exclusively in the TL, with a minimal use of the L1 while the research-results revealed that teachers see L1 as unavoidable and can be used as a facilitator. The results are relevant for language teaching in primary school in Sweden because disregarding the students' age all teachers in the empirical studies experienced the same dilemma, which is, if students’ L1 should be avoided or not. In the Swedish language classroom, teachers of English have a great responsibility to be constantly observant of their use of L1 and L2. They have to get the balance right in their usage between the two languages in the classroom in order to address the learning outcomes.
A limitation for our study is that some of the findings are aimed towards teachers at a secondary or university level while our focus is within a primary level context. Another limitation is that the articles used for this review are not limited to the English language. Additionally, the number of articles used for this research makes it difficult to generalize the results due to the need of further research.
To contribute to the existing research on this area and get insight into how this subject-matter is perceived in English language teaching in Sweden, we could conduct an empirical investigation in our coming degree project. The aim would be to investigate teachers’ and/or teacher-trainees’ perceptions of L1 when teaching English as a second or foreign language in year 4-6 in Sweden.
The method could be a questionnaire conducted on teachers in year 4-6 in two Swedish primary schools, complemented with semi-structured interviews.
6. References
Burns, A., & Richards, C.J (2018). The Cambridge guide to learning English as a second language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crawford, J. (2004). Language choices in the foreign language classroom: Target language or the learners first language. RELC Journal, 35(1), 5-20. 10.1177/003368820403500103
Education First (28 December 2020). English Proficiency Index. Retrieved from
https://www.ef.com/wwen/epi/
Ekmekçi, E. (2018). Target versus native language use in foreign language classes: Perspectives of
students and instructors. International Education Studies, 11(5), 74-84. 10.5539/ies.v11n5p74 Galali, A., & Cinkara, E. (2017). The use of L1 in English as a foreign language classes: Insights
from Iraqi tertiary level students. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(5), 54-64.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.5p.54
Ghobadi, M., & Ghasemi, H. (2015). Promises and obstacles of L1 use in language classrooms: A state-of-the-art-review. English Language Teaching, 8(11), 245-254.
10.5539/elt.v8n11p245
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. (3rd ed., completely rev. and updated). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. (4th ed). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Inal, S., & Turhanlı, I. (2019). Teachers’ opinions on the use of L1 in EFL classes. Journal of
Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(3), 861- 875. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.631526 Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lightbown, M.P., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned. (4th ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lundahl, B. (2014). Texts, topics and tasks: Teaching English in years 4-6. Lund: Studentlitteratur. McMillan, B. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2011). The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward “English
Only”. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 39 (2), 251-263. 10.1016/j.system.2011.04.011
Nayar, P.B. (1997). ESL/EFL dichotomy today: Language politics or pragmatics? TESOL
Quarterly, 31(1), 9-37. https://doi-org.proxy.mau.se/10.2307/3587973
Oguro, S. (2011). Using the target language in beginner-level classrooms: The influence of learners’ affective state on teachers’ practice. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 6, 1-19. Pinter, A. (2017). Teaching young language learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skolinspektionen (2011). Engelska i grundskolans årskurser 6-9. Kvalitetsgranskning rapport 2011:7. Skolverket (2018). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and the recreation centre 2011:
revised 2018. Stockholm: Skolverket.
Song, Y. (2009). An investigation into L2 teacher beliefs about L1 in China. Prospect, (Adelaide, 2000-2009), 24(1), 30-39. Adelaide Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Taşçı S., & Aksu, Ataç, B. (2020). L1 use in L2 teaching: The amount, functions, and perception
towards the use of L1 in Turkish primary school context. International Online Journal of
Education and Teaching, 7(2), 655-667.
https://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/816
Taylor, Tricomi, E. (1986). Krashen’s second-language acquisition theory and the teaching of edited American English. Journal of Basic Writing, 5(2), 59-69.
Wach, A., & Monroy, F. (2020). Beliefs about L1 use in teaching English: A comparative study of
Polish and Spanish teacher-trainees. Language Teaching Research, 24(6), 855-873. 10.1177/1362168819830422
Yildiz, M., & Yeşilyurt, S. (2016). Use or avoid? The perceptions of prospective English
teachers in Turkey about L1 use in English classes. English Language Teaching, 10(1), 84-96. 10.5539/elt.v10n1p84
