Aston University

Aston University : BAAL Learning and Teaching SIG Annual Conference Theorising Practice and Practising Theory: developing local pedagogies in language learning and teaching Aston University 7th and 8th July 2011 Plenary speakers: B. Kamaravadiveluand Juliane House

School of Languages and Social Sciences Distance Learning Programmes: MSc TESOL/TESP/EMT/TEYL Part-time 2-5 years No residency £6950 PhD Applied Linguistics Part-time 4-6 years No residency £4750 per year (minimum 4 years)

L1 to teach L2: contradictions and complexities Fiona Copland (Georgios Neokleos) School of Languages and Social Sciences Aston University Birmingham UK

What do we think about using L1 to teach L2? Which of these statements do you agree with? • Languages should be kept separate in the learning and teaching of languages. • Teachers should aim to use as much target language in class as possible. • Teachers’ code-switching in class between the target language and L1 is a result of bad habits. • Teachers whose language competence in the target language is limited are at a disadvantage compared to those with high or native competence. • Teachers often have to follow governmental or institutional guidelines with regard to classroom target language use.

Three arguments against using L1 in class • L1 can reduce the amount of L2 (English) to which the learners are exposed (exposure to L2 has dominated discussions of second language acquisition in recent years - Carless, 2007). • L1 as a resource can reduce the amount of time students and teachers spend interacting (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991) and negotiating meaning (Willis, 1997). • Using L2 only makes it easier for a student to ‘acquire a new linguistic system’ (Jacobson and Faltis, 1990: 4).

Current thinking on using the L1 to teach L2: • L1 can be used to teach L2 when the need arises (i.e. judicious use): e.g. Eldridge (1996); Bolitho (2003); Widdowson (2003) • L1 shouldbe used to teach L2 (i.e. maximises learning): e.g. Butzkamm (2003); Macaro (2006); Brooks-Lewis (2009) • L1 and L2 may be used concurrently as bilingual pedagogy (Cummins, 2005; Arthur and Martin, 2006; Creese and Blackledge, 2010).

Where are the bilingual EFL teachers in these debates? Studies generally survey and interview studies (see Llurda, 2005). Few studies of bilingual teachers’ EFL (English as a foreign language) classrooms (though see Eldridge, 1996, and Cots and Diaz, 2005) Rare to hear the bilingual teacher’s ‘voice’ (though see Zentella, 1981 and Árva and Medgyes, 2000). Increasing number of studies of teachers in bilingual settings (such as Hong Kong, UK, Canada) but fewer in ‘EFL’ contexts.

Participants, setting, data: Participants: Four experienced bilingual teachers (Greek (Cypriot)/English), and their students (14 year olds, average 10 per class) Setting: Four classrooms in two after-school Greek-Cypriot private language schools (‘frontisteria’) Data: Classroom recordings, fieldnotes, interviews.

At the chalkface - research questions: When do these teachers use L1 to teach L2? Why do these teachers use L1 to teach L2? How do these teachers feel about this practice?

When do teachers use the L1? • logistics (organising); • explaining/revising language skills and systems; • giving instructions; • question and answer; • reprimands; • jokes; • praise; • translating; • markers; • providing hints; • giving opinions

Why do teachers use the L1 to teach L2? (complexities) Affective needs of learners (teachers 1 and 2): Teacher 1 ‘if you don’t teach them what it means in Greek, they won’t be interested in knowing the word’ Teacher 2 ‘Not translating the whole text in Greek but I think use it when you judge you should and then by asking the students. Translation helps because you cannot explain everything in a foreign language.’

Why do teachers use L1 to teach L2(complexities) Cognitive needs of learners (teachers 3 and 4): Teacher 4 ‘I think that it’s better to let them think, process the meaning in their head rather than give them the translation at once.’

Why teachers use L1 to teach L2 (complexities) Maria: Είπαμε ότι σε τούτη τη περίπτωση το if πάντα, πάντα θέλει δίπλα του το presentsimple όπου τζαι αν ένει. Είτε στην αρχή ένει είτε στο τέλος. Άρα εδώ ((*δείχνει στον πίνακα το παράδειγμα)) (.) εδώ βάλουμε μπροστά το future τζαι μετά το present. Maria: We said that in this case, if is always, always followed by present simple wherever it is placed; either at the beginning or at the end. So, here, ((points to the example written on the board))(.) Here we put future first and then present.

More complexities.. Using L1 to explain grammar (but not comparing): Teacher 4 ‘if you make them think [of a rule] in Greek, to see if it applies in Greek….it gets complicated’. Teacher 3 a ‘risky’ strategy as ‘there are not so many links’ Teacher 1 ‘comparison does not help them at all’.

Further complexities (: Teacher 4: So what do you think? Student 1: Α; T4: Why? Student 1: Ε επειδή ήταν ερώτηση τζίνη. T4: Yeah, it was a question but I’m asking why. Student 1: Γιατί εν ήταν ούτε το C ούτε το Β. T4: Well, you’ll have to find what we’re looking for. Teacher 4 : So what do you think? Student 1: Huh? T4: Why? Student 1: Because that was a question. T4: Yeah, it was a question but I’m asking why. Student 1: Because it was neither C nor B. T4: Well, you’ll have to find what we’re looking for.

Using L1 to teach L2: contradictions ‘Stated behaviour’ versus ‘actual behaviour’ (Ávra and Medgyes, 2000: 358) For three out of four teachers, stated behaviour was different to their actual behaviour.

Contradictions: actual versus stated behaviour ‘What I usually do is say it once in English and then repeat in Greek…I think it’s a good idea if it becomes a habit and they learn to talk in a similar way.’ Teacher 3: Actually most verbs are irregular γι’ αυτό πρέπει να προσέχετε. Teacher 3: Actually most verbs are irregular so you need to be careful.

‘It is not at all obvious that if there were not politically prevented from doing so, “languages” would not mix and dissolve into one another, but we understand almost nothing of such processes... Could it be that all our pedagogic methods in fact make multilingual development more difficult than it need be, simply because we bow to dominant political and ideological pressures to keep “languages” pure and separate?’ (Lemke (2002: 85), cited in Creese and Blackledge, 2010:106)

Contradictions: stated behaviour vs actual behaviour Using Greek in Question and Answer: Teacher 1 ‘I don’t use Greek, unless the questions are about grammar’ Teacher 2 ‘the amount of Greek is limited.’ Teacher 3 ‘usually teachers reply in English to the students’ questions.’

How do these teachers feel about using L1 to teach L2? ‘Surely it is something that you cannot avoid completely but….also something that you cannot do all the time. I feel that a mistake we [teachers] do in Cyprus is that, because we share the same mother tongue with the students, we think [L1 use] is a simple solution and use it constantly.’ ‘I think one should try to use it as little as possible…to try to avoid it in every possible way.’ ‘I do not think that it’s the wisest thing to do because you are teaching them a second language. … you should avoid using the mother tongue as much as you can.’

‘Guilt’ – a bilingual teacher’s prerogative? Holliday (94): BANA countries (CLT pedagogy; small classes; motivated students; focus on communication; teacher as enabler/resource; monolingual teachers; lesson delivered in target language). TESEP countries (traditional pedagogies; large classes; exam focused; focus on ‘forms’; teacher as ‘expert’; bilingual teachers; lessons traditionally delivered in L1).

Why do skilled, professional bilingual teachers feel guilty about L1 use? Dominance of the West in both pedagogical approaches and in the academy (see Holliday 1994; McKay and Bokhorst-Heng, 2008), has led to: • Marginalisation of L1 as an issue(key teaching manuals (e.g. Scrivener,2005; Ur, 2002) and even anthologies (e.g. Richards and Renandya 2002) hardly mention L1 classroom talk) • National agencies controlling teacher talk (Macaro, 2005; McKay and Bokhorst-Heng, 2008). • General perception ‘that the use of L1 is to be avoided in the FL classroom.’ (Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain, 2005:235)

What can be done?: Teacher training/education programmes Teacher training/education manuals Professional publications for teachers.

Post-modern pedagogy? Kumaravadivelu (2001) argues for a pedagogy that is: particular, practical, possible.\-

THANK YOU

Reference List • Arva, V. and Medgyes, P. 2000. ‘Native and non-native teachers in the classroom’. System, 28: 355-372 • Bolitho R. 2003. Designing textbooks for modern languages: the EFL experience. Center for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies, available at http://www.lang.ilas.ac.uk. • Brooks-Lewis, K.A. 2009. ‘Adult learners’ perceptions of the incorporation of their L1in foreign language teaching and learning’. Applied Linguistics 30/2: 216-235 • Burden, P. 2000. ‘The Use of the Students Mother Tongue in Monolingual English ‘Conversation’ Classes at Japanese Universities’.The Language Teacher Online [online], June 2000, p. 1-7. Available from: http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/2000/06/burden [Accessed 14 August 2008]. • Butzkamm, W. 2003. ‘We only learn language once. The role of the mother tongue in FL classrooms: Death of a dogma’. Language Learning Journal, Winter 2003, No. 2: 29-39 • Carless, D. 2007. ‘Student use of the mother tongue in the task-based classroom’. ELT Journal [online], p.1-8, Available from: http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/ccm090v1

Cook, V. 1997. ‘Monolingual bias in the second language acquisition research. ‘Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 34, p.35-50 • Copland F. and Neokleous G. (in press) ‘L1 to teach L2: Complexities and contradictions’. ELT Journal • Cots, J.M. and Díaz, J.M. 2005. ‘Constructing social relationships and linguistic knowledge through non-native-speaking teacher talk’ in Llurda E. (ed) Non-Native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession. New York: Springer • Creese, A. and Blackledge, A. 2010. ‘Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom: A Pedagogy for Learning and Teaching?’. Modern Language Journal 94/1, p.103-115 • Cummins, J. 2005.’A Proposal for Action: Strategies for recognising heritage language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. Modern Language Journal, 89, p. 585-592 • Eldridge J. 1996. ‘Code-switching in a Turkish secondary school’. ELT Journal 50/4, 303 – 311. • Harboard, J. 1992. ‘The use of the mother tongue in the classroom’. ELT Journal, 46/4: 350-355. • Holliday A. 1994. Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press • KumaravadiveluB. 2001. ‘Towards a Post-method Pedagogy’. TESOL Quarterly, 35/4: 537 -560

Lemke, J. 2002. ‘Language development and identity: Mulitple timescales in the social ecology of learning’. In Kramsch C. (ed) Language Acquisition and Language Socialisation. London: Continuum • Liebscher, G. and Dailey-O’Cain, J. 2005. ‘Learner Code-Switching in the Content-Based Foreign Language Journal’. The Modern Language Journal, 89/2: 234-247. • Llurda, E. (ed.). Non-Native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession. New York: Springer, p.63-84 • Macaro, E. 2005. ‘Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy’ in Llurda, E. (ed.). Non-Native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession. New York: Springer • Richards K. 2003. Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan • Widdowson H., 2003. Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Aston University