L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
1
Running Head: L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
L1 in the ELL Classroom:
The Ways and Reasons It Is—and Is Not—Used
Kelly Sutton
Vanderbilt University
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
2
Abstract
With a growing number of English Language Learners (ELLs) in school in the United States, the
educational needs of this population of students are being scrutinized. Though they are a diverse
group, all ELLs bring their native language (L1) into the classroom. Program models for ELLs
differ in their approach to incorporating students’ L1 into the classroom. This paper will first
explore the ways and reasons why L1 is, and is not, used in classrooms in four areas. The first
area, learners, discusses the challenges ELLs face within the classroom and how using their L1
can reduce their affective filter and improve academic achievement. The second area, the
learning context, analyzes the approaches different program models take toward L1 usage and
the effectiveness of these programs. The third area, curriculum and instruction, describes ways
monolingual teachers in English-only contexts can still incorporate students’ L1 into their
teaching practice. The fourth area, assessment, discusses the ways L1 might be used in
assessment through translated tests or as an accommodation to assessments. The paper then
describes and analyzes observations of L1 use conducted in three ELL classrooms. While the
three teachers permitted social uses of L1, they limited their instructional uses of L1. The paper
concludes with a section about implications for teaching, including the need for more
professional development about using students’ L1 instructionally.
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
3
Introduction
The population of school children in the United States is rapidly diversifying as the
amount of non-white students continues to increase. From 1976 to 2000, the percentage of
minorities in school rose from 24% to 40% (Garcia, 2005). Much of this increase in minority
enrollment is due to immigration. An analysis of the 2000 Census by Rong and Preissle (2009)
found that in 2000, nearly 20% of children were either foreign-born or the children of
immigrants. The majority of arriving immigrants are Spanish speakers from Mexico. Large
numbers of immigrants also come from Central America and East Asia, with smaller numbers
coming from Europe and Africa (Garcia, 2005). These English Language Learners (ELLs) in
school are a diverse group. There is a wide variation in the languages they speak, their levels of
prior schooling, and their immigration stories, or lack thereof. In previous decades, these
students were generally found in only a few states such as California, New York, New Jersey,
Illinois, and Florida. Recently, ELLs and their families have moved into the new gateway states
in the southeast. In the 1990s, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, and the Carolinas saw the
doubling and tripling of minority populations in a wave of migration that brought many nonnative English speakers to the region. The newcomers were mainly Spanish speakers, though
groups of refugees from Asia and Africa also settled in the area (Smith & Furuseth, 2006). Such
dramatic changes in the student population prompts a closer look at the educational needs and
programs serving ELLs.
The education system has the responsibility to identify ELLs and to provide schooling
that will meet their needs, both linguistic and academic. A glance at the statistics will show that
schools are not successfully doing this. In 1998, the graduation rate for Hispanic students was
only 60%, much lower than that of the national average for white students. Additionally, about
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
4
40% of Hispanic students were performing below grade level on standardized tests of academic
achievement as compared to only 27% of white students (Garcia, 2005). One of the unique
challenges ELLs face in school is the need to learn both language and content at the same time.
This extra burden necessitates that ELLs will constantly be playing “catch-up” to their
monolingual English-speaking peers who have immediate linguistic access to the academic
content presented in classrooms. This creates a situation in which many ELLs experience failure.
There are ELLs who also face the added challenges of poverty and the isolating experience of
immigration. The rates of poverty are much higher for minority students than white students, and
this financial situation places extra strain on children and their families. Immigrant children are
more likely to live in poverty than other children; in 2000, one in four immigrant children lived
below the poverty line (Rong & Preissle, 2009). These obstacles present compelling reasons why
ELLs need supportive services and time to learn the English language and academic content.
The length of time it takes an ELL to acquire proficiency in English varies at an
individual level, though there are general trends. Several factors influence how rapidly students
learn English, such as age, length of residence within the United States, and prior schooling. The
average length of time for students to acquire English proficiency is two years for social
language and upwards of five or seven years for academic language (Baker, 2001). While
students may gain proficiency with social language relatively quickly, most still require school
support to achieve proficiency with the academic language that is necessary for school success.
The type of program in which ELLs should receive their education has been a hotly
debated topic. The main area of contention in the debate involves how, if, and why the students’
L1 should be used. Program models for ELLs fall along a spectrum from those that educate only
through English to those that use the students’ L1 for instruction. This debate reached a peak
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
5
over a decade ago when California, a state serving one of the largest ELL populations in the
country, passed a law that effectively rid the state of its bilingual education programs. Students
instead are served with a one-year transitional program, after which they are expected to succeed
in English-only classrooms. Arizona and Massachusetts soon followed by passing their own
English-only measures; however, Colorado and Oregon recently voted against similar laws
(Garcia, 2005). Proponents of the measures passed in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts
back their vote with the faulty belief that students will learn the language more quickly if they
are fully immersed in English-only contexts.
The perspective of these voters and policymakers is one in which language is seen as a
problem. It is a commonly held view of language, especially of minority languages. People who
think of language as a problem tend to view it as a barrier to assimilation, social integration, and
personal success (Baker, 2001). There are other ways to view language. Rejecting this deficit
view, language can instead be seen as a resource. All children bring to school their background
knowledge and prior experiences, and for ELLs this rich resource base includes their L1. Within
the classroom setting, educators should perceive their students’ L1 as a resource to be used to
promote English proficiency, self-esteem, motivation, and academic success. This paper will
examine the ways and reasons L1 is, and often times is not, used in classrooms in the four areas
of learners, the learning context, curriculum and instruction, and assessment. Then, observations
of L1 usage in three Metro Nashville classrooms will be discussed to determine if and how
current teacher practices align with the research findings about L1 use. Finally, the teaching
implications raised by both the research and the conducted observations will be presented.
Professional Knowledge: The Four Areas
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
6
Learners
ELLs face different challenges than English speaking students because they are learning a
new language while also learning content knowledge. The length of time that it takes ELLs to
gain proficiency in English varies according to the individual. Cummins (2000) makes a
distinction between two kinds of language: basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS), or
social language, and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), or academic language.
On average, ELLs take approximately two years to learn social English and five or more years to
learn academic language (Cummins, 2000). Social language is the type of language that students
use in conversations, and academic language is more closely related to academic achievement.
BICS is acquired first because conversational language includes social cues, and speakers need
less language knowledge to function socially. CALP involves reduced context and more complex
language structures, which makes it more complicated to master (Garcia, 2005). While educators
often think ELLs are fully proficient in English once they have acquired social language,
students will not succeed in the classroom with social language alone. Academic language is a
necessity for school success. Beyond conversational skills, the academic language of school
comes from the content within the curriculum, and it demands that students use language to
compare and contrast, summarize, debate, and defend positions among other functions (Gottlieb,
2006). Learners will likely acquire social English through exposure and social interaction;
however, academic English requires explicit instruction and practice. Being able to use their L1
is a way for ELLs to enter the content and gain proficiency with academic English; the specific
ways teachers can use L1 to do this is discussed in later sections.
Being placed in a new environment in which an unknown language is spoken can be
daunting for most students. And for recent immigrants, the culture shock can produce even more
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
7
anxiety and fear. In such an environment, many ELLs feel insecure and inadequate. These
negative feeling can raise their affective filters, thus making students less receptive to learning
(Auerbach, 1993). ELLs may feel linguistically and socially isolated from their peers, which also
increases their sense of frustration and may contribute to a lack of success (Diaz-Rico & Weed,
2010; Garcia, 2005). Teachers must find strategies to reduce their students’ anxiety, frustration,
and feelings of isolation. The use of the students’ L1 is one way to do this. Being allowed to
communicate in their L1 promotes a sense of security and motivation for students to participate,
especially when students can use their L1 to form friendships and make connections (Lucas &
Katz, 1994). Use of L1 may also contribute to positive self-images for ELLs since language is a
critical piece of identity for students (Gutierrez, 2002; Garcia, 2005). This can create an internal
conflict in students because many immigrants feel pressured to lose their L1 in favor of English.
By allowing students to use their L1 in the classroom, teachers send the message that the
students themselves, as well as their language and culture, are valued and respected in school.
This affirmation contributes to the formation of a positive self-concept for students.
In addition to being a critical part of the students’ affective domain, using L1 also has
cognitive and academic benefits for ELLs. When students are allowed to maintain or further
develop their language skills in their L1 while acquiring English proficiency, they are on the road
to becoming bilingual. Bilinguals tend to perform better on tasks of cognitive flexibility,
categorization, discrimination, creativity, and metalinguistic awareness (Garcia, 2005). All
students benefit greatly from mastering these cognitive skills. ELLs can also use their L1 to aid
their academic achievement. Language in the form of private speech is one way that learners
control and regulate their own mental activity. Anton and DiCamilla (1998) found that students
used their L1 as externalized private speech in order to regulate their learning during a group
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
8
activity. Their use of L1 helped the learners remain on task and complete their assignment. ELLs
of all ages can be encouraged to self-regulate and self-monitor in the same way.
Because their life experiences are so vastly different, ELLs come into the classroom with
varying amounts of formal education. Some students have had years of high-quality education in
their L1, while other students have never been to a school before. Prior schooling and L1 literacy
are two key predictors of academic success for ELLs (Thomas & Collier, 1996; Perez & TorresGuzman, 2002). Those with prior schooling in their country of origin bring L1 literacy skills that
can aid in their acquisition of English because literacy skills can transfer from one language to
another. What is learned in one language can be transferred to the new language without the need
to relearn the entire concept again. Several literacy concepts have been shown to transfer across
languages, including: concepts of print, directionality, the idea that print carries meaning,
sequencing, using semantic and visual cueing systems, and reading strategies (Diaz-Rico &
Weed, 2010). This is why ELLs with L1 literacy tend to develop English literacy skills faster
than ELLs who have no L1 literacy. In order to help ELLs develop proficiency with English
literacy, they need to be allowed to access their background knowledge about their L1 literacy.
Learning Context
There are a variety of settings in which ELLs are educated; one of the key differences
distinguishing these program models is their varying levels of acceptance and incorporation of
students’ L1 into instruction. While there are many different program models, the majority of
ELLs are served in only a few contexts in the United States. A 1993 national survey of the
school districts serving most of the nation’s ELLs found that 93% reported using English as the
main language of instruction, and 30% reported using no L1 (Garcia, 2005). The effectiveness of
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
9
the various program models in teaching students a second language and academic content has
been documented, with positive results shown in programs that use the students’ L1 for longer
amounts of time. Below the program models will be discussed beginning with those that have the
most restrictive policies regarding the use of L1 and moving towards those with more inclusive
language policies.
Two program models that do not use L1 are submersion and immersion. Submersion is
often called the “sink-or-swim” approach to teaching ELLs because no additional supports are
offered to the students while they try to learn English and academic content. In this type of
classroom, ELLs are placed with mostly monolingual English peers and teachers (Baker, 2001).
This model is illegal in the United States because the 1974 Supreme Court decision in Lau v.
Nichols decreed that ELLs were to be given support beyond just the same instruction in the same
curriculum native speakers receive (Garcia, 2005). Submersion is one of the subtractive program
models; the students are expected to replace their L1 with English. Immersion is similar to
submersion in the sense that instruction is always in L2, and the students are expected to only use
the L2. However, unlike submersion where the students often speak a minority language and
have no choice in their type of education, immersion models used in Canada and Europe are
populated by students who speak a prestige language at home and are voluntarily choosing this
type of education (Baker, 2001). Since the students already speak one majority language, they
are not expected to lose their L1 in favor of the L2. Immersion is thus an additive experience
because the goal is bilingualism for the students. While immersion students in Canada perform at
levels beneath their monolingual peers at first, they usually catch up and perform at similar levels
within a short time period (Baker, 2001). Submersion and immersion are both L2-only program
models, but they differ in crucial ways that make the classroom environment and language-
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
10
learning experience different. Immersion students are surrounded by people who speak their
language, and they have the affirmation of speaking a valued language. Submersion students
instead receive the message that their language is not respectable and should be replaced.
Sheltered instruction is a program model that is used widely in the United States. In this
program, all the students in the classroom are ELLs, but they may each speak a different L1.
Sheltered instruction is a way to provide additional linguistic support for ELLs in places where
the students speak several languages and there are few bilingual teachers (Lucas & Katz, 1994).
The teachers in sheltered classrooms are often monolingual English speakers, and the medium of
instruction is English. However, the teachers deliver “sheltered” instruction in which they
modify the curriculum and content in order to deliver comprehensible input (Baker, 2001;
Samway & McKeon, 2007). Input can be made comprehensible in a variety of ways, including
using visuals, graphic organizers, rewriting text, and modifying vocabulary (Echevarria, Vogt, &
Short, 2004). One of the main goals of sheltered instruction is to teach language through content
so students do not fail to gain academic knowledge while developing their English proficiency.
It is impractical to delay delivering content instruction to students until they have
mastered English because the language learning process can take many years. The students
would then miss out on years of academic content, which would only increase the frustration and
failure many ELLs experience (Lucas & Katz, 1994). Bilingual education is one program model
that seeks to deliver understandable content instruction to ELLs immediately by teaching part of
the day in the students’ L1. These classrooms can only serve one language group, and the teacher
must be bilingual. Several research studies indicate that students in bilingual education programs
have an advantage over ELLs instructed in monolingual settings. One meta-analysis documented
small to moderate benefits for bilingual education students, while the National Longitudinal
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
11
Study found that ELLs in bilingual programs gained proficiency in math and English just as
quickly as ELLs in English-only programs (Samway & Mckeon, 2007). MacSwan and Pray
(2005) found similar results; the ELLs in bilingual programs in their study reached proficiency in
English as fast as, and sometimes faster than, their peers in other environments. The students in
bilingual education programs have the benefit of immediate access to academic content taught
through their L1 while also learning English.
There are several types of bilingual education programs, and they differ in the way they
divide time between the two languages. In transitional bilingual education programs, students
begin school learning mainly in their L1. As their education progresses, more English is used for
instruction while the L1 is used less (Baker, 2001). Early-exit transitional programs end for
students around second grade, while late-exit programs finish around sixth grade. Thomas and
Collier (1996) reported that students in late-exit transitional bilingual programs were able to
continue achieving academically in secondary schools where all their instruction was in English.
This provides evidence that students who spend many years in bilingual programs do not suffer
academically when they are moved to schools in which all learning is done in English. The
National Longitudinal Study also found that late-exit students who were more likely to reach
parity with native speakers than early-exit students (Samway & Mckeon, 2007). This shows that
the length of time in the transitional bilingual program influences the students’ future academic
achievement, with gains for students who are able to remain in the programs until middle school.
One final bilingual program model is called dual immersion or two-way immersion.
These programs are similar to traditional bilingual programs because they split instruction time
between two languages. In dual immersion programs, however, the student population is equally
comprised of native speakers of both languages. In this way, all of the students in the programs
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
12
are second-language learners. The goals of dual immersion programs are bilingualism, biliteracy,
and positive cross-cultural understanding (Baker, 2001; Garcia, 2005). For students who enter
these programs in early elementary school, there is documented long-term academic success for
both the language-majority and language-minority students (Thomas & Collier, 1996). Kirk
Senesac (2002) reviewed the assessment scores of students at one dual immersion school, the
Inter-American Magnet school in Chicago, and found evidence of high achievement for all
students. The school appears to be meeting its goal of bilingualism and biliteracy because the
students scored well on assessments in both English and Spanish. Their test scores are also at or
above the state-wide average. Dual immersion schools like this one create supportive
environments in which every student is a language learner, and all students can become
proficient bilinguals.
The research on program models consistently demonstrates better student outcomes for
programs in which L1 is used instructionally for as long as possible. These outcomes include
higher academic achievement, average length of time or even faster to achieve proficiency in
English, and a greater sense of respect. Schools that support the use of students’ L1 create a
context in which students can achieve academic and linguistic success (Diaz-Rico & Weed,
2010; Cummins, 2000). If using the students’ L1 in the classroom helps meet the twin goals of
academic achievement and language proficiency, why are so few ELLs being educated in
bilingual classrooms? The reality is that there are barriers preventing access to these programs.
In some states—California, Arizona, and Massachusetts—the law prohibits most schools from
offering bilingual education. Even in places where there is no such prohibitive law, there are
other challenges. When students in the school speak dozens of different languages, creating a
bilingual classroom for each language group is impractical. In many areas there is also a dearth
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
13
of bilingual educators who can fill these teaching positions (Lucas & Katz, 1994; Freeman &
Freeman, 1993). Though it is more challenging, there are ways that monolingual teachers in
English-only contexts can incorporate their students’ L1 as a way to foster success. These
strategies are discussed below.
Curriculum & Instruction
Teachers in bilingual education settings are expected to instruct part of the day in both
languages. Thus, the school culture is one that is supportive of the classroom use of two
languages, and there is access to curriculum materials in both languages. In this context, most
teachers would find few barriers to using students’ L1. However, in schools with English-only
policies, teachers find that knowledge of the students’ L1, access to materials in other languages,
and institutional support for the use of students’ L1 is limited. This does not mean that the
students’ L1 cannot be utilized. In their classroom observations, Lucas and Katz (1994) noted
that even without institutional support, there was a lot of L1 used in the English-only classrooms
for a variety of purposes, though these teachers would not always admit it. Many teachers who
allow their students to use their L1 experience guilt about what they consider a poor teaching
decision (Auerbach, 1993). However, finding ways to incorporate the students’ L1 into
instruction can actually increase student participation, engagement, and academic and linguistic
achievement. This section will describe the ways monolingual teachers can incorporate their
students’ L1 into their instruction, including building background knowledge, finding
community resources, using published materials, making comparisons between the L1 and
English, and structuring collaborative peer work.
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
14
All students have background knowledge that can be activated to enhance their
understandings of new material. For ELLs, their background knowledge includes their L1.
Teachers can use their students’ L1 proficiency as a way to help them enter the curriculum
content (Baker, 2001). The Sheltered Instructional Observation Protocol (SIOP) model,
specifically designed for teachers of ELLs in sheltered contexts, also notes the importance of
using the students’ prior knowledge of their L1 as a way to develop schema and links to prior
learning (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004). This can be done with vocabulary development
through the use of cognates. With other concepts, students can be paired homogeneously to
brainstorm and activate their knowledge using their L1 to preview or review new material. As
discussed earlier, many ELLs have L1 literacy skills that can transfer to English (Diaz-Rico &
Weed, 2010). Rather than re-teaching these skills, teachers can activate the students’ knowledge
of these concepts in their L1, and then assist them in transferring those to the English language.
For monolingual teachers with students who speak several languages, it can be difficult to
find and use materials in other languages. In these situations, teachers can use community
resources as a way to incorporate students’ L1 into the curriculum and instruction. Many ELLs
live in communities in which their L1 is widely spoken. They are exposed to literacies in their
languages every day in their neighborhoods. These literacies include posters, signs, newspapers,
and advertisements (Perez & Torres-Guzman, 2002). Teachers can encourage students to record
or collect these community literacies for in-class activities. Students can then develop literacy
skills by sorting, analyzing, and translating these community literacies. This practice is also a
way for students to educate the class about their language and culture while building new
knowledge using the literacy practices with which they are familiar (Jimenez, Smith, & Teague,
2007). People within the community who speak the languages of the students are also valuable
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
15
resources. These guests can be invited to the classroom to discuss their language and culture, as
well as participate in building students’ literacy through reading and writing with students (Perez
& Torres-Guzman, 2002). This type of incorporation of the students’ L1 is also a way for
teachers to build rapport with students and show a validation of their language.
Teachers who do not have access to books published in other languages can create their
own with students by using the Language Experience Approach (LEA). In an LEA, the students
write a story about a shared experience. Because the students author these stories, they are more
likely to be able to read them. The teacher acts as a scribe, writing down the language of the
students (Jimenez & Gamez, 1996). With ELLs, this language may include both English and
their L1. For teachers with enough knowledge of the students’ L1, they can scribe these stories.
For languages the teachers are less familiar with, volunteers may be invited to write for the
students. The students can then practice reading these stories and developing reading fluency,
and these books should take a permanent place in the classroom library. Jimenez and Gamez
(1996) experienced some success using this approach with students in middle school who
constructed a text with several Spanish words. These students were able to write and read this
text that also demonstrated their cultural knowledge. In addition to creating books for the
classroom library, students can use their L1 knowledge to contribute to the environmental print
of the classroom. Teachers often use environmental print to develop early literacy skills, and this
can be extended to L1 literacy (Freeman & Freeman, 1993). Placing print around the room in
both languages, even simple color and number words, will draw the students’ attention to words
and build early literacy skills.
Teachers can use materials published in other languages in their classrooms. These
materials include bilingual dictionaries, story books, newspapers, magazines, songs, and posters.
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
16
Having these available for students demonstrates respect and value for their language and
culture. For some languages, there are very few commercially published materials (Freeman &
Freeman, 1993). Teachers can make their own materials with the assistance of volunteers who
speak these languages. One of the most common teacher-made materials is the translated
vocabulary list (Gutierrez, 2002). These can be useful for students with prior schooling who have
content knowledge in their L1. There are, however, some things teachers need to be cautious
about when attempting to use these items. For students without formal education in their L1, they
will not know the academic register of the content vocabulary (Khisty, 1995). Even teachers who
speak the students’ L1 conversationally may lack knowledge of content vocabulary if they have
not studied the subject in that language. In these situations, the students may be more confused
than helped by the bilingual materials.
L1 can also be used as a way to discuss grammar of the English language. Teachers can
build upon students’ knowledge of their L1 to make direct comparisons with English. This type
of analysis draws students’ attention to the forms and functions of language. Teachers can help
students discuss similarities and differences in word usage, word placement, and parts of speech
(Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2010). Using cognates to build vocabulary knowledge is another way to
compare languages. Gustein, Lipman, Hernandez, & de los Reyes (1997) describe a classroom in
which a teacher used Spanish cognates to teach a math concept. This teacher used the familiar
Spanish word scala to help his students understand the math concept of scale. Culturally
appropriate communication styles can also be shared and compared (Perez, 1993). When
teaching letter writing, the teacher can lead the class in discussions about the different ways
polite greetings are written in letters in English and Spanish or other languages. This type of
exercise allows the students to use their background knowledge of their L1 to develop and/or
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
17
transfer literacy skills. As with the use of published materials, teachers need to have some
knowledge of the students’ L1 in order to guide the students in exploring the similarities and
differences between the languages. This type of instruction may be better suited for older
students who have more of the metalinguistic knowledge that is needed to discuss language use.
One of the most common ways for teachers to plan for L1 use in the classroom is through
peer interaction. Collaborative peer work can be used with ELLs of all ages and proficiency
levels. There are several types of collaborative activities, including jigsaw, pair sharing,
cooperative projects, and peer tutoring for teachers to choose from. Collaborative work is most
successful when the students are heterogeneously grouped by ability level, given well-defined
roles to complete a structured task, have extended opportunities to participate, and are given
feedback (Perez & Torres-Guzman, 2002; Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2010). Group work has many
benefits for ELLs. In heterogeneous groups, the students have opportunities to hear and use
English, negotiate for meaning, scaffold for other group members, and access the curriculum
(Perez & Torres-Guzman, 2002; Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2010). Within these peer groups, students
who experience anxiety speaking in front of large groups may feel more comfortable talking in
small groups (Gutierrez, 2002). The structure of collaborative group work is conducive to
engagement and language practice. And since the interaction is mainly between peers,
collaborative work can be used in classrooms where students speak several different languages
with which the teacher is not familiar.
Students in collaborative groups have been documented using their L1 for various
functions while completing their task. The main functions of L1 during group work are:
scaffolding for peers, task management, providing access to L2 vocabulary, promoting and
extending discussion, checking understanding, externalizing private speech, and maintaining
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
18
group cohesion (Anton & DiCamilla, 1998; Cook, 2001; Villamil & De Guerrero, 1996; Storch
& Wigglesworth, 2003). Despite these productive uses of L1, many teachers fear their students
will become off-task if allowed to speak in their L1 in groups. In contrast, students have actually
been shown to be engaged and generally on-task during group work (Swain & Lapkin, 2000).
With thoughtful planning, teachers can implement collaborative group work that will allow their
students to use their L1 in ways that provide access to content and English-language
development.
Assessment
Assessment is an important component of education—both within the classroom and for
broader program purposes. Gottlieb (2006) identifies five reasons ELLs are assessed:
identification and placement of ELLs, progress monitoring of English language proficiency and
academic knowledge, accountability, reclassification and reassignment, and program evaluation.
For all of these purposes, ELLs are often assessed using published, standardized assessments; inclass assessments given to monitor academic progress may be either published or created by the
teacher. Tests of language proficiency necessitate administration in English in order to document
growth and proficiency with the language. Tests that measure academic growth and content-area
knowledge are most often given to ELLs in English. For ELLs with limited English proficiency,
the language of the test creates an obstacle that prevents them from displaying their true
understanding of the content. In some instances, using the students’ L1 during assessment can
reveal a more complete picture of their academic knowledge. The role of L1 in assessment can
take the form of translated test items, as an accommodation on an assessment, or as a way to
assess prior learning.
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
19
A few standardized tests that measure academic achievement have been translated into
other languages for use with ELLs. Sometimes the entire assessment is given to the students in
their L1, while other times the test items are presented in both L1 and English on the same page
(Gottlieb, 2006). The benefit of these translated assessments is that some ELLs are able to fully
demonstrate their content-area knowledge through their L1. However, not all ELLs will be more
successful on these assessments than the English versions. Translated assessments are most
useful for ELLs who have been educated in their L1 and know the academic register and
vocabulary in that language. The ELLs who do not have literacy skills in their L1 would not be
successful on these translated versions. Abedi, Hofstetter, and Lord (2004) have also raised
concerns about the validity of assessments originally designed in English that are translated into
other languages. Because certain terms and phrases cannot be directly translated, it is difficult to
ensure that the test items in both languages are measuring the same skills and addressing the
same content. Additionally, translating assessments is costly in both time and money, which is
another reason why so few are produced and administered to ELLs.
It is more common for ELLs to receive accommodations in the form of L1 help than to be
given translated assessments. Abedi, Hofstetter, and Lord (2004) have studied the types of L1
accommodations given to ELLs and the effect those accommodations have on student
performance. They found that one of the most frequently used accommodations for ELLs is
access to bilingual dictionaries during assessments measuring content-area knowledge.
Commercially published bilingual dictionaries all differ in the amount of information they
include about words and language use. This raises the concern that bilingual dictionaries may
interfere with the reliability and validity of the assessment. Bilingual dictionaries are only useful
for students with L1 literacy skills who have a good understanding of how to access information
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
20
in dictionaries. Students need to be assessed in the language in which they have been educated,
so using L1 during assessment is only beneficial for ELLs who were educated in their L1.
Teachers need to know their students’ educational history in order to determine the best way to
assess their content-area knowledge.
When trying to assess students’ prior learning and literacy levels, their L1 can be one way
to access that knowledge. As discussed previously, many literacy skills are transferrable, and an
accurate picture of students’ literacy skills is an important component of instruction for teachers.
Knowing what students can do also helps teachers view their students as capable beings instead
of viewing them only as struggling readers. Many assessments of vocabulary, reading fluency,
and reading comprehension can be found in languages other than English. Brantley (2007)
identifies several of these assessments. The Bilingual Verbal Abilities Test (BVAT) is available
in 19 languages and measures vocabulary and analogies. Several tests also measure vocabulary
through picture-naming tasks, such as the bilingual Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary
Test (EOWPVT). For older students, teachers can also administer reading inventories to assess
reading fluency and comprehension. The Flynt and Cooter reading inventory is available in
Spanish. For students who speak other languages, teachers can choose a passage or story written
in that language to use for the reading inventory. These assessments that measure literacy in the
students’ L1 do present some potential difficulties for the monolingual teacher. They require a
bilingual adult for test administration and scoring. Since having a complete understanding of
students’ literacy skills is necessary for a holistic view of their abilities, it is worth the effort to
find a staff member or volunteer who can administer these assessments.
Theory & Practice: Field Observations
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
21
Observational Context & Methods
As discussed in the previous section, research findings have shown that bilingual
education produces favorable outcomes on measures of academic achievement and English
language proficiency. For teachers of ELLs who work within a monolingual context, there are
also ways to incorporate their students’ L1 into the classroom environment, instruction, and
sometimes assessment. With this research in mind, the concept of actual teacher practice arose. I
wanted to observe teachers of ELLs to determine if and how they used their students’ L1 in the
classroom. I also wanted to determine the purposes of the L1 if it was used, or if not, the reasons
for the lack of L1.
Three classroom teachers of ELLs in the Metro Nashville area were visited over the
course of the spring semester of 2010. These teachers were chosen after being identified by
university professors and district administrators as highly competent and effective teachers of
ELLs. They were approached via e-mail, and all three agreed to allow an observer in their
classroom. During observations, notes were taken on a pre-made observational protocol
(Appendix A). At the end of the semester, the teachers answered several questions about their
use of L1 in the classroom by both in-person interviews and an emailed questionnaire (Appendix
B). The teachers were asked these follow up questions as a way to uncover their beliefs about the
role L1 should play in the ELL classroom, as well as to identify ways these teachers may have
used L1 that had not been observed. The recorded observations and teachers’ responses to the
questionnaire were then analyzed to determine how much L1 was used in these classrooms and
the purposes the L1 served.
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
22
Two of the teachers work in an elementary school with a large percentage of ELLs who
speak a variety of languages. The third teacher has a mixed-age classroom of secondary students
who are all very recent arrivals to the United States with no prior school experience. Mrs.
Anderson (all names are pseudonyms) teaches a sheltered instruction class of third graders. Mrs.
Cole teaches a fourth-grade ELL class at the same school. In both of these classrooms, there was
great diversity within the student population. More than seven languages were spoken by the
students as their L1. In these elementary classrooms, some students were new and had arrived in
the United States during the period of observations, while others were born in the country and
had attended American schools since Kindergarten. Mrs. Saunders’ students were all eleven
years of age or older; however, most of them were refugees and had no prior experience with
formal education. These students also represent several different language groups.
Approximately six hours of observations were spread over two visits each in the classrooms of
both Mrs. Anderson and Mrs. Saunders. A much larger amount of time, approximately 40 hours
during the semester, was spent observing and participating in Mrs. Cole’s class.
Description & Analysis of Observational Findings
In all three classrooms, examples of L1 usage were observed. In every instance that a
language other than English was heard, it was produced by students for other students. L1 was
frequently used in the hallway, at meal times, and during other non-instructional times. Students
were not hesitant to use social language to make each other laugh or to talk with other students
seated at tables while completing independent work. These observations are similar to what
Lucas and Katz (1994) observed when they documented ELLs using their L1 socially in Englishonly classrooms. All three teachers reported that they expected these social uses of L1, and that
their students’ L1 was a consideration when assigning seats. Mrs. Anderson described pairing
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
23
new students at a table with more English-proficient peers who spoke the same language
whenever possible. She described using this as a way to make the students’ transition to their
new environment easier. Mrs. Saunders reported that she felt it was natural and acceptable for
her students to process in their L1 and to use it for social talk at their tables. In some instances,
students were observed using their L1 as self-talk directed at regulating their own behavior.
During transition time, one student reminded himself to finish quickly and clean up in Spanish.
This is consistent with observations conducted of adult ELLs who also speak to themselves in
their L1 as a way to regulate their mental activity (Anton & DiCamilla, 1998). All three teachers
found their students’ L1 acceptable for social reasons and for community building, but they
rarely used L1 instructionally. As the teachers noted in their interviews, their students speak
several different languages which they feel creates limitations for instructional use of L1 in their
classroom.
When asked about the ways they used their students’ L1 for instruction and teaching,
Mrs. Anderson and Mrs. Saunders first mentioned the district’s policy of not using native
languages for instruction. Despite this hesitancy to admit that they use the students’ L1, two of
the teachers did go on to describe ways they use their students’ languages. Mrs. Anderson uses
the students’ L1 mainly during vocabulary development. She described using cognates, such as
the Spanish word for meat, carne, when teaching students the word “carnivore.” Mrs. Anderson
also reported asking the students to share the translations for vocabulary words in their languages
with her. She finds that her attempts to say words in other languages lowers the students’
affective filters and makes them more willing to attempt to use English words. This is similar to
what other researchers have described teachers of ELLs doing. Lucas and Katz (1994) observed
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
24
teachers using their students’ L1, even when they did not know it well, as a way to ease the
students’ anxieties and build relationships.
Mrs. Cole was the teacher who reported using her students’ L1 the most for instructional
purposes. She described regularly incorporating students’ L1 during collaborative assignments in
which she pairs students with peers who speak the same L1. She has attended training in the past
that explained the benefits collaborative group work has for ELLs as well as several types of
group structures that can be used with collaborative work. Mrs. Cole uses many of these in her
instruction, and she has found that her students generally stay on-task and discuss the material
when working in groups. She reported using collaborative group work in all the content areas.
Mrs. Cole was also observed directing a new student from Puerto Rico to write in Spanish her
first week in the class. This student had attended years of formal schooling in Puerto Rico, and
Mrs. Cole knew she had L1 literacy. The student, who had been displaying signs of anxiety
about the assignment, quickly began writing once she was given permission to use Spanish. Both
Mrs. Cole and Mrs. Anderson were also observed using L1 for instruction through peer tutoring
in which students with higher levels of English proficiency would assist students with less
English proficiency. These “helper teachers” as Mrs. Anderson calls them, explained directions
and concepts to their peers through their L1.
A few curriculum materials and other items in the classroom environments were written
in Spanish, most often bilingual dictionaries or environmental print in the form of color and
number words. The only example of written language other than Spanish or English was a
welcome poster written in several languages hanging near Mrs. Saunders’ door. Many of the
students in the two elementary classrooms were native-Spanish speakers; however,
approximately half of the students had an L1 that was not Spanish. Using L1 as environmental
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
25
print and having literature written in the students’ L1 is both a way to draw ELLs into classroom
literacy and validate their language (Auerbach, 1993; Lucas & Katz, 1994). Though it is ideal to
have materials in students’ L1 in the classroom, there are several reasons why these teachers did
not. Mrs. Anderson and Mrs. Cole noted that nearly all of their Spanish-speaking students had
attended school in the United States since Kindergarten and had no L1 literacy. Thus, these
students were not able to read stories in Spanish. Mrs. Anderson also described difficulties she
had finding materials written in many of the Asian languages her students spoke, a problem
Freeman and Freeman (1993) noted as being common. The students in Mrs. Saunders class also
had no L1 literacy due to their lack of prior schooling, and so these students would not be able to
read books published in their L1. Mrs. Saunders expressed the belief that her students could get
exposure to stories and L1 literacy development in their communities and churches. The
elementary school of Mrs. Anderson and Mrs. Cole had a policy of sending all communication
from the school office home in both English and Spanish. This again did not address the many
students at the school whose families did not speak or read Spanish or English.
Overall, the three observed teachers were accepting of their students’ social uses of L1,
and they encouraged their students to assist one another in their L1 if needed. However, the use
of L1 by the teachers did not go much beyond this surface level. One barrier preventing more
incorporation of students’ L1 seemed to be the policies and structure of the school district’s ELL
program. Two of the teachers were quick to mention in their questionnaire the district’s policy of
instruction through only English. While they allowed their students to use their L1 during social
or non-instructional times, these teachers were constrained by the policy of English-only
instruction. This is similar to the findings of a survey of ELL teachers in the United Kingdom in
schools with administrative mandates for English-only instruction who expressed guilt about
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
26
allowing students to use their L1 in class (Cook, 2001). Other obstacles for the observed teachers
include the fact that their students spoke several different languages. While some of the students
had classmates who spoke the same L1, a few students were the only speaker of their language
within the classroom. Mrs. Cole explained that in her classroom she had three students who had
no L1 peer to be paired with in class. For teachers with such diverse students, it is more
challenging to find ways to incorporate L1 into the instruction.
Limitations of Observations
The observations that were conducted do present some limitations. The sampling of
classrooms was limited, both in size and time. Perhaps if other classrooms were observed, more
active use of the students’ L1 during instruction could have been found. After the data was
collected and the school year ended, several new research questions came to light that were not
answered in the interviews and questionnaires. More in-depth interviews of the teachers could
have revealed insights into the influence their teacher education programs had on their use of
students’ L1. The interviews also failed to address the students’ feelings and perceptions about
using L1 in the classroom.
Implications for Teaching
The research and observations about L1 use for ELLs in the classroom provide some
implications for teaching. For sheltered instruction classrooms in which the students speak
several different languages and the mode of instruction is English, there are still ways teachers
can incorporate their students’ L1. Many teachers feel guilty using L1 because it goes against
program policies, and they feel it is not best practice. However, the research suggests that L1
usage has academic, linguistic, and affective benefits for ELLs. The disconnect between research
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
27
and practice implies that teachers need additional training about the role L1 can play in their
practice. Mrs. Cole describes the effect a professional development course about using L1 in
collaborative work had on her instruction. Other teachers may also be prompted to incorporate
more L1 in their classrooms through similar professional development courses or in teacher
education programs.
Above the teacher level, more work also needs to be done. District and state
policymakers need to be convinced that incorporating students’ L1 into instruction will promote,
not harm, their academic achievement and English language acquisition. Once they have, these
policymakers can create guidelines for teachers that do not forbid their use of L1 in the
classroom. They can also assist teachers in acquiring materials in their students’ L1 and locating
classroom volunteers who speak the languages of the students. Policymakers may be convinced
about the usefulness of L1 in the classroom if more research is conducted about the topic.
Though the research demonstrates positive outcomes for students who are allowed to use their
L1 in school, there is little information regarding exactly how much L1 should be used or how.
Clearer guidelines from the research would enable policymakers and teachers to structure L1 use
to maximize students’ academic and linguistic achievement.
Conclusion
This paper has explored the ways in which the L1 of ELLs is—and is not—used in the
classroom in four areas: the learners, the learning context, curriculum and instruction, and
assessment. Students’ L1 is inherently a part of bilingual classrooms; however, this does not
mean that L1 has no place in classrooms in which the medium of instruction is English. The use
of students’ L1 is a way to reduce their affective filters, validate their language, culture, and
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
28
identity, active and build upon prior knowledge, engage students in the curriculum, and assess
their academic knowledge. Despite all these functions and benefits of students’ L1 in the
classroom, many teachers either do not allow L1 in their classes or limit its use to strictly social
purposes. Teachers can be encouraged and educated about ways to incorporate their students’ L1
through professional development courses and teacher preparation programs.
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
29
References
Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C.H., & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English
language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of
Educational Research, 74(1), 1-28.
Anton, M. & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in
the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(3), 314-341.
Auerbach, E.R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly,
27(1), 9-32.
Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. (3rd ed.). Tonawanda,
NY: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Brantley, D.K. (2007). Instructional assessment of English language learners in the K-8
classroom. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 57(3), 402-423.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. UK:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Diaz-Rico, L.T. & Weed, K.Z. (2010). The crosscultural, language, and academic development
handbook: A complete K-12 reference guide. (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, E., & Short, D.J. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English
learners: The SIOP model. (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Freeman, D.E. & Freeman, Y.S. (1993). Strategies for promoting the primary languages of all
students. The Reading Teacher, 46(7), 552-558.
Garcia, E.E. (2005). Teaching and learning in two languages: Bilingualism and schooling in the
United States. New York: Teachers College Press.
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does
not—say. American Education, 8-23.
Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners: Bridges from language proficiency to
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
30
academic achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gustein, E., Lipman, P., Hernandez, P., & de los Reyes, R. (1997). Culturally relevant
mathematics teaching in a Mexican American context. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 28(6), 709-737.
Gutierrez, R. (2002). Beyond essentialism: The complexity of language teaching mathematics to
Latina/o students. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 1047-1088.
Jimenez, R.T. & Gamez, A. (1996). Literature-based cognitive strategy instruction for middle
school Latina/o students. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40(2), 84-91.
Jimenez, R.T., Smith, P.H., & Teague, B.L. (2009). Transnational and community literacies for
teachers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53, 16-26.
Khisty, L. (1995). Making inequality: Issues of language and meanings in mathematics teaching
with Hispanic students. In W. Secada, E. Fennema, & L. Adajian (Eds.), New directions
for equity in mathematics education (pp. 279-297). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Kirk Senesac, B.V. (2002). Two-way bilingual immersion: A portrait of quality schooling.
Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 85-101.
Lucas, T. & Katz, A. (1994). Reframing the debate: The roles of native languages in Englishonly programs for language minority students. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3), 537-559.
MacSwan, J. & Pray, L. (2005). Learning English bilingually: Age of onset of exposure and rate
of acquisition among English language learners in bilingual education program.
Bilingual Research Journal, 29(3), 653-678.
Perez, B. (1993). Biliteracy practices and issues in secondary schools. Peabody Journal of
Education, 69(1), 117-135.
Perez, B. & Torres-Guzman, M.E. (2002). Learning in two worlds: An integrated Spanish/
English biliteracy approach. (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Rong, X.L. & Preissle, J. (2009). Educating immigrant students in the 21st century. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
31
Samway, K.D. & McKeon, D. (2007). Myths and realities: Best practices for English language
learners. (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Smith, H.A. & Furuseth, O.J. (2006). Latinos in the new south: Transformations of place.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting?
TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 760-770.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first
language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251-274.
Thomas, W.P. & Collier, V. (1996). Language-minority student achievement and program
effectiveness. NABE News, 33-35.
Villamil, O.S. & de Guerrero, M.C.M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Socialcognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75.
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
32
Appendix A
Observation Protocol
Learners
How/where do the students use their L1?
Socially: in class, at lunch, at recess, at passing period, before class, after class
To clarify meaning
To define terms
To understand directions
To complete group work
Other
Attitudes/frequency
Hesitant to use L1
Often use L1
Never use L1
Classroom Environment
What evidence exists of the students’ L1 in the classroom?
Signs
Notes home
Dictionaries
Posters
Computer programs
Music
Literature
Textbooks
Other
Curriculum and Instruction
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
Part of the curriculum
Textbooks
Other learning materials
Part of the lessons
Introduction
Review
Clarification
Compare/contrast to English
Assessment
L1 adaptations
Bilingual/multilingual dictionaries
Test directions in L1
Bilingual version of test
Students communicate together in L1 for the assessment
Type of Test & Any Corresponding Modifications
State-mandated, standardized
District-mandated, standardized
District-mandated, writing prompts
Teacher-created
33
L1 IN THE ELL CLASSROOM
34
Appendix B
Teacher Interview Protocol
How does the teacher feel about using the students’ L1 in the classroom?
When does the teacher find L1 use appropriate?
Socially
Academically
Instructionally
How does the teacher plan for L1 use?
Active planning
Spontaneous incorporation
What effect does L1 usage have on the students?
Affective domain
Socially
Academically