GENERATION 1.5 STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF L1 USE IN COLLEGE-LEVEL
MULTILINGUAL COMPOSITION CLASSROOMS
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of English
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
by
Jamie Lorraine Ferrando
SPRING
2013
© 2013
Jamie Lorraine Ferrando
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
GENERATION 1.5 STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF L1 USE IN COLLEGE-LEVEL
MULTILINGUAL COMPOSITION CLASSROOMS
A Thesis
by
Jamie Lorraine Ferrando
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Reiko Komiyama, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
L. Fiona Glade, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Jamie Lorraine Ferrando
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Mi-Suk Seo, Ph.D
Department of English
iv
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
GENERATION 1.5 STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF L1 USE IN COLLEGE-LEVEL
MULTILINGUAL COMPOSITION CLASSROOMS
by
Jamie Lorraine Ferrando
In research on second language acquisition (SLA), there has been an ongoing debate
about the use of students’ first language (L1) in the classroom. This study investigated
generation 1.5 students’ perceptions of (L1) use in a college level multilingual
composition classroom. A survey was developed and administered to 280 students
enrolled in first-year composition courses at California State University, Sacramento.
Survey responses were analyzed quantitatively, through descriptive statistics and paired ttest. Open-ended survey items were analyzed qualitatively to illustrate major findings.
Although results indicated that some generation 1.5 students in this study use their L1 in
TL tasks, some of these participants did not find their L1 useful in completing TL tasks.
Their major reasons included that these students were not always fluent in their L1. The
results support existing literature that suggests L1 can be used as a resource in TL tasks.
v
The results of the present study can help teachers develop a better understanding of the
beliefs that generation 1.5 students bring into the classroom, which should enable them to
assist these students more effectively.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Reiko Komiyama, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
vi
DEDICATION
To my husband, Javier Gonzalez, and my children, Roberto, Nico, and Lucca.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis would not have happened without the support of my family, friends,
colleagues and advisors. Thank you to all of you who helped me accomplish my goals.
-To my brother and sisters, Andy, Debby, and Eliza, my parents (all three of them!), and
my grandparents: You have always supported me in everything that I have ever wanted to
do. I am so lucky to have you as my family. Thank you for always being there for me!
-To my husband, Javier: You took over everything so that I could pursue my dreams.
Thank you for selflessly giving me your time and your love.
-To my children, Roberto, Nico, and Lucca: I am very proud of all of you for your
patience with me. I know that it was hard for you while I worked on the weekends and
late nights, but I appreciate your encouragement, and understanding.
-To my friends and colleagues: I would not have completed grad school if it were not for
your support. You made me keep going when I felt like giving up, and you made me
believe in myself because you believed in me. To all of you, I am forever indebted: Bay,
Beth, Calli, Chariss, Dana, Kelvyn, Lisa, Mad, Nicole, Randeep and Vu.
-To my advisors: Dr. Rieko Komiyama and Dr. Fiona Glade. Dr. Komiyama~ For all the
sleepless nights that you worked with me to make this thesis possible, I am forever
grateful. You encouraged me to keep going when I thought I could not, and you helped
me write something that I am truly proud of. Fiona~ Thank you for planting the idea of a
Master’s degree in my head. I would have never thought of applying if it were not for
your encouragement.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication .................................................................................................................. vii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. xi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 5
2.1 Arguments at the Political Level................................................................. 5
2.2 Maximizing TL Use: Krashen’s Input Hypothesis ..................................... 9
2.3 Supporting L1 Use: Socio-cultural Theory ............................................... 10
2.4 Empirical Evidence that Supports Maximizing the TL ............................ 12
2.5 Empirical Evidence that Supports L1 Use in General .............................. 13
2.6 The Voices of Teachers and Students: L1 vs. TL ..................................... 16
2.7 Purpose of the Current Study .................................................................... 18
2.8 Research Questions ................................................................................... 19
3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 21
3.1 Participants ................................................................................................ 21
3.2 Instrument: Survey on Students’ Beliefs of L1 Use in the Classroom ..... 23
3.3 Procedures ................................................................................................. 24
3.4 Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 25
ix
4. RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 28
5. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 39
5.1 Survey Responses that Show Neutrality ................................................... 39
5.2 Survey Responses that Show Distinct Patterns ......................................... 42
5.3 Survey Responses that Show No Distinct Patterns ................................... 47
5.4 Additional Survey Items that Provide Insight into Students’ Beliefs about
L1 Use ....................................................................................................... 49
5.5 Limitations and Pedagogical Implications ................................................ 53
5.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 55
Appendix A. Student Survey ......................................................................................57
Appendix B. Informed Consent Form (Students) ........................................................60
References ....................................................................................................................62
x
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1. Participants’ Demographic Background ................................................................ 21
2. Summary of Participants’ L1 Reading, Writing, and Speaking Fluency............... 26
3. Students’ Perceptions of L1 Use in General .......................................................... 29
4. Results of Descriptive Statistics: Using L1 with Other Students .......................... 30
5. Results of Descriptive Statistics: Using their L1 with Peers ................................. 31
6. Results of Descriptive Statistics: Students’ Perceptions of L1 Use During L2
Reading Tasks ........................................................................................................33
7. Results of Descriptive Statistics: Using L1 with L2 Reading................................ 35
8. Students’ Perceptions of Using L1 During L2 Writing ......................................... 36
9. Results of Descriptive Statistics: L1 Use in L2 Writing ........................................ 38
xi
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to examine generation 1.5 students’ beliefs about
the use of their first language (L1) in multilingual college composition classrooms. This
study can contribute to the debate about L1 use in second language (L2) classrooms. In
the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), the issue of the potential benefits of the
L1 use in an L2 classroom is an ongoing debate, has been for decades, and will probably
continue to be due to the ever changing dynamic of student populations, political
agendas, and new research. In Atkinson’s (1987) landmark essay, he discusses many
beneficial ways L1 can be used in the classroom. Even though he acknowledges the
potential dangers of overusing L1, he suggests specific ways for L1 to be used in the
classroom: eliciting language, checking comprehension, giving instructions, facilitating
cooperation among learners, discussing classroom methodology, presenting and
reinforcing language, testing, and developing useful learning strategies. The question of
when students should be allowed to use their L1, in what context: English for Academic
Purposes (EAP), English as a Second Language (ESL), English as a Foreign Language
(EFL), or Foreign Language (FL), and how much time teachers should allow students to
use their L1 seems to involve many uncontrollable variables. These variables include, but
are not limited to, the political beliefs of the institution, the overall goals of the class, the
content of the course, and languages spoken by students and teachers. Some age-old SLA
theories, such as input hypothesis and socio-cultural theory, have opposing viewpoints
about the use of L1 in the classroom. Some research stresses an avoidance of L1 use,
2
emphasizing that maximizing the target language (TL) is the most efficient way for
learners to acquire the TL (Crawford, 2004; Duff & Polio, 1990; Edstrom, 2006;
Turnbull, 2001). However, current research suggests that L1 use can be beneficial in
aiding second language acquisition (Anton & Dicamilla, 1999; Auerbach, 1993; Brooks
& Donato, 1994; Cook, 2001; Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008; Seng & Hashim, 2006;
Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003). The context of the classroom (EAP, ESL, EFL, FL, etc.)
seems to be an important factor when deciding whether L1 should be allowed or not.
Research has found that students’ L1 has specific purposes within a languagelearning environment (Anton & Dicamilla, 1999; Auerbach, 1993; Brooks & Donato,
1994; Cook, 2001; Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008; Seng & Hashim, 2006; Storch &
Wigglesworth, 2003). Given this ongoing debate, more research is needed in regards to
generation 1.5 students’ beliefs about their L1 use in the classroom, in order to guide
teachers as to how to better serve this increasing population of students. Considering all
of the potentially beneficial uses of L1, the present study investigated students’ beliefs
about L1 use in linguistically heterogeneous classrooms.
There are many variations of the definition of generation 1.5 students. According
to Harklau (2003), generation 1.5 students have “diversity among them in terms of their
prior educational experience, native and English language proficiency, language
dominance, and academic literacy” (p.1). In other words, these students’ educational and
language backgrounds can differ from each other. In this study, generation 1.5 students
refer to students who were either born in the United States, or came to the U.S at a very
early age, most likely before age five, and whose L1 is not English. These students are
3
typically very different from traditional ESL students for many reasons. First, many
generation 1.5 students have very limited or no L1 fluency (Harklau, 2003). Second, their
oral English (L2) fluency is probably close to that of native speakers. Lastly, these
students are familiar with cultural expectations and norms in the U.S. Even though
generation 1.5 students have most likely attended U.S schools for the majority of their
lives, their English reading and writing skills appear to be very distinct from native
English readers and writers. For this reason, many generation 1.5 students find
themselves in multilingual composition classrooms when they enter college (Browning et
al., 2000). The term “multilingual” refer to classrooms where multiple languages are
represented. Having multiple languages represented in one class brings in another
dimension to TL teaching.
There are many concerns about L1 use in an L2 classroom among teachers and
researchers. In contexts where students share an L1, researchers argue that the classroom
might be the only place that provides students with TL contact, so many researchers
recommend maximizing TL exposure by not allowing L1 use at all (Crawford, 2004;
Duff & Polio, 1990; Edstrom, 2006; Turnbull, 2001). However, using L1 in an L2
classroom where many languages are represented puts teachers and students in a unique
position. In classrooms where the common language among students is the TL, not the
students’ L1, and arguably the language that students have exposure to the majority of the
time, the issue of allowing or prohibiting students’ L1 becomes more complex. One
concern that some teachers have is that it might be difficult to know if students are on
task, since it is likely that the teacher does not speak or understand all of the languages
4
represented in the classroom. It is also possible that students might feel uncomfortable if
classmates use a language that they do not know. Moreover, in a linguistically
heterogeneous classroom, teachers might have difficulty when grouping students during
small group activities. For example, teachers who support student use of the L1 might
want to create small groups with students who share the same L1, but that might be
impossible if only a few students have the same L1. In addition, some might argue that
this is unfair to students who do not share an L1 with other students, and cannot use it as
a resource to help them with the TL. Regardless of the obvious challenges and potential
benefits for using L1 in multilingual college classrooms, there have not been many
empirical studies that examined the beliefs of generation 1.5 students’ use of L1 in the
classroom. Although there has been a plethora of articles regarding the benefits and
downfalls of L1 use in the classroom, these studies have mostly focused on classrooms
with a linguistically homogenous student population. The present study aimed to examine
the attitudes toward L1 use of generation 1.5 students enrolled in a linguistically
heterogeneous college- level composition class.
The rest of this thesis is structured as follows. Chapter 2 presents existing
literature and the arguments surrounding L1 use in the classroom. Next, Chapter 3
describes the methodology, the participants, how the data was analyzed, and the research
questions of the present study. Chapter 4 presents the results of the data analysis. Chapter
5 discusses the important findings of the study and provides insights into these findings.
Chapter 5 ends with a discussion about the current study’s limitations, pedagogical
implications and suggestions for future research.
5
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter introduces the existing literature that discusses and examines many
issues surrounding L1 use in the classroom. The chapter will first present the literature
that discusses the political view of L1 use and why it has been an issue. Next, the chapter
will discuss two theories with opposing views toward L1 use and the teaching methods
that align themselves with the two theories. Then, the chapter will present findings of
empirical studies that provide insights as to the actual use of L1. Finally, this chapter will
discuss studies that have examined students and teachers’ perceptions of L1 and TL use.
2.1 Arguments at the Political Level
Language, power and identity in a multicultural/multi-linguistic society, such as
the United States, are very sensitive and charged issues that are inseparable (Fairclough,
1989). The idea of enforcing a mono-linguistic society in the United States is not new;
however, as the United States becomes more diverse, this artificial idea of unifying a
country based on the dominant language seems superfluous. Nonetheless, there have been
some attempts to make English the official language of the United States. During the
1980s, the English Language Amendment (ELA) threatened the very existence of a
linguistically diverse American nation by proposing to make English the official
language of the United States. Supporters of the ELA argue “linguistic and cultural
assimilation of groups into American society is beneficial to the social, economic, and
political unity of the country and that English is the language that all must adopt,” (Judd,
1987, p.118). They also assert “maintenance of a minority tongue is perceived to threaten
6
national security and subvert the national ideal” (Baron, 1990, p. 7). This “maintenance”
perhaps hints at a disproval of bilingual education and educational mechanisms that were
gaining momentum at that time that aid in preserving the native languages of immigrants.
Proponents of the ELA argue that people who do not learn English will “remain
segregated from the dominant English speaking majority and cannot fully participate in
the vast riches that American society has to offer” (Judd, 1987, p.119). Opponents of the
English Only movement dispute the arguments made by ELA activists by arguing that
enforcing an English only society could consequently mean an end to bilingual education,
foreign language instruction, and a linguistically rich nation. Even though there is no
official language in the U.S, English is the dominant language and some might argue that
being fluent in the dominant language allows people to posses more power (Fairclough,
1989; Judd, 1987). However, given the linguistic diversity of this country, many people
do not speak fluent English, and researchers argue that prohibiting multilingual students
to use their L1 as a resource to learn the dominant language, negatively affects students
(Auerbach, 1993; Belz 2003; Rivers, 2011). Although these issues are decades old, the
run off from the ELA debate is still prevalent in today’s society and, since this is a
linguistic issue, political agendas often attempt to regulate teaching pedagogies.
As a result, the issues surrounding the ELA amendment sparked a conversation
about power, language and oppression and how it might affect the teaching profession.
Judd (1987), an opponent of the ELA, argues that policies, such as the ELA, will further
affect ESL instruction, turning the teaching of English into Americanization. Such a
policy, he argues, could place blame on ESL instructors if students fail to learn English,
7
and in addition, alienate teachers from their students. Judd’s (1987) discussion of this
controversial issue demonstrates how policy can dictate classroom pedagogy. Fairclough
(1989) examines how language and power interact and conflict which further
acknowledges how language is used to oppress minority groups. Fairclough asserts that
teachers should raise students’ awareness of how language can be used to oppress people
and/or give them power. He claims that through Critical Language Study (CLS), an
educational process that looks at how access to societal power is often granted by being
fluent in the dominant language, non-native English speakers can gain social
emancipation where they are prepared to “challenge, contradict, [and] assert in settings
where the power dynamic would expect them to agree, acquiesce, [and] be silent
(Fairclough, 1989, p. 235). This educational process that Fairclough describes should be
under the discretion of teachers; however, policy makers, many who have little training in
teaching, attempt to oppress English Language Learners (ELLs) by prohibiting use of the
only linguistic resource students have available to them (their native language) by forcing
them to only speak English.
In terms of pedagogical regulation, politics often controls what happens in the
classroom, and when it comes to prohibiting students from using their L1, many
researchers vehemently oppose this ideology, stating that oppression of the L1 can cause
more harm than benefits, and that this practice is based on assumptions and not actual
research (Auerbach, 1993; Baron, 1990; Belz, 2003; Canagarajah, 1999; Garcia, 1991;
Rivers, 2011). Auerbach (1993) discusses the political implications of limiting the
classroom language to English only and asserts that this pedagogy is unjustified.
8
Similarly to Judd (1987) and Fairclough (1989), she agrees that policy should not inform
teaching practices. She explains that the English-Only movement was deeply rooted in a
power struggle that resulted in an unsound pedagogy. In agreement with Fairclough
(1989), Auerbach makes a connection between the lack of funding for bilingual and
native language resources and power to examine “how the dominant groups maintain
their status through institutional practices” (p. 18). In addition, Auerbach dismisses the
many assumptions of teaching English and supports the idea that “prohibiting the native
language within the context of ESL instruction may impede language acquisition
precisely because it mirrors disempowering relations” (p. 16). In other words, prohibiting
students from speaking and relating to their native language could negatively affect their
attitude toward learning the TL. Furthermore, in a study of sociolinguistics, identity and
language use, Beltz (2003) acknowledges that language use is heavily connected to
linguistic identity. She argues that students who utilize their native language(s) are not
“deficient communicators” as they are sometimes described; rather, they are
“multicompetent,” learners with knowledge of an L1 that “necessarily interfaces with
[their] developing knowledge of the L2” (Beltz, 2003, p. 211).
The English only movement clearly discourages the use of students’ L1 in the
classroom. Some researchers believe that by discouraging L1 use, students will, therefore
by default, maximize their use of the TL (to be discussed in a later section). However,
other theories and research on L2 pedagogical approaches make a strong argument for L1
use as an invaluable resource. Many of the arguments surrounding the debate of L1 use
seems to be driven by power games among stakeholders, such as bureaucrats, without
9
considering what theorists, researchers, and teachers have to say about the potential
benefits of L1 use and challenges of banning an important linguistic resource in the
classroom. As a result of this debate, researchers began examining the effects of language
use on students’ L2 acquisition.
The next section explains the theories, arguments, and empirical evidence that
support maximizing the TL, followed by those that support L1 use. Wherever possible,
empirical evidence that supports their positions will also be discussed. The following
review is not a comprehensive guide to all available theories and approaches proposed in
the field of SLA, but an overview of those relevant to the current study.
2.2 Maximizing TL Use: Krashen’s Input Hypothesis
Many theories discourage L1 use by advocating for a focus on TL use. One
example of such theories is Krashen’s Monitor Model (Mitchell & Miles, 2004). This
SLA theory was partly responsible for initiating the debate about the advantages and
disadvantages of using L1 in the classroom. Although his model involves five basic
hypotheses, the only one relevant to this study is his Input Hypothesis. Krashen’s Input
Hypothesis suggests that in order for language learners to acquire another language, they
only have to receive comprehensible input. Basically, language learners need to receive
comprehensible input, which refers to L2 input that is just beyond the learners’ current
L2 proficiency. By default, this meant that the TL should be maximized and the L1
avoided. Krashen’s input hypothesis was highly criticized since it was vague and
untestable (e.g. Cook, 2008). Nevertheless, the input hypothesis shows that some SLA
researchers have proposed that only the TL has a place in L2 classrooms, and that L1
10
should be avoided. However, other SLA researchers have claimed that some use of L1 in
the classroom can lead to TL acquisition. One theory that emerged from this discussion
about L1 use in the classroom was socio-cultural theory.
2.3 Supporting L1 Use: Socio-cultural Theory
Socio-cultural theory, which has gained popularity and support from many
teachers and researchers, shows an overall acceptance of L1 use in the classroom (Brown,
2000). Though there have been many interpretations of socio-cultural theory, the general
concept is that cognitive development is formed through social interactions (Vygotsky,
1986). More specifically, when applied to SLA, this theory suggests “that the gap
between the learner’s current state and their future knowledge is bridged by assistance
from others; learning demands social interaction so that the learner can internalize
knowledge out of external action” (Cook, 2008, p. 228). In regards to L1 use, sociocultural theory states “that the L1 serves as a tool that helps students as follows: to
understand and make sense of the requirements and content of the task; to focus attention
on language form, vocabulary use, and overall organization; and to establish the tone and
nature of their collaboration” (Swain & Lapkin, 2000, p. 268). In other words, using L1
collaboratively and in the right contexts helps second language learners acquire the TL.
Furthermore, existing empirical research reveals evidence in support of this idea (Anton
& DiCamilla, 1999, 2000; Brooks & Donato, 1994; Cook, 2001; Scott & De La Fuente,
2008; Seng & Hashim, 2006; Storch, 2002; Swain & Lapkin, 2000). Within a sociocultural framework, researchers insist that allowing students to collaborate using their
shared L1 to understand a task that is challenging is beneficial (Anton & DiCamilla,
11
1998). More specifically, researchers suggest that L1 use in the classroom can provide an
opportunity where students can perform at a higher level in the TL (Anton & DiCamilla,
1998), resulting in lowered stress levels (Auerbach, 1993) and increased motivation
(Cook, 2008).
One argument surrounding the issue of L1 use is that it can be used during
collaboration for many purposes. Brooks and Donato’s (1994) findings support the idea
that “learners be given the opportunity to structure tasks and to establish goals as they
feel necessary in order to move from mere compliance to engagement” in order for
meaningful interaction to occur (p. 272). In other words, if students are more comfortable
using their L1, and they gain an understanding of the L2 task by doing so, then
“engagement” of the material is beneficial to SLA. This “engagement” leads to
acquisition according to Swain and Lapkin (2000), which are similar to the findings in
Brooks and Donato (1994). Swain and Lapkin found that using L1 in group work served
three purposes: first, it helped the students with control of the task; second, it helped with
clarification of lexical items; third, it improved their social interaction. These studies
indicate that, in the framework of socio-cultural theory, the L1 plays a critical role, and
teachers should not focus on the amount of L1 use, but rather how and why students are
using it. Also, these studies suggest that L1 use during group work can be potentially
beneficial when grappling with a challenging task in the TL.
One position that socio-culturalists subscribe to is that L1 is a natural process in
TL acquisition. For example, Anton and DiCamilla (1999) examined collaborative
interactions during writing tasks between beginner level adult Spanish learners. They
12
argued that the use of L1 in L2 contexts allows students to externalize one’s inner speech.
They found that L1 use is beneficial when learning a language because “it acts as a
crucial psychological tool that enables learners to construct effective collaborative
dialogue” (p. 245). Since one argument that this camp makes is that language and thought
cannot be separated (Vygotsky,1986), allowing students to use their L1 as a tool can
potentially benefit SLA.
2.4 Empirical Evidence that Supports Maximizing the TL
One of the main arguments for maximizing TL use is that students need to
maximize their exposure to the TL, especially in EFL or FL contexts where the classroom
is most likely the only source of TL exposure (Turnbull, 2001). One study supports this
argument and showed that students who were studying French as a foreign language, and
had maximum exposure to the TL (French), frequently outperformed students on
proficiency and achievement tests who had less TL exposure (Turnbull, 1999), indicating
that perhaps allowing students to use their L1 might inhibit TL acquisition.
Another concern that supporters of maximizing the TL have is that if allowed,
students and teachers might over use the L1. In a self-reflection study, Edstrom (2006)
analyzes her L1 use in her Spanish as a foreign language classroom, and agrees with the
idea that the TL should be maximized. In this study, she recorded her lectures,
transcribed the recordings, and gave questionnaires to her students. She timed the
amount, function, and motivations of Spanish (TL) that she spoke. Edstrom described her
use of L1 as unnecessary despite the many functions of L1 use she found, such as help
with lexical items, classroom management, and to clarify assignments or instructions. It
13
seems as though the main issue among researchers who are concerned with allowing L1
in the classroom is that students will rely too heavily on it and will not master the TL.
However, there is very little empirical evidence to support this claim. Existing research
provides evidence that there are potential benefits to L1 use that can actually aid in L2
acquisition.
2.5 Empirical Evidence that Supports L1 Use in General
Outside the sociocultural framework, many SLA researchers support L1 use in
the classroom as a pedagogical tool (de la Campa & Nassaji, 2009; Kibler, 2010; Maillat
& Serra, 2009; Orland-Barak & Yinon, 2005; Seng & Hashim, 2006; Stapa & Majid,
2006; Upton, 1997). Many researchers argue that allowing L1 during reading tasks can be
beneficial, since students have their L1 accessible to them at all times. Cook (1992), Seng
and Hashim (2006), and Upton (1997) agree that L2 reading is not a “monolingual event”
and argue that L1 use is necessary for low-level learners. Results in Upton’s (1997)
comparison study of intermediate and advanced students found that lower level students
use their L1 for numerous reasons such as finding the meaning of unknown vocabulary,
translating, and checking comprehension. Seng and Hashim (2006) found similar results
with low-level students and also found that students use their L1 for questioning and
guessing.
Researchers have also found that writing is not a monolingual event, and similarly
to L2 reading, low-level L2 writers were more likely to use L1 (van der Weijen, van der
Bergh, Rijlaardsam, & Sanders, 2009). Van der Weijen, van der Bergh, Rijlaardsam, and
Sanders (2009) examined college-level students’ use of their L1 during L2 writing tasks
14
and found that all writers use their L1 during the writing process to some extent. There is
also evidence that L1 use can benefit low-level L2 writers. In Stapa and Majid (2006),
low-level ESL students were placed into two groups — one that was explicitly told to use
their L1, and one that was only allowed to use the L2 — and each group was asked to
generate ideas before they began writing. Essays were independently scored and their
findings suggest that L1 use aids in better quality L2 writing in terms of its content,
language, and organization. In addition to evaluating product, Zamel (1982) examined
writing processes of proficient ESL writers, who were no longer taking ESL classes, and
found that L1 use is an intricate part of L2 learners’ writing process, especially in prewriting and early drafts. Through interviews and examining students’ writing process
from generating ideas to final drafts, Zamel concluded that students should be able to use
their L1 during their writing processes.
In addition to students using their L1 in TL reading and writing tasks, some
researchers also found that it is beneficial for students to use L1 during group work.
Storch and Wigglesworth (2003) argue that L1 is used as a mediating tool when students
are put into groups to complete tasks. These findings indicate, “only when learners gain a
shared understanding of what they need to do can they proceed with the task” (Storch and
Wigglesworth, 2003, p. 768). This suggests that students can gain control of the task via
L1 to proceed with the rest of the task in L2. If students cannot understand the task in the
TL, then they cannot complete the task and a potentially valuable learning moment will
be lost. Similarly, Kibler (2010) examined oral interactions during collaborative writing
activities and found that students use L1 to manage tasks that are cognitively demanding
15
and to demonstrate competence. Furthermore, Kibler found that students who might be
viewed as “deficient” can use their L1 to become experts of a given task and as Beltz
(2003) also discusses, change their role from “deficient” learner to a “multicompetent”
learner. In other words, if students are unable to complete a task because they are
prohibited from using their L1, they might be viewed as “deficient” learners. However, if
students are able to tap into the linguistic resources available to them, they can change
this negative perception to a positive one.
One argument that many researchers hope to dispel is that students will overuse
their L1 if given the chance. Storch and Wigglesworth (2003) found that as they analyzed
their participants’ talk, many grouped with the same L1, were reluctant to use their L1.
Thus, they suggest that allowing students to use L1 does not mean that students will
indeed use it, but teachers “should acknowledge that the use of the L1 may be a normal
psychological process that allows learners to initiate and sustain verbal interaction”
(Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003, p. 768). For example, Rivers (2011) eliminated the
English Only policy in his class for a number of weeks to study the percentage of L1 use
and TL use. The percentage of English (TL) use increased slightly indicating that
“students are capable of acting responsibly when permitted to exercise their own
linguistic autonomy without the need for a specific language policy to be enforced”
(pp.110-111). Although small, the evidence from this study coincides with findings from
Storch and Wigglesworth (2003) indicating that perhaps students can make decisions
regarding their own language use, and that allowing L1 use does not necessarily mean
students will choose their L1 over the TL.
16
2.6 The Voices of Teachers and Students: L1 vs. TL
Since many educators are encouraged to consult theory and empirical data to
inform their pedagogical choices, researchers often look to teachers to find out if theory
and current beliefs within the field of SLA are consistent with teachers’ perceptions.
Ferrer (1999), Levine (2003), McMillan and Rivers (2011), and Varshney and RolinIanziti (2006) surveyed and interviewed teachers to find out what they thought about
using the L1 in the classroom. These studies found that most teachers believe that the L1
can play many important roles in the classroom. Many survey-based studies have been
carried out to find different reasons for teachers’ use of L1 (Edstrom, 2006; Levine, 2003;
McMillan & Rivers, 2011). Varshney and Rolin-Ianziti (2006) group such reasons into
three distinct categories: Cognitive advantages, affective advantages, and managerial
purposes. Using L1 to clarify the meanings and functions of words, grammar, complex
instructions, and to check comprehension are some of the reasons that fall under
cognitive advantages. Using L1 to build rapport with students, build students’ confidence,
show appreciation for students’ identity, build a classroom community, and lower
students’ affective filter are all reasons that fall under the category of affective
advantages of using L1. Lastly, using L1 to give instructions for an activity/homework, to
go over the requirements/rules for the class, or to discuss an assessment/homework are all
reasons that fall under L1 use for managerial purposes. Although other studies (Edstrom,
2006; Levine, 2003; Macaro, 2001; McMillian, 2011; and Polio & Duff, 1994) worded
the reasons slightly differently, they identify similar functions of L1 use. In addition,
Orland-Barak and Yinon (2005) reported that some student teachers in their study used
17
L1 as a linguistic tool in hopes that students “become aware that languages use different
idiomatic conventions and draw on different cultural conventions, both syntactically and
semantically” (p.99). Ferrer’s (1999) findings also suggest that teachers find crosslinguistic comparison “as a legitimate tool to use when exploring the workings of the
target grammar system” (p. 3). It seems that using L1 as a basis for comparison to learn
the TL is warranted as a useful linguistic tool according to these studies.
While this breakdown of reasons for teacher use of L1 is important for
understanding why L1 is used, the quantity of teachers’ L1 use has also been examined.
According to Calman and Daniel (1998) the TL should be used 95% of the time, but
Shapson, Kaufman, and Durward (1978) recommend that TL should be used 75% of the
time. Existing literature shows, however, that there is a gap between these suggested
amounts and the reported/observed amounts of teachers’ L1 use. Edstrom (2006), who
was a teacher at a university-based FL program in the U.S, conducted a self-analysis of
the amount of her L1 use. She found that her overall usage of L1 was 23%, which was
unacceptable based on Calman and Daniel’s (1998) standard. Through periodic visits to
classes Duff and Polio (1990) found L1 use of teachers ranging from 10% to 100%. In a
large-scale survey study, Levine (2003) asked teachers how much L1 they think they use,
and they found that 44% of teachers reported 0%-20% of L1 use. Even though this
number seems low, these findings coincide with results from similar studies (Nzwanga,
2000 and Macaro, 2001), which indicate that teachers perceive their L1 use to be
relatively low. Furthermore, these survey-based results compare with the findings in
Edstrom (2006), suggesting that teachers’ estimates were somewhat accurate. However,
18
in one study (Copland & Neokleous, 2010), teachers’ estimations of L1 use did not
coincide with their actual L1 use. In fact, in this study, all teachers reported that L1 use
should be limited, but their actual classroom practices, in some cases, contradicted their
beliefs.
In addition to how, when, and why teachers use L1, students’ use of L1 has also
been examined. Current research suggests that students feel that there is a definite use for
the L1, but that too much use of L1 can be detrimental to acquisition of the TL (BrooksLewis, 2009; Ferrer, 1999; Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008; Schweers, 1999; Silva, 1992;
and Varshney & Rolin-Ianziti, 2006). One qualitative study in an FL context found that
students are aware of the advantages and disadvantages of using their L1 (Varshney and
Rolin-Ianziti, 2006). The advantages were grouped into three categories: Cognitive,
affective, and administrative. It is interesting to note that when discussing disadvantages,
students’ responses did not fall into the same categories. Instead, the researchers found
that students’ responses fell under the categories of methodological, cognitive, and
affective. Methodological responses are those discussing L1 interference with exposure
to the FL. In addition, students reported less affective disadvantages of using L1 than
advantages.
2.7 Purpose of the Current Study
There has been no consensus in the field about whether teachers should promote
or prohibit L1 use in the classroom. The existing literature seems to examine the
advantages and disadvantages for both allowing and banning its use. However, there
seem to be many factors that instructors should examine before deciding to use or
19
prohibit students’ L1. These factors include the policies of the institution, the context of
the class, the dynamics of the classroom, the level of the class, the goals of the class, and
the personal beliefs and background of the instructor (Brooks-Lewis, 2009). While there
is a plethora of research on L1 use in monolingual classrooms and in ESL, EFL, and FL
contexts, there is very little research that has studied students’ perceptions of L1 use in
multilingual classroom contexts. For this study, the term “multilingual” refers to students
whose L1 is a language other than English. The present study aimed to examine the
students’ perceptions about L1 use in a college-level multilingual composition classroom.
As mentioned earlier, the target student group of this study are so-called generation 1.5
students.
2.8 Research Questions
1. What are generation 1.5 students’ attitudes towards using their L1 in a multilingual
first-year composition classroom?
1a. To what extent do these students think that they benefit from using their L1in
general?
1b.To what extent do these students think that they benefit from using their L1
with other students?
1c.To what extent do these students think that they benefit from using their L1
during reading?
1d. To what extent do these students think that they benefit from using their L1
during writing?
20
2. What are the students’ reasons for using or avoiding their L1 in their multilingual
English classroom?
3. What are the relationships between student responses and their L1 fluency?
4. To what extent does student L1 fluency relate to student use of the L1 in the
classroom?
21
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Participants
There were a total of 280 participants in this study. Twenty-one language groups
were represented by these students. All participants were between the ages of 18-21 (M =
19). Most of the participants speak Spanish (n = 105; 37.5%), Hmong (n = 93; 33.2 %),
Vietnamese (n = 18; 6.4 %), Russian (n = 14; 5.0%), and Chinese (n =13; 4.6 %). The
remaining participants made up 13.2% (n = 36) and were from 16 different language
groups (See Table 1).
Table 1: Participants’ Demographic Background
_________________________________________________________
L1
n
Percent
_________________________________________________________
Spanish
105
37.5
Hmong
93
33.2
Vietnamese
18
6.4
Chinese
13
4.6
Mien
6
2.1
Punjabi
6
2.1
Cantonese
5
1.8
Tagalog
4
1.4
Urdu
3
1.1
Guyrati
2
0.7
Other
10
0.4
___________________________________________________________
Note: Ten students (4%) spoke each of the remaining 10 languages.
Participants were undergraduate students at the California State University, Sacramento
(CSUS). This is a large comprehensive urban university with a diverse student
population. All participants were enrolled in English 10M (n = 165) or English 2 (n =
115), First-Year College Composition for multilingual students. Students in English 2
22
and 10M include generation 1.5 and non-generation 1.5 students. All participants were
considered to be generation 1.5. English 10M is a two-semester composition course for
students who score a 145 or less on the English Placement Test (EPT), while English 2 is
a one-semester composition course for students who score 147 on the EPT or who earn
credit in English 87, a basic writing course that is taken before first year composition.
The course goals are the same for both classes; however, English 10M provides students
with a more integrated reading and writing approach in order to delve deeper into the
First Year Composition curriculum. The First Year Reading and Writing Goals for these
classes are as follows (CSUS English Department, 2012):

To help students understand the ways that readers read and writers write in and
beyond the university.

To help students understand the process of reading, writing, and research.

To help students develop a metacognitive understanding of processes of reading,
writing, and thinking.

To help students understand textual conventions.

To help students understand and engage in reading and writing as communal
processes

To help students think critically about academic discourse communities as contact
zones where different cultures connect and come into conflict.
23
3.2 Instrument: Survey on Students’ Beliefs of L1 Use in the Classroom
A questionnaire was developed to collect data for this study. In March 2012, an
early draft of the questionnaire used in this study was piloted on a small group of
participants (N=59) and was revised based on feedback from the pilot study participants.
In revision, the researcher modified the language of the questions and changed the
format. For example, one of the questions in the early draft was “I feel that my teachers
will get mad if I use my first language.” Students did not seem to respond to this question
appropriately, so this question was revised to, “I like when my teacher allows me to use
my first language in this class.” The researcher also consulted with existing survey-based
studies (Levine, 2003 and Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008) and added some items from
these studies. Most of the items adapted from these studies were modified to meet the
needs of the current study participants. For example, one survey item from Rolin-Ianziti
(2008) that the researcher modified for the current study was “I feel more at ease when
my teacher uses English.” This item was changed to, “I feel more at ease when I am
allowed to use my first language in this class.” This item was modified for two reasons.
First, the current study was examining students’ perceptions of their own language use,
not of the teacher. Second, since the classroom contexts of the current study are
multilingual, teachers most likely use the TL (English) at all times, unlike the teachers in
Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney. In addition, in the early draft the researcher had no clear item
categories. In revision, the researcher created four item categories: (a) beliefs about L1
use in general, (b) beliefs about L1 use with other students, (c) beliefs about L1 use
during reading, and (d) beliefs about L1 use during writing tasks. She then created
24
questions for each category based on surveys used in Levine (2003) and Rolin-Ianziti and
Varshney (2008) and added them to the ones retained from the pilot version of the
questionnaire.
The revised survey (Appendix A) was broken down into four sections: Part
One biographical information (6 questions); Part Two the level of fluency of their L1 and
how often they use it (6 questions); Part Three who they use their L1 with in their
English class and how much they use it (4 questions); and Part Four their beliefs about
L1 use in their English composition classes (25 questions). Part Four contained 23
questions to which students responded on a five-point Likert scale: 1 (strongly disagree),
2 (disagree), 3 (neutral), 4 (agree), and 5 (strongly agree). All the 23 items were
randomized. The two remaining questions in Part Four asked students to list three or
more advantages and disadvantages of using their L1 in their English class. With the 23
Likert-scale item in Part Four, Cronbach’s alpha yielded .86, suggesting a satisfactory
level of reliability for this instrument.
3.3 Procedures
Beginning in October of 2012, the researcher sent an email to instructors who
teach English 10M and English 2 at California State University, Sacramento (CSUS)
asking to allow her to recruit participants in his or her class. When an instructor
responded to the email, the researcher set a date to administer the questionnaires to the
instructor’s class. Before the questionnaires were distributed in each class, the researcher
introduced herself and explained to the students that the questionnaire was for her thesis
and that it was part of the project that she was conducting to fulfill the requirements for
25
the M.A TESOL program. She also read the informed consent form (see Appendix B) out
loud to each class, informed students that participation is voluntary, questionnaires would
remain anonymous, and that students could stop participating at anytime (even after they
have signed the informed consent form). She then asked participants to sign the consent
form before allowing them to begin. She collected questionnaires from students who did
not want to participate. Participants were given 10-20 minutes to complete the survey;
however, the researcher gave more time to those who needed it. Permission to conduct
this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at CSUS before the
researcher contacted the instructors by email. All participation was voluntary.
3.4 Data Analysis
Responses in Part 1 of the survey were used to retain only those students who are
qualified as generation 1.5. Students’ responses to the questionnaire were analyzed both
quantitatively and qualitatively. Descriptive statistics was performed to examine patterns
of responses to items 1-23 in Part 4 of the questionnaire. These items were grouped
according to four categories: (a) beliefs about L1 use in general (8 items), (b) beliefs
about L1 use with other students (5 items), (c) beliefs about L1 use during reading (6
items), and (d) beliefs about L1 use during writing tasks (5 items).
Additionally, a t-test was performed to determine if there were statistically
significant differences in the students’ responses to the 23 items in Part Four between
fluent students and non-fluent students. Students’ L1 fluency in reading, writing, and
speaking was determined using students’ responses to three items in Part Two (items 11,
12, and 13). These items asked students to rate their reading, writing, and speaking L1
26
fluency in L1 on a five-point Likert scale with a zero indicating “not fluent” and a five
indicating “fluent” (not fluent) to five (fluent). Item 11, 12, and 13 asked students how
fluent they are in L1 reading, L1 writing, and L1 speaking respectively. Students who
chose one or two on the scale were defined as non-fluent, and they were placed in the
non-fluent group (NF). Students who chose four or five on the scale were defined as
fluent, and they were placed in the fluent group (FL). Students who chose three, which
means they did not see themselves as neither non-fluent nor fluent, were excluded from
this analysis. See Table 2 for the number of students placed in each group, across skills
area.
Table 2: Summary of Participants’ L1 Reading, Writing, and Speaking Fluency
________________________________________________________________________
Excluded (n)
Fluent (n)
Non-Fluent (n)
________________________________________________________________________
L1 Reading
77
92
111
L1 Writing
60
109
111
L1 Speaking
153
29
98
________________________________________________________________________
The open-ended items (Items 23 and 24) in Part Four of the survey asked students to list
three advantages and three disadvantages of using their L1 in the classroom. After
collecting the data, the researcher created four categories based on patterns that she saw
emerge from students’ responses to these questions. The categories identified for
advantages of using L1 in the classroom were (a) to connect or relate to classmates, (b) to
find meaning in the TL (which includes positive comments about translating and
interpreting), (c) to see the value in their language or culture, and (d) to lower
27
nervousness or anxiety. The categories for disadvantages of L1 use in the classroom were
(a) lack of exposure to TL, (b) using L1 too much (which includes laziness and getting
off topic), (c) alienation of classmates or teachers, and (d) L1 interference with TL
(which includes confusion when code-switching and negative comments about
translation). The researcher then asked two graduate students in the English department at
CSUS to review the categories and assign each student response from the open-ended
questions to one of the predetermined categories. As they reviewed and categorized the
data, one more category emerged: using L1 to exclude classmates or teachers. All
discrepancies were resolved between the researcher and graduate students. For example,
if a graduate student had a question about which category a student response should be
placed, the other graduate student and researcher would discuss the student response in
question and make a joint decision. The data was then used to support, or add additional
insight into the reasons for students’ responses in the quantitative data.
28
Chapter 4
RESULTS
In this chapter, the findings of this study will be presented in four sections (a)
students’ perceptions of using L1 in general, (b) students’ perceptions of using L1 with
other students, (c) students’ perceptions of using L1 during reading, and (d) students’
perceptions of using L1 during writing.
Research Question 1a: To what extent do these students think that they benefit from using
their L1 in general?
Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics of students’ beliefs about L1 use in general in a
college composition classroom. Over half of the participants (n = 167; 59.6%) have no
preference if the teacher allows them to use L1or not. However, 46.4 % (n =130) strongly
disagree that students should not be allowed to use their L1, indicating that students want
the choice to use the L1 and do not want their L1 to be explicitly prohibited. Almost half,
49.6% (n =139), agree or strongly agree that students should use English all the time,
while 31.1% (n =87) report no preference. Almost half, 41.4% (n = 115), of the
participants remain neutral about feeling at ease when being allowed to use L1. While
36.7% (n =102) of the participants report that using their L1 does not make them feel at
ease, 21.4% (n = 60) either agree or strongly agree that being able to use their L1 makes
them feel at ease.
29
Table 3: Students’ Perceptions of L1 Use in General
______________________________________________________________________________________
Item
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Agree
______________________________________________________________________________________
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
______________________________________________________________________________________
I like when my teacher
allows me to use my
21 (7.5)
12 (4.3)
167 (59.6)
49 (17.5)
30 (10.7)
first language in this class.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Students should not be
allowed to use their first
130 (46.6)
84 (30.0)
49 (17.5)
12 (4.3)
4 (1.4)
language in the classroom.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I believe that in order to
learn English well, students
should use English all the
20 (7.1)
34 (12.1)
87 (31.1)
98 (35.0)
41 (14.6)
time in this class.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I feel more at ease when I
am allowed to use my first
48 (17.1)
55 (19.6)
115 (41.1)
47 (16.8)
13 (4.6)
language in this class.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Research Question 1b: To what extent do these students think that they benefit from using
their L1 with other students?
Table 4 shows descriptive statistics of students’ perceptions on using L1 with other
students both in class and outside of class. A little over a third of the students, 37.5% (n
=105), agree or strongly agree with feeling that they can relate to their classmates when
they use their L1, but 34.6% (n =97) responded neutrally. Almost half (44.6%; n =125)
responded neutrally to working in groups with students with the same L1, indicating that
they have no preference about what languages students in their groups speak. Still, over
half of the students (57.9%; n =162) agree or strongly agree that students should speak
English during group activities. There is a small group of students (12.2%; n =34) who
disagree or strongly disagree that students should speak English during group activities,
indicating that some students either want to speak their L1, or that they do not mind when
30
others use their L1. About half, 47.8% (n =134) of the students disagree or strongly
disagree with being able to express their ideas better when discussing articles with their
peers in the L1, while a small percentage (19.3%; n =54) of the students agree or strongly
agree that they can express their ideas better.
Table 4: Results of Descriptive Statistics: Using L1 with Other Students
______________________________________________________________________________________
Item
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Agree
______________________________________________________________________________________
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
______________________________________________________________________________________
I feel that I can relate
to my classmates when
42 (15.0)
27 (9.6)
97 (34.6)
75 (26.8)
30 (10.7)
I use my first language.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I prefer to work in groups
with classmates who speak 33 (11.8)
57 (20.4)
125 (44.6)
40 (14.3)
19 (6.8)
my first language.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I prefer to use my first
language with my fellow
40 (14.3)
30 (10.7)
94 (33.6)
78 (27.9)
37 (13.2)
classmates outside of class.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I believe that students
should talk English during
2 (4.3)
22 (7.9)
82 (29.3)
106 (37.9)
56 (20.0)
group activities in this class.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I can express my ideas better
when I am able to discuss
articles with my classmates 62 (22.1)
72 (25.7)
91 (32.5)
38 (13.6)
16 (5.7)
in my first language.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics of the questionnaire responses provided by the
students in the FL group and by the students in the NF groups of the students. An
independent-samples t-test was performed to determine if there were statistically
significant differences between fluent and non-fluent students’ beliefs using L1 with
peers. As Table 5 shows, there was a significant difference between fluent students (M =
2.75, SD = 1.13) and non-fluent students (M = 1.93, SD = 1.067) regarding their beliefs
31
about expressing their ideas in L1 when discussing articles, t (183) = -3.62, p = 0.01. A
significant difference was also found between fluent (M = 3.34, SD = 1.170) and nonfluent students (M = 2.55, SD = 1.352) in beliefs about using L1 with peers outside of
class, t (182) = -3.25, p = .000. These results provide evidence that L1 oral fluency has an
effect on both students’ beliefs about using L1 to express ideas when discussing articles
with their peers and L1 use with peers outside of class.
Table 5: Results of Descriptive Statistics: Using their L1 with Peers
______________________________________________________________________________________
Item
Group
n
Mean
SD
p
______________________________________________________________________________________
I prefer to use
my first language
FL
155
3.34
1.170
with my fellow
_________
.001*
classmates outside
of class.
NF
29
2.55
1.352
______________________________________________________________________________________
I can express
FL
155
2.25
1.128
my ideas better
when I am able to
_________
.000*
discuss articles
with my classmates
in my first language.
NF
29
1.93
1.067
______________________________________________________________________________________
*p<.05
Research Question 1c: To what extent do these students think that they benefit from using
their L1 during reading?
Table 6 shows descriptive statistics of students’ responses to the questionnaire items
about their perceptions towards using their L1 during reading. The results show that 39.3
% (n =111) of participants disagree or strongly disagree that they use L1 to discuss
challenging texts with their peers, while 29% of the students (n =83) report a neutral
stance. Still, 20.2% (n = 58) agreed that they use L1 with peers to discuss challenging
texts. About a third of the students (35.8%; n =100) agree or strongly agree that
32
translating helps when reading, but 38% (n =107) neither agree nor disagree that
translating helps when reading. Quite a larger percentage of students (70.7%; n =198)
disagree or strongly disagree that annotating in their L1 helps understand a text at deeper
level. About half of the students (51.5%; n = 144) disagree or strongly disagree that
translating texts into their L1 helps them learn. Only 15.0% of the students (n =42) say
that they use their L1 to check their comprehension of materials discussed in class, while
over half of the students (57.5%; n =161) report that they do not. Over half of the
students (55%; n =154) do not use a bilingual dictionary to look up new words.
33
Table 6: Results of Descriptive Statistics: Students’ Perceptions of L1 Use During L2
Reading Tasks
______________________________________________________________________________________
Item
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Agree
______________________________________________________________________________________
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
______________________________________________________________________________________
I like using my first
language with other
students to discuss texts
51 (18.2)
59 (21.1)
83 (29.6)
58 (20.7)
27(9.6)
assigned in this class.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I think that translating
words/sentences/ideas/
that I don’t know helps
32 (11.4)
38 (13.6)
107 (38.2)
71 (25.4)
29 (10.4)
me when reading texts
in English.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Annotating texts in my
first language helps me
understand the texts at
87 (31.1)
111 (39.6)
46 (16.4)
19 (6.8)
14 (5.0)
a deeper level.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I like translating texts in
English into my first
language because it helps 71 (25.4)
73 (26.1)
79 (28.2)
46 (16.4)
7 (2.5)
me learn.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I like to use my first
language to check to
see if I understand the
76 (27.1)
85 (30.4)
76 (27.1)
33 (11.8)
9 (3.2)
topics/materials discussed
in this class.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I like to use a bilingual
dictionary to look up new
vocabulary words when
73 (26.1)
81 (28.9)
75 (26.8)
40 (14.3)
9 (3.2)
I’m reading texts for this
class.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Table 7 shows the descriptive statistics of the questionnaire responses provided by the
students in the FL group and the NF groups of the students. An independent-samples ttest was performed to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between
the two groups of students’ (with different levels L1 reading fluency) in regards to their
perception of using L1 with L2 reading. There was a statistically significant difference
34
between FL students (M = 3.42, SD =1.12) and NF students (M = 3.04, SD = 1.07)
regarding translating English words/sentences/ideas that they do not know into L1 when
reading texts in English, t (167) = -2.21, p = .028. A significant difference was also found
between FL students (M = 2.46, SD =1.084) and NF students (M = 1.99 SD = 1.05)
regarding annotating texts in L1 to help understand the text at a deeper level, t (168) = 2.85, p = .005. There was also a statistically significant difference between FL students
(M = 2.87, SD =1.14) and NF students (M = 2.12, SD = .97) regarding translating texts in
L1 to help learn the TL, t (167) = -4.61, p = .00. A significant difference was also found
between FL students (M = 2.81, SD =1.06) and NF students (M = 2.09, SD = 1.061) about
using their L1 to check their understanding of materials discussed in class, t (168) = 4.42, p = .00. There was also a statistically significant difference between FL students (M
= 2.71, SD =1.15) and NF students (M = 2.18, SD = .97) regarding using a bilingual
dictionary to look up new words that they do not understand, t (168) = -3.28, p = .001. A
significant difference was found between FL students (M = 3.16, SD =1.16) and NF
students (M = 2.65, SD = 1.25) as well regarding L1 use with classmates to discuss
challenging texts, t (168) = -2.78, p = .006. Overall, these results indicated that students
who are relatively fluent in reading their L1 are more likely to use their L1 to complete
tasks in the L2.
35
Table 7: Results of Descriptive Statistics: Using L1 with L2 Reading
______________________________________________________________________________________
Item
Group
n
Mean
SD
p
______________________________________________________________________________________
I think that translating
FL
77
3.42
1.116
words/sentences/ideas
that I don’t know helps ___________
.028*
when reading
texts in English.
NF
92
3.04
1.068
______________________________________________________________________________________
Annotating texts in
FL
79
2.46
1.084
my first language
___________
.005*
helps me understand
the texts at a deeper level. NF
91
1.99
1.049
______________________________________________________________________________________
I like translating texts
FL
78
2.87
1.144
in English into my
___________
.000*
first language because
it helps me learn.
NF
91
2.12
.976
______________________________________________________________________________________
I like to use my first
FL
79
2.81
1.063
language to check to
see if I understand
__________
.000*
topics/materials
discussed in class.
NF
91
2.09
1.061
______________________________________________________________________________________
I like to use a bilingual
FL
79
2.71
1.145
dictionary to look up
new vocabulary words _________
.001*
when I'm reading texts
for this class.
NF
91
2.18
.973
______________________________________________________________________________________
I like using my first
FL
79
3.16
1.159
language with other
students to discuss texts __________
.006*
assigned in this class
that I find challenging.
NF
91
2.65
1.251
______________________________________________________________________________________
*p<.05
Table 8 shows descriptive statistics of students’ responses to the questionnaire items
about their perceptions towards using their L1 during L2 writing tasks. Over half of the
students, 65.7% (n =184), disagree or strongly disagree that they use L1 to write essays
or assignments, indicating that the majority of these students do not use their L1 in L2
while engaged in L2 writing tasks. About a third of the students, 34% (n = 95), agree or
36
strongly agree that translating their L1into English to write is not good, while a very low
percentage of the students (26.8 %; n =75) disagree or strongly disagree with this
statement. Also, less than 5% (n =13) of students agree or strongly agree to using their L1
when planning essays and 70.7% (n = 198) of the students do not prefer writing in their
L1 to help them write in L2. More than half of the students (57.9 %; n =162) did not feel
that they express their ideas better in their L1.
Table 8: Students’ Perceptions of Using L1 During L2 Writing
______________________________________________________________________________________
Item
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Agree
______________________________________________________________________________________
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
______________________________________________________________________________________
I use my first
language to help
87 (31.1)
97 (34.6)
62 (22.1)
26 (9.3)
8 (2.9)
me write essays or
assignments for this class.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I believe that
translating my first
language into English
23 (8.2)
52 (18.6)
106 (37.9)
59 (21.1)
36 (12.9)
to write essays is not a
good way to learn to
write in English.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I like to brainstorm/
free-write in my
first language while
85 (30.4)
110 (39.3)
49 (17.5)
24 (8.6)
10 (3.6)
planning my essays
for this class.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I can express
my ideas better
78 (27.9)
84 (30)
81 (28.9)
29 (10.4)
5 (1.8)
when I am able to
write in my first
language.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I prefer writing
in my first
96 (34.3)
102 (36.4)
66 (23.6)
8 (2.9)
5 (1.8)
language.
______________________________________________________________________________________
37
Table 9 shows the descriptive statistics of the questionnaire responses provided by the FL
group and the NF groups of the students in regards to L1 use during L2 writing tasks. An
independent-samples t-test was performed to determine if there was a statistical
difference between the two groups of students’ (with different levels of L1 writing
fluency) in regards to their beliefs about L1 use during L2 writing tasks. There was a
statistically significant difference between FL students (M = 2.85, SD =1.21) and NF
students (M = 2.12, SD = .90) about using their L1 to write essays or assignments, t (167)
= -4.47, p = .00. A significant difference was also found between FL students (M = 3.46,
SD =1.06) and NF students (M = 2.89 SD = 1.07) regarding their beliefs about translating
their L1 into English to write essays in TL, t (164) = -3.31, p = .001. A statistically
significant difference between FL students (M = 2.67, SD =1.12) and NF students (M =
2.09, SD = .97) was also observed beliefs about using their L1 to brainstorm when
planning TL essays, t (166) = -3.48, p = .001. A significant difference was also found
between FL students (M = 3.02, SD =1.07) and NF students (M = 2.03, SD = .88)
regarding beliefs about expressing their ideas better when they are able to write in their
L1, t (164) = -6.44, p = .00. There is also a statistically significant difference between FL
students (M = 2.69, SD =1.06) and NF students (M = 1.81, SD = .74) regarding
preference for using their L1 during writing, t (164) = -6.29, p = .00. These results
provide evidence that students who are relatively fluent in their L1 use it when writing in
the L2 and students who are not as fluent in L1 writing, will be less likely to tap into their
L1 knowledge during L2 writing tasks.
38
Figure 9: Results of Descriptive Statistics: L1 use in L2 Writing
______________________________________________________________________________________
Item
Group
n
Mean
SD
p
______________________________________________________________________________________
I use my first
FL
60
2.85
1.205
language to help
me write essays
__________
.000*
or assignments
for this class.
NF
109
2.12
.900
______________________________________________________________________________________
I believe that
FL
59
3.46
1.056
translating my first
language into English __________
.001*
to write essays is not
a good way to learn to
write in English.
NF
107
2.89
1.067
______________________________________________________________________________________
I like to brainstorm/
FL
60
2.67
1.115
free-write in my first
language while
__________
.001*
planning my essays
for this class.
NF
108
2.09
.972
______________________________________________________________________________________
I can express my ideas
FL
60
3.02
1.066
better when I am able __________
.000*
to write in my first
language.
NF
106
2.03
.878
_____________________________________________________________________________________
I prefer writing in
FL
59
2.69
1.055
my first language.
__________
.000*
NF
107
1.81
.741
_____________________________________________________________________________________
*p<.05
For each of the t-tests performed for the study, a Kruskall Wallis one-way analyses of
variance was also run, to confirm the results of the t-test. The results of the nonparametric
statistical procedures confirmed the results of the t-tests.
39
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
This chapter will discuss the patterns that seem to have emerged from the
quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data comes from students’ responses from
the 23 items about their beliefs. To gain insights into the patterns from the quantitative
data, I will use students’ responses to survey items that asked students to list three
advantages and three disadvantages about using their L1 in the classroom. The first
section will discuss the neutral stance that many students in the study took regarding a
number of survey items. The next section will examine the patterns of strong agreement
or disagreement that emerged from students’ survey responses on the survey. Then, I will
discuss survey items from which no apparently distinctive pattern emerged. The chapter
will conclude with a discussion about the limitations of the study, suggestions for further
research, and how the findings of this study can contribute to teachers’ understanding of
L1 use among generation 1.5 students in a college-level multilingual composition
classroom.
5.1. Survey Responses that Show Neutrality
In examining students’ perceptions of L1 use in a multilingual setting,
quantitative findings of this study indicate that, in most cases, students took a neutral
stance, neither agreeing nor disagreeing with L1 use. Students in this study remained
neutral on many survey items related to L1 use with classmates. These results may
possibly be due to the definitional categorization of generation 1.5 students. Qualitative
data from the survey offers some insight into these generation 1.5 students’ preference to
40
stay neutral on many of these survey items. (Note that the number at the end of each
quote refers to the ID number randomly assigned to each participant.)
Honestly, I speak and write English frequently to where people can’t tell it wasn’t
my first language. (184)
English has been developed as 1st language throughout time. (204)
I used my first language until preschool when I learned English. I know English
better than my first language. (242)
Four reasons seem to have emerged to provide insights into students’ neutral
stance on L1 use with classmates (a) students in this study are more fluent in English or
are fluent in both L1 and L2, (b) students in this study find it easier to use English than
their L1 in class, (c) students in this study use English and their L1 for different purposes
and in different contexts, (d) many students in this study cannot use their L1 because no
one else in their class speaks their L1.
The first reason why students from this study remained neutral on many items
related to L1 use with classmates is that they are either more fluent in English than their
L1, or that they can use English highly fluently with others because they are bilingual.
Since most generation 1.5 students typically begin learning English when they enter
elementary school, many of them remain fluent in their L1 in conjunction to learning
English. Some of them, however, lose some or most of their L1 fluency. A few students
from this study commented that most have been using English for most of their lives.
Therefore, many generation 1.5 students in this study are believed to be more fluent in
English than their L1.
41
In addition, students’ responses suggest that English is easier to use for them than
their L1. This could be connected to the above observations about students in the study
being more fluent in English or being bilingual. This could also be a possible explanation
for why students in this study remained neutral on many survey items. The following
comments demonstrate that students from this study find it easier to use English rather
than their L1.
It’s just easier to use English, since everyone pretty much understand it. (29)
My language isn’t as well discussed with everyone as English. (53)
Easier to communicate in English. (101)
It seems that, from the above student comments, one reason why these study participants
do not have a clear preference for using their L1 with classmates is due in part to them
acquiring English at an early age. They do not necessarily have to rely on their L1 to
communicate because they have sufficient, or possibly native-like, control of the
language.
Another reason why students in this study took a neutral stance to many survey
items is because they use each language for a different purpose or context. According to
students’ responses, cited below, students use English for school and their L1 for home.
This response seems to indicate that some students do not view their L1 as part of their
academic discourse, which explains the strong pattern of neutrality. Below are students’
responses that support this idea.
I don’t really use my first language in this class, only at home. (9)
I’d never had used my language in school. (39)
42
I only speak it at home or with people who can’t speak English. (184)
The fourth reason why students in this study remained neutral on items related to
using their L1 with classmates, is that students stated that no one else in their class shared
their same L1. This could explain the neutral stance because many students simply do not
have the chance to use their L1 with other classmates. Below are examples of students’
responses that support the lack of opportunities to use L1s.
I don’t know anybody who speaks my first language. (34)
Unlike Spanish, my first language isn’t well known in the US. (49)
I have no one in class who speaks my language. (82)
No one speaks my language. (181).
Even though most items related to L1 use with other students revealed a strong
pattern of neutrality, there were some items that diverged from this pattern. These items
are related to students’ perceptions of using their L1 for writing tasks in the TL, and L1
use in general. The next section will first discuss the strong pattern of agreement found in
relation to L1 use in general and then the strong pattern of disagreement observed in
relation to L1 use in L2 writing.
5.2. Survey Responses that Show Distinct Patterns
When it comes to L1 use in general, students’ responses to Likert-scale items
showed a strong pattern of agreement. The survey items related to students’ perceptions
of L1 use in general asked students if they agree that L1 use should be allowed in the
classroom, and about half of the students (46.6%) agreed that it should. One reason for
this strong pattern that emerged from the qualitative data is that many students value their
43
L1 and they do not want their L1 banned in the classroom. The following student
responses about the advantages of using their L1 in the classroom reveal that many
students in this study have a strong connection between themselves and their L1 culture.
People can learn about different diversities, cultures, and languages. (46)
Keep my first language while learning a new language. (59)
Don’t forget your native language. (66)
Appreciative towards my language/culture. (93)
These comments show that the generation 1.5 students in this study want to keep the
option of using their L1 in the classroom, not only for the purpose of preserving their
own language, but for learning about others as well. However, while students
acknowledge that they want to keep the option of using their L1 in the classroom open,
students in this study also showed a tendency to agree that English should be the medium
of the class as a whole. Students’ responses revealed three possible reasons for this
stance.
First, students in this study stated that using their L1 could alienate others,
including teachers, who may not speak their L1. Many participants (n = 98) reported that
they agreed English should be the language used in the classroom. Below are students’
responses that provide insight into why students from this study support this pattern from
the quantitative data.
Can cause barriers with other students who do not speak that language. (10)
Won’t be able to connect with students who aren’t my language. (12)
Others won’t understand and feel left out. (27)
44
Some students will not understand and may get offended. (42)
My professor won’t understand me. (61)
It may offend the teacher (83)
Left out of conversation on group works. (99)
These comments reveal that students from this study are sensitive about how their
language use affects others. It is possible that students in this study would rather use
English so that others do not feel alienated.
Second, it appears that students in this study feel that by using their L1, they are
not capitalizing on the opportunity to practice their academic English skills. According to
students’ responses below, there seems to be a perception that the composition class they
are enrolled in (English 10M or English 2) is an “English” class; therefore English should
be used at all times. This provides a possible explanation for why students showed a
tendency to agree that English should be the medium of instruction in the class. Results
from both quantitative and qualitative data may support this idea that these students try to
maximize their exposure to academic English, by limiting their L1 use in the classroom.
This, perhaps, could be connected to students’ responses about only using their L1 at
home. It is possible that study participants do not see how their L1 contributes to
academia. This effort to maximize the TL may be because these students are exposed to
English academic discourse only in composition or college classrooms. The student
responses below provide an insight into why about half of the students in this study agree
that English should be the language used in class at all times.
45
Well, this is English. I believe that to improve your reading or writing, most or at
least the majority of the time, English should be spoken to communicate with your
classmates. (48)
Not being able to speak, write, and read efficiently in English. (64)
You can’t use the second language well enough because you use your first language
too fluent in class. (120)
Not focused on English language. (142)
Another is the opportunity lost when I’m using my first language I’m not using
English. (168)
These comments reveal that students in this study want to maximize their TL use.
Lastly, through examination of the qualitative data it became apparent that
somehow during the course of some students’ education, or interaction with society, they
seemed to have internalized and associated the use of their L1 in the classroom with
punishment or negative consequences. Although no follow-up interviews were conducted
to ask for clarification from participants in this study, it could be speculated that the
policies of past schools or teachers, or even implicit messages from society, were a
possible reason for why many tended to have a negative view of L1 use. The following
student comments reveal this internalized negative association with using their L1.
Not all teachers allow you to speak it!! (26)
People make fun of my first language. (49)
Point out or made fun of by others. (76)
May get in trouble. (83)
46
People look at you with a bad face. (92)
I personally think that others may get annoyed. (112)
Can be looked down upon or seem uneducated. (199)
The above student comments provide an additional explanation for why students show a
tendency to agree with English as the medium of instruction in the classroom. This
negative association that many students in this study have with their L1 use seems to shed
some light on why they want English to be used in class at all times.
Students’ responses on quantitative data revealed a strong pattern of disagreement
in relation to L1 use during L2 writing. Since students in this study were asked about
their L1 use in a composition class, and many students reported that they were not fluent
in L1 reading (n = 92) and writing (n = 109), it is logical to conclude that they cannot use
their L1 because they are not fluent in it. Qualitative data supports this pattern, and below
are a few instances of students’ responses.
I can’t write in my first language. (62)
I don’t know how to write in my first language, so it would be hard. (89)
Can’t read or write in my first language. (122)
Not that fluent in my first language. (204)
The above student comments support the pattern of disagreement that emerged from the
quantitative data, suggesting that many of the generation 1.5 students who participated in
this study do not use their L1 during L2 writing. One obvious reason why they do not use
L1 in L2 writing tasks is because they cannot write fluently in their L1. Another reason is
47
that some cultures, such as Hmong, do not have a written language, so for these students,
the L1 is not available for them to use even if they wanted to.
Based on the findings presented in this section, it seems that while generation 1.5
students in this study have a sense of appreciation for their L1 and want to reserve their
right to use it, both qualitative and quantitative data indicate that they would rather use
English in their composition classrooms. Although, as discussed in this section, students’
responses to some items show a definite pattern, there were items from which no
distinctive pattern emerged. These items will be examined in the following section.
5.3. Survey Responses that Show No Distinct Patterns
When students were asked about the role of translation in completing reading and
writing tasks, no distinctive pattern emerged from student responses. Both quantitative
and qualitative data indicate that students showed mixed feelings towards using
translation regardless of whether it is for speaking, reading, or writing. It seems that some
students agreed that translating words/sentences/ ideas from L2 to L1 helps when
reading, but disagreed that translating texts in L2 into the L1 helped them actually learn
the TL. In terms of using translating with writing, students in the study show a tendency
to agree that translating is not a good way to learn how to write English. A possible
explanation to why students both agreed and disagreed about translating seemed to
emerge from the qualitative data, but there was not a definite pattern. In the comments
below, students from the study acknowledged the advantages of using their L1 to
translate L2.
Translate unknown words (ask others for definition in my 1st language. (3)
48
Helps translate words that aren’t familiar to me. (17)
I can translate it into my first language to get a deeper understanding. (60)
Translate an idea into clearer ideas with my first language. (196)
By translating unknown English word in my first language helps me to learn English .
(252)
Although the above comments show that students in the study perceived translation as
advantageous, students did not show a consistent opinion across multiple survey items
related to using translation. Students’ responses from qualitative data below, consider
translation as a disadvantage.
When you are writing an essay it’s hard to writing it in a different language and then
translate because it might sound different. (4)
It might not make sense translating. (29)
It’s hard to translate because the tenses are different. (39)
Not able to find the same meaning in my language. (86)
It’s hard to translate English to my language because one English word could be
multiple of my language. (173)
These comments show that students in this study are aware that translating one language
to another is complex. According to students’ responses in this study, students seem to
say that while translation is successful in some cases, many times translation is
unsuccessful. This is, perhaps, why there was no distinctive pattern that emerged from
these survey items. In sum, students in this study seem to be aware of both the advantages
49
and disadvantages of translating, so this could be why no logical pattern emerged from
students’ responses
5.4 Additional Survey Items that Provide Insight into Students’ Beliefs about L1 Use
Although some student responses in the qualitative data did not relate to any of
the Likert-scale items in the survey, they provided some additional insight into students’
perceptions of L1 use. In this section, I will discuss student’s responses to open-ended
questions that are relevant to this study, without specifying patterns of agreement or
disagreement. This section is intended to showcase additional students’ thoughts about
L1 use in the classroom.
First, it became apparent from both qualitative and quantitative data that
generation 1.5 students in this study saw both advantages and disadvantages to using their
L1 with other classmates. Although a neutral stance towards L1 use with classmates was
previously discussed, students’ responses to open-ended survey items led to an interesting
finding. The following student comments discuss the advantages of using L1 with peers.
Communicate better with students who also speak my language. (12)
Get to know students with the same background. (28)
It helps me feel closer to classmates who speak Spanish. (54)
This shows that students from this study use their L1 to build a community with
classmates who have a shared L1. The following comments are from the same
participating students as the comments above. It is interesting to note that students in this
study who stated L1 use with classmates is an advantage that helps connect or relate to
peers with a same L1, also saw L1 use in the classroom as a barrier from getting to know
50
students outside their homogeneous linguistic groups. The student comments below
indicate how students see their L1 use as a disadvantage.
Won’t be able to connect with students who aren’t my language. (12)
Not really engage with other b/c you are speaking a language that others don’t
know. (28)
Others may feel uncomfortable. (54)
The student comments above regarding the advantages and disadvantages of L1 use in
the classroom show that L1 use in a heterogeneous multilingual class is complicated. On
one hand, as students point out, it creates a community between others who speak their
same L1. On the other hand, using their L1 around other classmates who do not know it
can alienate some of those students, make them feel uncomfortable, and keep students in
their linguistically homogeneous groups, dividing, rather than building the classroom
community.
Another interesting category emerged from the qualitative data. Although students
in the present study reported using L1 to relate or connect with other classmates,
qualitative data revealed that some students use their L1 to exclude other classmates, and
the teacher in some cases.
I can talk to my friends without people knowing. (57)
Able to keep certain phrases away from other students. (92)
It’ll be a code when talking about others. (95)
Privacy (142)
Teacher won’t know what we’re saying. (202)
51
The comments above show that students are aware that they can use their L1 to their own
advantage. Many items regarding L1 use to exclude others were listed as advantages of
using L1 in the classroom. Students’ responses demonstrate that in a multilingual
classroom L1 could be used as a cohesive device, or as a mechanism to exclude others.
Qualitative data also provided some insight into students’ L1 use for specific reasons in
the classroom, such as gaining control of a task and translating. The following comments
provide evidence that students in this study use L1 as a resource.
Enable to discuss assignments I don’t understand. (2)
Associate meaning with words I don’t understand in English so classmates can help
me. (101)
You make more understanding with the teachers’ assignments. (120)
Describe homework if don’t understand (121)
You can understand better or get clarification on something. (134)
The above student comments indicate that students use their L1 as a resource when they
do not understand something, such as an assignment. So if their L1s were banned, these
students might not be able to gain control of certain TL tasks.
This section discussed students’ responses from the current study that were
tangential to the primary research questions, but provided additional insight into how
these students perceived L1 use in a college- level multilingual classroom. The next
section will discuss the limitations of the study, pedagogical implications, and
suggestions for further research.
52
In examining generation 1.5 students’ perceptions of L1 use in a college-level
multilingual classroom, three main conclusions can be made. First, generation 1.5
students in this study who are enrolled in a heterogeneous multilingual context prefer to
use the TL (English) as the medium of instruction in the classroom. According to these
students, they prefer to use the TL in the classroom because it provides maximum
exposure to the TL, it allows them to connect with other students who do not share their
same L1, and the TL is easier to use. Despite this preference to use the TL, a large
number of students in this study agreed that students should be allowed to use their L1 in
the classroom. In addition to wishing to have an option to use their L1, many students
indicated that using their L1 helped them with TL tasks, such as gaining control of an
activity or understanding an assignment. The results are consistent with existing studies
on L1 use in an L2 classroom in many ways.
The findings of the current study show that students prefer to use the TL rather
than their L1. This finding is similar to previous studies that examined L1 use in
monolingual contexts (EFL, ESL, FL) where all students speak the same L1 (Rivers,
2010; Turnbull, 1999). These studies also found that students prefer to maximize the TL,
but students in the current study had an additional reason that is related to their specific
context. The results from the current study indicate that students in a multilingual
context, where many L1s are represented, prefer to use the TL because they might
alienate their classmates and teachers who do not speak their L1. There are no existing
studies, to my knowledge, that examined generation 1.5 students’ perceptions of L1 use
in a multilingual classroom, so this particular reason that students have brought up may
53
be unique to this classroom context. Existing literature (de la Campa & Nassaji, 2009;
Moore, 2013; Schweers, 1999) confirms the results from the current studies in that
students use their L1 as a resource in the classroom. Students from these studies found
many advantages of using L1 with peers, which are similar to results yielded from
(Levine, 2003; Rolin-Ianziti, 2008; and Varshney & Rolin-Ianziti, 2006), which found
that L1 can be used for specific purposes, such as gaining control of a task, or clarifying
the meaning of TL words, sentences, or ideas.
5.5 Limitations and Pedagogical Implications
The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of generation 1.5
students about using L1 in a college-level multilingual composition classroom. The
results confirmed the idea that L1 use in this classroom context is complicated. The
findings indicate that there are many elements, such as students’ L1 fluency and the
existence of shared L1s that contribute to students’ beliefs about L1 use in the classroom.
The findings also indicate that students are aware of both the advantages and
disadvantages of their L1 use, and that they have preconceived notions of their L1 to
bring in to the classroom. These findings greatly contribute to the debate of L1 use in the
L2 classroom, though there are some limitations associated with the study.
First, due to the nature of survey-based studies, students’ honesty was expectedbut cannot be guaranteed. So the results should be interpreted with caution. Second, some
classrooms that the researcher visited to recruit participants had a large group of students
with a shared L1. The responses from students in these classes could have skewed the
data since there were more opportunities for these students to use their L1, compared to
54
classes without such a large group with a shared L1. Third, students who reported that
they were the sole speakers of their L1 in their class were not excluded from the study.
Since there were so few students, it is doubtful that their responses had any significant
impact on the overall results; however, it is possible that these students had to imagine
the situations that were asked about on the survey. The responses from these students
may have differed from the rest of the students. This study did not take into account this
possible difference. Fourth, even though the two composition classes included in the
study (English 10M and English 2) have the same goals, students in English 10M are
considered to be at lower levels of reading and writing than students in English 2.
Responses from these two classes, however, were analyzed together. Lastly, this study
investigated students’ perceptions of L1 use, not their actual L1 use, so the results of this
study should be only used as a resource when deciding to allow L1 use in a multilingual
classroom.
Despite these limitations, this study can offer some valuable pedagogical
implications. First, students in this study seem to have some predetermined beliefs of L1
use, not only of how they use their L1, but of how using their L1 might affect others, both
negatively and positively. Teachers can use these findings to inform their decision about
either allowing or prohibiting L1 use. Either way, students seem to need explicit
permission to use their L1, given the negative associations students may have with L1 use
in the classroom. Second, these students seem to prefer English as the language of
instruction used in the classroom. So, teachers do not necessarily need to be concerned
about students’ overreliance of the L1 in a college-level multilingual composition
55
classroom. Third, even though many teachers might be aware of the possibility that
generation 1.5 students are fluent in their L1, teachers should still not assume that all
generation 1.5 students are fluent in reading, writing, and speaking in L1. The findings of
this study indicate that generation 1.5 students have various levels of L1 fluency, and
they may not be able to rely on their L1 as an additional resource in the classroom even if
they want to.
5.6 Conclusion
These days, the number of generation 1.5 students enrolled in college has been
rapidly increasing. With this increase, it is becoming more and more important that
teachers who work with these students in multilingual composition classes know various
ways to facilitate these students’ success. The effective use of L1 should be one of the
ways to support these students’ success. This study revealed that L1 use in a multilingual
context is complex and depends on the dynamic of the specific class (e.g. presence or
absence of a shared L1). Some patterns that seem to play a role in students’ decision to
use their L1 as a pedagogical tool, or not, are their L1 fluency, shared L1s, teacher
preference, and previous classroom experiences. The present study has added an
important piece of information to this area of research, but further research is needed to
expand our understanding of the role of L1 in this classroom context.
Although this study has contributed to the development of our understanding of
generation 1.5 students regarding their perceptions of L1 use in a college-level
multilingual composition classroom, further research is needed to understand the specific
uses of L1 of generation 1.5 students. Many patterns of beliefs emerged from the current
56
study’s examination of students’ perceptions of L1 use in a heterogeneous classroom
context. However, further research is needed to address issues where no distinctive
patterns were found in this study, such as the perceived usefulness of translation by
generation 1.5 students. One suggestion would be to conduct a survey that only looks
specifically at how, when, and why students’ use translation. This might help shed some
light about the seemingly inconsistent beliefs found in the current study. Future research
should also explore the actual use of L1 in a multilingual classroom, especially L1 use
during group work when students are grouped with their classmates with the same L1s.
Such research will provide some confirmation of the amount, purposes, and reasons that
generation 1.5 students use their L1 with other students. It might also provide some
insight into the benefits of L1 use during group work if a comparison was made between
students grouped with classmates with a shared L1 and without a shared L1. Such
research might offer some insight into how and why students decide to use their L1s. It
would also be interesting to compare the perceptions of L1 use in their multilingual
classrooms of generation 1.5 students and those of teachers’.
57
Appendix A: Student Survey
Part One: Biographical Information
1)
Class (circle one):
English 2
English 10M
2)
Are you here on a student visa (F1, J1, etc.)? (Circle one)
Yes
No
3)
First Language: ______ If your first language is English, please stop here and
turn in the survey.
4)
Other language(s) that you know: ____________
5)
Where were you born? ______________
6)
How long have you lived in the U.S? ____________ 7) How old are you? _____
Part Two: Frequency and Fluency of First Language
8)
What percentage of the time do you read your first language? (Circle one)
0%-20%
9)
60%-80%
20%-40%
40%-60%
60%-80%
20%-40%
40%-60%
60%-80%
How well do you read your first language? (Circle one)
(not at all) 0------1------2------3------4 (fluently)
12)
How well do you write your first language? (Circle one)
(not at all) 0------1------2------3------4 (fluently)
13)
80%-100%
80%-100%
What percentage of the time do you speak your first language? (Circle one)
0%-20%
11)
40%-60%
What percentage of the time do you write your first language? (Circle one)
0%-20%
10)
20%-40%
How well do you speak your first language? (Circle one)
(not at all) 0------1------2------3------4 (fluently)
80%-100%
58
Part Three: First Language Use in this English Class.
14)
My teacher speaks my first language. (circle one):Yes
15)
There is at least one other classmate that speaks the same first language as me:
Yes
No
Not sure
16)
17)
No
Not sure
My teacher lets me know when I can and cannot use my first language in this
class. (circle one): Yes
No
What percentage of the time do you use your first language in this English
class?
0%-20%
20%-40%
40%-60%
60%-80%
80%-100%
59
Srongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Directions: Please read each statement carefully and choose the option that best describes your opinion.
Example: I like to read.
1. I feel that I can relate to my classmates when I use my first language.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
2. I like when my teacher allows me to use my first language in this class.
1
2
3
4
5
3. I believe that English should be the only language used in this class.
1
2
3
4
5
4. I prefer to work in groups with classmates who speak my first language.
1
2
3
4
5
5. I use my first language to help me write essays or assignments for this class.
6. I like using my first language with other students to discuss texts assigned in this class that
I find challenging.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
7. Students should not be allowed to use their first language in the classroom.
8. I think that translating words/sentences/ideas that I don’t know helps me when reading
texts in English.
9. I believe that translating my first language into English to write essays is not a good way to
learn how to write in English.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
12. Annotating texts in my first language helps me understand the texts at a deeper level.
1
2
3
4
5
13. I feel more at ease when I am allowed to use my first language in this class.
1
2
3
4
5
14. I can express my ideas better when I am able to write in my first language.
1
2
3
4
5
15. I like translating texts in English into my first language because it helps me learn.
16. I prefer to use my first language with my fellow classmates outside of class.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
17. Using my first language helps me learn English.
18. I believe that students should talk English during group activities in this class.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
19. II like
prefer
mylanguage
first language.
20.
to writing
use my in
first
to check to see if I understand the topics/materials
discussed in this class.
21. I can express my ideas better when I am able to discuss articles with my classmates in my
first language.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
22. I prefer to use my first language in class whenever I can.
23. I like to use a bilingual dictionary to look up new vocabulary words when I'm reading
texts for this class.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
10. I believe that in order to learn English well, students should use English all the time in
this class.
11. I like to brainstorm/free-write in my first language while planning my essays for this
class.
24. List three or more advantages of using your first language in this class.
25)
25. List three or more disadvantages of using your first language in this class.
60
Appendix B: Informed Consent Form (Students)
Dear Student:
You are being asked to participate in research which will be conducted by Jamie Ferrando, who
is a graduate student and Teaching Associate in the English Department at California State
University, Sacramento. The purpose of this research is to understand what students and
teachers believe about first language use in an English classroom. I would like to invite you to
help me with this research project by completing a short survey. The survey should take
between 10 and 20 minutes to complete. The study will be completed by June 2013.
After carefully reading this page, you will be asked if you are willing to participate in my
research. Participation in this study is voluntary and you can choose not to participate in the
following survey. If you decide that you do not want to participate, please return the survey to
me. If you choose to participate, please sign the bottom of this page, remove it from the survey,
and give it to me before you start the survey.
As you read the survey (if you choose to participate), some of the items may seem personal, so
please don’t feel like you have to answer every question. Although I hope that you share your
opinions with me, you don’t have to answer any question that you feel uncomfortable with. If
you experience any psychological discomfort during the study, and want help at that time or any
time after completing the research, you may call Psychological Services at the Sacramento State
Student Health Center at (916) 278-6416. Please respond to the questions to the best of your
ability. There are no right or wrong answers. I am simply asking for your opinions.
By doing this research, I am hoping that I can learn about how to teach multilingual students,
like you, more effectively. Additionally, by completing this survey, you may gain some insights
about what you personally think about using your first language in the classroom, why you use
your first language in the classroom, and for what purposes.
If you choose to participate, I ask that you do not write your name or student identification
number anywhere on the survey to keep your information confidential. The survey will stay
anonymous and will not be traced back to you individually. The results of this survey will not
be discussed with your instructor. All results that I get in this study will be confidential.
You will not receive any compensation for participating in this research, but your time and
energy is greatly appreciated.
If you have any questions about this research, you may contact Jamie Ferrando at:
jf383@saclink.csus.edu, or my faculty sponsor, Dr. Reiko Komiyama at
rk838@saclink.csus.edu.
Thank you,
Jamie Ferrando
61
Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary. Your signature below indicates
that you have read this page and agree to participate in my research.
________________________________
Signature of Participant
____________________
Date
62
References
Anton, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative
interaction in the L2 classroom. Modern Language Journal, 83, 233-247.
Atkinson, D. (1987) The mother tongue in he classroom: A neglected resource?, English
Language Teaching Journal, 41(4), 214-247.
Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL
Quarterly, 27(1), 9-32.
Baron, D. (1990). The English-only question: An official language for Americans?
Bingham, New York: Vail-Ballou Press.
Belz, J. A. (2003). Identity, deficiency, and L1 use in foreign language study. In Blyth
(Ed.), The sociolinguistics of foregin language classrooms: Contributions of the
native, near-native and non-native speaker (pp. 209-249). Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign
language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77(2), 262274.
Brooks-Lewis, K. A. (2009). Adult learners’ perceptions of the incorporation of their L1
in foreign language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 216-235.
Brown, H.D. (2000) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. (4th ed.) White
Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
63
Browning, G., Brinton, D., Ching, R., Dees, R., Dunlap, S., Erikson, M., et al. (2000)
California Pathways: The second language student in public high schools,
colleges, and universities. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office.
Calman, R., & Daniel, I. (1998). A Board’s eye view of core French: The North York
Board of Education. In S. Lapkin (Ed.), French second language education in
Canada: Empirical studies (pp. 283-325). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Canagarajah, A.S. (1999). Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Cook, V.J. (1992). Evidence for Multicompetence. Language Learning, 42, 557-591.
Cook, V. J. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 57(3), 402-423.
Cook, V.J. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching (3rd ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press, Inc.
Copland, F., & Neokleous, G. (2010). L1 to teach L2: Complexities and contradictions.
ELT Journal, 65(3), 270-280.
Crawford, J. (2004). Language choices in the foreign language classroom: Target
language or the learners’ first language. Regional Language Centre Journal,
35(1), 5-20.
CSUS English Department, (2012). First year composition reading and writing goals.
Sacramento, CA.
de la Campa, J.C., & Nassaji, H. (2009). The amount, purpose, and reasons for
using L1 in L2 classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 42(4), 742-759.
64
Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign
language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 154-166.
Edstrom, A. (2006). L1 use in the L2 classroom: One teacher’s self-evaluation. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 63(2), 275-292.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
Ferrer, V., (1999). The Mother Tongue in The Classroom: Cross-linguistic Comparisons,
Noticing and Explicit Knowledge.
www.teachingenglishworldwide.com/articles/ferrer.
Garcia, E. (1991). Education of Linguistically and culturally diverse students: Effective
instructional practices. Santa Cruz, CA National Center for Research on Cultural
Diversity and Second Language Learning.
Harklau, L., (2003). Generation 1.5 students and college writing. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Language and Linguistics.
Judd, E.L. (1987). The English Language Amendment: A case study on language and
politics. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 113-135.
Kibler, A. (2010). Writing through two languages: First language expertise in a language
minority classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 121-142.
Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language
use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The
Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 344-364.
65
Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers' codeswitching in foreign language
classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal,
85(4), 531-548.
Maillat, D., & Serra, C., (2009). Immersion education and cognitive strategies: Can the
obstacle be the advantage in a multilingual society?. International Journal of
Multilingualism, 6(2), 186-206.
McMillan, B.A, & Rivers, D.J., (2011). The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward
“English only.” Elsevir, 39, 251-263.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories. (2nd ed.).
London: Hodder Arnold.
Orland-Barak, L., & Yinon, H. (2005). Different but similar: Student teachers’
perspectives on the use od L1 in Arab and Jewish EFL classroom settings.
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 18(1), 91-113.
Polio, C.P., & Duff, P.A. (1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language
classrooms: a qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation.
Modern Language Journal, 78, 311-326.
Rivers, D.J., (2011). Politics without pedagogy: questioning linguistic exclusion. ELT
Journal, 65(2) 103-113.
Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Varshney, R. (2008). Students’ views regarding the use of the first
language: An exploratory study in a tertiary context maximizing target
language use. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(2), 249-273.
66
Schweers, C. (1999), Using L1 in the L2 classroom. English Teaching Forum, 37(2),
6-9.
Seng, G.H. & Hashim, F. (2006). Use of L1 in L2 reading comprehension among tertiary
ESL learners. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18(1), 29-54.
Scott, V. M. & De La Fuente, M. J. (2008). What’s the problem? L2 learners’ use of the
L1 during consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. Modern Language Journal,
92(1) 100-113.
Shapson, S., Kaufman, D., & Durward, L. (1978). B.C. French study: An evaluation of
elementary French Programs in British Columbia. Burnaby, BA: Faculty of
Education, Simon Fraser University.
Silva, T., (1992). L1 vs. L2 writing: ESL graduate students’ perceptions. TESL Canada
Journal, 10(1) 27-47.
Stapa, S.H., & Majid, A.H.A. (2009). The use of first language in developing
ideas in second language writing. European Journal of Social
Sciences, 7(4), 41-47.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL peer work. Language Learning, 52(1),
119-158.
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.
67
Turnbull, M. (1999). Multidimensional project-based teaching in French second language
(FSL): A process-product study. Modern Language Journal, 83, 548-568.
Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching,
but ... The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(4), 531-540.
Upton, T.A. (1997). First and second language use in reading comprehension strategies of
Japanese ESL students. TESL-EJ, 3(1).
Van Weijen, D., van den Berg, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sanders, T. (2009). L1 use during
L2 writing: An empirical study of a complex phenomenon. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 18, 235-250.
Varshney, R., Rolin-Ianziti, J. (2006). Student perceptions of L1 use in the foreign
language classroom: Help or hindrance? Journal of the Australasian Universities
Language and Literature Association, 105, 55-83.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge,
MA:MIT Press.
Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The Process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16,
195-210.
68