921882

research-article2020
LTR0010.1177/1362168820921882Language Teaching Researchde la Fuente and Goldenberg

LANGUAGE
TEACHING
Article RESEARCH

Language Teaching Research

Understanding the role of

1­–20
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
the first language (L1) in sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1362168820921882
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820921882
instructed second language journals.sagepub.com/home/ltr

acquisition (ISLA): Effects of

using a principled approach
to L1 in the beginner foreign
language classroom

María J. de la Fuente
and Carola Goldenberg
George Washington University, USA

Abstract
This study investigated whether second language (L2) classroom instruction that incorporates a
principled approach into the use of the first language (L1) by students and instructors has an effect
on beginning learners’ development of L2 speaking and writing proficiency, compared to L2-only
instruction, over the course of one semester. Participants were 54 students of Spanish enrolled in
six sections of a university-level Elementary Spanish course. The six intact classes, exposed to the
same task-based curriculum, were randomly assigned to two experimental groups (–L1 and +L1).
For the –L1 group, instruction and interaction were conducted exclusively in the L2, whereas
instruction and interaction in the +L1 group included specific uses of the L1. A pretest–posttest
design was used to measure change in speaking and writing proficiency. Effects were assessed using
the STAMP 4 test, a standardized measure of proficiency. Results indicated that courses under
both conditions promoted improvements in speaking and writing. However, students in the +L1
condition improved significantly more than those in the control –L1 group, both in speaking and
writing. This points to a potentially more important role for the L1 in the development of an L2.
Pedagogical implications are discussed, and directions for further research are offered.

Keywords
first language, instructed second language acquisition, optimal use of L1, principled approach to
L1 use, task-based pedagogy

Corresponding author:
María J. de la Fuente, Department of Romance, German & Slavic Languages & Literatures, Columbian
College of Arts and Sciences, The George Washington University, Phillips Hall 513 801, 22nd Street NW,
Washington, DC 20052, USA
Email: mjfuente@gwu.edu
2 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

I Introduction
From the end of the nineteenth century onwards almost all influential theoretical works on
language teaching have assumed without argument that a new language (L2) should be taught
without reference to the student’s first language (L1). (Cook, 2009, p. 112)

Foreign language (FL) classroom pedagogy has been dominated by the assumption that
instruction must be done in the target language, drawing on students’ first language (L1)
only when difficulties arise, and as a last resource (Hall & Cook, 2012). Indeed, the use
of L1 has been referred to in the literature as ‘the skeleton in the cupboard’ (Prodromou,
2002, p. 6) or ‘the elephant in the room’ (Levine, 2014, p. 332), thus, relegating L1 use
to the role of necessary evil.
From the late 19th to the late 20th century, second language (L2) only teaching was of
widespread acceptance. The emergence of second language acquisition (SLA) theory
strengthened the monolingual position. Krashen (1981) argued that using L1 deprived
students of the opportunity to receive L2 input, especially in contexts of instructed second
language acquisition (ISLA). This was based, in part, on the idea that adult L2 learning
took place in the same way as child L1 learning; thus, the L2 should be acquired, rather
than consciously learned. Up to the late 1990s, psycholinguistics-based SLA research
conceived of foreign language students as L2 learners, ‘non-native speakers striving to
acquire an L2’ (Kramsch & Whiteside, 2007). In other words, the target was the acquisi-
tion of the native speaker’s language. Firth and Wagner (1997) referred to this as a ‘mono-
lingual orientation of SLA’, which depicted a monolingual, monocultural community of
native speakers as pedagogical norm and the basis of SLA research. The monolingual
orientation started to be questioned in the late 20th century, when Krashen’s principles
were challenged by new SLA research. Today, we know that equating L1 acquisition to L2
acquisition is questionable (Cook, 2001), and the goals rarely are the same: ‘L1 children
achieve native speaker competence in one language; L2 users achieve competence in
more than one language’ (p. 407). In fact, as bilingualism has become central to many
SLA theories, so has the essential bilingual nature of the foreign language classroom.
Cook’s Multicompetence Model (2002, 2008), for example, changes the way we should
view L2 learners: from ‘deficient monolinguals’ to ‘multicompetent learners’. The L1 is
part of the L2 learner, and it is ‘inextricably bound up with their knowledge and use of the
second’ (Cook, 2002, p. 339). According to Cummings (2007), this interdependence of
the L1 and L2 promotes an ‘enhanced metalinguistic awareness’, as a result of dual lan-
guage processing, in addition to a ‘transfer of cognitive/academic or literacy-related pro-
ficiency from one language to another’ (p. 232). This can be seen in codeswitching, a
common practice in situations where speakers share two languages, and also common in
FL classrooms.
The dominant pedagogical approaches in the last 30 years or so – communicative
language teaching and task-based language learning – have advocated for minimizing L1
use in order to maximize classroom exposure to the L2, further promoting the resistance
to the use of L1 in FL classrooms and forgetting the essential nature of an FL classroom.
As underscored by Widdowson (2003): ‘our students come to class with one language (at
least) and our task is to get them to acquire another one’ (p. 149). Thus, monolingual
de la Fuente and Goldenberg 3

learning in the FL classroom is impossible: students cannot ‘switch-off’ their L1. The use
of the L1 is a natural phenomenon and it will occur in the classroom, no matter the condi-
tions of the teaching approach. Based on all this, some scholars have argued for a recon-
ceptualization of the foreign language classroom as a bilingual environment, and of
language learners as aspiring bilinguals (Dailey-O’Cain & Liebscher, 2009; Edstrom,
2006). In other words, the social and intercultural aspects of the FL classroom setting
cannot be ignored, the use of students’ L1 being the most salient. This has important
implications for current pedagogical approaches such as task-based language learning.
Classroom research on L1 use in instructed FL environments has focused on docu-
menting the presence and purposes of the L1, both by teachers and students (e.g. Antón
& DiCamilla, 1999; Brooks & Donato, 1994; de la Campa & Nassaji, 2009; Littlewood
& Yu, 2011; Nakatsukasa and Loewen, 2015; Tognini & Oliver, 2012). This descriptive
research is a necessary first step prior to investigating effects of L1 in L2 grammar and
vocabulary development; this is a small, but growing, area of research (Ammar,
Lightbown & Spada, 2010; de la Fuente, 2015; Horst, White, & Bell, 2010; Laufer &
Girsai, 2008; Lee & Levine, 2018; McManus and Marsden, 2017; Scott & de la Fuente,
2008, Tian & Macaro, 2012; Zhao & Macaro, 2014). This research, conducted in differ-
ent instructional environments, points out the value of L1 as a pedagogical resource.
However, because of the still prevalent idea that L1 hinders classroom-based L2 learn-
ing, more research on the actual effects is needed, both cross-sectional and, especially,
longitudinal. Thus, studies are needed that examine, with higher ecological validity, if
and how the use of L1 helps or hinders development of L2 proficiency. This research
‘contributes to building a pedagogical model’ of principled L1 use in the classroom (Lee
& Levine, 2018, p. 3). The primary aim of this study is to contribute to this body of
research by investigating whether (and how) L1 use in a task-based learning environ-
ment has a positive (or detrimental) effect on language learning. In the next section,
arguments advanced by ISLA research in support or against the use of L1 in L2 class-
rooms are examined.

II Review of the literature

The use and potential benefits of the L1 in the FL classroom has been an understudied
topic in ISLA literature. From a psychocognitive perspective, the interactionist approach
to ISLA (a theory that considers L2 development as a mainly internally driven process)
maintains that L2 is acquired via interactionally modified input (Long, 1981), modified
output (Swain, 1985) and error correction (Dekeyser, 1993). With its emphasis on maxi-
mizing L2 input and use (considered the ‘motors’ of SLA) this mainstream research has
ignored a role for the L1. Yet, research on bilingualism and language processing has
shown the interconnectness of L1 and L2 in the minds of bilinguals (de Bot, 2008;
Grosjean, 1989). In addition, development of proficiency in the L1 helps in the develop-
ment of proficiency in the L2. This is also the case with incipient bilinguals (i.e. L2
learners), for which connections with the L1 are much stronger than connections with the
L2 (Cummings, 2007). Thus, any SLA theory that views L2 learning as a mainly cogni-
tive – internal – process must acknowledge and include learners’ L1 as a variable.
4 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Another important body of ISLA research is based on a sociocultural perspective (see

Lantolf, 2000). Under this framework, L2 learning occurs as a result of social interaction,
with the L1 (and the L2) mediating this learning process. Learners’ competence in the L2
is determined by the social context and, for this reason, language variation and codes-
witching are considered beneficial for the learning of the L2.
Both social and cognitive aspects need to be considered in ISLA. For this reason, in
this section we review relevant studies from both dimensions.1 This gives us a more
complete picture of the state of the research in this area. The studies reviewed are divided
into two groups: (1) descriptive research that focuses on the presence, use and functions
of the L1 in ISLA contexts; and (w) inferential research that tries to establish links
between L1 use and L2 development.

1 The use of L1 in FL classrooms

An important body of research has focused on documenting the presence and purposes
of the L1 in the FL classroom setting (e.g. Antón & DiCamilla, 1999; Brooks & Donato,
1994; Dailey-O’Cain & Liebscher, 2009; de la Campa & Nassaji, 2009; DiCamilla &
Antón, 2012; Duff & Polio, 1990; Kim & Elder, 2005; Littlewood & Yu, 2011;
Nakatsukasa and Loewen, 2015; Polio & Duff, 1994; Rolin-Ianziti & Brownlie, 2002;
Tognini & Oliver, 2012). This descriptive research is a necessary first step prior to inves-
tigating effects of L1 in L2 development. A good number of these studies has described
teachers’ use of L1 and the main functions it serves.
Duff and Polio (1990) studied instructors’ use of the target language in college FL
classrooms in which the teacher was a native speaker (NS) of the L2. On average, teach-
ers used the students’ L1 for 32.1% of the time; however, a surprising amount of varia-
tion was found depending on the class. In a follow-up study (Polio & Duff, 1994) they
identified different uses of the L1: administrative vocabulary items, grammar instruc-
tion, classroom management, empathy/solidarity (rapport building), unknown vocabu-
lary (translation), and lack of comprehension. The authors reported ‘a lack of awareness
on the part of the teachers as to how, when, and the extent to which they actually use
English in the classroom’ (p. 320). Many studies have identified similar functions of the
L1, which could be classified into three categories: linguistic, managerial, and social
purposes. Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002) identified three main purposes: translating
words into the L1, metalinguistic awareness (contrasting L2 and L1 forms), and class-
room management. Kim and Elder (2005) established an important distinction between
core goals (teaching the L2) and framework goals (managing the classroom) as a basis
for analysing L1 use. Last, de la Campa and Nassaji (2009) identified similar main
functions of the L1: translation of vocabulary, comparing the two languages, giving
instructions and classroom management, and personal interactions between teachers
and students. Overall, this research indicates that instructors use the L1 in the L2 class-
room and, even when they do not have an explicit principled or informed approach, they
all coincide in a series of purposes for such use. It also shows that explicit grammar
instruction and focus on form (Long, 1996), i.e. drawing learners’ attention to linguistic
items during meaning-based interaction, are arguably the most reported uses of L1 in L2
classrooms.2
de la Fuente and Goldenberg 5

The new view of L2 learners as multicompetent users has also promoted a substantial
number of studies that have focused on the learners’ use of the L1. Brooks and Donato
(1994) used a sociocultural approach to study the classroom interaction of learners of
Spanish. The study revealed that learners used their L1 for metatalk (talk about the task
and the L2 needed to complete the task) and to ‘gain control of the task’ (p. 271). From
a similar theoretical background, Antón and DiCamilla (1999) studied the social and
cognitive functions of L1 in beginning students’ collaborative interaction during L2 lan-
guage tasks. They noted the benefits of L1 use for scaffolding and establishing partici-
pant relations (managing the task, discussing solutions to problems). The L1 also proved
to be a critical tool for accessing L2 lexical or grammatical forms. Dailey-O’Cain and
Liebscher (2009) studied two German as FL classrooms where L1 use was allowed,
concluding that students used the L1 and the L2 in similar ways that bilinguals do, which
promoted ‘both second language learning and bilingual language behavior’ (p. 143).
DiCamilla and Antón (2012) observed and quantified language functions typically
encountered in student–student collaborative interactions (2012, p. 177):

•• content: creating, discussing, and/or agreeing about it;

•• language: L2 focus, either form or meaning, including solving lexical or gram-
matical problems, and understanding words or utterances;
•• task management: defining, limiting and managing a task; and
•• interpersonal relations: social environment, rapport building.

Last, Tognini and Oliver’s study (2012) revealed the same functions of L1 mentioned
above, indicating also that L1 was used for learner–learner, as well as teacher–learner,
exchanges and tasks about aspects of L2 culture (presentation and discussion). This last
aspect is of special relevance as foreign language instruction continues to evolve into
content-based, cross-cultural pedagogy. This means that exchanges about L1 culture, as
well as and cross-cultural analysis, are common in the FL classroom even at introduc-
tory levels.
In a review of the main research findings on classroom use of L1 by both teachers and
learners (Levine, 2014), Levine argues that the primary functions of the L1 clearly
emerge from this research, but raises the question of how to control code choice (L1 or
L2) in the classroom, as there seems to be a shortage of a principled basis in the FL class-
room for the use of the L1. He argues that a principled approach to L1 is needed, where
students and instructors have awareness of when and why to use the L1 (2014, p. 337).
In sum, a growing body of descriptive research evidences that exclusive or near
exclusive use of the L2 is rarely encountered in the FL classroom. These studies offer
indirect evidence of the potential cognitive, social, and pedagogical value of the L1,
especially if used in a systematic manner. They do not, however, offer an answer to the
central question, namely whether L1 use in the classroom facilitates L2 acquisition.

2 Effects of L1 in ISLA
As mentioned above, the concept of access to L1 during L2 learning is relevant to current
cognitive-psycholinguistic perspectives of ISLA. Yet very few studies have empirically
6 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

addressed the effects of the use of L1 on L2 learning. Evidence from bilingual language
processing studies points that (1) at the early stages of L2 learning, L1 governs language
processing (Grosjean, 2001); (2) there are links between learners’ L1 and the develop-
ment of language awareness (Widdowson, 2003); and (3) L1 use facilitates processing
by reducing the cognitive load on learners’ working memory (Kern, 1994).
The most widely reported uses of L1 have to do with L2 forms: teachers and learners
use the L1 to convey and check the meaning of new words (translation), and to convey
metalinguistic information about the L2 (grammar). This, along with the importance of
the focus on form construct in ISLA (Long, 1991) explains the focus of existing studies
on grammar information (Ammar, Lightbown & Spada, 2010; de la Fuente, 2015; Horst,
White, & Bell, 2010; Kupferberg & Olshtain, 1996; McManus and Marsden, 2017; Scott
& de la Fuente, 2008), or vocabulary (Laufer & Girsai, 2008; Lee & Levine, 2018; Tian
& Macaro, 2012; Zhao & Macaro, 2014). These studies assume a positive role of explicit
metalinguistic knowledge in the development of ISLA processes.
Kupferberg and Olshtain (1996) conducted a study with 137 intermediate FL learners,
showing that the use of contrastive metalinguistic input (input given by the teacher that
focuses on the differences between the learner’s L1 and L2) facilitated the acquisition of
difficult target structures, as shown in subsequent recognition and production tasks.
Ammar et al. (2010) examined the performance of L2 learners on metalinguistic tasks
followed by interviews, finding a positive correlation between students’ awareness of
L1–L2 differences and their ability to correctly judge and form questions in the L2. The
authors concluded that the provision of explicit information about L1–L2 differences
positively affects learners’ performance. Scott and de la Fuente (2008) researched learn-
ers’ use of the L1 by two groups of intermediate-level college learners of French and
Spanish who were engaged in paired, metalinguistic, form-focused tasks. The study
explored the ways in which students used their L1 and the L2 to solve grammar prob-
lems. Findings from stimulated recall sessions suggested that the ‘ban’ of the L1 posited
significantly greater cognitive demands on L2 learners during task completion, conclud-
ing that the use of L1 to talk about grammatical aspects of the L2 (metatalk) facilitates
cognitive processing of L2 by reducing cognitive load of the learners. McManus and
Marsden (2017) used an experimental design to investigate the effectiveness of provid-
ing L1 explicit information with practice on both online and offline processing of a
French grammar structure. Two experimental groups were provided with L2 explicit
grammar information, but one of the groups received additional L1 explicit instruction
combined with L1 practice (grammaticality judgement tasks). The results showed that
the group where L1 was included improved online L2 processing of the target grammar
form and also accuracy in grammaticality judgement tasks. The authors hypothesized
that the L1 explicit information clarified concepts and form–meaning mappings, and the
L1 practice reinforced these concepts and mappings. This crucial role for explicit infor-
mation in the L1 was also observed in a quasi-experimental study by de la Fuente (2015),
who examined its effects on language awareness of target L2 forms. In this case, the
explicit information was given as corrective metalinguistic feedback. The results showed
significant gains in recognition and production for those who received metalinguistic
feedback in the L1. Online think-aloud protocols (concurrent to students’ feedback pro-
cessing) also showed a higher awareness of the target forms for students who received
de la Fuente and Goldenberg 7

this feedback in the L1. The author hypothesized that the L1 provided additional cogni-
tive support in the form of high awareness to analyse complex L2. All these studies
examined an important function of L1: to convey or discuss metalinguistic information
about the grammar of the L1, and they seem to agree on the following: L1 metalinguistic
input and feedback facilitates awareness of L1–L2 differences and cognitive processing,
and may aid ultimate acquisition.
In terms of learning of vocabulary forms and meanings, a few studies have investi-
gated this empirically. Laufer and Girsai (2008) addressed the effect of explicit contras-
tive analysis on the incidental acquisition of single words and collocations, finding an
immediate advantage of contrastive analysis. Tian and Macaro (2012) investigated L1
use in lexical focus on form. They compared the differential effects of teacher’s L1 use
with teacher’s L2-only explanations of new words during listening comprehension activ-
ities, and found that those learners who received L1 translation equivalents outperformed
those who did not on the immediate posttest, but not on the delayed posttest. Zhao and
Macaro (2014) conducted a similar study but included a control group; they also com-
pared concrete and abstract works. According to their results, teacher’s L1 use led to
greater vocabulary gains both in immediate and delayed posttests (recalling of words).
Finally, Lee and Levine (2018) also focused on instructor’s L1 use for lexical explana-
tion. The study exposed intermediate and advanced language learners to three instruc-
tional conditions: L1 explanations for vocabulary purposes, L2-only instruction, and no
explanation of vocabulary items (control group). Both experimental groups outper-
formed the control group in terms of gains in learning of phrasal verbs, but the use of L1
benefited especially intermediate learners, who showed similar levels of vocabulary
learning and listening comprehension to those of advanced learners. This research indi-
cates a positive impact of L1 use over L2-only instruction.
The research on effects reviewed above, while needed, does not offer evidence of
what a sustained principled approach to L1 would do in terms of enhancing (or not) stu-
dents’ proficiency, the end goal of L2 ISLA. In other words, they offer cross-sectional
evidence. No study, to our knowledge, has attempted to investigate what a principled
approach to L1 in the classroom would look like, and what effects it would have over
time, i.e. over the course of a semester. This type of research is warranted in order to
‘contribute to building a pedagogical model’ of principled L1 use in the classroom (Lee
& Levine, 2018, p. 3).

III Rationale for the study and research question

The present quasi-experimental study incorporates optimal uses of the L1 (Macaro,
2009) identified in the literature, implemented in a systematic, principled manner
(Levine, 2014) as a variable. The goal of the study was to test the optimal position to L1
use in the FL classroom by identifying its effects on the development of L2 proficiency
after one semester of instruction.
L2 proficiency has been defined and measured in different ways in the SLA literature
(e.g. Leclercq, Edmonds & Hilton, 2014). For the purposes of this study, proficiency was
defined, according to the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
(ACTFL) Proficiency Guidelines (2012), as what individuals can do with the L2
8 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

(functional ability) in terms of speaking and writing in real-world situations in a spontane-

ous and non-rehearsed context, regardless of where, when, or how the L2 was acquired.
The research question guiding this study was: to what extent does L2 classroom
instruction which incorporates a principled approach to the use of L1 by students and
instructors have an effect (positive or negative) on the development of speaking and writ-
ing L2 proficiency by elementary learners, compared to L2-only instruction, over the
course of one semester?

IV Methodology
1 Participants
A total of 52 undergraduate students aged between 18 and 29 years old participated in
this study, which took place within a Spanish language program at a private research
university located in the northeast area of the US. Of the 52 students, 44 had English as
L1; the other eight students had tested as advanced high/superior English speakers
according to the ACTFL scale,3 and were fully immersed in an English-speaking aca-
demic environment.4 Participants belonged to six intact classes of an intensive Elementary
Spanish course. Two sections were dedicated to ‘true’ beginner students and the remain-
ing four to ‘false’ beginners.5 For the purposes of the study, the six classes were assigned
to either of two groups or conditions: plus L1 (+L1) or minus L1 (–L1). The +L1 group
had a total of 27 students (11 male and 16 female participants), and consisted of one sec-
tion of true beginners and two sections of false beginners. The –L1 group had a total of
25 students (8 male and 17 female participants), and consisted of one section of true
beginners and two sections of false beginners. Participation in the study was optional.
Students were informed about the existence of the study and its characteristics, and they
also received a consent form that detailed their role and responsibilities in the study.
Those who decided to sign up, committed to take two standardized language proficiency
tests, one at the beginning and one at the end of the semester; and to complete an online
survey at the end of the semester. Participation in all three instances of the study resulted
in extra credit (2%) in the final grade. Students who did not want to participate in the
study were offered the chance to complete a series of activities throughout the semester
instead, for a comparable extra credit.

2 Pedagogical context
The language program’s pedagogical framework is task-based L2 learning. As such, fre-
quent exposure to, and use of the L2 are non-negotiable conditions for proficiency devel-
opment. The program has a spiral curriculum to ensure constant content recycling and
scaffolding of language items. The core Spanish language curriculum consists of five
semesters of language instruction, or 18 credit hours in total. The Elementary Spanish
course comprises the first six credit hours. This is an intensive course with six contact
hours per week and approximately 10 independent work hours per week. The course
emphasizes the development of interactional speaking and writing. As a task-based
course, it revolves around the notion of meaningful interactions and problem-solving
de la Fuente and Goldenberg 9

collaboration as key resources for the development of L2 competence. At the end of the
course (90 hours of language instruction), learners are expected to achieve, at least, a
Novice-High level on the ACTFL scale in speaking and writing skills.6 Students are
placed into the course following a three-step placement process that includes an online
placement test, classroom observation by the instructor (first week) and one-on-one
interviews with a placement advisor if needed.
Six instructors were involved in the delivery of classes, including one researcher, who
was also in charge of the design and set up of the courses and instructional materials.
Four instructors were native speakers of Spanish, and the other two were native speakers
of English. All instructors were university trained and experienced in teaching Spanish
as a foreign language using the task-based pedagogy. The participating instructors in
both groups volunteered to teach these classes and agreed to adhere to the +L1 or –L1
policy accordingly. Depending on the group they were assigned (+L1 or –L1) they
received training on the role that the L1 (English) would have in their class during the
semester. In the case of the +L1 group, the three instructors were trained on the princi-
pled approach to English use (see next section) that would be present in their class-
rooms.7 The –L1 group had to maintain an L2-only classroom environment and was
trained on strategies to implement this instructional approach.

3 The principled approach to L1

Following Levine (2014), and based on the existing literature, we established a set of
functions for which instructors would use the L1 as a potentially beneficial tool: ‘L1 is
used . . . for procedural communication, for establishing or maintaining control of the
group, for reducing anxiety . . . and for explicit focus on grammatical forms or vocabu-
lary for comprehension and/or learning’ (2014, p. 337). The idea behind this is that the
instructor can consciously control his/her choice of language because s/he has an aware-
ness of this principled approach. Likewise, based on prior literature, we decided on a set
of functions of the L1 typically encountered in beginner student–student classroom inter-
actions (see DiCamilla & Antón, 2012; Tognini & Oliver, 2012). Based on the above, we
selected the components of our principled approach to L1, which constituted the main
variable of the study (see Table 1). As can be seen in Table 1, eight functions were identi-
fied for instructor–student interaction. This includes student’s use of the L1 in interac-
tions with the instructor. In terms of student–student interactions, we identified five main
uses of the L1.
The first two functions focus on language (grammar forms, lexical problems); num-
bers three to six have to do with procedural communication, although given the essential
task-based nature of the course we decided to have an individual task management cat-
egory. Category seven refers to content, and category eight has to do with other social
functions of the L1 (rapport building, reducing anxiety, social interaction).

4 Procedure
The study was conducted over the course of one semester (15 weeks of instruction). As
explained earlier, the +L1 group (three intact sections with three different instructors)
10 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Table 1.  Functions of the first language (L1) in the second language (L2) classroom.

Functions of L1 Instructor– Student– Student–

student instructor student
Metalanguage (explicit grammar teaching,   
solving grammar problems, analysis of L2
grammar)
Vocabulary comprehension, meaning of L2   
utterances
Task management (instructions, procedural   
questions/clarifications, task planning)
Course policies    
Discussing classroom pedagogical approach    
Developing learning strategies    
Talking about (inter)cultural aspects   
Interpersonal relations (off-task interactions)   

Table 2.  STAMP 4S writing and speaking level key.

Writing and speaking level key

Novice Intermediate Advanced

1. Novice-low 4. Intermediate-low 7. Advanced-low
2. Novice-mid 5. Intermediate-mid 8. Advanced-mid/high
3. Novice-high 6. Intermediate-high

was marked by the presence of the L1 in the classroom for the specific purposes outlined
in Table 1. In contrast, instructors in the –L1 group (three intact sections with three dif-
ferent instructors) implemented an L2-only approach, and students were highly encour-
aged to use the L2 extensively for the functions identified in Table 1. Compliance with
the condition established for each group was monitored through periodic classroom
observations and meetings with instructors.
In order to measure speaking and writing proficiency, we used the STAMP 4
(Standards-based Measurement of Proficiency)8 computer-administered, adaptive test,
created at the University of Oregon and aligned to the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines.
Given that the test measures proficiency in terms of functional ability, and that writing
and speaking responses are scored by certified ACTFL raters, we considered this test to
be a valid and reliable instrument to gather quantitative data related to participants
Spanish proficiency.
The test was administered at the beginning (pretest) and at the end of the semester
(posttest). Based on their proficiency level, test-takers encountered a series of speaking
and writing tasks. Each test-taker was assigned a benchmark level on a scale of 1 (Novice-
Low) to 8 (Advanced Mid/High) that is aligned with the ACTFL proficiency levels
descriptor (see Table 2). Table 2 shows the Avant STAMP 4S scoring rubric.9
de la Fuente and Goldenberg 11

The pretest was administered at the beginning of the third week of the semester, after
12 hours of instruction, and the posttest took place right after the end of the semester
(week 16), after 90 hours of instruction. The posttest allowed the researchers to observe
any changes in L2 proficiency due to the semester-long pedagogical intervention.
Appendices C and D show two sample test items.
Additional instruments used to collect data were student and instructor report surveys.
The students report survey (see Appendix A) was administered at the end of the semester.
Students were asked to reflect on what had happened in class throughout the period of
instruction. This way the researchers could further verify whether the premises of the
intervention had been maintained in each classroom. The survey’s questions were based
on the three types of interaction that identified in the principled framework, and addressed
teaching of the specific functions of L1: five questions referred to student–student inter-
action, six questions to student–instructor interaction, and eight to instructor–student
interaction. Respondents in both groups were instructed to read a series of statements and
select the options (Likert scale) that best described their classroom situation in terms of
instructor–student, student–instructor, and student–student communication. The survey
included a total of 38 statements that reflected the use (or lack of use) of the L1 in the
classroom and included the functions of the L1 as described in Table 1 above.
Instructors were also asked to complete an anonymous survey at the end of the semes-
ter (see Appendix B) aimed to confirm the treatment conditions in their classrooms
throughout the semester. The survey consisted of a set of 39 paired questions in which
instructors were asked to estimate the use of the L1/L2 in their classrooms for the func-
tions identified for the principled approach to the L1 above. Based on the existing evi-
dence that there is no L2-only beginning FL classroom, the options in the Likert scale
were percentage ranges of L1/L2 usage (i.e. 0%–20%, 20%–40%, etc.).

V Results
The scores obtained from the STAMP pretests and posttests were submitted to descrip-
tive and statistical analyses. There was a variation in the number of participants in each
productive skill section (Speaking, n = 44; Writing, n = 50), depending on the availabil-
ity of ratable samples for speaking. The means and standard deviations of the student’s
scores on the STAMP tests at the beginning and at the end of the semester are shown in
Table 3. The descriptive statistics show how students who received classroom instruction
incorporating a principled approach to the use of the first language (+L1) scored higher
on the posttest than students who received instruction only in the foreign language (–L1),
both in speaking and writing proficiency (see also Figure 1).
Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were conducted to determine if foreign language
(L2) classroom instruction incorporating a principled approach to the use of the first
language (L1) by students and instructors has an effect on beginning learners’ develop-
ment of speaking and writing L2 proficiency, compared to L2-only instruction, over the
course of one semester. The independent variable consisted of the type of instruction
given, mainly using first language (+L1) or not (–L1). The dependent variables were
proficiency scores in speaking and writing after one semester of instruction. The pretest
scores were the covariate.
12 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Table 3.  Summary statistics per group: Speaking and writing.

Group N Pretest Posttest

  Mean SD Mean SD
Speaking:
+L1 25 2.80 0.88 4.20 0.71
–L1 19 2.74 0.82 3.74 0.65
Writing:
+L1 27 3.30 0.87 4.67 0.78
–L1 23 3.26 0.96 4.13 0.63

Figure 1.  Improvements in foreign language speaking and writing proficiency by type of
instruction.

Prior to conducting the analyses, the proficiency scores were assessed for normality
using z-scores formed by dividing skewness by the standard error of skewness. Values
within +/– 3.29 are indicative of normality in a sample size of 50 (West, Finch, & Curran,
1995). Table 4 presents summary statistics for the proficiency scores. The z-scores were
all well within the range indicating that the proficiency scores were normally distributed.
Additional assessments were made to ensure that the data met the underlying assump-
tions of the analysis with regard to homogeneity. Levene’s tests for homogeneity of vari-
ance indicated that there were no significant differences between group variances. These
are also reflected in Table 4.
Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) revealed significant differences in post
instruction scores for speaking (F(1,41) = 6.78, p < 0.013) between the +L1 (EMM
= 4.19, SE = 0.11) and the –L1 (EMM = 3.76, SE = 0.13) group. The eta squared
(η2)  value of .142 may be interpreted as medium effect (Cohen, Cohen, West and
Aiken, 2003). Cohen’s d (d) value of .8 may be interpreted as large effect (Cohen,
1988). Likewise, significant differences in post-instruction scores were also found for
writing (F(1,47) = 9.07, p < 0.004), between the +L1 (EMM = 4.66, SE = 0.12) and
the –L1 (EMM = 4.14, SE = 0.13) group. The eta squared (η2) value of .162 may also
be interpreted as medium effect. Cohen’s d (d) value of .9 may be interpreted as large
de la Fuente and Goldenberg 13

Table 4.  Summary statistics for language proficiency scores.

Proficiency n Mean SD Skewness SE z F df p

Scores  
Speaking:
Pretest 44 2.77 0.85 0.34 0.36 0.96 0.14 1,42 0.713
Posttest 44 4.00 0.72 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.07 1.42 0.795
Writing:
Pretest 50 3.28 0.90 0.27 0.34 0.79 0.14 1.48 0.710
Posttest 50 4.42 0.76 0.28 0.34 0.84 3.43 1,48 0.070

Table 5.  Analysis of covariance on foreign language speaking and writing proficiency.

Group n EMM* SE 95% CI F df p η2 d

Speaking:
+L1 25 4.19 0.11 3.96–4.41 6.78 1, 41 0.013 0.142 0.8
–L1 19 3.76 0.13 3.50–4.01  
Writing:
+L1 27 4.66 0.12 4.42–4.90 9.07 1, 47 0.004 0.162 0.9
–L1 23 4.14 0.13 3.88–4.39  

Note. * Estimated marginal mean.

Table 6.  Questions with significant differences in student survey.

Type of interaction Number of Number of questions with

questions significant differences (*p > 0.1)
Student–student 10 0
Student–instructor 12 4
Instructor–student 16 16

effect (Cohen, 1988). Table 5 provides the results of the analysis of covariance on the
speaking and writing proficiency scores. Tables 6 indicates questions with significant
differences in the student survey.

VI Discussion
1 Effects of principled approach to L1
The results of this quasi experimental study show that instruction in all six Elementary
Spanish sections (regardless of +L1 or –L1 conditions) promoted improvements in speak-
ing and writing L2 language proficiency, as shown by the adjusted mean scores (see
Figure 1). At the very least, these results do not support any of the current pedagogical
concerns regarding the potentially detrimental role of L1 in the classroom for beginning
14 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

instruction (speaking or writing skills). Neither do they substantiate the claim that exclu-
sive use of L2 translates into more L2 learning in the case of beginning learners. The fact
that half of the sections of this beginners intensive Spanish class showed strong results in
speaking and writing proficiency, ‘despite’ the presence of the L1 in the classroom, has
great significance. More importantly, the fact that significant differences in post-instruc-
tion scores (speaking and writing) were fund between the +L1 and the –L1 group point to
a potentially more important role for the L1 in the development of L2 by beginning learn-
ers. A principled use of L1 may have a beneficial effect in the development of speaking
and writing proficiency by beginning learners. Without a doubt, this is something worth
pursuing further. These results are in line with the instructional implications of the grow-
ing body of empirical research both framed under psychocognitive theories as well as
sociocultural theories of ISLA.
An important question, and one that this study did not seek to address, is which types
of L1 use (by students, by instructors) and which specific functions had a bigger impact
on learning. In other words, what within the +L1 condition (principled approach to L1
use) accounts for the significant gains in learning? The results of the surveys adminis-
tered to students and instructors at the end of the semester could help us shed some initial
light on what transpired in the classrooms.
To recall, the students’ survey did not seek students’ opinions or perceptions, but
rather evidence of what happened in the room in relation to L1 use over the course of the
semester. The fact that no statistical differences were found between groups in any of the
10 questions related to student–student interaction, seems to indicate that the use of L1
by students during peer interactions was not controlled in the classrooms. Students in
these beginning Spanish classrooms, regardless of condition, relied heavily on their L1
to mediate their performance during tasks and their understanding of the L1 (in line with
most studies).
In terms of student–instructor interactions, the fact that significant differences were
found in four questions (out of 12) may indicate that the use (or ban of) the L1 to talk to
the instructor was more controlled in the classroom. Nevertheless, it is clear that students
made use of English in both groups either to interact with other classmates or, to some
degree, with their instructor.
However, the significant differences between groups for all 16 questions related to
instructor–student communication strongly suggest that instructors were able to imple-
ment the assigned approach in a consistently enough manner that students clearly saw a
pattern of +L1 or –L1 use by their teacher. It can be hypothesized, then, that the results
of the study could not be attributed to differences in what transpired in the classes in
terms of peer interaction, but rather to the effect of the instructors using the L1 for several
functions.
The results of the additional instructor’s survey lend support to this idea: the responses
to questions #2 to #17 (those related to the use of L1 or L2 by the instructor) show high
consistency with the assigned pedagogy: the percentages of use of L1 or L2 for the dif-
ferent functions vary, and offer a pattern of consistency with very few exceptions. There
were instances when instructors in the –L1 group used the L1 (as reported) but the per-
centage of reported usage was low. In contrast, responses related to use of L1/L2 by
students show much lower consistency. For example, in response to Question 21: ‘My
de la Fuente and Goldenberg 15

students use Spanish to ask vocabulary questions about ____ of the time we spend on
those activities’, the three instructors in group +L1 reported 40%–60%, 20%–40%, and
80%–100%, respectively; and the three instructors in the –L1 group reported 40%–60%,
80%–100%, and 20%–40%. A similar variation was found in many other responses to
questions referred to learners’ communication. This further illustrates that, while instruc-
tors may be able to implement a principled approach to their own use of the L1, it is
much harder to control how learners operate within a given framework.
This study does not address how much the instructors’ use of the L1 impacts the quan-
tity of L1 or L2 use by learners but, judging by the results of the surveys, it seems that
not significantly. This was also observed by Macaro (2001), who points out that learners
with low proficiency in the L2 benefit from the instructor’s L1 use because it helps
lighten the cognitive load on working memory (Macaro, 2005, p. 75). Thus, the argument
that the instructor’s use of the L1 undermines the L2 learning process is not supported by
this study.
In sum, although the present study is far from demonstrating links between particu-
lar uses of the L1 and students’ progress in language learning, it shows that the princi-
ple of avoidance of the L1 in the classroom is not supported in the context of beginning
FL instruction that is based on a task-based pedagogical approach and incorporates a
role for grammar instruction and focus on form. The results lend support to Macaro’s
‘optimal position’ to L1 use, which recognizes the benefits of the learner’s first lan-
guage as a meta-cognitive tool and a scaffold for language development (Macaro,
2009, p. 36).

2 Pedagogical implications
The findings of this study have important implications for conceptualizing the role of the
L1 in the FL classroom. First, they invite practitioners to rethink exclusive reliance on
monolingual instructional strategies in FL teaching and engage in an open discussion
about the use of the L1 for pedagogical purposes. They also show that a task-based,
interaction-oriented pedagogy is not incompatible with the introduction of a principled
use of L1 at the lower levels of instruction. In fact, and in light of the new insights from
both psychocognitive and sociocultural ISLA research, task-based pedagogy can be
more efficiently implemented if the L1 is brought to the class ‘as a cognitive and linguis-
tic resource’ (Cummings, 2007, p. 238). In particular, the L1 could be used to develop
‘focus on form’ strategies and teach about the L2 during the completion of tasks designed
to maximize exposure to the L2 (Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008, p. 270).
The growing body of evidence about the benefits of certain L1 uses in the FL class-
room should be included in teacher development training in order to demystify its detri-
mental effect, and help teachers understand the functionalities of the L1 as a learning tool
while promoting quality exposure and use of the L2 in the classroom.
Both teachers and educational policy makers should be encouraged to adopt a learner-
centered approach that acknowledges the complex nature of the adult L2 learner’s mind
and recognizes that the L1 ‘is a valuable resource, just like the L2 grammar, the text-
books, the teacher’ (Levine, 2014, p. 346). The starting point for FL teaching needs to be
a recognition of the learner as a multicompetent L2 user.
16 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

VII Conclusions, limitations, and future directions

The results of this quasi-experimental study seem to align with both observational and
experimental ISLA research (psychocognitive as well as sociocultural-based) on the ben-
efits of certain uses of the L1 in the FL classroom. In the case of beginning learners,
exclusive use of L2 may be a roadblock for maximizing proficiency development, under-
stood as speaking and writing ability.
Also, in line with current research, the study evidences a reality of FL classrooms:
beginning learners use their L1, and instructors have a hard time ‘controlling’ this.
However, they are able to articulate and implement their own informed, principled
approach to L1 once they develop an informed awareness. And once they can view their
students as L2 users who have two languages available in the same mind they can also
become aware of the reasons behind their L1 use.
Being, to our knowledge, the first one to explore the potential effects of L1 use over
the course of one semester, this study had several limitations, such as the relatively small
sample of participants, and the inclusion of eight participants whose L1 was not English
and were, in fact, operating through two – not one – foreign languages. Excluding stu-
dents whose L1 is not the same may have yielded different results. In fact, the increasing
linguistic diversity in the foreign language college classroom may posit a challenge to
this line of research, as well as an opportunity to investigate what happens in instruc-
tional contexts where the L1 is the medium of instruction in the institution in which the
participants are studying, but not participants’ L1.
For this reason, it raises more questions than it answers, opening multiple paths for
future research. First, the study operationalized proficiency as ability to speak and write
in the target language; however, it would be important to investigate the effects of class-
room L1 use on listening and reading proficiency. Second, more studies of this same
nature are needed that address the potential effect of L1 use at intermediate and advanced
levels of language instruction. Cross sectional studies are also needed that examine the
potential effect of specific L1 functions, especially those having to do with metalanguage
and focus on form; as well as research that continues to examine online language (L1/L2)
processing data from students.
We are a long way from understanding the role of L1 in ISLA, but a reconsideration
of the L1 as a pedagogical tool is long overdue. The L1 needs to be included as a variable
in cognitive and sociocultural accounts of ISLA, so that instructional practices can be
based on an informed understanding of its benefits.

Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to the anonymous reviewers for all their helpful comments on this paper. We
would like to thank all the participant teachers and students. We also would like to acknowledge
the financial support for this project from the “Nick-of-Time” grant of the Columbian College of
Arts & Sciences at the George Washington University.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
de la Fuente and Goldenberg 17

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iD
María J. de la Fuente https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6533-0639

Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes
1. Although an important part of the L2 teaching literature has focused on the teaching of English
as a second language (TESOL), for the purposes of this study the research that we report inves-
tigated foreign language learning and teaching in ISLA contexts where most learners share a
common L1 and the teacher is bilingual (English as a foreign language, or Foreign languages).
2. Noting the absence of focus on form research that examined the occurrence of using L1 dur-
ing interaction, Nakatsukasa and Loewen (2015) investigated L1 use during teacher-initiated
focus on form episodes in a Spanish classroom. The teacher’s use of L1 was associated to
students’ grammar-related questions or errors about grammar forms that were the focus of the
class, as well as vocabulary questions.
3. The scale identifies five major levels of speaking and writing proficiency: Distinguished,
Superior, Advanced, Intermediate, and Novice. The major levels Advanced, Intermediate,
and Novice are subdivided into High, Mid, and Low sublevels. These describe the continuum
of proficiency from that of a language user with little or no functional ability to the highly
articulate, well-educated language user.
4. There were four non-English as L1 students in each group. In the +L1 group, three students
had Chinese and one Japanese as their L1. In the –L1 group, two students had Korean, one
student Chinese, and one student French as their L1.
5. In this particular language program, students with no previous exposure to the L2 are assigned
to ‘true’ beginners sections, while those who have been previously in contact with the L2, but
whose linguistic competence still falls in the beginner’s range are assigned to ‘false’ begin-
ners sections. This last group includes (1) learners who have received formal instruction but
whose proficiency falls at or under the Novice-Mid range, as assessed during the placement
process; (2) learners who have lived in or been in contact with a Spanish-speaking com-
munity, including heritage learners, but whose proficiency falls at or under the Novice-Mid
range. All sections follow the same syllabus and assessment materials, but true beginners are
expected to attend an additional hour of oral communication practice per week, in order to
make up for the lack of previous exposure to the language.
6. As defined by the standards of American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages
(ACTFL), learners at this level are expected to be able to manage successfully a number of
uncomplicated communicative tasks in straightforward social situations on predictable top-
ics (those linked to their immediate needs and interests). They are also expected to be able
to meet a limited number of basic and practical writing needs and express themselves within
certain familiar contexts.
7. Instructors in the +L1 group attended two initial workshops where the eight areas of L1 use
were discussed. After that, instructors were guided, through discussions, on the best practice
strategies to introduce the L1 in the classroom. Two formal classroom observations, plus
18 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

informal visits, were also part of a follow-up scheme in which the researchers identified areas
for further development and addressed them individually with each instructor.
8. The Avant STAMP 4S test is an online adaptive test of proficiency developed by the Center
for Applied Second Language Studies (CASL) at the University of Oregon. It is designed to
estimate a language learner’s proficiency in four skills in the L2, and is consistent with widely
used proficiency scales such as ACTFL.
9. Cut scores are determined by calculating the median item difficulty for the items assigned
to each major proficiency level from those items remaining in the pool. A value of 1:4 logits
is added to this value to determine the ability level needed to have an 80% probability of
answering a median level question correctly. Setting the cut score to a Rasch value rather than
to a particular number correct allows the particular items in the test to change while the cut
score stays stable. In order to insure Inter-Rater-Reliability for speaking and writing sections,
20% of all responses are graded by a second rater and the system monitors and reports how
the raters are doing with live updates of IRR. Managers monitor grading of all raters to ensure
they are grading accurately and that there is no ‘drift’ occurring.

References
Ammar, A., Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (2010). Awareness of L1/L2 differences: Does it mat-
ter? Language Awareness, 19, 129–146.
Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F.J. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in
the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 233–247.
Brooks, N., & Donato, R. (1994). Language and language learning. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., & Aiken, L.S. (2003) Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition. Routledge.
Cook, G. (2009). Use of translation in language teaching. In Baker, M., & G. Saldanha (Eds.),
Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 112–115). New York / London: Routledge.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review,
57, 402–423.
Cook, V. (ed.) (2002) Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching. 4th edition. London: Hodder
Education.
Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms.
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 221–240.
Dailey-O’Cain, J., & Liebscher, G. (2009). Teacher and student use of the first language in foreign
language classroom interaction: Functions and applications. In Turnbull, M., & J. Dailey-
O’Cain (Eds.), Use of second language and foreign language learning (pp. 131–144). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
de Bot, K. (2008). Introduction: Second language development as a dynamic process. The Modern
Language Journal, 92, 166–178.
de la Campa, J., & Nassaji, H. (2009). The amount, purpose, and reasons for using L1 in L2 class-
rooms. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 742–759.
de la Fuente, M.J. (2015). Explicit corrective feedback and computer-based, form-focused instruc-
tion: The role of L1 in promoting awareness of L2 forms. In Leow, R., Cerezo, L., & M.
Baralt (Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning (pp. 173–
199). Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.
Dekeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral profi-
ciency. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 501–514.
de la Fuente and Goldenberg 19

DiCamilla, F.J., & Antón, M. (2012). Functions of L1 in the collaborative interaction of beginning
and advanced second language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22,
160–188.
Duff, P.A., & Polio, C.G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language
classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 74, 154–166.
Edstrom, A. (2006). L1 use in the L2 classroom: One teacher’s self-evaluation. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 63, 275–292.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental concepts in
SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 286–300.
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguistics, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one per-
son. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In Nicol, J. (Ed.), One mind, two languages:
Bilingual language processing (pp. 1–22). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language
Teaching, 45, 271–308.
Horst, M., White, J., & Bell, P. (2010). First and second language knowledge in the language
classroom. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14, 331–349.
Kern, R. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in second
Language Acquisition, 16, 441–461.
Kim, S.H., & Elder, C. (2005). Language choices and pedagogic functions in the foreign lan-
guage classroom: A cross-linguistic functional analysis of teacher talk. Language Teaching
Research, 9, 355–380.
Kramsch, C., & Whiteside, A. (2007). Three fundamental concepts in second language acquisition
and their relevance in multilingual contexts. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 907–922.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Kupferberg, I., & Olshtain, E. (1996). Explicit Contrastive Instruction Facilitates the Acquisition
of Difficult L2 Forms. Language Awareness, 5(3–4), 149–165.
Lantolf, J.P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Laufer, B., & Girsai, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning:
A case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics, 29, 694–716.
Leclercq, P., Edmonds, A., & H. Hilton (Eds.) (2014). Measuring L2 proficiency: Perspectives
from SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Lee, J.H., & Levine, G.S. (2018). The effects of instructor language choice on second language
vocabulary learning and listening comprehension. Language Teaching Research, 24, 250–
272.
Levine, G.S. (2014). Principles for code choice in the foreign language classroom: A focus on
grammaring. Language Teaching, 47, 1–17.
Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language class-
room. Language Teaching, 44, 64–77.
Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York
Academy of Science, 379, 259–278.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot,
K., Ginsberg, R., & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspec-
tive (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. (1996). Authenticity and learning potential in L2 classroom discourse. In Jacobs, G.M.
(Ed.), Language classrooms of tomorrow: Issues and responses (pp. 148–169). Singapore:
SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
20 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms:

Theories and decision-making. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 531–548.
Macaro, E. (2005). Reading strategies of young-beginner learners of French: An intervention
study. Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the British Association for
Applied Linguistics, Bristol, UK.
Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher codeswitching in L2 classrooms: Exploring ‘optimal use’. In Turnbull,
M., & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning
(pp. 35–49). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2017). L1 explicit instruction can improve L2 online and offline
performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 459–492.
Nakatsukasa, K., & Loewen, S. (2015). A teacher’s first language use in form-focused episodes in
Spanish as a foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 19, 133–149.
Polio, C.G., & Duff, P.A. (1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language class-
rooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. The Modern
Language Journal, 78, 313–326.
Prodromou, L. (2002). Prologue: The liberating role of the mother tongue. In Deller, S., & M.
Rinvolucri (Eds.), Using the mother tongue: Making the most of the learner’s language (pp.
6–8). Peaslake: Delta Publishing.
Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Brownlie, S. (2002). Teacher use of learners’ native language in the foreign
language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 402–426.
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, 249–273.
Scott, V., & de la Fuente, M.J. (2008). What’s the problem? L2 learners’ use of the L1 during
consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 100–113.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and com-
prehensible output in its development. In Gass, S., & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second
language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Tian, L., & Macaro, E. (2012). Comparing the effect of teacher codeswitching with English-only
explanations on the vocabulary acquisition of Chinese university students: A lexical focus-
on-form study. Language Teaching Research, 16, 367–391.
Tognini, R., & Oliver, R. (2012). L1 use in primary and secondary foreign language classrooms
and its contribution to learning. In Alcón Soler, E., & Safont-Jordà, M.-P. (Eds.), Utrecht
Studies in Language and Communication, volume 24: Discourse and language learning
across L2 instructional settings (pp. 53–78). Leiden: Brill.
West, S.G., Finch, J.F., & Curran, P.J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-normal vari-
ables: Problems and remedies. In Hoyle, R.J. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts,
issues and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Widdowson, H.G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Zhao, T., & Macaro, E. (2014). What works better for the learning of concrete and abstract words:
Teachers’ L1 use or L2-only explanations? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26,
75–98.