BCLTS Easter Seminar 2016 at Nottingham University By Guo Jiaqi

1. MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION IN THE L2 CLASSROOM
JIAQI FENG GUO (郭佳琪)
Easter Seminar 16th -17th April 2016
University of Nottingham

2. OVERVIEW
 Models of medium of instruction
 Both sides of the debate with empirical research findings
 Recommendations

3. MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION: MODELS
Language of Instruction
Monolingual Mixed
language/code-
switching
Bilingual/Trilingual
L1 L2

4. BACKGROUND
 L2-Only program and policy
 Monolingualism
 Code-switching
 Bilingualism & multilingual & prulingualism

5. TL AROUNDTHE WORLD
[Model 1]
• Listening, Speaking, Reading,Writing,
• Cultural Aspects of English
 all through English-only Instruction
[Model 2]
• Listening, Speaking
• Reading,Writing, Cultural Aspects of
English
 through English-only Instruction
 80% Use of English
[Model 3]
• Listening, Speaking
• Reading,Writing, Cultural Aspects of
English
 through English-only Instruction
 60% Use of English
Adapted from Choi, S. (2000)

6. TL AROUNDTHE WORLD
• Maximum use ofTL;
• Aim for 80% of lesson in L2

7. National
Agencies:UK
(early 1990s)
“From the outset, the
foreign language rather than
English should be the
medium in which classwork
is conducted and managed.”
(Department of Education
and Science)
“The natural use of the
target language for virtually
all communication is a sure
sign of a good modern
languages course” (DES)
“the lesson should be conducted
through the medium of the target
language....to avoid interference
from the sound and syntactical
patterns of the mother
tongue....(and) to lessen any desire
the pupils may have to engage in the
process of translation” (DE.
Northern Ireland)

8. UK
agencies
post-2000
“pupils are expected to use
and respond to the target
language, and to use English
only when necessary (for
example when discussing a
grammar point or when
comparing English and the
target language)”
(learners) should use their
knowledge of English or
another language when
learning the target language
2016?

9. Macaro, E. (1997).Target Language, Collaborative Learning and Autonomy, Multilingual Matters
 Systematic observation; interviews; questionnaires
 Statement:“good language teachers use the L2 almost exclusively”
 Only 17% disagreed with the statement
 Most teachers believed L2 should be predominant language
 Most teachers felt limited L1 was useful
 L1 facilitated setting up L2 tasks
 L1 sometimes needed to explain new lexical items which arise in interaction
TEACHERS’ BELIEFS

10. MONOLINGUALISM & L2-ONLY POLICY

11. L2 TEACHING METHODOLOGIES
 Direct method
 Natural approach
 Behaviorism
 Communicative language teaching (CLT)
 Task-based language teaching (TBLT)
 Anti Grammar-Translation methods (GTM)

12. Fernández, R. F. F. (2015).THE EFFECTS OF L1 OVERUSE IN L2 LEARNING: EVIDENCE FROM THREE CASE
STUDIES. IJAEDU- International E-Journal of Advances in Education, 1(3), 183–192.
 Aim:The effects of excessive mother tongue use in foreign language classrooms in Ekaterinburg, Russia
 Methodology: 3 case study over 5 years
 Data: transcripts, (covert recordings of the students’ communication output in interaction with the teacher and
monologues as well as emails and text messages were collected in order to obtain reliable samples of
interlanguage. ), introspection essays, and real class examples through classroom observation
 Result: 1) limited progress in communicative skills in English and Spanish is achieved due to their constant
reference to the Russian language system, despite having had enough controlled practice and performed well in
the controlled application stages of the learning process. 2) excessive translation from and to the native language
hampers greatly the outcomes of the instructional process

13. Cohen,A. D. and Brooks-Carson,A. (2001), Research on Direct versusTranslatedWriting: Students' Strategies and
Their Results.The Modern Language Journal, 85: 169–188.
 Aim:The effects of excessive mother tongue use in foreign language classrooms in Ekaterinburg, Russia
 Methodology: quantitative (39 students of French, 6 intact lessons at intermediate level)
 Data: background questionnaires, essays prompts, strategies Checklist and Evaluative Feedback
 Result: a negative impact on learners’ writing output in terms of syntactic and pragmatic errors when learners
used their L1 at the planning stage then translated into their L2.

14.  A positive and direct correlation between the teachers’ use of the TL and learners’ interlanguage development
(e.g. S.Krashen, 2002; Niżegorodcew, 2007; Piske &Young-Scholten, 2009;Viakinnou-Brinson,Herron, Cole, &
Haight, 2012),

15. 美国明德大学沉浸式中文课程
INTENSIVE CHINESE SUMMER PROGRAM | MIDDLEBURY

16. 对学生 对教师
入学考试：入学时有分班考试和Oral Proficiency Interview(OPI)。后者是由美国外语教
学学会制定的一套具有普遍性的用于测试口语能力的标准化测试程序。分为四个等级：
初、中、高和最高级。
誓约：学生得在入学时签订一个语言誓约，在学习期间只说汉语，不能用英语。 禁止用英文与学生交流
课堂 大班课，两节。十五到二十人。
1．检查学生预习的情况，听写。单次成绩
都要记入总成绩。
2．第一节：语法课，由主任教师讲解本课
语法点的意义和用法，并有少量练习。
3．第二节：生词课。练习课文中重要的生
词，并阅读另一篇相关文章。
集体备课制度，每周两次。同年级的所有
教师一起准备两天的教学内容和教学方法。
具体包括确定每一个语言点及其中英文释
义；对几个语言点的比较，导入方法，练
习方法，以及语言点之间的衔接和顺序。
练习时，尽量用学过的语言点和词汇，不
能用没有学过的。
小班课，两节。五到六人。
1．第一节：语法练习课。通过大量的问答
练习巩固新语法点。
2．第二节：情景活动课。课前预习时，学
生按新课的语法点和词汇编写对话，在课
堂上背诵或表演。
3．教师提供事先准备好的材料，包括语法
和词汇及其他情景，学生再编写对话或文
章。
禁止用英文讲解。
学生为中心，练习是课堂的主要形式。
有错必纠。

17. 对学生 对教师
个别谈话 帮助学生复习所学内容。或者侃大山。
晚间答疑
测试 每人每天每次的成绩都会按不同比例
计入总成绩。每过一段时间教师都要
根据成绩与学生分别谈话，指出进步
和不足，帮助学生认识自己的学习状
况。

18. THE MULTILINGUAL TURN

19. THE MULTILINGUAL TURN

20. USING LEARNERS’ EXISTING KNOWLEDGE
 Harbord (1992, p. 351) points out that for those at beginner and pre-intermediate level,“translation/transfer is a
natural phenomenon and an inevitable part of second language acquisition".
 Studies (Ghabanchi &Vosooghi, 2006; He, 2012; Laufer, Girsai,& Batia Laufer and Nany Girsai, 2008) show that
students could benefit from contrastive teaching as they are given the opportunity not only to notice the L2
linguistic features that would otherwise be ignored, but also to reflect and check on the validity of their existing
knowledge and then reconstruct new knowledge in their linguistic repertoires.

21. QUALITYVS QUANTITY
 Cook (2001) argues that if instructional language in L2 is not understood by students, the intended content is
very likely to be passed over as nothing more than just “meaningless” words or sounds.

23. ZPD
 ”The distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the
level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration
with more capable peers" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).

24. Centeno-Cortés, B. and Jiménez Jiménez,A. F. (2004), Problem-solving tasks in a foreign language: the
importance of the L1 in private verbal thinking. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14: 7–35.
 Objective: the analysis of private verbal thinking (PVT) during problem-solving activities carried out in a second
language, as well as the study of the role that both the L1 and the L2 play in this process
 Participants: three groups (two groups of learners of Spanish at intermediate and advanced levels and one group
of native Spanish speakers)
 Task: participants were asked to answer to the best of their ability fifteen cognitively challenging questions in
Spanish (problems of logic or mathematics, visual–spatial problems, kinship questions)
 Findings: participants who didn’t use their L1 in private speech demonstrated greater difficulty in reasoning with
cognitively challenging problem solving tasks.

25. HOW MUCH L1 SHOULD WE USE?
L1 USE: 2%-5% (Kong & Zhang, 2005), 4%-12% (Macaro, 2001), 0–18%(Rolin-Ianziti &Brownlie, 2002), 0%-60%
(Levine,2003), 0%-90% (Duff & Polio,1990)

26. RECOMMENDATIONS
 Postmethod perspective
 Language learning principles
 Strategic use of code-switching
 A combination of a Inter-lingual approach and Intra-lingual approach

27. POSTMETHOD – CRITICAL LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2002). Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for LanguageTeaching .Yale University Press.
 Particularity: a goal and a process (focus on meaning, grammar, discipline, a sense of achievement)
 Practicality: context-sensitive (the pedagogic factors governing the microcosm of the classroom as well as by
the sociopolitical forces emanating from outside.)
 Possibility: recognition of learners’ and teachers’ subject-positions (their class, race, gender, and ethnicity, and for
sensitivity toward their impact on education).

28. LANGUAGE LEARNING & PROCESSING
L2
Input
Sound-
meaning
mapping
Meaning-
form
mapping
Contextual
exposure
Corrective
feedback
Passive
knowledge
Production-
based
activities
Corrective
feedback Knowledge
reconstruction
Fluency &
Accuracy
Procedural
knowledge

29. INTER-LINGUAL APPROACH
 Compare the two languages (e.g. vocabulary lists; translate phrases)
 Contrast the grammars
 Pedagogical focus most on where the two language systems diverge
 Gradually eradicate errors
 Awareness of language; knowledge of language

30. INTRA-LINGUAL APPROACH
 Essential ingredients are L2 input and interaction
 Changes occur in the brain as a result of input and interaction
 Pedagogical emphasis is on 4 skills
 Attempt to simulate the ‘outside world’.

31. LESSON ON MAKING PANCAKES (LOWER - INTERMEDIATE)
 Show a video of someone making pancakes (no commentary; acts as stimulus)
 Get students to brainstorm ingredients in L1
 Get students to look up L2 words in bilingual dictionary: ingredients; processes; fillings.
 Students do gap -fill using imperatives (pour; add; mix etc.)
 In pairs students create a recipe for making pancakes in L2
(Inter-lingual approach)

32. LESSON ON MAKING PANCAKES (LOWER - INTERMEDIATE)
 Teacher begins by asking (L2) ‘do you cook at home?’ ‘do you like cooking?’ ‘have you ever made pancakes?’ ‘do
you like Nutella as a filling?’
 Teacher: what ingredients do you need for making pancakes; students encouraged to ask for words they don’t
know (L2: how do you say X?); to ask for clarification (L2: do you mean...?); to give confirmation signals (L2: ah
ok!)
 Teacher elicits processes from students by scaffolding (you put the milk.........*elicits+ in the bowl)
 •Eventually students record a cookery programme and write out a pancake recipe.
(Intra-lingual approach)

33. REFERENCES
 Cummins, J. (2015). Language differences that influence Reading Development - Instructional Implications of Alternative
Interpretations of the Research Evidence. In P.Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Reading: Reader,
Text, and Context . Routledge.
 Cummins, J. (2005).Teaching for cross-language transfer in dual language education: Possibilities and pitfalls. In TESOL
Symposium on dual language education:Teaching and learning two languages in the EFLsetting (pp. 1–18).
 Cook,V. (1997).The consequences of bilingualism for cognitive processing. In A. M. B. Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.),Tutorials in
Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (pp. 279–299). Hillsdale, N.J.:Erlbaum.
 Cook,V. (Cohen,A. D. and Brooks-Carson,A. (2001), Research on Direct versusTranslatedWriting: Students' Strategies
andTheir Results.The Modern Language Journal, 85: 169–188.
 Centeno-Cortés, B. and Jiménez Jiménez,A. F. (2004), Problem-solving tasks in a foreign language: the importance of the
L1 in private verbal thinking. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14: 7–35.
 Choi, S. (2000). Caregiver input in English and Korean: Use of nouns and verbs in book-reading and toy-play contexts.
Journal of Child Language, 27(1), 69-96.
 Centeno-Cortés, B. and Jiménez Jiménez,A. F. (2004), Problem-solving tasks in a foreign language: the importance of the
L1 in private verbal thinking. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14: 7–35.
 Ellis, N. C. (2006). Cognitive perspectives on SLA:The associative-cognitive CREED.Aila Review , 19 (1),100–121.

34. REFERENCES
 Ghabanchi, Z., &Vosooghi, M. (2006).The role of explicit contrastive instruction in learning difficult L2
 grammatical forms: a cross-linguistic approach to language awareness.The Reading Matrix , 6 (2). Harbord, J. (1992).The use of the mother tongue
in the classroom. ELT Journal , 46 (4), 350–355.
 Fernández, R. F. F. (2015).The effects of L1 overuse in L2 learning: Evidence from three case studies. IJAEDU- International E-Journal of Advances in
Education, 1(3), 183–192.
 He,A. E. (2012). Systematic use of mother tongue as learning/teaching resources in target language instruction.Multilingual Education , 2 (1), 1–15.
 Krashen, S. (2002).The comprehension hypothesis and its rivals. In Selected papers from the eleventh international symposium on English
teaching/fourth Pan-Asian conference (pp. 395–404).
 Kumaravadivelu,B. (2002). Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for LanguageTeaching .Yale University Press.
 Lantolf, J. P. (2013). SocioculturalTheory and Second Language Learning . Oxford University Press.
 Laufer, B., Girsai, N., & Batia Laufer and Nany Girsai. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning: a case for
contrastive analysis and translation.Applied Linguistics , 29 (4), 694–716.
 Macaro, E. (1997).Target Language, Collaborative Learning and Autonomy, Multilingual Matters
 Niż egorodcew,A. (2007).Input for Instructed L2 Learners:The Relevance of Relevance . Multilingual Matters.
 Piske,T., &Young-Scholten, M. (2009). Input Matters in SLA . Multilingual Matters.
 Viakinnou-Brinson,L., Herron, C., Cole, S. P., & Haight, C. (2012b).The Effect ofTarget Language and Code-Switching on the Grammatical
Performance and Perceptions of Elementary-Level College French Students.Foreign Language Annals , 45 (1), 72–91.