Teacher language background, codeswitching, and english only instruction does age make a difference to learners' attitudes

Teacher Language Background,
Codeswitching, and English-Only
Instruction: Does Age Make a Difference
to Learners’ Attitudes?
ERNESTO MACARO
University of Oxford
Oxford, England
JANG HO LEE
Korea Military Academy
Seoul, Korea
Using research data on teacher codeswitching in South Korea, this
article investigates the attitudes and perceptions among Korean
learners of English as a foreign language towards English-only
instruction as opposed to instruction which contains some switching
to the learners’ first language. The study was in part operationalized
by exploring learners’ attitudes towards teachers who were native or
nonnative speakers of English. The authors explored a number of
variables to these attitudes and perceptions, of which the most impor-
tant was the students’ age. From a total sample of 798 students, 311
were adults at university and 487 were children in the last year of pri-
mary school. The researchers collected data via questionnaire and,
using a subsample, via interviews. Findings suggest that although
both groups of learners had no clear preferences for either teacher
type, neither group favoured the total exclusion of the first language
from the classroom interaction. Adults were more likely to be com-
fortable with English-only instruction, possibly due to their greater
experience in language learning, although the possibility that their
acceptance was also due to higher proficiency cannot be excluded.
doi: 10.1002/tesq.74
This study aims to contribute to the debate on whether teachers in
foreign language classrooms should use the learners’ first lan-
guage (L1) for the purposes of instructing the target language (L2), a
debate that, as the studies that follow demonstrate, has been ongoing
for at least 20 years. The majority of commentators (e.g., Auerbach,
1993; G. Cook, 2010; Widdowson, 2003) provide theoretical justifica-
tions for including L1 use even in communicative classrooms, whilst a
minority (Chambers, 1991; Curtain & Pesola, 1994) argue that its
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 47, No. 4, December 2013
© 2012 TESOL International Association
717

presence impacts negatively on the amount of time learners are
exposed to the L2, or it undermines communication (Carless, 2007),
or there are dangers inherent in its overuse (Turnbull, 2001).
Researchers provide evidence that the majority of teachers who
speak the L1 of their learners adopt some L1 in their pedagogy
regardless of national or educational context (e.g., Levine, 2003; Liu,
Ahn, Baek, & Han, 2004). Within these contexts, there is a consider-
able range of L1 use among teachers, as much as 60% in New Zealand
secondary schools (Kim & Elder, 2005) and 90% in tertiary-level class-
rooms in the United States (Duff & Polio, 1990).
The functions to which the L1 is put range from explanations of
morphology and syntax (Gearon, 2006) to managing students’ behav-
iour (Franklin, 1990). However, by far the most common function of
L1 use is to provide information about the meanings of lexical items
(Liu et al., 2004; Rolin-Ianziti & Brownlie, 2002).
This study, set in South Korea, investigates two distinct English as a
foreign language (EFL) learner populations, 12-year-old children and
adults age 20 or older. The rationale for this is as follows. In South
Korea most learners begin to learn English in a school environment at
the age of 9. English language education is strongly promoted by the
Ministry of Education (2000) through the notion of teaching English in
English (TEE), which implies that teachers should conduct English
classes in English (rather than in the learners’ L1). However, Korean
teachers had difficulty in implementing this recommendation in the
early years (Kim, 2002; Liu et al., 2004; Moon & Lee, 2002), with one
of the most frequently mentioned reasons being learners’ inability to
process the teacher’s input. These perspectives may have led the Seoul
Metropolitan Office of Education (2010) to propose that teachers may
“exercise flexibility” in order to ensure students’ understanding
(p. 10). It is unclear whether this flexibility is to be applied only to
young and beginning-level learners or to instances of lack of compre-
hension regardless of age and proficiency level.
Flexibility with regard to TEE (or its converse, switching to the L1)
can only be deployed if the teacher shares the L1 of the learners to
some level of proficiency. In South Korea, in both primary and
secondary levels of education, native-English-speaking teachers
(NESTs) and nonnative-English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) are
employed. Although the majority of teachers are NNESTs, by 2009
76% of all primary and secondary schools employed some NESTs
(Ministry of Education, Science, & Technology, 2009), and in the
same year the total number of NESTs officially employed in South
Korea amounted to 7,997.
From our knowledge of the context, we can assert with confidence
that most NESTs do not speak sufficient Korean to be able to use it
TESOL QUARTERLY718

effectively as a tool with learners. From our knowledge of the context
plus observation of classes taught by NNESTs during the study, we can
assert with some conﬁdence that these teachers almost without excep-
tion use some Korean to conduct their lessons. This situation, with a
clear-cut variable in teacher type, makes the South Korean context a
very useful one for exploring the issue of English-only instruction as
seen through the eyes of the learners. Additionally, age as a variable to
attitudes becomes an important empirical question.
Comparing the views of children to those of adults is also of some
importance at an international level because other national agencies,
such as the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
(2010) and the Department of Education and Science (1990) in
England, advise that the L2 should be used from the outset, that is to
say, with beginning-level learners regardless of their age.
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Teacher Type
The last two decades have witnessed a growing interest in whether
NESTs are preferable to NNESTs (or the reverse), this interest being
promoted by predominantly sociolinguistic perspectives which focus
on the roles of native and nonnative speakers in the teaching commu-
nity and their respective status in the job market (Braine, 1999;
V. Cook, 1999; Medgyes, 1994). In a comprehensive volume edited by
Llurda (2005), a number of chapters (e.g., 6, 8, 9) deal with cultural
issues, social relationships, and professional status of teachers, all
linked to the value of NNESTs and NESTs relative to one another.
There are very few studies with a psycholinguistic perspective, one in
which language usage by both types of teachers, in interaction with lan-
guage learners, is being investigated (see also Moussu & Llurda, 2008).
Braine (2005) concludes that there are remarkably few studies inves-
tigating the views of learners with regard to their preference for
NESTs or NNESTs. Of the four studies that he reviews, three (Cheung,
2002; Liang, 2002; Moussu, 2002, as cited in Braine, 2005) provide evi-
dence that learners are positive with regard to NNESTs, and in the
fourth (Mahboob, 2003, as cited in Braine, 2005) the students have
mixed views. Positive aspects of NESTs are their oral skills and know-
ledge of an Anglophone culture. Positive aspects of NNESTs are their
greater teaching experience, their ability to teach grammar, and their
ability to interact with learners at a more social or emotional level.
It is surprising that using L1 for vocabulary explanations does not
feature as a speciﬁc research topic given that it frequently appears in
LEARNERS’ AGE AND ATTITUDES TO CODESWITCHING 719

lists of functions of L1 use by teachers. Moreover, most studies
reviewed by Braine (2005) and by Moussu and Llurda (2008) express
the views and perceptions of adult students. Yet learners of L2s
around the world who are below the age of 19 are in the majority
(our searching has failed to find a country where English is not
introduced before university level). Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005)
tried to compare the views on NNESTs held by adults, adolescents,
and younger children, finding few differences between the age
groups, but this study involved adults looking back on their preuni-
versity days.
Learner Views on Codeswitching
Findings to date have shown that learners do not appear to want
the L1 excluded from classroom interaction. An early study of adoles-
cent learners’ attitudes (Macaro, 1997) reported that learners were
often left floundering by L2-only instruction, particularly when teach-
ers were giving instructions for carrying out a task, a finding echoed
by other researchers (Clark & Trafford, 1996) and with different age
groups. For example, Brooks-Lewis’s (2009) study of university stu-
dents in Mexico reports that some L1 use by the teacher meant “being
able to comprehend what [was] happening” and that it reduced “class-
room shock” (p. 224). Liu et al. (2004) found that students in South
Korean high schools believed that almost half of the teacher talk
should involve the L1.
A less clear indication was found in Australia, by Rolin-Ianziti and
Varshney (2008), where students felt the L1 helped with vocabulary,
both for comprehension and memorization, but a sizeable minority
also thought L2 definitions were useful. Similar ambivalence was found
by Storch and Wigglesworth (2003), who discovered considerable varia-
tion in Australian students’ reaction to being allowed to use the L1,
possibly related to students’ beliefs about learning; the L1 helps them
achieve tasks and have more meaningful discussions. At the same time
there was a reluctance to use the L1 related to a notion of maximising
the target language. It is noteworthy that this similar finding was
obtained despite the fact that the first study investigated the foreign
language context and the second was conducted in English as a
second language (ESL) classrooms.
Clearly, there is a need for further research into learners’ beliefs
about the use of the L1 in the classroom with context as a variable,
and where context might involve the proficiency and the age of
learners.
TESOL QUARTERLY720

L1 Use in Vocabulary Teaching and Learning
As previously outlined, one of the main functions of teacher code-
switching (CS) has been shown to be for the explanation of new vocabu-
lary. Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002) found this in L2-dominated
classrooms. Littlewood and Yu (2011) conclude from their findings that,
at the presentation stage, the L1 can be “an efficient way of clarifying
the meanings of words” (p. 71). The problem is what is meant by
“efficient.” Whilst providing an L1 equivalent may seem a shortcut to
developing understanding of that word, it could deprive the learner of
the opportunity to attempt comprehension by inference.
De la Campa and Nassaji (2009) coded instances of CS in adult clas-
ses and found that inexperienced teachers provided translation equiva-
lents for new lexical items considerably more than experienced
teachers. One inexperienced teacher spoke fast and then translated
when students did not understand; the experienced teacher spoke
slowly and paraphrased frequently. The finding here implies that
greater experience may enhance a teacher’s ability to solve problems
posed by L2-only instruction. The issue of whether to switch might
therefore also be related to the skilfulness of the teacher.
Rarely in studies of L1 use is there reference to theories of vocabu-
lary acquisition. Space limitations do not allow an extensive review of
vocabulary acquisition theories, but a brief description of Kroll and
Stewart’s (1994) revised hierarchical model (RHM) provides at least a
theoretical framework. The main thrust of the RHM is that learners at
early stages of L2 learning are likely to process L2 words by linking
them to their L1, because they have already developed strong links
between a concept and its L1 lexical representation. Said differently,
the preferred route to arrive at a concept from an L2 word is via the
equivalent L1 word. The model further suggests that, as L2 proficiency
increases, the link between the concept and the L2 word is strength-
ened, leading to less reliance on the L1 route.
Beginning-level learners therefore might prefer L1 information more
than learners at intermediate stages or beyond. However, although the
higher proficiency learner is more likely to have the linguistic knowl-
edge allowing him or her to access the teacher’s explanation in the L2,
he or she may also be faced with more difficult (e.g., more abstract,
low-frequency) new vocabulary, requiring more effort to understand
the teacher’s explanation. An implication from the RHM that teachers
should switch with beginner learners and not with more proficient
learners may not necessarily be drawn without more information about
the learning context. This leads to consideration of how the age of
learners might result in preferences for the nonexclusion of the L1.

Age and Proficiency
In this study we have deliberately avoided investigating a population
of young learners who might be considered to be in the critical period
(Birdsong, 1999). In contrasting our two populations, we were not
interested in whether an age difference was a factor in promoting the
acquisition of morpho-syntax, nor the native-like production of L2
phonology, but rather what their preferences were for the use of the
L1 in general and for vocabulary in particular. We are not aware of a
theory of L2 vocabulary learning which is affected by a critical age
period. We are aware of research into vocabulary spurts in L1, but
these are not relevant to 12-year-old L2 learners.
We wanted to explore learners’ views with proficiency, maturity, and
learning experience as backdrops in order to answer the question of
whether English-only (EO) should be adopted from the outset and
whether it is a contentious issue among adults. Like some government
agencies, Cameron (2001) suggests that younger learners are “less
inhibited about using the foreign language in lessons” (pp. 204–205).
A limited number of studies have explored the issue of learners’ pro-
ficiencies and attitudes. In a study by de la Campa and Nassaji (2009),
proficiency was a factor in determining how much L1 a teacher might
use and some teachers thought it difficult to “[immerse] beginner-level
students in L2” (p. 754). Similar findings are reported by Chavez
(2003) with university students in years 1, 2, and 3, in which a prefer-
ence was detected among learners to increase use of the L2 as they pro-
gressed. On the other hand, by administering the same questionnaire
twice (at the beginning and end of the semester) in a communicatively
oriented English class at the tertiary level, Burden (2004) found that
learners’ overwhelming preference for L1 use decreased, albeit to a
small degree, during the semester. We therefore have tentative evi-
dence that proficiency may influence both teacher and learner prefer-
ences, but this evidence is limited in that the proficiency levels are not
sufficiently wide to provide more definitive findings and, most impor-
tant, we have no studies which compare the age groups of learners.
A factor possibly related to age might be the learners’ experience of
language learning. An area of expertise that might increase with age is
the strategic reasoning that students might bring to problems in the
learning process (Rubin, 2005). Learner strategies research has
focused little on age differences, but Tragant and Victori (2006)
report that older learners use more strategies more effectively. Linked
to experience might be the learners’ level of maturity. One might
hypothesize that children lack the capacity and length of learning
experience to consider the implications of EO instruction.
TESOL QUARTERLY722

In summary, most commentators and researchers appear to hold
the belief that EO instruction is not without its problems and practitio-
ners are often in disagreement with guidelines laid down by govern-
ment agencies. There is a recognition of the value of NNESTs.
However, this recognition has been set more against a sociolinguistic
backdrop than one which takes into account the language of instruc-
tion. Learners appear to dislike the exclusion of the L1. However,
there is also some recognition of the value of trying to understand
meaning through the L2 itself. One of the prime functions of teacher
CS is to explain new lexical items which crop up in interaction. There
is little or no research on the age of learners with regard to their pref-
erences for L1 use, and it is unclear if preferences are simply related
to proﬁciency, experience of L2 learning, or maturity.
Based on the emerging themes extracted from the literature we for-
mulated the following research questions:
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages, as perceived by two
age groups of EFL learners, of being taught by NESTs and
NNESTs?
2. Do young learners and adult learners differentially prefer EO
instruction or codeswitching to L1?
3. What are the learners’ attitudes towards the use of the L1 in
vocabulary learning?
METHOD
In order to answer the research questions, we adopted a mixed
method design which explored the relationship among the variables.
The dependent variables were attitudes to teacher type (i.e., their lan-
guage background), attitudes to EO, and preferences with regard to
vocabulary learning. The independent variable was the age of the
learners.
The present study uses a subset of data collected for a more wide-
ranging research project that examined the effects of teacher CS in
South Korea (Lee, 2010).
Our conceptualization of the research problem included the choice
of population itself. If our aim was to compare the views of different age
groups, what would those different age groups be? Clearly we wanted a
comparison between younger and older learners, and their reactions to
the different pedagogies brought about by teacher code use in the inter-
action. However, we were convinced that what we did not want to con-
found the investigation was the putative presence or absence of a critical
period. We therefore deliberately chose 12-year-old children in their

final year of elementary education (sixth grade), thus operationalizing
them as beyond the critical (or sensitive) period. We chose to compare
this population to that of adults at university for the reasons stated ear-
lier regarding arguments made by some for English-only from the onset
of learning. The two populations of learners, with some variation, would
have been learning English for 3 and 9 years, respectively.
After investigating the published literature, we conducted exploratory
interviews “to improve the conceptualization of the research problem”
in reference to our target context (Oppenheim, 2000, p. 70) and as pre-
liminary work for the questionnaire construction. A subset of the sample
(10 adults and 12 young learners) from the pilot study, conducted for
another research project, was recruited for this interview. This was car-
ried out in the beginning stage of the pilot on the recommendation of
their school teachers. Guided questions for the interviews were as fol-
lows: Could you describe your background and experiences in learning
English? Could you share your thoughts about your current English
instructor’s teaching style? What is your general opinion about NESTs
and NNESTs? What do you think about TEE (teaching English in Eng-
lish) and teachers’ use of Korean in English classrooms?
Instrument and Data Collection
The themes resulting from the exploratory interviews led to the preli-
minary version of the questionnaire, which was piloted with 119 sixth-
grade students and 66 undergraduates. Based on the feedback from the
piloting, the questionnaire was further revised in terms of its length,
format, and difficulty of language. The finalized questionnaire (see
online supporting information Appendix S1) was administered to 311
adults enrolled in English courses at four colleges and 487 sixth-grade
students at two elementary schools, all South Korean nationals. These
institutions were recruited based on the sampling criteria established
for a more wide-ranging project (e.g., the institution employed both
types of teachers, whether it was possible to incorporate the research-
ers’ materials), which used a mixed method approach with experimen-
tation, surveys, and interviews. After data mining, we obtained a total
sample of 758 students (309 adults and 449 young learners). The ques-
tionnaires given to the participants were written in Korean.
All the participants in this large sample had been taught at some
time by NNESTs. All the young learners had been taught by both
NNESTs and NESTs, although there may have been variation in terms
of number of teachers at the individual student level. At least half of
the adults had been taught recently by NESTs. All the interviewees
had been taught by both NESTs and NNESTs.
TESOL QUARTERLY724

The English classes at which the adults were registered can be
described as being based on the “weak version” of the communicative
approach (Howatt, 1984, p. 279), with a particular focus on the devel-
opment of speaking and listening skills. The course activities ranged
from general reading comprehension tasks integrating group discus-
sions to communicative activities such as role-plays and information
gap activities. The questionnaire findings show that the adults’ reasons
for learning English were multidimensional. That is, not only was com-
petence in English an important aspect in terms of job requirement,
but also they had a personal interest in learning English. In general,
their English proficiency can be described as ranging from preinter-
mediate to intermediate. On the other hand, the declared teaching
objectives (Ministry of Education, Science, & Technology, 2011) for
the primary-level students were to develop the basic level of their com-
municative repertoire and vocabulary for daily English use and for
them to understand customs and cultures of other countries through
learning English. Both age groups were taking two English lessons
each week, approximately amounting to 2 hours.
After administering the questionnaire, and following a preliminary
analysis, one of the authors (whose L1 is Korean) conducted follow-
up interviews with a subset of the participants (12 adult and 10 chil-
dren). The interviews dealt with the same themes covered in the
questionnaire, with the aim of confirming and broadening the data.
The interviews were conducted in the participants’ respective institu-
tions, without the presence of their English instructors, so that they
would feel at ease in expressing their views. Some of the guided
questions for the follow-up interview included the following: What
are the major issues you are concerned about in learning English?
What would be the benefits and disadvantages of taking English les-
sons via TEE? In your opinion, for what purposes could teachers use
Korean in English classrooms? What are the major advantages and
disadvantages you have encountered in learning English in NESTs’/
NNESTs’ classes? Do you have any preferred strategy when you learn
English vocabulary? Are you satisfied with teachers’ English-only
explanations of vocabulary?
All interviews were conducted in Korean, audiorecorded, and tran-
scribed by the aforementioned author.
In analysing the interview data, we first developed a coding scheme
based on both the aforementioned exploratory interview and question-
naire findings. Responses were then grouped on the basis of this
coding scheme (see online supporting information Appendix S2) by
an assistant with expertise in English teaching and by the second
author. Inter-rater reliability was performed on 20% of the data, and
the resultant level of agreement was 87%.

RESULTS
We present the quantitative data separately from the qualitative
data, because we believe this provides the reader with an overall pic-
ture followed by more nuanced expressions of attitudes and beliefs.
Quantitative Findings
Due to space limitations, we focus on the questionnaire items that
are directly relevant to the aims of this article (rather than treating
exhaustively each item in the questionnaire). The data from the ques-
tionnaire are presented under three themes, respectively, dealing with
each research question (see Table 1 for the detailed results). The
results of independent t-tests with Bonferroni adjustment which com-
pare the responses given by the adult and young learners on the attitu-
dinal statements are also provided in Table 1.
Preferences for teacher type. Differences were found between the
two age groups in terms of their perceptions of NESTs and NNESTs.
To Item 1 (preference for NESTs), the adult learners showed slightly
more positive responses (M = 3.34) than the young learners
(M = 3.20), but the mean of the responses between the adults and
young learners did not reach statistical significance (p > .01). In con-
trast to this finding, the two age groups responded negatively to the
idea of having only NNESTs (Item 2), with the adults (M = 2.09)
being significantly more negative than the youngsters (M = 2.41;
p < .01). Perhaps more interestingly, a considerable number of adults
(M = 3.97) and young learners (M = 3.48) agreed with Item 3 (The
only thing that matters is how they teach. It does not matter what the teacher’s
native language is), implying that the NEST/NNEST dichotomy may
not matter to L2 learners as much as has been claimed (e.g., Medgyes,
1994). With regard to this statement, there was a significant difference
in the mean of the responses between the two groups (p < .013).
Item 4 is concerned with whether NESTs excel at teaching conversa-
tion or speaking skills as reported by Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005)
and by Ma (2009). Agreement with this proposition was found more
widely among adults (M = 3.42) than among the young learners
(M = 3.10). To the statement that NNESTs predict students’ difficul-
ties well (Item 5), the adult learners (M = 3.50) again showed more
positive responses than the young learners (M = 3.20). In both state-
ments, the mean responses of the adults were significantly higher
(indicating greater agreement) than their young counterparts
(p < .01).
TESOL QUARTERLY726

TABLE1
ResultsoftheSelectedQuestionnaireItems
StatementGroup
Likertt-test
Strongly
disagree
%
Strongly
agree
MeanSDdftSig.(2-tailed)12345
1.IngeneralIwouldpreferanative
speakerasanEnglishteacher.
Adult3.340.987561.89.0591.918.435.931.112.6
Young3.201.067.613.642.524.312.0
2.IwishIhadonlynonnativeteachers
ofEnglish.
Adult2.090.88730À4.46.001*25.647.421.14.21.6
Young2.411.0723.031.930.610.54.0
3.Theonlythingthatmattersishow
theyteach.Itdoesnotmatter
whattheteacher’snativelanguageis.
Adult3.970.907406.63.001*1.06.516.246.829.5
Young3.481.146.311.233.326.622.6
4.Anativespeakerteachesspeaking
skills/conversationmoreeffectively.
Adult3.420.946014.75.001*1.913.637.335.112.0
Young3.100.823.312.062.615.16.9
5.Ingeneral,anonnativeteacher
predictslearners’(potential)
difﬁcultieswell.
Adult3.500.927544.17.001*2.310.733.841.611.7
Young3.200.996.012.945.525.99.6
6.TeachersshoulduseonlyEnglish
inEnglishclassrooms.
Adult2.820.977567.90.001*6.834.032.723.33.2
Young2.250.9723.640.823.211.60.9
7.IpreferEnglish-onlyinstruction
becauseitgivesmemoreopportunity
tobeexposedtoEnglish.
Adult3.620.9575611.24.001*3.28.127.545.315.9
Young2.791.0410.529.636.317.85.8
8.TeachersshoulduseEnglishmostly
anduseKoreanalittlebitin
Englishclassrooms.
Adult3.650.88650À3.35.001*0.69.728.845.315.5
Young3.870.851.14.723.248.322.7
9.English-onlyinstructionwould
workbetterforadvanced-level
students.
Adult3.351.07756À0.734.4602.925.217.243.011.7
Young3.411.114.718.025.834.317.1
(Continued)

TABLE1
(Continued)
StatementGroup
Likertt-test
Strongly
disagree
%
Strongly
agree
MeanSDdftSig.(2-tailed)12345
10.TeachersshouldswitchtoKorean
oncertainoccasionsbecauseitis
moreeffectivethantheuseofEnglish
inhelpingmeunderstandwhatis
beingtaught.
Adult3.760.81707À0.734.4601.05.824.653.714.9
Young3.800.911.65.826.143.822.8
11.TeachersshouldswitchtoKoreanto
discusstests,assignments,orother
administrativeinformation.
Adult3.800.956960.788.431.67.425.241.324.5
Young3.741.053.46.631.629.928.6
12.TeachersshouldswitchtoKorean
oncertainoccasionsbecauseitsavestime.
Adult3.650.887543.18.002*1.010.425.349.713.6
Young3.430.963.19.842.230.814.1
13.IprefermyteachertouseonlyEnglish
inteachingEnglishvocabularybecause
itismoreeffectiveinunderstandingwords.
Adult3.090.917167.22.001*2.623.941.426.25.8
Young2.571.0616.133.034.810.45.7
14.Ifunderstandable,IpreferEnglish-only
instructionwhenitcomestovocabulary
learning.
Adult3.911.017218.97.001*1.39.419.536.733.1
Young3.191.1910.415.236.920.617.0
15.IprefermyteachertouseEnglishand
KoreaninteachingEnglishvocabulary
becauseusingbothlanguageswillresult
inbetterunderstanding.
Adult3.670.80714À0.932.350.67.826.653.911.0
Young3.730.931.67.727.442.920.4
16.Whenmyteacherteachesanewword
foundinthereadingpassage,Iwanthim
orhertoprovideanEnglishdefinition/paraphrase.
Adult3.840.777329.95.001*0.34.224.153.717.6
Young3.210.965.012.948.024.49.7
Note.ThenumbersintheStronglydisagree–StronglyagreecolumnsrefertopointsoftheLikertscale,with1=stronglydisagree,2=disagree,3=neutral,
4=agree,and5=stronglyagree.WeperformedBonferroniadjustmentonthet-tests,dividingthesignificancealphalevel(.05)bythetotalnumber
ofthequestionnaireitemsselectedineachsectionwithdifferentcategories(seeLee,2010,fordetails)anddeclaredsignificanceofeachitemonly
whenithadlowerp-valuesthantheBonferroni-correctedalphalevel.
*indicatesstatisticallysignificant.
TESOL QUARTERLY728

Attitudes towards EO instruction and CS. With regard to teachers’
use of EO instruction (Item 6), the young learners disagreed to a lar-
ger extent (M = 2.25) than the adult learners did (M = 2.82), with this
difference reaching statistical significance (p < .01). This runs some-
what counter to a general assumption that young learners would be
more amenable to target language exposure. Despite the negative
reactions towards EO generally as a group, the adult learners
(M = 3.62) were significantly more aware of the importance of being
exposed to English input than were the young learners (M = 2.79),
believing that EO instruction gave them greater opportunity to be
exposed to English (Item 7; p < .01).
Despite clear differences between adults and young learners in
terms of EO, there was much more consensus on the need for limited
teacher CS, with the adults (M = 3.65) and the young learners
(M = 3.87) responding positively to Item 8 (Teachers should use English
mostly and use Korean a little bit in English classrooms). The mean
responses of the young learners were significantly higher than those of
the adults with regard to this statement (p < .01). On the other hand,
there was no significant difference in the mean of the responses
between the adults (M = 3.35) and young learners (M = 3.41) with
regard to Item 9 (English-only instruction would work better for advanced
level students; p > .01), providing no strong link between EO and profi-
ciency level.
Relevant to their preference for teachers’ limited CS were respon-
dents’ opinions about various functions that teacher CS fulfils. Two
thirds of the participants agreed that teachers should switch to
Korean because it was more effective than EO in helping them
understand what was being taught (Item 10; adults M = 3.76; young
learners M = 3.80) and that teachers should switch to discuss tests,
assignments, or other administrative information (Item 11; adults
M = 3.80; young learners M = 3.74). Here there was no significant
difference between the two age groups (p > .01). Another statement
in this category refers to the theme of teacher CS saving instructional
time (Item 12), with the mean responses of the adults (M = 3.65)
being significantly higher than those of the young learners
(M = 3.43; p < .01).
The L1 or EO for vocabulary learning. With regard to CS and
vocabulary comprehension and learning, a rather complex picture
emerged. With Item 13 (I prefer my teacher to use only English in teaching
English vocabulary because it is more effective in understanding words), the
mean responses of the young learners (M = 2.57) were significantly
lower than those of the adults (M = 3.09; p < .01). Overall, only a

small percentage of the participants indicated that EO instruction
would be useful in understanding words.
A more noticeable difference between the two age groups was exhib-
ited in their attitudes to vocabulary learning. Responses to Item 14 (If
understandable, I prefer English-only instruction when it comes to vocabulary
learning) show that the adults (M = 3.91) were more in agreement with
the statement than were the young learners (M = 3.19), with the differ-
ence between them in their responses reaching statistical significance
(p < .01). This finding suggests that adult learners, despite the fact that
EO explanation of lexical items may be challenging to them, are willing
at least to attempt to learn vocabulary through EO input as long as it is
comprehensible. On the other hand, the adults and young learners per-
ceived alike teachers’ bilingual approach to vocabulary teaching as effec-
tively fostering their comprehension (Item 15; adults M = 3.67; young
learners M = 3.73), there being no significant difference in the mean
responses between the two groups (p > .013).
Responses regarding preferences for vocabulary teaching techniques
add more weight to the aforementioned finding that adults and young
learners differed in their attitudes towards monolingual explanations of
vocabulary. The adult learners (M = 3.84) reacted more favourably to
the proposition that they wanted their teacher to provide English defini-
tions or paraphrases when new words crop up in reading texts than did
the children (M = 3.21), a statistically significance difference (p < .008).
This result closely mirrors that of Item 14, indicating that adult learners
are more willing to try EO instruction than children, even though they
find vocabulary explanations easier to grasp in the L1.
Qualitative Findings
A number of insights from the interviews emerged which gave
further substance to the quantitative findings.
Preferences for teacher type. As far as perceptions of NESTs and
NNESTs are concerned, participants had no strong inclination towards
one type of teacher, supporting our finding presented in the previous
section. They made various comments on their attributes. Recall that one
questionnaire item concerned NESTs’ ability to teach conversation skills
effectively. Here, especially, the young learners made negative comments:
YL21
: As for the native speaker teachers . . . their weak point would be
that we cannot communicate well with them . . . when we have a ques-
1
YL2 refers to young learner number 2; AL2 refers to adult learner number 2; I = Inter-
viewer. This pattern continues in subsequent interview excerpts.
TESOL QUARTERLY730

tion we have to ask the question in English . . . [and when we cannot do
that] sometimes our questions remain unanswered.
Seven adults and five young interviewees identified with this prob-
lem and pointed out that teachers’ use of Korean quickly solved it.
The rest criticized NNESTs for being less communicative and fluent
than their native-speaking counterparts, in addition to their nonnative-
like pronunciation:
YL10: When it comes to teaching English pronunciation . . . they
[NNESTs] are not native speakers but Koreans like us . . . so I don’t
think we can learn [English pronunciation] very well from them.
Having said that, we note the phenomenon of group polarization
between those who appreciate NESTs’ native pronunciation and flu-
ency and others who have difficulty in managing communication in
EO. For two adult participants, NESTs’ EO environments were more
conducive to the acquisition of cultural aspects of English, and English
was perceived less as a school subject in their classrooms:
AL5: When I take English lessons from Korean teachers of English . . . I
feel like I am learning English, so English and the teacher seem to be
separate . . . but when native speaker teachers teach English, it feels
more natural, as English is the language they use in their lives.
AL11: Native speaker teachers themselves are part of another cul-
ture . . . so we can learn that culture at the same time.
Some interviewees, on the other hand, commented on NNESTs’
ability to predict learners’ difficulties:
AL2: Korean teachers usually know in advance which parts of the les-
sons will pose some difficulty for us . . . so for example, when their stu-
dents seem to get lost . . . they can analyse the source of problems very
quickly and help students get back on track.
Attitudes towards EO instruction and CS. With one of the most dis-
tinctive findings from the questionnaire survey being that of learners’
dissatisfaction with the EO approach, the major source of frustration
was elaborated on by one of the young learners:
YL5: The difficulty arises . . . when we have to keep following English-
only speech without any pause . . . by the time I comprehended the
teacher’s preceding sentence . . . he is already moving on to subsequent
sentences.
This problem of cognitive overload on the part of young learners
(and for a few adult learners, too) in following an EO speech

stream, may stem from their limited amount of linguistic knowledge
in that most of the young EFL learners in this study may have not
yet developed enough automatic word recognition to follow the
speech stream. Of course, it may also stem from a teacher’s inability
to modify input sufficiently or to find ways of putting across a prob-
lematic word:
YL3: You know there are occasions [when processing EO instruction]
that you cannot translate the sentence because of a single unknown
word included in that sentence . . . sometimes it’s the point where I start
to get lost.
Apart from two adults (AL5, AL7) and one young learner (YL1),
the rest of the interviewees confessed that they were concerned about
not being able to comprehend every word. These exceptional ones,
however, had a different strategic response. These learners felt much
more comfortable with EO instruction, and they focused on interpret-
ing the general message encoded in the speech stream:
AL5: When I listen to English-only instruction, I try to listen to it the
same way as when I listen to Korean. It didn’t work very well in the
beginning. But as you keep trying, it starts to work.
I: You mean regardless of your English proficiency?
AL5: Regardless of my English proficiency. From my point of view, we
do not comprehend English-only instruction on its own because we
think it is awkward . . . and because we don’t try hard enough.
YL1: I haven’t had much of a problem with English-only instruc-
tion . . . I may not be able to understand every single word [in EO
instruction], I think I grasp what he [the teacher] is trying to say.
According to AL5 and YL1, their peers had the capability to react to
EO in the way that they did.
Some responses indicate learners’ concern that EO may bring about
less communicative lessons, especially when learners may not have sur-
passed a certain proficiency level or are not confident enough yet to
speak in English:
AL9: I think when a teacher uses only English in teaching
English . . . students become less communicative. Should I say that
[EO] dampens the classroom atmosphere?
I: Why do you think that happens?
TESOL QUARTERLY732

AL9: Well . . . that’s because the students are not very conﬁdent in
speaking English . . . and some try to avoid communicating in English.
AL9’s comment highlights the paradox related to EO instruction: It
is admittedly one of the core components of communicatively oriented
English lessons, but it could inadvertently render English lessons less
communicative by depriving learners of an important communicative
device (i.e., their L1) and impede them from expressing themselves at
a higher level. As AL10 put it:
AL10: One time . . . I wanted to come up with this complicated English
sentence during a communicative task . . . but I couldn’t. So I asked her
to translate the Korean sentence into an English one and used it.
Teacher CS was also valued when teachers were trying to explain a
complex procedure for a task and by both age groups:
AL4: If the initial instructions in English are not clear . . . many of the
students easily get lost while moving along throughout the activity.
YL8: Sometimes . . . Jon explains the same point over and over. But I
still don’t get it.
These comments imply that EO explanations of procedures may in
fact restrict the range of classroom activities available in which a brief
L1 explanation may facilitate the smooth running of the subsequent
task.
Although the quantitative analysis by and large presented a positive
side of teacher CS, the follow-up interviews also provided alternative
perspectives. A potential risk associated with excessive use of the L1 in
interactions between the teacher and students triggered by teacher CS
was identiﬁed as follows:
AL3: I think it is not desirable when students use Korean in accor-
dance with their teachers’ Korean use . . . then the teacher will again
respond to the students in Korean.
Ten out of twelve adult interviewees raised similar issues when the
researcher prompted them to talk about the effect of teachers’ and
students’ English (or Korean) use on their subsequent language use.
The adult learners, in general, expressed more concerns about this
aspect of teachers’ CS than did the young students.
The L1 or EO for vocabulary learning. Based on the results of the
questionnaire, we further probed into the reasons behind the partici-
pants’ dissatisfaction about EO explanations for vocabulary, moving
from its comprehension to its acquisition. The response from AL12

suggests that EO instruction of lexical items can only be as sophisti-
cated as learners’ current proficiency level:
AL12: So let’s say we are about to learn the new English word “candy.”
With English-only instruction, we might be able to learn that candy is
sweet and delicious . . . but the more sophisticated explanation of
“candy” might be incomprehensible to us.
AL12 goes on to hypothesize that, if her teacher provides the Kor-
ean word for candy, the students would not only be able to immedi-
ately understand what the word meant, but also link it to other
information more likely to ensure its acquisition.
We found that both age groups had experienced difficulty in learning
lexical strings (e.g., phrasal verbs and idioms) through EO instruction:
YL4: For example, a piece of cake we learnt last time . . . I thought it
meant small cake at first [laugh]. But it turned out that it is an expres-
sion for a very easy thing . . . I experience difficulty [on such occasions].
AL12: [reading through the list of English words they learnt previ-
ously] Yeah, these words far-flung and out of hand . . . I think it is better
to learn their meaning in Korean than in English.
I: Why so?
AL12: Well . . . the meaning of each word sometimes does not necessar-
ily contribute to the whole meaning.
Another interviewee with a generally positive attitude towards EO
and NESTs suggested otherwise:
AL7: I think English-only instruction of English words makes us think
really hard about the meanings of those words.
Thus, a group polarization also emerged from the interviews with
regard to learners’ preferences for vocabulary instruction. Some
believed that EO instruction blocked them from effectively accessing
the full meaning of a word and therefore its acquisition, whereas
others viewed EO as a cognitive resource that facilitated acquisition.
The latter were generally to be found among the adult learners.
DISCUSSION
This study has attempted to link the debate regarding the language
background of English teachers (whether they can or cannot speak
the learners’ L1) with the issue of whether English-only instruction is
TESOL QUARTERLY734

preferable to allowing some switching to L1. It has done this by com-
paring the views of young and adult learners because it is claimed by
some (e.g., Halliwell & Jones, 1991; Macdonald, 1993) that total
immersion in the L2 is the correct pedagogy right from the outset of
language learning.
Our first research question, therefore, explored both groups’ per-
ceptions of NESTs and NNESTs. Our findings suggest that the two age
groups did not show an overwhelming preference for one type of
teacher over the other, resonating with the finding of Ma’s (2009)
study with Hong Kong secondary students of English. True, adults
taken as a whole were more favourable to NESTs than were the youn-
ger learners, but even for adults NESTs were not necessarily their pre-
ferred option. This echoes conclusions by Moussu and Llurda (2008),
who suggest that learner preferences veer towards professionalism
rather than language background.
The quantitative data seem to suggest that adults were able to recog-
nize to a greater extent the relative advantages of being taught by each
type of teacher; this finding is similar to that of Cheung and Braine
(2007), who found that more advanced Hong Kong university students
of English recognized attributes of their teachers (NNESTs) to a
greater extent than did first-year students. This was also supported by
our interview data. The greater awareness was presumably due to their
accumulated experience with both types of teachers over a long period
and perhaps their greater ability to apply metacognitive reflection on
the learning process. It was the adults who were able to recognize that
NESTs do not need to suspend reality in the way that NNESTs have to
do, but that they make the classroom feel more “natural.”
With regard to other attributes that NESTs bring to the classroom,
we noted a within-group polarization, particularly among adults in the
sample, between those who praised their fluency and pronunciation
and others who expressed their concern over NESTs’ inability to com-
municate effectively with students of lower proficiency levels. Of
course, the two perspectives are not mutually exclusive, but both adults
and children gave the impression that not all comprehension and pro-
duction problems can be overcome in a classroom conducted by
NESTs.
NNESTs’ attributes were their ability to predict students’ learning
difficulties and their potential for using the L1 for explaining lesson
content more clearly, and generally to scaffold the instruction. How-
ever, what is meant by lesson content and scaffolding the instruction is not
straightforward, because the content and scaffolding of a lesson may
well depend on the teacher’s pedagogical orientation. If the orienta-
tion is predominantly about language analysis or language comparison
(what G. Cook, 2010, calls the inter-linguistic approach), then the lesson

content will be very different from one in which the teacher’s interac-
tion with the learners is meant to simulate real-life interaction
(broadly, a communicative approach). Interestingly, a few adult learn-
ers appreciated NESTs’ ability to provide students with a more “natu-
ral” learning environment. This, we believe, sheds light on the earlier
notion of “explaining the lesson content through the L1,” suggesting
that, not surprisingly, the L1 may be needed to make comparisons
with the learners’ own language when putting across information
about the language.
Our second research question investigated learners’ attitude to EO
instruction in general. Overall, both age groups were not in favour of
English exclusivity. Of particular interest is that even among the adult
learners there was the belief that EO instruction was likely to be possi-
ble only with more advanced-level learners. At first glance this might
seem obvious, but further reflection makes the notion problematic. If
an intermediate- or postintermediate-level learner is saying that he or
she cannot learn through EO instruction, but that someone at a more
advanced level can, then at what level do we find a learner who can
cope with EO instruction? Is there some sort of proficiency threshold,
or is it the case that the more proficient the learner, the more likely
he or she will be in a class involving more advanced language and con-
tent? The issue of learner proficiency and the possibility of EO instruc-
tion has been explored from a teacher’s perspective (e.g., Kim, 2002;
Macaro, 2001). The relationship between students’ own perceptions of
proficiency and the ability to operate entirely in the target language
has been explored in the current article for the first time, we believe.
And it is an area that merits further research, because it would seem
crucial in understanding the learner response to EO instruction.
Generally our finding is that adult learners had more positive atti-
tudes towards instruction through English (not necessarily EO) and
recognized the importance of English input in their learning to a
greater extent than the young learners did, this in turn being linked
to the adults’ belief that using English would enhance their communi-
cative skills. Placing a greater value on L2 input, again, may be a con-
sequence of their greater learning experience. The interview data also
suggest that this is due to a belief that greater proficiency allows more
English to be used and conversely less L1. So the interplay between
proficiency level and levels of experience and maturity is a complex
one and may need further research.
The young learners’ difficulty in accepting EO instruction seemed
to be connected to its potential for imposing a high cognitive load
while attempting to process the teacher’s speech stream. This is a
thorny issue in that some may argue that it is possible to put across
meaning as long as the teacher is skilled enough (Chambers, 1991; de
TESOL QUARTERLY736

la Campa & Nassaji, 2009). Others may add that, if meaning negotia-
tion takes place by allowing learners to ask questions (Long, 1996),
then comprehension is more likely to take place. Resolving these ques-
tions requires research which not only asks young learners for their
perceptions of EO instruction, but also documents their teacher’s
attempts to put across meaning in English. Additionally, it is possible
that young learners need help in accessing EO input by being more
strategic, and this could be explored in further research.
A particularly interesting finding was that EO might paradoxically
make an English classroom less communicative by virtue of making
some learners less willing to communicate in the L2. Somewhat unex-
pectedly, we found that this was more of a concern for the young
learners than for the adults. It is surprising because some commenta-
tors (e.g., Cameron, 2001) have suggested that young learners are less
inhibited than adults, and this view is perhaps reflected in the interna-
tional trend to start learning a second language earlier and earlier.
A proportion of learners in both age groups indicated that teachers
should use Korean to discuss tests, assignments, or other administra-
tive information. A considerable number in both age groups believed
that teacher switching to the L1 may serve as a shortcut to learning—a
finding, and indeed a phrase, that has been found before in the litera-
ture. Again, this is an issue which needs problematizing. If the L1 is a
shortcut to learning, then theoretically it should be used frequently
(see Swan, 1997, p. 165, for a similar argument on vocabulary learn-
ing). Clearly, it then depends on one’s definition of learning, one
gauged by success in teaching to a test or more long-term sustained
learning. If the shortcut is a shortcut to better learning, or working at
a higher level, or enhancing L2 communication (as suggested by some
of the data here), then it would seem justified (Macaro, 2001). An
indication that some of the adults were wrestling with these problems
is that a number of them elaborated on the danger associated with
excessive use of the L1, a warning provided by Turnbull (2001).
Our third research question was concerned with the particular issue
of how new vocabulary should be presented. Here, there is a clear dis-
tinction between the two age groups. Only a minority of the younger
learners were willing for their teacher to explain the meaning of new
vocabulary through the target language, whereas only an equivalent
minority among the adults wanted the teacher to provide Korean
equivalents even though the latter made it clear in the interviews that
it was easier to understand new vocabulary through a direct compari-
son with their L1. This would appear to lend support to theories
regarding the development of the L2 mental lexicon (Kroll & Stewart,
1994).

Interestingly, only among the adult interviewees do we find evi-
dence of the kind of self-reflection which might suggest that trying to
work out a new English word from the teacher’s L2 explanation might
at times lead to its acquisition. In fact, only the adults appeared to
make a distinction between vocabulary comprehension (in which they
preferred some L1 information) and vocabulary acquisition (in which
they saw some value in EO). There are three possible reasons for this
greater awareness. First, it may be that the younger learners lack the
appropriate strategic response to a teacher’s attempt to put across lexi-
cal information in the L2; they do not apply the right inferencing
strategies. Second, it may be because they have fewer linguistic
resources. As we have suggested, this is by no means obvious: Although
the adults have greater linguistic resources, they are also dealing with
language at a higher level. Third, it may be that adults have (as we
have suggested) a greater maturity, which allows them to see the long-
term value of trying to infer meaning rather than having it handed to
them on a plate. Despite these possible causes of the differences
between the two age groups, we should keep in mind that the impres-
sion obtained overall is that adults also find some value in a bilingual
approach to vocabulary explanation.
The present study is not without its limitations, and a few, in partic-
ular, should be pointed out here. First, as previously mentioned, the
adult sample included those who might not have been taught by
NESTs (though it was confirmed that they all had experienced
English-only instruction), and thus their responses regarding NESTs
may have been based on their intuitions. We also could have identified
the few NNESTs who reported that they might use EO and (as one
reviewer suggested) compared learners’ views of them with those
NNESTs who did not use EO.
CONCLUSION
It is clear from both types of data that there is a difference of
perceptions and attitudes between the two age groups. Although nei-
ther group was in favour of banning the L1 from the classroom, it is
clear that its presence is welcomed much more by children.
Again, although no clear preference was overtly expressed for
teacher type, the younger learners clearly felt they struggled with
NESTs who are unable to help them fully understand their input, and
it was the adults who were more likely to agree with the proposition
that teacher type is less important than how a teacher teaches. Never-
theless, the attributes of NESTs and NNESTs echo findings from previ-
ous studies.
TESOL QUARTERLY738

Together with previous research, our data suggest that the notion of
EO with young learners needs to be reexamined. It does not seem to be
the case that they are prepared to accept without question input which
makes no reference to their own language. That we should take heed of
young learners’ attitudes about and reactions to EO is supported by an
international concern that demotivation for language may begin in
early adolescence. Whether this lack of acceptance pertains only to EFL
learners and not to ESL learners remains an empirical question.
Our findings suggest that although proficiency differences cannot
be excluded as reasons for the difference in age group perceptions, it
is likely that the maturity and experience of the learner play a bigger
part. The adults could see through the methodology more clearly
because they could more clearly associate it with their learning goals.
The children simply found it difficult and were more likely to blame
the EO method. Whether younger learners could be helped via some
sort of strategy instruction to find EO input less difficult is a topic that
future research using experimental designs could explore, and we feel
that this would be a useful undertaking.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the two TQ anonymous reviewers and the editor
for their constructive and valuable feedback on an earlier version of this article.
THE AUTHORS
Ernesto Macaro is professor of applied linguistics at the University of Oxford. He
teaches on the Master’s in Applied Linguistics and the Modern Languages
Teacher Education Programs. His research focuses on second language learning
strategies and on the interaction between teachers and learners in second lan-
guage classrooms, particularly teacher codeswitching behaviour.
Jang Ho Lee received his PhD in education from the University of Oxford. He is
presently an assistant professor in the English Department at Korea Military Acad-
emy. His areas of interest are teachers’ codeswitching in English classrooms and
learners’ attitudes towards teachers’ instruction.
REFERENCES
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2010). Use of the target
language in the classroom. Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.
cfm?pageid=5151
Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English-only in the ESL classroom. TESOL
Quarterly, 27, 9–32. doi:10.2307/3586949

Birdsong, D. (Ed.). (1999). Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothe-
sis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Braine, G. (Ed.). (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Braine, G. (2005). A history of research on non-native speaker English teachers.
In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contri-
butions to the profession (pp. 13–23). New York, NY: Springer.
Brooks-Lewis, K. A. (2009). Adult learners’ perceptions of the incorporation of
their L1 in foreign language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics, 30, 216–
235. doi:10.1093/applin/amn051
Burden, P. (2004). An examination of attitude change towards the use of Japanese
in a university English “conversation” class. RELC Journal, 35, 21–36. doi:10.
1177/003368820403500104
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Carless, D. (2007). Student use of the mother tongue in the task-based classroom.
ELT Journal, 62, 331–338. doi:10.1093/elt/ccm090
Chambers, F. (1991). Promoting use of the target language in the classroom. Lan-
guage Learning Journal, 4, 27–31. doi:10.1080/09571739185200411
Chavez, M. (2003). The diglossic foreign-language classroom: Learners’ views on
L1 and L2 functions. In C. Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of foreign-language
classrooms: Contributions of the native, the near-native and the non-native speaker (pp.
163–208). Boston, MA: Thomson/Heinle.
Cheung, Y. L., & Braine, G. (2007). The attitudes of university students towards
non-native speaking English teachers in Hong Kong. RELC Journal, 38, 257–
277. doi:10.1177/0033688207085847
Clark, A., & Trafford, J. (1996). Return to gender: Boys’ and girls’ attitudes and
achievements. Language Learning Journal, 14, 40–49. doi:10.1080/0957173968
5200371
Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching: An argument for reassessment.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 33, 185–209. doi:10.2307/3587717
Curtain, H., & Pesola, C. (1994). Languages and children: Making the match (2nd
ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
de la Campa, J. C., & Nassaji, H. (2009). The amount, purpose, and reasons for
using L1 in L2 classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 742–759. doi:10.1111/j.
1944-9720.2009.01052.x
Department of Education and Science. (1990). Modern foreign languages for ages 11
to 16. London, England: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. C. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the for-
eign language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 74, 154–166. doi:10.2307/
328119
Franklin, C. E. M. (1990). Teaching in the target language: Problems and pros-
pects. Language Learning Journal, 2, 20–24. doi:10.1080/09571739085200371
Gearon, M. (2006). L’alternance codique chez les professeurs de français langue
e´trange`re pendant des leçons orienteés vers le de´veloppement des connais-
sances grammaticales. Canadian Modern Language Review, 62, 449–467. doi:10.
1353/cml.2006.0017
Halliwell, S., & Jones, B. (1991). On target. London, England: Centre for Informa-
tion on Language Teaching.
TESOL QUARTERLY740

Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Kim, S. (2002). Teachers’ perceptions about teaching English through English.
English Teaching, 57(1), 131–148.
Kim, S. H. O., & Elder, C. (2005). Language choices and pedagogic functions in
the foreign language classroom: A cross-linguistic functional analysis of teacher
talk. Language Teaching Research, 9, 355–380. doi:10.1191/1362168805lr173oa
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture
naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory repre-
sentations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.
1008
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2005). What do students think about the pros
and cons of having a native speaker teacher? In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native lan-
guage teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession (pp. 217–
242). New York, NY: Springer.
Lee, J. H. (2010). The differential effects of teacher code-switching on the vocabulary acqui-
sition of adult and young EFL learners: A study in the Korean context (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Oxford, England: University of Oxford.
Levine, G. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target lan-
guage use, ﬁrst language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study.
Modern Language Journal, 87, 343–364. doi:10.1111/1540-4781.00194
Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign
language classroom. Language Teaching, 44, 64–77. doi:10.1017/S02614448099
90310
Liu, D., Ahn, G., Baek, K., & Han, N. (2004). South Korean high school English
teachers’ code switching: Questions and challenges in the drive for maxi-
mal use of English in teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 605–638. doi:10.2307/
3588282
Llurda, E. (Ed.). (2005). Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and con-
tributions to the profession. New York, NY: Springer.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ma, L. P. F. (2009). Student perceptions of native English teachers and local Eng-
lish teachers. In A. Mahboob & C. Lipovsky (Eds.), Studies in applied linguistics
and language learning (pp. 325–348). Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge
Scholars Press.
Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language
classrooms: Theories and decision making. Modern Language Journal, 85, 531–
548. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00124
Macdonald, C. (1993). Using the target language. Cheltenham, England: Mary Glas-
gow.
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London, England: Macmillan.
Ministry of Education. (2000). Proposals for facilitating “Teaching English Through
English” (Report No. HakKyo 81131-609). Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education, Science, & Technology. (2009). Suggestions for the improve-
ment of the recruitment and support system of native English speaker teachers. Seoul,
Korea: Author.
Ministry of Education, Science, & Technology. (2011). The national curriculum for
English (Report No. 2011-361). Seoul, Korea: Author.

Moon, Y.-I., & Lee, K.-S. (2002). Perceptions of middle school English teachers on
teaching English through English. English Language Teaching, 14, 299–324.
Moussu, L., & Llurda, E. (2008). Non-native English-speaking English language
teachers: History and research. Language Teaching, 41, 315–348. doi:10.1017/
S0261444808005028
Oppenheim, A. N. (2000). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement.
London, England: Continuum.
Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Brownlie, S. (2002). Teacher use of the learners’ native lan-
guage in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58,
402–426. doi:10.3138/cmlr.58.3.402
Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Varshney, R. (2008). Students’ views regarding the use of the
first language: An exploratory study in a tertiary context maximizing target lan-
guage use. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 249–273. doi:10.3138/cmlr.65.
2.249
Rubin, J. (2005). The expert language learner: A review of good language learner
studies and learner strategies. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Expertise in second language
learning and teaching (pp. 37–63). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education. (2010). SMILE Project: Strengthening public
English education in Seoul. Seoul, Korea: Author.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an
L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly, 37, 760–770. doi:10.2307/3588224
Swan, M. (1997). The influence of the mother tongue on second language vocab-
ulary acquisition and use. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary:
Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 156–180). Cambridge, England: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Tragant, E., & Victori, M. (2006). Reported strategy use and age. In C. Munõz
(Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 208–236). Clevedon, Eng-
land: Multilingual Matters.
Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language
teaching, but. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 531–540. doi:10.3138/
cmlr.57.4.531
Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online ver-
sion of this article at the publisher’s website:
Appendix S1. The Participant Questionnaire.
Appendix S2. Coding Scheme of the Interview Data.
TESOL QUARTERLY742

Teacher language background, codeswitching, and english only instruction does age make a difference to learners' attitudes

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Teacher language background, codeswitching, and english only instruction does age make a difference to learners' attitudes

Similar to Teacher language background, codeswitching, and english only instruction does age make a difference to learners' attitudes (20)

More from Phan Minh Trí

More from Phan Minh Trí (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Teacher language background, codeswitching, and english only instruction does age make a difference to learners' attitudes