ELT Journal Advance Access published September 22, 2010

L1 to teach L2: complexities

and contradictions
Fiona Copland and Georgios Neokleous

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 11, 2016

This article uncovers the complexities and contradictions inherent in making
decisions about L1 use in the English language classroom. Through an analysis of
data from classrooms in a Cypriot context and from interviews with Cypriot
teachers, a number of functions for L1 use are identified, as are the teachers’
rationales for using L1 for different functions. Teachers’ decision making, it
emerges, is often complex, based on either what they perceive as their students’
affective needs or on their cognitive processes. What is more, teachers often under-
report or differently report their use of L1 in the classroom, contradicting beliefs by
their actions. The construct of guilt is offered to explain these complexities and
contradictions in the teachers’ use of L1 in this study. We conclude by suggesting
that teachers should be supported in finding local solutions to local teaching
problems, so that they better understand and exploit the resources available to
them.

Introduction Debates regarding the use of the first language (L1) in the classroom when
teaching English continue to attract interest and research (Brooks-Lewis
2009). In academic circles, the nexus of interest has shifted from a judicious
use of the L1 to support the learning and teaching of the L2 to an interest in
how L1 can be used to maximize learning in L2 (Butzkamm 2003;
Brooks-Lewis ibid.). Much of the discussion around the issue of L1 in the
language classroom, nevertheless, remains theoretical: Butzkamm (ibid.),
for example, provides ten maxims for using the ‘mother tongue’ as
a pedagogical resource, while Meiring and Norman (2002) examine the
amount of teacher talk that teachers believe should be delivered in the L1.
These debates around L1 use have particular relevance for bilingual English
teachers (from here, B ETs), especially those who share a first language
with their learners. These teachers are able to draw on two languages as
resources in the classroom and so, it could be claimed, have an advantage
over teachers who can only speak the L2. However, as Cots and Diaz (2006)
argue, it is rare for B ETs’ views to be heard in the debates, and even rarer that
data from their classrooms be examined to reveal how L1 is exploited at
the chalkface.
This paper attempts to redress this imbalance through reporting on an
investigation into the use of L1 in private language schools in a Cypriot
context. Through an analysis of classroom and interview data, it uncovers

E LT Journal; doi:10.1093/elt/ccq047 1 of 11
ª The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
 when B E Ts use the L1 in the classroom, why they do so, and how they feel
about their practice. It reveals that classroom language choice is complex,
predicated on both cognitive understandings of language learning and the
affective realities of the language learning context. Teachers, it will be
shown, recognize this complexity; however, they seem less aware of the
amount of L1 they use in class or the purposes for which they use it, under-
reporting and ‘differently’ reporting their L1 practices. This contradiction
between stated belief and classroom routines, it is argued, may be caused by
feelings of guilt as teachers struggle to reconcile pedagogic ideals with
contextual realities, leaving them feeling damned if they use L1 and damned
if they do not.
The article concludes by suggesting that while debates about L1 use
continue to flourish in academic circles, there is some way to go before

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 11, 2016

BETs, such as these Cypriot teachers, feel confident about adopting a post-
modern pedagogy that is particular to their own context (Kumaravadivelu
2001). Some suggestions about how this might be achieved are given.

Participants and The paper draws on data collected in four classrooms in two after-school
setting Cypriot private language institutions (frontistiria). Four teachers took part in
the study, and each was observed teaching one lesson to strong intermediate
learners of English (studying for the Cambridge ESOL First Certificate in
English examination). The researcher made notes during the lessons and
these were later written up as field notes (Richards 2003). There were on
average ten students aged 14 in each class and each class lasted one and a
half hours. The lessons were all audio-recorded and later transcribed.
Teachers were interviewed two weeks after the lesson had been observed by
the researcher (teachers were not shown transcripts and did not listen to the
recordings: instead they answered questions about their beliefs with regard
to using L1 in the classroom). The interviews were conducted in Greek and
later transcribed and translated by one of the researchers. The teachers were
all female, and each teacher had at least five years’ teaching experience. For
the purposes of this study, the teachers are named, Tina, Maria, Christina,
and Lisa. While this is a relatively small data set, the researchers believe that
given the degree of homogeneity that exists in Cypriot frontistiria, they are
fairly representative of the practices of English language teachers in this
context. Indeed, what emerged was that despite the small sample, teachers
engaged in a variety of L1 practices and held different views about when and
how it can be used.

Data analysis The lessons were transcribed and then the instances of L1 use were
identified and labelled as ‘utterances’. Whenever a Greek word was spoken,
an utterance ensued. The utterance finished either when the teacher next
spoke in English or when a student spoke. The utterances were then
subdivided into categories, according to the function of the L1. Eleven
functions were identified and these were
n logistics (organizing)
n explaining/revising language skills and systems
n instructions
n question and answer
n reprimands

2 of 11 Fiona Copland and Georgios Neokleous

 n jokes
n praise
n translating
n markers
n providing hints
n giving opinions.
There was some overlap between categories and in some cases L1
utterances could have been placed in more than one category. However,
a category was assigned according to what we felt to be its primary purpose,
and each utterance was only counted once. These categories emerged as the
data were sorted and inevitably changed and developed during the process
(Richards op.cit.).
While the classroom data enabled a picture of L1 classroom use to emerge,

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 11, 2016

they could not in themselves account for teachers’ attitudes to employing the
first language or their beliefs about its value. Field notes and interview data
proved invaluable in these respects. Of course, both these data sets are
interpretative in that they are constructed from the researchers’ perspectives
in the first instance and between the researchers and teacher in the second.
Nevertheless, they both provide perspectives on L1 use that could not be
gleaned from the empirical data alone (Richards ibid.).

Using L1: classroom The first finding surprised us: the amount of L1 used by the teachers varied
findings considerably. In a total of 1,191 Greek language utterances, Tina had only
one in her lesson, while Lisa had 634. In other words, Tina’s lesson was
conducted almost wholly in English, while Lisa’s was conducted almost
wholly in Greek. The other two teachers, Christina and Maria, had 250 and
206 utterances respectively, using Greek for a range of functions but for the
most part conducting the lessons in English (see the Appendix for a break
down).
Space does not permit a full exploration of the range and number of L1
utterances. Instead, we focus on three categories which reveal complexities
or contradictions in the teachers’ L1 use:
n translation
n question and answer
n explaining/revising language systems and skills.

Translation When a teacher gave a Greek equivalent of an English word or phrase, this
was labelled as translation. There was a total of 152 instances of translations
in the data. However, the decision whether to translate or not seemed to be
taken more readily by some teachers than by others. Lisa, for example,
translated 103 times in her lesson, providing a translation without always
being asked, apparently ‘second guessing’ the language needs of the
learners (see too Macaro 2005). The following extract of Lisa’s classroom
talk demonstrates how she uses L1 to teach English vocabulary to describe
people (a translation for the reader is shown in italicized text in square
brackets):
Extract 1
Lisa: Thin em so kepsó2. Muscular?

L1 to teach L2 3 of 11
 Student 1: Mtx́dg2.
[Muscular.]
Lisa: Xqaı́ well-built?
[Good well-built?]
Student 2: Ceqo
[Strong]
Student 3: Kakó
[Well]
Student 2: delémo2

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 11, 2016

[Built]
Lisa: Nai overweight?
[Yes overweight?]
This section was typical of Lisa’s teaching approach, with each English word
first introduced and the pronunciation modelled before a Greek equivalent
was sought or provided. In her interview, Lisa stated her belief that
translating helped to motivate the students to learn as, ‘if you don’t teach
them what it means in Greek, they won’t be interested in knowing the word’.
Maria also exploited translation, using this strategy 45 times in her lesson.
Maria notes the pragmatic value of translation when she says:
Not translating the whole text in Greek but I think use it when you judge
you should and then by asking the students. Translation helps because
you cannot explain everything in a foreign language.
For Lisa and Maria, the decision to translate or not was based on the affective
needs of the learners and the contexts in which they worked. For them,
translation was a strategy for maintaining interest and motivation. This
seems to chime with work by Carless (2007: 3) who notes that ‘in order to
maintain students’ attention, interest or involvement, contributions in the
MT [mother tongue] needed to be permitted’.
Tina and Christina, in contrast, used translation far less in their lessons. We
recorded three instances of direct translation by Christina and for Tina, only
one. Indeed, as noted above, Tina only used Greek once in her lesson and it
was for the following translation:
Extract 2
Student 1: Ti em so wasp jtqı́a;
[What’s a wasp Miss?]
Tina: Like a bigger bee that stings you
((7 second pause))
Student 1: Dgkadǵ;
[Meaning?]

4 of 11 Fiona Copland and Georgios Neokleous

 Student 2: Poio2;
[Who?]
Tina: It stings you and it hurts (.) It’s an insect.
Student 3: Mékirra;
[A bee?]
Tina: It looks like a bee. It’s bigger. They fly too.
Wasp is ajqı́da.
Tina’s decision to translate came only after many failed attempts to explain
in English the meaning of the word. When the students still did not
understand, she finally gave the translation. Tina, in her interview, spoke of

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 11, 2016

her belief that translating from one language to another was not helpful,
citing a personal negative experience of learning Ancient Greek in this way.
She also cited a cognitive reason for not providing translations:
I think that it’s better to let them think, process the meaning in their head
rather than give them the translation at once.
Christina also voiced a pedagogical concern about using translation:
I wouldn’t recommend translation immediately . . . because depending
on the context . . . the meaning of what I am trying to say changes.
These teachers are not so much concerned with the affective needs of the
learners—keeping them interested in the lesson and providing a reason to
learn new words—but with the cognitive processes that turn input into
intake. Because of this, they negatively evaluate the power of translation in
the learning process.

Question and answer Question and answer (from here Q & A) is a broad category, covering
questions and answers asked by the teachers and students on a range of
issues from grammar to what to do next. Generally, when a student asked
a question in Greek, the teacher answered in Greek, even when the
interaction had been initiated in English, as in the following example:
Extract 3
Maria: Please change books with the person sitting next to you and
take a pen of different colour.
Student 1: Ktqı́a le poiom ma akkánx ecx́;
[Miss, who shall I change books with?]
Maria: Poio2 em rso ı́dio hqamı́o le réma;
[Who do you share a desk with?]
Student 1: Toúso2. ((deı́vmei som dipkamó sg2))
[With him. ((points to her classmate))]
Maria: Me som Pésqo sóse.
[With Petros then.]

L1 to teach L2 5 of 11
 However, there was also a number of instances of ‘the Greek sandwich’,
where a question was asked in English by the teacher, answered in Greek by
the student, and responded to by the teacher in English again. This pattern
was particularly prevalent in Tina’s lessons, as in this example:
Extract 4
Tina: So what do you think?
Student 1: A?
[Huh?]
Tina: Why?
Student 1: E epeidǵ ǵsam eqx́sgrg sfı́mg.

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 11, 2016

[Because that was a question.]
Tina: Yeah, it was a question but I’m asking why.
Student 1: Ciası́ em ǵsam oúse so C oúse so B.
[Because it was neither C nor B.]
Tina: Well, you’ll have to find what we’re looking for.
Despite her best efforts to create a second language learning environment
through using English throughout the class, students, for whatever reason,
did not always comply with Tina’s approach, preferring to use Greek to
address her. Tina, for her part, seemed more tolerant of her students’ L1 use
than she was of her own, rarely reprimanding her students when they failed
to use English.
There were also examples of the teacher choosing to switch to Greek, even
when the extract had been initiated in English and the students seemed able
to maintain the interaction in the L2:
Extract 5
Maria: When do we use the first column of the verb?
Student 1: When we write it down.
Maria: Ti emmoeı́2 ósam so cqáuotle so qǵla;
[What do you mean ‘when we write it’?]
Student 1: Ala cqáuotle . . . cqauoúlem so sfı́mo.
[When we write (.) write it]
Maria: Nai akká re poio vqómo;
[Yes, but in which tense?]
In this case, it seems that the teacher is finding it difficult to understand the
student’s meaning when he/she speaks in English and so switches to L1
(although this does not appear to lead to greater understanding).
Decisions about when to use L1 and L2 in question and answer, then, are
complex and seem to be based on both affective and cognitive aspects. In
terms of affective factors, teachers respond to their students’ contributions,

6 of 11 Fiona Copland and Georgios Neokleous

 whatever language they use, in what seems to be an effort to create a stress-
free learning environment. Cognitively, teachers provide input in the L2, in
line with beliefs about best practice (see above), but most will switch to L1 if
they believe that linguistic difficulties are preventing the students from
understanding.

Explaining/revising There is a good deal of research which highlights teachers’ preferences for
grammar using L1 when working with language systems and skills (for example see
Cook 1997; Macaro 1997). The present data provide numerous examples
of teachers using Greek to work with skills and systems in the classroom.
In many cases, the level of complexity in the explanations is high,
suggesting that a similar explanation in L2 might have been too difficult for
intermediate learners, as seems to be the case in this extract:

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 11, 2016

Extract 6
Maria: Eı́pale ósi re soúsg sg peqı́psxrg so if pámsa, pámsa hékei
dı́pka sot so present simple ópot sfai am émei. Eı́se rsgm aqvǵ
émei eı́se rso séko2. Áqa edx́ (deı́vmei rsom pı́maja so
paqádeicla) . . . edx́ bákotle lpqorsá so future sfai lesá so
present.
[We said that in this case, if is always, always followed by present
simple wherever it is placed; either at the beginning or at the end. So,
here, ((points to the example written on the board)) (.) Here we
put future first and then present.]
Three of the four teachers explained they used Greek for this function as it
saved time, provided a more successful classroom experience, and reduced
the amount of stress their students felt. Again, all these reasons can be
linked to the affective needs of the learners.
Only Tina, the teacher who only used the L1 once in the lesson, felt that
using L1 was not a useful short cut. Once again, she provided a cognitive
explanation, stating that ‘if you make them think [of a rule] in Greek, to see if
it applies in Greek . . . it gets complicated’. Indeed, none of the teachers felt
that direct comparison between L1 and L2 was beneficial: one teacher
defined comparison as a ‘risky’ strategy as ‘there are not so many links’,
while another categorically stated that ‘comparison does not help them at
all’. The teachers’ beliefs contradict some of the more theoretical studies of
L1 use in the classroom where direct comparisons are encouraged (see, for
example Butzkamm op.cit.). It also contradicts what many believe is an
inevitable process in language learning and one which students will pass
through, in spite of teachers’ best efforts to prevent them (Harbord 1992).

Using L1 in the As can be seen in the discussion so far, attitudes towards using L1 in the
classroom: beliefs classroom were complex. All teachers held strong views about certain
and practices aspects of L1 use and were ambivalent about others. Even Tina, the strongest
advocate of an L2 only policy, allowed her students to use the L1 frequently,
as we can see in Extract 2.
Not only were attitudes complex, however, they were also contradictory. For
three of four teachers, their ‘stated behaviour’ was different to their ‘actual
behaviour’ (Árva and Medgyes 2000: 358), with teachers’ under-reporting or

L1 to teach L2 7 of 11
 ‘differently’ reporting their L1 classroom practices. For example, when these
teachers were asked about how they made decisions about the language in
which to conduct Q & A sessions, they generally denied using Greek. Maria
stated that ‘the number is only limited’; Christina suggested that ‘usually
teachers reply in English to the students’ questions’, and Lisa maintained
that unless Q & A focused on grammar, she did not use Greek. However,
Q & A accounted for by far the largest number of L1 uses, with it being used
396 times by these three teachers over their three lessons.
In terms of frequency, by far the greater part of Lisa’s lesson was conducted
in the L1 (with 634 occurrences) but in her interview, Lisa maintains that
Greek should only be used for teaching grammar and for some vocabulary
and that ‘You should normally avoid using the mother tongue as much as
you can’. Her stated beliefs are widely different from her classroom practice,

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 11, 2016

as can be seen in Extract 1.
In terms of how the two languages are used, Maria constantly and
consistently code switched in her lessons, starting a sentence in one
language and finishing it in another, as in the following example:
Extract 7
Maria: Actually most verbs are irregular ci’ atsó pqépei ma pqorévese.
[Actually most verbs are irregular so you need to be careful.]
When asked about this in the interview, she said that:
What I usually do is say it once in English and then repeat in Greek . . . I
think it’s a good idea if it becomes a habit and they learn to talk in a similar
way.
However, there is some difference between saying something in one language
and then repeating it in the other and starting a sentence in one language and
finishing it in the other. While the former has been lauded as an example
of good practice (and even better if the L2 version is repeated; see Butzkamm
(op.cit.) for a full description of Dodson’s (1972) ‘sandwich’ approach), it
is difficult to see how the mid-sentence switch is supporting the learning
process except affectively, through building interpersonal relationships with
learners; note that the inducement to taking care is delivered in Greek while
the information about the language is delivered in English.

Guilt and the BE T A construct that can help us to understand the contradictions and conflicts
in the teachers’ attitudes, practices, and beliefs is guilt, an emotion recognized
as significant by a number of researchers with an interest in L1 classroom use.
Carless (op.cit.: 2) recognizes guilt as a particular issue for B ETs when he
identifies a paradox in how using L1 to teach L2 could be viewed, ‘[if ] the
teacher’s mandate is to improve students’ English language . . . how does
this occur if students are conversing in the Mother Tongue?’ B E Ts, in
particular, would seem to have many reasons to feel guilty when using L1.
A feeling of self-reproach was manifest in the interview data. Despite all
using L1 (in some cases frequently), the teachers were all critical of the
amount of L1 used, with Maria, Christina, and Lisa always listing

8 of 11 Fiona Copland and Georgios Neokleous

 disadvantages of the practice before going on to give an explanation for
doing so. As Maria explained:
Surely, it is something that you cannot avoid completely but . . . also
something that you cannot do all the time. I feel that a mistake we
[teachers] do in Cyprus is that, because we share the same mother tongue
with the students, we think [L1 use] is a simple solution and use it
constantly.
The ‘simple solution’—being able to communicate with the learners
easily—is problematized by Maria rather than seen as advantageous to
teaching and learning processes (see Brooks-Lewis op.cit. for a different
interpretation of using L1 for communication).
Christina, too, problematizes using Greek frequently, stating:

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 11, 2016

I think one should try to use it as little as possible . . . to try to avoid it in
every possible way.
Lisa, the teacher who used Greek almost exclusively, also criticizes the
practice:
I do not think that it’s the wisest thing to do because you are teaching
them a second language . . . you should avoid using the mother tongue as
much as you can.
The four teachers all seem to regard L1 as a hindrance to learning L2, rather
than as a resource for making learning easier. In doing so, they seem to
embrace:
The single tenet [that] has persisted throughout the Western language
pedagogy revolutions of the 20th century and beyond . . . that the use of L1
is to be avoided in the FL classroom. (Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain
2005: 235)
It is hardly surprising, then, that they do not report accurately on their
classroom practice. To do so would be to admit incompetence, and, perhaps
more damningly, would challenge their personal philosophies of learning
and teaching. The teachers’ professed desires about L1 use are clearly in
conflict with their classroom realities, leaving them feeling damned if they
speak L1 and damned if they do not.

Conclusion All the teachers in this study worked in similar contexts in the same city in
Greek Cyprus. Their professed beliefs about the place of the L1 to teach
English demonstrated that they had a complex and even emotional
relationship with its use, professing affective and cognitive reasons for
using or not using L1 in their classrooms. Nevertheless, all teachers were
fairly unanimous in their belief that the L1 should be limited, which in some
cases contradicted their practices.
What seems to be worthy of note is that despite the case for L1 teaching
having been made fairly forcibly in the literature as a pedagogic tool
(Butzkamm op.cit.; Macaro op.cit.), this finding does not seem to have
reached these teachers, who here professed some unease about using the L1
to teach their learners. While this is a small and limited study, the findings of
which cannot be used to generalize about B E Ts’ L1 beliefs and practices,

L1 to teach L2 9 of 11
 anecdotal evidence suggests that many B ETs feel the same way (in a recent
MA T E S O L class held in the United Kingdom, out of a total of 18 overseas
students, 11 stated that they felt guilty using L1 to teach L2). In other words,
BETs continue to negatively evaluate perhaps their greatest asset: their L1
proficiency.
A good deal more needs to be done to communicate findings regarding the
value of L1 teaching, published in academic books and journals, to B E Ts
who may not always be able (or willing) to access such publications, most of
which are written in English in an academic register. This could be achieved
to some degree through talks at local teachers’ conferences and through
opening debates in local teachers’ magazines. However, as we know, it is one
thing to hear and another thing to discover. If B E Ts are to engage with the
issue fully and reach their own conclusions about L1 practice, then

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 11, 2016

classroom research by the teachers themselves is the way forward. Such an
approach would go some way to ensuring that L1 use becomes part of
a particular, practical, and possible pedagogy (Kumaravadivelu 2001),
locally developed to respond to local problems, a goal which all involved with
the learning and teaching of English would surely welcome.
Final revised version received May 2010

References language classroom’. The Modern Language Journal

Árva, V. and P. Medgyes. 2000. ‘Native and non-
native teachers in the classroom’. System
28/3: 355–72.
Brooks-Lewis, K. A. 2009. ‘Adult learners’
perceptions of the incorporation of their L1 in foreign
language teaching and learning’. Applied Linguistics
30/2: 216–35.
Butzkamm, W. 2003. ‘We only learn language once.
The role of the mother tongue in FL classrooms:
death of a dogma’. Language Learning Journal
28/1: 29–39.
Carless, D. 2007. ‘Student use of the mother tongue
in the task-based classroom’. E LT Journal
62/4: 331–8.
Cook, V. 1997. ‘Monolingual bias in second language
acquisition research’. Revista Canaria de Estudios
Ingleses 34: 35–50.
Cots, J. M. and J. M. Dı́az. 2005. ‘Constructing social
relationships and linguistic knowledge through non-
native-speaking teacher talk’ in E. Llurda (ed.). Non-
Native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and
Contributions to the Profession. New York: Springer.
Dodson, C. J. 1972. Language Teaching and the
Bilingual Method. (Second edition). London: Pitman.
Harbord, J. 1992. ‘The use of the mother tongue in
the classroom’. E LT Journal 46/4: 350–55.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 2001. ‘Towards a post-method
pedagogy’. T E S O L Quarterly 35/4: 537–60.
Liebscher, G. and J. Dailey-O’Cain. 2005. ‘Learner
code-switching in the content-based foreign
89/2: 234–47.
Macaro, E. 1997. Target Language, Collaborative
Learning and Autonomy. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Macaro, E. 2005. ‘Codeswitching in the L2
classroom: a communication and learning strategy’
in E. Llurda (ed.). Non-Native Language Teachers:
Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the
Profession. New York: Springer.
Meiring, L. and N. Norman. 2002. ‘Back on target:
repositioning the status of target language in M F L
teaching’. Language Learning Journal 26/1: 27–35.
Richards, K. 2003. Qualitative Inquiry in T E S O L.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
The authors
Fiona Copland has extensive experience of teaching
and training in Nigeria, Hong Kong, Japan, and the
United Kingdom. She is currently Course Director
for MSc T E S O L programmes at Aston University.
She holds a PhD in Education and her research
interests include classroom interaction, post-
observation feedback talk, and teaching English to
young learners.
Email: f.m.copland@aston.ac.uk
Georgios Neokleous earned his BA from the
Université Libre de Bruxelles and his Master’s
Degree in T E S O L from Aston University. He is
now a teacher in Cyprus, where he is also pursuing

10 of 11 Fiona Copland and Georgios Neokleous

a long-distance PhD in Educational Studies with classrooms and post-colonial literature.
Saint Louis University. His main research interests Email: georgeneo@gmail.com
include the use of the mother tongue in EF L

Appendix
Number of times L1 Functions Tina Christina Maria Lisa
used to perform Praise 0 13 11 34
different functions Jokes 0 14 11 39
Explaining/revising language skills and 0 15 24 55
systems
Hints 0 1 7 27
Markers 0 16 1 8
Translation 1 3 45 103
Opinions 0 2 4 33

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 11, 2016

Instructions 0 36 0 20
Questions and answers 0 97 76 223
Logistics 0 26 18 59
Reprimands 0 27 9 33
Total 1 250 206 634

L1 to teach L2 11 of 11