Student and Instructor Beliefs and

Attitudes about Target Language Use,

First Language Use, and Anxiety:
Report of a Questionnaire Study
GLENN S. LEVINE
Department of German
400 Murray Krieger Hall
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, CA 92697
Email: glevine@uci.edu

This article presents the results of an anonymous, Internet-based questionnaire study on target
language (TL) and first language (L1) use in university-level foreign language (FL) classes.
The participants were 600 FL students and 163 FL instructors. The goals of the study were to
develop preliminary components of a descriptive model of TL and L1 use and explore the
relationships between TL use and student anxiety about TL use. It was hypothesized that
(a) amounts of TL use would vary according to constellation of interlocutors and communi-
cative contexts, and (b) the amount of TL use overall would correlate positively with student
anxiety about it. The results support the first hypothesis. The second hypothesis was not
supported. Analysis of the data revealed a negative relationship between reported amounts of
TL use and reported TL-use anxiety. Tenets are offered for maximizing TL use while at the
same time granting to L1 pedagogically sound functions.

THERE ARE LIKELY FEW FOREIGN LAN-
GUAGE (FL) instructors who have not developed
an individualized approach to classroom target
language (TL) and first language (L1) use.1 This
approach can be influenced by pedagogical train-
ing, knowledge of the second language acquisi-
tion (SLA) literature, official policy, and class-
room experience, yet often it appears to be based
primarily on classroom experience and intuitions
about what feels right. Questions of how much TL
the instructor uses and in what contexts, as well as
how much TL the instructor expects students to
use, become inextricably linked to all other class-
room practices. Yet despite the ubiquitous nature
of the TL-use issue, relatively little attention has
been paid to TL and L1 use in the literature on in-
structed adult second language (L2) acquisition.
When researchers specifically address the issue
of classroom TL use, especially the notion of ex-
The Modern Language Journal, 87, iii, (2003)
0026-7902/02/343–364 $1.50/0
©2003 The Modern Language Journal
clusive TL use, there appear to be two opposing
positions. Though they expressed it only in pass-
ing, Krashen and Terrell (1983) stated that the
natural approach is “based on the use of the lan-
guage in communicative situations without re-
course to the use of the native language” (p. 9).
The choice of the word “recourse” is indicative of
the stigma associated with the use of the L1 in the
communicative FL classroom (Cook, 2001). This
view of classroom language use also appears evi-
dent even in much of the SLA literature, espe-
cially studies dealing with input and interaction
(e.g., Brooks, 1990; Ellis, 1999; Gass, 1997;
Johnson, 1995), in which codeswitching or the
use of the L1 versus the TL often does not enter
into the discussion. Empirical works dealing with
TL use as its own construct that largely support
natural-approach assumptions about TL use in-
clude the studies by Duff and Polio (1990) and
Polio and Duff (1994).
On the other side of the issue, represented by
Antón and DiCamilla (1999), Atkinson (1987,
344
1993), Auerbach (1993), Belz (2003), Blyth
(1995), Castellotti (2001), Cook (1999, 2001),
Franklin (1990), Nation (1997), and Nizegorod-
cew (1996), it is argued that the “recourse-to-L1”
position has created a classroom dynamic in
which the use of the L1 is at best discouraged,
and at worst stigmatized. In reaction to what they
view as misguided and unrealistic pedagogical
principles, these scholars have staked a claim for
a sanctioned role for the learner’s L1 in the lan-
guage classroom.
Unfortunately, with the exception of the few
empirical studies that I describe in the literature
review that follows, both sides of this debate often
base their assumptions and arguments largely on
intuitions about best practices, anecdotal evi-
dence, and personal classroom experience.
Whereas these nonempirical works are well-in-
formed sources of information, they do not suf-
fice in the face of the pedagogical and curricular
ramifications of the issue. As Macaro (2001) and
Turnbull and Arnett (2002) pointed out, the fact
of the matter is that, to date, we have relatively
little empirical evidence as to the amount or na-
ture of TL versus L1 use upon which to make
sound pedagogical and policy decisions.
The present research report begins to address
this problem. The study described here repre-
sents the first part of a multipart study of TL and
L1 use in the FL class. Presented here are the
results of an anonymous questionnaire com-
pleted by 600 undergraduate FL students and 163
FL instructors. The purpose at this stage was to
identify what students and instructors believe
goes on with the TL, with a central focus on the
perceptions and experiences of the students, as
well as on variables associated with more or less
TL use. Of particular interest was the relationship
between reported amounts of TL use and re-
ported anxiety about TL use. In addition, this
article attempts to offer a first (but by no means
last) response to Macaro’s (2001) challenge that
“future research needs to establish some princi-
ples for codeswitching in FL classrooms by under-
standing its functions and consequences” (p.
545). Therefore, in the Discussion and Conclu-
sions section, I offer some preliminary tenets for
classroom codeswitching that appear to be indi-
cated by the questionnaire data.
The reader is asked to keep in mind through-
out that the data described are not “reality,” that
is, they are not actual recordings of TL use such
as those collected by Duff and Polio (1990) or by
Guthrie (1984); rather they are students’ and in-
structors’ estimations of and beliefs about TL use.
Yet I suggest that these perceptions and beliefs
can be a powerful tool in making pedagogical
The Modern Language Journal 87 (2003)
decisions about TL use, as well as in designing
observational and experimental research.
EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF TARGET
LANGUAGE USE
For the sake of brevity, this review of the litera-
ture is limited to a small selection of the works
that deal specifically with TL use as a construct.
Furthermore, with the exception of Cook’s
(2001) article, this review is also limited to em-
pirical studies. For a more complete overview of
the literature on TL and L1 use, the reader is
referred to Turnbull and Arnett (2002).
One of the earliest studies to break ground on
classroom TL use was conducted by Guthrie
(1984). Exploring the question of optimal class-
room conditions for L2 acquisition, the re-
searcher investigated the TL use of 6 university
French instructors, all of whom reported teaching
with a communicative approach. Through an
analysis of 10 hours of instruction, Guthrie discov-
ered that even in a multisection course at a single
institution there is a great degree of variability in
the amounts and purposes of TL and L1 use by
instructors. Yet overall, most instructors used the
TL a great deal of the time. Of the 6 instructors, 5
apparently used the TL 83% to 98% of the time
(average of the two lessons recorded for each in-
structor). The students’ use of the TL was more
variable, ranging from 68% to 93% (average of the
two lessons). Yet it is interesting that the students
in the classes recorded apparently did not talk very
much overall (in either language); they spoke
ranging from 9% to 24% of the time.
Noting the dearth of empirical evidence on TL
use, Duff and Polio (1990) undertook a qualita-
tive investigation of instructors’ use of the TL in
13 different university-level language classes. In
the ratio of TL to L1 use, the authors found an
even broader range of TL to L1 use than Guthrie
did, from 10% to 100%. Duff and Polio suggested
several factors that they believed affected the
amount of instructor TL use, namely, language
type, departmental policy on TL use, lesson con-
tent and objectives, pedagogical materials, and
formal training. They noted that the instructors
opted to use the L1 in many administrative or
other situations in which the TL could have been
used. In their opinion, using the L1 in these con-
texts deprives students of many good opportuni-
ties to hear and process the TL for a range of
communicative functions. Finally, most of the stu-
dents claimed to be satisfied with the status quo
of their particular class, regardless of the re-
corded amount of instructor TL use.
In their work 4 years later, Polio and Duff
Glenn S. Levine
(1994) returned to the data recorded for the
earlier study and considered the primary ques-
tion, When do teachers tend to use English,
rather than the TL, and for what functions? The
researchers focused on what they saw as one of
the reasons for the students’ general lack of suc-
cess in the L2 acquisition endeavor: “Students are
simply not engaged in meaningful interaction in
the FL during class time” (p. 313). Through a
discourse analysis of judgment samples of the
data, they considered the type of TL available to
students vis-à-vis “the contexts in which English is
used in lessons instead of the target language”
(pp. 313–314). Their analysis revealed that many
instructors appeared to engage in intrasentential
codeswitching, especially of specific lexical items.
Also, instructors often dealt with communication
breakdowns by switching to English rather than
negotiating in the TL. Last, the instructors ap-
peared reluctant to teach grammar or engage in
classroom management in the TL. It is interesting
that some instructors appeared unaware of “how,
when, and the extent to which they actually use
English” (p. 320). Some instructors apparently
believed they used the TL exclusively and “urged
the students to use it too, but would not necessar-
ily do so themselves” (p. 320).
As did Polio and Duff, Nzwanga (2000) also
found that “despite their effort to avoid it, both the
teachers and students appealed to CS [codeswitch-
ing] for a number of reasons” (p. 103). Still, in the
14 hours of recorded university-level French class-
room conversation, instances of L1 use by the in-
structor and students were relatively scarce (p.
73). Indeed, in the classes observed, the instruc-
tors explicitly forbade the use of the L1. From his
detailed discourse analysis, Nzwanga concluded
that whereas communicative approaches to in-
structed L2 acquisition may dictate maximal or ex-
clusive TL use, it appeared that the L1 did and
should have a role to play. Specifically, code-
switches, which the author acknowledges were re-
ally discourse switches (p. 104), were most likely to
occur during pair or group work (presumably
among the students), before a quiz, or during the
presentation stage (presumably by the instructor).
Macaro (2001) also was interested in how
much L1 instructors use, why they claim to use it,
and what factors appear to influence their deci-
sion to use it. Specifically, the author investigated
how the decision to use the L1 is influenced by
beliefs about TL and L1 use, pedagogical train-
ing, or governmental or institutional policy. As
did Guthrie and Nzwanga, Macaro discovered
that overall, very little L1 was used in the classes
recorded, either by the instructor or the students.
345
When instructors initiated a switch to the L1, it
appeared that they did so for the sake of effi-
ciency and expediency, or to impose discipline or
keep control of the group (students were 11- to
14-year-olds). Considering the low proportion of
L1 use overall, the author concluded that there is
little reason to advocate the exclusion of the L1
from the classroom. In accord with the assertions
made by Cook (2001), the question is raised
whether the prevailing taboo against the L1
might not stifle reflective practice among instruc-
tors (p. 545), that is, that the dogma of exclusive
TL use limits what we could accomplish in the
classroom. Still, in line with Polio and Duff, Ma-
caro suggested that rather than going the path of
least resistance by switching to the L1, certain
contexts present themselves as opportunities to
expand students’ vocabulary and hence the
range of functions of the TL. Macaro stated that
we need “a framework that identifies when refer-
ence to the L1 can be a valuable tool and when it
is simply used as an easy option” (p. 545).
Rather than quantifying the amount of TL and
L1 use, Antón and DiCamilla (1999) favored in-
vestigating the discourse functions of L1 during
L2 classroom interaction and took a Vygotskian,
interactionist approach to the issue. The re-
searchers studied the verbal interaction of 5 pairs
of adult learners of Spanish as they worked col-
laboratively on three Spanish writing tasks. It was
concluded from the transcripts that “L1 use pro-
vides, through collaborative dialogue, an oppor-
tunity for L2 acquisition to take place” (p. 237).
The L1 serves not just as the code that learners
resort to when language ability proves inade-
quate, rather it serves three main functions: “con-
struction of scaffolded help, establishment of in-
tersubjectivity, and use of private speech” (p.
245). The L1 is not simply a metalinguistic tool,
rather it is a “means to create a social and cogni-
tive space in which learners are able to provide
each other and themselves with help throughout
the task” (p. 245). In this detailed, qualitative
analysis, the authors showed that the relationship
between the L1 and the L2 in the classroom can-
not be viewed in simple terms of how much TL
versus how much L1 is used. Underscoring the
inextricable nature of language and thought and
rejecting the notion of a simple prohibition of
the L1, Antón and DiCamilla, it appears, concur
with Macaro that a principled framework is
needed in which the L1 serves as one of many
communicative tools.
Though not based on empirical evidence,
Cook’s (2001) arguments for allowing the L1 in
the language class deserve attention here, for I
346
believe that the position he has taken accords to
some extent with the findings of Antón and Di-
Camilla, Macaro, and others. In addition, several
of his observations were employed directly in
constructing the questionnaire for the present
study. After sketching the predominant “mono-
lingual principle” of 20th century L2 instruc-
tion—the belief that only the L2 has a place in
the classroom (p. 404)—Cook attempted to show
that the prevailing motivations that have been
offered in support of the classroom as a virtual L2
environment (Macaro, 2001) do not in them-
selves preclude a role for the L1. Furthermore, he
asserted that this position “has prevented lan-
guage teaching from looking rationally at ways in
which the L1 can be involved in the classroom”
(p. 410). He then described some alternative ap-
proaches that overtly include L1 in the classroom,
such as the “Key Two-Way Model” and the “New
Concurrent Method.” The latter example, appar-
ently advocated by Cook, “acknowledges code-
switching as a normal activity and encourages the
students to see themselves as true L2 users, at
home in both languages” (p. 412). At the same
time, this method encourages teachers to use the
students’ L1 (Spanish) “when concepts are im-
portant, when the students are getting distracted,
or when a student should be praised or repri-
manded” (p. 412). Note that it is exactly in these
sorts of situations that others (e.g., Polio & Duff,
1994) have argued that the L2 is needed. Cook
(2001) then detailed specific situations in which
he believed the L1 could be used: to check mean-
ings of words, explain grammar, organize tasks
and give directions, maintain discipline, adminis-
ter tests, and carry out classroom group activities.
TARGET–LANGUAGE–USE ANXIETY
Along with investigating amounts and contexts
of TL use by instructors and students, this study
also considered the construct “TL-use anxiety,”
regarded here as a debilitating state anxiety
(Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; MacIntyre,
1995; Scovel, 1991). There are three reasons for
focusing on this variable. First, other variables
that influence how much TL and L1 instructors
choose to employ, such as pedagogical training or
official policy, have been dealt with recently (Ma-
caro, 2001; Turnbull & Arnett, 2002). Second,
TL-use anxiety is a variable based on the learner’s
perceptions and experiences, whereas most stud-
ies on TL use to date have focused primarily on
the verbal behavior and attitudes of the instructor
and only secondarily on that of the students.
Third, the literature on language learning anxi-
The Modern Language Journal 87 (2003)
ety (e.g., Bailey, Onwuegbuzie, & Daley, 2000;
Horwitz et al., 1986; MacIntyre, 1995; MacIntyre
& Charos, 1996; Young, 1990) addresses many
social and personality variables, but learner anxi-
ety about TL use (whether the TL is used by the
instructor or the student) is seldom taken into
consideration.
For this study, it was hypothesized that the
amount of instructor and student TL use corre-
lates positively with the students’ sense of anxiety
about TL use (i.e., more TL use co-occurs with
greater TL-use anxiety). Three points support the
assumption of a positive relationship between
these two variables. First, a classroom dynamic in
which “resorting” to L1 use is considered a short-
coming or lapse of appropriate behavior—argu-
ably the prevalent dynamic in many university FL
classes—could likely lead to anxiety about TL use
for a considerable number of learners. Second,
the literature on FL anxiety points toward a posi-
tive relationship between TL use and anxiety.
Young (1990) found that students generally be-
come anxious when they have to use the TL in
front of others. Horwitz et al. (1986) suggested a
relationship between FL anxiety and unwilling-
ness to interact verbally. And whereas this ten-
dency is, of course, influenced by factors such as
personality traits or overall willingness to commu-
nicate (see MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; MacIntyre,
Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1998), anecdotal evi-
dence also appears to support a positive relation-
ship: A common reason for using the L1 and
allowing students to use it is that it helps lower
learners’ affective filter (Krashen, 1982). One in-
structor who completed the questionnaire in the
present study offered the following comment:
There are some students in the classroom which [sic]
feel comfortable with FL and using it (although not
all the time). We need to understand that as an in-
structor we [sic] have to be careful not to frustrate
our students, especially those just starting with FL.
Depending on the composition of the class, I evaluate
how much English I need to use/not use. I truly try
to use only Spanish in my classes. My purpose is for
the students to feel comfortable in all areas of FL and
to continue in the program (if possible).
Polio and Duff (1994) also presented a statement
made by a German instructor who believed that
“if you want to create some sort of relaxed atmo-
sphere . . . I think this is hard to do in German
only” (p. 318). I suggest that these comments
accord with the opinion of many FL instructors
and support the notion that in many FL class-
room situations, greater TL use may be accompa-
Glenn S. Levine
nied by greater anxiety about TL use for many
learners.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
The empirical studies described above shed
light on many aspects of the relationship between
TL and L1 use in the FL class. Yet each of them is
based on a fairly small sample, or on language
classes at a single institution. As a consequence,
there is some question about the generalizability
of the findings. Also, by and large these studies
focused primarily on the verbal behavior of the
instructor. In order to develop an adequate de-
scriptive model of TL/L1 use, a study was needed
that would focus on the verbal behavior of the
students as well as that of the instructors, include
greater numbers of participants from more lan-
guage learning situations (see Rifkin, 2000), and
take into account not only overall amounts of
each language but also (a) constellations of inter-
locutors and (b) contexts and functions of com-
munication. Therefore, an important first step is
to determine, by using a sizable sample, what
instructors and students believe goes on in the
classroom in these two areas. Specifically, this
study provides a cross-sectional description of stu-
dent and instructor verbal behavior as it relates to
TL and L1 use. A second goal is to identify covari-
ates of TL use, and particularly, variables that
relate to amounts of TL use or TL-use anxiety, or
both. Although the range of variables that could
be analyzed is large, the present study focuses on
a few demographic (age, gender, language back-
ground) and classroom variables (expected
grade, level of motivation, TL-use strategies in-
struction, instructor characteristics). To meet the
two goals, the following research questions were
formulated:
1. What do students and instructors believe
goes on in the FL classroom with the TL and the
L1? Specifically,
1a. How does reported TL use differ for dif-
ferent interlocutors?
1b. How does reported TL use differ in dif-
ferent communicative contexts?
1c. How do instructors and students perceive
TL-use anxiety, particularly in different com-
municative contexts?
2. How do reported amounts of TL use and
TL-use anxiety relate to each other and to per-
sonal or classroom variables?
Although I considered the study exploratory and
identified most of the initial patterns through
data mining procedures (e.g., factor analyses),
347
two a priori hypotheses followed from these re-
search questions:
H1 Reported amounts of TL use differ ac-
cording to constellation of interlocutors and
communicative contexts.
H2 Reported amounts of TL use by instructor
and students correlate positively with students’
sense of anxiety about TL use.
Based on these hypotheses, two a priori con-
structs were assumed for the purposes of design-
ing and analyzing the questionnaires. I called
these Target Language Use (TLU) and Target-
Language-Use Anxiety (TLA).
After describing the questionnaire study and
the procedure, I present the characteristics of the
participant sample and then address each of the
research questions in turn. Thereafter, I discuss
the findings and their pedagogical implications.
METHODS
The Questionnaire
A questionnaire was devised that would mea-
sure first- and second-year FL students’ and in-
structors’ (a) estimations of the quantity of TL
use in different classroom contexts in university-
level FL classes, (b) beliefs about the importance
of TL use, and (c) beliefs about student anxiety
experienced through TL use, also with regard to
specific classroom contexts. Two versions of the
questionnaire were created, one intended for stu-
dents, and one for instructors (see Appendixes A
and B).
The first version of the questionnaire was con-
verted to Web format and piloted with a small
group of students and instructors in order to
refine it.2 Based on student and instructor com-
ments, changes were made in the wording of
several items, and several items were deleted alto-
gether. The final student questionnaire con-
tained seven sections for a total of 63 items. The
final instructor questionnaire contained six sec-
tions for a total of 58 items. Cronbach’s alpha for
each a priori construct (TLU and TLA) in both
the instructor and student questionnaires was .78
or above, suggesting that the reliability of the
instrument was satisfactory.3
Procedure
Beginning at midterm of Fall 2000 (October),
the final versions of the questionnaires were
posted on the Internet, linkable through a gate-
way site. An appeal for participation was made
348
through email and listserv announcements to FL
instructors and language program directors
throughout the United States and Canada
(roughly 240 direct email appeals plus several
listserv announcements). The appeal asked FL
instructors to complete the anonymous, Web-
based questionnaire and to ask their students to
do the same.4 No systematic attempt was made to
send letters to all U.S. universities and colleges,
but an attempt was made to send several letters to
all 50 states and to each English-speaking prov-
ince of Canada. Except through the listservs
(which obviously reached a larger audience), ap-
peals were made to 4-year colleges and universi-
ties only.
At the beginning of each questionnaire, re-
spondents were informed that the questionnaire
was completely anonymous unless they chose to
identify themselves (by providing an email ad-
dress). The respondents were asked to complete
the questionnaire alone and in one sitting.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Characteristics of the Sample: Students
Between October and early December of 2000,
responses were received from an even 600 stu-
dents.5 Of the respondents 59% were male, 41%
were female, 80.8% were in the 18- to 21-year-old
age range, and 14.1% were in the 22- to 30-year-
old age range. Most of the students (89%) called
themselves native speakers of English; 15%
claimed to be bilingual; 64.9% were in the first
year of FL instruction; and 35.1% were in second-
year courses. The student respondents came
from 21 different states and three Canadian prov-
inces.
Most of the respondents were students of
French (60.5%; n ⫽ 361), German (24.3%; n ⫽
145), and Spanish (11.9%; n ⫽ 71). For the re-
maining languages in the list (see Appendix A,
item 11), very few students responded, with 4
students checking “other.”
In addition to providing demographic infor-
mation, the students were also asked to share
information about their FL classes and their in-
structors. I focus on the results that were used as
variables in the analysis of the data, as follows:
expected grade; language learning motivation;
instructor’s gender, academic rank, and native
speaker status; instructor’s stated expectations re-
garding TL use, and frequency of strategies in-
struction regarding TL use.
The students were asked what grade they ex-
pected to receive in their current FL course. Of
The Modern Language Journal 87 (2003)
the respondents, 88.3% reported expecting an A
or a B. An additional 10% expected a C, and only
1.7% expected a D or an F. This distribution of
the self-selected sample is addressed in the Re-
sults and Analysis and the Limitations sections of
this article.
Next, the students were asked to rate how mo-
tivated they felt they were to acquire the FL. Over
half of them, 56.6%, reported “extremely high”
or “high” motivation, 34.4% reported “moderate”
motivation, and just 8.1% reported “weak” or “ex-
tremely weak” motivation.
The students also were asked about their in-
structors. Women comprised 73% of the stu-
dents’ instructors; 27% were men. Slightly less
than half of the instructors, 48.2%, were native
speakers of the FL; 37.5% were graduate student
instructors; 34% were professors; 16.1% were lec-
turers; and for 12.3% of the instructors, students
were unable to provide a rank.
Finally, the students were asked about their
instructors’ approach to TL use. In this section of
the questionnaire, 59% of the students reported
that their instructor regularly made expectations
clear regarding TL use; 33% stated that their
instructors did so at the beginning of the term;
only 8% reported that their instructors never
made expectations clear. Similarly, 72.7% of the
students reported that their instructors spent
class time working through or discussing commu-
nicative strategies to facilitate TL use; 12.7% re-
ported that this sort of assistance was provided at
the beginning of the term; 14.7% stated that their
instructors never focused on these strategies.
Characteristics of the Sample: Instructors
Responses were received from 163 instructors
of first- or second-year FL classes. Of these in-
structors, 68.9% were female; 31.1% were male.
The different age ranges were well represented
among the instructors. The geographical distri-
bution of the instructors was greater than that
among the students. They came from 31 different
U.S. states and 4 Canadian provinces. Among the
instructors, as for the students, the three “most
commonly taught” languages were most strongly
represented, though the proportions were differ-
ent: 44.2% of the instructors taught German;
27% taught Spanish; and 17.2% taught French.
Just over one third of the instructors (34.4%)
claimed to be native speakers of the language
they were teaching.
With regard to the academic rank of instruc-
tors, almost half of them (49.1%) were graduate
teaching assistants, 12.9% were “long term” lec-
Glenn S. Levine
turers, 11% were tenured faculty, 10.4% were
tenure-track faculty, and 9.8% were adjunct lec-
turers. When asked about their professional
training, 88.2% of the instructors reported hav-
ing received training in FL pedagogy. The years
of teaching experience among them varied
greatly: 19.6% had been teaching less than 1
year; 16% had taught for 1 to 2 years; 25% had
taught between 3 and 10 years; and 29.4% had
taught more than 10 years. Finally, a large ma-
jority (74.8%) of the instructors reported that
they employ a communicative approach/meth-
odology.
Target Language Use and Target-Language-Use
Anxiety
In the following sections I will report the fre-
quencies of estimated TL use overall among stu-
dents and instructors, TL use in specific con-
texts, student and instructor opinions about TL
use, and TL-use anxiety among students. These
results are organized around the research ques-
tions posed earlier. While reading the responses
of the instructors and students, the reader
should keep in mind that in many instances, the
frequencies measure somewhat different things.
Whereas the students were often asked about
their own personal experiences (e.g., How much
TL do you use?), the corresponding instructor
questionnaire item often asked instructors to es-
timate how much TL their students used (as a
group).
FIGURE 1
Comparison of Student and Instructor Estimates of Target Language Use among Different Interlocutors
349
Research Question 1
What do students and instructors believe goes on in
the FL classroom with the TL and the L1?
The questionnaire data for both students and
instructors clearly support the first hypothesis
that the reported amounts of TL use differ ac-
cording to the constellation of interlocutors and
communicative contexts. In assessing the amount
of the TL and the L1 used in the classroom in
order to reply to this research question and to its
subquestions, the respondents were asked to esti-
mate TL use by considering three interlocutor
constellations—(a) instructor with student(s),
(b) student(s) with instructor, (c) student(s) with
student(s)—and three communicative con-
texts—(a) topic/theme-based activities (i.e., text-
book activities), (b) discussion of grammar and
usage, and (c) discussion of tests, quizzes, other
assignments.
Research Question 1a
How does reported TL use differ for different inter-
locutors?
Dealing with each of these rubrics in turn, Fig-
ure 1 represents graphically student and instruc-
tor estimates of amount of TL use by different
sets of interlocutors (the frequencies repre-
sented by this chart are presented in Appendix
C). For the first category, instructors with stu-
dents, about 60% of students reported that their
instructors use the TL 80% to 100% of the time.
It is interesting to note that only about 44% of
350
the instructors claimed to use the TL with stu-
dents 80% to 100% of the time. The most strik-
ing feature of this result is that whereas the fre-
quencies differed for each group, the pattern of
responses was nearly identical for the students
and the instructors. In other words, there is an
indication that in 40% to 60% of FL classes the
instructor used the TL 80% to 100% of the time.
By and large, this result accords with the find-
ings of Guthrie (1984), Nzwanga (2000), and
Macaro (2001).
For the next category, when asked to estimate
the amount of the TL used by students when
speaking with their instructors, the two groups
reported similarly. Only about 17% of the stu-
dents reported that they used the TL 80% to
100% of the time with their instructors; corre-
spondingly, only 15% of the instructors reported
that their students used the TL 80% to 100% of
the time when speaking to them. For the final
category, student to student communication, the
two groups differed more in their responses, yet
each group reported that less of the TL was used
than in the other two categories. In sum, the
frequencies presented in Figure 1 indicate that
the TL was used most by instructors when speak-
ing to students, less by students when speaking
with their instructors, and still less overall when
students spoke with other students.
With regard to learner–learner TL use, one
additional result should be reported. When asked
to estimate the percentage of the time they
switched to English as soon as a partner or group
activity was completed, 36.7% of the students (n
⫽ 594) reported that they switched to English
FIGURE 2
Student and Instructor Estimations of Target Language Use in Different Contexts
The Modern Language Journal 87 (2003)
80% to 100% of the time. Similarly, 29.4% of the
instructors (n ⫽ 160) reported that their students
switched to English 80% to 100% of the time. An
additional 21.2% of the students reported that
they switched to English 60% to 80% of the time.
Correspondingly, 29.4% of the instructors re-
ported that students switched to English 60% to
80% of the time. In short, for communication
among the students, the unmarked code for “off-
record” communication (Hancock, 1997) ap-
pears to be the L1 for a strong majority. It also
appears that the students and instructors concur
in their estimations of this aspect of classroom
verbal behavior.
Research Question 1b
How does reported TL use differ in different commu-
nicative contexts?
Research question 1b is related to question-
naire items that differentiate among communica-
tive contexts. Figure 2 represents graphically the
student and instructor estimations of TL use in
three typical classroom communicative contexts
(frequencies are listed in Appendix D).6 It is
noteworthy that 53.5% of the instructors esti-
mated that the TL was used 80% to 100% of the
time for topic-based activities (i.e., language text-
book activities), whereas only 28.4% of the stu-
dents made the same estimate. By and large,
there was a gap in all three contexts between
student and instructor estimations, with instruc-
tors estimating greater amounts of TL use overall.
Also noteworthy is the continuum from
topic/theme-based activities, to discussion of
Glenn S. Levine
grammar and usage, to discussion of tests or
other assignments. The TL is used most for
topic/theme-based communication, less overall
for communication about grammar, and less still
for communication about tests, quizzes, and as-
signments. The indication is that the L1-use con-
ditions advocated by Cook (2001) may reflect the
way many language classes are actually con-
ducted.
Research Question 1c
How do instructors and students perceive TL-use
anxiety, particularly in different communicative con-
texts?
For research question 1c, there were three
items on the questionnaire designed to elicit in-
structor and student perceptions and estimations
of TL-use anxiety in general and in different com-
municative contexts. Figure 3 represents the re-
sponse frequencies for these items (frequencies
listed in Appendix E). Looking only at the per-
centage of each group that agreed or strongly
agreed with the statement of a given item, there
are three very interesting patterns. First, a sizable
minority of the students (around 40% overall)
agreed with the statement that using the TL
made them feel anxious. Second, it appears that
instructors may perceive higher anxiety about TL
use in students than students themselves report
feeling. This pattern can be seen in the higher
proportion of instructors who agreed or strongly
agreed with the first two statements (59.9% and
45.7% respectively). The third interesting pattern
FIGURE 3
Student and Instructor Agreement with Statements about Target-Language-Use Anxiety in General
351
discernable is that in the face of generally high
levels of reported TL-use anxiety, a strong major-
ity of both students and instructors (approxi-
mately 63% in each group) agreed or strongly
agreed with the statement that it is a “rewarding
and worthwhile challenge” to “have to use the FL
to communicate (rather than fall back on En-
glish).”7 This result suggests that whereas stu-
dents may feel anxious about TL use, many ap-
pear to appreciate its importance in the L2
acquisition process.
Turning to the responses to items about TL-use
anxiety in particular contexts, Figure 4 presents
some interesting patterns, the most intriguing of
which is that in these questionnaire items, the
students and instructors revealed quite different
perceptions (for frequencies, see Appendix F).
By and large, a small proportion of students and
instructors (23.5% and 17.4%, respectively)
agreed or strongly agreed that students feel anx-
ious during topic/theme-based activities. Yet, for
the items on anxiety felt during TL communica-
tion about grammar, tests, and administrative in-
formation, the instructors perceived a higher
level of anxiety in students than the students
themselves reported feeling. Even with topic/
theme-based activities, a greater percentage of
instructors than students appeared to perceive
anxiety in the students. Still, these results should
be regarded with caution, given that each student
was being asked how he or she personally experi-
enced TL-use anxiety, whereas the instructors
were asked to estimate TL-use anxiety among
their students as a group.
352
FIGURE 4
Student and Instructor Agreement with Statements about Target-Language-Use Anxiety in Particular
Communicative Contexts
Research Question 2
How do reported TL use and TL-use anxiety relate to
each other and to personal or classroom variables?
The most interesting result of the analysis is
that the second hypothesis—the reported
amount of TL use would correlate positively with
TL-use anxiety—was not supported. Rather, a sig-
nificant negative relationship was found between
these two variables. In order to test H2, a factor
analysis8 on all numeric questionnaire items in
both student and instructor data sets was carried
out.9 Two of the factors extracted represented the
a priori constructs TLU and TLA and were used
in the present analysis. Corresponding factors
were extracted from both the student and the
instructor data sets.10 These factors included all
the items related to TL use, including use with
different interlocutors and in different contexts.
Because the exact items in each factor differed
slightly for each group, no inferential tests could
be performed that would directly compare the
two groups.11 The mean scores of questionnaire
items from each factor were employed as indexes
in analyzing relationships between the two fac-
tors.
Simple least squares regression analyses of the
relationship between TLU and TLA were carried
out for each group. The results of these analyses
are presented in Table 1. For the students, a sig-
nificant inverse relationship was found between
the constructs, which accounted for approxi-
The Modern Language Journal 87 (2003)
mately 15% of the variance. Correspondingly, the
same inverse relationship obtained for instruc-
tors, which accounted for approximately 17.5%
of the variance.
At the outset, there were many additional vari-
ables that were expected to correlate with TLU.
Some of these variables were analyzed as interval
variables and some as nominal variables. “Motiva-
tion” and “strategies instruction” were treated as
interval variables. For example, one would expect
low levels of motivation to be associated with low
TL use and vice versa. Low, or no, strategies in-
struction in TL use can be assumed to be associ-
ated with higher anxiety among students.
“Year of instruction,” “bilingual background,”
and “expected grade” were treated as nominal
variables. The first two are of course dichoto-
mous, but “expected grade” was treated as cate-
gorical because, although it turned out not to be
the case, it was expected that both the best and
the worst students would give similar responses
about TL-use anxiety (because both might be un-
concerned about TL use, but for opposite rea-
sons). Thus, any significant effect would have
been missed by a linear analysis. Table 2 presents
the means of each of these nominal variables.
These results confirm intuitive expectations that
TL use tends to be higher, and anxiety lower, for
(a) students in the second year of instruction,
(b) students with a bilingual background, and
(c) students who expect a higher grade.
Glenn S. Levine 353
TABLE 1
Least Squares Regression Analysis of Target Language Use and Target-Language-Use-Anxiety: Students and
Instructors

Target-Language-Use Anxiety
Parameter
Estimate SE t p R2
Target Language Use Students (n ⫽ 590) –.36 .035 –10.16 ⬍ .0001 .149
Intercept 3.84 36.66 ⬍ .0001
Instructors (n ⫽ 161) –.30 .053 –5.86 ⬍ .0001 .177
Intercept 4.23 24.31 ⬍ .0001

Among the additional variables considered,
significant positive relationships (␣ ⬍ .05) with
TLU were found for year of instruction (first or
second year), expected grade, reported level of
motivation, and frequency of strategies instruc-
tion about TL use (see Table 3). Likewise, several
variables were expected to correlate with TLA,
and again, we found this to be the case: five vari-
ables demonstrated a significant relationship
with TLA (the four variables mentioned above
and the variable student bilingual vs. monolin-
gual background). It is important to note in these
results, however, that only expected grade and
reported motivation accounted for more than a
nominal amount of the variance.
For all other student personal and classroom
variables tested, no significant relationships were
found. In the student data, these variables in-
cluded student gender, age group, university size,
instructor’s gender, instructor’s native speaker
status, instructor’s rank, and instructor’s stated
expectations about TL use.
The same examination of the instructor data
revealed a significant relationship only between
year of instruction and TLU (p ⫽ .007); no other
significant relationship was found between these
or any other personal or classroom variables and
the two constructs. These other variables in-
cluded instructor’s gender, age group, native-
speaker status, formal pedagogical training, years
of experience, academic rank, stated expecta-
tions about TL use, and frequency of strategies
instruction about TL use.
To summarize, several personal and demo-
graphic variables were found to correlate signifi-
cantly with both TLU and TLA. The next issue to
be addressed was whether any of the variables
that were found to stand in a significant relation-
ship to either of the two factors did a better job at
predicting TLA than the factor TLU itself. When
TL-use anxiety was modeled using the student-
data variables listed in Table 3, the main effects of
each of the variables dissipated when TLU was
introduced as a predictor of TLA. The same oc-
curred with the instructor data set. In short, the
strongest predictor of students’ TL-use anxiety
was the amount of TL use itself.
DISCUSSION
The main goals of this study were first to take
initial steps toward a generalizable, descriptive

TABLE 2
Means of the Nominal Variables Year of Instruction, Bilingual Background, and Expected Grade

Mean Target Mean Target-

Language Use Language-Use Anxiety
Year of Instruction
First Year 2.67 2.91
Second Year 2.99 2.71
Bilingual Background
No 2.77 2.88
Yes 2.87 2.59
Expected Grade
A 2.97 2.52
B 2.69 3.05
C or Lower 2.19 3.67
354 The Modern Language Journal 87 (2003)
TABLE 3
Variables that Correlated Significantly with Either Target Language Use or Target-Language-Use Anxiety:
Students Only

Target-Language-Use Anxiety Target Language Use

Nominal Independent Variables n F eta p n F eta p
Year of Instruction (df ⫽ 1) 584 6.6 .011 .011 591 15.5 .026 ⬍.0001
Expected Grade (df ⫽ 2) 581 61.9 .18 ⬍.0001 588 2.85 .07 ⬍.0001
Bilingual Background (df ⫽ 1) 582 8.09 .014 .005 589 0.84 .001 .36
Target-Language-Use Anxiety Target Language Use
Interval-Level Independent Variables n F R2 p n F R2 p
Motivation 584 123.63 .17 ⬍.0001 592 71.1 .11 ⬍.0001
1 ⫽ high 5 ⫽ low
Instructor Strategies Instruction 579 21.11 .035 ⬍.0001 586 8.34 .014 .004
0 ⫽ never
1 ⫽ at beginning
2 ⫽ regularly

model of TL and L1 use, one that included all
classroom members and began to represent the
communicative complexity of the FL class, and
second, to identify covariates of TL use and TL-
use anxiety. The first research question required
a description of what students and instructors
believed goes on in the FL class with the TL and
the L1. In accord with Guthrie (1984), Macaro
(2001), and Nzwanga (2000), it appears that most
instructors used the TL a great deal of the time
overall. This study found that the students used
the TL less than the instructors did overall but
that they used it more when speaking to their
instructors than when speaking with other stu-
dents. Where students and instructors differed in
their estimations, though, was in their percep-
tions of student TL-use anxiety. Although the pat-
terns of response for both groups were similar,
the data point to the possibility that instructors
may perceive higher levels of TL-use anxiety
among students (in general) than students them-
selves report. This finding holds in particular for
TL-use anxiety in different communicative con-
texts. This finding alone may lead us to call into
question the prevailing norm, as described by
Cook (2001), whereby the L1 is used for discuss-
ing grammar, class assignments, course policies,
and the like.
In analyzing reported amounts of TL use in
different communicative contexts, we learned
from both groups that the TL appears to be the
unmarked code for most students and instructors
for textbook-type activities, whereas the tendency
toward L1 use is greater for communicating
about grammar or usage and tests or assignments.
Although this continuum of TL to L1 use
across communicative contexts is not surprising,
it offers an interesting picture of the FL class that
deserved closer scrutiny in light of the answer
uncovered to the second research question,
which required exploration of covariates of TL
use and TL-use anxiety. Several personal and
classroom variables in the student data were
found to stand in a significant relationship with
the factors TLU and TLA.12 Year of instruction,
expected grade, reported level of motivation, and
the frequency of strategies instruction about TL
use all correlated with how much TL was used in
the classroom overall. In other words, it is not
surprising that the tendency to report higher lev-
els of TL use overall was found among students
who (a) were in the second year of instruction,
(b) expected a higher grade, (c) expressed
higher motivation to learn the FL, and (d) had
instructors who engaged in more frequent strate-
gies instruction about TL use. Variables that pre-
dicted TL-use anxiety included these same four
variables, plus student bilingual background.
This finding suggests that students who come
from bi- or multilingual backgrounds may tend to
feel less anxious about TL use than students from
monolingual backgrounds. This characteristic ac-
cords with intuitive expectations. Still, the fact
that four of these five variables predict both TLU
and TLA points toward the important relation-
ship between these two factors themselves.
And indeed, the strongest predictor of TL-use
anxiety appears to be the amount of TL use itself
in both data sets. The second hypothesis, which
asserted a positive relationship between TL use
Glenn S. Levine
and TL-use anxiety, was rejected because a signifi-
cant negative relationship was identified between
these two constructs (factors). This finding indi-
cates that students who reported higher TL use in
their FL classes tended to report lower levels of
anxiety about TL use. Correspondingly, instruc-
tors who reported higher levels of TL use in their
classes tended to perceive lower levels of TL-use
anxiety in their students. The important implica-
tion of this finding is that greater TL use may not
translate into greater anxiety for many learners
and that many students feel comfortable with
more TL use when that is what they are used to.
From these findings, three pedagogical ten-
ets—I refrain from committing to calling them
principles at this point—for TL and L1 use in the
classroom come into focus. The first I call the
Optimal TL Use Tenet (adopting Macaro’s [2001]
term), which asks instructors to accept the notion
that the L1 apparently serves numerous functions
in the FL class, and that denying a role to the L1
would appear to be a futile endeavor. In short, as
advanced by Blyth (1995), instructors should ac-
cept the idea that the FL class is a multilingual
environment.
Resolving not to deny the L1 a role, then, leads
to a second tenet, which I provisionally term the
Marked L1 Tenet. Using the L1 simply for the sake
of reducing anxiety or increasing efficiency, as
Cook suggested, is likely untenable, according to
this study’s findings. Rather, with regard to cur-
rent practice in many FL classes, the avid use of
the L1 as the unmarked code is what may engen-
der TL-use anxiety among many students. In-
structors might rather strive to create situations
in the classroom in which the L1 could serve
meaningful pedagogical functions (Macaro,
2001) yet remain, relative to the TL, a marked
code. This sort of approach would obviate the
outright stigmatization of L1 use, which may be a
source of TL-use anxiety.
A third tenet, which I call the Collaborate Lan-
guage Use Tenet, delegates to students an active
role in managing TL and L1 use in the FL class-
room. Instructors can seek to formalize the rela-
tionship between the two codes, in order to “cre-
ate,” in essence, bilingual norms that tend to
develop organically in multilingual environments
outside the classroom.
LIMITATIONS
Several limitations of the present study should
be kept in mind. In the broadest sense, the find-
ings are based on respondents’ perceptions and
beliefs and not on samples of actual classroom
355
interaction. Therefore, any curricular decisions
based on this study should be made with caution.
A second area of concern that may limit the
strength of these findings relates to the repre-
sentativeness of the sample. Clearly, the self-se-
lected respondents were those who had both ac-
cess to the Internet and the willingness to
complete the form. This self-selection excluded
by default large numbers of FL students and in-
structors who either did not make regular use of
the Internet, or simply did not wish to participate
in the study. In addition, the self-selected student
sample obviously was made up of more highly-
motivated, higher performing students than a
random sample would have involved. Although
the significant relationships found between ex-
pected grade and motivation and the two factors
TLU and TLA indicate that similar relationships
would have obtained if the sample had been
more representative, some caution is indicated by
the skewed nature of the sample.
A third potential limitation is that there may be
confounding variables unmeasured in the ques-
tionnaires or unaccounted for in the analyses,
variables that may predict student TL-use anxiety
better than TL use itself. For example, whereas
students’ expected grades correlate with how
much TL they or their classmates report using, it
may be that if students in a given class are doing
well overall, then the instructor and students may
feel more comfortable using more TL. The ques-
tionnaires contained no means of teasing out this
level of detail about the students’ FL classes. Re-
lated to this point is also the issue of minimal
information about respondents in this anony-
mous, Internet survey format. For instance, the
questionnaires did not gather information about
personality traits or learning styles. And although
we have self-reports about general motivation and
expected grade, the instrument also did not allow
for the collection of actual FL performance mea-
sures. Last, with regard to the questionnaire, I also
had no way to ensure the honesty of the respon-
dents. These limitations are intrinsic to the anony-
mous Internet questionnaire, yet I believe that the
advantages of the methodology used still out-
weigh these potentially confounding factors, be-
cause in the end, it was both fruitful and interest-
ing to collect a large amount of data from students
and instructors at literally dozens of universities
throughout the United States and Canada.
CONCLUSION
This study has sought to contribute to a de-
scriptive model of TL and L1 use in the FL class-
356
room. The results indicate that despite the pre-
vailing “monolingual principle” in U.S. FL
classes, both the TL and the L1 appear to serve
important functions. As pointed out by Macaro
(2001), our task as instructors is to identify effec-
tive pedagogical principles that both acknow-
ledge and support the classroom as the multilin-
gual environment that it is. To that end, a
number of important issues are raised by the find-
ings that need to be explored and understood
more fully. First and foremost, in light of the
significant negative relationship between TL use
and anxiety, a study would be called for that
would compare directly students’ and instructors’
perceptions and attitudes with actual observation
of classroom verbal behavior. Also, the reasons
why instructors choose to use the L1 and allow
students to do so deserves further investigation,
along the lines of Macaro’s (2001) study but for a
greater range of language learning situations.13
Focusing as well on the student as this study has
done, a study also would be welcome that would
probe more thoroughly students’ attitudes, anxi-
eties, and beliefs about TL and L1 use. Along
these lines, the points of similarity and difference
between student and instructor responses to
questionnaire items about student TL-use anxiety
deserve more detailed investigation. Finally, the
findings of this study underscore the need for
concrete, theoretically motivated guidelines,
based perhaps on the three pedagogical tenets
offered here, for FL classroom codeswitching,
guidelines that indicate which sorts of code-
switching behaviors facilitate L2 acquisition and
which behaviors undermine it.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am extremely grateful to the Humanities Center at
the University of California, Irvine for its generous sup-
port of each stage of the project. I would like to thank
Dr. Chris Hanks of the UC Irvine Center for Statistical
Consulting for his expertise, sound judgment, patience,
and dedication to the study, Dwayne Pack for his assis-
tance in creating the Internet-based questionnaire, and
Karen Lowe for her efficient administrative assistance. I
offer special gratitude to Lourdes Ortega for her careful
reading and critical comments on an earlier draft of this
paper. I would like to thank the four anonymous review-
ers for their extensive comments. I also extend my
thanks to the FL instructors and students who partici-
pated in the study. Finally, I would like to thank Caroline
Grace, Ursula Levine, Grit Liebscher, Erwin Tschirner,
and the Arabic teaching staff at the Defense Language
Institute for their encouragement and helpful com-
ments and feedback during the development of the
The Modern Language Journal 87 (2003)
project. This article is dedicated to the memory of Ag-
nes Engels and Ben Nelson.
NOTES
1 The term TL as used in this article, as in most litera-
ture on the topic, refers to oral production in the for-
eign language classroom, by both the instructor and the
students. When relevant, though, I will indicate whether
it is the instructor or students being referred to in dis-
cussing TL use. With regard to the use of the conven-
tional L1, the term is used in this text in opposition to
L2, target language (TL) or foreign language (FL). It is
understood that in U.S. foreign language classes L1
means English. At the same time, no assumption is
made that English is the L1 of all students in FL classes.
The term is used for the sake of simplicity of expression,
in order to avoid more cumbersome phrasing. A more
appropriate term might be (societal) “dominant lan-
guage” or DL, but it is not my intention to initiate new
terminological conventions in the present article. In
addition, the terms TL, FL, and L2 will be used fairly
interchangeably here, though TL and FL generally are
used in contexts in which classroom communication is
described or discussed, whereas L2 is most often used
when referring to the phenomenon of second language
acquisition.
2 The student form was administered to 6 students,
the instructor form to 2 graduate teaching assistants in
my own German program. Each person completed the
questionnaire on the Internet and then engaged in a 10-
to 15-minute conversation with the researcher. Each was
asked questions about the form and its items, such as
the following: What items were not clear or confusing?
What items were disturbing or annoying? Was the
length of the questionnaire acceptable? Were the direc-
tions clear? and so forth.
3 Details of the factor analysis used to identify the
items associated with each construct are presented in
the Results and Analysis section. In the student ques-
tionnaire data, TLU had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
of .86, while TLA had an alpha of .85. In the instructor
questionnaire data, TLU had a Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-
cient of .92, and TLA had an alpha of .78.
4 Given that the appeals included personal acquain-
tances of the researcher, a dummy variable regression
was conducted in order to determine whether response
patterns were different for acquaintances of the re-
searcher and their students. No effects were found.
5 In reporting frequencies in terms of percentages in
the following, note that n is slightly variable from item
to item, because most questions did not receive a 100%
response.
6 Questionnaire items relating to TL use outside of
class are not included in the present analysis.
7 Student form item 59; instructor form item 54.
8 For a concise description of factor analysis as a tool
for analyzing questionnaire data, see Bacon and Finne-
mann (1990), p. 461.
9 PROC FACTOR in SAS version 8.2 was used. The
Glenn S. Levine
method was Principle with Varimax rotation. The eigen-
values were as follows: student TLU 8.2; instructor TLU
6.9; student TLA 2.99; instructor TLA 2.26.
10 Only respondents who answered at least two thirds
of the questions in both factors were employed in analy-
ses using these factors.
11 Questionnaire items that loaded on each factor in
each group are as follows: TLU students 28–33; TLU
instructors 21–29; TLA students 58–63; TLA instructors
52–58. The text of these items can be found in Appen-
dixes A and B.
12 As yet, no explanation can be offered for why most
of the instructor personal and classroom variables did
not correlate significantly with the two factors. It may be
that instructors’ perceptions of TL use are simply not
determined by years of experience, pedagogical train-
ing, or their native-speaker status, or it may be that a
different instrument would be needed to gauge these
relationships.
13 At the very least, a replication of the present study
involving languages other than French, German, and
Spanish surely would contribute to a more complex and
accurate picture of student and instructor attitudes and
perceptions.
REFERENCES
Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. J. (1999). Socio-cognitive
functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2
classroom. Modern Language Journal, 83, 233–247.
Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the class-
room: A neglected resource. English Language
Teaching Journal, 41, 241–247.
Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching in the target language: A
problem in the current orthodoxy. Language
Learning Journal, 8, 2–5.
Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English only in
the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 9–32.
Bacon, S. M., & Finnemann, M. D. (1990). A study of the
attitudes, motives, and strategies of university for-
eign language students and their disposition to
authentic oral and written input. Modern Language
Journal, 74, 459–473.
Bailey, P., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daley, C. E. (2000).
Correlates of anxiety at three stages of the foreign
language learning process. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, 19, 474–490.
Belz, J. A. (2003). Identity, deficiency, and first lan-
guage use in foreign language education. In C.
Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of foreign-language
classrooms: Contributions of the native, the near-native,
and the non-native speaker (pp. 209–248). Boston:
Heinle.
Blyth, C. (1995). Redefining the boundaries of language
use: The foreign language classroom as a multilin-
gual speech community. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Re-
defining the boundaries of language study (pp.
145–183). Boston: Heinle.
Brooks, F. B. (1990). Foreign language learning: A so-
cial interaction perspective. In B. VanPatten & J. F.
357
Lee (Eds.), Second language acquisition/foreign lan-
guage learning (pp. 153–169). Clevedon, UK: Mul-
tilingual Matters.
Castellotti, V. (2001). La langue maternelle en classe de
langue étrangère [The native language in a foreign
language classroom]. Paris: CLE International.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in
language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 185–209.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the class-
room. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57,
402–423.
Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign
language is there in the foreign language class-
room? Modern Language Journal, 74, 154–166.
Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through inter-
action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Franklin, C. E. M. (1990). Teaching in the target lan-
guage: Problems and prospects. Language Learning
Journal, 2, 20–24.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second lan-
guage learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guthrie, E. M. L. (1984). Six cases in classroom commu-
nication: A study of teacher discourse in the for-
eign language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf & A.
Labarca (Eds.), Research in second language learning:
Focus on the classroom (pp. 173–194). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Hancock, M. (1997). Behind classroom code switching:
Layering and language choice in L2 learner inter-
action. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 217–235.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). For-
eign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language
Journal, 70, 125–132.
Johnson, K. E. (1995). Understanding communication in
second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second lan-
guage acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach:
Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford, UK:
Pergamon.
Macaro, E. (2001). Analyzing student teachers’ code-
switching in foreign language classrooms: Theo-
ries and decision making. Modern Language Jour-
nal, 85, 531–548.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1995). How does anxiety affect second
language learning? A reply to Sparks and Gan-
schow. Modern Language Journal, 79, 90–99.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, atti-
tudes, and affect as predictors of second language
communication. Journal of Language and Social Psy-
chology, 15, 3–26.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels,
K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to
communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2
confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Jour-
nal, 82, 545–562.
Nation, P. (1997). L1 and L2 use in the classroom: A
systematic approach. TESL Reporter, 30, 19–27.
Nizegorodcew, A. (1996). The function of the native
language in foreign language teacher-learner in-
358
teraction. Jyvaskyla Cross-Language Studies, 12,
209–214.
Nzwanga, M. A. (2000). A study of French-English code-
switching in a foreign language college teaching environ-
ment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
Ohio State University, Columbus.
Polio, C. G., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers’ language
use in university foreign language classrooms: A
qualitative analysis of English and target language
alternation. Modern Language Journal, 78, 313–326.
Rifkin, B. (2000). Revisiting beliefs about foreign lan-
guage learning. Foreign Language Annals, 33,
394–420.
The Modern Language Journal 87 (2003)
Scovel, T. (1991). The effect of affect on foreign lan-
guage learning: A review of the anxiety research.
In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language
anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implica-
tions (pp. 15–23). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Turnbull, M., & Arnett, A. (2002). Teachers’ uses of the
target and first languages in second and foreign
language classrooms. Annual Review of Applied Lin-
guistics, 22, 204–218.
Young, D. J. (1990). An investigation of students’ per-
spectives on anxiety and speaking. Foreign Lan-
guage Annals, 23, 539–553.

APPENDIX A
Student Questionnaire Items

Note. A formatted version of this questionnaire can be found at http://www.humanities.uci.edu/german/

GLEVINE/Student_Form.html

Part 1. Biographical Information

1. Would you be willing to be contacted by the researchers in order to provide more detailed information? If so,
please provide your email address: (Optional!)
2. State/Province of Residence (2-letter abbreviation, please)
3. Type of College or University
4. Gender
5. Age group
6. Primary area of university study
7. What is your native language or language group? (Note: If you have more than one native language, please mark
the language that you speak most proficiently)
8. Did you grow up in a bi- or trilingual household?
9. Did you grow up primarily in an English-speaking environment or country?
10. Are you proficient now in a FL other than the one you are currently studying?
11. What FL are you studying (If you are currently studying more than one FL, base all your answers in the
remainder of this questionnaire on one of the FLs)?
12. What year of the language are you currently taking?
13. What grade did you earn in the FL course you most recently completed?
14. What grade do you anticipate earning in the FL course you are currently completing?
15. Is your current FL instructor a native speaker of the FL?
16. What gender is your current FL instructor?
17. What rank/status is your current FL instructor?

Part 2. FL Use in Previous FL Classes You Have Taken (if applicable; H.S. or College levels)
18. If you have been involved in a class that has been conducted entirely (or almost entirely) in the FL, what term
(semester/quarter) were you first exposed to this situation?

Part 3. Use of the FL in Your Current FL Class

All responses you provide in the remainder of this questionnaire pertain only to the FL course you are currently
taking.
19. I would rate my level of overall motivation to learn the FL as [level].
—-extremely high—-high—-moderate—-weak—-extremely weak
20. Please mark the best/primary reason you are learning this FL:
university requirement only
university requirement and personal interest in the language/culture
personal interest in the language only
it is my family heritage language
don’t know
21. Do you intend to pursue advanced study of the FL and/or study or work abroad?
Glenn S. Levine 359
22. I regularly seek out opportunities to use or hear the FL outside of my FL class (e.g., FL coffee hour, friendships
with native speakers, FL TV or radio).
23. My instructor has made expectations regarding the use of the FL in the classroom explicit by discussing them
with us.
24. My instructor has spent class time working through or discussing communicative strategies that will help
students communicate in the FL.

For Questions 25–38 choose from: 0%–20%; 20%–40%; 40%–60%; 60%–80%; 80%–100%
25. My FL instructor uses the FL to communicate with students about __% of the time in the classroom (select one;
this includes time spent on activities and time spent in between activities).
26. My fellow students use the FL to communicate with the instructor about __% of the time in the classroom (select
one; this includes time spent on activities and time spent in between activities).
27. My fellow students use the FL to communicate with other students about __% of the time in the classroom (select
one; this includes time spent on activities and time spent in between activities).
28. I use the FL to communicate with my instructor about __% of the time in the classroom (select one; this includes
time spent on activities and time spent in between activities).
29. I use the FL to communicate with my fellow students about __% of the time in the classroom (select one; this
includes time spent on activities and time spent in between activities).
30. I use the FL to communicate within topic-based/thematic activities about __% of the time we spend on those
activities.
31. I use the FL to communicate about grammar and usage about __% of the time we spend on discussing or
working on these.
32. I use the FL to communicate about tests, quizzes, and other assignments about __% of the time we spend
discussing these.
33. I use the FL to communicate with my instructor outside of class time (e.g., office hours, in the hall, before or
after class) about __% of the time.
34. I use the FL to communicate with fellow FL students outside of class time (e.g., in the hall, before or after class,
over coffee) about __% of the time.
35. While working with a partner or group in my FL class, I switch to English as soon as we are through with a
particular activity about __% of the time.
36. I understand what my instructor is saying in the FL about __% of the time.
37. When I do not understand what my instructor is saying in the FL, I request in the FL that she or he repeats or
clarifies about __% of the time.
38. When I do not understand what a fellow student is saying in the FL, I request in the FL that she or he repeats
or clarifies about __% of the time.

Part 4. Your Opinions about FL Use in the Classroom

Mark the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements (1 ⫽ strongly disagree; 5 ⫽ strongly agree):
39. I believe that the more FL students use the FL in the classroom, the better they will be at communicating in the
FL.
40. I believe that I must use the FL a great deal in the classroom in order to master the language.
41. I believe that there are no situations in which the first language (i.e., English) should be used in the classroom
(i.e., total immersion in FL classes is best).
42. I believe that the instructor and students should use only the FL to learn about grammar and usage of the FL.
43. I believe that the instructor should use only the FL when giving directions for activities.
44. I believe that the instructor and students should use only the FL to discuss course policies, attendance, and other
administrative information.
45. I believe that, regardless of how much FL students choose to use, the instructor should use the FL at all times
in the classroom.
46. I believe that the FL students should use only the FL the entire time they are in the classroom with both the
instructor and fellow students, even when not working on a specific activity.

Part 5. Your Course Grade and Classroom Communication (in the FL or in English)
Rate the importance of each type of communication in terms of its role in students’ success in the course (i.e., a good
grade).
Mark the degree of importance of each type of communication on a scale of 1 ⫽ least important to 5 ⫽ most important.
Note: each item may be given its own ranking; there can be more than one 5, 4, 3, etc.
47. FL topics (family, weather, FL culture, literature, study abroad, sports, hobbies, daily routines, etc.)
48. FL grammar and usage (verb conjugations, word order, agreement, idioms, vocabulary, etc.)
49. Details about tests, quizzes, and other assignments (how much will be covered, format of test sections, etc.)
360 The Modern Language Journal 87 (2003)
50. Instructions for classroom activities
51. Administrative information (office hours, upcoming events, important dates, etc.)

Part 6. FL Acquisition and Classroom Communication (in the FL or in English)

Rate the importance of each type of communication in terms of its role in students’ successful acquisition of the FL
(i.e., regardless of course grade earned).
Mark the degree of importance of each type of communication on a scale of 1 (least important) to 5 (most important).
Note: each item may be given its own ranking; there can be more than one 5, 4, 3, etc.
52. FL topics (family, weather, FL culture, literature, study abroad, sports, hobbies, daily routines, etc.)
53. FL grammar and usage (verb conjugations, word order, agreement, idioms, vocabulary, etc.)
54. Details about tests, quizzes, and other assignments (how much will be covered, format of test sections, etc.)
55. Instructions for classroom activities
56. Administrative information (office hours, upcoming events, important dates, etc.)

Part 7. Your Feelings about FL Use in the Classroom

Mark the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements (1 ⫽ strongly disagree; 5 ⫽ strongly agree):
57. I generally feel anxious using the FL.
58. I generally find trying to communicate in FL frustrating.
59. I view it as a rewarding or worthwhile challenge when I have to use the FL to communicate (rather than fall back
on English).
60. I feel uncomfortable or anxious speaking the FL during activities about FL topics (family, weather, FL culture,
literature, study abroad, sports, hobbies, daily routines, etc.).
61. I feel uncomfortable or anxious using the FL when working on, discussing, or asking questions about grammar
and usage (e.g., verb conjugations, word order, agreement, idioms, vocabulary).
62. I feel uncomfortable or anxious using the FL when working on, discussing, or asking questions about tests,
quizzes, and other assignments (how much will be covered, format of test sections, etc.)
63. I feel uncomfortable or anxious using the FL when discussing or asking questions about administrative informa-
tion (office hours, upcoming events, important dates, etc.).

APPENDIX B
Instructor Questionnaire

Note. A formatted version of this questionnaire can be found at http://www.humanities.uci.edu/german/

GLEVINE/Instructor_Form.html

Part 1. Biographical Information

1. Would you be willing to be contacted by the researchers in order to provide more detailed information? If so,
please provide your e-mail address: (Optional!)
2. State/Province of Residence (2-letter abbreviation, please)
3. Type of College or University
4. Gender
5. Age group
6. Primary area of university study (of your most advanced degree)
7. What is your native language or language group? (Note: If you are native in more than one language, please
mark the language that you speak most proficiently)
8. Did you grow up in a bi- or trilingual household?
9. Did you grow up primarily in an English-speaking environment or country?
10. What is your status as a FL instructor?
11. What FL are you currently teaching (If you are currently teaching more than one FL, base all your answers in
the remainder of this questionnaire on one of the FLs)?
12. What year of the language are you currently teaching?
13. Are you a native speaker of the language you are currently teaching?
14. How many years have you been teaching the FL?
15. What lower-division FL levels have you taught?
16. Have you received formal training in FL teaching/pedagogy?
If yes to 16, then please answer 16a–c
16a. How much formal training have you had in FL teaching (workshops, courses, internships, etc.)?
Glenn S. Levine 361
16b. How would you characterize your most important formal training as a FL instructor? (if you received no formal
training, please leave blank)
16c. How would you characterize the primary FL approach/methodology in which you were trained? (if you received
no formal training, please leave blank)
17. Have you taught your FL using only the FL at all times (as opposed to some mixture of the FL and English)?
If yes to 17, then please answer 17a–b.
17a. When you engaged in the exclusive use of the FL in your class, was the practice dictated/prescribed to you by a
supervisor?
17b. When you engaged in the exclusive use of the FL in your class, did you find the experience productive and
enjoyable?
18. When you engaged in the exclusive use of the FL in your class, did your students generally appear to find the
experience productive and enjoyable?

Part 2. Use of the FL in Your Current FL Class

All responses you provide in the remainder of this questionnaire pertain only to the FL course you are currently
teaching.
For the following items (19–20), please choose: at the beginning of the term; regularly throughout the term; never
19. I have made my expectations regarding the use of the FL in the classroom explicit by discussing them with
students.
20. I have spent class time working through or discussing communicative strategies that will help students commu-
nicate in the FL.

For the following items (21–33), please give an estimate, choose from: 0%–20%; 20%–40%; 40%–60%; 60%–80%;
80%–100%
21. I use the FL to communicate with my students about __% of the time in the classroom (select one; this includes
time spent on activities and time spent in between activities).
22. My students use the FL to communicate with me about __% of the time in the classroom (select one; this
includes time spent on activities and time spent in between activities).
23. My students use the FL to communicate with each other about __% of the time in the classroom (select one;
this includes time spent on activities and time spent in between activities).
24. I use the FL to communicate with students within topic-based/thematic activities about __% of the time we
spend on those activities.
25. I use the FL to give directions for activities exclusively (i.e., no translation) in the FL about __% of the time.
26. I use the FL to communicate with students about grammar and usage about __% of the time we spend on
discussing or working on these.
27. I use the FL to communicate with students about tests, quizzes, and other assignments about __% of the time
we spend discussing these.
28. I use the FL to communicate with students about administrative information (course policies, announcements,
deadlines, etc.) about __% of the time we spend discussing these.
29. I use the FL to communicate with students outside of class time (e.g., office hours, in the hall, before or after
class, etc.) about __% of the time.
30. While students are working with partners or groups in my FL class, they switch to English as soon as they are
through with a particular activity about __% of the time.
31. My students understand what I am saying in the FL about __% of the time.
32. When my students do not understand what I am saying in the FL, they request that I repeat or clarify about __%
of the time.
33. When one of my students does not understand what a fellow student is saying in the FL, she or he requests that
repetition or clarification about __% of the time.

Part 3. Your Opinions About FL Use in the Classroom

Mark the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements (1 ⫽ strongly disagree; 5 ⫽ strongly
agree)
34. I believe that the more FL students use in the classroom, the better they will be at communicating in the FL.
35. I believe that in order to really master/acquire the FL, students must use the FL a great deal in the classroom.
36. I believe that there are no situations in which the first language (i.e., English) should be used in the classroom
(i.e., I believe that total immersion in FL classes is best).
37. I believe that only the FL should be used to learn about grammar and usage of the FL.
38. I believe that only the FL should be used to discuss tests, quizzes, and other assignments.
39. I believe that only the FL should be used to discuss course policies, attendance, and other administrative
information.
362 The Modern Language Journal 87 (2003)
40. I believe that, regardless of how much FL students choose to use, the instructor should use the FL at all times
in the classroom.
41. I believe that the FL students should use only the FL the entire time they are in the classroom with both the
instructor and fellow students, even when not working on a specific activity.

Part 4. Students’ Course Grades and Classroom Communication (in the FL or in English)
Rate the importance of each type of communication in terms of its role in students’ success in the course (i.e., a good
grade).
Mark the degree of importance of each type of communication on a scale of 1 (least important) to 5 (most important).
Note: each item may be given its own ranking; there can be more than one 5, 4, 3, etc.
42. FL topics (family, weather, FL culture, literature, study abroad, sports, hobbies, daily routines, etc.)
43. FL grammar and usage (e.g., verb conjugations, word order, agreement, idioms, vocabulary, etc.)
44. Details about tests, quizzes, and other assignments (how much will be covered, format of test sections, etc.)
45. Instructions for classroom activities
46. Administrative information (office hours, upcoming events, important dates, etc.)

Part 5. FL Acquisition and Classroom Communication (in the FL or in English)

Rate the importance of each type of communication in terms of its role in students’ successful acquisition of the FL
(i.e., regardless of course grade earned).
Mark the degree of importance of each type of communication on a scale of 1 (least important) to 5 (most important).
Note: each item may be given its own ranking; there can be more than one 5, 4, 3, etc.
47. FL topics (family, weather, FL culture, literature, study abroad, sports, hobbies, daily routines, etc.)
48. FL grammar and usage (e.g., verb conjugations, word order, agreement, idioms, vocabulary, etc.)
49. Details about tests, quizzes, and other assignments (how much will be covered, format of test sections, etc.)
50. Instructions for classroom activities
51. Administrative information (office hours, upcoming events, important dates, etc.)

Part 6. What You Believe Students Feel about FL Use in the Classroom
Mark the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements (1 ⫽ strongly disagree; 5 ⫽ strongly agree):
52. I believe that my students generally feel anxious using the FL, especially in the first year of instruction.
53. I believe that my students generally find it frustrating communicating in the FL.
54. I believe that my students generally view it as a rewarding and worthwhile challenge when they have to use the
FL to communicate (rather than fall back on English).
55. I believe students generally feel uncomfortable or anxious speaking the FL during activities about FL topics
(family, weather, FL culture, literature, study abroad, sports, hobbies, daily routines, etc.).
56. I believe students generally feel uncomfortable or anxious using the FL when working on, discussing, or asking
questions about grammar and usage (e.g., verb conjugations, word order, agreement, idioms, vocabulary, etc.).
57. I believe that students generally feel uncomfortable or anxious using the FL when working on, discussing, or
asking questions about tests, quizzes, and other assignments (how much will be covered, format of test sections,
etc.).
58. I believe that students generally feel uncomfortable or anxious using the FL discussing or asking questions about
administrative information (office hours, upcoming events, important dates, etc.).
Glenn S. Levine 363

APPENDIX C
Frequency (and Percentage) of Student and Instructor Estimates of Target Language Use among Different
Interlocutors

Percentage of Time
Interlocutors 0–20% 20%–40% 40%–60% 60%–80% 80%–100%
Instructor with Students Students 3 22 66 145 363
(n ⫽ 599) (0.5) (3.7) (11) (24.2) (60.6)
Instructors 3 6 33 49 72
(n ⫽ 163) (1.8) (3.7) (20.3) (30) (44.2)
Students with Instructor Students 68 104 168 153 105
(n ⫽ 598) (11.4) (17.4) (28.1) (25.6) (17.5)
Instructors 24 34 45 36 24
(n ⫽ 163) (14.7) (20.9) (27.6) (22.1) (14.7)
Students with Students Students 146 155 163 98 34
(n ⫽ 596) (24.5) (26) (27.4) (16.4) (5.7)
Instructors 33 45 40 27 17
(n ⫽ 162) (20.3) (27.8) (24.7) (16.7) (10.5)

APPENDIX D
Frequency (and Percentage) of Student and Instructor Estimations of Target Language Use in Different
Contexts

Percentage of Time
Context of TL Use 0–20% 20%–40% 40%–60% 60%–80% 80%–100%
Topic/Theme Students 48 78 132 166 168
(n ⫽ 592) (8.1) (13.2) (22.3) (28) (28.4)
Instructors 6 9 16 43 85
(n ⫽ 159) (3.8) (5.7) (10) (27) (53.5)
Grammar Students 88 140 160 142 68
(n ⫽ 598) (14.7) (23.4) (26.8) (23.7) (11.4)
Instructors 35 30 21 33 43
(n ⫽ 162) (21.6) (18.5) (13) (20.4) (26.5)
Tests, etc. Students 149 150 127 96 71
(n ⫽ 593) (25.1) (25.3) (21.4) (16.2) (12)
Instructors 39 35 24 26 38
(n ⫽ 162) (24.1) (21.6) (14.8) (16) (23.5)
364 The Modern Language Journal 87 (2003)

APPENDIX E
Frequency (and Percentage) of Student and Instructor Agreement with Statements about
Target-Language-Use Anxiety in General

Level of Agreement
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5
Anxious Using the FL Students 49 125 178 167 70
(n ⫽ 589) (8.3) (21.2) (30.2) (28.4) (11.9)
Instructors 6 19 40 49 48
(n ⫽ 162) (3.7) (11.7) (24.7) (30.3) (29.6)
Frustrating Students 52 151 169 124 93
(n ⫽ 589) (8.8) (25.6) (28.7) (21.1) (15.8)
Instructors 12 33 43 43 31
(n ⫽ 131) (7.4) (20.4) (26.5) (26.5) (19.2)
Worthwhile Challenge Students 19 64 132 209 166
(n ⫽ 590) (3.2) (10.9) (22.4) (35.4) (28.1)
Instructors 4 18 37 55 47
(n ⫽ 161) (2.5) (11.2) (23) (34.1) (29.2)

APPENDIX F
Frequency (and Percentage) of Student and Instructor Agreement with Statements about
Target-Language-Use Anxiety in Particular Communicative Contexts

Level of Agreement
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
Anxious in FL 1 2 3 4 5
During Topic/Theme Students 90 204 155 87 51
(n ⫽ 587) (15.3) (34.8) (26.4) (14.8) (8.7)
Instructors 37 66 30 24 4
(n ⫽ 161) (23) (41) (18.6) (14.9) (2.5)
Discussing Grammar FL Students 57 169 153 137 74
(n ⫽ 590) (9.7) (28.6) (25.9) (23.2) (12.6)
Instructors 7 22 36 52 45
(n ⫽ 162) (4.3) (13.6) (22.2) (32.1) (27.8)
Discussing Tests, Quizzes Students 61 156 142 138 92
(n ⫽ 589) (10.4) (26.5) (24.1) (23.4) (15.6)
Instructors 7 16 34 47 57
(n ⫽ 161) (4.4) (9.9) (21.1) (29.2) (35.4)