How Much Foreign Language Is There in the Foreign Language Classroom?

Author(s): Patricia A. Duff and Charlene G. Polio

Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 74, No. 2 (Summer, 1990), pp. 154-166
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/328119
Accessed: 16-05-2020 03:00 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations, Wiley are collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal

This content downloaded from 88.230.101.129 on Sat, 16 May 2020 03:00:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 How Much Foreign Language Is There
in the Foreign Language Classroom?
PATRICIA A. DUFF and CHARLENE G. POLIO
TESL/Applied Linguistics
University of California
Los Angeles, CA 90024-1531

a well-established view in applied linguistics re-

VERY LITTLE RESEARCH HAS BEEN CON-

search, Chaudron
ducted on the amount of target language used (p. 121) writes that ". .. in
in the foreign language (FL) classroom, a language classroom, the
the typical foreign
language learning context which hascommononly belief
re-is that the fullest competence in
the TL linguists.
cently received attention from applied [target language] is achieved by means
of the oppor-
In FL learning contexts, because little teacher providing a rich TL environ-
tunity exists for exposure to the L2
ment,outside
in which nottheonly instruction and drill are exe-
classroom, the quantity of L2 input is in
cuted especially
the TL, but also disciplinary and manage-
mentbut
important, as it provides a necessary operations"
insuf- (emphasis added).
ficient condition for language acquisition. Ofhighlights the importance
Ellis (p. 120) also
course, the quality of L2 input is of using
also the TL for both language-related and
critical,
but that issue is beyond the scope classroom
of this study. management functions. He argues
What is clear is that more research which docu- (p. 133):
ments how much FL is indeed available to FL
In the ESL classroom ... the L2 [is] inevitably used
classroom learners, as well as its suitability, is
for these functions. In the EFL classroom, however,
needed before the issue of quantity can be dis- teachers sometimes prefer to use the pupils' L1 to ex-
missed as irrelevant. And for this purpose, sur- plain and organize a task and to manage behaviour
in the belief that this will facilitate the medium-
veys of the type undertaken in this study are
a logical point of departure. centred [language-related] goals of the lesson. In so

This study sets out to answer the followingdoing, however, they deprive the learners of valu-
able input in the L2.2
questions: 1) What is the ratio of English use
to L2 use by teachers in FL classrooms? 2)The "valuable input" Ellis refers to is lan-
What factors are related to the use of English
guage that is highly repetitive, contextualized,
and the L2? 3) What are teachers' and students'
modified according to students' level, and con-
perceptions and attitudes regarding the useducive
of to requests for clarification from stu-
English in the FL classroom? dents who are responsible for the completion
of assigned tasks.
BACKGROUND
Wong-Fillmore (p. 35), furthermore, states
In the limited amount of recent literature on that an integral part of language learning is try-
ing to "figure out" what others are saying.
the use of L1 versus L2 in FL classrooms, sev-
eral researchers have underscored the need forTranslations "short-circuit this process" in two
ways: the TL, before it is translated, is unmodi-
high quantity, high quality foreign language
fied; and the students, anticipating a transla-
input from teachers (e.g., Krashen, Chaudron,
tion, tend to ignore the TL.
Ellis).1 To ensure this, as much language as
Ellis was writing about FL education with
possible serving as many functions as possible
younger learners in Britain, and Wong-Fill-
should be presented in the L2. Summarizing
more about limited English proficiency (LEP)
in children in the United States, but their theo-
retical arguments should hold true for older FL
The Modern Language Journal, 74, ii (1990)
0026-7902/90/0002/154 $1.50/0
learners as well.3 Few studies have addressed

?1990 The Modern Language Journal this issue either theoretically or empirically for
university-level FL classes, however. A notable

This content downloaded from 88.230.101.129 on Sat, 16 May 2020 03:00:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Patricia Duff & Charlene Polio 155

exception is the case study

to language type and by Guthrie,
department. The classes
found from were selected
fifty-nine on the basis of several criteria. percen
to ninety-eight
use in French classes, with
First, a quarter
only second median of
classes were eigh
chosen,
seven percent. Other thatstudies that
is, courses designed are who
for students releva
had
but with secondary school
studied the language FL
only oneteachers
quarter prior to -
those by Wing and winter
by quarter,
Mitchell and
1989.6 Second, Johnst
only classes in
(cited in Chaudron, p.
which the124).
teacher wasWing report
a native speaker (NS)
mean of fifty-fourof the percent FL
language being taught in Span
were considered.7
classes, and MitchellThird,
and at least five students had to becase
Johnstone's enrolled st
revealed roughly seventy percent
in the class. And, finally, whenTLmore usethan oneby
French teacher they course
observed.
section was offered, a class was chosen
To sum up, variouswhich met when the authors
sources call werefor
available to
a max
mal FL observe.
amount of
input in FL classes, cl
ing that The languages offered
it
necessary provides at UCLA are listedfor
exposure
ond language acquisition. But few
and grouped by administrative data
department in e
indicating what actually
Figure I. To protecttranspires
the anonymity of the teach-in F
classes. The present ers
study thus
and departments involved represents
in this study, lan-
empirical contribution to
guages will thisto issue.
be referred by letter only (Lan-
guage A, B, C, etc.).
THE STUDY
Classroom Observations. Two fifty-minute ses-
Variables. Certain variables were considered sions of each selected class were observed by
at least one of the researchers and audio-re-
for their possible influence on the language of
corded with two professional-quality tape re-
the classroom. As this study is conducted within
corders. An observation form was filled out
the qualitative paradigm, we are not attempt-
ing to show causal relationships among the documenting the number of students, the class-
variables. Rather, these variables guided us in room set-up, technical problems, and class-
room procedures (see Appendix A).
the preparation of questionnaires and inter-
views and were helpful in interpreting some of
the results. The classroom-external variables-
those that do not vary with the minute-by-FIGURE I

minute activities of the classroom - include the Classes Sampled for This Study (by UCLA Departme
following: 1) the L2 proficiency of the students;
2) teachers' perception of English/L2 distance;
East Asian Languages French
3) the teachers' experience (years of teaching, Chinese (Mandarin) French
type of training, English proficiency, L2 pro- Japanese (1 sampled)
ficiency); and 4) the departmental policy (lan- Korean Italian
guage of instruction, methodology used, and (3 sampled) Italian
type of TA training). Germanic Languages (0 sampled)
The classroom-internal variables are related to Afrikaans Linguistics
Dutch Bambara
what is actually taking place in the classroom
German Hausa
at a given time. These include: 1) the function
Hungarian Swahili
of utterances; 2) the recoverability/difficulty of
Danish Zulu
utterances; and 3) the language used by stu-
dents in interaction with the teacher. This Norwegian Quechua
Swedish (2 sampled)
group of variables is related to the functional
(3 sampled) Slavic Languages
allocation of L1 versus L2, an important issue,
Near Eastern Languages Bulgarian
but one that is not addressed in this study.4
Arabic Czech
Sampling Procedure. Thirty-one languages were
Armenian Polish
offered at the University of California, Los
Berber Russian

Angeles (UCLA), in the 1988-89 academic

Hebrew Serbo-Croatian
Persian (1 sampled)
year, from which thirteen were sampled for this
Turkish Spanish & Portuguese
study. The courses shared the general objective
Uzbek Spanish
of teaching all four language skills.5 From this
(2 sampled) Portuguese
pool of languages, courses were chosen so as
(1 sampled)
to ensure a wide range of variation with respect

This content downloaded from 88.230.101.129 on Sat, 16 May 2020 03:00:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 156 The Modern Language Journal 74 (1990)
A pause was tallied
Student Questionnaires. A questionnaire when the second fell be-
given
to the students at the end of the second obser-
tween utterances or when it fell on a pause
vation inquired about their motivation forwithin an utterance that was more than one sec-
studying the language, attitude toward theond long.
amount of English used by the teacher, and Inter-rater Reliability and Validity. The two re-
how much of the TL they understood (see Ap-searchers trained together on fifteen-minute
pendix B). segments of three tapes from different L2
Teacher Interviews. Each teacher was inter- classes. A half-hour segment of a tape from the
viewed after the second observation. These Language-I class, in which the teacher often
interviews elicited information about the teach- switched languages, was selected to check for
ers' background and training, philosophy ofinter-rater reliability. Over ninety percent
teaching, attitudes about using English in the agreement was reached on this trial. Because
classroom, and departmental guidelines and low inference categories were used, the prob-
policies. The questions used for these interviews lems in coding arose mainly in determining
are found in Appendix C. whether the second landed on a pause or not.
Data Analysis. The amount of English and the The validity of this coding method needs to
amount of TL spoken by the teacher and stu- be considered. Although this system is efficient,
dents was quantified by listening to the tapes. as the tapes do not need to be transcribed, it
A starting point, where the instructor seemed is uncertain whether sampling every fifteen sec-
to address the entire class, was chosen and onds reflects the actual quantity of English and
counted as 0:00. From then on, a digital watch the TL spoken in the classroom. This pro-
was set and every fifteen seconds the language cedure will be verified later with transcripts of
of the utterance being spoken at that time was the classroom discourse.
noted. An utterance was determined by intona-
tion contours. Each coded utterance produced RESULTS
by teachers or students was classified as one of
Distribution of English/L2 Classroom Discou
the following, but in the final analysis only
teachers' talk was examined. Table I presents the breakdown of langu
used by the teachers. The L1 and Llc ca
Ll: The utterance is completely in English.
gories were both considered to be English
L1c: The utterance is in English with one
likewise, L2 and L2c were considered to be
word or phrase in the target language.
TL. The boldface figures highlight this. W
Mix: The utterance is, approximately, Table
an I illustrates most clearly is the wide r
equal mixture of English and the target
in the amount of target language used in t
language. FL classes: from 100 percent, in the hig
L2c: The utterance is in the target language case, to ten percent. Note that collapsing
with one word or phrase in English. data and presenting simply a cross-class av
L2: The teacher's utterance is completely in age (67.9%), as has been done in previous
the target language. studies, or a median (79%), would have
Pause: No speech. obscured this variability.
?: The utterance was not clear enough to Table II presents the total amount of L2
be coded. teacher talk as tallied for each session. This
information is given to show possible variation
Most categories are self-explanatory, with
across lessons by the same teacher. Note that
the exception of L1c, Mix, and L2c ("c" stands
the overall percentage is not an average of the
for citation, for lack of a better term). Below
percentages in lessons one and two, but rather
are examples of these types of utterances in
English and Chinese. a percentage of the total speech tallied for the
two lessons. The amount of variation ranges
L 1 c: And where are we going to put this
from 0.6 percent (Language-M) to 39.2 percent
liang nian? (Language-I), with a mean variation of 10.8
two years percent.
Mix: But the first time, wo mel zhua zhu. Results of Student Questionnaire. One assump-
I didn't hold onto it. tion in conducting this study is that exposure
L2c: Qing gei wo nide homework. to the target language outside the classroom is
Please give me your limited. Question two from the student ques-

This content downloaded from 88.230.101.129 on Sat, 16 May 2020 03:00:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Patricia Duff & Charlene Polio 157
TABLE I

Summary of Teacher Talka

English
L1 Llc Mix L2c L2
Language-A ( 0.0 + 0.0)= 0% 0.0 ( 0.6 + 99.4) = 100%
Language-B ( 1.1 + 0.0)= 1% 0.0 ( 3.0+95.8)= 99%
Language-C ( 3.9+ 0.0)= 4% 0.5 ( 1.5 +94.1)= 96%
Language-D ( 5.8+ 0.0)= 6% 0.5 ( 2.4+91.3)= 94%
Language-E ( 4.8+ 0.0)= 5% 2.2 ( 7.5 +85.5)= 93%
Language-F ( 8.4 + 1.6) = 10% 0.0 ( 4.7 + 85.3)= 90%
Language-G (13.2+ 2.0)= 15% 5.8 ( 2.6+ 76.3)= 79%
Language-H (26.8+ 7.6)= 34% 7.6 (11.5 + 46.5)= 58%
Language-I (32.9 + 10.6) = 44% 7.5 ( 3.1 + 50.0) = 53%
Language-J (29.7 + 12.8) = 43% 5.2 ( 2.3+ 50.0)= 52%
Language-K (30.5 + 11.5) = 42% 4.7 ( 1.5+ 31.8)= 33%
Language-L (54.9 + 13.7) = 69% 5.5 ( 0.0+ 25.8)= 26%
Language-M (71.6 + 18.5) = 90% 0.4 ( 0.0 + 9.5) = 10%

aBoldface entries are rounded off to nearest percentage for disp

TABLE II
guage classes. Thus the assu
Percent of L2 Teacher Talk by Language and students
by Lesson have little exposure
the classroom is only partly
Overall
Table IV gives the results o
(based on raw
on the questionnaire, which a
Lesson 1 Lesson 2 tallies)
port on the amount of Eng
Language-A 100 100 100 teacher. However, two pro
Language-B 99.2 98.6 98.8 question should be noted. F
Language-C 98.9 92.4 95.6
categories "a lot," "some,"
Language-D 91.8 95.9 93.7
"never" are relative and m
Language-E 100 85.7 93.0
Language-F 83.8 97.6 90.0 English language use by teach
Language-G 71.7 86.8 78.9 than percentages would have
Language-H 67.9 47.4 58.0 the students appeared to ha
Language-I 34.0 73.8 53.1 lish and the target language;
Language-J 46.5 56.4 52.3 students in Language-A in
Language-K 39.6 26.4 33.3 teacher (who in fact used 10
Language-L 26.2 25.5 25.8 of English in class, whereas t
Language-M 9.2 9.8 9.5 dents in the same class report
"never" used English in cla
These limitations aside,
emerged from this question. In
tionnaire (see Appendix B) addresses
teen language this issue,
classes did any
and Table III displays the theenvironments
teacher "never"in used Eng
which the students claimhand,to have inhad
six exposure
of the classes
guage-A)
to the target language. However, some
this students re
question
does not reveal how much exposure
teacher usedthey have
"a lot" of Englis
had, when they had it, or its quality.
classes with anInextreme
seven amou
of the classes, over half of
atthe students
least half ofreported
the students
having had exposure at the
home or in the
teacher com-
uses English o
munity. And in three oftime."
the classes, over half
of the students reported having
Table V showshad previous
the amount of English the stu-
courses in the language, e.g., at like
dents would the high
to have school
the teacher use in class,
level. Despite the limitations of tothis
as compared question,
the present situation. In every
the responses show much variation
class, across
seventy-one to 100 lan-
percent of the students

This content downloaded from 88.230.101.129 on Sat, 16 May 2020 03:00:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 158 The Modern Language Journal 74 (1990)
favored the current amountmost
ofTL use requested
English, more English. In the
regard-
other classes,
less of what that amount actually no students
was. requested more
One con-
clusion that can be drawn from this is that more English.
use of the target language (up to 100%) does Responses to question five on the question-
not bother students; only nine to eighteen per- naire, dealing with students' perception of the
cent of the students in the three classes with the amount of the teacher's FL talk they compre-

TABLE III

Students' Exposure to Foreign Language

(See Question #2, Student Questionnaire, Appendix B)a

A B C D
Home or More than One other

nb community FL country two courses course only

Language-A 22 9 (40.9%) 6 (27.3%) 12 (54.5%) 6 (27.3%)
Language-B 11 1 ( 9.0%) 3 (27.3%) 7 (63.6%) 4 (36.4%)
Language-C 10 4 (40.0%) 4 (40.0%) 1 (10.0%) 5 (50.0%)
Language-D 13 3 (23.1%) 4 (30.8%) 1 ( 7.7%) 8 (61.5%)
Language-E 14 6 (42.9%) 4 (28.6%) 8 (57.1%) 4 (28.6%)
Language-F 9 7 (77.8%) 4 (44.4%) 1 (11.1%) 2 (22.2%)
Language-G 10 4 (40.0%) 3 (30.0%) 3 (30.0%) 3 (30.0%)
Language-H 11 10 (90.9%) 2 (15.4%) 0 (0.0%) 1 ( 9.1%)
Language-I 7 5 (71.4%) 2 (28.6%) 1 (14.3%) 1 (14.3%)
Language-J 14 8 (57.1%) 7 (50.0%) 3 (21.4%) 2 (14.3%)
Language-K 2 2 (100%) 1 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-L 8 6 (75.0%) 6 (75.0%) 3 (37.5%) 1 (12.5%)
Language-M 10 2 (20.0%) 1 (10.0%) 2 (20.0%) 7 (70.0%)

aMore than one category could be checked for this question.

bNumber of students who completed questionnaires.
A = at home or elsewhere in the local community.
B = in the country where language is spoken.
C = previous courses before this academic year.
D = no other experience other than the first quarter course.

TABLE IV

Students' Report of Teacher's English Usage

(See Question #3, Student Questionnaire, Appendix B)'

nb "A lot" "Some" "Very little" "Never"

Language-A 22 3 (13.6%) 1 ( 4.5%) 7 (31.8%) 12 (54.5%)
Language-B 11 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (45.4%) 6 (54.5%)
Language-C 10 0 (0.0%) 1 (10.0%) 8 (80.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-D 13 0 (0.0%) 6 (46.2%) 7 (53.8%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-E 14 0 (0.0%) 2 (14.3%) 12 (85.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-F 9 0 (0.0%) 2 (22.2%) 7 (77.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-G 10 2 (20.0%) 5 (50.0%) 3 (30.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-H 11 2 (18.2%) 8 (72.7%) 1 ( 9.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-I 7 1 (14.3%) 6 (85.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-J 14 1 ( 7.1%) 12 (85.7%) 1 ( 7.1%) 0 ( 0.0%)
Language-K 2 0 (0.0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-L 8 2 (25.0%) 4 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-M 10 5 (50.0%) 5 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)

aPercentages do not always add up to 100 for this question; if th

was checked off, this item was eliminated from the tally.
bNumber of students who completed questionnaires.

This content downloaded from 88.230.101.129 on Sat, 16 May 2020 03:00:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Patricia Duff & Charlene Polio 159

hend, are summarized in Table

include the teacher VI.
who demonstrated In
the most ev
class, over seventy percent of the
TL usage (Language-A), students
the teacher who dem- c
to understand "most"onstrated
or "all" ofTL
the least the
usage teacher's
(Language-M),
use. Students' perceived comprehension
and a teacher who used a great deal of mixture
not seem to vary with the
of English amount
and the of
TL (Language-I). L2 u
Informa-
in the classroom. tion from other teachers will be brought up in
Results of Teacher Interviews. Rather than the Discussion Section, as it becomes relevant.
present profiles of all thirteen teachers in our
Language-A Teacher. This instructor has been
survey, we have selected "critical cases"teaching
of at UCLA for two quarters. Prior to
teachers who exhibited very different behavior
studying in the United States, he taught the TL
with respect to TL usage in class. The three
for one year to foreign students in his native

TABLE V

Students' Attitudes toward Desired English Usage by Teacher

(See Question #4, Student Questionnaire, Appendix B)y

nb "More English than now" "The same amount as now" "Less English
Language-A 22 2 ( 9.1%) 20 (90.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-B 11 2 (18.2%) 9 (81.8%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-C 10 1 (10.0%) 9 (90.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-D 13 0 ( 0.0%) 12 (92.3%) 1 ( 7.7%)
Language-E 14 0 (0.0%) 13 (92.9%) 1 ( 7.1%)
Language-F 9 0 (0.0%) 9 (100%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-G 10 0 (0.0%) 8 (80.0%) 2 (20.0%)
Language-H 11 0 (0.0%) 9 (81.8%) 1 ( 9.1%)
Language-I 7 0 (0.0%) 7 (100%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-J 14 0 (0.0%) 10 (71.4%) 4 (28.6%)
Language-K 2 0 (0.0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-L 8 0 (0.0%) 6 (75.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-M 10 0 ( 0.0%) 10 (100%) 0 (0.0%)

aPercentages do not always add up to 100 for this question; if the

was checked off, this item was eliminated from the tally.
bNumber of students who completed questionnaires.

TABLE VI

Students' Perception of Comprehended Teacher FL Talk (See Question #5, Student Questionnair

nb "Understand all" "Understand most of it" "Understand some of it" "Understa

Language-A 22 2 ( 9.1%) 14 (63.6%) 5 (22.7%) 0 (0.0%)

Language-B 11 4 (36.4%) 6 (54.5%) 1 ( 9.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-C 10 4 (40.0%) 4 (40.0%) 2 (20.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-D 13 2 (15.4%) 7 (53.8%) 4 (30.8%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-E 14 2 (14.3%) 11 (78.6%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-F 9 1 (11.1%) 7 (77.7%) 1 (11.1%) 0 ( 0.0%)
Language-G 10 2 (20.0%) 6 (60.0%) 2 (20.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-H 11 2 (18.2%) 7 (63.6%) 2 (18.2%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-I 7 1 (14.3%) 5 (71.4%) 1 (14.3%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-J 14 5 (35.7%) 6 (42.9%) 3 (21.4%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-K 2 2 (100%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-L 8 4 (50.0%) 4 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Language-M 10 2 (20.0%) 4 (40.0%) 3 (30.0%) 1 (10.0%)
'Percentages do not always add up to 100 for this question; if the item was not com
was checked off, this item was eliminated from the tally.
bNumber of students who completed questionnaires.

This content downloaded from 88.230.101.129 on Sat, 16 May 2020 03:00:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
160 The Modern Language Journal 74 (1990)

country. He has a BA degreevious quarter had emphasized

in literature, L2 conversa-
but
had taken a few languagetional skills, and that
teaching to partly remedy this, or
methodol-
ogy courses in his country.to counterbalance it, he wanted to teach students
"how to
In the classes observed, the construct sentences
teacher used without
onlymerely say-
one word of English overing them."
the Thus,
twogrammatical
sessions. awareness was
When asked if he ever used English,
of great concern, and thishe said
accounted for much
of his
he used it only to explain "teacher talk." No
difficult guidelines for the syl-
concepts
about the TL that did notlabus and teaching
exist methodologyIt
in English. were provided
is not clear, however, if he by his department.
really used He also noted that he con-
English
at all in the classroom.8 sidered it very important for students to know
The main reason he never used English the history and culture of the country in which
Language-M is spoken, and the full cultural
seemed to be that his department had a policy
connotations of L2 words. He often explained
forbidding English use in class. This depart-
these things in English.
ment had more teacher training than others,
including a week-long orientation, well-or-The teacher was genuinely concerned about
students' progress, but worried that "there
ganized guidelines, and a well-informed lec-
[aren't] enough areas to speak [Language-M]
turer who was in charge of all the teaching
assistants (TAs). The teacher spoke highlyoutside
of class." To provide students with more
the program and teacher preparation. He said interactional opportunities, he would like to see
that his department had an established method discussion sessions established and language lab
for teaching, "the Direct Method," which does materials developed. For the time being,
not allow the use of English. In his opinion, though,
no he plans to continue to provide what
English should be used in an ideal teachinghe perceives to be "forty-five percent [Lan-
situation. An ideal situation, he said, "means
guage-M] and fifty-five percent English" in the
class.
good students and good instructors. If the stu-
dents don't follow the rules of the game, it isLanguage-I Teacher. This teacher has had five
years of English teaching experience at the uni-
difficult to speak [the L2]. They have to play
the game. The rule is no English." versity level in his native country. He has
Language-M Teacher. This teacher was a TAtaught the TL for two and a half years at
for the first time at UCLA, although he hadUCLA. He was an English major in his native
country and has an MA in Teaching English
taught Language-M for five years at the high
as a Second Language (TESL) from an Ameri-
school level in his home country. The teacher
can university. During the interview, his back-
speaks English (and several other languages)
ground in TESL became evident as he talked
fluently, but noted that because of students' lack
of "comprehensible input," "student-centered
of familiarity with his English accent, he must
often repeat what he says to be understood.classrooms,"
In and the necessity for "interaction,"
his native country and also in California,concepts
he most of the other teachers did not
mention.
speaks English much of the time with his friends
and colleagues. During the sessions we observed, the teacher
used the target language fifty-three percent of
What was most surprising was that in the two
hours of observations of his class, the teacher
the time, although there was a large difference
used English ninety percent of the time, evenin the amount of TL in sessions one and two,
though this course, like the others observed thirty-four
in percent and 73.8 percent, respec-
tively. He also used the second highest number
this study, is meant to develop learners' L2 pro-
of mixed utterances (7.5%).
ficiency across all four skills. The low percent-
age of L2 use in class was consistent across bothThis teacher's department has no policy re-
garding the use of English in the classroom; in
sessions. This teacher used the greatest number
fact, the teacher claims this has never been
of English-plus-citation (Llc) forms - that is,
Language-M was the target, but not the means mentioned. The lecturer in charge of his class
of communication. He thus cited L2 forms and tells the TAs what material is to be covered but
does not give them explicit instructions for
then proceeded to discuss and analyze them to-
covering it.
gether with the class, using grammar-transla-
tion techniques. The teacher said that he tends to use English
Why did this teacher use so much English for
in teaching grammar and for classroom man-
agement. He knows he should use only the TL
class? He reported that the teacher in the pre-

This content downloaded from 88.230.101.129 on Sat, 16 May 2020 03:00:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Patricia Duff & Charlene Polio 161

in the classroom but thegave

L2. Furthermore,
three no relationship
reasons seems to tha
does not. First, the exist
FL classroom
between years of FL teaching isexperience
differe
and L1/L2 usage.
from the second language classroom in that
students in the former Other variables
are that may still play a role in
"linguistically
culturally deprived." Therefore,
determining the amount of L1/L2 use because
include:
students do not have enough
1) language exposure
type; 2) departmental policy/guide- to
lines; 3) lesson content;
L2, they will not understand him4) materials;
if and he 5) spe
only the L2. Second, formal teacher training.
Language-I is so diffe
from English that the Six of students
the teachers interviewed mentioned
would be c
fused if he spoke only
English/L2the TL.as aIn
differences factorFrench
affecting the c
he said, it would be amount
much of L2 used in the classroom.
easier toBoth the
conduct
Language-H and
entire class in the target Language-I teachers And
language. said that th
the teacher said that the students want to learn use of only the L2 was possible in a French
the material for the exams. Because the TAs class, for example, but not in the classes they
are given considerable material to cover for taught
the because the languages were too different
exams, he would not be able to get throughfrom it English. The Language-K teacher said
all if he spoke only the TL. that grammatical terms in the L2 differed so
significantly from English that the students
DISCUSSION
would not understand them. The Language-L
and Language-M teachers expressed similar
concerns.
Ratio of English/L2 Use. While the mean andIn addition, several of the languages
median use of L2 by teachers were 67.9 falling in the bottom half of the amount of L2
percent
and seventy-nine percent, respectively,use havethewriting systems different from Eng-
lish.
most surprising finding of this study is theAnd finally, the Language-A teacher men-
vari-
ability across the university in terms tionedofthat
thegrammar was quite easy to teach
amount of FL found in teacher talk in FL class- in the TL because most of the grammatical
rooms: from ten to 100 percent. This finding terms were cognates with English. However,
makes it impossible to generalize about FL use the teachers of Language-D and Language-M
in the context in which this research was done. (linguistically related and not Indo-European)
But despite the fact that several classes had very used very different amounts of the L2 (941%
low L2 use, it is encouraging that six of the thir- versus 10%).
teen teachers used the L2 ninety percent or In three of the departments, represented by
more of the time. Language-A, Language-B, and Language-G,
Variables Related to English/L2 Use. Owing toteachers were instructed not to use English in
the design of the study, we cannot identify the classroom. They stressed that this policy
causal roles for any of the variables discussed figured prominently in their decision to use the
here. We attempt, rather, to rule out certain L2. Five language teachers (C, E, K, H, J) re-
variables from consideration, and to suggest ported that they were "encouraged" to use the
others that may have influenced the results re- TL as much as possible. But these recommen-
ported above. dations do not seem to have the same effect as
First, we can discount the role of the teachers' more stringent guidelines forbidding the use of
English proficiency as a factor influencing the English. Both the Language-I and Language-
amount of L2 use in classes. One reason is that M teachers said that the amount of English to
the Language-C teacher, who grew up bilingual be used in the classroom was never mentioned
in English and the L2, spoke the L2 ninety-sixby their supervisors.
percent of the time in the classes we observed. Another variable to consider is the lesson
Also at this end of the scale is the Language-Abeing taught on the day of observation. This
teacher, who was enrolled in an ESL course involves two components: its objective and the
during the quarter he was observed. At the tasks/instruction used to achieve that objective.
other end of the TL use scale, the Language-M Coincidentally, six of the thirteen classes ob-
teacher was a fluent speaker of English, but was served had as their teaching objective the gram-
concerned that students could not understand mar of comparative forms, yet L2 use across
his non-American accent. In other words, per- these classes varied considerably. Thus, the
ceived (or real) proficiency in English does not lesson objective did not appear to determine the
seem to compel teachers to use more or less of amount of L2 used. However, the tasks and in-

This content downloaded from 88.230.101.129 on Sat, 16 May 2020 03:00:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 162 The Modern Language Journal 74 (1990)
lenging andthe
structional means used to achieve fun objective
for students in L2 classes to
have optimal
of teaching comparison influenced exposure
many to the L2.
teach-
ers' use of English/L2. For example, in conveyed
Several teachers gram-their reservations
matical explanations relatedabout
to use
using of
moreTL struc-
of the L2 than they currently
tures, six teachers (E, H, use.
I, J, K, M) a specifi-
For example, few mentioned that it took
cally mentioned that they too long to get their
considered point across in the L2.
English
a more effective medium than the L2 for intro- With so much to cover in a limited amount of
ducing important grammar points. For follow- time, they often had to resort to English. An-
up drills and tasks, however, the same teachers other teacher, who had studied ESL in an
tried to use the L2 more. Other teachers felt English-only classroom herself, felt that she had
that they could explain the same grammatical learned English very quickly this way, but that
point adequately using the L2. it had created considerable pressure for her.
Two teachers who discussed the variable ofHowever, she claimed that FL students, who
do not need to interact in the L2 everyday, do
materials expressed conflicting views on match-
ing their grammatical explanations with not theneed to learn the L2 so quickly. A third set
language in which the same explanations wereof teachers simply stated that because students
presented in their textbooks. The Language-Cdidn't (or wouldn't) understand more of the L2,
teacher said there was no need for her to ex- they restricted their L2 use. And finally, for two
plain the grammar in English when there was teachers who wanted to teach facts about cul-
already an English explanation in the textbook,
ture, history, and language, English was con-
whereas the Language-E teacher found it con- sidered the necessary medium for doing so.
fusing, for himself and the class, to try to
explain in the L2 something that had already
PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
been explained in English in the textbook. To
our knowledge, only the Language-A and Lan- In conducting this study, the researchers,
guage-B courses used textbooks written com-line with a growing body of applied lingui
literature, are clearly biased toward max
pletely in the L2, following the Direct Method;
use of the FL by teachers in FL classroo
one of these teachers said this simplified matters
in using only the L2 in the classroom. However, over half of the teachers observ
Finally, did teacher training make a differ-
here used the L2 less than ninety percent of
ence in teachers' language use? Among the time, and in conversations with us later, m
teachers observed here, two have MA degreesdiscussed their reservations about greater
in TESL, and three have taken at least one of the L2. On the other hand, those teac
course in current language teaching method- who used the L2 more than ninety percent
ology. Although none of them ranked amongthe time stated that it was not at all problem
the lowest four in -terms of L2 usage, they for them or their students to use the L2 for all
classroom functions, from grammar explana-
ranged from fifty-three to 100 percent in their
L2 use. tions to classroom management. Some of these
same teachers even recommended strategies
Attitudes Regarding English/L2 Use. As was re-
ported in the Results Section, students uni- which had aided them and which might be use-
ful to other teachers and teacher trainers as
formly expressed satisfaction with the amount
well. In this section we list pedagogical tech-
of English used in their FL classes. However,
additional interviews with the students would
niques commonly suggested in the literature
help clarify and explain their attitudes. and by teachers in the field, including those sur-
veyed here.
Teachers' attitudes varied as to why they did
or did not use the L2 more often. Those who Make input comprehensible through verbal modifi-
favored greater use of the TL did so for dif- cations. Several of the teachers expressed fear
ferent reasons. Two said they had been trainedthat if they spoke only the L2, students would
to use more of the L2 and believed such use not comprehend important information (e.g.,
effective. Two other teachers had theoretical exam particulars, key grammar points). How-
convictions for conducting classes rich in ever,
the modifying the L2 in the following ways
TL (both had training in applied linguistics).can help learners comprehend: 1) repeat utter-
One of these teachers added that, based onances;her 2) slow down the speed of discourse; 3)
experience as a language learner, it was paraphrase;
chal- 4) simplify syntax and vocabulary;

This content downloaded from 88.230.101.129 on Sat, 16 May 2020 03:00:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Patricia Duff & Charlene Polio 163
what information
and 5) use high frequency is important. Furthermore,
patterns and rou-
tines, including common
students mayclassroom manage
be concerned that they are not
ment expressions, which
comprehendingmay be
information that explicitly
they will later
be tested on. Teachers could make clear dur-
taught from the beginning.
ing each lessonthrough
Make input comprehensible what material andnonverbal
vocabulary
means. In addition to students will be accountable their
modifying for. speech,
especially at low levels,
Explicitly teachers should
teach and then use grammatical terms in use
visuals (e.g., pictures, props,
the L2. and said
Two of the teachers blackboard
they did not
and gestures to help feelreduce
comfortable using thethe L2 amount
to teach gram- of
L2-L1 translation andmar
to because
help students
contextualize
did not know the gram- the
matical terms in the L2. An obvious solution
verbal material presented.
is to teachself-evaluation.
Have classes videotapedfor these terms from the beginning. On-
Com-
ments from two teachers indicate that teachers
going frequent use of these terms should help
may be unaware of their use of English in thestudents understand grammatical explanations
classroom. Viewing videotapes of themselvesin the L2.
would give teachers opportunities to observe Provide supplementary grammatical material in
their own language use. English. According to one teacher, an alterna-
Establish an L2-only ("no English") policy for thetive or addition to the above suggestion is to
teacher from the start. Our survey revealed twoprovide supplementary grammatical explana-
main policies concerning the use of L2 in the tions in English for students to read outside of
classroom: 1) the L2 is introduced and used ex-class.
clusively from the first day of class; 2) the L1
and L2 are both used at the beginning, with
the intention that English will be graduallyCONCLUSION
phased out over the quarter. The results of this
study showed that those teachers whose depart- This study attempted to determine
ment favored the former policy were generallyamount of FL found in a sample of univ
more effective in using a higher quantity of theFL classrooms. For this purpose, thirteen
L2. Eliminating English use (especially for ferent L2 classes, including many typolog
classroom management) appears to be difficultunrelated languages, were observed. The
once the students and teacher have become finding was that there was a range of fro
accustomed to it. to 100 percent FL use by teachers in twe
six hours of sampled classroom discourse
Establish a brief period when teacher and students
can use English to clarify material from a lesson.represents
An a wider range than reported in
alternative to a strict L2-only policy is to pro-vious studies of teacher talk in FL classrooms.
vide a time at the end of class (i.e., five min- Furthermore, we found that most students were
utes) when any problems that arose during class satisfied with the status quo with regard to Eng-
can be discussed. This technique was men-lish/L2 use, while teachers' attitudes and
tioned by a few teachers, and has apparently
opinions differed markedly. Although we would
been successful in both reducing students'
like to suggest that certain variables, such as
anxiety and clarifying important points. perceived English/L2 differences and depart-
Let the students speak English when necessary.
mental policies, play a crucial role in determin-
Even though we encourage teachers to useingasteachers' English/L2 use, we cannot rule out
much L2 as possible, much of the literature
other variables.
stresses that low-level learners should not be The generalizability of findings in this study
forced to produce the L2 prematurely. Byis limited by the context in which the data were
allowing the students to ask questions in Eng-collected (university, second quarter classes)
lish, teachers can help reduce the level of and the background of teachers (native speakers
anxiety in classrooms. of the FL). Furthermore, the method used here
Stress that all language need not be comprehended.to quantify the distribution of English/L2 needs
Students may be concerned if they cannotto be validated. Lastly, and perhaps most cru-
understand every word the teacher uses. Teach-cially, the effect of teachers' L1/L2 behavior on
ers should develop students' listening compre-language acquisition now needs to be ex-
hension strategies to help students focus on
amined.9

This content downloaded from 88.230.101.129 on Sat, 16 May 2020 03:00:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 164 The Modern Language Journal 74 (1990)
examines the functional allocation of English and the
NOTES in the FL classroom.

5Some courses at UCLA teach only conversation, only

grammar, only literature, or teach nonspoken (classical)
languages,in
1The issue of L1/L2 use has already been examined such as Latin and Sanskrit, but these were ex-
the area of bilingual/immersion education, typically
cluded at the the present study.
from
elementary school level (see references 1, 5, 6,6A8).quarter is a ten-week academic term.
2English as a Second Language (ESL) refers to the
7Oflearn-
the thirteen teachers involved in this study, eleven
were
ing of English in a country or community where theteaching
target assistants (TAs) and two were lecturers.
language is spoken by the majority of speakers; English
8In fact,as
when turning in his questionnaire to one of the
researchers,
a Foreign Language (EFL) refers to the situation where one student commented that he didn't know
English is spoken by a minority of speakers and is not
that the
the teacher could speak English; it should be noted that
language of wider communication in the community or though still enrolled in ESL courses, was quite
this teacher,
country. proficient in English.
The L2 is "inevitably used" in second language (as like to thank several people for their help with
9We would
thislearners
opposed to foreign language) contexts because the study: David Unruh and the Office of Instructional
do not necessarily share the same L1. Development at UCLA, which provided funding for this
3We do not mean to suggest that children and project; Donna Brinton, who provided equipment and
adults learn
second languages in exactly the same way or that they
direction necessary for high-quality recording; Brian Lynch,
should be taught in exactly the same manner. whoHowever,
offered useful suggestions throughout the project; and,
the need to have the target language available and acces-
finally, the thirteen teachers who allowed us to record their
sible is shared by all language learners. classes and administer questionnaires to their students and
4Certainly this issue also deserves attention. Inwho met
fact, with us at the end of the study.
work
in progress using the transcribed data from this study

6. Milk, Robert D. "Language Use in Bilingual Classrooms:

BIBLIOGRAPHY Two Case Studies." On TESOL '81. Ed. Mary Hines
& William Rutherford. Washington, DC: TESOL,
1981: 181-91.

7. Research
1. Chaudron, Craig. Second Language Research: Mitchell, Rosamond
on & Richard Johnstone. "The Rou-
Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridgetinisation
Univ. of 'Communicative' Methodology." Paper,
Press, 1988. 7th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Brussels,
2. Ellis, Rod. Classroom Second Language Development.August 1984.
Oxford:
Pergamon, 1984. 8. Strong, Michael. "Teachers' Language to Limited Eng-
3. Guthrie, Elizabeth. "Six Cases in Classroom Communi-
lish Speakers in Bilingual and Submersion Classes."
cation: A Study of Teacher Discourse in the For-to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acqui-
Talking
sition.
eign Language Classroom." Research in Second Lan-Ed. Richard R. Day. Rowley, MA: Newbury
guage Learning: Focus on the Classroom. Ed.House,
James 1986: 53-63.
Lantolf & Angela Labarca. Norwood, 9.
NJ:Wing, Barbara. "The Linguistic and Communicative
Ablex,
1987: 173-93. Function of Foreign Language Teacher Talk." For-
eign Language Learning: A Research Perspective. Ed. Bill
4. Krashen, Stephen. Principles and Practice in Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon, 1982. VanPatten, Trisha Dvorta & James Lee. New York:
Newbury House, 1987: 158-73.
5. Long, Michael. "Bibliography of Research on Second
10.Sec-
Language Classroom Processes and Classroom Wong-Fillmore, Lily. "When Does Teacher Talk Work
as Input?" Input in Second Language Acquisition. Ed.
ond Language Acquisition." Center for Second Lan-
guage Classroom Research, Univ. of Hawaii, Susan M. Gass & Carol M. Madden. Rowley, MA:
Manoa. Technical Report 2, 1985. Newbury House, 1985: 17-50.

APPENDIX A

Foreign Language Class Survey

Field Notes/Observation Form

Observer
Course Time

Date Teacher

(Obs. #1 or #2?)

This content downloaded from 88.230.101.129 on Sat, 16 May 2020 03:00:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Patricia Duff & Charlene Polio 165
I. Classroom configuration:

n=

II. Activities

Time

III. Handouts or other props

IV. Taping/acoustic problems

V. Other problems or comments

APPENDIX B

Student Questionnaire

Please take a couple of minutes to answer the following questions. This information will be used
teaching survey at UCLA. Thank you for your cooperation.

Undergraduate student Graduate student

Your age: 18-25 yrs old 26-35 yrs old 36 + yrs old
Your major:
This course name:

1. Why are you taking this foreign language class?

interest requirement major easy credits other
2. Where have you had exposure to this foreign language? Please check all that are relevant.
at home or elsewhere in the local community
in the country where language is spoken
previous courses before this academic year
no other experience other than the first quarter course
3. How much English does your teacher typically use in class?
a lot (most of the time) some (some of the time) very little (occasionally) never
4. How much English would you like your teacher to use in class?
more English than now
about the same as now
less than now

5. How much of your teacher's foreign language speech do you understand in class?
all most of it some of it very little
6. Any related comments?

Thank you very much!

This content downloaded from 88.230.101.129 on Sat, 16 May 2020 03:00:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 166 The Modern Language Journal 74 (1990)

APPENDIX C

Questions Used in Teacher Interviews

Teacher Background
1. Please tell me about your teaching experience. How long have you been teaching Language X
populations?
2. Is your background in language teaching, linguistics, or literature?
3. How do you feel about your proficiency in spoken English?
4. Do you feel as comfortable speaking English as you do your native language when you teach
5. Do you use the two languages for different things?

Perception of Students' Ability

6. What is your perception of your students' ability in Language X?
7. When you speak Language X, how well do you think your students understand you?

Philosophy of Teaching
8. Please tell me something about what you believe is the best way to learn and teach a foreig
9. What is your opinion on how much English and how much of Language X should be used w

Perception of Why Students Are Studying Language X

10. Why do you think your students are studying Language X?

Departmental Policy
11. What guidelines or requirements has your department given you on how you should teach
12. In what ways, if any, do you believe that you teach differently from others in your departm
13. Does your department have a policy regarding the use of English in the classroom?

Research Perspectives in
Adult Language Learning
and Acquisition
OHIO 12-13 October 1990, Columbus, Ohio
SERT1E
UNIVFRSITY

Keynote addresses by:

Craig Chaudron, University of Hawaii

Rebecca Oxford, University of Alabama
Barry McLaughlin, University of California, Santa Cruz
This annual symposium is organized by the Foreign Language Center of The Ohio State
University, and is co-sponsored by The Modern Language Journal and the OSU College
of Humanities. Papers are refereed and will be distributed before the conference to
preregistrants. Following the conference, all papers will be considered for publication
by The Modern Language Journal. Preregistration desirable.

RP-ALLA '90
OSU Foreign Language Center
155 Cunz Hall, 1841 Millikin Road
Columbus, OH 43210-1215

This content downloaded from 88.230.101.129 on Sat, 16 May 2020 03:00:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms