Area of Applied Linguistics

FINAL PROJECT’S TITLE

A research on the overuse of Spanish in the EFL classroom focused on EFL
students at superior sublevel From Humberto Vacas Gómez school in Ecuador

Thesis to qualify for:

Master´s Degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language

Presented by:
Milton Armando Núñez Pesantez
ECFPMTFL3195927

Director:
Dra. Elena Caixal

QUITO - ECUADOR
16th, February, 2022
 Acknowledgements

A special acknowledgment is directed to all students from subnivel superior at

Humberto Vacas Gómez school because of their disinterested and cheerful participation
on this project.

To all English teachers from the mentioned school whose recommendations and
directions were useful to me, which also turned into as a support to know what to find and
restate in this investigation.

Finally, a special recognition to my thesis director, Dra. Elena Caixal for supporting me
through every single step I took to execute this research project appropriately as well as
for giving me right recommendations and corrections to conclude successfully.

ii
 Dedication

To all my family members who have inspired me to go ahead and reach my sat objectives.
For that light of blissful, strong, and at the same time touchy - beautiful sense called God that
gets me to go on despite of hard moments. Finally, I dedicate this work to a very special and
charming person whose motivation and self - dedication turns into the perfect role model for
me; the one whose existence gets me living happy, emotional, and in love.

The author

iii
 Abstract

The problematic generated by the overuse of Spanish in the English as a Foreign

Language classroom focused on English as a Foreign Language students at superior
sublevel from public schools in Ecuador is reviewed in this research. This work was
developed by providing writing and speaking assignments to selected participants as well
as by conducting surveys to students and to all English teachers from this sublevel. The
present investigation process was done in order to find the causes of the overuse of
Spanish by means of a correlation between a bibliographic and camp work. Thus, a better
English fluency is intended to be reached by avoiding practices such as using Spanish or
thinking in Spanish first instead of using English within the learning context.

Key words: Overuse – Foreign language – Superior sublevel - Writing - Speaking

- Correlation.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1

2. JUSTIFICATION OF ACADEMIC AND PERSONAL INTEREST .......................4

3. RESEARCH QUESTION AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................6

3.1 Research question ...............................................................................................6

3.2 General objective .................................................................................................6

3.3 Specific objectives ................................................................................................6

3.4 Personal and professional objectives.................................................................6

4. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................8

4.1 Psycholinguistic foundation on language learning..........................................10

4.2 Speaking in language learning .........................................................................11

4.3 Learning strategies.............................................................................................12

4.4 Students´ first language in English learning. ..................................................13

4.4.1 Similarities and differences between mother tongue (Spanish) and

target language (English) during language acquisition....................................14

4.4.2 Interlanguage ...............................................................................................15

4.4.3 Transfer and interference ...........................................................................17

4.5 Common problems students face when learning English .............................20

4.6 English syntax .....................................................................................................21

4.7 SLA (Second Language Acquisition): ESL (English as a Second

Language), EFL (English as a Foreign Language) and their common teaching
methods .....................................................................................................................23

4.8 ESL (English as a Second Language) common methods ............................25

4.8.1 CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning)................................25

4.8.2 The immersion program (method) ............................................................26

4.9 EFL (English as a Foreign Language) common methods ............................27

4.9.1 The grammar translation method ..............................................................28

4.9.2 Task - based instruction .............................................................................29

v
 4.9.3 Community language – learning ...............................................................31

4.10 TELF (Teaching English as a Lingua Franca) ..............................................32

4.10.1 Communicative Language – Teaching (CLT) .......................................33

4.11 How to teach English vocabulary ...................................................................35

4.11.1 The lexical approach ................................................................................36

4.11.2 Collocations, friendly words, and false cognates..................................38

4.12 Sociolinguistics; Diglossia and Polyglossia ..................................................40

4.13 Receptive and productive skills; effective communication..........................41

5. METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................43

5.1 Description of the research approach..............................................................43

5.2 Description of the research type.......................................................................43

5.3 Description of the research tools ......................................................................46

6. STUDY .......................................................................................................................50

6.1 Description of the context..................................................................................50

6.2 Description of the corpus and data collection .................................................53

6.2.1 Research tools...................................................................................... 53

6.2.2 Application of the tools for data collection ........................................... 56

6.3 Research tools for the analysis ........................................................................56

6.3.1 Variable operationalization chart ..............................................................57

6.4 Description (summary) of the working plan to carry out the study ...............69

7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...............................................................................71

7.1 Quantitative and Qualitative analysis of results .............................................72

7.1.1 Figure 1................................................................................................. 72

7.1.2 Figure 2...................................................... ¡Error! Marcador no definido.3

7.1.3 Figure 3................................................................................................. 76

7.1.4 Figure 4................................................................................................. 77

7.1.5 Figure 5................................................................................................. 79

7.1.6 Figure 6................................................................................................. 81

vi
 7.1.7 Figure 7................................................................................................. 83

7.1.8 Figure 8................................................................................................. 84

7.1.9 Figure 9................................................................................................. 85

7.1.10 Figure 10 ............................................................................................ 87

7.1.11 Figure 11 ............................................................................................ 89

7.1.12 Figure 12 ............................................................................................ 91

7.1.13 Figure 13 ............................................................................................ 92

7.1.14 Figure 14 ............................................................................................ 94

7.1.15 Figure 15 ............................................................................................ 97

7.1.16 Figure 16 ...........................................................................................100

7.1.17 Figure 17 ...........................................................................................101

7.1.18 Figure 18 ...........................................................................................104

7.1.19 Figure 19 ...........................................................................................106

7.1.20 Figure 20............................................................................................107

8. CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................110

8.1 Objectives´ achievement .................................................................................110

8.1.1 Objective 1...........................................................................................111

8.1.2 Objective 2...........................................................................................112

8.1.3 Objective 3...........................................................................................115

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................120

10. APPENDIX ............................................................................................................125

vii
 1. INTRODUCTION

The present research project focuses on a considered “prejudicial practice” while

learning a foreign language within classrooms from superior sublevel of a public school
located in Quito – Ecuador. Using and applying too many Spanish words and structures
while learning a foreign language, English, turns itself into a practice of translation aimed
to know equivalences between the mother tongue and the foreign one. Therefore, this bad
practice deals with studying the parts of a new language instead of using this functionally.

This is well known that reaching communication skills is the pivotal objective when
learning a new language. Nonetheless, wrong learning and teaching practices like the lack
of interaction by means of the target language as well as the application of non - suitable
methods for using the language orally like The Grammar Translation, lead learners to
apply wrong learning strategies. For instance, the inevitable need to always searching for
precise equivalents to what is new language for them.

This study is aimed to find the main reasons why students overuse Spanish grammar
and lexis in the EFL classroom focused on EFL students at superior sublevel at
Humberto Vacas Gómez school in Ecuador. The specific objectives sat by this
investigation were: to identify the English patterns, items and grammar structures used by
students while learning English at superior sublevel, to examine the English patterns,
items, and grammar structures in students´ oral and written communication in relation to
items and grammar structures used in Spanish, so that wrong equivalents; misses,
between these two languages are taken as overuse indicators. Finally, to conclude the
main reasons why students from superior sublevel - grades from Humberto Vacas
Gómez School decide on overusing Spanish items and grammar structures while learning
English.

Previous research made on the overuse of Spanish structures and lexis while learning
English was referenced. Hence, the following studies were considered to evaluate
possible responses in advanced to the causes of this problem:

Crawford, Goodwin, Lengeling, Mora & Rubio (2011) conducted research aimed to find
the reasons why students and teachers used the first Language within the foreign
language classroom (English) in Central Mexico. The study concluded that people

1
engaged in the teaching and learning process let their roles be more flexible for facilitating
comprehension; no matter how much the target language is deprived. Also, foreign
language teachers are not well engaged with their moral obligations, that is, they do not
often reevaluate the learning objectives sat within the courses.

In short, teachers decide to use their first tongue in a foreign language class since their
own wishes and desires are put in first place. In other words, a subjective assumption
from facilitators (teachers) of what is accurate to the learning process guides students to
perform unorthodox acts before, during, and even after English classes. Finally, no
limitations were found through the course of this investigation.

Lopez (2011) dealt a case study about the impact of Spanish - English writing structure
interferences in second language learners. One important conclusion is that first language
written structures negatively influence written structures done in second language. First
language hinders learners to develop texts or shorter passages in the same way for the
two languages. This happens especially when it comes to following word orders.

Another important conclusion from this study is the fact that using Spanish while
learning English requires much extra time for learning the target language. When pupils
translate each Spanish word into the target language and they also get sure that these
words provide the same meaning in English, spending much effort that doubles the time
estimated for reaching the goal is doubtless. There were not limitations when developing
this study either.

Lopez (2019) carried out a study on Spanish use in the English classroom related to
Dominican students in an English – only environment. This study concluded that students
use their first language during English classes due to educational policies that do not let
the compliance of only English environments be true. Teachers promote strategies that
get certain dissatisfactions arise. For example, the curricular allowance which uses
personal preferences such as the linguistic impairment. Similarly, teachers do not valance
the provision of input and tasks that have pupils learn English meaningfully or knowledge
be developed from their own experiences. By the end of this study, no limitations were
identified.

The results of this investigation will benefit all people engaged in English as a foreign
language teaching and learning process. In order to get learners to use English
functionally, teachers will find possible ideas to foster or change their methodology or

2
useless practices by paying attention to these findings. Students, of course, will benefit
from their instructors´ decisions to provide them knowledge of quality aimed to avoid
Spanish overuse while learning English.

This research has the following sequence: in chapter one, a general overview of this
study as well as its structure description is presented. During chapter two, a personal and
academic justification for carrying out this project is shown. Chapter three presents the
general and specific objectives which oriented the results and the investigation per se; the
objectives are sat by considering the possible findings, relevant for TEFL in Ecuador.

During chapter four, a literature review is presented. This extracts important criteria
and psycholinguistic theories that support new ideas generated by the investigator.
Chapter five deals with the applied methodology while the study developed for this
research, the results and discussion, the conclusions, and future contributions that
support related problems on teaching English as a foreign language practice are
presented in chapters six, seven, and eight respectively.

3
 2. JUSTIFICATION OF ACADEMIC AND PERSONAL INTEREST

A research on the overuse of Spanish in the EFL classroom focused on students at

superior sublevel at a public school in Ecuador must be conducted for two main reasons
in advance to its importance as well as to the personal motivation this can generate based
on the professional practice. Thus, this investigation firstly provides a particularly
important academic relevance since it contributes to teaching and learning English
language - process by means of theories.

Given the fact that most of Ecuadorian students from public schools are used to
overusing their mother tongue (Spanish) items and grammar structures as a reference
while learning English, the results for using this foreign language in communication are
negative. Apart from struggling a lot while casting ideas, students feel the necessity to
think in Spanish first. Also, learners collocate words in English sentences by following the
same structures from Spanish. In the worst of cases, pupils end up using friendly
vocabulary items from their mother tongue for replacing different English - nouns.

A creative construction is an element that students are going themselves through on

the way for acquiring the target language (English). From a psycholinguistic perspective
Myles (2016) presents a developmental route essentially as students´ own idiolects which
are processes with temporal stablished - sets of rules created by themselves. However,
this is a problem when students use constantly their first language as a mnemonic
reference because the risk of staying in fossilization permanently appears.

Some changes happened in the way English language is taught in Ecuador. For
example, in 1992 the Ecuadorian government signed an agreement with the British
council with the purpose of improving English learning in public schools and the English
educational curriculum was adapted to the Common European Framework in 2016.
Nevertheless, students with low competence in English language have been observed in
Ecuadorian public schools and minimal research on the effects of overusing Spanish
[items and grammar structures] during the English learning process has been conducted
in Ecuador, so much so that, the problem persists without clues or hints of solutions
provided.

Similarly, personal motivation also arises as the English teaching career requires to
know the best path for teaching this language. The right path for teaching English is
thought to be found by the time this investigation is elaborated and the most personal

4
element is the factor that an English teacher must consider justifying the feasibility,
replicability, and the educational utility of the actual research. All these factors contribute
to motivate the teacher to conduct the proposed research.

When talking about feasibility, the fact that Ecuador has many public libraries, whose
texts are also online, turn itself into a positive stage. In addition, being part of the staff
where the research is conducted facilitates the application of instruments with the
appropriate technique. This also facilitates planning researching stages within a more
contextual and less difficult space for conducting data – collection as well. Therefore,
having easy access to important literature as well as performing camp research is
promising and motivating for the investigator.

The results of this study are thought to be used in more than one scenario afterwards.
English language must be spoken fluently not only in the educational context but also
within all the fields this language is required to communicate ideas or to understand
information faster or immediately. Guiding tourists, carrying out business meetings or
simply understanding information for entertainment are some examples of contexts where
English must not be interfered by Spanish lexis or grammar structures. All of this will
motivate other professionals to use the concepts as help or guide to speak English without
using or thinking in Spanish first.

To sum up, the causes of overusing Spanish items and grammar structures during the
English learning deserve to be investigated since they will help English teachers and
English - language facilitators to enrich their scientific literature. This is important to guide
English teachers to find better solutions to this drawback and enhance the English level of
their students by focusing on the aim of learning this language without Spanish as a
reference.

Additionally, the generated theories, conclusions and results will also help students to
learn better English as well as to have access to universities, be qualified to apply to
immersion programs or scholarships where a good communicative English is necessary
or simply will help them understand and convey up-to-date English information.

5
 3. RESEARCH QUESTION AND OBJECTIVES

3.1 Research question

The present research is developed by means of the following question:

What are the causes of the overuse of Spanish in the EFL classroom focused on EFL
students at superior sublevel at Humberto Vacas Gómez School in Ecuador?"

3.2 General objective:

The general objective of this research is the following:

To research the causes of the overuse of Spanish by means of a correlation between a

bibliographic and camp work conducted in the EFL classroom focused on EFL students at
superior sublevel at Humberto Vacas Gómez School in Ecuador, so that a better English
fluency is reached by avoiding practices such as using Spanish or thinking in Spanish
first.

3.3 Specific objectives:

- To identify the English patterns, items and grammar structures used by students
while learning English at superior sublevel.

- To examine the English patterns, items, and grammar structures in students´ oral
and written communication in relation to items and grammar structures used in
Spanish, so that wrong equivalents; misses, between these two languages are
taken as overuse indicators.

- To conclude the main reasons why students from superior sublevel - grades from
Humberto Vacas Gómez School decide on overusing Spanish items and grammar
structures while learning English.

3.4 Personal and professional objectives:

- To be aware of wrong beliefs and ideas gotten from previous teaching experiences
so that the most relevant teaching - practices are constantly applied.

6
- To enrich investigation skills in language teaching and learning, observation, and
analysis within the workplace with the application of tools and techniques like case
studies, and tests so that language learning research turns a habit.

- To domain quantitatively and qualitatively conducted research within the learning

and teaching process as educational problems, especially language - learning
traits, will be given, or at least proposed factual solutions afterwards.

- To settle the own’s teaching knowledge on language pedagogy by means of a

thoroughly conducted revision on topics like methodologies and approaches,
student´s motivation, student´s interests, language learning stages, and situations
when language must be applied functionally, students´ interlanguage - stage, etc.
so that these turn practical references for one’s educational processes through
professional practices.

7
 4. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

At present more than 1.5 billion of the world’s population speak English. “By the year
2006, about 400 million people spoke English as their native language, about 400 million
people spoke English as a second language and 700 million people spoke English as a
foreign language” (Crystal, 2006, p.11). Fourteen years later, of course, the number has
increased. Consequently, English is spoken around the whole world more like any other
language. This language is spoken by more people than other languages except Chinese.

English appears almost everywhere like a means of communication. As Graddol

(2006) states, it is not amazing that this language turns out to be the pervasive code for
dealing with different activities amongst people. Thus, this important language is widely
used in politics and leaders from different countries communicate through the English
language as well. Staff from many entities and international councils like the United
Nations communicate officially through English while the Anglo - Saxon accent and code
is the language of science and technology. More than half of the world’s scientific and
technological media like journals, publications, flyers, and magazines are written in
English. These are the main reasons why a plethora of people consider learning English
every time.

By the time people use technology for commerce, business, or entertainment, they are
almost obliged to decode English for reaching their particular goals (Graddol, ibid). This
turns out to be a raising rate of English users every day. Thus, non – native English
speakers have turned themselves into one of the main sources for expanding English
nowadays.

In Ecuador, the Ministry of education states that “Learning and speaking English in
secondary education is essential in order to interact and communicate in today´s
globalized world for several scholar or educational reasons” (National curriculum
guidelines, 2016, p. 3).

First, English is needed to acquire relevant information which is often delivered in this
language. By means of this language students have more opportunities to gain access to
a more expanded scientific information though which they enrich their knowledge.
Second, students also enhance metacognitive skills when it comes to coping with their
personal interests. For example, children, teenagers, young adults, or people in general,

8
are prone to search for entertaining, leisure or news information through the foreign
language (English) when data they need is not available in their mother tongue.

Finally, and most important, when getting deep skills of communicative English,
learners get major opportunities to gain access to international programs or scholarships.
Better national or internarial labor opportunities arise when people graduate from
baccalaurean studies with a high level of communicative English skills. Nonetheless,
current educational proposals and aims in Ecuador are not reached because
communicative practices on the target language are suppressed by the first language –
interference.

Due the importance of situating and sustaining problems on the acquisition of a foreign
language, this literature review based on what other researchers and authors have written
on the same topic: The overuse of Spanish while learning English as a Foreign language
in schools. Concepts, theories, and paradigms related to SLA (Second Language
Acquisition) also were reviewed in order to base and understand the research problem. In
this context, assessing how this research fits to a general investigation - framework was
important. Repercussions on the methodology are evident since by means of the
theoretical review, processes like definition and operationalization of variables allow
identify research limitations by the time hypothesis are generated.

Sections and subsections [topics and subtopics] of the theoretical background appear
on the basis of Steinberg (1996) and Moon (2000) who state that:

During early ages, even native learners go through a series

of language status, this ends until learners achieve
communicative competence in the mother tongue, these
statuses are reflected phonologically, morphologically,
syntactically, semantically, and pragmatically, thus, the
second language a learner also develops systematically for
acquiring competence on the new language.

In this sense, learning a new language always evolves an “interlanguage” process

which most of the time is threatened by problems of “transfer and interference from
students´ mother tongue”. This situation happens because translation methods are not
applied adequately, and these do not guide students to apply correct “learning strategies
“. Therefore, learning practices like the lack of “speaking in the target language “as well as

9
too much translation into the mother tongue, get learners to overuse Spanish while
learning English. Finally, Learners consider and generalize most of “similarities between
their first language (Spanish) and the target one (English) “. Thus, “collocations” are often
done in relation to the mother tongue and “friendly words “turn into “false cognates
“because Spanish is constantly practiced rather than English.

Similarly, Krashen & Terrel (1983) claim that against the acquisition of the mother
tongue, learning a second language is oriented to the conscious learning of its grammar,
phonemes, vocabulary, pragmatics, etc. Therefore, having in mind the educational context
where English is often acquired formally and within a closed space [a classroom], there is
an English as a Foreign Language frame for learning English in countries or places whose
contexts do not allow learners to be in exposition to this language constantly.

This form of learning English focuses on the accurate use of “English syntax “and
“vocabulary “. However, “EFL “is similar to ESL in that this promotes language learning
methods like: “Communicative Language Teaching “, “Task - Based Instruction” and
“Community Language Learning” which suggest a notional (communicative) learning and
use of English (practice). Finally, even when “immersion programs” are directed to ESL
(English as a Second Language) learning environments, some countries like Ecuador,
have introduced “CLIL “(Content Language Integrated Learning) in its English as foreign
language curriculum in public schools.

In relation to the mentioned above, experience has demonstrated that when learning a
second language, the overuse of the first one gets learners coping with communicative
situations still with the use of their mother tongue. Therefore, in order to get teachers to
avoid errors of transference when teaching English, this is important to search for
information and acquire useful data to understand why first language is overused during
the second language acquisition process in particular contexts.

For this purpose, the following literature review bases on the relevant topics mentioned
before which are necessary to describe the three variables of this study; that is, the
theories describing the causes of interference, the effects on this problem as well as
concepts that correlate the two kinds of variables mentioned before.

4.1 . Psycholinguistic foundation on language learning

10
 Learning psychologists, educators and all those evolved in the English teaching &
learning - process have presented and proposed some models which are popular in the
path for reaching the very desirable goal, speaking, and using English for communication.
However, in contexts like public schools of Ecuador where English is taught as a foreign
language, the mother tongue (Spanish) seems to be a problem of interference through
this process.

Vygotsky stated that language is of paramount importance for cognitive development

since it gets people to express their thoughts and experiences in any tense; present, past,
or future (Vygotsky, 2010, cited by Woolfolk, 2010). Similarly, Lightbown (2006)
emphasizes the importance of the broader social context where language is learnt;
situations for negotiating and conveying information to speakers must take place by
fostering words, phrases, and sentences to help the learner´s language acquisition. The
former Vygotsky (2010) aims language learning to cope with vivid situations even when
these are difficult or maybe of immediate need. Children are to cope with finding solutions
by means of language. The second psychologist Lightbown (2006) sees thinking, learning,
and speaking actions as tightly interwoven; thus, one process triggers the other ones.

To sum up, both educational psychologists talk about the use of language for
communicating and that language must be used notionally as well as functionally. This
means that when learning a new language, communicative actions must be done through
the target language; the mother tongue does not have a lot to do. Vygotsky as well as
Lightbown deal their language acquisition theories to a notion similar to Krashen´s input
hypothesis stating that “acquisition occurs when one is exposed to language that is
comprehensible and that contains (i +1); the (i) represents the level of language already
acquired, and the (+1) is the …language (…) that is a step beyond that level” (Krashen,
1985, p. 29).

4.2. Speaking in language learning

Speaking lessons during second language learning are of paramount importance

because this skill itself turns out to be the final demonstration of students´ knowledge
through the foreign language process. Speaking, as a productive skill, tends to qualify
students’ use of language for functions and communication. Therefore, speech shows a
balance of how receptive skills (Reading and listening) have been developed.

11
 Nonetheless, Goh & Burns (2012) claim that even when pupils have fun during
communication activities as they are able to have conversations with other students and
use the target code, limitations exist because of the use of a wrong lesson plan. Even the
fact that students usually feel happy while speaking activities take place in their English -
language classes, it results insufficient the amount of time learners dedicate to produce
the language.

Similarly, most of the time students are commanded to listen to the teacher and to
cope with a receptive skill only (listening). Furthermore, Goh & Burns (2012) demonstrate
that students are usually asked to perform speaking activities by means of pair or group
interactions, but they do not achieve the correct performance since the teacher does not
always get into the role of facilitator. Instead, educators leave learners alone and do not
provide them feedback neither input. As a result, speaking activities do not provide the
necessary prompts that guaranty students´ use of language. In addition, students draw
their conclusion for communication on their pre - existing knowledge and they end up
solving tasks by speaking in Spanish.

In conclusion, speakers are expected to prepare their roles from the transactional
organization of ideas for interacting with others afterwards. Additionally, situations shown
in their activities like descriptions have learners prepared themselves to have information
from other tasks or activities. For example, scripts are mnemonics in events where
syntactic knowledge has a lot to do for internalizing information, this interaction is also
facilitated by the teacher. Finally, speaking activities often disappear because students do
not have a direct interaction by means of the target language, but they allow students
opportunities to perform a task by means of guessing, inferences or by using their mother
tongue.

4.3. Learning strategies

“LS (Learning Strategies) are defined as the attempts to develop “linguistic and
sociolinguistic competence in the target language - to incorporate these into one's
interlanguage competence” (Tarone, 1983, cited by Maguid, 2012). This means that
learning strategies are strategies that learners incorporate to their learning process. These
strategies emerge by thinking that content or skill achievement will be gotten in a truly
positive way. For instance, during language acquisition, students tend to base their
strategies on keeping diaries for collecting words with images, bolding or underlining
words after scanning texts or writing definitions to words.

12
 In order to assure advances in second language or foreign language acquisition,
learners identify innate “personal - manuals”, the same that are incorporated specially
during their interlanguage process. Learning strategies are created by learners
themselves for attending to their motivational and affective state. Thus, by means of this
conscious process, students benefit from self – direction and their responsibility for
learning arises too.

“Six kinds of common learning strategies have been identified by Oxford. These
strategies are specially applied during second language acquisition” (Chamot, 1987 &
Oxford, 1990, cited by Maguid, 2012).

• Cognitive strategies are created by learners to apply knowledge contextually

and vividly. Some examples of cognitive strategies are note taking, summaries,
ad analysis of texts and information.
• Memory – related strategies are used for storing information and for relating
mental images to sounds or ideas.
• Compensatory strategies are created for replacing lost information. For
example, learners use information available in their close context like scripts
and lectures for replacing missing knowledge with synonyms.
• Affective strategies appeal to peoples´ feelings. They facilitate learning by
means of information transmitted by other peoples´ mood or mental and
physical status.
• Social strategies also permit students interact with people from the culture of
interest. Asking questions about culture as well as holding conversations with
native speakers are examples of this strategy.

4.4. Students´ first language in English learning.

As stated by Lightbown & Spada (2011) once students achieve a specific level and get
language matters parallel to their mother tongue, these learners stay more time in this
level. An extension on the use of the negative “no” by Spanish speakers is one instance of
this situation. Hence, solutions to complex matters when second language acquisition is
taking place, tend to be found by using previous knowledge owned by themselves. In this
case, first language structures and words are useful for second language learners to do
that.

13
 The mother tongue of a learner can also influence the second language acquisition by
means of some conscious deliberations. “When learners reach a certain stage and
perceive a similarity to their first language (Spanish), they may linger longer at that stage”
(Lightbown & Spada, 2011, p. 94). In this sense, avoidance may arise when language
learners perceive certain target language forms as difficult and much different from their
first language.

One instance from the mentioned above are statements for unreal situations with
modals in the past. These could have students deny the path for progression, so much so
that they would rather abandon the learning of that language matter. These conscious
deliberations could also orient language learners to think that what they are saying makes
more sense in their native language than in the target one.

4.4.1. Similarities and differences between mother tongue (Spanish) and target
language (English) during language acquisition.

When most of children start to learn their mother tongue, they look like they were tape
recorders and every single word they learn seems to be unforgettable. It deals to the next
phrase and sentence. However, when learning a second language the situation is much
different. The results: an easy or difficult way to teach a second language depending on
the kind of language to be taught as well as the methodology chosen for this purpose.

The fact that first language acquisition turns itself into a useful tool when teaching a
second one depends on the origin of both languages. When students are to be taught a
second language they usually compare and contrast words or phrases to those of the new
language (Larsen, 2000). The process mentioned before is good for teaching when
facilitators are aware of language similarities such as friendly words or grammar
structures. This definitely will improve the way teachers convey the second language to
students because they do not have to internalize an extra matter apart from the language
itself.

On the other hand, first language acquisition might be prejudicial for teaching a new
one especially when the two languages have different origin. There are certain language
teaching methods like The Grammar Translation which states that meaning is paramount,
and dialogues are normally memorized (Richards & Rodgers, 2008). It means that
teachers are constantly thinking in language equivalents which promotes students to
translate every single word as well as students’ lack of thinking in the second language.

14
 ” Another interesting aspect from the point of application of grammatical theory to the
teaching of foreign languages is the relationship established between the conceptual
approach and its lexical - syntactic expression” (Talmy, 2000, cited by Contreras 2014, p.
21). Thus, contrasting similarities and differences between Spanish and English, the
languages of interest, the following general differences in relation to Nouns, adjectives
and verbs are advocated:

Figure 4.1
Language matter Spanish English
Nouns Nouns could be placed differently Nouns could be placed
depending on their function as differently depending on their
subjects or objects of the sentence. function as subjects or
They often go after the verb. objects of the sentence. They
often go after the verb but
sometimes suffixes are added
in subjects.
Adjectives In phrases, they are placed right In phrases, they are placed
after de noun. However, they can right before de noun.
be placed before especially when However, they can be placed
writing stylistic or metaphoric texts. after conjugations of be verb.
Verbs Have a single (different) declination The same declination is
for all subject pronouns in all administered to all subject
tenses. pronouns with little
exceptions and adjustments.

In conclusion, first language acquisition turns a useful or useless matter to teach a

second language, depending on the structure and similar words it has in relation to the
new one.

4.4.2. Interlanguage

Interlanguage stage appears when learning a new language. This is noticeable by

means of a mix of items, subsystems and structures present not only in the learner´s
vernacular tongue but also in the individual´s target language. Many theories based on
how interlanguage is developed, and these theories have gotten data focused on two
important factors: The contrasting process between individuals´ first language and their
target one [Contrastive Analysis] as well as by the analysis of the target language –

15
system itself. “Language-specific experience influences the perception of phoneme
contrasts” (Best and Strange, 1992, cited by Thompson & Blown, 2012). For
understanding this mechanism, this is necessary to use a filter of three aspects that help
notice how these two types of knowledges are interwoven.

First, frequency appears to be an important matter for interlanguage to happen. When

exposition to the knowledge (new language) is elongated, individuals are to develop a
faster interlanguage stage. On the other hand, if exposition to the new language is
shorten, students tend to state much more time into an interlanguage stage. In relation to
this aspect Martinez (2010) states that input is anything provided to individuals not
everything to have them learn. As a result, the range of frequency of exposition to the
second language students experiment vary: high exposition, usually takes place at
beginning levels and lower frequencies are paradoxically prominent in advanced levels
because students start ignoring frequent expositional facts.

Then, apart from social distance and status, aspects like motivation and attitude when
they are positive, allow students develop a faster interlanguage stage. Right after learning
grammar and vocabulary in context, there are random and sudden tendencies for second
language learners to think that creating their own phrases and sentences shows them
how right or wrong they are when conveying a message. Of course, it demonstrates a
high level of motivation and good attitude to learn the second language.

Thompson & Blown (2012) also advocate interlanguage since a psychological

perspective: Many isolated linguistic and non – linguistic factors such as text frequency,
subject familiarity, age of acquisition, and imageability (concreteness) determine lexis to
be understand. Thus, motivational factors are divided into intrinsic and extrinsic. The way
teachers use their materials and methods of teaching are extrinsic factors that enhances
the language acquisition. Instructors are often able to provide an effective and appropriate
learning experience for students. Moreover, they have the power to provide
encouragement to students so that they will be more motivated to learn the language

Despite of the fact that errors [non- understandable ideas] are frequent when creating
sentences at the onset of language learning, these “wrong” patterns also show second
language learners how to assemble them in a better way. As a result, students assemble
their own sentences again and again until creating their understandable and unusual
ones.

16
 Finally, when learning a new language, individuals tend to weave previous knowledge
and the new one. It is stated that “Language-specific experience influences the perception
of phoneme contrasts” ...the different experiences that people have with the language
influence how they are able to process and produce phonological differences” (Thompson
& Blown, 2012, p. 36).

In order to get aware of the range of influence that students´ first language is taking
place, this is necessary to analyze certain items, structures, systems, and subsystems of
language produced by learners every time they afford to convey meaning and their ideas.
That is, every time students write or speak something in their target language, teachers
can use this information for analyzing, describing, and interpreting matters that help them
get aware of their students´ interlanguage status.

4.4.3. Transfer and interference

According to De Prada & Lenon (2019) interlanguage (IL) is the proximate stage in
acquiring a new language which is characterized by being unstable, systematic, and
especially rule governed. A relationship between the first language and the second one
appears during interlanguage stage. In the first place, some theories hypothesize that the
order of acquisition is the same in the mother language as well as in the target one while
other theories state that the first language acquisition is different from the second one.

A final set of theories assure that transfer is always present from a previously learned
tongue to the target language, being “transfer” more probable to happen especially
amongst many different – languages acquisition. The acquisition of more than one tongue
may deal to desirable results against undesirable drawbacks during transfer in terms of
mental schemes and language forms of the multilingual vocabulary (Gass & Selinker,
2008).

Given the fact that is some stage of learning a second language, students generate their
target language (Output) by means of their own idiosyncratic way, which of course
suggests the use of their own ideas and forms in productive language, idiolects are
evident in their writing discourse. A transfer fact measured by Abunuwara (1992),
between mother tongues and target languages was that there exists a relative high
frequency relationship between the native language and the strongest non - native
language that affect idiosyncratic rules for the target one.

17
 In sentences like, “Soccer is the most common sporting.” “When he was 7 years old, he
went schooling.” and “Moreover it may lead to conflicting.” students are showing their own
way [their own rules] to convey meaning. This is a clear evidence of Spanish - language
transfer because students try to show objects as they were subjects assuming that the
same words are used for objects and subjects as in Spanish. Of course, they are still
understandable and possible in many cases but in such situations, the correct and
conventional syntax form is perfectly ignored.

In the light of negative transfer [interference] Myles (2016) presents a developmental

route essentially as students´ own idiolects which are processes with temporal stablished
- sets of rules created by themselves. This means that students are unconsciously
activating processes for restructuring sentences and forms for avoiding rules of
paramount importance. This process helps them to use their target language, when
necessary, without being worried for doing it correctly.

Another important matter to be considered, is the fact that in these sentences, pupils
know they must be understood by the time they reach accurate structures afterwards. In
the forms provided, second language learners nod that they are constantly aware of a
necessary restructuring of their sentences since there is a logical relationship amongst
words in each sentence, which is evidence of a structural invention. Sentences like “About
two hours driving eastern from Bangkok.” “There is a night for asleep.” “I am not going to
get married when I will graduation the school.” are great examples of the process
mentioned above.

A final negative (interference) factor appears to be overgeneralization. Second

language - learners could face certain drawbacks when noticing about other groups of
learners´ needs despite the fact of sharing a similar language background which causes
them overgeneralize rules (Barriuso, Levis, Link. & Sonsaat, 2016). For example, learners
often show that they consider a strong version of their internal syllabus since they intend
to make a combination of simple past with regular verbs and “while/when” clauses with
past progressive. This last structure suggests that students learn past progressive before
simple past, but they have a confusion for adding the suffix “Ing” when dealing with past
progressive. This results in forming nouns that function as subjects of sentences.

“Foreign - language proficiency is determined by the lexico - semantic organization

from Spanish speakers” (Groot & Hooks, 1995, cited by Gass & Selinker, 2008). By taking
into consideration some regular basis on the rules that students often apply while being in

18
an interlanguage stage, this is easy to inference what students regularize and simplify
sentences as an avoidance act. For example, in the following sentences: “America
refused continual supported our military request.” “After finished my college studied, I
went to my country.” And “Doctors have the right to removed it from him.” regularization
turns out to be evident. All these three sentences show how regularization of rules is
applied for adding simple past initial verbs with another action.

The above rule seems to be part of Spanish language – grammar, one that often
requires two verbs in simple past to explain two different actions in simple past too. The
previous situation does not happen in English where only the first verb must be written or
said in simple past while the second action is expressed in its base form.

The probability that students overgeneralized, regularized, and transferred knowledge

[negatively] from their mother tongue is high, and the probability that students who made
this transfer [interference] and regularization have Spanish as their mother tongue is high
as well. This is a conclusion got as result of years of studies done by authors like De
Angelis, 1999; Dewaele, 1998; Ringbom, 1987, etc. on “language similarities and its
effects” (Gass & Selinker, 2008, p. 154).

Secondly, “there are some language - related factors as well, with more simplification
of content than function words” (Cenoz, 2001, cited by Gass & Selinker, 2008). Students’
written – productions of sentences sometimes show the simplification of certain items in.
Despite of the fact that omitting a comma in compound clauses does not result into a big
deal in speaking, it does in writing because the reader needs to know when to pause
when lecturing. A sentence like “After finished my college studied, I went to my country.”
is prove of that.

On the contrary, in the sentence “America refused continual supported our military
request.” the conjunction “to” is omitted even when this is necessary to join the main verbs
“refused” and “continue” but “ed” is added to “support” instead. In this final situation of
simplification and negative transfer, meaning convey results less unworkable since there
are three words that can act as verbs, but in this sentence only two have to be used as
such.

In sum, the situations (concepts) mentioned above, allow teachers to guide students
into a double - standard situation: firstly, being encouraged to benefit from positive
transfer and secondly, to have students not to overgeneralize rules and get aware of

19
negative transfer (interference). This definitely will improve the way teachers convey the
second language to students because they do not have to internalize an extra matter
apart from the language itself. Also, there is an internal language ability for discriminating
what is considered to be transferable (basic language matters) and what is not (offbeat
language systems).

4.5. Common problems students face when learning English

When learning a second language many errors appear to be done by learners. Despite
of the fact that a poor language – teaching process could be the main reason, most of the
time errors appear in students´ second language which are not the teachers´ culprit.
Regarding to this situation, Broughton, Brumfit, Flavell, Hill & Pincas (2003) state that
students´ errors are the result of some uncontrollable teaching elements like the syllabus
and wrong materials. Some general descriptions of students’ frequent errors during
second language acquisition are shown as well:

• Spoken language punctuated by pauses; at the beginning levels, students tend to

produce many pauses during their speech, of course, it is reasonably because
they are gaining time to elicit ideas first. However, these unpredictable pauses turn
their speech as incoherent and almost understandable.

• Students tend to overgeneralize rules. This happens especially when simple past
and modals are introduced for the first time. For example, learners generalize “ed”
suffix to show regular verbs in simple past as well as for irregular ones. The same
happens with modals like “must” that in past “musted” is assumed to be the
correct form. It is a clear problem of a negative - language – transfer [interference]
appearing once again.

• Word - order in English is not the same as the learners´ mother tongue. Although
initial structures share the same word order with target languages, the case is not
the same as progression takes place. For instance, basic word - order in simple
present in Spanish and English results similar “Yo tengo dos hermanos” “I have
two siblings” both of sentences follow the basic rule of “subject + verb +
complement”.

20
 Nonetheless, Broughton et al. (2003, p. 134) observed that as learning time passes, all
the grammar is practically covered by the planned syllabus...the drawback: Learners are
overloaded and overwhelmed from executing too much of a thing all together. In advance
levels where complex language structures are learned, orders change and result
confusing for the learners. One example is the evidence where the order of adjectives,
despite of being understandable, is not accepted in formal English but in Spanish it does;
“Mis primos tienen una nueva, grande y hermosa casa de madera.” in contrast to “My
cousins have a beautiful, big and new wooden house.”

Finally, evidence suggests that common errors produced by students learning a

second language are caused by the influence of their mother tongue. In other words,
problems of transfer (interference) base themselves mainly on the overgeneralization of
rules in the target language. This happens even to adult learners with a low pick of error –
production.

4.6. English syntax

Getting a vast knowledge of syntax is important to be acquainted of the structural

processes that a language follows. Miller (2008) states that Syntax has to do with how
words are put together to build phrases, with how phrases are put together to build
clauses or bigger phrases, and with how clauses are put together to build sentences.
Despite the fact that most people are unconscious of how structures are being created
while producing or receiving messages, syntax is of paramount importance to linguists,
teachers and other people concerned in language teaching – learning process.

When professionals have a clear sense in mind of how the language of their interest
works, that is, how the language is structured, people in concern focus on planning better
methodological approaches and methods to guarantee their pupils´ learning. Therefore,
knowing how English syntax works allows educators to plan courses in a way that is
progressive, genuine, authentic and at the same time directed to get effective
communication among participants.

According to the mentioned above, Burton (2011) argues that sometimes this turns
tough the way learners might determine the correct and wrong English statements.
Hence, when people know how basic structures work, language learning turns
progressive and more complex forms will be constructed. By the time that language is
understood to work like funnel whose complex language structures are formed by other

21
more basic ones, teachers are able to assure their learners´ language acquisition to whom
the target language is firstly provided by means of chops. As a consequence, teachers
think in teaching the most basic - language forms (lexis) first. Then, phrases will be taught,
followed by sentences to use in paragraphs. In the end, larger essays or speeches will be
formed by placing together different paragraphs.

When it comes to teaching the most basic agents of a language [words] teachers do
not have to take apart the matter of communication which is the main objective of
acquiring a new language. Teaching discrete points of language through communication
is essential to help learners getting used to interacting and using the aimed language
even when these isolated words are introduced.

Right after learning lexis, second language - students are prone to understand and
form phrases composed by joining single words. “So far learners have only looked the
isolated structure (such as it is) consisting of just a pronoun or just a name – single words
count as meaningful themselves in general structures” (Burton, 2011, p. 141). Therefore,
an effective understanding of phrases also depends on the understanding of how
collocations work in the target language, in this case, English.

By the time language - acquisition takes place, learners also get noticed of the types of
words they have learned. Second - language learners are able to differ words and classify
these words into nouns, verbs, adjectives, prepositions, etc. with notion of how these
words work, pupils are directed to form simple and complex sentences afterwards.
Learners understand what essential words follow others and how words are possible to be
used for transmitting the correct message. When staying at this stage of language, pupils
tend to differentiate amongst tenses. For example, structures in present and their
variabilities; simple and continuous are used differently from their variabilities in past and
future.

In addition, written and speech forms of language vary from affirmative, negative,
interrogative, modality or imperative. Learners need to manage to use these syntactic
forms in context by using adequate word orders in sentences. Therefore, distinctions
between types of sentences as well as the purpose these sentences are used must be
understood perfectly for conveying the right message.

As progression goes on, learners are able to use simple and complex sentences in
larger paragraphs. At the same time, language used is understood not only for conveying

22
thoughts, that is, by telling statements, negations, or commands, but also to convey
complete ideas and opinions that allow students interact, negotiate, or create larger
speech acts.

Miller (2008) also states that a lot of types of speech, not only the one that is informal
like conversations at home or among friends, differs from formal writing in relation to its
syntax use. Hence, different moods and modalities must be perfectly structured and used
in paragraphs which will form larger oral or written speeches. Having always in mind that
strong differences between syntax and conveyed meanings in certain situations (formal or
informal) where different topics (scientific, educational, informal conversations, etc.) exists
is of paramount importance.

Finally, being aware of how English syntax works is necessary for internalizing patterns
and avoiding errors in structures. Sometimes these errors are done because of students´
predisposition to review their mother tongue firstly. Still, internalizing patters is the advice
but reviewing structures before speaking is not recommended.

4.7. SLA (Second Language Acquisition): ESL (English as a Second

Language), EFL (English as a Foreign Language) and their common teaching
methods

Despite the many changes and status that teaching - language methods have suffered
on the last two decades; the study of the different teaching methods continues to form a
significant component of teacher preparation and teaching programs. “There are different
ways to acquire another language, which can be in a formal way as in a classroom
environment, or informal way such as when the learner picks up the language by being
culturally active participant of the society” (Garibaldi, 2013, p. 2). In this sense, every
single language - teaching method contributes to teaching a language in a different and
sometimes in an integrated way, just like the communicative language teaching, the
grammar translation method, CLIL, immersion programs or task - based instruction do.

These approaches are indispensable to know because they provide the teacher with a
view of how the language teaching functions, and they can be adapted to teachers`
practices based on their own needs. In order to understand the fundamental nature of
methods in language teaching, it is good to conceptualize the notion of each method

23
mentioned before, more systematically depending on the learning program they are part
of.

In the first instance, SLA (Second Language Acquisition) is a language – learning

program in which adults, children, or people in general could be engaged to learn a new
language naturally. Sadtono (1991) indicates that the acquisition could be gotten in formal
or informal settings, and in second or foreign language scenarios. In relation to formal
environments, students or people who are to learn a new language are enrolled in places
or institutions whose language used for communication is the target one. Hence, in
schools, institutions, or Universities where, for example, English is used as a second
language, learners receive most of knowledge or information through the second
language (English).

Most of formal places for learning English as a second language are considered to be
totally or partially bilingual, thus, no less than 50% of the information is transferred by dual
subjects (subjects taken in English and the mother tongue). Regarding to the other field
[the informal] learners are not necessarily engaged in schools, universities, or any other
language – learning institution to develop their language skills. Language learners could
be immersed in Laboral or practicum interchanges to develop these skills more
significatively. Afterall, these is true as Garibaldi (2013) added “this is extremely important
to implement motivation and provide sufficient language exposure to the learner right from
the start of the learning journey regardless of how old the learner is”.

Following this further, in informal contexts English is often learned as a second

language (ESL). Sadtono et al. (1991, p.10) suggests that the places where second
language is learned had increased hugely on the last two decades. Methods like
immersion programs, CLIL or interchanges aimed to students and workers to develop
their studies and professional careers in English speaking countries are great examples of
these way of language acquisition.

On the other hand, EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learning are programs where
language is acquired in totally – formal fields. In this context, second language is not used
every day in the community because this has not been declared as official in the country.
In other words, English is taught as a subject or formal course to be overcome during
schooling periods. This way of language acquisition differs from ESL (English as a
Second Language) on the matter of exposition which is completely restricted to school
time only.

24
 In line with the above statement “foreign language teaching considers itself a case of
educational exceptionalism and rather acknowledge that is only different because this is
harder, and therefore requires a more complex methodology and planning to succeed”
(Villacañas, 2013, p. 100). In the end, EFL ((English as a Foreign Language) is devoted to
English language itself where preparation for examinations depend on limited time of
exposition without extension to other subjects.

4.8. ESL (English as a Second Language) common methods

Contexts where ESL takes place are devoted to facilitating students´ interaction with
others by means of the target language. These contexts at the same time must assure
students´ exposition to the language of interest in a high range. The most common
methods to this purpose are CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) and the
immersion method.

4.8.1. CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning)

“Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is an overarching term covering a

wide range of educational approaches from immersion, bilingual education, or language
showers, to enriched language programs “(Yassin, Tek, Alimon, Baharon, & Ying, 2010,
cited by Ávila 2014, p. 2). Through this methodology, both language and content take the
same importance and the two matters are interconnected. Therefore, there is a dual
benefit from acquiring the language through this method: content of a subject matter is
learned while the target language (English) is practiced and reviewed. By the time CLIL is
applied, learners develop a deeper extent on language learning in a way that intends to be
more experiential.

(Marsh, Maljers, & Hartiala, 2001, cited by Ávila, 2014, p. 2) explain that many different
observations for applying CLIL within institutions have been made as this has benefits to
education in language acquisition. These reasons base on context, content, language
acquisition and culture. Therefore, CLIL applied in context helps language learners to
perform well on globalized educational and laboral matters while content notions help
learners understand and discriminate scientific information, which is helpful to future
studies.

Finally, by the time students are acquiring a second language through CLIL method, a
sense of tolerance and cultural awareness is developed. In CLIL language is learned

25
orally and through the arts. Students´ motivation also arises since language is prone to be
used as the vehicle for getting and transmitting information. In addition, since learners are
forced to use only English in communicative acts, metacognitive processes are also
developed specially when pupils have the necessity to constantly accommodate,
negotiate and transmit information of paramount importance which, of course, must be
guided only in English since the very beginning and without referring to the mother
tongue.

4.8.2. The immersion program (method)

The idea of reaching proficiency in a second language [English] is argumentized on the

bases of stages. In primary school, children learn meaning and basic structures while in
secondary and university studies they need to develop language use and function
(Graddol, 2006). Immersion programs, therefore, based on developing the use of the
target language in real and vivid contexts, more specifically, countries or communities
where the target language is officially spoken [English speaking countries].

“In USA, for example, districts have the freedom to select the model(s) most suited to
the needs of its students, as there is no single federal or state - mandated ESL program
model” (English as a second language manual, 2008, P. 25). Thus, in its guide for
Teaching English as a second language the American Education shows the following
programs for its language acquisition:

• Sheltered English Instruction (appropriate for all level); teachers show their
students the language in an instructional environment. The language acquisition -
process bases on motor activities such exercises and visual aids such as visual
material and realia.

• Structured English Immersion; focuses on the language itself (English) not on its
content. It is aimed to raising fluency rapidly with much bilingual support.

• Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English; despite the fact that lessons
must be scaffolded, students are required to have an intermediate knowledge of
English since language progression depends on the revision of specific content
matters.

26
 • Content - based English Instruction; Students have an increased focus on core
content versus explicit language acquisition. Learning instruction is given to
content acquisition through the target language.

• Pull-Out English Instruction: shorter groups of learning are formed by grouping

other students from current larger groups. These are applied to carry on research
projects or comparison language - learning models.

• Push-In English Instruction; enlarges the quantity of periods learners are in pairs in
their actual classes. This reduces the periods they are out of main instruction.

In conclusion, methods that have students immersed in vividly learning – environments

focus themselves on using language communicatively. The immersion method in The
United States of America assures students´ learning of English for a purpose. By the end,
students enrolled in immersion methods use this second language to functionally receive
and transfer information of their own interest. This program inhibits the possibility to refer
and transfer information from the mother tongue since language is learned in context by
the time this is used every time in all days.

4.9. EFL (English as a Foreign Language) common methods

Language teaching and learning is assumed to be different in relation to their influence

on language theories and learning conditions. Differences on learning theories get
teachers, instructors, or facilitators to select teaching and learning resources (materials)
while differences on learning conditions have instructors to choose an adequate method
on the actual context.

According to EFL Sadtono (1991) [English as a Foreign Language] is learning a new

language but the process takes place in formal contexts only. The previous statement
shows that this is not the same to learn a second language just like the mother tongue
was learned than learning another language in places where this is not used every day.
Learning a second language, for example English, where the acquisition takes place in
England, or The United States is not the same than learning the same language in places
where English only has a very formal grade of exposition. Public schools of Ecuador are
great instances of this situation.

27
 On the contrary, in foreign language contexts, Setiyadi (2020) agrees that learning is
assumed as language acquisition with total awareness and through intentional aims. This
means that while language learning takes place, students are almost always aware of the
learning grade they are developing. Structural rules, references, comparisons to their
mother tongue, grades of advance, etc. are just some indicators of the grade of
awareness these students possess.

Nevertheless, error correction is not done through the target language and society
does not influence learning through positive feedback since the target language is not
often spoken. The grammar translation, task - based instruction and community language
learning methods are often applied for learning English in contexts like Ecuador, where
this language is often acquired as a foreign one.

4.9.1. The grammar translation method

” Grammar translation is a way of studying a language that approaches this through

detailed analysis of its grammar rules, followed by application of this knowledge to the
task of translating texts into and out of, the target language” (Richards & Rodgers, 2008,
p. 3). Besides, second language is often acquired through the application of the following
tasks and teaching strategies:

• This kind of instruction is considered to be an approach more like a method since

the focus is on reading and writing. Almost no attention is paid to listening and
speaking.

• Vocabulary is learned through a vast discrimination of items; sometimes these

items are selected and grouped by categories and sometimes these are randomly
chosen from a text. The idea is to know literally their meaning and equivalents in
relation to one´s mother tongue.

• A vast knowledge in grammar is the main goal; students´ purpose to have a

domain on grammar rules and structures is required as to reach accuracy on
translations. This means that language learning through this method bases on
studying the target language rather than using this. Indeed, knowledge on syntax
and morphology as well as a vast number of lexis acquired through memorization,
are the results of learning a language through this approach.

28
 • Most of the time grammar rules (tenses) are presented first in order to apply them
afterwards in isolated (not integrated) exercises. Clearly, language is not put into
practice and translation exercises show that language of instruction is the native
one. (Richards & Rodgers, 2008, p. 4).

In brief, this approach makes learners detail the target language by parts as well as by
isolating items and language structures. Therefore, learners focus on the analysis of a
language rather than on using this for communication. Still, learning language through
translations has students use their mother tongue - patterns (Spanish) all of the time and
this forces those patterns to be used on the target language (English) even when the two
structures of these languages do not match each other.

A final important consequence when over translating texts, from English to Spanish or
vice versa, results in that the words and the order of lexis share the same principles in
both of languages. This is shown by Christiane (2008) that this turns a usual rule not
aimed to draw one actual condition of stuff (on the other hand, learners might not regret
the scarce grade of too much translation).

4.9.2. Task - based instruction

Task - based instruction is a language - learning method based on the execution of

global activities. Through the execution of these activities, TBLT encourages as well as
pushes abilities be integrated by means of real - life tasks which enhance pupils´
communication (Córdova, 2016). Thus, learning scenarios are sat for reaching three main
goals; primarily that students are asked to develop a project, which is constructed
employing the execution of different pre – tasks.

Secondly, students are immersed in the acquisition of a solution to a real-world (life)

problem, which means that effective matters and emotions are present while the research
is taking place, especially in a collaborative effort. Finally, in language learning, students
are directed to learn the target language by the time corrective feedback, input, and output
are provided in this process, thus, the second language is acquired or enhanced.

According to the mentioned above, students are often asked to generate ideas on the
project they desire to reach. Hence, learners seek, think, and decide on how to execute
short steps (pre–tasks), which are usually molded by the teacher (facilitator) to assure
students´ effectiveness on the final work.

29
 As students decide on coping with a real or actual problematic situation, they also
share emotions, thoughts, and opinions on this. In projects “tasks provide contexts for
negotiating and comprehending meanings of language provided by input or used by a
partner performing the same task… within a situated communication context that can
foster form-function-meaning mapping and … that motivate learners to learn" (Robinson,
2011, p.2). This act turns into an effective way to link students social and psychological
bonds.

By the time students work collaboratively, they also develop a sense of empathy with
one another, so much so that, interest in reaching the response (solution) to their problem
is generated as well because the problem itself is a matter that concerns the whole
working – area.

In the end, through performing tasks based in projects, students work into a real
situation for enhancing communication. A different approach, but still within sociocultural
theory, is also presented: “within the context of immersion education -- there is a strong
focus on structural development, but the proposed key to such development concerns the
potential of different tasks to enable language understanding to be scaffolded by
participants, mutually, through interaction” (Skehan, 2003, p. 5).

This last matter could be sat as to work using environments where the idea is to
incorporate “a sociocultural approach of interaction” during the process. Therefore, a
double pedagogical aim is to be reached. That is, by the time students look for the
solution to a vivid problem, they also interact amongst them and receive corrective
feedback, errors – checking or positive transfer (input and output given by other students),
which is the best alternative to have pupils improve all their target language - skills
[listening, speaking, reading, and writing] using practice in context.

However, an important question arises; what happens if students are not well directed
into this important method, and they decide to negotiate through their mother tongue while
performing the project? The response is evident; students enhance abilities in their mother
tongue rather than improving skills in the target language (English). Another negative
effect takes place when learners get used to using the same structures from their mother
tongue (Spanish) in English.

On the contrary, Skehan (2003) stated that ‘fresh’, ‘competent’, and ‘essential’,
resulting tasks that allow patterns, however, singular word orders are not proposed; are

30
managed to be well - directed whether one singular structure is handled. When task
based – instruction is well directed, students are offered the opportunity to constantly use
the language genuinely and authentically for solving their problems (tasks) and for coping
with their immediate need (communication). This is the reason why the facilitator (teacher)
must be aware of the pupils´ target - language use in communicative situations while the
tasks are taking place.

Thus, the most important thing, is to get learners acquainted with words, collocations,
and structures from the target language in use not to reinforce the language that learners
already know neither to mix the mother and the second language forms. The idea agrees
with Córdoba (2016) who remarked that in Anglo -Saxon tongue, learning trough projects
is nodded as paramount importance for assisting language use as well as to soften the
acquisition of this language by having the learner active within the class.

4.9.3. Community language – learning

Although community languge - learning seems to be used more in environments where

English is learned as a second language, this is described by Lin & Chien (2008) as being
conducted through a dimension of pupils focused on learning who ought to be engaged in
tasks required by the respective instructors within classrooms. In effect, this method is
usually applied in contexts where language is used formally. More specifically, schools
where English is learned as a foreign language have adopted this approach from
curricular methodologies proposed in other school subjects.

Clearly, this approach centers on student´s learning and participation. Just like task -
based - instruction does, community languge – learning pushes cooperation, participation,
and assistance among students while interaction with the teacher is scarce. Therefore,
pair - work, group - work, dialogues for simulating language acts and brainstorming are
perfect activities for centering attention on second – languge learners.

Following this farther, this has sense what Lin & Chien (2008) explained that pupils’
execution within sat activities as well as emotions they show on language acquisition must
be regarded specifically essential. Hence, the languge teacher takes the role of a
facilitator once again. The teacher´s participation does not mercy to consume much time,
thus, instructors take the role of consultants instead.

31
 In relation to the mentioned above, this method must be completely well - fostered to
the aims this really sets. When teachers leave students completely alone within
environments where English is spoken not as a second language, the great possibility for
performing activities in learning communities through the mother tongue (Spanish) exists.

Nurhasanah (2015) argued that pupils turn timid, unconfident and too calm at the
moment of interacting in English in and out of the classroom. Therefore, enough time that
the teacher takes for taking roles adequately as well as the specific moments where
interactions with pupils take place, must be adequately planned in order not to let students
interact through the regardless languge.

Finally, Not allowing learners´ diglossia taking place between the mother tongue
(Spanish) and the target one (English), especially when proficiency on the target language
(English) has not been reached, is important for avoiding wrong structures in phrases or
sentences in the second language.

4.10. TELF (Teaching English as a Lingua Franca)

Nation & Newton (2009, p.1) state the following:

Strands of meaning in TELF (Teaching English as a Lingua Franca) are the result
of focused input, meaning focused output, language - focused learning, and
fluency development. In a well - balanced language program covering the four
skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, each of the four strands should
have roughly equal amounts of time. The organization of the book largely reflects
these four strands.

Learning psychologists and all those evolved in the English teaching & learning -
process have presented and proposed some models which are popular in the path for
reaching the very desirable goal, speaking English. In this sense, there is a great
distinction between Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) and Teaching
English as a Second Language (TSL). As this has been discussed previously, In the first
approach, it is assumed that speakers are taught English as a foreign language in a
context where it is not officially spoken or used every day. On the contrary, Teaching
English as a second language deals with getting students to acquire their second tongue
by placing them in contexts which are sat, created, or fostered to this process. Each form
of English learning owns stronger approaches to learn English as a second language.

32
 Nonetheless, as described by Fogg (2019) English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) is the
preferred approach to be reached by new English speakers. Given the fact that this form
of acquiring English pretends to create an understandable decoding between native
speakers and non – native ones, this situation results easier for learners not to look
towards a native accent but to a means of communication only.

Another matter to be considered when getting English as a second language is the

objective of the process [communication]. Zoghbor (2018) claimed that when students
start to learn English, they are not able to understand native accents or at least it causes
them to struggle with understanding. Even though, this causes learners to create their
own rules and forms for decoding the new language which sometimes ends up into
fossilization, especially when learners are not able to activate their latent language
structure. As a result, it is probable that new English speakers turn their accent to another
that is not the native one.

Despite of the fact that some contexts view a native accent like the correct one, to
reach a means of communication is the aim of most English learners. As learners do not
pretend to perpetuate English with its vernacular style, non - native accents turn into a
way of identifying where speakers come from. Nation et al. (2009, p.1) also claim that
getting fluency and using the language with known items and features by applying the four
abilities [listening, speaking, reading, and writing]; in other words, being communicatively
efficient is the achievement in mind.

All of the mentioned above, gets teachers to consider what the main and general
factors for teaching learners through a particular way [accent] are. No matter what
language style is used but the most important thing is to get students to communicate with
other people. This idea of using English as a lingua franca is the best option to motivate,
let and persuade students to use the target language in class constantly, of course,
without pushing them to gain perfect pronunciation but to reach efficient communication.
Hence, the essential factor of using accurate structures, collocations and lexis from the
target language persists.

4.10.1. Communicative Language – Teaching (CLT)

Through the course of the years “communicative competence” has gained a large field
in the discussion of language learning. Communicative competence is a term used for
determining that language must be learned to be used not to be categorized within

33
theoretical schemas. As this was claimed by Richards (2006) competence shows matters
of language utterances, elucidation, as well as interchange of sense while SLA (Second
Language Acquisition) seems to be dependent from linguistically – psychological, social,
and cultural facts.

Certainly, getting learners to do things with language in order to express concepts and
conduct different communicative acts is the central functional goal to be reached. Some
examples are the graphs and tables used through the course of communicative lessons.
Graphs and tables help students become more communicative as they help them to
organize their ideas in such a vast universe of language.

The types of mnemonics described above, help pupils keep focused on a given
subject, which is the basis of a conversation. According to Stern (1992) the
communicative approach has influenced a language pedagogy which makes some
allowances at all levels of teaching for a non - analytical (experimental or participatory)
and communicative components. The questions presented in the text can be an example
of this pedagogical language aimed to a more effective communicative participation.

Then, language learning communicatively centers on the creation and implementation

of learning activities that approach students into communicative scenarios that allow to
use language functionally and for a purpose. Communicative language teaching does not
assess learning quantitively, that is, by means of decreasing knowledge – matters. This
views pupils´ qualitative achievements as progressive facts instead. Provided that CLT
centers on learners´ needs for communication as well as their capacity to use language
functionally, a frame of language evaluation is expected to be designed on the basis of
effective communication rather than on the basis of accuracy.

Regarding to communicative activities, questions in texts provide information about the

real life of the students. Nonetheless, there is no guarantee that there will be a more
advanced level as one question pulls another one, which makes the discussion less lively
because students tend to ramble. Despite the fact that sometimes motivation level may
drop due to the lack of vocabulary which also deals to a level of difficulty, questions in
class often take more information from students. As a result, more knowledge is actually
gotten to reach the communicative competence.

In like manner, Richards (2006) also affirms that communicative competence refers not
only to the ability to ask and answer in interactions, but also to develop aspects such as

34
non – verbal discrimination. Other aspects evolved in real interactions to use the language
in different contexts and with different participants are understanding and producing
different types of texts as well as knowing how to continue a conversation despite the
limitations of accuracy.

Suggested activities in the course books are often useful, but the need to use this in a
more communicative way often arises too. Thus, by performing vivid situations with
frequency, learners are able to practice the new language in context and get better
communicative competences. Because culture is known as a tool in modeling learners’
communicative performance, using language communicatively in foreign - like
environments, assures students´ predisposition to use the target language constantly
instead of studying its structures and comparing them with their mother tongue.

4.11. How to teach English vocabulary

According to Harmer (2007) language is decoded not just according to its literal
meaning but also according to the contexts this happens or takes place. Sometimes
conversations evolve words that have one meaning in a context, but another meaning is
decoded in another one. Hence, getting words together correctly as to create strings of
language appropriate in any context is of paramount importance to hold a coherent
conversation.

Moreover, the action of linking appropriate words create grammar in context. When
talking about contexts, the reference is not just given to those environments where spoken
language is the main act, thus, Harmer (2007) also states that half of the time that
language is produced, at least happens on written texts. Of course, written texts are
produced from diverse topics, and these are directed to a particular group of people or
professionals. In this way, rhetoric is one main element to be used and linking words
appropriately is of main concern because coherence and understandable meaning must
be produced.

Teachers have got a huge concern on teaching vocabulary to their pupils. One of the
usuals manners for doing this is teaching lexis (words) by means of lists of categories
written down as recorded - vocabularies. Teachers tend to ask students to list words by
means of categorical groups like, animals, verbs (regular or irregular), adjectives, school
materials, etc. even when this functions well for learning vocabulary, the active learning is
not always present during the internalization.

35
 Iqram (2015) shows in addition to writing lists of words by headlines, teachers must get
pupils use items at least once again. For example, when learning lexis listed previously on
categories of adjectives and irregular verbs like” Tessa is amazed by the things she
heard on the meeting”, language learners must be able to use synonyms according to the
context but without losing coherence. Thus, the synonyms used respectively will produce
the same sentence actively but with other appropriate words;” Tessa is surprised by the
things she listened to on the meeting”.

”A speaker’s knowledge of a word also includes an understanding of how the shape of

that word can be altered so that its grammatical meaning can be changed” (Harmer, 2007,
p. 61). According to this, “morphology” plays a centric role since this system helps
language producers [speakers and writers] to determine the rules they need / must apply
within the actual context of negotiation.

One curious matter of assembling words appropriately to a context, takes place when
students or speakers, in general, do morphological changes. A right morphological
change would be appropriate by adding the correct suffix to the root of the word. However,
the suffix added must show a description, etc. or this must be within the same categorical
function for getting the required coherence in speech or writing.

Later, for instance, when holding a conversation about vacations on the beach using
“warmish” in this context, refers to a female description of the place, which is correct, but
using “hot” turns not appropriate because the senses this word produces fall in ambiguity;
that is, this gives listeners or active language - participants that food there is not able to be
eaten or maybe that place is almost not habitable because of its extreme temperatures.

To sum up, students must not be just taught vocabulary by means of isolated words,
groups of words, or categories but they must be encouraged to reach coherence actively
when using, transforming, linking, and combining words. As Iqram (2015) claims that
heeding language learners in this way, language production is prone to be rhetorical and
consequent with the conversational contexts this is produced in.

4.11.1. The lexical approach

Lewis (2005, p. 6) states that:

36
 “The Lexical Approach suggests a much more central, even defining,
role for lexis….remains useful categories, providing them as semantic
categories, rather than restricting them to the grammatical or semantic
categories as advocated ... Structural syllabuses include the category, the
Comparative; within a meaning-centered syllabus it may be appropriate to
introduce the category comparison, grouping together different items which
compare, more or less overtly; a massive number of collocations could be
got by reading and pronunciation of words. Other activities are store words,
phrases and idioms on a notebook, give antonyms and synonyms, write
word definitions, write sentences with newly learned sentences”.

Apart from the conventional and metacognitive activities presented to let students
internalize large vocabularies by means of reading, definitions, active practice,
comparisons with synonyms and antonyms, the fuctional and effective production will take
place from students by repeating a generated list of words appearing also on a tape
script. Teachers reinforce every single situation where words are wrongly actively used
and pronounced. This helps students learn words to be used not to be stored.

This turns usual to notice that most of students had not enriched their English skills
especially in listening and speaking which are skills tending to be the result of a reaction
to physical items as well as audio and visual ones. Language learners often expressed
that their most difficult skills to perform are speaking and listening since facilitators taught
them a slow and paused pronunciation which is different.

A very regular problem found in English learners whose mother tongue is Spanish, is
the generalized pronunciation of words which are phonetically similar, or which do not
exist in their vernacular tongue. One example is the production of a plosive /p/ especially
in segments where the bilabial /b/ would be correct. In most of cases students try to
produce /b/ as it were a /p/. The problem appears right after correcting /p/ as a plosive;
say in “stop”, that is, after asking students to pronounce final /p/ strongly, they start
assimilating initial /b/ as plosive too.

A second example appears in “baby”, “but” or “body”. The reason for this problem to
appear is because in Spanish there is not a distinction amongst strong consonants. In
other words, students think that what is general in their mother tongue [Spanish] is
general in English too. In relation to exposure, exercise and explanation, the Lexical
approach applies what, Dalton and Seidlhofer’s (1994) as well as Martinez (2013)

37
coincide in, that is; at the beginning speakers must be exposed to new language to get a
real phonemic and pragmatic input that helps them copy language matters such as tone,
articulation or even accents.

Provided that exposure is frequent, students practice assimilating and producing the
language with the most possible and correct meaning and articulation. Suprasegmental
matters such as rhythm, pitch and stress can also be assimilated during practice. By the
end, instructors or partners provide them feedback, which can be aimed to help them use
words in speaking. Even when explanation could be present in all stages, the final
feedback is gotten to restate the real (true / correct) use of words and pronunciation.

Regarding to the production of lexis functionally, one of the pervasive practices on the
Lexical Approach suggests an anatomic explanation given by the teacher or facilitator.
Underhill (2005) shows various anatomic tips for getting the correct articulation of English
words……. by focusing on the larynx as the main organ, learners can achieve the correct
sounds and articulations. Thus, teachers could have English learners watch videos and
sounds of the correct position of muscles of the larynx as well as breathing and lips´
position to produce right words.

In short, teachers when The Lexical Approach takes place in language learning,
teachers not often worry about introducing activities that encourage students to reach a
correct use of words and their understandable pronunciation. Also, by planning activities
that require learners assure their right pronunciation and enjoy themselves while learning,
through the The Lexical Approach, teachers must be sure to direct students not to think in
Spanish because English is the target language. In this way, instructors have pupils focus
on their thoughts and speaking on English only.

4.11.2. Collocations, friendly words, and false cognates

When dealing with the correct production of a new language, the tendency to produce
mistakes is always present in language learners. During second language acquisition
contrasting the learner´s mother tongue with the target one is usually taken as the most
popular metacognitive strategy. Nonetheless, structures naturally produced, called
“collocations” appears to be an innate rule to be followed. During the intend to produce
well collocated phrases, friendly words and false cognates take an important role as well.

38
 “Collocations are a phenomenon of lexical selection: the base selects its word orders;
collocations show a grammatical relation between the two elements, e.g., verb + object,
verb + subject, attributive adjective + noun, etc. “(Heid & Prinsloo, 2008, p. 1358). The
tendency of collocating words naturally makes a sense of “idiomatization” appear. This
tendency also shows the learner´s understanding of pragmatic and morpho – syntactic
functions in his / her second language. When these functions are not well used because
they are not rightly collocated, negative effects on translations and equivalents for
meaning often appear when contrastive analysis is required.

Consequently, Heid & Prinsloo (2008) show that when translation occurs, equivalents
are examined carefully which turns efficient if items turn phonetically alike in both codes of
interest, codes must have the same meanings as well. The ineffective equivalent is the
product of using similar decoded words wrongly between the learner´s first and target
languages. Equivalents which share the same meaning between the mother tongue and
the target language and, whose phonetic code is similar are called true cognates or
“friendly words”.

One pair example of true cognates occurs in “Natural from Spanish” and “Natural from
English” even when the plosive production and the rhotic articulation is produced in
English, the two words have the same meaning in both languages (Def. a place
surrounded by endemic – living thigs). False cognates or false friends, on the other hand,
are those words appearing to be phonetically similar between two languages, but their
meanings are totally opposite. Mistakes happen by the time these are produced to
transmit the same idea or meaning in two languages of interest.

Herman (2016) introduced a list of the most common false cognates appearing in
English and Spanish contrast.

English word Spanish equivalent Spanish word English equivalent

Actually Real, efectivo Actulmente Currently
Assist Ayudar Asistir Attend
Carpet Alfombra Carpeta Folder
embarrassed Avergonzada Embarazada Pregnant
Exit Salida Éxito Success, hit
Fabric Tela Fábrica Factory
introduced Presenter Introducir Insert

39
Large Grande Largo Long
Grocery Tienda de abarrotes Groceria Rudeness
Support Apoyar Soportar Tolerate

“False friends constitute pitfalls for language production as well as reception” (Gouws,
Prinsloo and Schryver, 2004, cited by Heid & Prinsloo, 2008). During language learning,
students must be conscious of similar words appearing in their mother language as well
as in the target one. Learners must pay special attention, however, to false cognates
since these do not often share the same meaning, function, and usage.

4.12. Sociolinguistics; Diglossia and Polyglossia

Holmes (2013) claims that the procuct of the analysis between language and the
society where this language is produced is known as sociolinguistics. In reference to this
analysis sociolinguists are in charge of identifying the different ways of using the language
in different contexts. That is, how languge is used differently to convey different meaning
according to a specific social situation.

By means of language examinations, those who are interested in language teaching

are able to provide themselves with information about language function and
constructions. Hence, messages about peoples´ relationships and social identity are to be
understood as well. According to these main characteristics, sociolinguistics distinguishes
two main forms of social communication among members of the same community and the
same language usage: “Diglossia” and “Polyglossia”.

Holmes (2013) states that “Diglosia” has the following features:

1. Two distinct varieties of the same language are used in the community, with one
regarded as a high (or H) variety and the other a low (or L) variety.

2. Each variety is used for quite distinct functions; H and L complement each other.

3. No one uses the H variety in everyday conversation. (Holmes, 2013, p. 27).

Alternatively, “Polyglossia” is a term designed for situations where people use more
than one code (language), approximately three, for different social conversations. In
general, while or after learning a second language, speakers are prone to use this code

40
not only for conveying meaning but also for producing social messages. In the case of
learning “English” within the classroom, the wrong impression of practicing “Diglosia” and
“Polyglossia” turns evident when students mix their mother or first tongues with the
language they are learning. False “Diglossia” or “Polyglossia” tend to happen when
language is taught by means of translations or through the students´ first language.

4.13. Receptive and productive skills; effective communication

On the onset of the new millennium language learning has been based and centered
on integrated competences rather than in isolated skills. The big deal alludes to the fact
that there is no single theory or paradigm that shows linguists, teachers and even learners
how to strictly incorporate these skills in the learning process to achieve complete and
effective results.

However, there always exists the risk of getting stagnant in language learning.
“Fossilization, a mechanism…underlies surface linguistic material which speakers will
tend to keep in their IL receptive and productive performance, no matter what the age of
the learner or the amount of instruction he receives in the TL” (Wei, 2008, p. 127).
Therefore, it is worth to explain the perspective of how receptive skills [reading and
listening,] as well as productive skills [speaking and writing] in EFL are considered and
applied for reaching effective outcomes in language learning.

In reading, activities often follow this sequence; pre – reading, while – reading and
after – reading which means that there must be an established plan to cope with them.
Since passages are usually used for introducing new words and structures, learners can
inference that those sections were written under real situations to cope with in classes.
According to Silberstein (1993) the process of reading a text from the bottom is based to
the linguistic aspect and does not obey to the readers´ previous knowledge. Thus, reading
requires analyzing the text by taking parts of the language, in this case (the target
language not the mother one) and matching words and phrases to their definitions are
also pervasive activities.

In addition, most of the time reading activities suggest both reading for pleasure or
information. Despite of the fact that reading activities are aimed to be evaluated from the
perspective of understanding and comprehension, these also underpin to make
inferences, predictions, and quotations by looking at the layout as well. In listening,
communicative perspectives bloom. These activities propose an active role from students

41
since they are directed to predict what they are going to listen about while they answer
warm up questions and look at pictures. Mundhe (2015) claimed that pupils listen
everything that teachers said while classes take place, and for having learners´ receptive
skills well developed, instructors must foster tasks that allow these skills improve.

Listeners are thought to prepare their role from the transactional organization of ideas
for interacting with the speaker afterwards. Additionally, certain situations shown in
activities like the description of a group of friends for example, have learners prepare
themselves to have information from scripts usual in similar events where syntactic
knowledge also has a lot to do in this process of internalization. In other words, listeners
are considered addressees who do not have a direct interaction with the speaker but have
many allowed opportunities to answer by means of guessing or inferences.

As cited by Wei (2008) Sims (1989) mentions that opportunities for production of
language in its oral form (speaking) or in its written form (writing) always arise. In the case
of students who have more freedom to write sentences, reaching micro - skills like
constructing sentences with basis and personal opinions to show agreeing or disagreeing
are constant. There is not any kind of limitation of the verbal forms or vocabulary used.
Instead, the use of background knowledge is required. In the case of oral production, the
students could prepare a discourse about their thoughts of any topic, and to propose a
solution for any problem. All these represents a very formal situation and implies a tidy
and well-structured speech.

On the other hand, writing tasks are orientated to correct mistakes, to make students
realize the correct way to construct sentences. Instructions almost always require easy
lines to facilitates the realization of the students and reflective questions are usually
proposed to complete an assignment as tidy as possible.

“If communication is looked from another angle, it involves the perception of the
information as much as the delivery of that information… communication is the art of
creating ideas and depends on the richness of those ideas to be effective” (MTD, 2010,
p.10). Therefore, Productive as well as receptive skills must be well directed, stablished,
and evaluated without errors or language interferences. If teachers are to measure pure
and accurate foreign language, no interferences are present during the language learning.
In other words, the real message must be understood and casted without linguistic
distortion or mixture of languages.

42
 5. METHODOLOGY

For executing this investigation, numerous books, journals, magazines, and other
studies were read; these were analyzed, and the most relevant information was extracted
in bibliographical forms. Also, much information was taken from camp work like
observations during training classes, survey application, and revision of assignment. This
information was checked and adapted to the literature review when necessary. Thus, a
thorough description of the research approach, type of research, and research tools is
given afterwards:

5.1 Description of the research approach

“Qualitative research is a type of educational research in which the researcher relies

on the views of participants …and conducts the inquiry in a subjective, biased manner”
(Creswell, 2008, p. 45). This work applies a qualitative approach because the objective of
the research is to explain and describe "the reasons" of the overuse of Spanish while
learning English as well as the reason why the nature of the link between bibliographic
and field information happens. Given the fact that data is collected through observation
and through the researcher’s perspective, results are not objective at all. In fact, without
field interference, causes of this actual problem are shown since the researcher´s point of
view.

This work is also quantitative since data shown by its research instruments [surveys]
are tabulated, represented, and displayed in statistical charts. The graphs display
concrete numbers and percentages to the readers. By means of this approach, the current
study turns objective and the answers to the research questions will be clear, concise, and
understandable.

In conclusion, this work will be focused on a mix – method approach (qualitative and
quantitative). Hence, conclusions will be reported in relation to the numeric results gotten
from the survey – tabulation. At the same time, these results will be described and
interpreted by using evidenced - sample performances as well as the participants and the
researcher points of view.

5.2 Description of the research type

43
 This research has the following characteristics: this bases on documentary facts,
applies field research and turns correlational with a qualitative paradigm and socio-
educational approach, since this determines the overuse of Spanish in EFL classes
focused on EFL students at superior sublevel at “Humberto Vacas Gómez” school in
Ecuador.

The present research is documentary, since this describes the characterization of the
variables that engage a problematic situation through the literature review. As stated by
Madrid (2019) field research like; cases studies, bases on few participants and sometimes
this turns longitudinal, which means that the participants are tracked through their
development for a long time. Therefore, this investigation also applies field research as
the data will be collected and recorded directly from “Humberto Vacas Gómez” school
where this investigation is developed.

Besides, Mackey & Gass (2011) claim that moderator variables are features of
subjects, maybe processing variables which join together both; a dependent variable and
an independent one. Thus, this study is also correlational because this tends to measure
the degree of relationship that exists between the variables. That is, how the independent
variable; the overuse of Spanish in EFL classrooms, influences the dependent variable;
incidence and causes of overusing Spanish in EFL classrooms. In addition, there exists
the need to corelate these two variables in order to confirm whether the hypothesis raised
is true or null.

This research focuses on the need of solving the students´ pervasive problems while
learning English: speaking with wrong pronunciation, slowly and with much translation
which also makes these hard for listeners to understand. Mackey & Gass (2011) also
show that correlation might be done in two ways: to prove connections amongst variables
or to hypothesize facts. Following this farther, this investigation is aimed to find the causes
of overusing Spanish forms while learning English by taking an Ecuadorian public school
as the core of the study.

Humberto Vacas Gómez is a public school located in Quito – Ecuador. It is a school

that has morning and afternoon working days. The institution has 10 grades which belong
to preparatory - sublevel, media – sublevel and superior – sublevel, respectively. This
school has 1160 students and 40 teachers. 4% of the students belong to indigenous
ethnics. Therefore, two languages are considered to be L1 in every single class because

44
some students speak Kichwa and Spanish but only Spanish will be considered for this
investigation.

An important matter in relation to participants: Mackey & Gass (2011) report that
information when choosing a task for human subjects must be provided particularly. For
this study, 102 students who belong to three grades from sublevel - superior (8th, 9th, and
10th) were selected. Ages of students range from 11 – 15. The current English teaching
curriculum as well as the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(CEFR) and its international standards suggest students from this school reach an “A2.1”
English profile when finishing superior - sublevel.

In the light of the context, some situations related to the students´ characteristics and
educational setting have been identified. There are 34 students ranging from 12 and 15
years old in the three classes taken as the study population. Classes take place in the
afternoon and most of students do not work or have any other extracurricular activity
before classes. Students are often ready and motivated to learn. English classes last 40
minutes with five periods per week. Pupils from 8th grade are quiet since they are new at
high school and fear a little because they have a hardly basic knowledge of English. The
building, in general, is adequate and remains new. However, classrooms are too small as
to dealing with learning sessions in different setting arrangement.

Also, English is not spoken as a second language in Ecuador. This is the reason why
most of teachers teach English as a subject itself but not as a language to be used
regarding to students´ needs and interests. Monitoring processes base on checking skills
acquired through five axes: oral communication, cultural awareness, reading, writing and
language through the arts.

All skills are evaluated once at the end of every single unit of study (six units) and once
again every three units. All these processes are carried out by the English teacher in
collaboration with the subject coordinator of the institution as well as by following the
current guidelines delivered by the corresponding educational district. In this school,
English is obligatory to be approved for passing all school years successfully.

In the light of the curriculum, this educational center adopts a functional – notional
syllabus. This is a type of syllabus in which language is learned for doing something in
contexts. Ball & Lennon (2019) showed that space and content elements like suggestions
or advice, which are specified “synthetically” from the beginning until grammar is built up

45
functionally and notionally, must be reached by students with this syllabus´ application.
However, the only resource that this institution has been added as a supportive - public
element for the English curriculum is a classroom module (a set of 40 pages
approximately for each educational sublevel) plus a set of some uploaded audio tracks.

In order to reach the objective of this research, an analysis on students’ performance

will be carried out. Pupils will be asked to select a picture, whatever they want, and to
write a description of 60 words long. Thus, the topic will be “What´s there?” and “What
happens in your picture?” Learners will be asked to use sentences that contain adjectives,
nouns, verbs, and adverbs. Finally, all students will be required to give an exposition of
the picture they selected by using this as “the only mnemonic”. Only some of these
expositions will be recorded.

The analysis on students´ performance will be done in two stages according to the
variables and the literature review. First, the written description will be analyzed by
selecting, and categorizing by frequency all items and grammar structures written with
Spanish forms. Then, the same interference errors will be identified during the oral
expositions. Additionally, a survey will be conducted via google forms to English teachers
and the selected students. The objective of the survey is to get information from the
opinions given by these educational actors. This information will be gotten by means of
questions whose answers lead to what the reasons for the problem of overusing Spanish
in English classes are.

“Measures of frequency are used to indicate how often a particular behavior

occurs…these help researchers determine sorts of statistical analysis” (Mackey & Gass,
2011, p. 251). Consequently, data collected from the analysis on students´ performances
as well as from the information given on the surveys, will be tabulated, and interpreted on
the bases of the authors referenced in the theoretical background chapter. Finally,
conclusions and recommendations with the respective alternative proposals will be
reached by the end of this research methodology.

5.3 Description of the research tools

As this was mentioned previously, two basic instruments were selected to collect
information from teachers and students during the English teaching - learning process
itself; a checklist on students writing and oral performances and a survey applied to the
main educational actors [English teachers and students]. This was of paramount

46
importance that these two main research instruments were designed by the researcher in
relation to the variables of this study.

“In this type of approach, this is perfectly acceptable to use research plans,
questionnaires or observation instruments from published documents to conduct
research” (Madrid, 2019, p. 60). Hence, each variable unfolds a characteristic or
requirement necessary to understand every action performed by participants afterwards.
The characteristics and requirements are written in relation to the literature reviewed for
this investigation.

Checklists are also known as “Verification Lists”, and these are used to evaluate
activities that are done repetitively by participants or other concern subjects (Oxford,
2017). The repetitive actions occur to check numerous demands from participants; thus,
these checklists get information systematically. Similarly, surveys are designed for being
applied to the sample of a study.

Furthermore, surveys are considered be other research methods used for collecting
data from a predefined group of respondents to gain information and insights into various
topics of interest. Surveys, in this study, will be standardized by means of
operationalization of variables. Also, these surveys have twenty questions with the
reactive “multiple - items selection” so that precise argumentative information can be
thrown.

To sum up, for this study, participants will be asked to select a picture, describe this in
60 words and speak about it without the written text afterwards. Therefore, a global
checklist has been designed to track all participants´ performances while writing and while
speaking, respectively. Additionally, two surveys [a teachers´ questionnaire and a
student´s questionnaire] will be applied in order to discuss and argue results from the
checklists.

The checklist for assessing the writing and oral assignment was designed by means of
a frequency scale, “a scale, often used in questionnaires to measure behaviours or
cognitions in which the respondent circles the appropriate number indicating the
frequency of a particular variable, and this number is used in the analysis of the results”
(Oxford, s/f). Thus, results from marks that show Spanish overuse in English classes, will
be gotten and interpreted by means of the following indicators: Always, often,

47
occasionally, rarely, and never. In addition, the surveys will be done online by means of
google forms, while some students´ expositions of the oral activity will be recorded.

Additionally, this turns into paramount importance to mention that for getting indicators
of frequency provided by the responses this was necessary to produce a conversion. All
participants´ total - repetitive actions that showed how specific Spanish items and forms
were also used in the same way in English, were counted by taking number one hundred
(100) as the top reference and Zero (0) as the bottom reference. As a result, the number
of times an action of interest happened was recorded, averaged, and converted into an
indicator of frequency [from 0 onwards; never, rarely, sometimes, often, usually] in the
checklist.

Consequently, both of variables: the independent variable; the overuse of Spanish as

well as the dependent variable; incidence on EFL classes, were operationalized in a
variable – operationalization chart. Each variable constitutes the core element
(characteristic) to decide on the dimensions and their indicators, respectively. The
dimensions as well as the indicators based on the characteristics of the variables, will be
registered as a matter of question in the survey or requirement in the checklist. The final
survey and the checklist constitute the technique and the instruments to get students´ and
teachers´ information.

In relation to methodological matters, this was decided to conduct the on - site

research right after getting enough information from the literature review. These would not
have made sense to apply a survey without having enough information based on relevant
theories provided by recognized authors and linguists. On the other hand, by having a
vast knowledge on the topic “The overuse of Spanish while learning English”, questions
that appear in the survey base on scientific information, which at the same time, aim
themselves to get answers of concern to answer the hypothesis.

Investigation tools are flexible, specially when these are designed by the investigator
himself / herself. Main ideas on this research are developed under scientific theories and
statements found during the literature review and after correlating the variables involved.
Provided this flexibility, redesigning instruments turned a fact more than a possibility.
Thus, the forms the survey and the checklist were supposed to be applied at the begging
of this study was change because of the lack of feasibility to tabulate results. In order to
promote results tabulation and easiness during this process, a change from questions of
frequency to multiple choice - questions was the best option.

48
 To conclude, having numeric and non - numeric results was the objective in the
application of these tools. Results showed by numbers and percentages constitute precise
information. On the contrary, literal statements said by students while their performances
happened as well as the responses provided by the teachers, helped the researcher
determine factual conclusions.

49
 6. STUDY

This actual section deals with the research – process stablished by the investigator in
order to make vast descriptions of the context where the actions take place. The
Development of the research tools (instruments) was also done in this stage by following
population sample – criteria that resulted into the application of a formula that shows a
finite population to be studied. Finally, this section allows to know what instruments as
well as why and how these instruments were applied. Steps on the corpus data collection,
the use of certain software tools for analysis, and the treatment of results are also
described through this part of the research.

6.1 Description of the context

The present investigation was done at Humberto Vacas Gómez public school from
Quito – Ecuador. The sample population taken for this research study belongs to sublevel
superior [eighth, nineth and tenth grades of basic education]. All students belonging to the
mentioned sublevel are given English classes five times per week. There are 34 students
within every single grade.

In relation to the English program students are engaged with, the curriculum adopts a
notional and functional use of the foreign language (English). Nevertheless, the context
where pupils practice English is not the required to simulate second language
environment and other subjects apart from English are dictated in Spanish thoroughly.
Thus, other subject departments do not collaborate with English department as to carry
out interdisciplinary educational projects.

By taking into consideration that students from this educational sublevel possess a law
English language level and, therefore, using grammar translation is a resource practiced
constantly within the respective classrooms, the sample population for this work was
taken under the following aspects:

• This permits the data collection be easier and during the shortest time possible.

• This is concerned with the whole universe of study practices.

50
 • Each grade has a different teacher dictating the subject (English), thus, collecting
information about different teaching – practices are useful for reaching
conclusions.

• Sublevel superior is formed by three grades; eighth, nineth and tenth, but each
level also has A, B and C classes containing around 40 students within each one.
Therefore, as the number of the study universe is longer than 200 (two hundred),
a sample population was taken.

• The finite sample to concern is boys and girls over 12 (twelve) years old enrolled in
English classes from sublevel superior at Humberto Vacas Gómez school.

Hence, in concordance with the expressed above as well as by considering that this
investigation is done over a finite population, the following formula for determining the
sample population was applied:

FINITE POPULATION

n = Size of the investigating sample

N = Size of population (whole universe).
Z = Statistical parameter (Confidence level).
e = Maximum Aproximate error accepted.
p = Probability for the event to occur (success).
q (1 – p) = Probability for the event not to occur (fail).

Image 1

51
Elaborated by: Núñez, M. (2021).

Result = 149,5168 R (Excel formula) = 101,3699871

Approximation = 102

Therefore, 102 students belonging to sublevel superior from Humberto Vacas Gómez
school were chosen in order to analyze their productive skills in English (writing and
speaking). Even when the assignment for describing any picture by means of writing and
by means of an exposition was given to all participants enrolled in eighth, nineth and tenth
grades, the analisis was done by taking into consideration the sample number; 102
students. Thus, 34 students were selected from eighth grade, 34 from nineth grade and
other 34 from tenth grade.

The 102 participants taken as sample are students whose age is between 11 and 16
years old. These 102 students attend to regular classes in sublevel superior from this
school. Most of the participants have a basic knowledge of English, they are good at
writing but speaking turns difficult and challenging. All students have five hours of formal
English classes per week which are distributed as one hour per day. Finally, no one is
enrolled in other English learning environment apart from school, neither onsite nor virtual.

Despite of the fact that classrooms are in good conditions, students are not allowed to
work in groups frequently as these classrooms are even small. Also, students remain
having all subjects´ dictations in that same place, that is, they do not often change the
place of study except for physical education classes. As a result, students do not practice
much speaking in English classes as the learning environment is not provided adequately
as to get students into foreign language contexts.

52
 English as a foreign language is mandatory for students to pass. Through the course of
superior sublevel, the CEFRL (Common European Framework for Languages) references
Ecuadorian public pupils to reach English according to A to A.2 levels respectively, thus,
by finishing eighth grade students must reach an A.1 English level, by nineth grade A.1.2
and by tenth grade A.2.1. Nonetheless, most of students do not reach the required level
because the national curriculum provides English skills which are subjective in practice
since these are ambitious but not applicable to the real context of public schools whose
environment is lack of equipment and resources.

Following this farther, by the end of sublevel superior, students should reach certain
language skills in relation to the level [A.2.1] specified by the CEFRL (Common European
Framework for Languages). In this sense, pupils would master abilities to communicate
freely in relation to their personal stuff, give directions and short personal opinions, master
tenses in present past and future, modal degrees in past and future are said with frequent
errors though as well as describe their personal, educational, and familiar needs.

In this sublevel, four teachers teach English as a foreign language. Two are women
and two are men, all teachers are Ecuadorian - young adults, three teachers also teach in
inferior sublevels, and one remains teaching at superior sublevel only. One teacher has
got a Master´s degree in education but no one has got a Master´s degree in English
teaching. However, most of English teachers do not master technological devices or
programs as to get students constantly engaged and exposed to a foreign context, similar
to the one where the language of interest (English) is spoken.

6.2 Description of the corpus and data collection

6.2.1 Research tools

The tools for getting information from this investigation were done by the researcher
himself. A questionnaire for getting students´ and teachers´ information on their English
learning and teaching practices as well as a checklist for students´ analysis on writing and
speaking performance were designed. All the tools were designed for collecting relevant
information about the causes why students overuse Spanish words and forms [word
orders] when learning English.

Besides, the whole information previously obtained was provided by summing up the
theories of some recognized researchers and authors. Therefore, each question and

53
dimension appearing in the surveys and the checklists were scientifically extracted from
the literature review, which at the same time, have much concordance with the studied
variables.

In first instance, a set of 20 questions was written down to be asked to students for
twenty minutes. These questions were asked in order to get students´ information on their
learning English practices. Given the fact that most of students from Humberto Vacas
Gómez school do not possess a vast knowledge of English as to comprehend every
question in English, the questionnaire was adapted to their comprehension needs, that is,
questions were simplified.

Similarly, the same 20 questions were included in the teachers’ questionnaire for a
similar proposal: getting information on their English teaching practices. Unlike the
students´ questionnaire, the teachers´ one was applied in English. All questions appearing
in both of questionnaires were of paramount importance for the investigator to collect data
about the literature topics and subtopics. The literature topics and subtopics turn
themselves into the main guide for the researcher to understand the correlation of
variables. To sum up, by means of this correlation, variables are explained by topics and
subtopics by the time these variables are also compared and contrasted with teachers
and students´ responses.

For the application of these research tools (surveys) a piloting was not necessary
neither to the students´ questionnaire nor to the teachers´ one. Every formulated question
was scientifically backed up. That is, all the information was collected in direction to the
appropriate work on the purpose of this research. In other words, the variables are split in
every single question, and the questions are a summary of most of topics and subtopics
from the literature review.

Through the course of this investigation, a performance study was planned to carry out
with students. An assignment for getting information about students in English writing and
speaking performance was required. This assignment moment was sat to compile
important information from students´ performances during English tasks. The information
gotten was used to check and contrast to the statements students as well as teachers
showed during the survey. This part of the analysis also was of paramount importance to
reach conclusions on why students overuse Spanish while learning English.

54
 Before the assignment was sat, a thorough training was carried out within the three
classes of concern. The plan classes during the training process evolved activities that
promote students´ reaction to visual materials. The tacit and expressed topics were
descriptive words (colors and adjectives), actions (verbs in simple present) and nouns
(Living and non – living thigs). All activities proposed an approach on integrated skills,
specifically writing and speaking.

Following this further, the first class; eighth grade, had training on this assignment
within the daily class - schedule since the teacher is the investigator too. Four periods of
English classes for the training on this assignment was asked to the principal of the
institution where this research took place. The four agreed periods were used for training
in nineth and tenth grades respectively.

After the scheduled training classes for carrying out the writing and speaking
assignment, the final instruction was given. Students had to select a picture, whatever
they wanted, and under the questions: What can you see? What happens in the picture?
Students had to write a complete description of the picture they selected. They needed to
use descriptive words, nouns, and actions by following the word order they considered
appropriate as well as the ones they learned during the training.

Once the written assignment was done, participants sent this to the researcher´s mail.
Next class, students had to give an oral exposition from their image. Students were not
allowed to use written symbols but only random or memorized statements they made for
the photograph they chose previously. In addition, some students were selected to be
recorded after handling the legal representative – form.

In relation to the study of students’ performance on two English skills, a second tool
[checklist] was designed. this was designed to measure students’ performance on writing
and speaking. The measurement follows a frequency tendency that advocates the
frequency that students repeat in a written and spoken action while learning English. The
measures used were always, often, occasionally, rarely, and never. All the indicators
appearing in the checklists were written in English, which assures the researcher to be
engaged with the learning context and subject. With the use of these frequency checklists,
actions (performances) are explained scientifically by the main summarized theories
proposed by the authors in the literature review.

55
 During the written as well as the spoken assignment, the participants were observed
and analyzed on time. In this sense, a global checklist was used for checking what every
single student did in writing performance as well as during his / her exposition to the whole
class. Frequencies were statistically recorded and used to inference and check
information found previously.

6.2.2 Application of the tools for data collection

Following this further, the questionnaires were applied to students as well as to English
teachers right after explaining them about what the objective for this investigation was.
Moreover, an agreement signed by the students´ legal representatives was needed before
the survey took place. Of course, instructions were precisely indicated by the time
respondents were asked to answer as realistically and honestly as possible.

Consequently, the surveys were applied in two moments: the first moment, the survey
was directed to students via Google forms during a period of classes. Then, the teachers´
survey was applied out of classes via Google forms too. The application of both of surveys
via Google forms was decided by considering the easiness that this virtual tool provides
the researchers to get their concerned information. Google forms facilitates investigation
in matters of compilation since this allows respondents to be all asked at the same time. In
addition, this tool allows researchers to gain access to statistical information immediately.

By the end of the application of both surveys, changes, or adjustments were not
necessary because responses turned oriented to the objective of this research. All
responses were collected and neither students nor teachers wanted to know more
specifications about the research which means that all the investigation process was
perfectly clear and understood.

To conclude, questions appearing on the students´ survey as well as the answers

given by these participants were considered to the tabulation and discussion. However,
the teachers´ survey, checklist on students´ writing performance as well as the checklist
on students´ speaking performance were all used for verifying, complementing, and
inferencing trends during the data analysis.

6.3 Research tools for the analysis

56
 As this was mentioned previously, by the course of this investigation two surveys: a
teacher´s survey and a student´s survey were applied to carry out data collation in relation
to their opinions about overusing Spanish while learning English. Furthermore, a checklist
was used for the analysis of a double - checking assignment that had students perform a
writing and speaking activity.

The survey applications were done by means of Google forms, each application lasted
20 minutes, and the evaluation process on the assignment performances lasted more
than a week (7 workdays). The written assignment was carried out in a day and the ticking
process in one day. The spoken assignment was carried out in 3 days during 5 minutes
per student with the checking process lasting 1 day too. In the end, responses from the
surveys and checklists were recorded and tabulated by using graphs from Google forms
and Excel.

During speaking performances only some students were recorded. Hence, a video
camera software was downloaded and installed in a laptop so much so that the recording
took place during the expositions. In order to have a quick access to the recorded videos
for double checking or verifying balanced information, when necessary, the recordings
were kept on a virtual memory.

Finally, this is important to mention the scientific facts that permitted the survey
questions and the checklist items from this study to flow. These facts are the result of the
investigated contents that allow variables be related to each other. The sequence flows
over an order of investigated contents that permitted specific data (data of concern) to be
collected and grouped by means of particular questions and statements.

57
 Variables Operationalization Chart
(Surveys and Checklists)
CHARACTERIZATION DIMENSIONS INDICATOR TECHNIQUE AND INSTRUMENT
STUDENTS STUDENTS STUDENTS TEACHERS
(Checklist – (Checklist – (Survey) (Survey)
writing oral
performance) performance)
Independent Variable: Problems while learning Uncontrollable teaching
Overuse of Spanish English elements like the syllabus and 1, 2 1, 2 1 1
This is a common problem wrong materials.
students face when learning Spoken language punctuated
English as a foreign language. by pauses. 4,5,6,7,8 4,5,6,7,8 2 2
Learning a new language Overgeneralization of rules like
always evolves an ED to regular verbs, irregular
interlanguage process which verbs, and modals in past.
most of the time is threatened Word order specifically with
by problems of transfer and adjective position.
interference from students´ Transfer Desirable and undesirable
mother tongue. This situation Interlanguage schemes and vocabulary from 9,10,11 9,10,11 3 3
happens because translation previous learned languages
methods are not applied (Spanish).

58
adequately, and these do not Idiosyncratic production of
guide students to apply correct language (rule government)
learning strategies either. which is wrong but
Therefore, learning practices understandable in most cases.
like the lack of speaking in the Interference Avoiding rules of paramount
target language and too much importance for justifying the 12,13,14,15, 12,13,14,15, 4 4
translation into the mother use of mother tongue 16 16
tongue, get learners to overuse structures.
Spanish while learning English. Overgeneralization of rules for
Finally, Learners consider and adding suffixes like ING to past
generalize most of similarities progressive and subject – like
between their first language verbs.
(Spanish) and the target one Regularization in relation to
(English). Thus, collocations Spanish rules (the same rules
are often done in relation to the are applied in English).
mother tongue and friendly Simplification of items like
words turn into false cognates commas and the conjunction
because Spanish is constantly TO, to join 2 verbs in written
practiced rather than English. production.
Grammar Main concern on reading and
Learning translation writing. No attention is paid to 17,18,19,20,2 17,18,19,20,2 5 5
practices listening and speaking. 1,22,23 1,22,23

59
 To know the meaning and
equivalents of discriminated
items in relation to the mother
tongue.
Selection of items (vocabulary)
from texts and grouped by
categories.
Studying thoroughly grammar
rules, syntax, and structures of
the target language.
Learning lexis by
memorization.
Translation exercises show
that language of instruction is
the native one.
Speaking in Funny communication
language activities by using the target 24,25,26,27,2 24,25,26,27,2 5 5
learning code with other learners. 8,29,30,31 8,29,30,31
Enough time to produce the
language.
Too much time spent to
listening (the teacher).
Pair and group interactions.

60
 The teacher facilitates
speaking interactions and
demonstration.
Input and output language
supply from students.
Achieving speaking tasks by
using knowledge from the
mother tongue (items and
structures) and much guessing
and inferencing.
Cognitive Note taking, summaries,
Learning strategies analysis of texts and getting 32,33,34,35 32,33,34,35 6 6
strategies information.
Memory – Creating one´s own dictionary,
related flashcards, underlined words 36,37,38,39 36,37,38,39 7 7
strategies with meanings and association
of sounds to images or
external prompts.
Compensatory Using synonyms and similar
strategies patterns to convey other 40,41 40,41 8 8
information.
Affective Listening to music, own

61
 strategies methods to lowering anxiety
(breathing), taking risks, 42,43,44,45 42,43,44,45 9 9
rewording oneself, writing a
learning diary, talking about
one´s feelings when learning a
language.
Social Asking questions (clarification
strategies and correction). 46,47,48 46,47,48 10 10
Cooperating in learning (work
in peers and groups).
Developing cultural
understanding.
Similarities Collocations Nouns Often placed
between before the verb 51,52 51,52 11 11
learners´ first as subject.
language These work as
(Spanish) objects placed
and the after the verb.
target one Verbs Placed right
(English). before de noun. 49,50,53,54 49,50,53,54 11 11
These can be
placed after
conjugations of

62
 be verb.
Suffixes are
added in verbs
working as
subjects.
Adjetives Descriptive
adjectives are 51,52 51,52 11 11
usually placed
before the
noun. However,
right after is
unusual but
understandable.
Using many
descriptive
adjectives
means following
a strict order to
mention them.
Friendly words Using words that are
phonetically similar in two 53,55 53,55 12 12
languages, and share the
same meaning results effective

63
 in translation.
False cognates Words appearing to be
phonetically similar between 54,55 54,55 12 12
two languages, but their
meanings are totally opposite.
Guessing and inferencing the
meanings.
Dependent Variable: TEFL English syntax Teaching Isolated items
EFL (English as a Foreign (Teaching progressively do not allow 56,57 56,57 13 13
Language) classes English as a from the most interaction to
A process for learning English Foreign basic items take place.
in countries or places whose Language) (lexis) to the They rather
contexts do not allow learners most difficult get learners to
to be in exposition to this ones. focus on
language constantly. This form classifying
of learning English focuses on them
the accurate use of English according to
syntax and vocabulary. the type of
However, EFL is similar to ESL word.
in that this promotes language Type of
learning methods like: sentences 58 58 13 13
Communicative Language with no place
Teaching, Task - Based to errors

64
Instruction and Community (affirmative,
Language Learning which negative,
suggest a notional interrogative).
(communicative) learning and
Type of tense
use of English (practice).
(present, past, 59 59 13 13
Finally, even when immersion
future, etc.).
programs are directed to ESL
Teaching Decoded according to its literal
(English as a Second
English meaning. 60,61,62,63, 60,61,62,63, 14 14
Language) learning
vocabulary Decoded according to the 64 64
environments, some countries
context this happens.
like Ecuador, have introduced
Reproduced and practice
CLIL (Content Language
vocabulary actively.
Integrated Learning) in its
Picked up on written texts.
English as foreign language
Practiced orally.
curriculum in public schools.
The lexical Sets of words and phrases
approach stored by categories. 65,66,67,68, 65,66,67,68, 15 15
Giving antonyms and 69,70 69,70
synonyms.
Writing word definitions.
Writing sentences with newly
learned tenses.
Sentence patterns with

65
 changes in certain words.
Assimilation, practice
anatomically, and production
of difficult sounds.
Common Communicative Reaction to physical items as
methods in Language well as audio and visual ones. 71,72,73,74 71,72,73,74 16 16
TEFL Teaching Language is practiced by
(Teaching producing writing, speech, and
English as a dialogues.
Foreign Description of graphs and
Language) tables in communicative
lessons.
Language is practiced on
foreign - like environments.
Task - Based Develop projects for solving
Instruction real world problems. 75,76,77,78 75,76,77,78 17 17
Feedback, input and output
are provided while carrying out
the project.
Emotions, thoughts, and
opinions are shared.
Learners must be well directed
while performing through this

66
 method.
Community Centers on student´s learning
Language and participation. 79,80,81 79,80,81 18 18
Learning Cooperation, participation, and
assistance among students
appears pervasively while
interaction with the teacher is
scarce.
Pair - work, group - work,
dialogues, and brainstorming.
Instructors take the role of
consultants.
Programs to Immersion Developing the use of the
TEFL programs target language in real and 82,83 82,83 19 19
(Teaching vivid contexts.
English as a Developing the use of the
Foreign target language in countries
Language) where the language is officially
spoken.

67
 CLIL (Content Learning content of a subject
Language matter by means of English. 84,85,86 84,85,86 20 20
Integrated Language is learned in
Learning) context.
Cultural aspects are reviewed.
Classes done only in English
without using the mother
tongue.

Elaborated by: Núñez, M. (2021).

68
6.4 Description (summary) of the working plan to carry out the study

Application

Drafts and
piloting.
Information
Selection of gathered to
the tools for create the
Decision on data tools. June 6th, 2021
the type of collection.
information June 29th, 2021
to be
collected. June 6th, 2021
June 2nd, 2021

June 1st, 2021

Elaborated by: Núñez, M. (2021).

Due to the number of students resulting from the application of a formula that
determined the finite number of participants, as well as to the information per se to be
required in relation to pupils´ English productive skills [writing and speaking], the decision
on applying two valid instruments was taken on June the 1st. Hence, the next day, two
valid instruments were chosen for gathering information of concern: two surveys, one for
students and other for teachers as well as a checklist for ticking and recording actions and
repetitions done by students during their oral performances.

The previously mentioned instruments were selected by thinking in the number of

students to be studied (201). Thus, surveys resulted practical, and checklists resulted
objective. These two types of instruments were designed by the investigator in three
stages:

Stage 1: type of instrument for interview. The way information was calleted was
through multiple choice questions sat in surveys. The questions were written in relation to
the theories provided by the authors in the literature review.

Stage 2: type of instrument for performance analysis. The way evidenced practices
were recorded was via a checklist for recording speaking acts during expositions. The
same chekist items were selected to analyze writing acts in from students´ essays. Of

69
course, selected items were written in relation to the theories provided by the authors in
the literature review.

Stage 3: a revision and feedback were done. At the beginning the survey as
well as the checklist were taught to have questions of frequency. However, the
tabulation would have resulted difficult because one frequency chart must have
been done for every single item. Therefore, the decision of asking multiple choice
questions with yes / no answers was taken for avoiding the display of more than
fifty (50) statistical graphs per question.

Even though few questions were simplified, and other questions were
translated into Spanish so much so that students with a low level of English be
able to understand, by the end, the application of the two instruments resulted
successful. There was no need to piloting none of the instruments as they were
written and created by the investigator with scientific information proved and
published by means of reliable sources.

70
 7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter develops a thorough discussion on the results provided by students

(participants) while performing writing and speaking assignments. The assignments were
focused on getting evidence that show how students overuse Spanish forms and lexis
while trying to reach the goal of expressing the same English equivalents. The assignment
application was carried out right after preparation as well as after practical classes took
place.

Moreover, the results gotten from the application of a survey directed to students from
sublevel superior; eighth, nineth and tenth grades, as well as the results gotten from the
survey applied to all English teachers from Humberto Vacas Gómez school are going to
be examined and discussed carefully so much so that the two types of results are able to
be correlated for reaching general interpretations and conclusions.

In order to develop a valid analysis, the data collected will be correlated and
categorized according to the twenty - six dimensions extracted from the two variables of
this study. These data will be counted and tabulated by taking into consideration that the
survey applied to students and the one applied to English teachers are multiple - choice
questionnaires. Therefore, responses will throw global percentages. On the contrary, the
analysis on writing and speaking assignments will be done by means of a checklist which
records the number of times an important indicator on the overuse of Spanish while
learning English happens.

Following this further, the number of repetitions considered is top – one hundred times
counted in the same checklist for all participants. Thus, repetitions will be converted to
frequency by considering the following references:

Table 1
RATE SCALE TO MEASURE FREQUENCY
Number of repetitions Converted Frequency
0 times Never
From 1 to 30 Rarely
From 31 to 50 Sometimes
From 51 to 80 Often
From 81 to 100 Always

71
 Consequently, final results from both of instruments [surveys and Checklists] will be
analyzed by means of the following two methods. First, a quantitative analysis will be
developed since thrown numeric - information [results; percentages and frequency] will be
correlated and tabulated by means of bar graphs. The presentation of each bar - graph
will be done on the basis of every single question appearing on the students´
questionnaire, that is, the students survey will be the core element to base the analysis
and discussion because these elements will develop themselves into each student -
survey´s question.

Second, a qualitative analysis will also be carried out. For this purpose, responses
appearing on the teachers´ questionnaire as well as the frequencies nodded on the
checklists will be useful to provide argumentative ideas. Notes taken, which based on
students´ performance in speaking, and pupils´ comments while training classes took
place are going to be used as feedback for argumentation. In addition, scientific lines
extracted during the literature review will be highlighted when results show an agreement
or opposition to these theories respectively. Hence, this section is aimed to develop an
approach that matches or contrasts the results of this study to relevant ideas provided by
the linguistic authors cited in the literature review.

7.1 Quantitative and Qualitative analysis of results

Figure 7.1.1

During English classes the teacher:

From the whole surveyed sample, 20,6% of learners answered that their English
teacher uses attractive and easy – to – use material. During training classes before setting
the assignment, this was observed that students are not gotten used to leading with

72
attractive material like realia which allows them to react to graphic symbols. During
training, students showed themselves surprised when they had to speak only by watching
a picture. Almost all students asked for written examples and directions.

Similarly, 4,9% of the surveyed learners nodded that the teacher uses material that has
nothing to do with the class. However, when teachers were asked the same question, the
pervasive answer was that they used materials that have a lot to do with their classes
indeed. Whereas the number of students having this response is lower so far than those
who say that the teacher really uses right materials, the meaning is that some students
are not able to recognize the use of tools while classes take place.

An 83,3% of the surveyed population claimed that every single English class – activity
is done neatly and understandably. Despite of the fact that during training classes
students were not able to perform what was required like writing the date or setting the
objective for the class, they perfectly knew the order of the class, that is, after setting the
objective, pupils started to brainstorm some of their experiences, but the act was done in
Spanish. Then, students conceptualized the topic more like in Spanish than English and
the evaluation was done in English only. Teachers clearly have students well trained in
matters of class management, but the problem arises when most of time these students
need explanations and directions in Spanish, which gets them to usually use Spanish
before using English.

Figure 7.1.2

What actions do you take during English grammar - classes?

73
 Table 2
Indicator Writing: speaking: Average Frecuencia Percentage
repetition repetition
times times
Sentences in English 0 70 35 Sometimes 34,31%
with many pauses.
ED to past irregular 60 40 50 Sometimes 49,02%
verbs.
S to verbs in present 90 80 85 Always 83,33%
tense conjugated with
he, she, it.
S to plural adjectives. 90 30 60 Often 58,82%
adjectives before the 50 40 45 Sometimes 44,12%
noun.

In the survey, a 52,9% of students answered that they say sentences in English with
many pauses. Although the writing assignment does not show pauses, during the
speaking activity a 34,31% of students were checked by doing many pauses during the
exposition. Students had to react to the picture they got but they turned slower when
trying to react to this. However, pupils said sentences quicklier by remembering what had
been memorized. If students did not remember the memorized part, they tried to react to
the picture, but they needed to translate the required words. This is evident that the lack of
reaction and introduction of words by sound causes students to look up equivalents of
Spanish words into English symbols (writing).

When participants were asked if they added “ED” to irregular verbs in past, an 8,8%
answered that they did. Although, during the writing and speaking tasks half of the times
participants added ED to irregular verbs. In writing, all regular and irregular verbs had ED
to refer to past tenses, and during speaking some irregular verbs were said in base form
and some were added ED when refering to past. This is clear example of what was
referred by Lightbown & Spada (2011) “When learners reach a certain stage and perceive
a similarity to their first language (Spanish), they may linger longer at that stage. Hence,
students overused Spanish forms during these assignments for the sake of the
generalization existing in Spanish. Regular and irregular verbs were told in the same form
(addition of ED) when talking in simple past tense.

When dealing with the addition of “s” to verbs said in simple preset and declined with
third person singular (he, she, it), only a 20,6% of students said that they did this action.

74
 This was corroborated during the two assignments that learners always did this action
though. Learners used verbs ending in S when these were conjugated in third person
singular in writing as well as in speaking. In relation to the response given by only this
percentage of participates, this is clear that they had internalized the declination in third
person singular in simple present by sound. Thus, students did not apply any rule
consciously but by default.

Even when only a 10,8% of participants answered that they added “s” to adjectives
conjugated in plural forms, during the assignment this was evidenced that students often
did this grammar error especially when this comes to writing. Due that students did not
mention many plural adjectives which were added “s” during their oral presentation, this
result shows that grammar is generalized from Spanish language more pervasively in
writing than in speaking. This happens since in writing students take their own time and
turn aware of many rules - application.

However, in speaking pupils are concentrated in transmitting a message more than

analyzing the language form. Thus, when duties on writing are more pervasive than duties
on speaking, pupils concentrate more in accurateness which generates more
comparisons and the research of equivalents between the mother tongue (Spanish) and
the target language (English). This also gets learners overuse Spanish during the
research.

Then, 22,5% of students showed that they used adjectives before the noun. During the
assignment this was seen that learners sometimes followed this word order, and the
teachers found this response right by stating that learners sometimes do this action
indeed which almost never results in penalization. The reason: there is not much problem
in the collocation of an adjective after or before the noun as this turns even
understandable. Nevertheless, Spanish word orders interference here once again
although in a positive way.

Figure 7.1.3

The term INTERLENGUAGE refers to a state that we go through when we learn a new
language and, therefore, we transfer words from our mother tongue (Spanish). Select one
or more criteria that you think is correct.

75
Table 3

WRITING: SPEAKING:
REPETION REPETION
INDICATOR TIMES TIMES AVERAGE FREQUENCY PERCEN.
Order of the words
in English the same 70 80 75
as in Spanish. Often 73,53 %
English sound and
30 90 60
symbol like Spanish. Often 58,82%
Student´s own rules 60 80 70 Often 68,63%

A 25,5% of the surveyed students think that the order of words in English is the same
as in Spanish. As far as the assignments concern, participants nodded that following
Spanish word orders is a step often done in English. During writing as well as in speaking,
this was checked that 73,53% of the times, pupils followed Spanish word orders to write
down ideas or to cast ideas orally. For instance, sentences like “The dog black eats the
salt” or “One plant beautiful and tall rise in the one park”. Clearly, in both of sentences
students thought in Spanish first in order to be able to translate the ideas word by word.
Again, using filters instead of using the language directly causes students overuse
Spanish grammar and forms.

Even when 58,82% of the surveyed participants stated that almost all English words
sound and look like as in Spanish, through the course of the assignments, 58,82% of
learners demonstrated how Spanish words can be often used for casting ideas in English.
Instances like “A similar yellow cat is grocery” show how some symbolic and phonetically
similar Spanish words like similar and is hit the meaning in both of languages. The
problem occurs on grocery thought to be an adjective “grosero” but the real meaning is

76
not that. This is a cause previously showed “Language-specific experience influences the
perception of phoneme contrasts” ...the different experiences that people have with the
language influence how they are able to process and produce phonological differences”
(Thompson & Blown, 2012, p. 36).

Finally, 65,7% of pupils think that this is possible to use one´s own rules to apply in
English. That idea can be understood, and this is of paramount importance. In fact, during
the assignment performance 68,63% of the times, students show how rules can be
governed by them. Pupils added “is” in many parts of the sentences as a rule. Also, the
application of “a” is recurrent like; You are is Pablo, They are is 32, They are is a students.
Students truly use “is” and “a” as the easiest rule to be applied in their sentences.

Figure 7.1.4

How do you use the following aspects of Spanish to carry out an activity in English?

Table 4
WRITING: SPEAKING:
REPETION REPETION
INDICATOR TIMES TIMES AVERAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
Avoid using
difficult 80 96 88 Always 86,27%
structures.
Use ING at 84,31%
95 77 86
speaking. Always
Use ING at the 21,57%
beginning.
10 34 22
Rarely
Use the same 75,98%
66 89 77,5
rules in both. Often
Use commas Sometimes 38,24%
appropriately
23 55 39

77
 A 44,1% of the surveyed students answered that using difficult structures in English is
a practice avoided by them, they rather decide to use Spanish word – orders. This was
demonstrated that students always tend to apply the easiest structures when they can as
during the assignments, an 86,27% of the times, participants avoided difficult structures in
English. In the writing assignment, for example, there were not sentences that describe
actions with modal forms or even past perfect. This is evidence that students prefer to
stay at a comfortable place in learning by the time a rule government is held by them.

Next, a 13,7% of the concern population answered that using suffixes of verbs like ING
is required at the moment of speaking. Indeed, this was corroborated those pupils always
use verbs ending in ING for expressing progressive actions in present. During the
assignment execution an 84,31% of the times that participants described the actions in
their photographs, were done in present progressive. Students know how to use English
structures accurately when these get noticed of what is happening in context and at real
time.

On the contrary, when students were asked if they used ING in a verb at the beginning
of a sentence, only a 7,8% responded they did. Similarly, pupils rarely used ING in a verb
at the beginning of a sentence in their assignment as only a 21,57% of the times pupils
described something, sentences contained a gerund verb at the beginning of a sentence.
This is another fact that shows how students still avoiding not only difficult but also
unknown structures. This all, has learners stop learning English structures that are beyond
the learning starting – point and this causes them still using similar Spanish structures,
considered to be easier.

Then, 35,3% of the surveyed students answered that they used the same rules of
Spanish to write sentences in English. However, through the course of the assignment,
this was seen that pupils often used similar rules in Spanish as in English. This frequency
was observed due to the 75,98% of times that students used the following structures while
describing their pictures: subject + verb+ complement (relevant to both of languages),
there is + number (from 1 to 10) + nouns, The + noun + adjective.

In relation to the mentioned above, a clear problem of transfer [interference] arises. As

Myles (2016) presents this as a developmental route essentially of students´ own idiolects
which are processes with temporal stablished - sets of rules created by themselves.
Therefore, students have assumed temporally that all tenses in English must be said in
the way they say Spanish ones and without taking care of grammar exceptions. Staying

78
too much time at this stage results dangerous for students as an inhibition in the
production of the target language results since students still study the language by
thinking first in Spanish structures.

Finally, a 14,7% of the participants said that they used commas correctly in passages
written in English. Nevertheless, only a 38,24% of the times that students had to separate
sentences by commas in the written assignment was achieved. The results show that
learners sometimes use commas appropriately in writing. The lack of separation of ideas
showed by teachers too, gets students to produce string sentences while speaking. As a
result, neither writers nor the public understand what is being said. Thus, students are not
conscious of the many structures that must be separated by means of commas in English
language.

Figure 7.1.5

What activities do you do during English classes?

First, this was not possible to stablish a frequency that shows how students apply the
actions described above whereas written and speaking tasks do not throw these at the
moment of performance. However, the answers gotten from questions will get feedback
from little aspects observed during students´ performance [the oral presentation] and from
teacher´s answers from their survey as well.

Second, the percentages of the actions mentioned above were gotten from the survey
that participants answered. Hence, 16,7% of pupils said that during English classes, they
orally translate readings from books. In this sense, teachers said that their students never
do this action. Therefore, students consider this action as one strategy they use for
practicing pronunciation and speaking by themselves.

79
 A 24,5% of participants answered that they translate, in written form, lectures taken
from books or other sources. During the task performance, some structures obeyed the
rule of the typical translation “word by word” so much so that the final equivalence in
Spanish resulted the same word by word English structure. For example, in the translation
“Hay cuatro alto gris elefantes en el zoológico” this is an exactly followed - translation
done from “There are four tall gray elephants in the zoo”.

Even the two activities mentioned above turn useful for elongating their vocabulary at
home or at the moment of doing an activity in class, these also turn negative factors that
influences students to translate the two languages due to the “equivalent sense” students
have in mind constantly. The fact that students overuse Spanish forms in their trial to find
the perfect equivalence as they review Spanish forms and lexis constantly, is stated at
least by a half part of English teachers.

A 57,8% of surveyed students assured that they make lists of words and then look
them up in a dictionary or translator. Even though only one teacher assured to get his
students do this action during English classes, this was observed in some written
assignment that students signed certain symbols above the words that showed colors,
adjectives, and actions. Moreover, there appeared stained of deleted words that showed
some meanings. Despite this is a classification that learners have as a learning strategy,
this turns negative once again because learners have in mind the equivalent they must
find, and pupils review and get feedback from Spanish words [the language of no interest]
instead of learning words of the target language in context.

Even though only a 10,8% of pupils showed that they do fun activities like dancing with
English music or playing with words, a half of the teachers indicated they really do these
activities while English classes are taking place. This was rarely seen during some
expositions that some students played background music or sounds to get the attention of
the listeners. This means that in certain occasions, students are motivated by doing
attractive activities which motivates them to replicate the same activities in their
performances. Nonetheless, the fact that these activities hardly ever occur, turns negative
since students need be constantly exposed and motivated by English contextual
elements.

As far as interaction in English language concerns, 10,8% of pupils answered that

there is a space to speak in English classes, only a 5,9% of the surveyed pupils answered
that they worked in pairs or groups, and another 11,8% showed that they get help from

80
other students during their English activities. Regarding to English teachers, half of them
assured that they promote these three types of interaction during their English activities. In
addition, students who assured they interact in English do this action by themselves or
within a small, individually – created group.

Goh & Burns (2012) demonstrate that students are usually asked to perform speaking
activities by means of pair or group interactions, but they do not achieve the correct
performance since the teacher does not always get into the role of facilitator. Clearly, this
is a cause for students to overuse Spanish since interactions and exposition to English
forms and lexis must be an element that always happens with the teachers´ direction.
When learners are not exposed to the target language constantly, they are still being
exposed to their mother tongue [Spanish] instead which causes them use Spanish forms
and lexis in first place. Thus, Spanish structures will be adapted to English in second
place. As a result, an overuse of Spanish language is done again.

Figure 7.1.6

Which of the following strategies do you use to learn English?

Table 5
WRITING: SPEAKING:
REPETION REPETION
INDICATOR TIMES TIMES AVERAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
Note taking 93 81 92 Always 90,20%
Summaries 55 43 49
Often 48,04%
Analysis of Text 0 0 0 Never 00, 00%

Find information 99 91 95 Always 93,14%

81
 When asking about the strategies that students use when learning English, 43,10%
claimed that they take notes during English classes. Eventually, this was observed during
the oral presentation that 90,20% of the times students took notes from their partners
expositions right before performing their own. Even though only one teacher stated that
note taking is the pervasive cognitive strategy done by her students during English
classes, this is easy to considerate that learners always apply this learning strategy at
English periods.

In relation to cognitive strategies that students use, 15,7% of participants stated that
they also sum up their English lessons. During the speaking assignment, participants
often summarized their written one and this was noticed by the researcher for the sake of
reviewing the written passage and contrasting to what students said during their speech.
In fact, a 48,04% of the times students spoke, this action was corroborated.

Following these farther, 32,4% of participants answered that analyzing English texts is
part of their learning strategies. Similarly, a 33,3% answered that finding information on
their own is periodically done. In addition, half of teachers assured that students
summarized texts but only one teacher claimed his pupils try to find information by
themselves. Notwithstanding, during the written assignment students never showed a kind
of text analysis. This fact is demonstrated as there were no sentences out of the
descriptive structure taught during training classes.

In contrast. this is evident that students always find information by their own since the
use of technology facilitates this action. During speech performances, 93,14% of the times
participants needed to add sentences or to replace words, they got these by themselves
and by means of a translator of their cellphones. Therefore, the two compensatory
strategies mentioned above fall into an imbalanced practice: students said they analyze
texts, but this is not demonstrated while finding on information by themselves was evident.

Finding on information by means of translations only impacts negatively to students´

English learning. By means of translators, students reinforce their mother tongue and still
looking up equivalences in the target one. This causes students to overuse Spanish
during tasks or feedback applied within cognitive strategies. Thus, the following assertion
is not evidenced during this study at all: “LS (Learning Strategies) are defined as the
attempts to develop “linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language - to
incorporate these into one's interlanguage competence” (Tarone, 1983, cited by Maguid,
2012).

82
 By considering the information got from this study, this is obvious how the lack of
affective, social, and motivational strategies like recognizing other people´s mood and
their physical status as well as holding conversations with native speakers, causes pupils
to see the language as a whole cognitive factor. The application of cognitive strategies
only, gets pupils consider the target language like structures and lexis all the time. This
consideration is aimed just to get knowledge from what they already know (Spanish) and
to transform this into new knowledge (English) but without sense or feelings.

Figure 7.1.7

Which of the following strategies do you use to be able to memorize phrases in English?

Table 6
WRITING: SPEAKING:
REPETION REPETION
INDICATOR TIMES TIMES AVERAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
Dictionary 99 99 99
Always 97,06%
Flashcards 87 87 87 Always 85,29%
Underlined
99 99 99
words / meaning Always 97,06%

In relation to memorize phrases in English, students were asked if they created a

personal dictionary, so much so that, a 16,7% of participants answered they did.
Additionally, 10,8% showed that they designed flashcards, and a 61,8% of surveyed
participants mentioned they underlined words and looked up their meanings afterwards.
Thus, during the assignment performance, this was observed that pupils always had
access to this mnemonic created by themselves as a cognitive strategy.

Students had not created their own dictionary, but they had one printed, the use of
flashcards when speaking was evidenced as well as underlined words with meaning in
their written passage. Hence, 97,06% of students reviewed an English – Spanish

83
dictionary before and during the written task, 85,9% of the times, students reviewed their
own flashcards before or while speaking, and 97,06% of participants had underlined
words with meanings in their written assignment.

All these learning strategies deal with getting knowledge. Again, learners cannot use
the language significatively and functionally for expressing their feelings. Having a
dictionary, flashcards, and underlined words with their meaning, while this is true,
improves pupil´s access to their own mnemonic but language is considered structurally
with an important order of words because this is not being used to express personal
feelings or ideas.

Figure 7.1.8

Which of the following actions do you apply when you can't remember words or phrases in
English?

Table 7
WRITING: SPEAKING:
REPETION REPETION
INDICATOR TIMES TIMES AVERAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
Use of
synonyms
6 10 8 Rarely 7,84%
Phrases similar
89 91 90
to Spanish. Always 88,24%

In the matter of memorization, participants were asked about the strategies they
applied when they cannot remember words or phrases in English. Hence, 53% of them
nodded those synonyms are applied for replacing nouns. Similarly, a 53% of the surveyed
students said that using phrases that are similar to those in Spanish is their strategy to
cope with English learning.

84
 In the course of the assignment, this was demonstrated how participants rarely used
synonyms for refereeing to the same noun. Only a 7,84% of the cases replaced some
nouns by a synonym in the written passage. For instance, a noun mentioned for the first
time was “There is one tall tree in the garden”, for the second time -mention was “There is
a tall plant in the garden”. Nevertheless, phrases that have structures and words similar to
Spanish were always used. An 88,24% of the total times students wrote and said a phrase
were similar to those written and said in Spanish. One example is “There ten plants yellow
in one park”.

To end this up, students overuse Spanish in contrast to what is claimed by Vygotsky as
well as Lightbown cited by Krashen (1985):

The language acquisition theory turns into a notion similar to

Krashen´s input hypothesis stating that “acquisition occurs
when one is exposed to language that is comprehensible
and that contains (i +1); the (i) represents the level of
language already acquired, and the (+1) is the …language
(…) that is a step beyond that level.

Despite the fact that teachers assure they always promote the use of synonyms to
refer to different words and they reject overusing phrases that are completely similar to
Spanish, there exists the comfort spot of students who rather prefer standing with the
knowledge already gotten instead of going beyond. The lack of motivation to overcome
more difficult structures lets pupils overuse much Spanish during English lessons.

Figure 7.1.9

Which of these activities do you apply when you feel stressed to learn English?

Table 8
WRITING: SPEAKING:
REPETION REPETION
INDICATOR TIMES TIMES AVERAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES

85
Background
0 36 18
music. Rarely 17,65%
Deep breath to
lower nerves.
0 87 43,5 Sometimes 42,65%
Take risks. 18 39 28,5 Rarely 27,94%
Personal journal
about feelings.
0 0 0 Never 0,00%

Participants were also asked what they did when they feel stressed because of English
learning. A 45,1% answered that listening to music is an activity to low stress. Despite the
fact that during the training classes students were not allowed to use earphones, 17,65%
of the times students were about to give their exposition wore earphones. However, most
of learners were listening to music in Spanish or listening to other audios in Spanish too.
Thus, the fact that students rarely listen to music in English, but they listen to music in
Spanish is beneficial for lowering their anxiety levels, but English is not practiced, and
students receive more feedback to their mother tongue, which causes students being
constantly adhere with Spanish words and grammar structures.

Then, 50% of participants showed that they take a deep breath for lowering the nerves
during English classes. In fact, this situation was checked to happen sometimes because
during the oral assignment 42,65% of the times students spoke, a deep breath was taken.
Students seemed to get calm in order to continue their speech.

After that, 7,8% of participants mentioned they take risks by writing things by chance.
During the assignments, this was evidenced that students rarely take chances to write in
the way they want. Only a 27,94% of concern students wrote phrases differently. For
example, the indicated structure was number + adj. appearance + adj. personality + noun
+ verb + place (three young happy men work out at the gym) contrasted with “Three men
who seem happy and young work out in the gym”.

The evidence suggest that students do not care about learning English for
communication as their only objective is to transmit an idea. Learners who took risks in
the written assignment were not able to give their oral exposition satisfactory. Therefore,
pupils who took risks to say ideas differently, used a translator. When translators are
constantly used without having notion of adequate grammar and vocabulary, learners
overuse Spanish structures since most of translators translate word by word and Spanish
turns the language of concern.

86
 Finally, 0,0% of participants said that writing on a personal journal about their feelings
is a tool for getting their stress down. During the assignments and the training class
students never show a personal diary to write about their feelings. Once again, this
demonstrates how pupils´ lack of social learning strategies as well as misdirected learning
strategies have them overuse Spanish instead of practicing English.

Figure 7.1.10

During English classes, which of the following actions do you take to obtain information?

Table 9

WRITING: SPEAKING:
REPETION REPETION
INDICATOR TIMES TIMES AVERAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
Questions
(teacher / 89 46 67,5 Often 66,18%
classmates).
Pair work 45 34 39,5 Sometimes 38,73%
Group work 33 4 18,5 Rarely 18,14%

During Foreign language classes the need of classmates to obtain information occurs
permanently. Due to this fact, this was asked what participants do to get information
during English lessons. 88,2% said that questions are made to their English teacher and
to their classmates. As the writing assignment was done during a period of class, this was
seen that after giving the instructions, students often made questions to the trainer
(teacher). Thus, 66,18% of all participants made questions to the teacher and their
classmates. Yet, most of questions made to their classmates and those made to the
teacher were in Spanish, but the facilitator directed them to ask in English.

87
 A 9,8% of participants said that they work in pairs to get information in English classes
while only a 5,9% answered they work in groups for this reason. By the time the writing
assignment was taking place, students sometimes work in pairs, and they rarely decided
to work in groups. Hence, as the writing assignment was executed during a period of
class, learners were asked to work in pairs or groups if they wanted to, but with the
condition to have an individual work by the end. However, 38,73% of students join to a
classmate to develop this task, so far, only an 18,14% of them decided to work within a
group.

Following this farther, all students working with other one / ones, used Spanish to
interact among them. Most of the time, the facilitator did not assure or direct the couples
and groups to interact in English. The analysis done on the writing assignments done in
pairs or groups threw results like the overuse of Spanish structures with similar lexis
between English and Spanish. Most of lexis did not show accurate equivalents between
the two languages.

This happens because students unconsciously used structures that they heard and
overheard while interacting constantly in Spanish. To end this up, during the oral
performance none of the students introduced him / herself as been working with another
classmate, neither of them asked questions or assistance to other partners. Still, they
asked the facilitator questions about the speaking execution but most of them were made
in Spanish.

To conclude, no matter how much time students make questions to the teacher or their
classmates or how students work, that is, in pairs or groups without assuring that
interactions occur in English. When students spend much time getting information by
using their first language [Spanish] to this aim, people engaged get used to using only
English words that are similar to those in Spanish. Also, most of time those similar words
do not match their equivalents so much so that English turns clumsy and understandable
because this Spanish overuse.

Figure 7.1.11

When you write, how do you put words in English?

88
Table 10
WRITING: SPEAKING:
REPETION REPETION
INDICATOR TIMES TIMES AVERAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
Starting verbs 76 44 60 Often 58,82%
Ending verbs 59 40 49,5 Sometimes 48,53%
Nouns before
80 90 85
verbs Always 83,33%
Nouns after
verbs
41 28 34,5 Sometimes 33,82%
Past verbs after
12 13 12,5
Be Rarely 12,25%
Past verbs
before Be
24 39 31,5 Sometimes 30,88%

Grammar structures and some isolated words that showed overuse of Spanish during
English learning were analyzed in the context of the two assignments performance.
However, participants were asked firstly how the words used in their sentences are
placed. Thus, 48% of participants said that they place a verb at the beginning of the
sentences. In the passage students wrote, this was observed that they often place the
verb at the beginning of sentences, thus, this was demonstrated by the 58,82% of the
times learners placed a verb in a sentence. During oral performances students just said
sentences by means of subject ´verb + complement structure.

A 14,7% of participants said that placing a verb at the end of a sentence is done by
them. Surprisingly, 48,53% of the times students place a verb in a sentence, this
appeared at the end. Nonetheless, these verbs were not located as the object of a
sentence but as an isolated action. Some sentences like “The cat black jumping” is
understood like a description in progressive with a few errors. Hence, students sometimes

89
place a verb at the end of a sentence but the tense they pretend to indicate turns another
one, still this is accurate. The overuse of Spanish is seen in this sentences structure as
omitting “is” for indicating progressive actions. This is understandable in Spanish though.

While 27,5% of the participants answered that they put a noun before a verb, a 17,6%
indicated that they place a noun after a verb. In the written passage students handed,
83,33% of nouns were collocated before a verb, and only a 33,82% of nouns were put
after a verb. Sentences like “two run the cats” or “flying three birds” show how pupils
sometimes overuse Spanish structures, which in the two examples given, if translated
literally, turn understandable. Even when wrong sentences appear with less frequency,
once again students try to find the precious equivalence by following word by word order
just like in Spanish.

Then, when students were asked if they put a verb in past after “be” a 13,7% nodded
they did. Another 12,7% answered they locate a verb before “be”. The written passage
shows how students rarely place a verb in past after “be” with a 12,25% of the times this
action happened. Also, students sometimes place a verb in past before “be” with a
12,25% of the times. Some examples of verb location before and after “be” were “One girl
is accepted at the park” “one boy cleaned is at bathroom”.

Contrasting these two languages is useful to know what the pros or cons of this action
are. By taking foundation on Larsen (2000):

The fact that first language acquisition turns itself into a

useful tool when teaching a second one depends on the
origin of both languages. When students are to be taught a
second language they usually compare and contrast words
or phrases to those of the new language.

Referencing Spanish, and English turns prejudicial as both of languages have different
origin. the fact that students achieve this grammar assertion rarely and they do follow this
type of structures sometimes wrongly is worrying. Even though wrong structures happen
sometimes, the right ones appear rarely. Thus, students still use their mother tongue as a
reference to be replaced, word by word, by English. Because both of structures work well
in Spanish and because Spanish is taken as a reference, pupils think this also happens in
English. The lack of learning by internalization of sounds and fixed structures in English
causes students overuse Spanish when taking this as the main reference.

90
Figure 7.1.12

How do you use English words?

Table 11
WRITING: SPEAKING:
REPETION REPETION
INDICATOR TIMES TIMES AVERAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
Uses some
friendly words
like “similar” (in Always 89,22%
English)
93 89 91
“similar”
(Spanish).
Uses some
false cognates
like current
(actual in 59 56 87
English) similar Always 85,29%
to corriente
(Spanish).
Inferences
many words like
natural, cool,
grocery,
embarrassed, 81 77 79 Often 77,45%
etc. because
they resemble
to those of
Spanish.

In response to the question about how participants used words in English, 47,1% of
participants answered that they use homonym words between English and Spanish. Of
course, these are not homonyms at all since pronunciation varies a little on stress. In the
writing and speaking analysis, an 89,22% of equivalents all students used, were
considered homonyms for these two languages. Hence the observation remarks that
participants always use words whose pronunciation, writing, and meaning are similar in
English and Spanish.

91
 Other 38,2% of participants emphasized the use of English words whose pronunciation
and writing turn a lot like those of Spanish. Hence, the results thrown by the analysis done
on the writing and speaking assignment show that these students always use
homophones. The fact that during the assignment analysis 85,29% of pupils´ words were
written and said by means of considered homophones, that is resembled words with
different meaning between English and Spanish, caused too many miss equivalents. For
instance, students overused the word “current” to mean “electricity”, but the meaning is
“actual” in Spanish. The same happened with “grocery” to mean rude, but the meaning is
“tienda” in Spanish.

The fact that students use what they consider homonyms and homophones really turns
a rule that governs their communication wrongly. Homonym as well as homophone words
exist only within the same language not between two different ones. When this wrong rule
is applied, the overuse of Spanish takes place as learners provide their actual knowledge
from their mother tongue to their target one. This all causes them to learn wrongly and not
to progress on the language of interest.

Additionally, only a 19,6% of participants stated that they guess the meaning of
resembling words of English and Spanish. During the analysis, this was evidenced that
77,45% of the resembling words appearing on the written assignments showed a chance
to inference or guess; sometimes correctly and sometimes wrongly. Therefore, in written
passages students often used resembling words [between English and Spanish] like
natural, cool, grocery, and embarrassed to achieve the aim of casting and understanding
a message with not much effort.

Figure 7.1.13

How do you learn English words?

Table 12

WRITING: SPEAKING:
INDICATOR REPETION REPETION AVERAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES

92
 TIMES TIMES

Words by
categories not
66 16 41
as a whole Sometimes 40,20%
group.
Negative
24 21 34,5
sentences. Sometimes 33,82%
Present, past,
and future 13 19 16 Rarely 15,69%
sequence.

The way and structure students use English words is of paramount importance when
this deals with syntax accuracy. For this purpose, participants were asked about the forms
their English words were ordered or categorized in sentences according to the context.
29,4% of learners answered that even without an interaction with other learners, they are
capable to classify words amongst nouns, adjectives, and verbs. Moreover, 37,3% of
participants also added they are able to classify words into other categories like animals
or colors by themselves.

In relation to the mentioned above, 40,20% of students showed a correct classification

of words by categories during their written and oral assignments. When the written
assignment was analyzed, the attempt of students to use the structure given by a chart to
extract descriptive sentences was evident. Participants sometimes displayed sentences
written with the word order “number + appearance + personality + noun + action + place”.
Sentences like “two old generous men share aliments at the park” reflected this situation.

Despite this fact, a half of descriptive sentences written with these structures were
wrongly achieved. For instance, “Seven friendly fat trees talk at the park”. This
demonstrates that half of students know what a classification of items according to their
category is, but they sometimes achieve the correct classification because technique
vocabulary like adjective, adverb, etc. is not understood. Students´ lack of syntax
achievement causes them overuse Spanish since the functional meaning they want to
cast does not focus on pragmatics (rational ideas) but on turning Spanish words into their
equivalents in English.

Following this further, this restates the following idea: “so far learners have only looked
the isolated structure (such as this is) consisting of just a pronoun or just a name – single
words count as meaningful themselves in general structures” (Burton, 2011, p. 141).

93
Hence, only when words are used to form a whole group to transmit an idea correctly in
context, is categorization useful.

A 22,5% of learners said that they use negative sentences or forms in English.
However, only 33,82% of them did this while writing and oral assignments took place. The
fact that students sometimes used negative forms shows the comfortable place they stand
for large time. The critical period must not be elongated considering the levels students
must reach to achieve communicative competences. Most of the time students comfort
themselves by writing and speaking affirmatively. This situation is valid for the lowest level
of concern [eight grade]. Nonetheless, students from superior grades of concern [nineth
and tenth] must apply other structures: negative and interrogative when possible.

Similarly, only 15,69% of the sentences written and told by participants were written in
simple past and future tenses. This was evidenced, despite the fact that 31,4% of them
stated they use different tenses in sequence. Yet, sentences written in past, or future did
not appear sequentially, that is, from future existed a jump to past, and to present again.
Using simple present or present progressive almost all the time, means that learners
elongate their critical period by rule - governing and generalizing all grammar tenses in
English by means of simple present. Once again, for pupils, most important is to transmit
an idea not to be understood.

Figure 7.1.14

Which of the following strategies do you apply to learn more English vocabulary?

Table 13

94
 WRITING: SPEAKING:
REPETION REPETION
INDICATOR TIMES TIMES AVERAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
Meanings in a
Often 60,78%
dictionary or 79 45 62
translator.
Inferences
words in 26 85 55,5 Often 54,41%
context.
Uses the words
(presented
recently) during 93 93 93 Always 91,18%
the training
period.
Focuses on
writing or Always 85,78%
76 99 87,5
pronouncing
words correctly.

In relation to how students learn English vocabulary, a question about the strategies
applied to achieve this aim was asked. 63,7% of students responded that their main
strategy is to look up the meanings of words in a translator or dictionary. While students
wrote their descriptive passage during a class period, 60,78% of the times a word whose
meaning was not known was researched. This was checked that students often look up
meanings of words on a virtual dictionary or translator. In relation to this fact, students
spent twice the time they would spend if meanings were inferenced in context.

Additionally, 24,5% of participants also showed that underlining unknown words by the
time lectures are read is one strategy for learning English vocabulary. Even though, during
the writing assignment this was not evidenced as participants were not able to analyze or
read any extra passage, most of students had some words of their descriptions
highlighted. These words are evidence of the learning strategy that students apply to
know the meanings of unacquainted items.

While only a 3,9% of participants answered this question by stating that they did not
care about meanings in Spanish because these could be inferenced anyway, 54,41% of
the times students did not know the meaning of words during the writing activity, students
inferenced meanings by the context. One example was the word “pretty” whose
introduction based on displaying a picture that contained nouns described by other
adjectives. Students analyzed the possibility this word could mean beautiful as they often
contrasted this word with other nouns described as ugly.

95
 Then, 23,5% of participants said that words learned recently during classes are used
by in other activities. Yet, during the writing and oral performances, this was observed that
students always used items recently learned. In fact, 91,18% of the vocabulary
[adjectives, nouns, and verbs] used during the training classes, corresponded to the
vocabulary pupils learned classes before.

Additionally, most of English teachers assured their students always used the words
learned recently. An agreement to Harmer (2007) who states that half of the time that
language is produced, at least happens on written texts, is found. Definitely, applying new
introduced lexis [also extracted from passages] into new activities does not cause learners
overuse Spanish while learning English.

After that, 22,5% of participants said that concentrating on pronunciation of new

internalized words is their strategy to learn English vocabulary. Surprisingly, during the
training classes, the writing performance – period, as well as during the oral performance,
participants always focused on reaching the correct pronunciation of words. 85,78% of the
times students pronounced a word loudly, happened without direction of the teacher.

On the other hand, students who did not care about pronunciation, produced Spanish
phonemes during their oral performance. Problems in pronunciation of English clusters
and inexistent phonemes in Spanish like the rotic or labiodental were gone through.
Therefore, English learners who do not worry about pronunciation, overuse Spanish
phonetically as English sounds are produced the same way these would be produced in
Spanish.

In conclusion, most of students spend more time looking up the meanings of words
from English to Spanish. Also, learners indicated that some words are bolded and
analyzed during a text analysis for this reason too. These two learning strategies for
getting pupils´ vocabulary larger gets learners overuse Spanish items. When finding
equivalents, a list of possible words appears for the researcher to choose the appropriate
one. Students select the “most convenient one” which most of the times is similar to the
word of concern. Hence, the overuse of Spanish is evident when learners prefer selecting
an item itself instead of avoiding the equivalent meaning to their mother tongue. Meanings
of words are practical and useful when these are given by means of a definition.

Figure 7.1.15

96
How do you combine words in English?

Table 14
WRITING: SPEAKING:
REPETION REPETION
INDICATOR TIMES TIMES AVERAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES

Uses synonyms 12 23 17,5 Rarely 17,16%

Uses antonyms 0 0 0 Never 0,00%

Paraphrased
11 37 24 Rarely 23,53%
sentences.

Sentences in
14 19 16,5 Rarely 16,18%
many tenses.

Struggles in
pronunciation.
Tries until 0 99 99 Always 97,06%
words are said
correctly.
Practices
pronunciation 0 99 99 Always 97,06%
anatomically.

In order to identify if the lexical approach causes students to overuse Spanish when
learning English, participants were asked how English words are combined. First, 24,5%
of students indicated that replacing words by using synonims is their action to internalize
words. 25,5% indicated that paraphrasing sentences are the actions taken for combining
words in English as well. However, in the writing and oral assignment, only 17,16% of
students used synonims and 23,53% used paraphrases after the first time a sentence was

97
introduced. For example, a first introduced sentence was “Seven big balls stay at the
court” while in a second introduction this was “Seven grand rounds is in the court”.

The fact that students rarely use synonims, and rarely paraphrase sentences is not
convenient. This action when doing rarely causes learners to be aware of Spanish
grammar structures as pupils are not gotten used to paraphrasing. Students overuse
Spanish in the sense that equivalences of words between the two languages of concern is
not gotten correctly. Instead, pupils take synonims that are written and pronounced the
same way as in Spanish, and students avoid selecting them from a list of right synonims
that the teacher, a translator, or a dictionary provides.

Second, only 5,9% of participants said that using antonyms is an action done for
combining words in English. In fact, during the writing and speaking performance, none of
student took opportunities to turn a phrase or a sentence into a negative form, and none
of students replaced nouns or verbs by antonyms. A conclusive idea is that lexical
approach is never oriented rightly to learners despite this method gets learners to
internalize a plethora of words rapidly, especially when active learning processes like
paraphrasing and using synonims and antonyms are provided.

When students are not oriented to internalize English vocabulary actively, the lexical
approach appears to afford with intensive feedback of Spanish items. That is, pupils
consider translating or just categorizing words by understanding their meanings in
Spanish. Students reinforce words they already know [Spanish words] which are not of
concern. Dalton and Seidlhofer’s (1994) as well as Martinez (2013) coincide in, that is; at
the beginning speakers must be exposed to new language to get a real phonemic and
pragmatic input that helps them copy language matters such as tone, articulation or even
accents. Thus, what the authors claim do not coincide to what happens in this study,

Even though, participants were not required to provide definitions of items in their
written or oral presentations, a short 25,5% of them indicated that definitions for some
items are written in English. By considering this response as well as a few words defined
in a page of their English book, the evidence suggests that learners rarely provide their
own definitions to certain lexis in English.

Then, 22,5% of participants said that turning sentences from present into past is an
activity used for combing English words. This was observed that students rarely do this
action. Only a 16,18% of participants used sentences in different tenses and mode while

98
their writing assignment took place. The same sentences used in different mode were
repeated during the speaking presentation. “Five pink roses stay at the garden” and
“Some roses are not present in the garden” are instances of that. Students who wanted to
talk negatively or making questions, but they did not used these modes in their writing
task, mixed present tenses with “no” or asked by means of an affirmative sentence with a
modulated – question pitch.

In relation to the mentioned above, students who did not used sentences differently
during their writing assignment, mix modes and overuse the word “no” for expressing all
negative ideas in all English tenses which means that learners are deprived of acquiring
negative auxiliaries like not, do /does not, will not, etc. For example, “Nine small coconuts
no present at the forest yesterday”.

After that, 34,3% of participants answered that pronunciation practices of difficult words
take place with the help of their English teacher, and 18,6% indicated that practices of
difficult words are done anatomically, that is, by placing the tongue in different positions to
produce sound correctly. Surprisingly, during the writing and the speaking assignments,
as well as in the training classes, this was demonstrated that pupils always carry out with
the two actions mentioned before. 97,06% of the times students practiced the
pronunciation of words during the training or the oral performance, were done with the
assistance of the teacher who oriented them to practice anatomically the different
phonemes.

Finally, using the lexical approach declined phonologically, provides learners the
opportunity to practice new words more directly without comparing words and phonemes
to those of Spanish. Definitely, the lexical approach when applied well, allows students to
have moment of interaction, produce the target language notionally, and avoid overusing
Spanish because practices are focused on direct pronunciation not on getting meanings.

Figure 7.1.16

What activities do you do in English classes?

99
Table 15
WRITING: SPEAKING:
REPETION REPETION
INDICATOR TIMES TIMES AVERAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
Reacts in
English to a 9 91 50 Sometimes 49,02%
shown image.
Writes a short
speech in 99 99 99 Always 97,06%
English to read.

In order to get acquainted of the communicative competence students have in English

language, a question was asked to know what activities take place during foreign
language classes. 66,7% of pupils answered that one communicative activity bases on the
oral reaction to a drawing, image or graphic. In fact, this was checked that students
sometimes react to pictures or images. The assignments, indeed, dealt with the reaction
of a picture by means of a written description and an oral one afterwards. In the writing
task, 9 students demonstrated not having any idea of how a picture could be described.
Therefore, this situation affected their participation on the oral performance despite the
fact that the rest of students reacted to their picture anyway.

During training lessons, students who did not perform their writing and speaking
assignment correctly, showed themselves to be dependent from the teacher explanations
in the mother tongue. That is, these students waited for having the explanations and
instructions in Spanish. This causes students to overuse Spanish as a dependence on
what is said by the teacher in Spanish is generated. This happens by the time pupils show
themselves apathetic on learning words in English. In fact, learners think what is important
is to understand matters by means of Spanish explanations.

In relation to listening audios and music in English, 19,6% of participants answered

that these activities take place during their foreign language lessons. Also, 14,7% of pupils
stated that elaborating dialogues among partners is another activity performed during

100
English classes. This was not possible to check the frequency these actions happen
through the course of the written and oral assignments. Still, the fact that a part of
students decided to work in pairs or groups shows how dialogue elaboration often
happens. Most of the time, Spanish overuse was evidenced by conversations students
held in this language. A big deal of this situation happened because of the teacher´s lack
of assistance and individual feedback.

Finally, even when only a 14,7% of participants claimed that elaborating short
speeches to read in front of the class is an activity that takes place during English lessons,
always appears to be the frequency students perform these activities. The fact that
97,06% of total speeches was performed, indicates that students perform speeches
constantly, not only by means of reactions to symbols or images but also with expositions
by memory, or by expressing large opinions.

In short, communicative competence seems to be affected when students are not

allowed to express themselves by using the target language constantly. Similarly,
students who do not develop the writing process are not able to react to images and
neither describe them. Learners tend to hesitate a lot and pause too much time before
telling a word because they rather overuse Spanish by translating word by word instead of
reacting directly in English.

Figure 7.1.17

Which of the following activities do you carry out in your English course?

Table 16
WRITING: SPEAKING:
REPETION REPETION
INDICATOR TIMES TIMES AVERAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES

101
Presents
sentences
45 45 45
refering Sometimes 44,12%
everyday life.
Receives
feedback from
classmates
during the
33 43 38 Sometimes 37,25%
elaboration of a
project.
Express
opinions about
the projects of
12 23 17,5 Rarely 17,16%
others.
Clear and
precise
instructions are
99 99 99 Always 97,06%
given.

As far as tasks, projects, and instructions concern, participants were asked to choose
among a number of activities considered to be performed during their English lessons.
29,4% of students indicated that projects aimed to help with some of their problems are
developed during English classes. Nevertheless, in the writing description as well as in the
oral presentation only 44,12% of sentences described a part of an image by refering to
any problem that needed to be solved. Some sentence like “Two young poor kids work
hard on streets” and “One alone short puppy lives on streets” clearly reflect the
unconscious intention that sometimes students have to deal with any problem.

Furthermore, 13,7% of participants nodded that while working in English projects,

students interact to receive and provide feedback among them. Despite the teacher
provided many spaces for students to help one another during the training lessons,
learners helped and received assistance from others only 37,25% of the times provided.
By considering the assignments [written and spoken] as a descriptive English – project,
students sometimes demonstrated empathy during the elaboration of this. In spoken
performances some learners forgot what was supposed to be said, however, there were
almost no volunteers to help them.

Moreover, the moments of feedback provided by some students happened because of

the motivation given by the teacher. During projects, students have to agree about what
must be solved. Nonetheless, students demonstrated apathetic and shyness to give
feedback in English while sometimes pupils were comfortable to aid in Spanish. The fact
that students are allowed to provide feedback during project development is right, the

102
problem appears when their mother tongue is the means because these causes them
overuse Spanish items which are not the main learning concern.

Whether or not expressing opinions about the projects of other students was another
question made to participants. Only a short 5,9% answered that their opinions are given
by the time English projects are executed. As this was supposed to happen, only 17,16%
of the comments on the written and oral presentations were Grammarly right - opinions
about the works. In fact, opinions were rarely told during performances.

Most of the time, comments were given by means of Spanglish phrases such as “you
deberias effort plus” or “no, tú sounded grocery”. Students were not directed by the
teacher or other students to correct these sentences. The overuse of Spanish is
evidenced when learners are allowed to mix already known - English - words with Spanish
ones, which are used to replace the most difficult items from the target language.
Additionally, this way for overusing Spanish in English learning gets students to make
mistakes when using false cognates to replace those difficult - English - words.

Finally, when participants were asked if clear instructions for the elaboration of projects
are given by the teacher, 59,8% of them answered this is true. Before starting with the
writing and spoken description, all teachers explained the steps of execution (process)
clearly. Apart from three students who did not know how to describe their image, the rest
of students, that is, 97,06% of them followed the instructions correctly. This means that
the teacher makes sure to always give the instructions in a way that is understandable.

In summary, task - based instruction is a method that promotes motivation, interaction,

assistance amongst partners, and social evaluation – problems. The right application of
this method during English classes assures learners to interact by means of this
language. On the contrary, the overuse of Spanish (especially lexis) is present when
permission to use false cognates or to mix words of both of Spanish and English
languages is often given. In this way, learners still being focused on practicing more
Spanish than English.

Regarding to the concepts above, teachers are not constantly projecting the idea that
agrees with Córdoba (2016) who remarked that in Anglo -Saxon tongue, learning trough
projects is nodded as paramount importance for assisting language use as well as to
soften the acquisition of this language by having the learner active within the class. In fact,
teachers are worried about the final product but the creation of adequate environments or

103
contexts that permit students use the target language seems to be of no concern. If
adequate environments to perform tasks and projects do not exist, learners overuse
Spanish as to have a desperate opportunity to interact with others.

Figure 7.1.18

During English classes, which of the following events happens frequently?

Table 17
WRITING: SPEAKING:
REPETION REPETION
INDICATOR TIMES TIMES AVERAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
Instructions
allow students Always 97,06%
to work alone
99 99 99
with their pairs.
Students ask
the teacher
every time they
76 66 71 Often 69,61%
need.
Students do
brainstorm 27 27 27
Rarely 26,47%
before an
activity.

Given that community language learning allows pupils to be engaged in the execution
of mutual interest - activities by the time interaction through the target language (English)
occurs, participants were asked about some events happening frequently within their
classroom. In relation to tasks and activities, 14,7% of participants said that an only
instruction for permitting pupils to work by themselves with other partners is given.

104
 During the training classes teachers always gave one general instruction and allowed
students to work with their partners by themselves. Of course, this was not possible to
count the number of items in writing and speaking assignments that followed this
instruction only. This is why the way this general instruction given at the beginning of the
assignment execution is considered to always happen. This only instruction at the
beginning of the class was given in English but students did not understand the general
idea, so much so that, they preferred to ask their classmates once again. Still, the
questions among students were made in Spanish

Participants were also asked about the number of questions made to the teacher
during English classes. From 102 students, 70,6% answered that questions are made
every time they need. In fact, this was observed that while the writing task took place,
pupils often approached the teacher for asking him / her questions about the assignment.
69, 61% of students reached the teacher´s place to ask about the task. Nevertheless,
most of questions were asked in Spanish, the teacher did not require the questions to be
made in English.

Once students went back to their seats, they wrote down the feedback given by the
teacher and tried to look up the equivalents in the target language. Students overused
Spanish in two ways; first, while holding conversations among classmates, and every time
they got feedback from the teacher through their mother tongue. When questions and
responses are given in Spanish, students tend to translate these ideas by having Spanish
as priority. Thus, more practice is dedicated to Spanish than to English.

Next, this was observed that students rarely brainstorm or generated ideas in relation to
the topic shown at the beginning of the training and instruction class. 23,5% of participants
indicated that brainstorming is an activity done at the starting point of the class and this
percentage is not different from the 26,47% of times students brainstormed at the
beginning of the class. As this activity is rarely done, most of the time students are
deprived from sharing cultural and emotional ideas via English within a real learning
community.

In this school, community language teaching is not being applied under its real goal as
this is aimed to teach language to be used and not as a matter to be followed theoretically
with structural schemas to be followed. As this was claimed by Richards (2006)
competence shows matters of language utterances, elucidation, as well as interchange of
sense while SLA (Second Language Acquisition) seems to be dependent from

105
linguistically – psychological, social, and cultural facts. When teachers do not achieve
their students to interact via the target language (English), and facilitators do not make
sure this happens accurately within the classroom, pupils tend to overuse their mother
tongue (Spanish) to communicate and understand assignments.

To end this up, the lack of social interactions through the target language [English] into
community learning environments, has students generate questions with voice pitch only,
as these often happen in Spanish. These questions are made in this way to assure the
use of English language in the class. Overusing Spanish intonation, gets students to omit
auxiliaries necessary to make questions in English.

Figure 7.1.19

How do you use English in your life?

Table 18
WRITING: SPEAKING:
REPETION REPETION
INDICATOR TIMES TIMES AVERAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
Mentions
foreign places Rarely 20,64%
11 32 21,05
or people in the
assignment.

Despite the fact that participants were not asked directly about their knowledge on
immersion programs for learning English, participants were aimed to select how the use of
English takes place in their lives. 48% of students indicted that their current use of English
deals with talking to someone who speaks English at home, during a travel, walk, etc.
then, 60,8% of participants said that their use of English bases on talking to foreign people
when they travel to another country where English is spoken.

Although participants mentioned that their use of English, in a great deal, favors them
to cope with their everyday situations, foreign places and people were rarely mentioned in

106
the written passages and the spoken descriptions students performed. Just 20,64% of
sentences students wrote and said mentioned foreign places at the end of the grammar
structure taught. For instance, “Ten beautiful flowers grow up at the rooftop of the Empire
State Building”.

The fact that students almost never mentioned foreign places especially English -
speaking ones, causes learning to stay just within Spanish contexts. Remaining even
within non – simulated foreign environments, turns dangerous to fluently speak the target
language. Learners, instead, remain overusing their mother tongue while learning English
since Spanish turns the appropriate one that the context requires. This whole analysis
throws results like those students unconsciously know what immerse programs are,
however, these are not applied minimally in any scope of any ordinary public - education
of middle level in Ecuador.

Figure 7.1.20

How do you use English at your school?

Table 19
WRITING: SPEAKING:
REPETION REPETION
INDICATOR TIMES TIMES AVERAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
Refers to
interdisciplinary
matters: Math, 33 47 40 Sometimes 39,22%
Science,
Literature.
Refers to
cultural
aspects; the Never 0,00%
Independence
0 0 0
Day, all soul´s
day, etc.
Asks and
answers
questions in 19 68 43,5 Sometimes 42,65%
class only in
English.

107
 According to the English curriculum guidelines from Ecuador, CLIL (Content Language
Integrated Leaning) must be the methodology to teach English at public high schools. In
this sense, in order to know the grade of application of CLIL, participants in this study
were asked how the use of their English is while staying at school. 25,5% of students
answered that English is used for learning other subjects like Mathematics, Science, or
Literature whose content is provided in English. However, during the writing and speech
given, none of students have any other subject completely in English and none of
participants referenced their whole description to a specific subject. For example, neither
scientifical facts nor mathematical lines were described.

This was observed, then, that students sometimes used literary manners in their
descriptions. In fact, 39,22% of sentences written in pupils´ descriptions followed a
poetical or metaphoric manner like “8 beautiful Cinderella stayed calms at the Olympus
ciel”. This last situation happened unconsciously, and pupils overused Spanish because
this was said 8, because learners do not domain its spelling, students also generalize the
Spanish rule to make adjectives plural by adding “s”. Finally, “ciel” does not exist but
students assumed this means heaven, but this ends up being a false cognate.

Following this further, the evidence suggests that not learning other subjects by means
of English gets students generalize English as a plethora set of words whose structure
must be reviewed. Apart of overusing Spanish with false cognates, when pupils try to use
English interdisciplinary, they make a lot of mistakes because directions and learning of
certain topics are not being constantly given through English language. Thus, learners
concentrate in structuring sentences, not in transmitting a taught or fact pragmatically.

Next, 0,00% of participants indicated that English is used by them to refer to cultural
aspects like “The Independence Day” or “All Saint´s day”. Similarly, students never
referred to any cultural celebration or matter during their assignments´ performance. Once
again, students did not use English to get or send cultural messages. This causes
students overuse Spanish during English learning as there are certain festivals whose
names are different in English, but students say them in Spanish even when holding a
dialogue in English.

To end this up, 66,7% of participants indicated that their questions and answers are
maid just in English since during English lessons only the target language is spoken.
Nonetheless, this was observed during the training classes as well as during the
assignments´ performance that students sometimes make questions and answers in

108
English. On the contrary to what participants responded about questions and answers
during English classes, only 42,65% of questions were done in English. The rest of
students overused Spanish in these two ways: the pitch on English affirmative - sentences
was raised as in Spanish questions, and other learners made non – understandable
questions in English, that is why they ended up asking the same question in Spanish. The
same happened with answers. These were badly said once in English, then, correctly said
in Spanish.

In consequence, as (Marsh, Maljers, & Hartiala, 2001, cited by Ávila, 2014, p. 2)

explain, CLIL applied in context helps language learners to perform well on globalized
educational and laboral matters while content notions help learners understand and
discriminate scientific information, which is helpful to future studies. Therefore, CLIL is not
being used correctly during English classes at this public high school from Ecuador. Not
using CLIL as well as a similar methodology correctly, permits students to be immerse in
Spanish practice and overuse this during English lessons afterwards.

The successful analysis of data collected through the course of this investigation stage,
had the researcher gotten information of paramount importance. Thus, in the following
lines, descriptions done in this chapter will be useful to understand different factors
concerning the two research variables, so much so that, conclusions will be written for
satisfying the main objective of this research: to find out the causes that get students
overuse Spanish forms and items while learning English.

109
 8. CONCLUSIONS

The most important contribution of this research project to the field of Teaching
English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) is to encourage facilitators (teachers) the
application of methodologies, approaches, and activities correctly. Through this means,
Spanish inhibition is produced by the time English lessons take place. Also, the promotion
of learning strategies that avoid overusing Spanish, its structure, and its items while
learning English is similarly important. These matters applied correctly, guarantee
students to go out fossilization as fast as possible as well as the use of the target
language notionally, that is, for communication.

English, as well as other languages, must be practiced constantly. Practice by means

of the four main skills: reading, writing, listening, and speaking must be done through an
integrated way. In order to assure that English is being practiced accurately, learners must
be engaged in adapted or natural referred – language – contexts. Adapted native –
environments, have students internalize items (lexis) and structures (phrases and
sentences) directly without the need of thinking in Spanish first or to compare English to
their mother tongue. Apart from depriving students from double effort, learning English
directly and naturally causes them to avoid using non – understandable phrases in
productive skills (writing and speaking) that mix Spanish and English.

At the starting point, this investigation was aimed to identify the English patterns, items
and grammar structures used by students while learning English. Then, to examine the
English patterns, items, and grammar structures in students´ oral and written
communication in relation to items and grammar structures used in Spanish, so that
wrong equivalents; misses, between these two languages are taken as overuse
indicators. Finally, to conclude the main reasons why students from superior sublevel -
grades decide on overusing Spanish items and grammar structures while learning
English.

In order to have responses to this research study, three main objectives were sat.
Hence, the conclusions of this research were determined by means of the analysis done
on the results obtained during the discussion stage.

8.1 Objectives´ achievement

110
8.1.1 Objective 1. To identify the English patterns, items and grammar structures
used by students while learning English at superior sublevel.

Through the course of the whole research process, that is, during training classes,
written assignments, and oral performances as well as the survey application, the
following English patterns and types of words were used by students learning English as a
foreign language at Humberto Vacas Gómez school from Ecuador. This lexis, forms, word
orders, phonemes (sounds), and grammar structures were identified without refering to
the curriculum students must be taught with, but by taking into consideration their
productive assignments in writing and speaking respectively.

The most common structure used by students while learning English at superior
sublevel is “subject + verb+ complement”. Despite the fact that this structure is the most
common and right one to convey ideas clearly, students use this one as a general rule
which do not allow them progress to other more difficult structures. Hence, learners use
“subject + verb + complement” in present, past, and future, all these in affirmative form. By
following this structure only, the omission of auxiliaries is evident when trying to speak in
negative or interrogative forms.

Other English structure that students from superior sublevel also use is present
progressive. Most of students are used to adding “ing” as a suffix to verbs placed at the
end of a sentence. However, students overuse Spanish in this structure when omitting to
be verb (is, are, am). Learners know that progressive sentences with omissions on to be
verb are understood in Spanish so much so that they transfer this Spanish - experienced
form to English too.

Regarding to lexis, students often use homonym words. Pupils use this kind of words
as their meanings are inferenced. The action of inferencing meanings of words in context
provides foreign language - learners better opportunities to internalize English more
directly. Nevertheless, students inference this lexis by noticing about sounds and written
symbols (letters) which most of the time get students use false cognates instead of
friendly words.

Another important matter to be considered as a result of this investigation, is the fact

that students do not tend to use synonyms or antonyms for refering about nouns
mentioned for second, third, or more times in the same passage or speech. The lexical

111
approach is usually used by English instructors at this sublevel; however, activities are
wrongly directed.

In fact, this methodology to teach English is often applied by the teacher who has in
mind the wrong idea to get students learn through isolated words, lists of vocabularies that
show equivalences (translations) between English and Spanish as well as by categorizing
words whose meanings are written in Spanish. On the contrary, the lexical - approach –
activities, which assure pupils to learn actively, for example, replacing words by synonyms
or antonyms, writing definitions to new introduced – words, or discarding words that do not
belong to a certain category are hardly ever applied.

In matters of English phonology, learners do not often produce the correct sounds
when speaking. English sounds like the “rotic one” (r), which in fact carries no problem
when this is produced as the rotic sound of Spanish, is not pronounced with an English
accent in any word. The labiodental, dental as well as plosives are never produced either.
In addition, clusters are the most difficult syllables to pronounce for students from superior
sublevel. By the time learners do not reach English - phonetic - accuracy, they overuse
their mother tongue [Spanish] even phonetically because of the allowance to pronounce
words by means of Spanish phonemes.

Finally, the questions students at sublevel superior make are not syntactically
produced. All students omit the corresponding auxiliary, and all questions are done in
simple present when pretending to get responses in past or future. Pupils from these
grades ask to their partners by means of affirmative sentences said with a higher pitch
that indicates those affirmative sentences are questions. Even though asking questions by
this way is possible because these are understandable, this form of making questions
works well only with questions in simple present. Pupils overuse their mother tongue since
this form of making all questions, that is, without auxiliaries and with a high pitch is made
in Spanish.

8.1.2 Objective 2. To examine the English patterns, items, and grammar structures
in students´ oral and written communication in relation to items and grammar
structures used in Spanish, so that wrong equivalents; misses, between these two
languages are taken as overuse indicators.

After tabulating, analyzing, and interpreting the results thrown in the students´ survey
and comparing them with their checklists concerning to writing and speaking

112
performances, this was identified that students produced English patterns, items, and
structures based on generalization, negative transfer, collocations, friendly words, and
false cognates by following models of grammar rules and structures existing in their
mother tongue (Spanish).

One of the most common forms that students apply when overusing Spanish is the
addition of the suffix “ed” to all regular and irregular verbs in simple past. The fact that
students add this suffix to all kinds of English verbs conjugated in simple past has a lot to
do with a matter related to interlanguage, that is, generalization.

The overuse of this Spanish form interferences with English learning since students
take Spanish as the reference model that has them assume that as well as in Spanish, all
English verbs conjugated in simple past are said alike. Despite the fact that in their mother
tongue (Spanish) regular and irregular verbs do not follow a rule to be declined in simple
past, students unconsciously generalize the use of “ed” to all simple past - verbs in
English. This happens as students prefer adding “ed” according to their own set of rules
than memorizing a large list of irregular verbs in simple past. Of course, students prefer
the way that is less stressful during the learning process.

Other important structure found that shows transfer from Spanish to English is the
addition of “s” to turn adjectives into plurals. Due to the enough time students often have
in writing tasks, this transfer is pervasive on written passages or paragraphs. Transfer
appears to be a problem because students overuse Spanish suffixes; in this case, “s”
when producing written English. Learners see Spanish as the role model to project ideas
in English. The assumption that adjectives and nouns must be added “s” to nod
concordance in number (plural), the same way this is done in Spanish, has learners
transfer this concordance suffix wrongly.

However, transferring “s” as a suffix used in Spanish to make nouns and adjectives
match in number, is not a grammar error punished by the respective facilitator. That is,
adding “s” for making nouns and adjectives match in number (plural) is a signal that
shows how the learning process is taking place. Also, teachers agree on this suffix which
still wrongly used, is understandable though.

Furthermore, a Spanish overuse stage appears on students´ English Collocations.

Refereeing to nouns and adjectives collocations, students tend to place adjectives before
nouns, which is right, but learners also place adjectives after nouns with the same

113
frequency. This collocation error appears as students do not learn phrases or sentences
directly in context that get them internalize their structures.

Following this further, learners overuse Spanish in translations periodically. Hence,

English phrases are translated originally from Spanish to English. The translation process
is done word by word following the original (Spanish) word order. This results in overusing
a Spanish structure “noun + adjective + complement” to all phrases and tenses that affect
English collocations.

Another important conclusion regarding collocations and negative transfer is that errors
are not often penalized. Teachers often trust their students´ learning process is doing well.
Therefore, words badly collocated like the adjective after the noun without the use of “to
be” as well as the problem of transferring rules like the addition of “s” from Spanish to form
plural adjectives are still considered by facilitators (language instructors) to be
understandable. These teachers´ permission when elongated, causes students stay at a
fossilization stage, which at the same time, elongates pupils overuse Spanish forms when
they consider necessary.

As far as sets of rule government concerns, pupils overuse the article “the” which at
the same time is transferred from Latin Spanish. In Ecuador when speaking colloquially,
people tend to overuse this article during their conversations. Hence, this is clear how
students tend to overuse this article in English too. Pupils are gotten used to adding words
based on their generated rule – government. When rule governments happen in the
learners´ mother tongue, this is expected to happen in their target language by means of
transfer too, and this is exactly what happens with students from superior sublevel
learning English at this public school from Ecuador.

This was also concluded that regularization of rules always takes place by the time
learners overuse Spanish forms as reference to produce quantity phrases in English.
Students used “there” as the word for regularizing phrases that show quantity. When
using “there” in English, pupils do not make exceptions that demand the use of “there is”
for indicating the existence of singular nouns or “there are” for indicating the existence of
plural ones. On the contrary, students regularize the only use of “there” for indicating the
existence of all singular or plural nouns, just as this is indicated in Spanish.

Regarding the use of friendly words and false cognates, the conclusion is that these
almost always appear in students´ assignments from superior sublevel. When

114
assignments are performed through an integrated skills – approach or even by means of
isolated activities, English learners write or say words that sound and are written alike to
their mother tongue.

Half from the total words used in any assignment, result right and easy to inference,
that is, these items are friendly words between English and Spanish. Similarly, half from
the total words that students use in assignments are false cognates. Students inference
their meaning by heart since sounds and symbols resemble to those of Spanish. Thus, the
projected ideas turn silly or wrongly transmitted.

A final conclusion refers to another friendly word; “no”, that students usually use by the
time they overuse Spanish during English learning. Despite the fact that using “no” in
English sentences a negative meaning is produced, pupils overuse “no” as the easiest
way to combine negative ideas in all tenses (present, past, and future). Spanish is
overused as the word “no” is used for omitting and replacing all auxiliaries used in English
that make sentences negative. This overuse causes a pivotal omission, which happens as
all negative tenses in English; present, past, and future, are said with auxiliaries.

8.1.3 Objective 3. To conclude the main reasons why students from superior
sublevel - grades from Humberto Vacas Gómez School decide on overusing
Spanish items and grammar structures while learning English.

The conclusions done on the identification of English patterns, items, and grammar
structures as well as their examination and contrast with Spanish forms used by students,
allowed the researcher to conclude the main reasons why learners at superior sublevel
from Humberto Vacas Gómez public school overuse Spanish while learning English as a
foreign language.

One cause is the temporal assumption that students have that all forms, sentences,
and structures in the target language (English) must be said the same way these are said
in their mother tongue (Spanish). This assumption is taken especially by those learners
who have not acquired a second language before. Students only have their first language
grammar, vocabulary, and pragmatic experiences. That is, as all structures and lexis
pupils know are from Spanish language, they think their new language acquisition bases
on following the same structures, grammar, and same form of lexis.

115
 Another important conclusion on the reasons why students overuse Spanish while
learning English is the high grade of permission to use the mother tongue provided by the
instructor. As this was explained, this is not only the responsibility of the teacher to insist
on learners to use English in class but also English must be spoken by the facilitator
constantly as a role model to follow and to foment the use of this language. Teachers
(facilitators) that penalize the use of the mother tongue during foreign language learning,
achieve their pupils to see English as the main resource of communication even indoors
as well as outdoors of the classroom.

Following this further, instructions are not always told in English but in Spanish. As far
as pupils are sure about what to do for executing a task, teachers are always willing to
repeat instructions even in Spanish. In fact, this is the reason why students overuse
Spanish in a situation like that. This error often done by the teacher during the foreign
language learning – process, implies students´ target language deprivation. Students also
take the easiest path for understanding, they do not generate learning strategies for
understanding instructions, and Spanish is evidently overused through this direct way.

Then, using filters like conversions from the first language to English is a form to
overuse Spanish by students because this has them think in Spanish first. When pupils
filter Ideas to be said by means of English, and they try to convey them by taking Spanish
equivalents as the main words, this causes learners to have feedback to the language
they already speak. Thus, apart from having students spend twice the time required within
an individual activity, which evolves much effort too, Spanish still being the main language
of concern in this process.

The overuse of inadequate methodologies like the grammar translation causes

ineffective translations from Spanish to English. This ancient methodology is effective
when getting pupils to have notion of large sentences, functions of grammar structures,
and clarification of concepts. Students decide on overusing Spanish as direct grammar
translation - activities like telling English ideas by means of their Spanish “perfect
equivalent” are promoted by the facilitator. However, interactions among language -
learners are omitted by the time the main objective [communication] sat by the teacher in
class turns unreachable.

The lack of direct methods for language acquisition in English classes also promote the
overuse of the first language (Spanish) during students´ learning. A natural approach like
the “direct method for language acquisition” offers learners the opportunity to get a new

116
language unconsciously because this is spoken as a means of communication in all
ambits. If pupils are taught by using indirect methods that promote first language - use at
any grade, they will end up studying the structure of this. Hence, not using direct methods
in English classes, do not permit learners to acquire the foreign tongue as their mother
one (Spanish) was acquired, that is, naturally.

Another decision that students make for overusing Spanish while English learning
takes place, deals with the preference to use too many friendly words instead of
synonyms and antonyms. Once again, students do not often trust in the context that gets
them inference the meaning of lexis or phrases and neither do they use synonyms or
antonyms to replace nouns for conveying similar or different messages. Instead, learners
still translating vocabulary or sentences literally.

By the time literal translations happen, students decide on using friendly words; whose
equivalences between English and Spanish are gotten by considering their similar sound
and orthography not by inferring them from the context. Most of the time these
equivalences send wrong messages since the words used turn false cognates.
Additionally, mixing Spanish difficult - words with English easy – ones is another risk that
learners like to follow when overusing false cognates.

The conclusion on the production of Spanish phonemes is that this action inhibits
correct English pronunciation. The lexical approach when used wrongly, that is, without
articulation exercises done after words are introduced directly in context, causes students
reinforce Spanish pronunciation and omit English one. By the end English turns non –
understandable and silly.

Generalization, regularization, and structural rule – government which are pervasive on

students´ learning process are the most innate and natural causes during the
interlanguage process that let learners overuse Spanish while learning English. Due to
this fact, foreign language students use words such as “no” in all negative forms while
learning English. Even understandable not too silly, “no” is used by students at this
sublevel to produce negative sentences in all tenses. This results on pivotal omissions of
auxiliaries necessary to cast accurate negative sentences in English.

The same happens with a high pitch produced by learners to ask questions originated
from affirmative or negative sentences. Even though these questions are understandable
by pitch only, this form of asking questions is one of the most evident indicators of

117
Spanish overuse as students ask the same way in Spanish and auxiliaries for English
questions are omitted again.

A final important conclusion on what causes learners overuse Spanish while learning
English, deals with the context, the programs, and methodologies this second language is
being acquired through. The evidence suggests that environments where English is taught
at Humberto Vacas Gómez school, specifically at superior sublevel, is never fostered to
native contexts. The lack of native like – English - contexts that engage students to be
knowledgeable naturally causes them overuse Spanish. Learners are aware of the actual
context they are in; a context where Spanish is pervasively exposed. Hence, objects and
situations are described by means of their first language (Spanish). Thus, learners think in
Spanish before casting ideas in English, and translation as well as equivalence research
take place for sure.

In addition to the lack of immersion programs to learn English in native contexts that
allow learners to be exposed to the target language (English) constantly, CLIL is not being
used correctly for teaching English at superior sublevel from this school. Facilitators do
not develop knowledge of other subjects by means of English and neither do they promote
students´ skill performance through an integrated way. This causes learners overuse
Spanish in a global form as English is practiced during certain periods of classes only.
Other subjects in which students spend most of their time, are not taught by means of
English but by means of Spanish.

By the end of this project, by considering the successful results of this investigation
because all its objectives were reached, and by taking this work as a research reference,
this is important to mention future research that can be done on Teaching English as a
Foreign Language. Studies aimed to avoiding indirect methodologies to learn English,
investigation on strategies to stop overusing Spanish in English classes, as well as those
aimed to know the effects of overusing Spanish in a long period of time while English
learning takes place, result feasible and affordable.

To end this up, and in addition to what was mentioned before, this is important to show
some important facts or limitations from this study. By the time this research was
executed, there appeared some setbacks that affected the execution of each step. Some
effects were positive while other effects were negative. For instance, a few students´ legal
representatives whose disposition to allow their children to participate was positively

118
evidenced, but some questions directed in Spanish did not allow the researcher and the
participants get into context at all which turned negative.

Nevertheless, these drawbacks were written down by the investigator in order to take
them into consideration for improving further investigations directed to education,
specifically when this comes to learning a foreign language.

Regarding to the positive effects that emerged thought the course of this investigation,
people engaged were a fundamental piece in this process as these were always available
to collaborate with the investigator. That is, teachers re - scheduled their classes for
having the researcher´s action take place. Students participated and collaborated a lot
while legal representatives as well as the authorities from this school always showed
themselves positive to this investigation.

In contrast, the objectiveness of the results found in this research mercy to be a bit
questioned as some students do not have the level of English needed to give their
answers to the questions. Apart from having them go away from the context, asking some
questions in English and other ones in Spanish got them to show themselves insecure
and unreliable. Questions done in Spanish reflected sureness and concrete responses
from some students while similar questions done in English got answers completely
opposite to the ones given in Spanish. Thus, ambiguity in responses was evident.

Yet, this questionable matter from the research is completely answered by means of
the results gotten from students´ written and oral performances. There is no doubt that the
instruments´ validity, and the global reliability of this investigation overcome any setback
appearing during the normal execution.

Therefore, there is an agreement of the results from this research because a vast
number of causes for students overuse of Spanish during English classes were found and
described on time. To end this up, this is advised the number of students to be part of the
sample is reduced as this takes too much time and effort for the investigator to observe
them by means of checklists.

119
 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ávila, M. (2014). Towards implementing CLIL (Content and Language Integrated

Learning) at CBS (Tunja, Colombia) [Online version]. Colombian Applied
Linguistics Journal, 16 (2), 151-160.

Ball, p. & Lennon, A. (2019). Materials and resources in EFL. Funiber.

Barriuso, T., Levis, J., Link, S. & Sonsaat, S. (2016). Native and Nonnative Teachers of
L2 Pronunciation: Effects on Learner Performance. TESOL. 1: 1-3

Broughton, G., Brumfit, C., Flavell, R., Hill, P. & Pincas, A. (2003). Teaching English as a
foreign language. (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

Burton, N. (2011). Analysing Sentences: An Introduction to English Syntax. (3rd ed.).

London: Pearson.

Christiane, N. (2008). Defining translation functions: The translation brief as a guideline for
the trainee translation. JOUR, 1 (1), 41 – 55.

Contreras, N. M. (2014). La enseñanza del español como LE/L2 en el siglo XXI. (1st ed.).
Madrid: ASELE.

Córdoba, E. (2016). Implementing Task-Based Language Teaching to Integrate Language

Skills in an EFL Program at a Colombian University. PROFILE Universidad de la
Amazonia, Florencia, Colombia, 18 (2), 13 – 27.

Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research. (3rd ed.). Pearson.

Crystal, D. (2006). English world wild. (1st ed.). UK: TESOL.

De Prada, E., & Lenon, A. (2019): Approaches to language in the classroom context.
Funiber.

Dalton, C & Seidlhofer, B. (1994). Pronunciation. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

English as a second language manual. (s.f.). Retrieved on 26th February 2008, from

120
 https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/cpm/ESL_Manual.pdf.

Effective communication skills (2010). MTD training.

Fogg, J. (2019). ELT, EFL, ESL or ELF: TEFL Acronyms explained. Love TEFL. 1: 3

Garibaldi, E. (2013). Second Language Acquisition: The Effects of Age and Motivation.
Unpublished doctoral thesis. Islandiae Sigillum Universitatis.

Gass, S. & Selinker, R. (2008). Second language acquisition: an introductory course.

(3rded.). New York and London: Routledge.

Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2011). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design.
New York and London: Routledge.

Goh, Ch. & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking: a holistic approach. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Graddol, D. (2006). English next: why global English may mean the end of “English as a
foreign language”. UK: British council.

Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. (6th ed.). Oxford: Longman Pearson.

Heid, U. & Prinsloo, D. (2008). Collocational False Friends: Description and Treatment in
Bilingual Dictionaries. Retrieved on 26th February 2021, from
https://euralex.org/elx_proceedings/Euralex2008/127_Euralex_2008_

Herman, J. (2016). 50 Spanish-English False Friends Words. Retrieved from

http://mentalfloss.com/article/57195/50-spanish-english-false-friend-words

Holmes, J. (2013). An introduction to sociolinguistics. (4th ed.). London: Pearson.

Iqram, M. (2015). Teaching Productive Skills to the Students: A Secondary Level

Escenario. Thesis, BRAC University, Dhaka: Bangladesh.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.

121
Krashen, S. & Terrel, T. (1983). The Natural Approach. Pergamon.

Larsen, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. New York: Oxford
Press.

Lewis, M. (2002). The lexical approach. Boston: Thomson corporation.

Lightbown, M. & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. New York: Oxford
University press.

Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2011). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.

Lin, G. & Chien, P. (2008) An introduction to English teaching: a textbook for English
educators. USA: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller.

López, J. (2011). Spanish - English Writing Structure Interferences in Second Language

Learner. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal, 1 (5), 158 – 179.

Lopez, A. (2019). Spanish Use in the English Classroom: A Study of Dominican Students
in an English – Only Environment. ResearchGate Article. 7 (1), 20 – 29.

Madrid, D. (2019). Observation and research in the language classroom. Funiber.

Maguid, S. (s. f.). Language learning strategies for classroom application. Retrieved on
February 18th, 2021, from Language Learning Strategies for Classroom Application
(educatorpages.com).

Martínez, J. (2010). Errors in the second language classroom: corrective feedback.

Archidona, Málaga: Aljibe, S.L

Martinez, R. (2013). A framework for the inclusion of multiword expressions in ELT. ELT
JOURNAL, 67(2): 188 -189

Miller, J. (2008). An introduction to English syntax. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University press.

Ministerio de Educación. (2016). National English curriculum guidelines. Retrieved

122
 December 3rd, 2021 from www.educacion.gob.ec/index.php?option=com_
ocman&task=do...

Moon, J. (2000). Children Learning English. China: Heinemann.

Mora, P., Lengeling, M., Rubio, E., Crawford, T. & Goodwin, D. (2011). Students and
teachers’ reasons for using the first language within the foreign language
classroom (English) in central Mexico. Profile, 13 (2), 113 – 129.

Mundhe, G. (2015). Teaching receptive and productive language skills with the help of
techniques. An international journal in English. Maharashtra: India, 1 (2), 1 – 6.

Myles, F. (2016). Second language acquisition (SLA) research: its significance for learning
and teaching issues. Centre for Languages Linguistics & Area Studies. 1: 2.

Nation, I. & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL / EFL listening and speaking. New York and
London: Routledge.

Nurhasanah, S. (2015). The Use of Community Language Learning Method to Increase

the students´ Participation in Classroom Conversation. SITI. 8 (1), 81 – 98.

Oshima, A. & Hogue, A. (2006). Writing academic English. (4th ed.). New York: Pearson.

Simpson, J. (ed.). (2017). Oxford English Dictionary.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2008). Communicative language teaching: Approaches

and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). USA: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York: Cambridge

University press.

Robinson, P. (2011). Task–based language learning: a review on issues. Language

learning: a journal of research in language studies, 1, 1 -36.

Sadtono, E. (1991). Language acquisition and the second / foreign language classroom.
Singapore: ERIC.

123
Stern, H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Steinberg, D. (1996). An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. London and New York:

Longman.

Setiyadi, B. (2020). Teaching English as a Foreign Language. (2nd ed.). Yogyakarta:

GRAHA ILMU.

Silverstein, S. (1993). Techniques and resources in teaching reading. (3rd ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P. (2003). Task – Based Instruction. Language Teaching - UK. 30 (1), 1- 14.

Thompson, G. L. & Blown, A. V. (2012). Interlanguage variation: The influence of

monitoring and contextualization on L2 phonological production. Journal of second
language acquisition and teaching, 10 (1), 35–50

Underhill, A. (2005). Learning and Teaching Pronunciation. Oxford: MacMillan.

Villacañas, L. (2013). Teaching English as a foreign language in accordance with Social –

constructivist pedagogy. Tejuelo ISSN, 17 (1), 97 – 114.

Wei, X. (2008). Implication of IL Fossilization in Second Language Acquisition. English

language teaching, Beijing, 1 (1), 127 – 131.

Woolfolk, A. (2010). Educational psychology (11th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

124
 10. APPENDIX

Annex N°1
Students´ questionnaire in google forms: https://forms.gle/h4AGjriyw66MsZZw5
Annex N°2
Teachers´ questionnaire in google forms: https://forms.gle/LaCoUbnWAEyvpEYR9
Annex N°3
Students´ responses in google forms: sample of 102 students
Annex N°4
Teachers´ responses in google forms: 4 English teachers
Annex N°5
Students´ checklist form: writing assignment and speaking performance
Annex N°6
Criteria for the conversion from number of repetitions to frequency: writing
assignment and speaking performance

RATE SCALE TO MEASURE FREQUENCY

Number of repetitions Converted Frequency
0 times Never
From 1 to 30 Rarely
From 31 to 50 Sometimes
From 51 to 80 Often
From 81 to 100 Always

Annex N°7
Graph of tabulation: Students´ responses on the survey
What actions do you take during English grammar - classes?

Annex N°8
Chart of frequency percentages: students´ assignments on writing and speaking

WRITING:
REPETION SPEAKING:
INDICATOR TIMES REPETION TIMES AVERAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES

Background music. 0 36 18 Rarely 17,65%

Deep breath to lower

nerves.

Take risks.

Personal journal about

feelings.
Annex N°9
Writing assignment handed out via Classroom
Annex N°10
Students´ oral performances
Annex N°11
Bibliographic records for the literature review: previous studies and books

Title of the study:

Citation in APA format:
ITEM INFORMATION FORM N°
2
Research question(s),
objectives, or hypothesis:

Subjects or participants:

Setting or place:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion and
recommendations:

Limitations identified by
the author(s):

THEME PAG. N° INFORMATION FORM N°20

TELF 1

Citation in APA format: