Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

ISSN: 0143-4632 (Print) 1747-7557 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

An updated review on use of L1 in foreign

language classrooms

Jee-Young Shin, L. Quentin Dixon & Yunkyeong Choi

To cite this article: Jee-Young Shin, L. Quentin Dixon & Yunkyeong Choi (2020) An updated
review on use of L1 in foreign language classrooms, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 41:5, 406-419, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2019.1684928

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1684928

Published online: 03 Nov 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4379

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 21 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmmm20
JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
2020, VOL. 41, NO. 5, 406–419
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1684928

An updated review on use of L1 in foreign language classrooms

Jee-Young Shin, L. Quentin Dixon and Yunkyeong Choi
Teaching, Learning, and Culture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article aims to provide a comprehensive perspective on the use of first Received 24 March 2018
language (L1) in foreign language (FL) classrooms by reviewing recently Accepted 21 October 2019
published empirical literature from 2011 through 2018. The article
KEYWORDS
focuses on literature relevant to four key areas: (1) extent and impact of L1/L2 use; code-switching;
L1 use, (2) factors influencing L1 and second language (L2) use, (3) Foreign Language (FL)
beliefs and attitudes towards L1 and L2 use, and (4) the effectiveness of education; translanguaging
L1 use on L2 skills. The overall findings suggest making use of L1 as a
resource integrated into the curriculum, aiming for the judicious and
intentional use of L1. Re-conceptualising the nature of L1 use is
suggested, as well as ways to encourage efficient use of L1 to maximise
L2 learning in the classroom are outlined. Furthermore, workshops are
discussed for teachers and students to be empowered and to have an
agency for their teaching and learning. Future studies on understanding
of translanguaging and pedagogical use of translanguaging in FL
education are needed.

The issue of whether the use of a student’s first language (L1) should be banned or combined with the
second language (L2) in their L2 instruction has been one of the most controversial issues in the field
of foreign language (FL) education. Until the late nineteenth century, L2 was predominantly taught
via the L1, driven by a grammar-translation approach that focused on written texts, along with struc-
tural analysis that focused on grammar and linguistic form (Ghobadi and Ghasemi 2015). Against
this long tradition, however, several approaches focusing on the spoken form of L2 (e.g. direct
method, audiolingual method, natural approach, communicative approach, task-based approach)
emerged. Such methods and approaches encouraged the exclusive use of L2 in the FL classroom.
More recent approaches, such as the communicative approach, also emphasise the use of authentic
language and a rich L2 environment, which help to maximise exposure to extensive L2 input and
opportunities for L2 output (Bruen and Kelly 2014; Ghobadi and Ghasemi 2015), which implicitly
discourages L1 use. For this reason, the role of L1 in the teaching of L2 seems to have lost position in
modern language lessons aimed at practical communication.
However, a literature review by Hall and Cook (2012) identified a slow but steady trend, begin-
ning in the 1990s, to reconsider the use of L1 in the field of language education. Hall and Cook’s
review identified the use of L1 to be a realistic choice in the classroom setting and played a valuable
role in multiple pedagogical functions. The authors also asserted that these studies were rooted in
different theoretical frameworks, such as multilingual competence (Cook 2008), cognitive and psy-
cholinguistic theories (Cummins 2007), and sociocultural approaches (Antón and DiCamilla 1999).
These findings have all led the authors to advocate for a bilingual approach to teaching L2 in class-
rooms, concluding their review with a portentous statement: ‘The literature reviewed in this article is
no doubt only a beginning’ (Hall and Cook 2012, 299).

CONTACT Jee-Young Shin jyshin@tamu.edu

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 407

Empirical studies on this topic have continued to investigate various aspects of L1 use in FL edu-
cation. It is therefore critical that researchers and educators have an updated review which integrates
separate and discrete findings at the global level. Our work is intended to provide the reader with a
review of studies with particular relevance to FL classrooms due to the breadth of research in the
language education field. Compared to bilingual education and content-based education, the litera-
ture surrounding FL education has been more likely to oppose using L1, even though many FL class-
rooms still predominantly use L1 (Adinolfi and Astruc 2017; Cook 2010). Hence, as a review paper
following Hall and Cook’s work (2012), this article aims to provide a comprehensive yet detailed per-
spective on the use of L1 in FL classrooms by reviewing recently published empirical literature from
2011 through 2018.

Method
This article reviewed studies on the use of L1 in FL classrooms. Since Hall and Cook (2012) reviewed
studies published including the first half of 2011, we selected articles published in refereed academic
journals in 2011 up to the first half of 2018. Four academic databases were used: Education Full Text
(Wilson), Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (CSA), PsycINFO (CSA), and ERIC
(EBSCO). Using Boolean operators (AND, OR, and NOT), the keywords used in searches were as
follows: L1, first language, mother tongue, native language at the first level; foreign language, L2,
and target language at the second level; and, language of instruction at the third level. We used
AND connectors between levels, and used OR between words on each level. Moreover, we used
NOT to exclude the following words and concepts from our search at the fourth level: special edu-
cation, dual-language classrooms, bilingual programmes, content-based instruction, and multilin-
gual classrooms.
To minimise possible confusion, the term L1 was defined as a student’s native language, the
mother tongue, or own language (Hall and Cook 2012). The term L2 was defined as the target
language, the foreign language, or the second language learned in a classroom. Also, code-switch-
ing was defined as the switching between L1 and L2 by the teacher or students while commu-
nicating in FL classrooms. Using this process, a total of 1203 references were found at the
first step.
Subsequent to the first step, we selected articles related to the use of L1 in a foreign-language class-
room based on title and abstract. Inclusive and exclusive filters were used to narrow the initial pool of
literature. We selected empirical studies only and excluded opinion articles, literature review studies,
duplicates, special education, and articles related to individual L1 skill transfer. These filters nar-
rowed the pool of literature to 44 references.
Based on the full texts, we further excluded literature that examined code-switching in dual-
language classrooms, second language learning settings, bilingual programmes, content-based
instruction, and multilingual classrooms. This was done to align the pool of literature with our
focus on recent L1 studies in FL learning settings in which all learners shared the same L1. After
this process, the pool of literature contained 36 articles.
Lastly, we used the snowball strategy to check the reference sections of the pooled literature for
further appropriate studies. We also conducted an additional database search, including the two key-
words translanguaging and translation (Greenhalgh and Peacock 2005). Employing this technique,
19 additional research articles were obtained. Overall, our search yielded 55 articles on the use of L1
in FL classrooms. All selected articles were categorised into the following four areas: (1) extent and
impact of L1 use, (2) factors influencing L1 and L2 use, (3) beliefs and attitudes towards L1 and L2
use, and (4) the effectiveness of L1 use on L2 skills. For each of the four areas, an inter-rater reliability
assessment was conducted with two of this review’s authors coding 20% of the data for the relative
consistency of judgments. The coding for the category reached 91% agreement. Disagreements in
coding were discussed until mutual agreement was reached.
408 J.-Y. SHIN ET AL.

An overview of findings on use of L1

Extent and impact of using L1
Investigation of the extent and impact of L1 is considered necessary to enter into the L1 debate and
be able to scrutinise its effects on L2 achievement in a more systematic way. Word counts generally
appear to be considered a feasible way to analyse quantity and function due to the simplicity and ease
of counting involved (DiCamilla and Antón 2012; Miri, Alibakhshi, and Mostafaei-Alaei 2017;
Moore 2013). Other methods, such as clause-utterance counts (e.g. Adinolfi and Astruc 2017;
Izquierdo et al. 2016) and turn count (Källkvist 2013), have also been employed in recent studies.
Of the studies assessed from 2011 through 2018, 53% dealt with the extent and impact of L1, and
all of them confirmed the presence of L1 use, which matches the result by Hall and Cook (2012).
However, recent literature reveals this to be the case in a larger diversity of settings, such as Spanish
classes in a distance-learning university in the UK (Adinolfi and Astruc 2017), Italian classrooms in a
secondary school in Malta (Gauci and Camilleri Grima 2013), Japanese and German classrooms in
an Irish university (Kelly and Bruen 2015), and English classrooms in South Korean primary schools
(Rabbidge and Chappell 2014).
The proportion of L1, however, was observed to vary even in the same institution. For example,
Izquierdo et al. (2016) observed that nine Spanish-speaking teachers teaching English at Mexican
secondary schools spoke L1, with use ranging from 27% to 69% of lesson time. Nakatsukasa and Loe-
wen (2015) found that a US university lecturer used L1 for 39.7% of the time, and mixed use of L1
and L2 for 11.0% of the time, in an intermediate Spanish classroom.
Recent findings confirm the multi-functionality of L1 use reported in previous studies (Hall and
Cook 2012). L1 can be used for instructional purposes, such as offering translation, defining new
vocabulary, clarifying grammatical forms, answering students’ questions, and correcting students’
errors (e.g. Cheng 2013; Moghadam, Samad, and Shahraki 2012; Mohebbi and Alavi 2014; Mora
Pablo et al. 2011; Nakatsukasa and Loewen 2015). L1 is also used for classroom management or dis-
cipline, such as clarifying tasks, homework assignments, providing exam directions, and discussing
procedures (Gauci and Camilleri Grima 2013; Izquierdo et al. 2016; Nukuto 2017). Teachers also
used L1 to build interpersonal relationships by offering students praise, comfort, jokes, and encour-
agement (Bruen and Kelly 2014; Rabbidge and Chappell 2014; Tsagari and Diakou 2015).
The issue of efficacy vs. language exposure, however, continues to emerge in studies targeting
whole classroom data. With regards to efficacy, some students and teachers made positive comments
in support of using L1 as a highly effective method for learning L2, particularly within the limited
time of a lesson (Giannikas 2011; Hlas 2016; Lin 2012; Liu and Zeng 2015). In an analysis of Japanese
secondary private and primary classrooms, Nukuto (2017) points out that a Japanese teacher was
more likely to prioritise communicative efficacy of L1 use over the use of L2 in explaining a voca-
bulary game. Meanwhile, three studies (Giannikas 2011; Izquierdo et al. 2016; Thompson and Har-
rison 2014) caution that relying on L1 can deprive students of the opportunity for L2 language
exposure and constrain L2 use (e.g. when referring to text in a textbook), which can lead to restricted
meaningful and authentic L2 development. However, one thing we should acknowledge is that the
claim that a classroom is the only source of L2 learning has been challenged by many different kinds
of informal online instruction, such as social media and language apps, available globally. These
technologies have enabled students to access a diverse range of content, meeting their varied
needs which has led to an increase in student motivation in L2 learning and development of students’
competence for more authentic use of L2 (Sawin 2018).
For the further discussion of the debate of efficacy vs. language exposure, we take a closer look at a
representative form of L1 use: translation. Whereas excessive dependence on translation is generally
opposed, recent studies continually list useful features of translation such as helping learners to
identify accurate meanings of L2 vocabulary, texts, and grammatical structures, and increasing cul-
tural awareness and understanding (e.g. Khan 2016; Khresheh 2012; Sampson 2011; Tian and
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 409

Macaro 2012). Four studies examined the intentional use of translation techniques, verifying its uti-
lity in L2 learning (Källkvist 2013; Kelly and Bruen 2015; Kim 2011; Scheffler 2013). For example,
Kelly and Bruen (2015) observed seven of twelve instructors set up translation sections in a German
and Japanese curriculum according to the language level of students. Active translation activities
using written texts were done using various genres (e.g. cartoons, websites, and bills). Their students’
satisfaction was high and it was noted that the students were able to become more focused on L2,
having the opportunity to learn a more authentic form of L2. Interestingly, when asking for trans-
lations, one teacher did not use the word translation but favoured ‘instead expressions such as “If this
book was published in English, what would it be called” or “what would be a suitable slogan for this
advertisement if it were to appear in an Irish newspaper”’ (Kelly and Bruen 2015, 13). Such questions
could help students consider the cultural, pragmatic, and grammatical aspects of target sentences and
expressions, and not simply translate word-for-word. In addition, in a separate study of 79 adult
Swedish learners of English with high- to advanced-level proficiency, Källkvist (2013) observed evi-
dence of higher attention and participation when using written translation tasks, with target L2
structures, consisting of mostly single sentences. The translation tasks increased student-initiated
referential questions about prepositions and vocabulary to the teacher but this led the students to
be more focused on vocabulary rather than the target of L2 grammar structures. The findings indi-
cate that translation tasks can help students to focus on target grammar and sentence structure, as
well as tasks involving less challenging vocabulary and expressions. These findings can be considered
attempts to revisit the concept of translation as a beneficial tool to L2 learning.
Beyond the external viewpoint referring to the simple use of two different named languages by
students, recent studies taking Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach as their theoretical rationale led
us to a larger and deeper discussion of the interplay of L1 and L2 use by students from the internal
viewpoint (DiCamilla and Antón 2012; Gánem-Gutiérrez and Roehr 2011; Källkvist 2013; Lin 2012;
Moore 2013; Nukuto 2017; Yu and Lee 2016). Considering the situation of learning L2 by the native
speakers of L1 in a FL classroom, translanguaging has been theorised as the complex and dynamic
language practices of bilinguals, based on their own unitary repertoire by the social interaction of two
languages (García and Lin 2017; Otheguy, García, and Reid 2018; Wei 2018). Moreover, recent socio-
cultural studies have convincingly shown that translanguaging is a natural process through which
students use their L1 as a resource in developing capability and confidence in L2 (Conteh 2018).
For example, in a comparative study of two groups of differing proficiency levels during collaborative
writing tasks, DiCamilla and Antón (2012) observed that first-year students of Spanish relied heavily
on L1 (English) when constructing content, solving language issues, and building rapport with part-
ners. In contrast, fourth-year students used L2 (Spanish) as a mediating tool to replace the above
functions. Hence, DiCamilla and Antón suggest that L1 plays a large role for beginners; however,
students with a high level of proficiency were also observed to rely on L1 for verbalising private
thinking when faced with challenging issues.
Also, translanguaging has been used as a pedagogical strategy to support these practices within
bilinguals by offering permission for students to use their own language repertoire fully and freely
to facilitate L2 learning (García and Kleyn 2016; Wei 2018). This is partially shown in the study
by Lin (2012) into the effectiveness of the co-use of L1 and L2 in teachers’ guidance of game play.
Adinolfi and Astruc (2017), however, point out that pedagogical use of translanguaging is not yet
systematically fully developed. The authors noted that until now, all debates have mainly been
tied to the instructional languages used in the classroom rather than to the objective of the lesson.
They also noted that the direction that should be strived towards is one which creates opportunities
to integrate pedagogic translanguaging opportunities into online FL classrooms.
Hence, most of the recent studies confirm that the use of L1 is a natural inclination in the FL class-
room at multiple levels, with increasing evidence for the intentional and judicious use of L1 as the
vehicle of L2 acquisition. A greater understanding of translanguaging by students who draw upon
their L1 is required to enhance their communicative potential. Translanguaging strategies should
be encouraged and developed based on this understanding. In the next section, factors influencing
410 J.-Y. SHIN ET AL.

the emergence of L1 in the FL classroom, which can be vital to research efforts into the process of
language selection are explored.

Factors influencing L1 and L2 use

One-third of the studies examined discussed factors that influence language choice, and the major
categories of factors which determine L1 use in classrooms were: (1) individual student-teacher factors,
(2) classroom factors, and (3) institutional factors. Regarding individual students, the studies found two
factors which heavily influence language choice as a learning medium: the students’ L2 proficiency and
age. Although L2 proficiency may be assumed to be a major contributing factor in the quantity and
functional use of L1 (McMillan and Rivers 2011; Momenian and Samar 2011), findings reported in
the literature revealed varied results: higher-level students used more L1 (DiCamilla and Antón
2012), and vice versa (Thompson and Harrison 2014), or there was no significant difference in the fre-
quency of L1 use (Sampson 2011). Moreover, higher-proficiency students used more L1 when paired
with lower-proficiency peers than with similar-proficiency level peers (Moore 2013).
Aside from quantitative results-based studies, two studies we reviewed used reading tasks employ-
ing think-aloud protocols (Ketabi, Ghavamnia, and Rezazadeh 2012; Lin and Yu 2015). The studies
reported qualitative differences in the use of L1 between students with two different proficiency
levels. The authors observed that students with higher proficiency levels tended to deploy L1 as a
tool for thought involving more paraphrasing and restating than lower proficiency students who
tended to use word-to-word translations.
Student age can also be a factor which influences language selection. According to a report which
evaluated 96 secondary students in Cyprus, the younger the students were, the more they received L1
input from their teacher (Tsagari and Diakou 2015). However, none of the teachers involved in the
study noticed this habit in themselves. By contrast, at the elementary school level, Rabbidge and
Chappell (2014) observed that the higher the grade level of students, the more they needed to
have L1 explanations from their teachers for a clear understanding of class procedures prior to mov-
ing forward with advanced activities.
With respect to factors of individual teachers influencing L1 use, teachers’ inadequate L2 skills can
lead to the use of L1 (Hlas 2016; Khresheh 2012; Lin 2012). Khresheh (2012) determined that college
teachers’ use of L1 (Arabic) in Saudi Arabia was motivated by a desire to avoid grammar mistakes,
which mirrored the teachers’ desires to avoid embarrassing situations in front of students. In
addition, Thompson and Harrison (2014) found that teacher-initiated language choices had a bigger
influence on students’ choice of language than those of peers.
Regarding classroom factors, L1 was used for familiar and less challenging tasks as well as pro-
cedural talk. Moore (2013) observed peer interaction that occurred while preparing for two oral per-
formance tasks seven months apart in an English classroom in a Japanese university. L1 Japanese was
employed across all collaborative talk between students, especially during procedural and off-task
talk. Moreover, L1 use was found to increase in the second task because of task and partner famili-
arity, which mirrors observations by Mayo and de los Angeles Hidalgo (2017). Conflicts with part-
ners also led to increased L1 use. Regarding teaching tools, Moghadam, Samad, and Shahraki (2012)
noted using English-Persian dictionaries, instead of English-English dictionaries, triggered students
to use more L1.
Institutional factors, such as time limitations, curriculum, policy, institution type, and university
entrance exams must be considered as playing a role in language selection. Little empirical evidence
exists to indicate that any single institutional factor plays an overwhelming role. Yan et al.’s (2016)
study surveyed classroom code-switching among more than 2900 students from four colleges and
seven secondary schools in China. Yan and colleagues found significant decreases in use of L2 in
senior secondary classroom talk when compared to junior secondary schools. This was likely because
senior students were more focused on developing L2 skills in preparation for college entrance exam-
inations. It was also observed that higher-ranking senior secondary schools were able to use L2 more
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 411

frequently because they were likely to have additional qualified teachers and better-prepared
students.
A large body of research suggests that many institutional policies either explicitly or implicitly
embed maximal or exclusive use of L2. However, this type of policy may lead to a struggle between
teachers and other stakeholders (Giannikas 2011; Gulzar, Farooq, and Umer 2013; Rabbidge and
Chappell 2014; Trent 2013), and can result in the formation of a one-way lesson in which only tea-
chers deliver instruction in L2, while limiting or not accepting students’ opinions (Mora Pablo et al.
2011). Of course, teachers exist who run their classroom as they see fit, regardless of institutional
policy. Tsagari and Diakou (2015) provide such an example, wherein three Greek teachers used
L1 according to their own judgment rather than following school or government L2 policy.
However, factors influencing teachers’ decision-making about language choices are also related to
teachers themselves, such as bilingual minds, experiences, and classroom environments (Forman
2015). Additional studies are needed to unpack complex internal factors impacting educators and
students.

Beliefs and attitudes toward L1 and L2 use

A total of 44% of recent studies explored teacher and student attitudes and opinions, and more than
half of the studies (58%) tended to focus on learners’ voices. These studies determined that a majority
of teachers and students acknowledge the valuable role of L1 on L2 learning (Liu and Zeng 2015;
Tsagari and Diakou 2015; Yao 2011). More specifically, Chiou (2014) surveyed 966 Taiwanese col-
lege students grouped into fours according to their proficiency level. Students of all proficiency levels
favoured use of L1, and the lowest L2-proficiency groups exhibited the strongest preference for using
L1 in L2 classes. Macaro and Lee (2013) worked with 311 college students and 487 children in the last
year of primary school. The authors’ findings suggest adults and children both agreed L1 had a valu-
able role in FL classrooms. The adults felt more comfortable with L2-only instruction than the chil-
dren, which the study’s authors suggested might be because of the adults’ greater experience in
language learning and higher L2 proficiency.
Some findings suggest that teachers’ exclusive use of L2, ironically, can make students less
involved in class both verbally and cognitively. This is likely due to a mismatch between students’
L2 proficiency and teachers’ abilities to explain using L2 (Liu and Zeng 2015; Macaro and Lee
2013; Tian and Hennebry 2016; Viakinnou-Brinson et al. 2012; Zhao and Macaro 2016). In Macaro
and Lee’s (2013) study, some participants pointed out that if teachers speak exclusively in L2 without
any pauses between sentences, to allow students to reflect or think, and without any explanation of
words or expressions, students with a lack of linguistic knowledge experience cognitive overload.
This makes it difficult for students to follow and comprehend a teacher’s speech, leading to con-
fusion, frustration, or complete disengagement; such situations often manifest in the form of
quiet students who are less engaged in instruction and activities. Such cases challenge the perspective
that the amount of L2 input is the most important factor to improving L2 learning.
Two intervention studies revealed student participants have a preferred way of using L1 (Tian and
Hennebry 2016; Viakinnou-Brinson et al. 2012). In a vocabulary intervention study (L2 only vs. L1
only vs. no explanation) with 117 Chinese freshmen, Tian and Hennebry (2016) revealed that
nobody wanted the teachers to use L1 alone; rather, the students preferred a combination of L1-
L2 or L2 alone. In the case of combined L1-L2, students wanted L2 for the majority of instruction,
with L1 used as an aid to memorise new vocabulary and explain difficult concepts. Similar opinions
were found among 63 French beginners in a US university who participated in grammar intervention
(L2 only vs. L1-L2) by Viakinnou-Brinson et al. (2012). In subsequent interviews, even though it was
helpful to have L1 used in a supportive role, most (87%) of the students preferred maximal use of L2
(90–99%) and minimal use of L1 (1–10%).
For specific class content that included the L2 culture, general opinion among teachers and stu-
dents held a preference for using L1 (Hlas 2016; Liu and Zeng 2015). However, Fichtner (2015)
412 J.-Y. SHIN ET AL.

articulated one considerable challenge here: although L1 seemed to be a short-cut for learning L2
German phrases of affection (e.g. Ich liebe dich, I love you; Ich hab dich lieb, I am really fond of
you; and Ich mag dich, I like you) and friendship (e.g. Freund, friend and Bekannter, acquaintance)
for beginners, it was also true that students exhibited more uncertainty about the exact meaning and
use of these expressions. It did not support students in preventing overgeneralisation of the culture
and, in turn, to better understand the language. Many studies have suggested teachers should set
their own values for L1 use via teacher education. Trent (2013) suggested student teachers prefer
to be decision-makers when it comes to L1 use within their classroom. Miri, Alibakhshi, and Mos-
tafaei-Alaei (2017) designed a teacher education programme for ten Iranian teachers in an English
institute to help teachers become decision-makers in this regard. Training modules included reading
articles related to use of L1, asking teachers to reflect upon their actual classrooms, exchanging feed-
back with fellow teachers, and conducting an action study within their own classroom. The study’s
authors noted interesting changes in teachers’ attitudes and actual teaching occurred in an empow-
ering way. Before the teacher education programme, most teachers exhibited negative attitudes
toward the use of L1 and neglected student requests for more explanations in L1. However, after
the programme, the teachers recognised L1 avoidance was not a goal itself, and that L1 could be a
useful tool to foster L2 fluency. Subsequently, the teachers tried to communicate more with students
in their classroom, using L1 more intentionally and appropriately.
In summary, most students appear to favour L1-inclusive approaches, but in forms which use L2
as the dominant medium of instruction and utilise L1 as a resource. Assessment studies are needed to
examine the quality of L1-inclusive teaching, which is discussed in the next section.

Effectiveness of L1 use on L2 skills

After 2011, an increasing number of studies (22% of the studies assessed herein) began using inter-
vention designs to test hypotheses geared towards assessment of the impact of L1 on L2 learning.
Particular attention was given to vocabulary development. In some studies, vocabulary experiments
were conducted regarding the incidental learning process, which involves listening (Tian and
Macaro 2012) and reading (Dabaghi and Rafiee 2012; Khan 2016; Lee and Macaro 2013; Samian,
Foo, and Mohebbi 2016; Zhao and Macaro 2016). Except for a study which compared phonol-
ogy-based vs. translation-based instruction by Ha (2017), all vocabulary studies reviewed herein
compared L1 translation and L2-only explanation in some way, such as comparison between L1
and L2 glosses (Asiyaban and Bagheri 2012; Khan 2016; Lee and Macaro 2013; Samian, Foo, and
Mohebbi 2016; Tian and Macaro 2012; Zhao and Macaro 2016). All of the studies, except for one
by Vosoughi (2012), suggest L2 students benefit more from being provided with L1 translations
than with L2-only explanations. In particular, this beneficial effect applies to learning of concrete
and abstract words (Zhao and Macaro 2016), free active vocabulary (Asiyaban and Bagheri 2012),
productive vocabulary knowledge (Dabaghi and Rafiee 2012) and lexical phrases (Ha 2017).
In a study of 95 upper-secondary Iranian students of English by Samian, Foo, and Mohebbi
(2016), the performance of three groups was compared over three time points. The groups were
designated as follows: the giver group (i.e. the group which was asked to make L1 gloss for target
vocabulary, given three reading texts and a bilingual dictionary), the receiver group (i.e. the group
which was provided the same three reading texts, including the L1 gloss), and the comparison
group (i.e. the group in which no gloss was provided). The results indicated that the giver and recei-
ver groups performed significantly better than the comparison group in two post-tests (fill-in-the
blank & translation) after two days and after four weeks of treatment. In particular, the giver
group made the most gains in the fill-in-the-blank test after four weeks of treatment. The studies
which found a positive impact of L1 use in L2 vocabulary learning suggest a strong connection
between the target concept and its L1 lexical representation. Hence, the authors of the studies
asserted that L1 can take a role in mediating the new L2 lexis to assist in reaching the concepts of
L2 (Dabaghi and Rafiee 2012; Lee and Macaro 2013).
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 413

By contrast, Vosoughi (2012) found opposing results in a study of 73 Iranian college learners of
English. For various tasks, three groups were set up (multiple exposures to L2 reading vs. dictionary
vs. translation). The group of multiple exposures to L2 reading were provided target words in a read-
ing text and further reading texts with similar content. The dictionary group was asked to use a dic-
tionary to make a gloss of target words in the reading text; the group was allowed to use L1 as a last
resort. To the translation group, the teacher provided a L1-translated work list after providing stu-
dents with a text to read and, later, provided two exercises (fill-in-the-blank & matching). The group
that experienced multiple exposures of L2 reading exhibited the most superior performance among
the three groups, followed by the dictionary group and, lastly, the translation group. Contrary to the
other groups, the translation group learned target words in a more passive way; instead of translating
by themselves, teachers provided the translated list to them and did not offer other texts for further
exploration of the target vocabulary. Hence, unlike the other studies above which compared L1 and
L2 explanation in the same or similar conditions, Vosoughi’s (2012) study is more likely to be
reviewed from the aspect of how much learners participated in acquiring lexical knowledge. This
indicates the importance of a deeper level of word-processing that involves student-centered practice
and more exposure to L2 reading texts. However, most of the studies reviewed appear to verify the
effect of L1 use on students’ recall and retention of vocabulary acquired. Additional research needs to
assess the effect of instructional language on vocabulary, focusing in particular on use in speaking
and writing, rather than memory (Ha 2017).
The relationship between grammar instruction and L1 use was investigated in two studies
(McManus and Marsden 2017; Viakinnou-Brinson et al. 2012), and the results were in conflict. Via-
kinnou-Brinson et al. (2012) observed that an L2-only group made more significant gains in terms of
multiple-choice grammar testing, from pre-test to post-test, than a combined L1-L2 group (explain-
ing target grammar in L1 with L2 examples). The low performance of the combined L1-L2 group is
likely to be accounted for by less cognitively-activated L2 processing and excessive reliance on trans-
lation of target sentences, which is similar to Vosoughi’s (2012) results. McManus and Marsden
(2017) targeted 50 English college students majoring in French, investigating the effect of additional
L1 instruction on the understanding of L2 French grammar measured by online (reading processing
strategies) and offline (sentence matching) tests. Compared to students in the L2-only group
(interpretation practice in L2), students in the combined L1-L2 group (interpretation practice in
L1) exhibited a strengthened grasp of concepts about target grammar, resulting in an increased
speed of L2 processing online and in improved L2 accuracy offline.
In the area of writing proficiency, Lo (2016) compared two writing processes (L1-L2 translation
vs. L2 writing) in 26 Chinese college students of English. Given two topics on social issues, students
were divided into two groups to complete their writing in two steps. In the first draft stage, one group
was asked to translate a Chinese L1 text associated with a topic and the other group was asked to
write in English L2 directly on a topic. During the second revision stage, the two groups were
asked to revise their L2 writing when given three example texts. The students’ lexical and gramma-
tical usage was found to be much improved in the L1-L2 translation tasks than in direct L2 writing,
with more significant improvement observed in lexical areas than grammar in both groups. Except
for two studies (Viakinnou-Brinson et al. 2012; Vosoughi 2012), the majority of studies reported
positive results when observing L1 use in completing tasks. Although we need many more impact
studies for conclusive results, these recent studies may contribute to the development of future class-
room recommendations for the judicious use of L1.

Discussion
The judicious use of L1 in L2 learning
The majority of the 55 studies reviewed herein support the judicious use of L1 in teaching L2 (i.e.
bilingual teaching), with the exception of six studies (Giannikas 2011; Hlas 2016; Izquierdo et al.
414 J.-Y. SHIN ET AL.

2016; Thompson and Harrison 2014; Viakinnou-Brinson et al. 2012; Vosoughi 2012) that demon-
strated explicitly negative attitudes toward the use of L1 or had negative outcomes. This is also in
line with the findings of Hall and Cook (2012) in their review. However, Hall and Cook did not
articulate specific guidelines for bilingual teaching. The current study undertook a review of relevant
literature from 2011 to the first half of 2018 in an attempt to determine if it is possible to introduce
specific guidelines and practices. A substantial range of recent research provides considerable detail
to be able to make a set of recommendations aimed at the judicious use of L1 in support of L2
learning.
Before discussing recommendations, an understanding of how L1 use impacts learning should be
conceptualised in a comprehensive way that recognises the realistic, relational, and situational
aspects of L1 use. First, we consider a realistic view of L1 use, acknowledging that L1 use occurs natu-
rally in group and peer discussions. Even though students may follow a no-L1 policy externally, they
may experience cognitive processes of language-learning by activating their prior knowledge in L1 as
an invisible tool to learn the new language. Examples of such cognitive processes include private
speech and inner voice.
Second, we acknowledge a relational nature of L1 use relative to L2 learning. The value of L1 use
cannot be understood in isolation, but needs to take into account connections with a pedagogical
focus to support L2 learning. This is important for developing a sequential process during classroom
and group talk. In other words, when the judicious use of L1 is referred to, the reference should not
just be solely to the amount and frequency of L1, apart from L2. To do so would present an incom-
plete story of L1 use. The amount of L1 use should be judged by its purpose, content, and task styles
when considering how to support L2 learning.
Third, a situational view toward L1 use is required which regards the complexities of L1 decisions,
such as the substantial impact of sociocultural contexts. It is critically important to know that L1 and
L2 use is not merely a simple issue of personal responsibility of individuals in the class; rather, it is a
complicated issue linked to circumstances surrounding individuals and classrooms. This reminds us
that teachers and students need appropriate learning opportunities and scaffolded support for the
judicious use of L1.

Discussion of classroom practices

In the case of a language classroom in which L2 is the main language medium, we offer some prac-
tices to utilise students’ L1 to maximise L2 learning. Recent studies recommend that L2 should be
taught in L2 90% of the time, and in L1 10% of the time (Hlas 2016). In addition to the amount
of time recommended, it is also suggested that the teachers’ speech in L2 should be comprehensible,
taking into consideration the students’ understanding and language proficiency level. In addition,
intervals for internalisation of a teacher’s speech should be given to the students (e.g. asking students
if they understand, retelling a teacher’s speech with their peers in L1, asking students to take notes
about a teacher’s speech, and providing time to recheck their notes).
Teachers could offer translation, after providing a series of L2 inputs, in various forms. These
include illustration, definition, repetition, and paraphrasing. By doing this, students would have
more opportunity to enhance critical thinking skills, negotiate meaning, and develop speaking skills
(Viakinnou-Brinson et al. 2012). The provision of translation in L1 by teachers at the final stage of
explanation could help students get an exact understanding in L1.
With regard to instruction of grammar, teachers’ explanations could be provided exclusively in
L2, but this would need to occur in various contexts using embedded examples. In addition, teachers
should consider providing peer work, such as constructing dialogues with target grammar, within
which L1 is allowed (Thompson and Harrison 2014). At the same time, teachers could provide
students with a handout of grammar explanations in L1 as a supplement. Through presentation
of an assigned task by students, the teacher could assess whether students’ understanding has
improved.
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 415

Finally, teachers may find that discourse in L1 is an opportunity to listen to the students’ voices in
order to understand the extent and quality of students’ involvement in the class and the task. In other
words, if students tend to ask their peers about a given task in L1, or if they try to talk to the teacher
in L1, teachers should provide more detail on what is expected from the students, rather than simply
commanding the students to replace their L1 use with L2. Teachers should provide additional task
information, or even allow for a task to change to one which is more closely aligned with students’
interests, in order to enable students to construct more sentences in L2.
Beyond this, translanguaging strategies could be more actively employed and applied in various
ways based on the subject and type of tasks, and scaled to student proficiency and language skills. For
example, recent studies encourage students to translate various authentic L2 texts (e.g. ads, songs,
movie subtitles) into their L1, addressing a specific purpose and audience. This is likely to prevent
simple word-to-word equivalence between L1 and L2, and could serve to increase cross-cultural and
linguistic awareness between L1 and L2. Moreover, because this activity uses the language in real-
world contexts, it is not applicable to say here that too much L1 deprives learners of authentic
input in L2. Also, writing essays in L1 and then translating them into L2 is especially recommended
for students as well as free use of L1 and L2 during the draft stage, because it is likely to yield more
precise and logical results than direct L2 writing. If possible, related sample texts could be provided as
a supplement during the revision process.
However, in the areas of culture, vocabulary and grammar, which have been criticised as being too
reliant on L1 use, more sophisticated translanguaging strategies could be used. In the case of culture,
especially for beginners, L1 could be used for explanation and discussion but course content should
not depend solely on L1 and direct translation (Fichtner 2015). In addition, to support students’
cross-cultural understanding, topics should be carefully selected and discussed through various
media (e.g. movies and social media), not only relying on L1 oral instruction.
In the case of explaining vocabulary, results from the research favour the use of translation from
the beginning of a lesson. However, it is helpful to have a more student-driven approach rather than
simply ending with the teacher’s provision of L1 glosses or L1 explanations. For example, giving stu-
dents a variety of contextual texts and making them create their own dictionary (with both L1 and L2
explanations) could facilitate understanding beyond the ability to recognise words. Doing so may
help students use words more freely in writing and speaking.
Also, with the regard to grammar instruction, if possible, a teacher could begin by asking students
to select some of the most challenging grammar and then intensively provide a variety of targeted
online and offline activities by utilising L1 (e.g. contrasting some similarities and differences in L1
and L2). Overall, in the longer-term, the class lessons and activities should allow for translanguaging,
which encourages students to use their own language repertoire freely to strengthen L2. This is in
order to increase understanding and enhance their activities, which leads students to recognise them-
selves as users of L2 rather than simply learners of L2.

Teacher and student development workshops

We support Bruen and Kelly’s (2014) assertion that teachers and students must be empowered as
active agents capable of making judicious use of L1. Integrated professional development workshops
could be significant tools, enacted via systematic efforts, to support teachers and students in this
endeavour (e.g. Giannikas 2011; Ha 2017; Izquierdo et al. 2016; Tian and Hennebry 2016; Trent
2013; Zhao and Macaro 2016,). To be effective, the teacher development workshops could include:
(1) integrated reflective development, (2) theoretical development, (3) open discussion among
diverse groups, and (4) cultural development.

Integrated reflective development

The integrated reflective development section of the workshop asks teachers to analyse their teaching
practices and classroom environment (e.g. teaching behaviours, classroom climate, and students’
416 J.-Y. SHIN ET AL.

learning cultures) (Miri, Alibakhshi, and Mostafaei-Alaei 2017). This reflective practice helps to
identify discrepancies between the beliefs of teachers and their actual use of L1 (Tsagari and Diakou
2015). To do this, reflective practices such as journal writing, video playback of instruction, and use
of a coding scheme for functional categories could be employed. In addition, it would be beneficial
for workshop facilitators to ask teachers some additional reflective questions regarding their class-
room teaching, learning experiences, and teaching philosophy, which could help them understand
their ongoing practice at a deeper level.

Theoretical development
Workshops could also include a section addressing theoretical development that reviews and dis-
cusses linguistic, cognitive and sociocultural theories about multiple aspects of language instruction
to help with the L1 or L2 decision (Bruen and Kelly 2014; Miri, Alibakhshi, and Mostafaei-Alaei
2017). More importantly, workshops could actively discuss translanguaging. In the FL area, the con-
cept of traditional monolingual norms toward speakers is strong in the classroom. There is still a long
way to go in FL education to break down norms, such as the concept of one language and one cul-
ture, which remains prevalent (Gramling and Warner 2016). If the teachers have a monolingual
norm toward students, the pedagogical practice of translanguaging could also be difficult or less
developed (García and Lin 2017). Also, the theories could provide conceptual guidance in developing
their instruction.

Open discussion among diverse groups

In addition, workshops could provide an open forum to facilitate discussions (Macaro and Lee 2013;
Miri, Alibakhshi, and Mostafaei-Alaei 2017). This will help to broaden the perspectives of teachers
and re-conceptualise their own cultural identity, as well as its role in language teaching. Active dis-
cussion is encouraged between experienced and novice teachers, among teachers from different eth-
nicities, between non-native-speaking teachers and native-speaking teachers, between teachers and
students at different proficiency levels and between teachers and educational policy makers/school
authorities. It could be beneficial to gather language teachers within a local school or district. The
creation of an online forum to have groups of more diverse experiences and backgrounds should
also be considered.

Cultural development
Workshops could also include a cultural development session in which L2 teachers who do not share
the same L1 with students gain a better understanding of the learning culture of their respective lear-
ners (Khresheh 2012). This will help teachers focus more on language content rather than classroom
management. There could also be cultural development for teachers who do share the same L1 with
their students to learn more about the L2 culture and how best to introduce and explain the L2 cul-
ture to their students.
Student development programmes are also needed to assist students who are struggling with judi-
cious use of L1. Some students resist using L2 and deliberately or unconsciously switch to L1 and
some students struggle to use L2 exclusively and often tend to speak only a few sentences, in very
limited interactions, with their teacher or peers because they may not have a clear concept of the
role of L1 and L2 in their minds (Copland and Neokleous 2011; Tian and Hennebry 2016). Student
workshops could consist of two major components. First, student workshops could include a discus-
sion of the bilingual mind, tranlanguaging, the possible functions of L1 use by going over perceived
benefits and drawbacks, with students sharing their reasoning for the judicious use of L1 (Sampson
2011). Then, students could be encouraged to engage in self-reflection to consider their language use
via activities such as journal writing and audio recordings. These programmes would help students
be empowered and have agency for their learning.
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 417

Discussion of future research

We are looking forward to integrating future research more centrally into planning teaching strat-
egies and practices for the judicious use of L1. In particular, future research should focus more on the
pedagogical use of translanguaging, to utilise students’ repertoire fully. To do this, we should con-
sider this understanding in which the focus of bilingualism should be not on languages but on
the practices of bilinguals who have a single integrated language system (García 2009) and in
which translanguaging involves individual history, experiences, cultural ideology, and cognitive abil-
ities into their one repertoire (Wei 2018). Most studies of translanguaging have been limited to
descriptions of the use of two languages, assessing the degree of their functions from the perspectives
of the weak form of translanguaging, which differentiates two languages but more flexibility of their
use (García and Lin 2017). Hence, future studies require more interventional features involving the
strong form of translanguaging in which boundaries of two languages are removed and students
freely access to their single language repertoire and selectively use to enhance L2 learning (García
and Lin 2017). Future studies also should evaluate how translanguaging facilitates the completion
of tasks, and what the direction of associated learning should be.
Future research should also consider debates regarding terminology in the literature. Here, we
used conventional terminology to describe two languages in the classroom, such as L1 and L2,
despite some limits pointed out by Hall and Cook (2012). We found a lack of research regarding
this topic. One of the major reasons seems to be that the terminology related to L1 is being more
actively discussed in studies of bilingual or multilingual education, yet its significance is not recog-
nised in the area of FL education. In addition, as mentioned above, we believe that the lack of studies
on L1 and L2 terminology is linked to the lack of a fundamental understanding of the speaker using
two languages. Overall, we need new terminologies to address L1 issues in a multilingual and global
era.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Adinolfi, L., and L. Astruc. 2017. “An Exploratory Study of Translanguaging Practices in an Online Beginner-level
Foreign Language Classroom.” Language Learning in Higher Education 7 (1): 185–204. doi:10.1515/cercles-2017-
0008.
Antón, M., and F. DiCamilla. 1999. “Socio-cognitive Functions of L1 Collaborative Interaction in the L2 Classroom.”
The Modern Language Journal 83 (2): 233–247. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00018.
Asiyaban, A. R., and M. S. Bagheri. 2012. “Does Translation Contribute to Learners’ Free Active Vocabulary?” Journal
of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 16 (1): 111–121.
Bruen, J., and N. Kelly. 2014. “Using a Shared L1 to Reduce Cognitive Overload and Anxiety Levels in the L2
Classroom.” The Language Learning Journal 45 (3): 1–14. doi:10.1080/09571736.2014.908405.
Cheng, T. 2013. “Codeswitching and Participant Orientations in a Chinese as a Foreign Language Classroom.” The
Modern Language Journal 97 (4): 869–886. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12046.
Chiou, B. 2014. “Rethinking the Role of L1 in the EFL Classroom.” English Teaching & Learning 38 (4): 53–78. doi:10.
6330ETL.2014.
Conteh, J. 2018. “Translanguaging.” ELT Journal 72 (4): 445–447.
Cook, G. 2008. “Plenary: An Unmarked Improvement: Using Translation in ELT.” In IATEFL 2007 Aberdeen
Conference Selections, edited by B. Beaven, 76–86. Canterbury: University of Kent, IATEFL.
Cook, G. 2010. Translation in Language Teaching: An Argument for Reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Copland, F., and G. Neokleous. 2011. “L1 to Teach L2: Complexities and Contradictions.” ELT Journal 65 (3): 270–280.
doi:10.1093/elt/ccq047.
Cummins, J. 2007. “Rethinking Monolingual Instructional Strategies in Multilingual Classrooms.” Canadian Journal of
Applied Linguistics (CJAL) 10 (2): 221–240.
Dabaghi, A., and M. Rafiee. 2012. “Incidental Vocabulary Learning and the Development of Receptive and Productive
Vocabulary: How Gloss Types Work.” Suvremena Lingvistika 38 (74): 175–187.
418 J.-Y. SHIN ET AL.

DiCamilla, F. J., and M. Antón. 2012. “Functions of L1 in the Collaborative Interaction of Beginning and Advanced
Second Language Learners.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 22 (2): 160–188.
Fichtner, F. 2015. “Learning Culture in the Target Language: The Students’ Perspectives.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/
Teaching German 48 (2): 229–243.
Forman, R. 2015. “When EFL Teachers Perform L2 and L1 in the Classroom, What Happens to Their Sense of Self?”
TESL-EJ 19 (2): 1–20.
Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A., and K. Roehr. 2011. “Use of L1, Metalanguage, and Discourse Markers: L2 Learners’
Regulation During Individual Task Performance.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 21 (3): 297–318.
García, O. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden/Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell.
García, O., and T. Kleyn. 2016. “Translanguaging Theory in Education.” In Translanguaging with Multilingual
Students, edited by O. García and T. Kleyn, 23–47. New York: Routledge.
García, O., and A. M. Lin. 2017. “Translanguaging in Bilingual Education.” In Bilingual and Multilingual Education,
edited by O. García, A. M. Lin, and S. May, 117–130. Switzerland: Springer.
Gauci, H., and A. Camilleri Grima. 2013. “Codeswitching as a Tool in Teaching Italian in Malta.” International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16 (5): 615–631. doi:10.1080/13670050.2012.71681.
Ghobadi, M., and H. Ghasemi. 2015. “Promises and Obstacles of L1 Use in Language Classrooms: A State-of-the-Art
Review.” English Language Teaching 8 (11): 245–254.
Giannikas, C. N. 2011. “L1 in English Language Learning: A Research Study in a Greek Regional Context.”
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 21 (3): 319–339.
Gramling, D. J., and C. Warner. 2016. “Whose ‘Crisis in Language’? Translating and the Futurity of Foreign Language
Learning.” L2 Journal 8 (4): 76–99.
Greenhalgh, T., and R. Peacock. 2005. “Effectiveness and Efficiency of Search Methods in Systematic Reviews of
Complex Evidence: Audit of Primary Sources.” BMJ 331 (7524): 1064–1065. doi:10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68.
Gulzar, M. A., M. U. Farooq, and M. Umer. 2013. “Inter-sentential Patterns of Code-switching: A Gender-based
Investigation of Male and Female EFL Teachers.” International Education Studies 6 (11): 144–159.
Ha, D. T. 2017. “The Impact of Different Instructions on Vietnamese EFL Students’ Acquisition of Formulaic
Sequences.” English Language Teaching 10 (8): 18–31. doi:10.5539/elt.v10n8p18.
Hall, G., and G. Cook. 2012. “Own-language Use in Language Teaching and Learning.” Language Teaching 45 (3):
271–308.
Hlas, A. C. 2016. “Secondary Teachers’ Language Usage: Beliefs and Practices.” Hispania 99 (2): 305–319.
Izquierdo, J., V. G. Martínez, M. G. G. Pulido, and S. P. A. Zúñiga. 2016. “First and Target Language use in Public
Language Education for Young Learners: Longitudinal Evidence from Mexican Secondary-school Classrooms.”
System 61: 20–30.
Källkvist, M. 2013. “Languaging in Translation Tasks Used in a University Setting: Particular Potential for Student
Agency?” The Modern Language Journal 97 (1): 217–238.
Kelly, N., and J. Bruen. 2015. “Translation as a Pedagogical Tool in the Foreign Language Classroom: A Qualitative
Study of Attitudes and Behaviours.” Language Teaching Research 19 (2): 150–168.
Ketabi, S., M. Ghavamnia, and M. Rezazadeh. 2012. “Hypermedia Reading Strategies Used by Persian Graduate
Students in TEFL: A Think-aloud Study.” Reading 12 (1): 39–49.
Khan, M. S. 2016. “The Impact of Native Language use on Second Language Vocabulary Learning by Saudi EFL
Students.” English Language Teaching 9 (5): 134. doi:10.5539/elt.v9n5p134.
Khresheh, A. 2012. “Exploring When and Why to Use Arabic in the Saudi Arabian EFL Classroom: Viewing L1 Use as
Eclectic Technique.” English Language Teaching 5 (6): 78. doi:10.5539/elt.v5n6p78.
Kim, E. Y. 2011. “Using Translation Exercises in the Communicative EFL Writing Classroom.” ELT Journal 65 (2):
154–160. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq039.
Lee, J. H., and E. Macaro. 2013. “Investigating Age in the Use of L1 or English-only Instruction: Vocabulary
Acquisition by Korean EFL Learners.” The Modern Language Journal 97 (4): 887–901. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.
2013.12044.x.
Lin, Z. 2012. “Code-switching: L1-Coded Mediation in a Kindergarten Foreign Language Classroom.” International
Journal of Early Years Education 20 (4): 365–378.
Lin, L. C., and W. Y. Yu. 2015. “A Think-Aloud Study of Strategy Use by EFL College Readers Reading Chinese and
English Texts.” Journal of Research in Reading 38 (3): 286–306. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12012.
Liu, Y., and A. P. Zeng. 2015. “Loss and Gain: Revisiting the Roles of the First Language in Novice Adult Second
Language Learning Classrooms.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 5 (12): 2433–2440.
Lo, S. W. 2016. “L1-L2 Translation Versus L2 Writing Tasks: An Empirical Study on Non-language Major Students’
Improvement in Writing Proficiency.” Writing & Pedagogy 8 (3): 483–518.
Macaro, E., and J. H. Lee. 2013. “Teacher Language Background, Codeswitching, and English-only Instruction: Does
Age Make a Difference to Learners’ Attitudes?” TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of
Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect 47 (4): 717–742. doi:10.1002/tesq.74.
Mayo, M. D. P. G., and M. de los Angeles Hidalgo. 2017. “L1 Use among Young EFL Mainstream and CLIL Learners in
Task-supported Interaction.” System 67: 132–145.
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 419

McManus, K., and E. Marsden. 2017. “L1 Explicit Instruction Can Improve L2 Online and Offline Performance.”
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39 (3): 459–492. doi:10.1017/S027226311600022X.
McMillan, B. A., and D. J. Rivers. 2011. “The Practice of Policy: Teacher Attitudes Toward “English Only”.” System 39
(2): 251–263. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.04.011.
Miri, M., G. Alibakhshi, and M. Mostafaei-Alaei. 2017. “Reshaping Teacher Cognition About L1 Use Through Critical
ELT Teacher Education.” Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 14 (1): 58–98. doi:10.1080/15427587.2016.1238286.
Moghadam, S. H., A. A. Samad, and E. R. Shahraki. 2012. “Code Switching as a Medium of Instruction in an EFL
Classroom.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2 (11). doi:10.4304/tpls.2.11.2219-2225.
Mohebbi, H., and S. M. Alavi. 2014. “Teachers’ First Language Use in a Second Language Learning Classroom Context:
A Questionnaire-based Study.” Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature 7 (4): 57–73.
Momenian, M., and R. G. Samar. 2011. “Functions of Code-switching among Iranian Advanced and Elementary
Teachers and Students.” Educational Research and Reviews 6 (13): 769–777.
Moore, P. J. 2013. “An Emergent Perspective on the Use of the First Language in the English-as-a-Foreign-Language
Classroom.” The Modern Language Journal 97 (1): 239–253. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01429.x.
Mora Pablo, I., M. M. Lengeling, B. Rubio Zenil, T. Crawford, and D. Goodwin. 2011. “Students and Teachers’ Reasons
for Using the First Language Within the Foreign Language Classroom (French and English) in Central Mexico.”
Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development 13 (2): 113–129.
Nakatsukasa, K., and S. Loewen. 2015. “A Teacher’s First Language Use in Form-focused Episodes in Spanish as a
Foreign Language Classroom.” Language Teaching Research 19 (2): 133–149. doi:10.1177/1362168814541737.
Nukuto, H. 2017. “Code Choice Between L1 and the Target Language in English Learning and Teaching: A Case Study
of Japanese EFL Classrooms.” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 49 (1): 85–103. doi:10.1080/03740463.2017.1316631.
Otheguy, R., O. García, and W. Reid. 2018. “A Translanguaging View of the Linguistic System of Bilinguals.” Applied
Linguistics Review 10 (4): 625–651.
Rabbidge, M., and P. Chappell. 2014. “Exploring Non-native English Speaker Teachers’ Classroom Language Use in
South Korean Elementary Schools.” TESL-EJ 17 (4): 1–18.
Samian, H. V., T. C. V. Foo, and H. Mohebbi. 2016. “The Effects of Giving and Receiving Marginal L1 Glosses on L2
Vocabulary Learning by Upper Secondary Learners.” English Language Teaching 9 (2): 66. doi:10.5539/elt.v9n2p66.
Sampson, A. 2011. “Learner Code-switching Versus English Only.” ELT Journal 66 (3): 293–303. doi:10.1093/elt/
ccr067.
Sawin, T. 2018. “Media and English.” In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, edited by J. I. Liontas,
Vol. 8, 1–15. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Scheffler, P. 2013. “Learners’ Perceptions of Grammar-translation as Consciousness Raising.” Language Awareness 22
(3): 255–269. doi:10.1080/09658416.2012.703673.
Thompson, G. L., and K. Harrison. 2014. “Language use in the Foreign Language Classroom.” Foreign Language
Annals 47 (2): 321–337. doi:10.1111/flan.12079.
Tian, L., and M. Hennebry. 2016. “Chinese Learners’ Perceptions Towards Teachers’ Language Use in Lexical
Explanations: A Comparison Between Chinese-only and English-only Instructions.” System 63: 77–88.
Tian, L., and E. Macaro. 2012. “Comparing the Effect of Teacher Codeswitching with English-only Explanations on the
Vocabulary Acquisition of Chinese University Students: A Lexical Focus-on-Form Study.” Language Teaching
Research 16 (3): 367–391. doi:10.1177/1362168812436909.
Trent, J. 2013. “Using the L1 in L2 Teaching and Learning: What Role Does Teacher Identity Play?” Asian EFL Journal
15 (3): 217–247.
Tsagari, D., and C. Diakou. 2015. “Students’ and Teachers’ Attitudes Towards the Use of the First Language in the EFL
State School Classrooms.” Research Papers in Language Teaching & Learning 6 (1): 86–108.
Viakinnou-Brinson, L., C. Herron, S. P. Cole, and C. Haight. 2012. “The Effect of Target Language and Code-Switching
on the Grammatical Performance and Perceptions of Elementary-Level College French Students.” Foreign Language
Annals 45 (1): 72–91. doi:10.111/j.1944-9720.2012.01170.x.
Vosoughi, M. 2012. “Enhancing Lexical Knowledge Through L2 Medium Tasks.” English Language Teaching 5 (10):
34. doi:10.5539/elt.v5n10p34.
Wei, L. 2018. “Translanguaging as a Practical Theory of Language.” Applied Linguistics 39 (1): 9–30.
Yan, E. M., I. Y. Fung, L. Liu, and X. Huang. 2016. “Perceived-Target-Language-Use Survey in the English Classrooms
in China: Investigation of Classroom-related and Institutional Factors.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development 37 (1): 75–96. doi:10.1080/01434632.2015.1029934.
Yao, M. 2011. “On Attitudes to Teachers’ Code-switching in EFL Classes.” World Journal of English Language 1 (1):
19–28. doi:10.5430/wjel.v1n1p19.
Yu, S., and I. Lee. 2016. “Exploring Chinese Students’ Strategy use in a Cooperative Peer Feedback Writing Group.”
System 58: 1–11. doi:10.5430/wjel.v1n1p19.
Zhao, T., and E. Macaro. 2016. “What Works Better for the Learning of Concrete and Abstract Words: Teachers’ L 1
use or L 2-Only Explanations?” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 26 (1): 75–98. doi:10.1111/ijal.12080.