http://rel.sagepub.com/RELC Journal

http://rel.sagepub.com/content/35/1/5The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/003368820403500103

2004 35: 5RELC JournalJane Crawford

Language or the Learners' First Language?Language Choices in the Foreign Language Classroom: Target

  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:RELC JournalAdditional services and information for    

  http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://rel.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://rel.sagepub.com/content/35/1/5.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Apr 1, 2004Version of Record >>

at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 2, 2014rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 2, 2014rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

5-2

LANGUAGE CHOICES IN THE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CLASSROOM:

TARGET LANGUAGE OR THE LEARNERS’ FIRST LANGUAGE?

Jane Crawford

Queensland University of Technology, Australiaj.crawford@qut.edu.au

ABSTRACT

Second language acquisition research has led to a major emphasis on theneed for learners to experience the target language (TL) in use if theythemselves are to become users of the language. At the same time, there isdiscussion of the role of the first language (L 1) as a tool in the processing oflanguage/culture experiences. Achieving optimal levels ofTL and L1 use is

particularly important in school-based foreign language programs where theteacher is often the only proficient speaker and opportunities for TL usebeyond the classroom may be limited. This paper presents the results of asurvey of language teachers’ attitudes to and use of the target language inQueensland, Australia. The responses suggest that many teachers continueto make extensive use of the learners’ L 1. Such practices make the move toapproaches involving learning through the language problematic. Thefindings suggest, also, that many teachers see the learners’ L1 as theappropriate medium for cross-lingual, cross-cultural comparisons. Whilethe teachers’ own level of proficiency had some influence, experience in thetarget culture seemed to be more influential both on teachers’ attitudes to

proficiency as a goal and their reported use of the TL.

Introduction

Recent decades have seen a paradigm shift in our understanding of secondlanguage (L2) learning if the goal is to produce effective users of thatlanguage. Language learning is not just a cognitive (intrapersonal) process,it is also experiential (interpersonal) (Klapper 1997). Indeed socioculturaltheories of mind suggest the interpersonal precedes the intrapersonal

at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 2, 2014rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

6

(Stetsenko and Arievitch 1997). In language learning this has meant a shiftin emphasis to using the language not just learning about it (Crozet 1996).Experience of learning through language is important not just because thisenhances levels of language input but because the very process of learningrequires opportunities to develop negotiating, interpreting and expressingabilities (Macaro 2000). Indeed language emerges out of such semioticactivity (van Lier 2000).These changes are influenced also by the processes of globalization and

the resultant worldwide demand for interculturally competent languageusers. Technology and the unprecedented mobility of people have madeintercultural communications a daily necessity for many. The ability tospeak more than one language is increasingly useful for global citizens inan interdependent world. While this view is more readily accepted by non-English-speakers who see value in learning the global lingua franca, evenin the English-speaking world, there is a growing sense that ’getting by’ inEnglish may not be enough. After all, in intercultural environments,’language is not just a conduit for communication. It also serves as theprimary tool for creating and expressing cooperation’ (Cestac 1996: 2). Insome quarters, at least, this need for intercultural competence has raised

expectations of what language programs should achieve in terms of out-comes. As Mueller (1996: 126) suggests from an American perspective:’Until we achieve a curriculum that enables students to discuss globalissues through the medium of another language, we will not be inter-nationally literate’ .

Teacher Use of the TL

The challenge is to develop programs which achieve such internationalliteracy. Increasingly researchers have stressed the importance of inter-action and negotiation of meaning and form (Long 2000; Pica 2002) sothat the language can be appropriated for the learners’ own communicativeand sociocultural purposes (Lin 2000). To achieve this, teachers andstudents need to engage as frequently as possible in message-orientedinteraction (Butzkamm 2000). This requires contexts in which students’communicate by engaging in purposeful and active use of language intasks which contribute to [their] understanding of a range of issues andconcepts, and which involve negotiation and socialisation with peers’(QSCC 1998: 5). Such ’authentic’ language use-in van Lier’s (1996)sense of involving free choice and the expression of genuine feelings and

at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 2, 2014rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7

beliefs-is deemed crucial to learning because of its potential to promoteengagement, provide comprehensible input and involve learners in nego-tiation of meaning and form (Garcia-Mayo and Pica 2000; Swain 2000;Swain, Brooks and Tocalli-Bella 2002).

In foreign language classrooms in particular, teacher use of the targetlanguage is crucial as it provides the learners’ principal, even only, sourceof live, scaffolded input. Teachers must themselves be language users andmake schools domains of language use if students are realistically tobecome language users in their turn. TL use also has considerable sym-bolic value as it gives the message that languages are different but not tobe feared, that learners can understand and that it is fun when they do(Madylus 2001).

Teacher Use of the Learners’all

Despite the emphasis in the literature on the importance of TL use, therehas recently been renewed interest in the role of the learners’ first

language. Macaro (2000), for example, suggests that the learners’ L 1 is thelanguage of thought for all but the most advanced learners and so mayenrich associations and reduce memory constraints. This is supported byCarless’ finding (2002) that student use of L1 increases with the level oflinguistic complexity and open-endedness of the tasks undertaken. Klapper(1998: 24) argues for bilingual form-focused elements as well as mono-lingual message-oriented communication, because ‘dogmatic exclusion ofL can lead to resentment, frustration and the build-up of affective factorswhich are well known to be the enemy of effective FL learning’. Swain(2000) and Ant6n and Dicamilla (1999) support this view of second lan-guage learning as an interlingual process in which student L 1 use contri-butes to effective collaborative dialogues. Swain (2000), for example,found immersion students used their L 1 to mediate their understanding ofthe task; to mediate their L2 learning; and to create the affective environ-ment needed to get the task done. These are very similar to the reasonsHou and Zhao (2002) reported for teachers’ use of the learners’ L1 in atertiary language program in China.Cook (2001: 419) challenges exclusive use of the TL on the grounds

that the goal of language programs is to produce ‘genuine L2 users’ who‘are able to operate with two language systems’. Teachers, therefore, needto acknowledge this by maximising use of the TL while also using the L Ipositively (Cook 2001). Macaro (2000; 2001) found that higher levels of

at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 2, 2014rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

8

student teacher TL talk did not lead to higher quantities of student TL talk.Likewise infrequent, short bursts of L 1 use by the teachers did not seem toincrease learners’ use of their mother tongue. Similarly Eldridge (1996)reported similar quantities of codeswitching among higher and lowerachievers. Use of L 1, in other words, does not necessarily impede secondlanguage acquisition or imply a traditional transmission approach in whichthe L2 is ’merely a classroom subject, not a real, useful language’ al-though this may be the underlying message (Tibbetts, cited in Stanley2002: 14).

Studies of actual levels of TL use show considerable variation. Polioand Duff (1994) found teacher TL use ranged from 10% to 100% of thetime. In a school-based study Turnbull (2000) reported a range from 24%to 72%. Calman and Daniel (1998) investigated the 95% TL use deemedappropriate by Canadian school authorities but found that this level wasachieved by only 42% of the Grade 5 teachers and 17% of the Grade 8teachers. Hou and Zhao (2002) found the tertiary teachers in their studydid achieve a 95% level of use whereas Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (citedin Turnbull and Arnett 2002) reported 82% to 100% TL use in an intro-ductory language program in Australia. Such varied levels of use suggestlearner experiences and learning opportunities vary considerably.As a contribution to this discussion of the role and uses of learners’ Ll l

and L2 in foreign language classes, this paper presents findings of a surveyof language teachers in Queensland (Crawford, 1999). The decision tolook at their attitudes to the use of target language was prompted by theabove debate on the importance of encounters with language in use as akey to language development, an emphasis reflected also in the newQueensland Year 4-10 LOTE Syllabuses (QSCC 2000) which advocateunits of work related to other areas of the curriculum so that the languageprogram can create learning environments in which the students encounterlanguage in use and, as far as possible, use it themselves with purpose andintent in contexts relevant to the immediate school curriculum rather thansome possible future use.

Method

A survey questionnaire was submitted to the 1215 language teachers nomi-nated by State, Catholic and Independent employing authorities. With 581 1completed, this gave a response rate of 48%. Respondents taught each ofQueensland’s seven priority languages: Japanese (36.0% of respondents),

at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 2, 2014rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

9

German (22.2%), French (16.5%), Indonesian (8.4%), Chinese (8.1%),Italian (6.9%) and Korean (0.3%). They taught in the primary program(39.2%); across primary and secondary programs (20.1%) and in thesecondary program only (40.6%). The majority (76.4%) were in Stateschools, with 12.4% in Independent schools and 11.2% in Catholicschools. Women predominated (81 %) and most respondents (77%) werenon-native speakers of the language taught. Approximately two-thirdsrated their own proficiency as at least good’ .

This paper focuses particularly on teachers’ views on the desirability ofusing the target language as the main medium of instruction at differentlevels of the program and their estimation of their TL use in their own

classes. The teachers’ attitudes to using the L 1 or TL for various aspects oftheir teaching were also investigated.

Respondents indicated their level of agreement with a series of state-ments using a six-point Likert-like scale ranging from 1 strongly disagreeto 6 strongly agree. The six-point scale was used to gauge the strength ofresponses. In the analysis presented here, responses have been returned toa more traditional three-point scale indicating those who agreed/stronglyagreed, those who disagreed/strongly disagreed and those who expressedreservations. A similar scale was used to investigate the teachers’ attitudesto use of the target language or the learners’ L 1 for various aspects of theprogram. A factor analysis (using SYSTAT) was undertaken to see if theseitems clustered together to form distinct ’factors’ to which respondentsreacted in a consistent fashion. This process showed that there were

patterns of response with answers tending to cluster negatively orpositively on each of the two factors. Three items did not fit into thispattern of responses. These were the questions focusing on syllabusrequirements, the availability of resources in the school and the impact ofthe teacher’s own proficiency.

Respondents also estimated the percentage of time they actually usedthe target language for each level taught on a five-point scale (less than20%; 20%-40%; about 50%; 60%-80%; over 80%). There was thus noimplication that there would not be some use of the learners’ L1.

Responses were clustered into three groups; the L1-dominant group (usingthe TL 40% or less of the time); the TL-dominant group (60% plus); andthe bilingual group (about 50% for both languages). While impressionistic,these estimations allowed respondents to take account of differences thatmight occur in different lesson types or at different stages of a teachingcycle.

at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 2, 2014rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

10

Results

Despite the emphasis in the literature on the importance of language use,many respondents in this study appeared to have reservations about thedesirability of TL use or even actively oppose it. This is particularly so inthe early stages of the program. In the primary program, for example, only27% of respondents agreed unreservedly with the desirability of such usewhile 54% had reservations (Table 1). The percentages agreeing wereslightly higher for Year 8 (the first year of secondary schooling in Queens-land) but even here 52% had reservations. Support rose across the rest ofthe program and, by Years 11 and 12, there was consensus about thedesirability of using the TL as the main medium of instruction.

Table 1. Desirability of Using TL as Main Medium of Instruction

a Respondents responding ‘agree’ or ’strongly agree’b Those agreeing with reservations or disagreeing somewhatC Respondents responding ’disagree’ or ’strongly disagree’

Given over 100 years of emphasis on TL use in teaching approaches (Cook2001), these levels of agreement seem surprisingly low and seriously limitlevels of exposure and opportunities for interaction in the TL, thuspotentially reducing the likelihood that learners will experience their L2 asa language of immediate use.

Respondents’ reported use confirmed this trend of limited exposure.Most respondents claimed to use the TL quite sparingly across a teachingcycle. While 31.2% of respondents agreed unreservedly that TL use isdesirable in Year 8 (Table 1), only 10.0% actually reported using the TLmore than the learners’ L 1 (Table 2). This suggests that primary-secondarycontinuity is an issue with many students actually having less contact withthe target language in their third year of study than in their first two years.The difference between the desirable and reported levels of use was evengreater in Years 9 and 10 (57.5% and 23.3% respectively). Indeed the

at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 2, 2014rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

11

majority of respondents reported using English as the main medium ofinstruction in all but Years 11 and 12. Even in these senior classes, onlyone in two respondents placed themselves in the target language-dominantgroup. This compared with 78.8% who agreed that use of the targetlanguage as the main medium of instruction was desirable.

These data suggest that, even after several years in a language program,many students potentially experience very little interaction with theirteacher in the target language. This perhaps explains Ingram and O’Neill’s sfindings (2001; 2002) that two-thirds of the Year 10 students in their studysought more active, real-life use of the TL with native speakers. Whilesimple use by the teacher of the target language is itself no guarantee ofthe quality of classroom discourse (Neil, Salter and McEwan 1999;Macaro 2000), teacher use of the learners’ Ll considerably reduces thequantity and quality of the target language exposure students receive aswell as their opportunity to use the language themselves and receivefeedback on this use (Pica 2000).

Table 2. Average Use of TL across a Week or Teaching Cycle

a Numbers reporting they were teaching at this level. Total more than 581 1because most respondents teach at several levels

b Percentage of those indicating this level of language use

As in Macaro’s ( 1997) study, these patterns of language use do not appearto depend simply on the teachers’ personal levels of proficiency.Respondents rated themselves on a five-point proficiency scale based onthe Australian Second Language Proficiency Rating Scale self-assessmentinstrument (Wylie and Ingram 1993). These self-ratings were then used todivide respondents into a lower proficiency group (minimal/reasonable)and a higher proficiency group (good/very good/near native). These self-rating had some influence on the extent to which teachers claimed to beusing the target language with percentages consistently higher for themore proficient group at each level of the program (Table 3).

at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 2, 2014rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

12

Table 3. Average Use of TL across a Week or Teaching Cycle by Proficiency Group

a Lower proficiency group-those rating their proficiency ’minimal’ or’reasonable’. Higher proficiency group-those rating their proficiency’good’, ’very good’ or ’native/near native’

b Number of respondents reporting they are teaching at this levelC Percentage of those teaching at this level reporting this level of use

Table 4. Average Use of TL across a Week or Teaching Cycle by Teacher Status

a Number of respondents reporting they are teaching at this levelb Percentage of those teaching at this level reporting this level of useC NS are those reporting they are native or background speakers of theirlanguage

The responses of native speakers, however, suggest this proficiency impactmay involve a threshold beyond which use of the TL does not increase.While the native speakers rated their proficiency significantly higher thanthe non-native speakers (Crawford, 1999), their reported use of the TL did

at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 2, 2014rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

13

not differ as much as might be expected. In the early years of the program,for example, between 55% and 66% of the native speakers reported domi-nant use of English (Table 4). This compared to a 54% to 75% range forthe non-native speakers. The greatest difference was in Year 12 whereover two-thirds of the native speakers reported dominant use of the TLcompared to just under half of the non-native teachers.The limited impact of proficiency on TL use was evident also in the

survey’s exploration of the teachers’ reasons for using either English orthe target language. A Quartimax rotated factor analysis showed two clearfactors influencing responses but the teachers’ own proficiency did not fitinto either of these (Table 5). There were two major reasons accepted foruse of the TL. Consistent with the literature, 68% agreed without reserva-tion that the teachers’ TL use maximizes student experience of the lan-guage. Almost as many respondents (61%) agreed that use of the TLshows the teachers’ confidence in the students’ ability to learn. Reportedpatterns of use, however, suggest many teachers lack confidence in this

ability, particularly in the early years of the program.With regard to use of the learners’ L1, the Queensland teachers seem to

share attitudes reported in other studies (e.g. Macaro 1997; Cook 2001).Agreement was highest in terms of use of the target language makingcoverage of culture superficial (68%) and English being more effective forteaching grammar (65%) (Table 5). These responses are consistent with abilingual approach to language and culture but the reported patterns oflanguage use indicate that many students may be basing their cross-cultural comparisons on limited experience of the second language ‘as alanguage in its own right embodying other cultural beliefs, behaviours andmeanings’ (Byram and Doye 1999: 138).Whereas the factor analysis established patterns of response with regard

to use of the learners’ L 1 or the target language, syllabus requirements didnot appear to influence responses with regard to choice of medium ofinstruction. Fewer than one in five respondents agreed unreservedly thatthe syllabus requires use of the TL and 46.1 % actively disagreed with thisproposition. This suggests the assumptions underpinning the new syllabusrepresent a marked change and guidelines may need to be modified ifincreased TL use is to be achieved. While there was general consensus thatthe schools do not have plenty of support materials to assist teacher use ofthe target language, this, like the teachers’ own level of proficiency, didnot fit the factor analysis, suggesting that these issues did not influencerespondents’ decision to use the L 1 or the TL.

at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 2, 2014rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

14

Table 5. Reasons for Choice of Medium of Instruction

A comparison by proficiency group showed no significant differencewith regard to the factor for TL use but a trend for the lower proficiencygroup to agree more with the factor promoting use of English (p<0.05)(Table 6). Further evidence for the threshold value of proficiency emergedfrom the absence of statistical difference on either factor between

native/background speakers and nonnative speakers (Crawford 1999).

at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 2, 2014rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

15

Table 6. Factors Promoting Choice of Medium of Instruction by Proficiency Group

a Respondents rating their speaking proficiency as ’minimal’ or ‘reasonable’.b Respondents rating their speaking proficiency as ’good’, ’very good’ or‘native/near native’

Respondents were divided about whether proficiency was an appropriateoutcome in the primary program. Only 50% of respondents agreed withthis goal, compared to 67% for Years 8-10 (Table 7). When dividedaccording to this proficiency orientation, the more proficiency-orientedgroup was significantly more likely to agree with the factor promoting TLuse (p<0.001 ) whereas the less proficiency-oriented group tended to agreewith the factor favouring Ll use (p<0.02) (Table 8). Such findings supportthe view that choice of medium of instruction is not simply a matter ofteacher proficiency but, as Turnbull (2001) contends, the product ofmultiple interacting factors. One such factor may be the teachers’ view ofthe goals of the program.

Table 7. Appropriate/Desirable Goals of Language Program

N=581

at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 2, 2014rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

16

Table 8. Factors Promoting Choice of Medium of Instruction by ProficiencyOrientation

a Respondents agreeing unreservedly that proficiency is a desirable/appro-priate goal in the primary program.

b Respondents with reservations about proficiency as a desirable/appropriategoal in the primary program

Experience in the target culture also produced significant differences onboth factors (Table 9). Teachers reporting having spent a year or more in acountry where their target language was spoken were significantly morelikely to favour TL use (p<0.002) whereas those with less experiencesignificantly favoured use of the learners’ L 1 (p<0.001 ). Given the results

for proficiency, it appears the significant difference between the two groupsis not just the result of the higher proficiency of the more experiencedgroup (Crawford, 1999). The response in favour of use of the target lan-guage perhaps reflects this group’s greater personal familiarity withlearning through language and their willingness to try and replicate thisexperience in their classrooms.

Table 9. Factors Promoting Choice of Medium of Instruction byExperience in the Target Culture

Conclusion

As Turnbull and Arnett (2002) suggest, further research is needed to ex-plore precisely why teachers choose their medium of instruction and whatan appropriate ratio of L and TL use might be. While some respondentsin the present study confirm Allford’s conclusion that ’employing themother tongue... is entirely compatible with extensive use of the TL,which is being complemented, rather than undermined by cross-lingual

at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 2, 2014rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

17

comparisons’ (Allford 1999: 231 ), these self-report data indicate that, formany of these Australian respondents, current practices are not maximiz-ing students’ exposure to the target language or setting up expectations ofsuccess in the language learning/using process. Fewer than 10% ofstudents continue with their language studies through to Years 11 and 12and, even here, they may not experience dominant use of the TL. Withouta significant change in patterns of use, therefore, the majority of learnerswill continue to complete their language studies with very limited

experience of the language as a means of communication, at least in theirinteractions with their teacher. With the teacher usually an importantsource of real-time TL interaction, it is difficult to imagine how studentscan be encouraged to use the target language themselves if they rarelyencounter it in use in the life of the classroom. The improved proficiencyoutcomes deemed necessary for global citizenship and underpinning theexpanded program in schools may thus remain unachievable.The results also suggest that teacher beliefs about the purpose of the

program may be a key factor in their attitude to language use. Thus theteachers who supported proficiency as an outcome in the primary programwere significantly more likely to support use of the target language. Whilethe teachers’ own proficiency also had some limited influence on reportedlevels of use, improving teacher proficiency will not, by itself, bring aboutchange as even highly proficient native speakers claimed dominant L 1 useat almost all levels of the program. Indeed, given the strong preferenceexpressed for use of the learners’ L1 for interlingual comparisons, anyattempt to increase use of the target language may need to focus ondeveloping teaching strategies which make greater use of the TL in theseareas of classroom practice and ensure cross-lingual comparisons arebased on genuine experience of language in use. This is supported by theimpact of the teachers’ own experience in the target culture on bothproficiency and attitudes to use of the target language. Ensuring pre-service teachers maximize such experiences themselves may be one wayteacher education and employing agencies can support teachers and workwith them to develop more language-rich learning contexts within schools.

REFERENCES

Allford, D.1999 ’Translation in the Communicative Classroom’, in N. Pachler (ed.), Teach-

ing Modern Foreign Languages at Advanced Level (London: Routledge).

at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 2, 2014rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

18

Ant&oacute;n, M., and F.J. Dicamilla1999 ’Sociocognitive Functions of L1 Collaborative Interaction in the L2

Classroom’, The Modern Language Journal 83.2: 233-47.

Byram, M., and P. Doy&eacute;1999 ’Intercultural Competence and Foreign Language Learning in the Primary

School’, in P. Driscoll and D. Frost (eds.), The Teaching of Modern ForeignLanguages in the Primary School (London and New York: Routledge): 13 8-51.

Butzkamm, W.2000 ’Medium-oriented and Message-oriented Communication’, in M. Byram

(ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning(London: Routledge): 406-407.

Calman, R., and I. Daniel1998 A Board’s-Eye View of Core French: The North York Board of Education’,

in S. Lapkin (ed.), French Second Language Education in Canada:

Empirical Studies (Toronto: University of Toronto Press): 281-323.Carless, D.

2002 ’Implementing Task-based Learning with Young Learners’, ELT Journal56.4: 389-96.

Cestac, F.1996 ’An Introduction to Language and International Communication in the Post-

Cold-War Era’, in K.E. Mueller (ed.), Language Status in the Post-Cold- WarEra (Lanham: University Press of America): 1-5.

Cook, V.2001 ’Using the First Language in the Classroom’, Canadian Modern Language

Review 57: 402-423.

Crawford, J.1999 ’Teacher Response to Policy and Practice in the Teaching of LOTE’

(Unpublished thesis; Brisbane: Griffith University).Crozet, C.

1996 ’Teaching Verbal Interaction and Culture in the Language Classroom’,Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 19.2: 37-57.

Eldridge, J.1996 ’Codeswitching in a Turkish Secondary School’, ELT Journal 50.4: 303-311.

Garcia-Mayo, M. del P., and T. Pica2000 ‘L2 Learner Interaction in a Foreign Language Setting: Are Learning Needs

Addressed?’, International Review of Applied Linguistics 38: 35-58.Hou, Yanbin, and Zhao Linjing

2002 ’The Pedagogical and Social Functions of Codeswitching’, MLTAQuarterly127: 35-46.

Ingram, D., and S. O’Neill2001 ’The Enigma of Cross-Cultural Attitudes in Language Teaching&mdash;Part 1’,

Babel 36.2: 12-18, 38.2002 ’The Enigma of Cross-Cultural Attitudes in Language Teaching&mdash;Part 2’,

Babel 36.3: 17-22, 37-38.Klapper, J.

1997 ’Language Learning at School and University: The Great Grammar DebateContinues (I)’, Language Learning Journal 16: 22-27.

at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 2, 2014rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

19

1998 ’Language Learning at School and University: The Great Grammar DebateContinues (II)’, Language Learning Journal 18: 22-28.

Lin, A.2000 ’Lively Children Trapped in an Island of Disadvantage: Verbal Play of

Cantonese Working-class School Boys in Hong Kong’, InternationalJournal of the Sociology of Language 143: 63-83.

Long, M.H.2000 ‘Focus on Form in Task-based Language Teaching’, in R.D. Lambert and E.

Shohamy (eds.), Language Pedagogy and Practice (Amsterdam: John Ben-jamins) : 172-92.

Macaro, E.1997 Target Language, Collaborative Learning and Autonomy (Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters).2000 ’Issues in Target Language Teaching’, in K. Field (ed.), Issues in Modern

Foreign Languages Teaching (London: Routledge/Falmer): 171-89.2001 ’Analysing Student Teachers’ Codeswitching in Foreign Language Class-

rooms : Theories and Decision Making’, The Modern Language Journal85.4: 531-48.

Madylus, O.2001 ’Babies and Bathwater: Mother Tongue in the Classroom Revisited’, in A.

Pulverness (ed.), IATEFL 2001 Brighton Conference Selections (Whitstable:IATEFL): 68-69.

Mueller, K.E.1996 ’From Attitudes Towards the Foreign to the Development of Children’s

International Literacy’, in K.E. Mueller (ed.), Language Status in the Post-Cold- War Era (Lanham: University Press of America): 117-36.

Neil, P.S., J. Salter and A. McEwan1999 ’Teachers’ Use of Target Language in the German Classroom’, Language

Learning Journal 19: 12-18.Polio, C.G., and P.A. Duff

1994 ’Teachers’ Language Use in University Foreign Language Classrooms: AQualitative Analysis of English and Target Language Alternation’, TheModern Language Journal 78.3: 313-26.

Pica, T.2000 ’Tradition and Transition in English Language Teaching Methodology’,

System 28: 1-18.2002 ’Subject-matter Content: How Does it Assist the Interactional and Linguistic

Needs of Classroom Language Learners?’, The Modern Language Journal86.1: 1-9.

QSCC1998 Languages Other Than English (LOTE) Key Learning Area Years 4-10

Syllabus-in-Development Trial/Pilot Draft (Brisbane: Queensland SchoolCurriculum Council).

2000 Languages Other Than English Years 4-10 Syllabuses (Brisbane:Queensland School Curriculum Council).

Stanley, K.2002 ’TESL-EJ Forum&mdash;Using the First Language in Second Language Instruc-

tion : If, When, Why and How Much?’, TESL-EJ5.4: F1-19.

at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 2, 2014rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

20

Stetsenko, A., and I. Arievitch1997 ’Constructing and Deconstructing the Self: Comparing Post-Vygotskian and

Discourse-based Versions of Social Construction’, Mind, Culture and

Activity: An International Journal 4: 159-72.Swain, M.

2000 ’French Immersion Research in Canada: Recent Contributions to SLA and

Applied Linguistics’, Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics 20: 199-212.Swain, M., L. Brooks and A. Tocalli-Bella

2002 ’Peer-peer Dialogue as a Means of Second Language Learning?’, AnnualReview of Applied Linguistics 22: 171-85.

Turnbull, M.2000 Analyses of Core French Teachers’ Language Use: A Summary.

Proceedings of Bilingual Child, Global Citizen Colloquium, University ofNew Brunswick, Fredericton. Retrieved 21 March, 2003 from:

http://www.unb.ca/slec /Events/Actes/Turnbull.html2001 ’There is a Role for the L1 in Second and Foreign Language Teaching,

but...’, Canadian Modern Language Review 57: 531-40.Turnbull, M., and K. Arnett

2002 ’Teachers’ Use of the Target and First Languages in Second and ForeignLanguage Classrooms’, Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics 22: 204-218.

van Lier, L.1996 Interaction in the Language Classroom (Harlow: Longman).2000 ’From Input to Affordance: Social-interactive Learning from an Ecological

Perspective’, in J.P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and SecondLanguage Learning (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 245-60.

Wylie, E., and D.E. Ingram1993 ’Australian Second Language Proficiency Ratings (ASLPR) Self Assessment

Version for LOTE’, in NLLIA (ed.), LOTE in Catholic Schools in Queens-land A Long Term Approach (Canberra: The National Languages andLiteracy Institute of Australia Limited).

at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 2, 2014rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from