The Language Learning Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rllj20

The effect of teacher language use in Spanish EFL

classrooms

Sonia Shabaka-Fernández

To cite this article: Sonia Shabaka-Fernández (2021): The effect of teacher language use in
Spanish EFL classrooms, The Language Learning Journal, DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2021.1970794

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2021.1970794

Published online: 22 Sep 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 118

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rllj20
THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2021.1970794

The effect of teacher language use in Spanish EFL classrooms

Sonia Shabaka-Fernández
Department of English studies, Linguistics and Literature, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Teacher language use has long been debated and the different L1; L2; TL exclusive use; code
proportions and functions of the first language (L1) have been choice; vocabulary and
recurrently examined. Nevertheless, there has not been enough grammar learning
attention paid to the relationship between teacher language use and
learning outcomes using empirical data. Hence, the present study aims
to investigate the effect of teacher target language (TL) exclusive use as
opposed to L1 use on second language (L2) vocabulary and grammar
learning. Data from 60 fourth-year secondary learners from two
different groups from a state secondary school in the community of
Madrid were gathered by means of pre-tests, post-tests and
questionnaires. The two groups were randomly instructed in either the
L2 exclusively or through a mixture of the L1 and the L2. In contrast to
previous studies, results showed that teaching vocabulary in the L2
exclusively leads to better learning, while it would be advisable to make
use of the L2 as well as the L1 when teaching grammar. Based on these
results, this paper offers a number of teaching implications to create an
effective and successful learning environment.

1. Introduction
In recent decades, research on teacher language choices in the classroom has widely expanded. With
the emergence of new communicative language teaching approaches, such as the Series Method
and the Direct Method in the late 1800s, teachers have argued for the benefits of exclusive use of
the target language (TL). These approaches advocated the exclusive use of the target language in
the classroom. However, the 1990s witnessed a re-assessment of the communicative value of the
L1 (Tian and Macaro 2012). While some researchers maintained their positive attitude toward L2
exclusive use in the classroom (Crichton 2009; Ellis 2005; Liu 2008; Morata and Coyle 2012), others
explained the rationale and benefits behind using the L1 to facilitate language learning in the class-
room (Antón and Di Camilla 1998; Cook 2001; Goodman and Tastanbek 2020; Kang 2008; Krulatz,
Neokleous, and Henningsen 2016; Levine 2011; Macaro 1995; Sali 2014; Sampson 2012; Tian and
Macaro 2012). Some researchers stated that L1 leads to better grammar and vocabulary learning
(Cook 2001). Others found that it allows students to scaffold each other in a stress-free environment
(Antón and Di Camilla 1998). In addition, teachers have reported that using the L1 motivates stu-
dents to learn the L2 (Copland and Neokleous 2011) and it enhances their self-confidence (Morata
and Coyle 2012).
Despite all the benefits of using the L1 in the foreign language classroom, many researchers and
language teachers have argued for the benefits of exclusive TL use in the classroom (Crichton 2009;
Morata and Coyle 2012; Neil, Salters, and McEwen 1999; Polio and Duff 1994). Several teacher-train-
ing programmes continue to advocate L2 exclusive use (Paquet and Woll 2021). In many cases, they

CONTACT Sonia Shabaka-Fernández [email protected]

© 2021 Association for Language Learning
2 S. SHABAKA-FERNÁNDEZ

not only support L2 exclusive use, but they have a ‘no L1’ use policy. They consider the L1 an obstacle
that impedes students’ progress. It should also be noted that even teachers who support the use of
the L1 have underreported their L1 use in the classroom (Copland and Neokleous 2011; Pennington
1995; Polio and Duff 1994) which may have stemmed from a sense of guilt for not using a greater
proportion of the TL (Krulatz, Neokleous, and Henningsen 2016).
Due to these contradictory views, several researchers have stressed the need for further research
(Levine 2003; Morata and Coyle 2012; Scott and de la Fuente 2008; Shabir 2017; Yıldız 2021).
Although considerable research has already been devoted to teacher language use in the classroom,
a possible reason for the lack of consensus is that research has mainly focused on the amount of L1
used in the classroom and its corresponding functions. However, as Tian and Macaro (2012) pointed
out, little attention has been paid to explore the effects of L1 use as opposed to TL exclusive use on
L2 learning.
Thus, the main thrust of this paper is to provide empirical evidence of the effect of teacher
language use on students’ lexical and grammatical performance by means of a pre-test and a
post-test. Despite their importance, students’ preferences have not been sufficiently investigated
(Lee and Lo 2017). Hence, in order to gain a deeper insight into the role of teacher language use,
students’ perceptions of their own learning are explored by means of a questionnaire. This part of
the analysis aimed to determine the extent to which the difference between the two groups’ per-
formance in vocabulary and grammar learning was matched by their perceptions of how well
they were able to understand the language and content introduced. The purpose of exploring
this correlation is to contribute research-based evidence on the pedagogical value of encouraging
student self-reflection on their language learning.

2. Literature review
2.1. Research on teachers’ TL versus L1 use in the classroom
2.1.1. Functions of the L1 versus the L2
Research and theories on second language acquisition offer different and opposing accounts on the
way instructional methods can lead to better language learning. There is disagreement regarding
several issues, such as the most successful approach to teach grammar, the effectiveness of teaching
explicit knowledge or the most convenient way to provide corrective feedback (Ellis 2005: 9) and
language choice in the classroom is not an exception. While some teachers opt to use the TL exclu-
sively, others tend to use the L1, particularly when the teacher and students share a common
language other than the target language. Some researchers prefer to adopt the term ‘code-switch-
ing’ (Ferguson 2003; Tian and Macaro 2012; Üstünel and Seedhouse 2005) instead of ‘teacher use of
L1’. As noted by Tian and Macaro (2012: 369), ‘teacher use of L1’ appears to have no specific ‘rules,
conventions or limitations’. In contrast, ‘code-switching’ appears to have a certain framework that
allows the identification of the predominant language, that is, the more frequent language, and
the embedded language, that is, the less frequent language (Tian and Macaro 2012).
Code-switching in the classroom is used to mark ‘switch-points between different types of dis-
course’ (Pennington 1995: 80). Several studies have focused on the analysis of the language used
for each type of discourse. Hence, they have managed to identify the multiple functions of the L1
(Copland and Neokleous 2011; Forman 2012; Levine 2003; Macaro 1995, 2001; Polio and Duff
1994; Sali 2014; Üstünel and Seedhouse 2005; Yıldız 2021).
Polio and Duff (1994) found that the L1 had many critical uses in the classroom. It was used for
grammar instruction, classroom management, expressing empathy/solidarity, translating unknown
vocabulary, solving problems related to students’ lack of comprehension and even practising the
L1 in the case of teachers who do not share the students’ L1. The functions of the L1 have also
been stressed in Macaro’s study (1995) in which a significant number of teachers reported to use
the L1 for giving instructions, organising language activities, commenting on students’ performance,
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 3

providing corrective feedback on their oral performance and establishing a relationship with the stu-
dents on a more personal level. In a more recent study by Macaro (2001), two main functions for
teachers’ usage of the L1 were identified, namely giving organisational instructions for activities
and managing students’ discipline. In common with Macaro (1995, 2001), Morata and Coyle’s
(2012) analysis revealed that teachers rely on the L1 for organisational input, classroom manage-
ment, praising and metacognitive explanations. Likewise, Copland and Neokleous (2011: 272)
listed eleven functions when the L1 was used, namely in organising, explaining/revising, instructing,
asking and answering questions, reprimanding, joking, praising, translating, providing hints, giving
opinions and in discourse makers. All the above mentioned empirical studies uncover similar
findings with regard to the functions of the L1 in the foreign language classroom.

2.1.2. Rationale for teachers’ language use in the classroom

The last few decades have witnessed a remarkable interest in the language choices of foreign
language teachers. Whilst some teachers have expressed their preference for exclusive use of the
TL, others have opted for mixing the L1 and the L2. These opposing views are apparent in the
amount of L1 used by teachers, as reported in the relevant literature. Results have shown that tea-
chers’ L1 use varies considerably, within and across studies, from 0% to an almost exclusive use of the
L1 in some cases (Duff and Polio 1990; Levine 2003; Macaro 2001; Morata and Coyle 2012). The lack of
consensus in teacher language use stems from the fact that teachers, as well as researchers, have
different and in many cases contradictory views regarding the value of the L1 in foreign language
teaching.
In the relevant literature, the role of the L1 as a crucial tool for developing students’ language
learning has been emphasised (Antón and Di Camilla 1998; Cook 2001; Macaro 1995; Morata and
Coyle 2012; Sali 2014; Sampson 2012; Tian and Macaro 2012; Paquet and Woll 2021). In an early
study conducted by Macaro (1995), in which teachers filled out a questionnaire regarding their
opinion on TL use, most teachers did not consider exclusive use of the TL an essential characteristic
of a good language teacher. Most of them reported that the L1 should be used when socialising with
individual students; and this could not be achieved when the students lack the necessary linguistic
tools to express themselves in the TL. Another important function of the L1 is illustrated by Antón
and Di Camilla (1998). In their study, the L1 proved to be an essential tool for adult learners of
Spanish engaging in a collaborative writing task. They argued that the L1 was not only a means
of communication, but it gave learners, the opportunity to scaffold each other, establish intersubjec-
tivity and use private speech.
More recent studies continue to portray the benefits of using the L1 in the foreign language class-
room. For instance, Copland and Neokleous (2011) observed four teachers’ L1 use in an English
language classroom in two after-school Cypriot private language institutions. The results showed
that only one teacher made exclusive use of the TL, while the other three teachers either used
the L1 for specific functions or as the main means of communication in the classroom. The main
reasons for making use of the L1 were the students’ affective needs and their cognitive processes.
As two of the teachers remarked, using the L1, in translations particularly, is the driving force
behind students’ interest to learn the TL.
Another study carried out by Morata and Coyle (2012) closely examined the language used by a
Spanish secondary school teacher of English. The teacher seemed to have an almost exclusive
reliance on the student’s L1, while the TL was barely used. The use of the L1 was justified on the
grounds of enhancing students’ confidence. The researchers provided a possible explanation for
the teacher’s dependence on the L1 as the main means of communication in the classroom. They
claimed that her interest in promoting students’ grammatical and lexical knowledge, rather than
developing their communicative skills, may have led to her language choice (2012: 149). The ques-
tion remains whether it is possible or yet more beneficial for students to acquire this grammatical
and lexical knowledge when the TL is used exclusively.
4 S. SHABAKA-FERNÁNDEZ

An equally significant paper illustrating the role of the L1 is that of Sali (2014). Based on her exam-
ination of the language used by three Turkish teachers of EFL, the researcher discovered that the L1
served three major functions: academic, managerial and social/cultural. The teachers expressed that
using the L1 for academic purposes is of great importance due to its efficacy in ensuring students’
immediate comprehension. Rather than spend valuable class time using multiple materials such as
visual aids or communicative strategies such as paraphrasing or giving examples, teachers can save
time by simply translating the L2 into its corresponding L1 equivalent. Even though teachers believe
that the L1 would ‘speed up learner comprehension’ (Sali 2014: 315), it seems that their main
concern is to achieve short-term goals of learning the language for classroom examinations, disre-
garding its effect on long-term memory.
These results tie in with Cook’s (2001) observation concerning the use of the L1 for a better
understanding of grammatical explanations as well as lexical definitions. In addition, the teachers
used the L1 for managerial purposes, such as discipline and for giving instructions; and they con-
tended that this helps learners carry out tasks successfully. This rationale for L1 use stands in sharp
contrast to those of Italian teachers in Macaro’s study (1995), who claimed that giving instructions
in the TL would guarantee students’ communicative success owing to the repetitive nature of such
discourse.
In spite of all these advantages attributed to teachers’ reliance on the L1 as a tool for language
learning in the classroom, there are a number of researchers and language teachers that have taken a
rather different approach on language use in the classroom (Crichton 2009; Morata and Coyle 2012;
Neil, Salters, and McEwen 1999; Polio and Duff 1994). They provide persuasive arguments to support
their viewpoint that exclusive use of the TL has a more positive effect on language learning. As a
contrary explanation to the rationale behind using the L1 in the classroom, Pennington (1995: 99)
noted that the L1 is, in fact, used to compensate for students’ low competence, motivation or
poor discipline; due to time-constraints; or as a result of teachers’ lack of knowledge of the language
or the subject matter or their lack of preparation, interest or motivation. Instead of being employed
as a tool to ensure students’ language progress, it appears that the L1 is merely a tool to compensate
for an unmanageable classroom situation. There is also a further point to be considered concerning
the role of the L1 in the classroom. Not only is it regarded as simply a compensatory device, but
Morata and Coyle (2012) have also warned against the potential pitfalls stemming from teachers’
use of the L1. They believe that the L1 could deprive students of crucial organisational and linguistic
input necessary for enhancing their TL comprehension. This is supported by the fact that students in
their study displayed a lack of comprehension of simple utterances. The teacher in their study also
provided the students with immediate L1 translations of the TL. The researchers pointed out that
such a strategy could push students to disregard the teachers’ TL utterances and depend on their
immediate L1 translations.
In another study, Crichton (2009) observed and audio-recorded the language choices of five
highly qualified Scottish secondary school teachers of foreign languages as well as the students’
reactions to the teachers’ language use. Even though the teachers taught at different schools,
they were all found to use the TL exclusively. Moreover, the findings revealed a number of
common and significant techniques that the teachers employed in their classrooms. This suggests
that using the TL exclusively is possible if it is accompanied by a variety of strategies that ensure
that the students feel confident and the use of the TL does not become a barrier between the
students.
From all these studies, we can conclude that teachers make exclusive use of the L1 or L2 for
several reasons. However, it is striking that in many cases researchers or teachers give the same
reasons for employing either language. For instance, Sali (2014) and Macaro (1995) observed that
teachers use the L1 to draw students’ attention, while it is the TL that was believed to attract
their attention in Crichton (2009). There was also no consensus on the role of the L1 as opposed
to the L2 in dealing with discipline matters. Teachers have also claimed that students feel more
secure and confident when the teachers use the L1 and that it helps establish rapport with the
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 5

students (Copland and Neokleous 2011; Macaro 1995; Morata and Coyle 2012). Nevertheless, other
researchers have observed that teachers using the L2 exclusively have managed to create a stress-
free environment where students feel confident (Crichton 2009).
Another example of this debate is illustrated by Macaro (1995). He pointed out that pupil ability is
an important factor in teacher TL use. Teachers expressed their concerns about using the TL when
students have a low proficiency level. Several studies have referred to teachers’ belief that less able
students would get lost if the teacher used the TL exclusively (Macaro 1995; Morata and Coyle 2012;
Polio and Duff 1994). Feeling lost is a keyword that many teachers have employed to justify using the
L1, particularly when teaching grammatical concepts and lexical content. In spite of the large
number of teachers supporting L1 use in teaching grammar and vocabulary, some teachers main-
tained that grammar can be taught in the TL and actually regarded explaining grammar in the L1
‘unnecessary’ (Macaro 1995: 53).
To sum up, although considerable research has been devoted to identifying the functions of the
L1 and the proportions of its use in the language classroom, there appears to be no consensus
regarding the effect of the teachers’ language choices in the classroom. As Tian and Macaro
(2012: 367) stated ‘whether the lexical information provided to learners is more effective in L1 or
L2 has been under-researched and, moreover, has only been investigated in a reading comprehen-
sion context’.

2.2. Vocabulary and grammar teaching

Learning vocabulary is crucial to the development of second language competency (Barclay and
Schmitt 2019). It is a gradual process that requires extensive exposure and practice to allow for pro-
ductive use. Vocabulary teaching can be deliberate or incidental. According to Coxhead (2013), stu-
dents need to take part in deliberate vocabulary learning to be able to attain the amount of
vocabulary needed to become proficient in the language. Vocabulary instruction can be decontex-
tualised (definition-based) or contextualised. Although contextualised vocabulary learning may
seem more beneficial for students, some studies provided empirical evidence showing how students
exposed to vocabulary taught in a decontextualised setting outperformed those taught vocabulary
in context (Amirian and Momeni 2012; Ünaldı et al. 2013), especially at early stages of language
learning (Amirian and Momeni 2012; Nielsen 2006).
Another key and essential component in learning a language is grammar, a skill necessary to
develop students’ receptive (reading and listening) as well as productive (speaking and writing)
skills. Grammar can be taught following a wide array of different approaches. It could follow a deduc-
tive or inductive approach. A deductive approach clearly states the general rules students are to
follow and then practise, while an inductive approach allows students to derive the rules from
the examples given.
Some approaches focus on explicit knowledge of the grammar rules and others focus on
implicit knowledge where the focus lies on the ability to use those grammar rules. Similar to
vocabulary teaching, grammar can be taught using a form-meaning-use approach, that is,
knowing how to use the rules to transmit a specific meaning in the right context. This would
allow students to have a more complete image of the components involved in grammar learning.
Another important approach to teaching grammar is focus-on-form and focus-on-forms
approach. Focus-on-form is an approach that focuses on meaning and communication, but stu-
dents’ attention is drawn to specific linguistic features (Long 1991). In contrast, a focus-on-forms
approach focuses on explicit language instruction of specific linguistic items which students can
then practice.
To conclude, there is no one ideal approach to teaching grammar or vocabulary, but rather a wide
range of approaches that serve different purposes depending on the context, the item to be taught
and teacher intentions. Ideally, teachers could use a variety of approaches to better cater for student
diversity and needs.
6 S. SHABAKA-FERNÁNDEZ

3. Materials and method

3.1. Research questions
An observation period of several weeks showed that students were exposed to their L1, i.e. Spanish,
with high frequency in their English language classes. Interestingly, the English classroom teacher
justified, unprompted, her language use and stated that most students would not comprehend
the new vocabulary introduced and particularly grammatical concepts unless she employed the stu-
dents’ native language. This appears to concur with several teachers’ comments that students would
not understand unless taught in the L1, which has been frequently reported in the literature.
The aim of this paper is, therefore, to address the following research question: are there any sig-
nificant differences in the students’ lexical and grammatical performance depending on the
language employed during instruction? In this vein, another research sub-question has been formu-
lated in order to further explore the role of teacher language use as perceived by students: what are
the students’ perspectives on the role of the TL versus the L1?

3.2. Variables
The independent variable in this study is the language employed during instruction. This included
the exclusive use of English in the experimental group; while in the control group, students were
exposed to both English as well as their first language, i.e. Spanish. English was used for classroom
talk and organisation only, but the students’ L1 was utilised to provide grammar explanations and to
define lexis as they had been doing over the course of the year.
In order to control the influences of extraneous variables affecting the results of the study, both
classes were taught the same content. They were given the same activities and the teacher used the
same materials. The only difference was that while the teacher relied on the use of synonyms, ges-
turing, definitions or examples to deliver the new input in the experimental group, the teacher intro-
duced the new content using the students’ L1 in the control group. The TL was used in both groups
for other functions which bear no connection to the lexical and grammatical items introduced, such
as classroom management, giving instructions and commenting on students’ performance.

3.3. Participants
This study was conducted in a co-educational state secondary school in the community of Madrid.
The study comprised a total of 60 fourth-year secondary students from two different classes. All of
the participants were aged between 15 and 17. The total number of participants was consistent
throughout the study. It is, however, important to note that each class originally consisted of 31 stu-
dents. Two students were excluded from the start of the study due to excused absence from school.
The number of females and males in each class was irregular. However, gender was not considered a
dependent variable in this study as it was deemed unlikely that the effect of the teachers’ language
choices would vary according to the students’ gender. The majority of the students (96.7%) were
Spanish and only two students were foreigners (3.3%), but they had been living in Spain for over
7 years.

3.4. Data collection procedures

The study comprises one main research and one sub-question which were examined by carrying out
five main steps for collecting the data required. First, in order to identify the effect of language
choice on students’ grammatical and lexical performance the students took a pre-test (see Appendix
1). The test was divided into two sections, including the vocabulary and grammar which were to be
taught subsequently from the students’ coursebook. Each section was divided into three parts
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 7

containing two controlled items, and a less controlled exercise. The test was taken from the teacher’s
book, with the exception of item 3 from the vocabulary section. Hence, there was no need to pilot
the test for validity due to the fact that students had been completing the same type of test through-
out the year.
The choice of this type of test was motivated by the fact that students had been assessed on
grammar and vocabulary items following the same criterion. Although the national curriculum pro-
gramme for secondary education in Madrid considers communicative skills a priority in language
learning, this did not seem to be the actual procedure taking place in the classrooms observed.
Afterwards, students followed the experimental treatment during two weeks of thrice-weekly ses-
sions, each lesson lasting 55 minutes, approximately. Following the instructional period, the students
completed a post-test to compare the degree of achievement in both groups. The test measured the
students’ ability to identify and use modal perfects as well as the vocabulary related to crime they
had been previously taught in class through controlled activities, such as fill-in-the-gaps and sen-
tence formation exercises and a less controlled activity through a writing task where they had to
employ the vocabulary they had been learning in class. It should be noted that tests were adminis-
tered without prior announcement. Students were informed that test results would have no conse-
quences on their overall evaluation. This was intended to remove possible confounding effects and
to ensure that the results were due to the experimental treatment.
After finishing the post-test, students were asked to complete a questionnaire in Spanish
designed by the researcher (see Appendix 2, translation in Appendix 3). The questionnaire consisted
of eight statements that students were asked to rate on a Likert scale, and it was followed by two
open-ended questions. The questionnaire aimed at answering the research question concerning
the effect of language choice on students’ perceived comprehension and their perspectives on
the teachers’ language use.

3.5. The instructional intervention

The instructional intervention was carried out by the researcher who had been teaching adults for
over three years. Even though the teacher had no experience teaching at a secondary school, she
taught both the experimental and control group. In addition, it is important to note that both
classes had been previously taught by the same English teacher. This helped control for teacher vari-
ables. Students followed the experimental treatment three times a week for two weeks.
The teacher adopted a communicative and cooperative approach to introduce the content. Voca-
bulary was taught deliberately through semi-decontextualised activities. The teacher began the
lesson with a warm-up to introduce the topic ‘crime’, asking the students to look at two cartoons,
related to crime, and state whether they found them funny and what they had in common. As a
whole-class activity, the teacher asked students to look at the crime-related words in their course-
book and classify them into words related to criminals, such as robber, burglar, murderer or criminal
acts, such as hijack, steal, mug, among other things. In the control group, students were asked to
define or translate each of the words into the L1, followed by the teacher’s translation. Likewise,
in the experimental group, students were asked to define the words in the TL, and these were
also followed by the teachers’ confirmation and reinforcement. After this speaking activity, students
were shown a slide presentation and they were asked to differentiate between the verb, noun and
person in criminal acts (e.g. rob, robbery, robber). The vocabulary was supplemented by another slide
presentation that displayed some images and individual students were asked to match the images to
the corresponding sentences from the book. Each sentence included the vocabulary that had already
been introduced in the previous activity. After the student identified the sentence, a different
student was asked to either translate the keywords in the control group or define it in the L2 in
the experimental group. The lesson concluded with homework reminders. Students had to
prepare a crossword puzzle choosing some of the words introduced in the lesson and write
8 S. SHABAKA-FERNÁNDEZ

definitions or synonyms as clues in Spanish, in the control group, or English, in the experimental
group.
In the next session, the previously introduced vocabulary was reviewed through a group work
activity. The teacher divided the class into two groups. Three or four volunteers from each group
were asked to come to the front of the class to act out a card that included some vocabulary that
had been introduced in the previous session. The group had to guess the person (e.g. a witness,
burglar, etc.) and what s/he is doing (e.g. hijacking, stealing, etc.). Next, the students were asked
to create a story in pairs using some of the crime-related words from the unit, and the teacher
adopted the role of a guide to help students with their tasks. Finally, students were asked to
perform their previously written stories.
Similar to vocabulary, grammar was taught in a rather deliberate and explicit manner, focusing on
forms. This approach was not only chosen due to time limitations, but it also seemed more suitable
for both beginners and intermediate learners. Students were asked if they were familiar with the
modal perfect, taking into account that they had already been taught modal verbs in a previous
unit. The teacher introduced the different modal perfects through a slide presentation in a rather
explicit manner. Each modal was introduced followed by its usage, in either the L1 or the TL depend-
ing on the group and an example was given, which students were asked to either explain in the TL or
translate into the L1. The last instructional session was a continuation of the same grammatical point.
Throughout the class, students were asked to work on the exercises in their textbook either indivi-
dually or in pairs to practice the grammar point introduced, and then report their answers to the
whole class. In each group, further explanations, definitions or corrective feedback were given in
the corresponding language.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Pre-test and post-test results
To assess the effect of language choice on developing students’ grammatical and lexical knowledge,
a pre-test and a post-test were administered. The results were calculated and compared to assess
students’ progress, and a t-test was carried out to examine possible statistical differences
between the two groups. Table 1 shows the results in the vocabulary section of the exam as well
as the progress achieved. The control group achieved better results (53.5% vs. 50.3%). According
to the classroom teacher, these results were predictable since the control group’s overall language
proficiency was higher and their discipline was better. By contrast, their progress (25.3%) was lower
than that of the experimental group (29.0%). Although these findings are not statistically significant
(0.443), noting the compelling results, it could be concluded that teaching vocabulary in the TL has a
positive impact on students’ acquisition. The fact that the lower level group was capable of attaining
higher marks when instructed in the TL exclusively, leaves little need to instruct in the L1. These
results contrast sharply with previous studies (Kaneko 1992; Sato and Angulo 2020; Tian and
Macaro 2012; Zhao and Macaro 2016). Even though Tian and Macaro (2012: 380) found that students
receiving L1 equivalents performed better in vocabulary tests; and thus considered it a useful tool for
instruction, the present data proves that this is not necessarily the case. These contradictions suggest
the need for further empirical data investigating the effect of the L1 on students’ vocabulary
learning.

Table 1. Pre-test and post-test vocabulary results.

Pre-test vocabulary (N = 30) Post-test vocabulary (N = 30) Progress
Mean grade (SD) Mean grade (SD) percentage (SD) p-value
Control group 53.5% (15.4) 78.75% (20.5)* +25.3% (16.9) 0.443
Experimental group 50.3% (22.6) 79.3% (19.9)* +29.0% (20.5)
*t difference = 3.75 (95% confidence interval = −6.0 to 13.5).
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 9

Another important aspect to be considered is the role of language choice on students’ grammar
performance. The relevant literature has recurrently stressed the benefits of explaining grammar in
the L1. In a semi-structured interview conducted with the classroom teacher, she stated that it was
crucial to teach vocabulary and grammar in the L1, particularly to the experimental group, the less
proficient students. In spite of the fact that the present findings are contrary to the teachers’ com-
ments in that the TL proved to be more beneficial to teach vocabulary, they are in line with her claim
regarding grammar. The results in Table 2 confirm those statements.
From Table 2, it can be seen that the control group had progressed remarkably (35.5%) as
opposed to the experimental group (23.5%), yet the differences are not statistically significant
(0.09). A possible explanation for performing differently is that the grammatical component intro-
duced was rather complex. The problem may lie in the fact that the grammar introduced, namely
modal perfects, is related to modal verbs which students had learned some weeks before the treat-
ment. Thus, this may have led to confusion.

4.2. Perception data results

4.2.1. Grammatical and lexical comprehension
The results of the tests indicate that the influence of language choice varies according to the
language component introduced. In Table 3, we can see the results of one statement from the ques-
tionnaire; ‘I understood the vocabulary in unit 7’, and the students’ responses on a scale ranging from
‘totally disagree’ to ‘totally agree’. This statement is specifically related to the vocabulary introduced
in the unit. Table 3 shows the total number of student responses in both groups.
Surprisingly, none of the students in the experimental group selected the ‘totally disagree’ or the
‘disagree’ options and only 10% stated that they ‘don’t know’ whether they had understood or not. It
should be noted that ‘I don’t know’ does not represent a neutral understanding, but rather it stands
for a void response, i.e. an inability to answer the question.
The results also reveal that the control group has selected the ‘completely agree’ option more
frequently, while the experimental group has more ‘agree’ options. Taking into account that these
differences are not significant, we could conclude that either language choice leads to understand-
ing, unlike what has been reported in the literature. Thus, there would be no need to employ the L1
to explain vocabulary.
Again, in order to examine comprehension differences in learning grammar, a representative sen-
tence was selected from the questionnaire: ‘I understood the grammar in unit 7’. As Table 4 shows,
the questionnaire confirms the results in the tests in that the control group displayed better gram-
matical understanding. Complete understanding in the control group was twice as probable. In
addition, results show that learning grammar has a number of similarities with vocabulary learning.
Both the vocabulary and grammar specific statements include very few instances of ‘I don’t know’.
Since these results concern more specific statements, students were able to provide an accurate
response.
Similar to the vocabulary section, there are no or scarce cases of ‘totally disagree’, ‘disagree’ or ‘I
don’t know’. Contrary to what has been reported in the literature, language choice does not seem to
affect whether students understand or not. The differences appear to lie in the degree of under-
standing. Although in both cases the control group did better, there is a wider gap in the

Table 2. Pre-test and post-test grammar results.

Pre-test grammar (N = 30) Post-test grammar (N = 30) Progress
Mean grade (SD) Mean grade (SD) percentage (SD) p-value
Control group 33.6% (27.8) 69.1% (28.6)* + 35.5% (25.9) 0. 09
Experimental group 39.9% (31.2) 63.4% (28.1)* + 23.5% (28.0)
*t difference = −12 (95% confidence interval = −25.9 to 1.9).
10 S. SHABAKA-FERNÁNDEZ

Table 3. Vocabulary comprehension results.

Totally
disagree Disagree I don’t know Agree Totally agree
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Control group 0 0% 1 3.3% 2 6.7% 13 43.3% 14 46.7%
Experimental group 0 0% 0 0% 3 10% 17 56.7% 10 33.3%
Statement: I understood the vocabulary in unit 7.

grammatical section regarding the degree of comprehension. This suggests that the L1 plays an
important role for learning grammar. However, this discrepancy between learning vocabulary and
learning grammar may be owing to the lesson content. A different grammar component, such as
conditionals, for instance, may have yielded different results.

4.2.2. Students’ perspectives on the role of the TL versus the L1 in the classroom
Certainly, the main aim in a language classroom is to develop students’ language skills, but it is
equally essential to consider their personal needs in order to facilitate this process and to encourage
them to reach their full potential. These preferences were explored in the same questionnaire (see
Appendix 2) including two open-ended questions to have a deeper look into students’ viewpoints.
As can be seen from Figure 1, both groups have very similar results concerning the different options.
To the statement ‘I prefer that the teacher uses the TL exclusively’, 53.3% either agreed or totally
agreed in the control group as opposed to 50% in the experimental group. Such a high percentage
needs to be taken into account. It is, however, important to note that the remaining students did not
disagree with the statement, 16.7% from the former group and 23.3% from the latter group stated
that they ‘didn’t know’ whether they preferred exclusive TL use or not. Only 6.7% completely dis-
agreed as opposed to 3.3% in the experimental group. Interestingly, the experimental group
which was exposed to the TL exclusively expressed a lower degree of disagreement. These results
provide confirmatory evidence that exclusive use of the TL is not only advisable in order to
enhance students’ language learning, but it seems to be preferred by a large number of students
as well.
Another remarkable finding is that even though 72.8% expressed either understanding or com-
plete understanding of the lesson content in the experimental group, only 50% responded that they
agreed or totally agreed to being taught exclusively in the TL. Similarly, 85% responded that they
understood or completely understood in the control group. Nevertheless, 53.3% said they preferred
to be taught exclusively in the TL. The reason for these discrepancies is clearly elaborated in the two
open-ended questions posed in the questionnaire, namely (i) ¿Crees que la profesora debe explicar la
gramática o el vocabulario nuevo en español? ¿Por qué? ¿Por qué no? (Do you think that new gram-
matical and lexical input should be taught in the L1? Why or why not?) and (ii) Presto más atención
cuando la profesora habla sólo en inglés. ¿Por qué? ¿Por qué no? (I pay more attention when the
teacher speaks exclusively in English. Why or why not?).
In the experimental group, as Table 5 shows, only some students (23.3%) preferred being taught
in the L1 because others would not fully understand the input, while a larger number of students
(43.3%) clearly did not favour L1 use to teach either vocabulary or grammar. For example, one

Table 4. Grammar comprehension results.

Totally
disagree Disagree I don’t know Agree Totally agree
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Control group 0 0% 0 0% 3 10% 11 36.7% 16 53.3%
Experimental group 0 0% 1 3.3% 4 13.3% 17 56.7% 8 26.7%
Statement: I understood the grammar in unit 7.
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 11

Figure 1. Students’ language preferences. Statement: I prefer that the teacher uses the TL exclusively.

student answered ‘No, because our level in English would be lower and we would not understand
when others speak to us in English’, another mentioned that ‘No, because the subject is ‘English’, the
teacher should speak this language, otherwise, we would not learn to speak or to express ourselves
in this language’. The consensus view in their replies coincides with previous arguments, as reported
in the literature. The remaining students (33.3%) either stated that they did not know or in some
cases they mentioned that English should be taught first, followed by a Spanish equivalent as a
last resort in case of lack of understanding after several attempts of explaining the content in the
TL. However, one student provides an interesting justification that clearly supports the results in
the tests and the questionnaire. He stated that ‘Not the vocabulary, but maybe the grammar
since it is more difficult, some things should be explained in Spanish’.
Moreover, from Table 5, we can see that the responses gathered in the control group are remark-
ably different to those in the experimental group, with the exception of the number of students who
voiced a preference for L1 use 26.7% and 23.3%, respectively. However, the majority of the students
(70%) prefer being taught new lexical and grammatical input in the TL exclusively. This may be due
to their more advanced language level. Even though it is beyond the scope of this study to examine
the relationship between language proficiency and TL language exclusive use preferences, there
were some indications that language proficiency might correlate with the teachers’ TL use.
A different, but related statement concerns the importance of using the TL exclusively in the class-
room. The previous statement concerning students’ preferences on this topic should have matched
the present one. If students prefer exclusive use of the TL, it is reasonable to assume that they con-
sider TL exclusive use important for better learning. Accordingly, Figure 2 shows that a large number
of students consider TL exclusive use critical to improving language learning. However, the data
show a peculiar contradiction; the total number of students, in both groups, who expressed the
importance of using the TL exclusively in the classroom–76.7% in the control group and 70% in
the experimental group–is slightly larger than the total number of students who expressed a

Table 5. Students’ language preferences.

No Yes I don’t know
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Control group 21 70% 8 26.7% 1 3.3%
Experimental group 13 43.3% 7 23.3% 9 33.3%
Question: Do you think that new grammatical and lexical input should be taught in the L1? Why or why not?
12 S. SHABAKA-FERNÁNDEZ

Figure 2. Students’ perspectives on the importance of using the TL exclusively. Statement: Speaking in the TL exclusively is
important for better learning.

preference for TL exclusive use: 53.3% and 50%, respectively. It appears that despite recognising the
importance of using the TL exclusively, as we have seen earlier, some students believed that L1
should be used in some specific cases, only after several failing attempts to communicate the
intended meaning in the TL.
A closer look into the figure above may give the impression that the control group values TL
exclusive use more. Particularly, if we consider the fact that some students in the experimental
group would have preferred to be taught grammar with a mixture of the TL and the L1. Nevertheless,
the total number of students who either agreed or totally agreed in both groups is consistent. Hence,
it appears that both groups favour TL use and assert its importance even when 63.3% from the
experimental group and 53.3% from the control group said that they needed to pay more attention
when the teacher uses the TL exclusively. Despite the fact that this ‘burden’ has been referred to
negatively in the literature, with the purpose of criticising TL exclusive use (Scott and de la
Fuente 2008: 109; Sali 2014: 311), some of the students considered this extra ‘burden’ necessary
to understand and develop their language level. One student for instance stated that she paid
more attention because (I love to see people speak in English and try to understand them and
notice their accent). On the basis of the evidence currently available, it could be said that both
groups have a preference for TL exclusive use and they recognise its importance, taking into con-
sideration that teachers should use the L1 as a useful backup for specific comprehension difficulties.

5. Conclusion
The present study attempted to examine the effect of teacher language choices on secondary school
students in Spain. Due to the contradictory empirical findings as well as the teachers’ varying views
on the topic, either justifying the benefits of TL exclusive use or stressing the values of code-switch-
ing, it seemed pertinent to delve further into the vital role language use plays in the classroom. This
objective was pursued in two ways. First, this paper sought to examine if there were any significant
differences in the students’ lexical and grammatical performance depending on the language used
during instruction by means of a pre-test and a post-test. Second, students’ perspectives on the role
of the TL as opposed to the L1 and the extent to which their comprehension is affected by the tea-
cher’s language choices were explored.
In contrast to previous empirical findings (Kaneko 1992; Tian and Macaro 2012), test results
showed that teaching vocabulary in the TL has a more positive effect on students’ acquisition
than using the L1. These findings were partly corroborated by students’ estimation of their own
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 13

lexical comprehension. Despite having a lower proficiency level, the experimental group expressed
the same degree of understanding as the control group. Thus, there is no need to employ the L1 to
explain vocabulary, while teaching grammar in the L1 proved to be more beneficial.
The findings presented here have important teaching implications. On the one hand, TL exclusive
use is highly encouraged for better vocabulary learning and retention. On the other hand, teaching
grammar requires the use of the L1 as well as the TL. As a number of students suggested, grammar
should be taught in the L1 and contrasted with students’ L1 grammar only after it has been intro-
duced in the TL and only if it is necessary in order for students to reach a greater degree of under-
standing. Teacher training aimed at increasing teachers’ awareness about the proportions of L1 use
as well as when and how to use it would help students learn more efficiently. Furthermore, results
revealed that TL exclusive use was preferred by the majority of the students. Hence, it is rec-
ommended that students’ preferences be taken into account in order to adjust teachers’ method-
ology to their needs and create a successful learning environment which helps students reach
their highest potentials.
It is, however, important to note that there were a number of limitations in the study. Given that
both the experimental and control groups were taught by the researcher over a period of two weeks,
it cannot be affirmed whether the students’ perceptions about the value of teacher target language
use is influenced by the temporary teacher or by their main classroom teacher. Their perception may
have also varied had they been exposed to the instructional intervention for an entire academic year.
In addition, the type of test administered did not take students’ listening or speaking skills into
account, following the format of university admission tests in Madrid which do not cover those
skills. Although different assessment approaches such as oral presentations, projects, interviews,
among other assessment tools may have yielded different results, the questionnaires administered
provided a good supplement for the data at hand. Moreover, these results were obtained from a
single school. It is possible that different schools with a larger sample may bring different results.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the findings contributed to a better understanding of the role
of teachers’ language choices in the classroom.
The contradictions with previous studies and amongst teachers working in the same school
emphasise the need for more empirical research. It would be valuable to further investigate this
topic using additional participants, different content and assessment approaches. In addition,
researchers could examine the relationship between teachers’ language use and proficiency level
and explore the effect of teachers’ language use on students’ long-term memory. Future research
could also analyse students’ comprehension, motivation, affective filter and self-confidence by
means of video-recording followed by stimulated recall sessions.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
Amirian, S.M.R., and S Momeni. 2012. Definition-based versus contextualized vocabulary learning. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies 2, no. 11: 2302–2307.
Antón, M., and F. Di Camilla. 1998. Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The
Canadian Modern Language Review 54, no. 3: 314–353.
Barclay, S., and Schmitt, N. 2019. Current perspectives on vocabulary teaching and learning. In Second Handbook of
English Language Teaching, ed. X. Gao, 1–22. Springer. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-58542-0_42-1.
Cook, V. 2001. Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review 57: 402–423.
Copland, F., and G Neokleous. 2011. L1 to teach L2: complexities and contradictions. ELT Journal 65, no. 3: 270–280.
Coxhead, A. 2013. New Ways in Teaching Vocabulary Revised. ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral.proquest.
com.
Crawford, W. J. 2020. Teaching Grammar (Revised, Ser. English language teacher development series). TESOL Press.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=2851435.
14 S. SHABAKA-FERNÁNDEZ

Crichton, H. 2009. ‘Value added’ modern languages teaching in the classroom: an investigation into how teachers’ use
of classroom target language can aid pupils’ communication skills. The Language Learning Journal 37, no. 1: 19–34.
Duff, P.A., and C.G Polio. 1990. How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom? The Modern
Language Journal 74, no. 2: 154–166.
Ellis, R. 2005. Principles of instructed language learning. Asian EFL Journal 7, no. 3: 9–24.
Ferguson, G. 2003. Classroom codeswitching in post-colonial contexts: functions, attitudes and policies. AILA Review 16:
38–51.
Forman, R. 2012. Six functions of bilingual EFL teacher talk: animating, translating, explaining, creating, prompting and
dialoguing. RELC Journal 43, no. 2: 239–253.
Goodman, B., and S Tastanbek. 2020. Making the shift from a codeswitching to a translanguaging lens in English
language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly 55: 29–53.
Kaneko, T. 1992. The role of the first language in foreign language classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Temple University.
Kang, D.M. 2008. The classroom language use of a Korean elementary school EFL teacher: another look at TETE. System
36: 214–226.
Krulatz, A., G. Neokleous, and F. V Henningsen. 2016. Towards an understanding of target language use in the EFL class-
room: a report from Norway. International Journal for 21st Century Education 3: 137–152.
Lee, J. H., and Y. Y Lo. 2017. An exploratory study on the relationships between attitudes toward classroom language
choice, motivation, and proficiency of EFL learners. System 67: 121–131.
Levine, G. S. 2003. Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and
anxiety: report of a questionnaire study. Modern Language Journal 87: 343–364.
Levine, P. G. S. 2011. Code Choice in the Language Classroom. ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com.
Liu, J. 2008. L1 use in L2 vocabulary learning: facilitator or barrier. International Education Studies 1, no. 2: 66–70.
Long, M. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In Foreign Language Research in
Cross-Cultural Perspective, eds. K. DeBot, R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch, 39–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Macaro, E. 1995. Target language use in Italy. The Language Learning Journal 11, no. 1: 52–54.
Macaro, E. 2001. Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: theories and decision
making. The Modern Language Journal 85, no. 4: 531–548.
Morata, M., and Y Coyle. 2012. Teaching English through Spanish: a secondary school EFL teachers’ language choices in
the foreign language classroom. Porta Linguarum 17: 133–152.
Nielsen, B. 2006. A review of research into vocabulary learning and acquisition. https://www.kushiro-ct.ac.jp/library/
kiyo/kiyo36/Brian.pdf (accessed 15 June, 2021).
Neil, P.S., J. Salters, and A. McEwen. 1999. Teachers’ use of target language in the German classroom. The Language
Learning Journal 19, no. 1: 12–18.
Pennington, M. C. 1995. Pattern and variation in use of two languages in the Hong Kong secondary English class. RELC
Journal 26, no. 2: 80–105.
Paquet, P-L., and N. Woll. 2021. Debunking student teachers’ beliefs regarding the target-language-only rule. In
Multilingualism and Third Language Acquisition: Learning and Teaching Trends, eds. J. Pinto, and N. Alexandre, 95–
116. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Polio, C.G., and P.A. Duff. 1994. Teachers’ language use in university foreign language classrooms: a qualitative analysis
of English and target language alternation. The Modern Language Journal 78, no. 3: 313–326.
Sali, P. 2014. An analysis of the teachers’ use of L1 in Turkish EFL classrooms. System 42: 308–318.
Sampson, A. 2012. Learner code-switching versus English only. English Language Teaching 66: 293–303.
Sato, M., and I Angulo. 2020. The role of L1 use by high-proficiency learners in L2 vocabulary development. In
Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching: A Collection of Empirical Studies, 42–66.
Scott, V. M., and M. de la Fuente. 2008. What’s the problem? L2 learners’ use of the L1 during consciousness-raising
form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal 92: 100–113.
Shabir, M. 2017. Student-teachers’ beliefs on the use of L1 in EFL classroom: a global perspective. English Language
Teaching 10: 45–52.
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, no. 3: 367–391.
Ünaldı, I., M. Bardakçı, K. D. Akpınar, and F Dolas. 2013. A comparison of contextualized, decontextualized and corpus-
informed vocabulary instruction: a quasi-experimental study. Journal of Language and Literature Education 2, no. 8:
78–95.
Üstünel, E., and P Seedhouse. 2005. Why that, in that language, right now? Codeswitching and pedagogical focus.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15: 302–325.
Yıldız, M. 2021. Language choices of language teachers and learners: meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Journal of
Language and Linguistic Studies 17: 472–492.
Zhao, T., and E Macaro. 2016. What works better for the learning of concrete and abstract words: teachers’ L1 use or L2-
only explanations? International Journal of Applied Linguistics 26, no. 1: 75–98.
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 15

Appendices
Appendix 1
16 S. SHABAKA-FERNÁNDEZ

Appendix 2. Questionnaire in Spanish

Este cuestionario es parte de un proyecto de investigación sobre la influencia de la L2 en la comprensión de los estu-
diantes en 4° de ESO. Se realiza de manera anónima, con preguntas abiertas y cerradas. Se agradece vuestra participa-
ción y franqueza al expresar vuestra opinion personal.
Instrucciones: A continuación se presentan un número de afirmaciones sobre las clases y sobre ti mismo/a. Marca el
círculo de la respuesta tu grado de acuerdo con cada una de las afirmaciones siguiendo la escala de ‘1’ (totalmente en
desacuerdo) y ‘5’ (totalmente de acuerdo).

Datos personales
Edad: Sexo: Nacionalidad:
He vivido en España durante … … … .años Mi lengua materna es:
Estoy en contacto con el inglés durante … … .horas a la semana
He estado … … … … años en un país de habla-inglesa
La asignatura me interesa (Nada – Algo – Bastante – Mucho)
Grado de dificultad de esta asignatura (Bajo – Medio – Alto – Muy Alto)
Mi nivel de inglés es (Bajo – Intermedio – Alto)
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 17

1. Comprensión

Total No lo De Total
desacuerdo Desacuerdo sé acuerdo acuerdo
He entendido el vocabulario de la unidad 7 ① ② ③ ④ ⑤
He entendido la gramática de la unidad 7 ① ② ③ ④ ⑤
He sido capaz de inferir correctamente lo que dice la ① ② ③ ④ ⑤
profesora en inglés
Soy capaz de explicar lo que he entendido en la unidad 7 ① ② ③ ④ ⑤
Cuando la profesora explica el vocabulario ① ② ③ ④ ⑤
solamente en inglés, puedo entender
Cuando la profesora explica la gramática ① ② ③ ④ ⑤
solamente en inglés, puedo entender
Prefiero que la profesora hable exclusivamente en inglés ① ② ③ ④ ⑤
Hablar solo en inglés en clase es importante para ① ② ③ ④ ⑤
aprenderlo mejor

¿Crees que la profesora debe explicar la gramática o el vocabulario nuevo en español? ¿Por qué? ¿Por qué no?
¿Presto más atención cuando la profesora habla sólo en inglés? ¿Por qué? ¿Por qué no?
!Muchas gracias por tu participación!

Appendix 3. Questionnaire in English

This questionnaire is part of a research project on the influence of the L2 on secondary students’ comprehension. This
questionnaire is anonymous and includes open and closed questions. Feel free to express your natural response.
Instructions: Below are a number of statements about the classes and about yourself, mark the circle with the degree
of agreement with each of the statements on a scale of ‘1’ (strongly disagree) to ‘5’ (strongly agree).

Personal data
Age: Sex: Nationality:
I lived in Spain for … … … … … … … … years My mother tongue is:
I am in contact with English for a week … … .hours
I’ve been … … … … years in an English-speaking country
The subject interests me (Nothing – Something – Quite a bit – A lot)
Degree of difficulty of this course (Low – Medium – High – Very High)
My English level is (Beginner – Intermediate – Advanced)

1. Comprehension

Totally I don’t Totally

disagree Disagree know Agree agree
I understood the vocabulary in unit 7 ① ② ③ ④ ⑤
I understood the grammar in unit 7 ① ② ③ ④ ⑤
I have been able to correctly infer what the teacher says in ① ② ③ ④ ⑤
English
I am able to explain what I understood in unit 7 ① ② ③ ④ ⑤
I understand when the teacher explains vocabulary in ① ② ③ ④ ⑤
English only
I understand when the teacher explains grammar in English ① ② ③ ④ ⑤
only
I prefer that the teacher uses the TL exclusively ① ② ③ ④ ⑤
Speaking in the TL exclusively is important for better ① ② ③ ④ ⑤
learning.

Do you think that new grammatical and lexical input should be taught in the L1? Why or Why not?
I pay more attention when the teacher speaks exclusively in English? Why or Why not?
Thank you for your participation!