In this article, Hamish Chalmers analyses the evidence for multilingual classrooms.
Attitudes to the use of L1 in the L2 classroom is an area of contradiction. Think back to when you first started to learn a foreign language; if, like me, you grew up in the UK, your foreign languages classes were probably characterised by lots of English use, while you wobbled your way into a comfortable relationship with French or German. You will have been given translations of key words. Your teacher may have used English to explain grammar rules. This will have persisted throughout your formal instruction.
However, if you grew up somewhere else, your experiences of learning English might have been different. You might have been at an international school, where the only language you heard your teachers use was English. Your playgrounds and corridors were probably decorated with signs that read, ‘Please Speak English’. You might have been praised when a teacher heard you speaking English with your friends and told off when you weren’t. If this feels like a double standard, that’s because it is.
Both standards are not without plausible rationales; grammar rules, for example, can be tricky to understand at the best of times, let alone when they are explained in a language you have not yet fully mastered. Using the L1, therefore, can be argued to expedite meta-linguistic understanding.
International school communities are often composed of learners representing a multitude of different L1s, none of which may be shared with their teachers. English, therefore, can act as a lingua franca, levelling the playing field and encouraging teachers to make accommodations for emerging English proficiency a routine part of their practice.
Plausible rationales are an insufficient basis on which to inform policy, however. Whether and how the L1 can be brought to bear on the education of language learner children, and what the outcomes are likely to be, are empirical questions; questions that can be illuminated by research evidence.
Some of the strongest arguments for L1-inclusive approaches come from research on bilingual schools where the curriculum is delivered in both the L1 and the target language. Several systematic reviews have analysed the evidence from multiple studies on their effects. All converge on the same general finding: children who attend these schools tend to develop similar levels of proficiency in the target language as their peers who attend target-language-only schools. Importantly, however, they also tend to develop high levels of proficiency in their L1s, including proficiency in academic registers. In most cases, attainment in curriculum subjects is comparable to that of children at target-language-only schools, and sometimes better.
The explanation for this lies in the theory of linguistic interdependence, first suggested by Canadian applied linguist Jim Cummins in the 1980s. Cummins posited that there is a ‘central engine’ that drives linguistic proficiency in all languages. That is, assuming plentiful opportunities to use and develop both, knowledge of the world gained through one language will transfer to the other. For example, if a child has been taught about the properties of 2D shapes in one language, they do not need to re-learn those relatively abstract concepts in the other language, just the labels – side, angle, apex – that we use to talk about them.
Language learning is not merely about collecting words, but also about developing the conceptual understanding of what those words mean. It makes intuitive sense that providing opportunities to do this in both languages (especially if one is stronger than the other) opens up more routes to securing that understanding.
This understanding of how the bilingual brain handles different languages, and the positive findings from evaluations of bilingual schools, has naturally led teachers and researchers to consider how this might be translated into the context of non-bilingual schools.
Research into how the L1 might be brought to bear on the education of emerging multilinguals in such contexts is less clear. Much research has focused on how children feel about using their L1s in target-language schools, rather than on objective measures of linguistics or curriculum development.
The small body of research that does focus on the latter suggests sometimes it can help and sometimes it does not make much of a difference. For example, one approach that appears to be helpful is providing L1 translations of key words during reading activities. This is especially helpful for children with a strong L1.
Another promising approach involves encouraging children to compare linguistic conventions between the target language and the L1. For example, in French the noun comes before an adjective, in English it comes after. This seems most effective when conventions differ; where the act of comparison makes these differences more salient and thus better remembered.
An approach that seems not to make a difference either way is to encourage children who share an L1 to discuss their work in that language in preparation for a task where only the target language is used. Here the L1 is thought to support the process of engaging in educational tasks, freeing up cognitive resources to concentrate on the products of those tasks. Ultimately, the implications of the evidence on L1 use in target-language-only schools vary by context. However, we can say with some confidence that it can be helpful and is very rarely detrimental.
It is my personal view that English medium schools, in which the student body is largely or entirely made up of speakers of the same L1, should consider developing fully bilingual programmes. The evidence is clear that children leave these schools with well-developed multilingualism and good curriculum understanding that will serve them well in whatever language becomes their most frequent medium of communication in later life.
Teachers in other school-types should not be afraid to bring the L1s of their students into the classroom. Providing L1 resources such as word lists, and encouraging meta-linguistic understanding through language comparison exercises is likely to help those children with strong L1 backgrounds. Encouraging children to discuss their learning in whatever language they are most proficient in seems likely to reduce cognitive load.
In all cases, a welcoming attitude towards the L1 can act as a marker that the school recognises and values the multilingualism of its students and the role it plays in the linguistically diverse world that they are growing up in.
Want to know more about how you can use L1 in the classroom? Click here for tips from Melanie Butler.
