In the previous chapter, I presented the results for the first three research questions. In brief, the analysis uncovered that the quantity of L1 mediation differed for the four focal participants. Also, in this context, there was limited evidence that learners relied on their L2 during task performance. While the analysis of the interaction data provides a rich description of task performance, it does not provide information regarding the learners’ beliefs on language mediation. As a foreign language teacher, my actions are impacted by my pedagogical beliefs. Similarly, learners come to class with preconceived notions regarding language learning.
Therefore, the fourth research question examined the focal participants’ beliefs about L1 and L2 mediation during collaborative tasks.
As described in the methods section, to elicit the focal participants’ beliefs, I conducted four one-on-one interviews. The first three interviews focused primarily on their perceptions of the tasks, their attitudes towards collaborative work, and, to a lesser extent, their beliefs about language mediation. It was only during the fourth interview that explicit questions about their beliefs towards L1 and L2 mediation in the L3 classroom were included. This was to minimize the influence on their behaviors during task performance. In the case of David only, the timing of the fourth interview was problematic. Due to time constraints, the fourth interview was
conducted in two phases and the second phase unfolded after an informal colloquium where I presented the preliminary results of the study to students and faculty In light of the evidence that the presentation impacted David’s beliefs, the second session of the fourth interview is
referenced minimally; however, it is considered to show tension in his views about how much L1 learners should use in the classroom. In the next two sections, I present the findings pertaining to
the learners’ beliefs about the benefits of native and nonnative language mediation that were discussed during the interviews. This is followed by the results of the specific mediating functions of the L1 and L2 that the participants identified during the interviews.
5.1Exploring learner beliefs
In the present case study research, I assumed dual roles, that of the teacher and of the researcher, and over the course of the semester, I developed a more intimate relationship with my students than is perhaps typical. Although my priorities were my learners, I was aware that in developing a close relationship with my learners, my beliefs and research agenda could influence my students’ own beliefs and, equally important, their in-class behaviors. As such, throughout the semester, I tried to mask, to the best of my ability, the purpose of my study in order to avoid encouraging my participants into using or not using their L1 and L2 (Duff, 2008). Evidence of this cautiousness was documented in my researcher journal. For instance, after introducing the project to the group, I wrote: “I explained that I am interested in the benefits of using certain types of activities in the class but didn’t say anything about the use of L1 and L2” (January 28, 2011). Furthermore, in an effort to keep my research goals as covert as possible, during the interviews, although a number of language-related questions emerged naturally in the conversation, I limited the quantity of follow-up questions that could reveal the focus of the study. This said, the next section presents the findings regarding my learners’ beliefs about language use in FL classrooms.
5.2Learners’ beliefs about language mediation
As discussed by Cook (2001), the use of the L1 in the FL classroom is a controversial issue. A shared sentiment among many teachers is that L1 use should be minimized or avoided; however, research adopting an SCT perspective has identified some potential benefits of L1
mediation for the purposes of learning a language (Antón & DiCamilla, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 2000). In the present study, although the results indicate that the participants see some benefits of L1 mediation in the classroom, the findings from the interviews show an interesting picture: Marta and Paco, the less proficient learners, appeared to be more open to L1 mediation in the classroom, whereas David and Felip, although open to some L1 mediation, indicated a greater orientation towards L3 use only.
In her discussion about the ideal quantity of L1 mediation in the L3 classroom, Marta suggested that for her own benefit she should rely on Spanish only 30% of the time. Importantly, she explained that while she should be allowed to use her L1, it needs to be limited to the
purpose of learning the L3. In other words, she expressed the belief that L1 mediation should be permitted only if learners are engaged in the task and if they are resorting to Spanish to support their activities, such as to clarify task-related questions and to support their exploration of grammar problems. Further evidence reflecting the belief that L1 mediation should be limited came from how she perceived her interactions with David and with Andrea. Although she felt that she collaborated well with both peers, she expressed a preference towards her interactions with Felip and David reasoning that they tried to maintain the flow of conversation in French. Her positive sentiment towards relying on the L3 discussed during her second interview is illustrated in Example 29:
Example 29: Positive learner-learner collaborations via the L3 1 Caroline: ¿Con quién más te gustó trabajar?
[Who did you like to work with the most?]
2 Marta: : Con Felip me gustó mucho trabajar con él pero yo no aporté nada, bueno, aporté muy poco, entonces siento que el…no hizo todo pero me ayudó más a mí que yo a él.
[With Felip I liked it a lot but I didn’t help at all, well I helped a little bit, so I feel as though he… he didn’t do all the work but he helped me more than I helped him.]
3 Caroline : Y eso no te gustó?
[And you didn’t like that?]
4 Marta : Sí me gustó mucho porque el todo el tiempo habla en fran..bueno
tratábamos de hablar en francés todo el tiempo y sabe más que yo. Luego Andrea, trabajamos muy bien, aquí en el….pero este, hablamos mucho en español.
[Yes, I liked it a lot because he always speaks well we tried to speak all the time in French and [David] knows more than me. With Andrea, we worked well, here during the…but we spoke in Spanish a lot.]
5 Caroline: ¿Por qué? [Why?]
6 Marta: Porque no sé, a la hora de estar corrigiendo, no, es que no concuerda con esto y estoy y esto, como que mucho en español.
[Because I don’t know, in trying to make the corrections, right, this doesn’t agree with this and this, like a lot was in Spanish.]
7 Caroline: Ah! [Ah!]
8 Marta: Entonces como que no debía de haber sido así. Y con David, pues, se nos complicó la actividad pero estuvo bien porque todo el tiempo hablábamos en francés, la mayor parte del tiempo. Y ya, fue divertido.
[So like it shouldn’t be like that. And with David, well, the activity was complex but it was ok because we spoke the entire time in French, the majority of the time. And so it was fun.] (2-712)
In the case of Paco, the results suggest that, similar to Marta, he believes that L1
mediation is beneficial but should be limited; however, Paco appeared to be less clear about how much L1 should be permitted. For instance, when asked to quantify the ideal amount of L1 and L3 mediation in the classroom, Paco began by suggesting that half of the interactions should be mediated via the L1. However, as illustrated in Example 30, Paco immediately revised his answer, perhaps due to my presence, and said that L1 mediation should be limited to specific situations, e.g., expressing ideas accurately and ensuring comprehension:
Example 30: Quantity of L1 use in the classroom
9 Caroline: En una clase de francés como la nuestra, ¿Cuánto español piensas que tú deberías usar?
[In a French class like ours, how much Spanish do you think that you should use?]
10 Paco: Por lo menos 50% y 50%. Aja, irlos intercambiando. O menos…hablar en francés y sólo las palabras que no sé…hablar en español.
[At least 50% and 50%. Yes, alternating between them. Or less… speak in French and when you don’t know some words, use Spanish.]
11 Caroline: No, sólo es curiosidad. O sea, para tu beneficio cuánto español deberías usar en esta clase de francés?
[Just out of curiosity, for your benefit, how much Spanish should you be using in the French class?]
12 Paco: Debería evitarlo. Para practicar el francés. Y sólo si tengo una duda o algo que de verdad necesito expresarme sin errores y entender mejor…
necesitaría usar el español.
[I should avoid it to practice French. And only if I have a question or something that I really need to express without errors and understand better, I would need to use Spanish.] (4-22)
Although Paco appears to be uncertain about how much L1 mediation should be permitted, perhaps as a result of being prompted to reflect on this question by his language teacher, he was explicit in his belief that the L1 supports learners during task performance. He explained that in completing a task, learners have to think and rely on the target language, and given the
complexity of learning a language, he maintained that learners should not be obliged to always use the target language. Rather, the quality of the work is what is most important: if the work is well done and the learners rely on L1 to process the information, he does not think that this is problematic.
Although Marta and Paco shared the belief that L1 mediation is beneficial and that learners should by allowed to rely on L1 mediation during task performance, David and Felip appeared to be more oriented towards L3-only mediation. For instance, during the first interview, David explained that he identified with the proponents of the Direct Method and the
communicative approach which push for target language use only. During that interview, he explained that: “Entre más estés inmerso en el idioma, sin tener otro idioma de por medio, más fácil es que lo desarrolles” [The more immersed in the other language, without having another language in between, the easier it becomes to develop it.]. He elaborated on this notion when he
indicated that he did not agree with the idea that other languages can facilitate the language learning process:
Hay gente que sí, gente que podría decir es que en la enseñanza el otro idioma te ayuda. Pero yo creo que si estás aprendiendo otro idioma…te enfocas todo…en el idioma…hasta la forma de pensar. ¿Por qué? Porque si estamos haciendo una traducción mentalmente todo el tiempo, no se vuelve muy eficiente que ya después…o sea…que tengas que depender de un idioma para aprender el otro idioma.
[There are people that say that in language learning, the other language can help. But I think that if you are learning another language, you have to focus in the language, even your way of thinking. If we are doing a mental translation every time, it is not very efficient because later, we have to depend on another language to learn the other language] (1-12).
Although David explained that Spanish can sometimes be helpful, he maintained that in order to survive in his language classrooms L3 mediation is best. By focusing on one language only, he believes that is able to keep the languages separate.
As mentioned above, case study research presents some unique ethical dilemmas that should be carefully considered. In carrying out the study, I did not reveal the research goals; however, as a guest at Universidad Multilingual, I was asked to share the findings of the research at the end of the semester and David came to the research talk where I shared information
concerning the goals of the research and my own beliefs. As a result of this, my research agenda and my teaching beliefs may have impacted his beliefs. Evidence from the second component of the fourth interview suggests that David was in the process of revisiting his beliefs about
language pedagogy. He explained that rather than advocating an L3-only classroom, he thought that the native language could be helpful. In reference to learners using L1 mediation in the classroom, he said: “Usen el español como una herramienta. No digo que está prohibido hablar en el idioma materno pero si hago que traten de esforzarse de hablar en el otro idioma”. [Use