Language Learning Methods

Today in one of my TESOL classes, the title of which is TESOL Methods and Materials, we were talking about our reading preparation for class. To kick off the semester, we are studying the history of language learning methods all the way from the 1800s. We are using the textbook, Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy by H. Douglas Brown (third edition).

We had a really great discussion today about the first two chapters, which included a brief history of several language teaching and language learning methods over the last two and a half centuries, as well as a play-by-play of an EFL (English as a Foreign Language) class lesson. One question that is still bothering me, though, is when to use the L1 in a lesson. When addressing this question, we started out saying that if the teacher recognizes that students are not understanding instructions (such as for an academic activity) in English (the L2 or target language) the teacher should rephrase the instructions again, or maybe two times more so that the students better understand, but they are still understanding the directions in English. Some of my other colleagues started to argue that there's no reason the teacher shouldn't use the L1 to explain instructions after trying it in English and recognizing a lack of comprehension on the students' parts.

So then, when is it okay to resort back to the L1 in a class where the teacher is aiming for the students to learn a new language? I have come up with a bit of an answer, but I am still hoping for more contributions.

First and foremost, it is important to define the lesson and course/unit objectives. If the objective is to learn a specific grammar skill in English an use it in context, then perhaps explaining an activity in the L1 is appropriate. In this case, it is important that students know what they are doing in order to make the activity most effective for accomplishing the objectives. Therefore, since understanding instructions in English is not the objective, then it shouldn't matter whether the instructions are explained in English or the L1. If the objective is to do the activity so that the students learn the grammar skill, isn't it most important that they fully understand the activity? This way, they know they are doing it right and this makes it much easier to judge whether they learned the grammar skill from the activity.

Additionally, there is a time and a place for using each language. Sometimes it is really necessary to focus on the new language and the new concept at hand. Yet other times, in order to avoid complete silence due to fear of misspeaking or lack of vocabulary, it is appropriate to use the L1 to make a point.

Finally, the goal of all language lessons is to learn the language! Being exposed to a language is the most logical way to learn it, of course. So first explaining instructions in the target language is great because it is further exposure to the language. Perhaps it would be more beneficial if a teacher states the directions in English, then the L1, then English again. Any excuse to use the new language is worth it.

Any other thoughts? This is just what I came up with today, and it's almost midnight so some of my ideas might be off!