Factors Pertinent to First Language Use in Foreign Language Classroom: A Case of Content and Language Integrated Learning

Abstract

The success of bilingual immersion programmes has promoted the debate about whether learners’ first language (L1) should be used in foreign language classrooms. Nevertheless, Content and Language Integrated Learning, a pedagogical approach embedded in the development of multilingualism and multiliteracy theories, has overstepped the monolingual principle by allowing for more flexibility in the choice of instructional languages. Previous research has emphasised chiefly the reasons and effects of embracing a shared language, other than the target language, in content-based bilingual classrooms, while this paper intends to investigate the correlations between L1 use with learner factors, the understanding of which can shed light on more efficient translanguaging practices. Through a cross-sectional approach, the present study was contextualised in a large-scale, content-based English as a foreign language programme and drew on 335 undergraduates, who completed a series of questionnaires and tests. Correlation and regression analyses primarily demonstrated that English proficiency was the most significant predictor of learners’ overall attitude to L1 instruction in classrooms, followed by content proficiency and language learning motivation. Gender was a non-significant variable for learners’ overall perspective on L1 employment but was related to the constructs about using the L1 for phatic purposes, with male students requiring more translanguaging assistance. The paper concludes with the implication that the desire for L1 use is associated with various learner factors and that teachers should be aware of how to encourage and regulate translanguaging practices for differing instructional purposes as per the changing needs in classrooms.

Sustaining Content and Language Integrated Learning in China: A Systematic Review

“…Regarding the content subjects taught in CLIL, the review displayed a high level of diversity. Common discipline areas included sociology [38,46], business [42,43,48,50,51,57], humanities [45,55], and science [40,49], while a variety of branch subjects and topics were found, such as biochemistry experiments [34], traditional Chinese medicine [36], English literature [39], law [41,58], research methodology [44], education [47], the "Belt and Road" Initiative (i.e., China's foreign policy of building economic corridors in Eurasia) [52], Chinese culture [53,59], e-government [56], and Japanese etiquettes [60]. Some studies were contextualized in a series of CLIL programs.…”

“…Almost all the reported CLIL programs were organized by higher education providers (HEPs) in China for undergraduate students. Although most studies emphasized EFL learning, the contexts were slightly different, with [34][35][36]39,41,45,[48][49][50][51][52][53][56][57][58][59] dealing with college English (CE) (i.e., a compulsory English course for undergraduates whose main course is not related to English language studies), [38,46,47,54,55] working with students specializing in English studies, [42,43] focusing on "3 + 1" programs (i.e., undergraduate programs wherein students spend 3 years studying in China and 1 year abroad at a partner institution), and [44] centering on EMI in a Chinese-American jointly established university. The research [60] was also contextualized in undergraduate studies, yet the language taught was Japanese.…”

“…The remaining studies also examined the issues related to CLIL, whereas the themes did not necessarily belong to the above categories. For example, in the study [35], the researcher stressed the analysis of the textbooks used for CLIL and argued that the existing textbooks were not suitable for CLIL due to a lack of consideration of the language of, for, and through learning and learners' cognitive, cultural, and communicative development needs; in [52], the researchers intended to combine CLIL with massive open online courses (MOOC), analyzed available documents (e.g., lesson plans and curriculum guides) about CLIL, and summarized that a CLIL-based MOOC design should consider the educational objectives of knowledge, capacity and quality, discipline subjects, media of transmission and delivery methods, learning task, and assessment; in [55], the researchers examined learners' attitudes towards the use of the first language (L1) in CLIL classrooms and looked into successful translanguaging strategies employed by teachers to progress learning; in [59], similarly, the researcher analyzed CLIL learners' attitudes towards L1 use but probed into this issue by focusing on the correlations between certain learners' factors and different situations of L1 use; in [61], the researcher focused on Chinese CLIL teachers' competencies and presented a heterogenous professional profile in accordance with their characteristics (e.g., language taught, content taught, affiliation, education background, and years of teaching). Many studies adopted mixed-methods designs under the warrant that the combination of quantitative and qualitative data could contribute to an in-depth understanding of the studied phenomena, while a further review revealed more specific details about the research designs.…”

“…Some studies included a nonrandomized control group (CG) and organized both a pretest and post-test [36,37,50]; some only had an experiment group (EG) but also conducted a pretest and posttest [41,56,60]; in [54], the researchers included a nonrandomized CG but only used the test scores after the intervention to investigate the effects of CLIL. Some studies adopted a survey approach in large-scale CLIL programs, such as [44,51,59,61], though they had very different research purposes. In comparison, there are only two qualitative studies.…”

“…There were some innovative ways of acquiring data, such as online interaction records and forum log information used in [42,43] to analyze TECLIL learners' discourse patterns in the supporting software, while most research adopted the traditional and most used data collection methods. To a large degree, CLIL students were the principal source of data [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]. Even though some studies specified that other CLIL stakeholders were also the subjects, such as classroom teachers [35,39,45,61] and policymakers [45], this body of knowledge was rather limited.…”