Bibliografía - uso de L1
Research on pre-task planning to date has mainly focused on task performance. However, the effects of planning are contingent on what learners actually do during planning time. One important factor that may determine the quality and usefulness of planning is whether it is done in the first language (L1) or the second language (L2). This research addresses this issue by investigating the relative benefits of collaborative planning in the L1 and L2 in terms of ideas generated and transferred to an oral problem-solving task. Seventy-two Japanese university EFL learners were randomly assigned to one of two planning conditions: L1P (L1 planning, Japanese) and L2P (L2 planning, English). Dyads in each group were given 10 minutes to plan the content of a problem-solving task in the respective languages before individually performing the timed 2.5-minute oral task. Data took the form of transcribed planning discussions and transcribed task performances. All data were coded for idea units and sorted into categories of problem–solution discourse structure (situation, problem, response, evaluation). A qualitative comparison of L1 and L2 planners’ generation of idea units during planning, transfer and performance was conducted to supplement the quantitative analysis. Findings indicate the L1P condition has significant advantages over the L2P condition in terms of idea conceptualization, but this advantage had a limited impact on subsequent L2 task performance. Pedagogical implications are discussed in terms of possibilities for productively incorporating L1 planning during task implementation in foreign language contexts where learners share a common first language.
This study investigated whether second language (L2) classroom instruction that incorporates a principled approach into the use of the first language (L1) by students and instructors has an effect on beginning learners’ development of L2 speaking and writing proficiency, compared to L2-only instruction, over the course of one semester. Participants were 54 students of Spanish enrolled in six sections of a university-level Elementary Spanish course. The six intact classes, exposed to the same task-based curriculum, were randomly assigned to two experimental groups (–L1 and +L1). For the –L1 group, instruction and interaction were conducted exclusively in the L2, whereas instruction and interaction in the +L1 group included specific uses of the L1. A pretest–posttest design was used to measure change in speaking and writing proficiency. Effects were assessed using the STAMP 4 test, a standardized measure of proficiency. Results indicated that courses under both conditions promoted improvements in speaking and writing. However, students in the +L1 condition improved significantly more than those in the control –L1 group, both in speaking and writing. This points to a potentially more important role for the L1 in the development of an L2. Pedagogical implications are discussed, and directions for further research are offered.