L2 Learning Case Study

Despite the popularity of such theories as CIH and IH and methodologies which encourage the monolingual principle, there were still people who recognized a role for L1, or at least could not ignore its existence in the process of L2 learning. The conflicts between these people and the proponents of ideologies such as CIH, IH and the like have changed the views about (not)using L1 over and over during the history (Philipson, 1992; Auerbach, 1993). In spite of the ebb and flow of the sides taken with regard to L1, some particular beliefs seem to have survived the controversies and stayed intact and unquestioned in the minds of the proponents of either side of the controversies. One of such established beliefs which is accepted by most teachers,
Learning, in SCT, is conceived of as a social phenomenon which is achieved through collaborative dialogue. SCT also views language as a semiotic tool through which humans can achieve some higher order mentalities. This means that language, and specifically L1, in this case, is a tool which plays an important role in human learning, in this case, L2 learning. Therefore, language, unlike the assumption of the proponents of monolingual principle, is not considered a goal in itself; rather, it is a means to an end. In the SCT paradigm, according to the research, the role of L1 in providing learners with “scaffolded help” can be conceived of as undeniable. From among the studies showing the advantages of using L1 in the second language classroom, Brooks and Donato (1994), Anton and DiCamilla (1999), Swain and Lapkin (2000), Brooks-Lewis (2009), de la Campa and Nassaji (2009) have shown the important and undeniable role of L1 in L2 learning. There are also others, like Al-Nofaie (2010) and Mora Pablo, Lengeling, Rubio Zenil, Crawford and Goodwin, (2011), for instance, who concentrated on teachers’ and student’s beliefs about the use of L1 and revealed that most teachers and students have a positive attitude toward L1 use in. Even those not cheering for L1 use do not support the idea of total exclusion of L1,
Anton and DiCamilla (1999), and van Weijen, van den Bergh, Rijlaarsdam and Sanders (2009) are among these studies. So far the studies on the functions and portions of L1 use in L2 classroom were mostly based on interviews with the teachers and/or students, asking them what uses L1 could have in L2 learning and/or what portion of the class was held in L1. Such studies can be questioned, because as Copland and Neokleous (2010) state the “actual behavior” of the teachers differs from what they state. To go around this issue, some studies made use of an observer in the classroom, nonetheless, these studies, too, were not considered accurate enough in case of capturing what really goes on in classroom, since they were based on the observer’s estimations (Littlewood & Yu, 2009). But the point here is that, very few studies attempted to investigate what really goes on in the classroom by recording and transcribing the natural talk of the classroom. One of these few studies trying to capture the reality of the classroom is the study carried out by de la Campa and Nassaji (2009). They tried to transcribe the classes and bring out a precise portion of use of L1 in classroom. But what they, and many others, seem to miss in their studies is to ask this question that “Is the classroom context an indivisible entity or it consists of different micro-contexts? This is the question Walsh (2011)