Monolingual versus multilingual foreign language teaching: French and Arabic at beginning levels

被引:9
作者
Brown, Amanda [1 ]
机构
[1] Syracuse Univ, Syracuse, NY USA
关键词
Arabic; codeswitching; immersion; French; learning outcomes; multilingual pedagogy;
D O I
10.1177/1362168821990347
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Macaro has stated that the choice between a monolingual, immersive, target language-only pedagogy versus a non-immersive, multilingual pedagogy is 'probably the most fundamental question facing second language acquisition (SLA) researchers, language teachers, and policymakers'. Recognizing that prior empirical work on monolingual versus multilingual approaches has primarily been (1) descriptive, (2) in the context of English as a second or foreign language, and (3) very short term, often with one brief treatment, this intervention study examines the effectiveness of use of the L1/non-target language in the L2 classroom in a quasi-experimental, 10-week study examining French, a commonly learned foreign language, and Arabic, a less commonly learned foreign language, at beginning levels of proficiency in a community-based setting with 25 hours of instruction. Groups experiencing multilingual instruction outperformed those experiencing monolingual instruction in both languages with different instructors at almost all time periods and in almost all skill areas. Moderate to large effect sizes were found in inferential analyses of aggregated weekly progress quiz scores and scores in writing and vocabulary, and statistically significant differences between groups in Arabic were obtained in analyses of aggregated quiz scores overall and scores for writing. These findings support theoretical position statements and a growing body of empirical research arguing for the potential benefits of inclusion of non-target languages in second language teaching and learning.
引用
收藏
页码:1634 / 1659
页数:26
相关论文
共 95 条
[1]   Translanguaging in English academic writing preparation [J].
Adamson, John ;
Coulson, David .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGIES & LEARNING, 2015, 10 (01) :24-37
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2000, LANG TEACH RES, DOI DOI 10.1177/136216880000400304
[3]   Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the l2 classroom [J].
Anton, M ;
DiCamilla, F .
CANADIAN MODERN LANGUAGE REVIEW-REVUE CANADIENNE DES LANGUES VIVANTES, 1998, 54 (03) :314-342
[4]  
Atkinson D., 1987, ELT J, V41/, P241, DOI [10.1093/elt/41.4.241, DOI 10.1093/ELT/41.4.241]
[5]   Task-modality and L1 use in EFL oral interaction [J].
Azkarai, Agurtzane ;
Garcia Mayo, Maria del Pilar .
LANGUAGE TEACHING RESEARCH, 2015, 19 (05) :550-571
[6]  
Belz J.A., 2002, Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, V1, P13, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327701JLIE01013
[7]   Language Use in the Classroom: Balancing Target Language Exposure With the Need for Other Languages [J].
Brevik, Lisbeth M. ;
Rindal, Ulrikke .
TESOL QUARTERLY, 2020, 54 (04) :925-953
[8]  
Brown A., EXPLORING LANGUAGE E
[9]   Immersive Versus Nonimmersive Approaches to TESOL: A Classroom-Based Intervention Study [J].
Brown, Amanda ;
Lally, Robert .
TESOL QUARTERLY, 2019, 53 (03) :603-629
[10]   Translanguaging-as-Resource: University ESL Instructors' Language Orientations and Attitudes Toward Translanguaging [J].
Burton, Jennifer ;
Rajendram, Shakina .
TESL CANADA JOURNAL, 2019, 36 (01) :21-47