Channels, Fall 2018

Channels • 2018 • Volume 3 • Number 1 Page 7 instruction supports the idea that CM is evidence of mastery of more than one language rather than a sign of low language competence. Limitations of CM in the Language Classroom. CM can be used to the advantage of language students. However, the language teacher must be aware of all the implications of CM and know how to best use it to facilitate, rather than constrain, students’ language development (Keller, 2016; Makulloluwa, 2013). Keller (2016) gives specific constraints for teachers’ use of L1 or CM in the language classroom: “introducing concepts; reviewing a previous lesson; capturing learners’ attention; and praising them” (Keller, 2016, p. 19). Included in these is the use of L1 for classroom management, especially in lower-proficiency levels where students have limited TL vocabulary and may not understand things, such as instructions or reprimands in L2 (Keller, 2016). Studies that show the benefits of CM in the language classroom also provide some stipulations for this practice. Firstly, there must be a balance in the practice of CM. There are two extremes in CM use in the classroom: at one extreme, there are people who argue for exclusive L2 use in the classroom with no room for CM, while on the other extreme there are “those who either massively overuse [L1] themselves and/or are willing to accept such overuse from their students” (Keller, 2016, p. 26). Neither one of these extremes is strongly encouraged. Secondly, there is a time and place for CM in the classroom. Evidence supporting CM does not support the unqualified use of L1 in the language classroom, but instead gives an idea of when it should and should not be used. It is largely agreed that CM is a useful tool at the beginning stages of language learning, but as learners progress to greater fluency, CM should decrease and eventually even disappear altogether in the classroom (Keller, 2016; Kontio & Sylvén, 2015; Makulloluwa, 2013). According to Makulloluwa (2013), use of L1 in the language classroom is encouraged and even necessary in lower proficiency levels; it is seen as a last resort in intermediate levels, while it is completely discouraged in advanced levels (Makulloluwa, 2013). Teachers’ use of CM in the classroom, although having the potential to be a valuable pedagogical tool, should be limited, as “after a certain threshold of teacher L1 use, there is a rise in student L1 use with possible effects on learning” (Macaro, 2001, p. 537, as cited in Makulloluwa, 2013, p. 587). In order to avoid negative transfer from L1 or excessive L1 use in place of the TL, teachers ought to code-mix when necessary without overusing it. (Keller, 2016; Makulloluwa, 2013). Arguments for L2-Only Instruction. Although there are many solid arguments for mixed- language instruction, there is substantial ground for L2-only instruction as well. While language teachers often code-mix to ensure student comprehension, this may not always produce the best results in the long run. Teachers avoid CM “to minimize interference from L1 and to ensure total immersion in the target language” (Jiang, Garcia, & Willis, 2014). For these reasons, too, researchers warn against the possible negative effects of CM. Teachers may code-mix or switch to L1 to repeat what they previously said in L2. Such practice can be beneficial when limited, but it can, however, have significant drawbacks. One study found that “learners used to hearing the teacher use the L1 tended to ignore the L2 and, therefore, failed to fully benefit from valuable L2 input” (Keller, 2016, p. 14-15). Where learners could have pushed themselves to try to understand their teacher’s L2 speech and in so doing, gain slightly higher proficiency and more practice of L2, they