Instructors' Use of English in the Modern Language Classroom.

Abstract: Contemporary best practices in the profession encourage teaching as much as possible in the target language, but when university faculty were observed teaching Spanish, the majority spoke English during instruction and many engaged in frequent code switching (alternations) between English and Spanish. Findings indicate that instructors used English as a strategy to save time, avoid ambiguity, and establish authority. Variation in the amount of English spoken by instructors may influence students' articulation between courses and the ultimate success of language programs. Therefore, university faculty may benefit from pedagogical training to teach with limited reliance on English. Key words: code switching, English, first language, native language, professional development Language: Spanish, relevant to all languages Background Contemporary research in second language acquisition and best practices in modern language pedagogy are grounded in the principle that the classroom should afford students as many opportunities as possible for input, output, interaction, and negotiation of meaning in the target language. Lee and VanPatten (2003) describe how over time, the role of the language instructor has evolved from drill instructor to inquisitor to conversation partner and source of comprehensible input in the target language. For gains in target language proficiency to occur, students should hear, speak, and interact in the target language with minimal, if any, use of English during classroom instruction (Breen & Candlin, 1980; Canale & Swain, 1980; Kalivoda, 1983; Savignon, 1983; Trappes-Lomax & Ferguson, 2002; VanPatten, 2003). The National Association of District Supervisors of Foreign Languages (NADSFL) identified 15 guidelines for effective foreign language instruction. These Characteristics of Effective Foreign Language Instruction (NADSFL, 1999) urge both instructors and students to communicate purposefully as listeners, speakers, readers, writers, and viewers in the target language. Lee and VanPatten (2003) underscore the importance of engaging learners in interaction and negotiation in the target language for learning to take place, and methodology handbooks offer examples of classroom activities and strategies to maximize use of the target language by both instructors and learners (Curtain & Pesola, 1994; Haley & Austin, 2004; Lipton, 1994; Omaggio, 1986). However, despite encouragement from the profession to use the target language for instruction and meaningful, contextualized exchanges with students at all levels of proficiency, Lee and VanPatten note some teachers' hesitancy to teach in the language. This hesitancy to use the target language for instruction was the topic of discussion among members of FLTeach,1 an online electronic mailing list for foreign language teachers, in September 2005. Instructors who spoke some English in the classroom indicated that English facilitated communication, built rapport with students, and helped them explain grammar. Advocates for teaching completely in the target language believed that students were less likely to distract the teacher or stray from the target language if English were not allowed. These teachers believed that by eliminating English, students perceived target-language activities to be purposeful and not a game played during class time. The ambivalence about choice of language for instruction also was addressed recently by experienced language teachers in an advice forum for new teachers. The experienced group underscored the importance of using the target language, despite temptations and pressure from students to fall back on English. One strategy was to use English only as needed, minimally, deliberately, and set off from the rest of the lesson (Sweley, 2006). This recommendation is echoed by Curtain and Pesola (1994), who advocate for a clear separation between the use of target and native languages. …