Todo el contenido de LATAM Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades,

publicados en este sitio está disponibles bajo Licencia Creative Commons .

Como citar: Morales Haz, M. F., Sotomayor Cantos, K. F., Valverde Moreira, H. E., Heredia

Mendoza, E. M., & Flores Herrera, J. R. (2022). El efecto de enseñar gramática inglesa de forma

bilingüe a verdaderos principiantes en una universidad de Ecuador. LATAM Revista

Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 3(2), 446-460

Este estudio analizó cómo la enseñanza bilingüe de la gramática inglesa afectó el desempeño

de los estudiantes de inglés como lengua extranjera (EFL) en las pruebas de gramática en una

una condición en la que la gramática L2 se enseñaba de forma bilingüe o una condición en la que

la gramática L2 se explicaba utilizando solo la L2, y se evaluó y comparó el desempeño en

gramática. Los resultados sugieren que el aprendizaje de la gramática mejoró en ambas

condiciones y no hubo diferencias significativas entre las pruebas posteriores inmediatas y

tardías entre los grupos. Se presentan en este documento algunas posibles explicaciones sobre

estos hallazgos.

This study looked into how teaching grammar bilingually affected the performance of students

of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) on grammar examination at an Ecuadorian institution of

only the L2, and their performance on grammar was tested and compared. The results of this

study suggest that grammar learning was enhanced by both the bilingual condition and the L2-

only condition. The results demonstrate that there were not significant differences on both

immediate and delayed posttests between the bilingual instruction condition and the L2-only

condition. There are some suggested explanations for these findings.

the discipline. This misconception could lead to the formal implementation of practices that

could deprive learners and teachers from a very important mediating tool.

Current laws governing higher education in Ecuador mandate that undergraduates reach a level

of proficiency in English language equivalent to the B1 level of the Common European Framework

of Reference for Languages. Thus, some decision makers at universities, based on wrong

assumptions about L1 use in the L2 classroom, could adopt policies and guidelines that suppress

the learners' L1 during L2 instruction. This could make more difficult for learners to reach the B1

level of proficiency. Therefore, it is very important to teach learners with current teaching

practices based on research, and not on opinions.

In this vein, this study attempts to provide stakeholders important insights about the role of the

information will also support administrators and teachers in their decisions and daily teaching. In

an L2 is by using the L2 as the language of the instruction, and that the decision to use one or the

other will depend on several factors such as the type of learners, the instructor’s L2 level of

proficiency, the learner’s purposes of learning the L2, and government or school regulations.

Zulfilkar (2019) states that using the L1 in the L2 classroom is inevitable and it does not impede

L2 learning, and has a facilitating and key role in learning and teaching language. Shin, Dixon, and

Choi (2020) made a review of published empirical literature on the use of the L1 in the FL

classroom from 2011 to 2018. They found that the majority of studies support judicious L1 use

in L2 instruction. By that it’s meant not only the amount and frequency of L1, but also its purpose,

content, and type of tasks to maximize L2 learning.

Other researchers have conducted interviews and collected data from questionnaires and semi-

prefer their L2 teachers are fluent in the students’ L1 since it facilitates class communication.

The study also found a negative correlation between learners’ preference for their teacher’s L1

fluency and the learners’ level of proficiency. In addition, high-level proficiency learners preferred

their teachers using the L1 for learning new vocabulary while low-level proficient learners

preferred the L1 for class instructions. Similar results were obtained from Shariati’s (2019) study.

It was found that lower-level proficiency learners have a better attitude towards L1 use than

upper-level learners. Participants reported they used the L1 to ask new language topics, to find

correct English words, and to explain grammar points to their classmates. They also believed that

teachers should use the L1 to explain difficult vocabulary, grammar, and for class management.

In another similar study, non-native L1 speakers favor the use of it for L2 learning. This is the case

environment. Instead, in Saburlu’s study (2019), ten learners receiving preparatory courses (A2

level) at Gebze Technical University in Turkey, reported from semi-structured interviews negative

views on L1 use, arguing that they can learn faster and easily when they are exposed to the L2

more often. However, the author offers a possible explanation: the participants were aware that

the L2 as medium of instruction is used 30% of the time at their current course, but it will be used

100% in the next year, so they put a lot of effort in learning English. The researcher also points

that the results cannot be generalized for all students due to the size of the sample.

Similarly, other researchers have aimed to study the teachers’ perspectives on L1 use in teaching

the L2 through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Georgious and Krulatz (2018)

reported from surveys that 92% of the 24 in-service elementary and middle-school EFL teachers

in Norway employed the L1 in L2 teaching. In the same way, data from questionnaires provided

Taşçı and Ataç (2020) found that teachers mostly used the L1 at lower levels of proficiency.

Likewise, Perdani’s (2021) research showed that four high school English language teachers from

because it was easier for them to interact with their students, explain L2 grammar, clarify

meaning, and teach difficult words. From İnal and Turhanlı’s (2019) questionnaires and semi-

structured interviews, 18 EFL university teachers from Turkey expressed they believe the L1 has

several functions such as teaching grammar, explaining vocabulary, dealing with disciplinary

issues, and raising students’ awareness of the differences and similarities between English and

their L1. However, they thought the L1 should not be used when teaching the four skills.

A third group of researchers attempted to examine both the teachers’ and learners’ perceptions

on using the L1 in L2 lessons. Hasrina, Aziz, and Fitriani (2018) administered questionnaires to 3

proficiency was measured using the computer-administered STAMP 4 (Standards-based

Measurement of Proficiency) adaptive test, elaborated at the University of Oregon and in

accordance with the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. The outcomes demonstrate that both groups

improved their writing and speaking skills. Nevertheless, students in the +L1 condition improved

significantly more than students in the -L1 condition. This study concludes that for beginning

learners, L2-only instruction can be an obstacle to complete writing and speaking development,

and that the L1 has to be included as a variable in the cognitive and sociocultural aspects of

experimental group to explain the grammar rules while in the control group only the L2 was used.

of the research. They were provided with detailed information about the study through an

Informed Consent Form (IFC). A different version that required parents or custodians’ approval

was given to minors. A total of 142 students signed the IFC and took a placement test on a

different day. This test was part of the course book used at the university. The publisher

authorized the use of its materials for this research. Because the study focused on true beginners

or pre-A1 learners, only participants who were placed at level 1A or 1B were selected, which was

a total of 71 people. According to the table provided by the course book, students who are placed

participants in the control group and 36 participants in the experimental group. The number of

The instructional material was the same coursebook used for level 1 students at the university.

The research took place in six weeks in January and February in 2017. In the first four weeks,

participants attended two 2-hour class sessions a week. The experimental group attended

lessons on Mondays and Wednesdays from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. The control group attended

on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Two weeks after the final session,

participants took another test to measure the mid-term effect of both types of instruction.

Before and after each class, a pretest and a posttest were given to the control group and

participants completed a sheet of grammar exercises individually, and help was provided during

that activity. Later, the teacher and students checked the answers in class. Then participants

were given a semi-controlled speaking activity. Assistance and feedback were provided at the

request of participants or given by the teacher when he noticed a mistake was so important that

could impede communication in the future.

session, participants took a delayed test in order to measure the mid-term effect of both types of

grammar instruction.

Then the tests were marked, and scores were obtained and entered in a Microsoft Excel

to consider whether certain statistical assumptions were met in order to choose the correct t test.

three assumptions must be taken into consideration: 1) the data must come from two

independent samples; 2) the two populations of the sample must have a normal distribution; and

3) the variances of the two populations of the samples must be equal. As for the first criteria, we

confirmed it was met since the samples came from two different groups (the control and

experimental ones). With respect to the second assumption, we believed the two samples came

from populations with a normal distribution since the total amount of pre-university students was

around 1,200 people, and data have a tendency to create a normal curve as the number of

observations increases (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2017). As with the third assumption, it was difficult

to know whether the variance from the two populations were equal, thus, according to Larson-

observations must be independent within each treatment; 2) the population’s difference scores

must have a normal distribution and it should not be a concern if the sample size is large enough

(Gravetter & Wallnau, 2017). In our study, the first assumption was met since the treatment

applied to the same participants took place at different times. As for the second assumption, we

believed it was not fulfilled, given that the sample size decreased during the period of study.

Nevertheless, when either of the above assumptions cannot be satisfied for dependent sample t

test, the Wilcoxon test is suggested (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2017).

ones obtained from the online calculator at https://lbecker.uccs.edu/.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

every session. For the second hypothesis, we only used a posttest after two weeks from the last

instructional session. For this reason, we divided this section in two types of analysis: analysis by

session and delayed posttest analysis. In turn, the analysis by session is divided in four types of

analysis: control group and experimental group pretest, control group pretest-posttest,

experimental group pretest-posttest, and control group and experimental group posttest. It is also

important to mention that although there were a couple of outliers, they were not removed from

the data since the conclusions were not different from the ones in which they were taken out.