1. UNIVERSITY OF GUADALAJARA
-One of the most well-known and largest universities in Latin America
-Network with both a high school system and a university system

2. HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION SYSTEM (SEMS)
22 programs: general, technical, and vocational
24 high schools
31 regional high schools + 66 modules
SEMS STUDENT POPULATION
110,280 in General High School
4,621 in Technical High School
5,310 in various vocational programs
SEMS TEACHER POPULATION
904 full-time
538 part-time
3,762 teach specific subjects
491 full-time trainer technicians
236 part-time trainer technicians
= 120,211 students
= 5,931 teachers

3. Of which an extremely limited amount are certified as English as a Foregin Language Teachers (TEFL)
Which is why research incites the analysis of the English classroom’s daily content.
Particularly, the amount of Spanish (mother tongue) use that takes place in the expected English environment.

4. Research Objective:
I) To describe the teachers’ use of Spanish in English classes in high schools from the Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara.

5. Justification
Some educators believe that the L1 should be prohibited from the classroom
Other teachers support and allow the use of the L1 in the EFL classroom
FACT: English teachers are not required to comply with an English policy in public high schools of Jalisco

6. Specific Objectives
Curriculum Design class of 34 students were divided into 3 groups for the same research: Group A, B, & C
Group C
To determine strategies used by the teacher to avoid the use of L1
To identify if teachers encourage the use of English
Group A
To identify the teachers’ beliefs about the L1
To investigate to what extent the L1 is used
Group B
To analyze and describe the purposes, functions (according to Jakobson, 1960), and frequency of which the L1 was used

7. Teachers’ Use of Español in the English High School Classroom: Research Methodology
Instruments
Observed and video recorded different high schools pertaining to the University of Guadalajara- 19 total schools
methodology(qualitative research)
interviewed 29 total English teachers
data analysis (qualitative content analysis method)

8. Subjects and context 29 teachers: ages vary from 23 to 60 years old
Whose workfield pertains to the Central region of the state of Jalisco
Teachers works with a pre-designed syllabus to cover each semester

9. Instruments Class observations and note-taking
Video recordings of classes
Questionnaires for teachers
Recorded interview with head coordinator of the language area that englobes all of the UDG high school education system

10. Data Collection Creswell’s (1998) steps to analyze data were utilized:
Read and analyzed field notes taken during observations
Wrote a detailed description of information gathered
Created chart to analyze the answers and comments teachers provided in interviews
Used video recordings as evidence and functioned as a tool of in-depth analysis
Coded data from all high school to discover patterns, if any.
Categorized data to simplify analysis
Interpreted data to solidify results

11. 5 CATEGORIES WERE CREATED TO ORGANIZE RESULTS
Teachers’ beliefs regarding the use of L1
My students need it, English is difficult
This is an English class; it must be taught in English
Students don’t care about English, it’s a mandatory subject
2. To what extent teachers use L1
Just in case of emergency
A couple of times would be OK, “una no es ninguna”
Half and half
Forget about English, let’s keep it simple

12. 3. Language functions for using L1 in class
3.1 Referential function
3.2 Emotive function
3.3 Conative function
3.4 Phatic function
3.5 Meta-lingual function
3.6 Poetic function
4. Teachers’ strategies to avoid using L1
5. Encouraging L2 after using L1

13. Conclusions
The use of L1 is demonstrated to be used based on the teacher's perception of the group’s understanding of the target language.
Mixed ability classes lead to the need of simplifying the content = the use of L1.
English only policy can lead to student frustration and disappointment.
No matter the purpose, Spanish was used in every class.

14. 5. The main functions observed, according to Jackobson (1960): referential (to convey meaning), meta-lingual (to communicate about the language code), and conative (to influence others’ actions).
6. 75% of teachers used the L1 as an aid.
7. 30% utilized the L1 as the dominant language.
8. The lack of language policy demonstrates that teachers do not feel obliged to encourage students to practice the L2 in class.
9. Only a few teachers attempted to use at least one technique to avoid using the L1 such as: mimicking, English synonyms, modeling examples.

15. References
Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining English Only in the ESL Classroom. Retrieved
Oct13,2016, from
_Only.pdf
Beristáin, H. (1995). Diccionario de Retórica y Poética (séptima edición). México: Editorial Porrúa.
Bowen, T. (2012). An article discussing the benefits of using the learners' first language in class. Retrieved Oct 13, 2016, from methodology/methodology/teaching-approaches/teaching-approaches-using-l1-in- class/ article
Burns, Anne. (1999) Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers. United Kingdom, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Blundell, J.A., Higgens, J. and Middlemiss, N. (1982) Functions in English. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Creswell, J. (1998) Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing Among five traditions. California: SAGE Publications.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K.(2007) Research Methods in Education. New York,NY: Routledge.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the First Language in the Classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3).
Doyle, Bob The information Philosopher. Retrieved November 1, 2016, from
Ganta, T. (2015). The strengths and weaknesses of task based learning (TBL) approach.Andhara, University of Andhara Pradesh.

16. Sebeok, T. 1960. Style in Language. New York: Cambridge
Jakobson, R. (1960) Closing statements: Linguistics and Poetics, Style in language, T.A. Sebeok, New-York.
Jordens, P. & Roberts, L. (n.d.). International Review of Applied Linguistics in LanguageTeaching, 53(3).
Kim, Y. & Petraki, E. (20006). Students’ and Teachers’ Use of and Attitudes to L1 in the EFL Classroom. The Asian EFL Journal, 11 (4),
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisiton. United States: Pergamon Press Inc.
Morrison, K.R.B (1993) Planning and Accomplishing School-Centred Evaluation. Dereham, UK: Peter Francis . In Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K.(2007) Research Methods in Education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mead, M. (1963) Anthropology and the Camera”, in W.D. Morgan (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Photography, Vol. I. New York: Greystone. pp In Flick, U.
(2006) An introduction to qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications.
Moharan, M. (2007). The Use of Students’ First Language (L1) in the Second Language (L2) Classroom. Retrieved Oct 13, 2016, from
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sebeok, T Style in Language. New York: Cambridge
Siniscalco, M. and Auriat, N. (2005). Questionnaire design. In Ross, K. (Ed.)
Quantitative research methods in Educational Planning. Paris, France: UNESCO
Tang, J. (2002). Using L1 in the English classroom. English Teaching Forum, 40(1), Retrieved Aug 10, 2007, from
High School Education System. (2017). In Universidad de Guadalajara: Red Universitaria de Jalisco. Retrieved February 14, 2017

17. Teachers’ Use of Español in the High School English Classroom
Universidad de Guadalajara
Curriculum design – Liliana Maria Villalobos Gonzalez, PhD.
AGUILAR ESTRADA JOSE LUIS
AGUIRRE CHAVEZ MAURA
BECERRA GONZALEZ GLORIA STEPHANIE
CASTILLO LARA MARIA FERNANDA
DE LA ROSA RICARIO MELISSA
DOMINGUEZ HERRERA FERNANDA ELIDA
ESPARZA CALDERON ISRAEL JOSE
FRANCO LOMELI AHTZIRI NATALY (PRESENTOR)
GARCIA GAMEZ DAVID ALBERTO
GARCIA NAVARRO ALICIA IVETTE
GONZALEZ FLORES ANDREA FERNANDA
HERNANDEZ PEÑA DAVID
JIMENEZ FLORES JESSICA NATALY
MARCIAL MARTINEZ ROCIO
MOLINA CASTAÑEDA MARIA DEL SOCORRO
MONCAYO TARIN ITZEL ALABAMA
MONTES ANAIS
MURILLO GARCIA MARISOL (PRESENTOR)
NUÑEZ PLASCENCIA MICHELLE ESTEFANIA
OLMOS BERNAL ANDREA DEL CARMEN
PAREDES VALDIVIA ADRIANA
PORTILLO LIZARRAGA ALMA FABIOLA
ROBLES MENDOZA HUGO ENREIQUE
RUBIO MICHEL CITLALI
RUIZ GOMEZ ABRAHAM MOISES
SOLIS VILLAVICENCIO SANDRA ISABEL
UVIÑA PEREZ JULIO SAID
VALDEZ DEL TORO ROCIO
VALDIVIA ALBA ITZEL
VELAZQUEZ OROZCO NAYELI MARIELY
VILLALOBOS ROBLEDO FRANCISCO JAVIER
ZUÑIGA MATA JUAN EDUARDO
ZUÑIGA VERDIN JOSE IGNACIO