Luận văn an investigation into teachers' and students' attitudes toward the use of mother tongue in english language classrooms at hongai high school

TRAN NGOC THUONG AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD THE USE OF MOTHER TONGUE IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS AT HON GAI HIGH SCHOOL Điều tra thái độ của gi

TRAN NGOC THUONG

AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD THE USE OF MOTHER TONGUE

IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS

AT HON GAI HIGH SCHOOL

( Điều tra thái độ của giáo viên và học sinh đối với việc sử dụng tiếng mẹ đẻ trong lớp học tiếng Anh ở trường THPT Hòn Gai)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

FIELD: METHODOLOGY CODE: 601410

HANOI - 2010

Scope of the study

Ams of the study

Chapter I: Literature review

1.1 Anaverview on the history of the mother tongue used in EFL classraom

12 Arguments against and for L1 use

1.2.1 Arguments against L1 use

12.1.1 The L1 Acquisition Argument

12.1.2 The language Compartmetalization Argument

1.2.1.3 Provision of the Maxinman Target Language Argument

1.2.2 Arguments Favouring L1 Use

1.2.2.1 The Pedagogical Role

12.2.2 The Psychological Role

12.2.3 The Socio- cultural Role

1.3 Uses of mother tongue in L2 acquisition

1.4 Theoretical and Research Tividence Pavoring and Disfavoring 1.1 Use

15 Amount of L1 and the Leamers’ Level

Chapter TT The study

11 Participants

11.2 Data Colicetion Tnstruments

112.1 The sludent questionnaire

Students’ self report on the purpose of Teacher’s L1 use

Students" hypothetical opinions of'Teachers’ reactions to their use of L] in

the classroom

The fiequency of teachers’ use of LL in various lessons,

English as a foreign language

Grammar ‘Translation Method

PART A: INTRODUCTION

‘his part presenis the rationale, scope, aims, method, design and research

questions,

1 Rationale

‘The role of mother tongue or L1 in L2 classrooms is a controversial issue in L2

education, Differenl researchers, teachers and slurdenls hold different attitudes towards this issue Advocates of a monolingual approach suggest that the target language should be the sole medium of commnnication in other words, L1 should be prohibited in the classroom for oplizual usc of the target language, As Atkinson (1993) has pointed out “every second spent using Li is a sccond not spent using English” (p.12) The mother tongue has been treated as a taboo subject, source of guilt anda hint of teachers” weakness to teach properly (Prodromou, 2001), 2 waste of lime Gannleviciene and Kavakiauskiene, 2002) This position has been influential and often assumed to be the hallmarks of good language

teaching (Atkinson, 1995) In contrast, scholars such as Schweers (1999), Kramsch (1993),

Alkinson (1987) anguc that classroom usc of tho Jaarncrs? native language has eortain advantages in some ways Ll can have productive pedagogical, affective and socio- cultural roles, Atkinson (1987) claims that “the potential of mother tongus, as a classroom resource is so great that its role should merit considerable attention and discussion in any allempl to develop @ ‘post- communicative approach’ lo TEFL for adolescents and adults"(p.241) Therefore, the use of students native language should not be banned

From my personal experience both as a student and teacher of English as a foreign language, I belicve that the appropriate usc of the students’ native language is of some benefits te students’ learning ‘This belief motivates me to carry out this study, which aims

lo exarnine how the 1.1 is used in the English banguage classroom, TTopefidly the current study’s findings will partially help more people especially foreign language teachers acknowledge the role of Li in the EEL classroom as well as know how to balance L and

L2 use inthe KEL classroom appropriately

2 Scope of the sturly

The study limits itself to the use of students’ native language as well as the teachars

and students’ attitudes towards the use of Li in the Lnglish language classroom, ‘The study

conducted at Hon Gai Upper Sccondary School in Quang Ninh

3 Aims of the study

The study aims to investigate the use of students’ mother tongue- Vietnamese- in

2, How otten do teachers and students use Vietnamese in EFL classtoom?

3 What do teachers and students use Vietnamese m EFL classroom for ?

4 Methods of the study

Both qualitative and quantitative research methods are used, including classroom observations, interviews, and questionnaire

© Classroom observations

Six conveniently- selected classes (of about 45 minutes in length) taught by three differcnt Icachors were observed Lo find out how frequerily and on what occasions Vietnamese is used

© Interviews

Post- observation interviews were conducted in order to gain insights into the teachers’ rationale of using I.1 in the classroom The interviews were transcribed filly and analyzed qualitativ:

5 Design of the study

The thesis cousisis of three patls:

Part A is the introduction, which presents the rationale, the scope, the aims, the methods and the design of the stady

Part B consis

of two closplars

Chapter £, the literature review, staris with a brief review of the literature on the role of mother longus in EFL classrooms, This includes major arguments against and for the use

of LI, and the pedagogic purposes for which student's native language could be employed

in the L2 classroom, Finally, an insight into the theoretical and research evidence favoring and disfavoring the use of I are presenled,

Chapter H, the study, presents the participants, the data collection instruments, the results and the discussion of the findings

Part C

he conclusion of the stuly In this perl, some recommendations on the use of mother tongue in EFL classroom, the limitation of the study and some suggestions on further research are presented

The appendixes arc the last part of the study following the reference

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews briefly the literature on the role of mother tongue in EFL classrooms Major arguments against and for the use of L1 and the pedagogic purposes for which students’ walive language coutd bs employed in the 1.2 classrooms are discussed in order to create a theoretical framework for the current study

L1 An overview on the history of the mother tongue used in EFL classroont

Looking at the history of mother tongue (LI) used in the L2 classroom, it can be casily seen Hat the use of LI keops changing periodically and regularly Several hundred years ago, bilingual teaching was favoured, with students learning through translation Llowatt (1984) tells us that the ideas of using L1 in the L2 classroom was a respected view

during the cra of The Grammar Translation Method-“GTM” GTM bad dominated late 19" and early 20" century teaching, and saw language learning as a means towards intellectual

development rather than as being for utilitarian, communicative purpose- the method in which nearly all phrases of (he lesson employ the use of students’ 1.1 and translation technique The use of LI to study L2 was almost universal and readily accepted, partly because language teaching placed an emphasis on the written word above the spoken words However, right afier (he Firs! World War, 1.1 use was scriously objected duc to GTM resulting in the lack of everyday vealistic spoken language content Moreover, the mass migration of people to other countries particular from Lurope to America slowly reversed this trend Loward a monolingual approach “IL was important for celucators then to refocus their lesson from students with a common L1 to students with mixed LL” (Hawks,

2001, p47) No longer could teacher rely on using L] to help them ‘The solution to such linguistically- mixed classes was using the 1.2 as the medium of teaching and the language teaching placed an cmphasis on the spoken language

A sudden and immediate removal of L1 from the classroom happened at the time of the Direel Method of the early 20 century This approach aimed at oral competence and believed languages were best learnt ina way that enmlated the “natural” Janguage learning

of the child Therefore, there was no place for translation in the classroom, ie with no

analysis of translation ‘Ihe Direct Method would soon be discredited when it failed in the

al all costs This theoretical opposition to tho use of 1.1 was compounded by the development of the TEFL “industry”- there are now many situations in which the teacher simply doesn’t speak or even understand the students’ language, simply because the

loachor is an English native spsuker who does nol speak (he students’ native language

In the last thirty years or so, there have contimsed to be some methodologies which avoid the use the Li, with ‘Total Physical Response being one of these methodologies But others, like Suggestopaedia and Counselling Language Learning have included it as an intcgral part of classroom pedagogy

Recently though support for an English only policy has been declining, and some researchers and teachers have begum lo advocale more bilingual approach lo teaching „ which would incorporate the students’ L1 as a learning tool Others have even gone fir as

saying the use of L1 in the classroom is necessary (Schweers, 1999, p6) Additionally,,

new empirical findings of bilingual research have recently supported the use of T.1 in the classroom with a central argument that the side-ettect of L1 may be unwanted, resulting fiom the attitude of disaitected teacher (Butzcam,2003)

In short, the pendulum of L1 use swings with the methodological change Hor cxampts, during the leydays of the communicative approach, 1.1 use tended to be discouraged (Cole,1998; Cock,1999; 2001a, 2001b; Prodromou, 2001) The avoidance of learners” Li was also reflected in most of the L2 teaching material during this period (Atkinson,1987, 1995; Buckmaster, 2002, G Cook, 2001 b; Hawks, 2001),

L2 Arguments against and for L1 use

1.2.1 Arguments against L1 use

There is a varisly of arguments agains using the students’ mothar tongug (7.1) in the ESL or EFL classroom, Cook,¥ (2001b) presents three main arguments for avoiding

using L1 1m the target language classroom

1 The L1 Acquisition Argument

2 The Language Compartinentalization Argument

3 The Maximum Provision of the L2 Argument

{he L1 Acquisition Argument

While research may nol be eutirely convincing, Krashen (1981) and Lewis (1993) claim that adults lear the L2 similar to the way children pick up their mother tongue It is crucially based on the notion of exposure as being the determining factor for learning Children learn their first language tlrough listening and copying whal those around then say That is L] acquisition does not rely on another language or children in the L1 can not fall back on another language However, according ta Cook, (2001a, 2001b) the argument that 1.1 children do not fall back on another language neither supports nor rejects the usc of

LI in an L2 classroom There are indeed, diffarences between the first and the second language acquisition in terms of age and situations Similarly, Weschler (1997) explains

“Children take years following the natural order of acquisition to master the concrete before the abstract On the contrary, having mastered the letter, adults can take shortcut”(p.4) Cook (2002) notes that the misguided vision of the first language acquisilion is ong of those faclors that have oullawed the role of iiansilion in second! foreign ianguage teaching 1 myself believe that in terms of language leaning, it is unreasonable to generalize what is true for children is also true for adults It is inevitable thal adults make reference to their 1 knowledge while learning 1.2 This tells us [hai am attempt to avoid students’ Li is unrealistic in the L2 classroom

1.2.1.2 The language Compartmetalization Agument

'This is the view that “successful learning involves the separation and distinction of L1 and 12 for fear of interfircnec” (Cook 200th: 406) He gacs an to argue that theoretically, the two languages are distinct, they are interrelated in the L2 users’ mind in many ways (phonology, morphology, syntax and pragmatics) Thus L1 is affected by L2 and viee versa Therefore, scholars such as Atkinson (1987), Cook (2002), Cohen (1996) cited in Weshler (1997), Edie (1999); Harbord (1992), Swan (1985) claim that it is impossible (o sepzrale 11 and L2 Slern (1992), for instance, noles thal “the T.1-L2 conneetion is undispulable facl of life, whether we Tike it or nol the new knowledge is leant on the basis of previous acquired language” (p.208) Likewise, Cook (2002:6) feels that switching and negotiation between languages are a part and parcel of everyday

language use for the majority of the world popniation ‘hase scholars have agreed that

since the mother tongue and target language co-cxist in (he Tearners’ mind, in the learning

activities they involve, there is no point in making an attempt to keep LI ftom L2

In terms of translation between L and L2, some scholars think that translation can

be dangerons as il encourages the belie thal there are [ lo 1 sguivalenls between the languages, which is not always the case (Pacek, 2003) For instance, Haltai (1989: 88) argues that translation is considered as bad name for the fear of interfere errors Similarly,

Cook (2002) maintains thai lranstalion fosters a sense of false

sqivalonce between the wo languages resulting in the inter-language errors The danger of translation in encouraging structural or lexical equivalence is also clearly described in Gowers and Walters “Leaching

Stern (1992) tightly argues that since L2 learners often use their LI for reference, it is

impossible to avoid the interference errors at any cost, rather we need to acknowledge thom as psycholinguistics given Hc also states that by demonstrating where the L1 and L2 are similar or different in terms of phonology, lexical and grammar, we can help learners to respond to the Hkely errors in advance (p.297) Richards (1986 cited in Wesheter,1997) holds a similar view that comparing and contrasting of the two languages would allow the learners to predict the possible L1 interference It is suggested by Richards that interfere problems can be addressed through carefully designed teaching materials

The importance of contrastive analysis is also validated by research study conducted by Tomasello and Herron (1989) in the context of Portuguese Their findings

indicate that translation techniques that stress the comparison and contrast between L1 and

12 clemenls ( Phonology, morphology, cle) are cffeetive ways of dcaling wilh the interference and over gensralization errors, The result of the study partly helps learners or teachers reexamine the LI avoidance because its use results in the fallacy of equivalence between the two languages

‘Taking those empirical findings into consideration, it’s safe to say that if there’s L1 interference, encouraging learners to rélale 1.2 to 11 to discover the similarities and diereneos bơlweơn the two languages would reduc the possible occurences af the transfer errors As far as Tam concerned, L1 interference can not be avoided because this is

one of the learning strategies L2 learners use in the process of L2 acquisition However, an

overemphasis on L1 transfer is likely to lead to the ignorance of the benefits of LI 1 belicve that 1.1 is helpful in helping 1.2 team

to imernalize 1.2 impul when uscd appropriately This will be discussed in the subsequent sections

1.2.1.3 Provision of the Maxinum Target Language Argument

According to Tang (2002), this is the most common argument agains! the use in the L2 classroom Scholars who hold the opponents of the L1 use in the class assume that L2 learners often have little or no exposure to the target language outside the classroom Hence, teachers should make an advantages of his valuable classroom Lime for usinyy 1.2 instead of L1

‘The desirability of classroom communication in the target language as mach as

possibte is the view that most tớ and theorists agree upon (Harbord1992:351)

“Every second spent using Ll is a second not spent using English” (David Atkinson: 1993: p.12) However, Cook (2001b); ‘Turnbull (2001); Dajani (2002) suggest that LI should not be used at any cost, teachers are advised to maximize the use of the target language without overlooking the students’ first language In other words, according to these scholars, exposure to L2 is necessary but not sufficient for L2 acquisition or intake Richard Miles (2004) thinks thal monolingual teaching cau creale tension and a barvier between students and teachers, and there are many occasions when it is inappropriate and impossible When something in a lesson is not being understood, and is then clarified dough the use of 1.1, thal barrier and tension can be teduced or removed Therefore, “4 ptinciple that promotes maximum teachers’ use of the target language acknowledges that L1 and L2 can exist simultanzously” (Turnbull 2001; 535)

L myself agree with the idea that teachers should fill the classroom with as much of 1.2 as possible However, “English only” may be Loo challenging Lo students, iL touds nol to ensure students’ comprehension of the meanings of the certain L2 language elements It is not sufficient for leamers to acquire L2 The use of learners’ Li is necessary to facilitate L2 intake, so it is advisable for language teacher to "usc English where possible and L2 where necessary” Weschler (1997:5) This view has been accepted in the recent literature

of L.1 use, which will be discu

sed in the following section

1.2.2 Arguments Favouring © Use

In the past two decades, the monolingual approach has been questioned and reexamined, in consideration of the fact that it is more based on political grounds than on

methodological ones (Auerbach, 1993, Cole, 1998, Lucas & Kantz 1994) Accordig ta

Auerbach (1993), an English only poticy in the 12 classroom “is rooted ín a particular ideological perspective, rests on unexamined assumptions, and serves to reinforce inequalities in broader social order(b9) Since then, there has been a movement of promoting the use of the mother tongue in the language classroom Professionals im second language acquisition have become increasingly aware of the roles of the mother tongue in the EEL classroom such as the pedagogical role, the psychological role and the socio-cultural Tole, which are going Lobe in turn arguad as follows:

1.2.2.1 The Pedagogical Role

Contrary to the claim that the use of Li will harm or affect the progress or cffectivoncss of 1.2 learning, many scholars argue Thal 11 tas its pedagogical vahuos and should have a place in L2 learning The mother tongue is learners` linguistic schemata and resources to which learners rsfér while trying to acqure L2 ‘Yo be more specific, the mother tongne is a source for the learners to draw their existing linguistic knowledge fom and perceive the new language, Gabriclatos (2001) says that L2 learners tend to rely on their existing knowledge (L1 and L2) to understand the logic and organizational principles

of the larget language Both Swan (1989) and Dajani (2002) maintain that learning a second language is the continuation of the already existing L1 knowledge, L2 learners refer to their knowledge of L1 in order to help them to learn the L2 Their L1 is a resource

in understarwling the larget language Tene, Auerhach (1993, p7) asserts (hal shuckents” linguistic resources can be beneficial for learners at all levels of proficiency She emphasizes that allowing the use of the LI in early second language acquisition facilitates

the transition to English Nation (2001) also supports this argument concerning the L2

vocabulary acquisition through translation (o he a very effective strategy for speoding up vocabulary growth The argument that translation causes negative transfer is no longer valid Translation, on the contrary, is believed to be an important toot in bridging the gap between what lcamers bring and the onc which is new and difficult (i.c, L2) In fact, one bridging function of translation is its usefulness to create opportunities for comparative analysis belwean the mother tongue and (he targel language (Murakami, 1999, Nammushin ,

2002) According lo Chomsky (1976:29), “The grammar of a language consisis of

universal principles of a language” Building on this idea, Towell and Hawkins (1994)

indicate that L2 learners transfer the grammatical properties of their L1 into their L2

gtammmar ‘This possibility of transfering L1 knowledge to L2 learning is also a strategy

used by mos! 1.2 learners in most of the places ( Harbord, 1992; Rubin: Stern 1992)

Deller (2003) demonstrates seven uses of L1 as an excellent resource for L? leaning especially for students at lower level of L2 proficiency if used effectively as follows:

1 Ttisusefl tonotice difference and similarities between the two languages

2, Lewmers căn aujoy materials unal snight otherwise be Loo difficult for than

3 Leamers can develop and praduce their own materials including their own tests

Allowing the use of mother tongute can enconrage spontaneity and fluency

3, Using mother tongue cat equip leamere wilh the words or expression they really want or need in

English

6, Using mother tongue can have beneficial effect on gronp dynamics

7 Us 2 mother ronare ensures that learners are able te give on going feedback

(Deller 2003:3)

1.2.2.2, The Psychological Role

LI is believed to reduce the affective barriers to L2 acquisitions Study by Gacia

(2000) shows that the use of 1.1 lowers stuconis’ language arodicty and cntumees positive aitective environment for the students to make progress in their L2 learning, The most important benefit of L1 use in the classroom is that it “allows for the language to be used

as a meaning-twaking lool and for language fearning lo become a means of commumicaling idcas rather than an end in its self” ( Auctbach, 1993,pp 10-11)

Shamash (1990) believes that using the mother tongue allows the learners to experiment and take risks in Frglish, Building on Shamash’s (1990) belief, Auerbach (1993:19) points out that “starting with L1 provides a sense of security and validates the Iearners’ lived experiences, allowing them to express themselves” She also asserts that the use of I] rodueos the psychological barriers to English learning and allows far more rapid progression, This view is shared by Janulevicine and Kavlaliauskiene (2002) who claim that “the ability to switch to a native language, even for a short time, gives learners

an opportunity to preserve self image, get rid of anxiety, build confidence and feel independent in their choice of expression”, For Atkinson (1993), the occasional use of L1 allows learners (particularly adults and teenagers) to show that they are intelligent and sophisticated people

In short, Li usc in the class helps students fool sccure and creates a more comfortable learning atmosphere, which in tum enhances the L2 acquisition

1.2.2.3, The Socio- cultural Role

Prodromou (2001) sess the use of mother longue as a means through which L2 learners bring their cultural background into the L2 classroom, He believes that classroom ethnic cultures are indeed a starting point for a variety of classtoom activities The

classroom culture and the culture of the society in which leamers live is a good starting point for helping students to authenticate the target language, Choffey (2001) has demonstrated that students’ L1 culture and physical environment are of great help in

‘oom activities He

physical environment to leam the L2:

1 ‘To link the activities to the students’ situation ( experience)

2 Students lươm how to deal with specific lexical items between the 1.1 and the 12 cultures

3 ‘To establish firm relationships between L1 and L2

It’s advisable to consider the following lists of Prodromow’s (2001) metaphoric expressions which might bricfly summarise the above mentioned three claims for the merit

of using L] and the problems that may ensure as a result of its imprudent use He uses the following metarphors for the upside and downside of L.1 use in the 1.2 classroom, Thus,

LI can be viewed as:

1 adrg (through with therapeutic potential, il can damage your health and may become addilive)

2 a resonree trem which we draw)

3 awall (an obstacle to teaching)

4 a window ( which opens oul to Lhe world oulside Lhe classrown; if we look through il we soc the

sludents’ previous experiance, their interest, their knowledge of the world, their culture,

5 acrutch (it can help ur get hy in a lesson bot it is a recognition af weakness)

6 alubricant ( ithelps the wheels of a lesson moving amoothly, it thus saver time)

(Irottœnơu, 2001:2)

1.3 Uses of mother tongue in LZ acquisition

As far as the proponents of LI ars concerned, teachers can take advantages of lbwir students’ first language in many occasions Atkinson (1987:245-44) has listed the following as an area of language teaching in which teachers can make use of L1: eliciting

check meanings of words or sentences, explain grammar, organize class, maintain

disciplines, gain contact with individual students and lost Aurcbach (1993: 21) includes the following in her lists of possible occasions for using mother tongue ; negotiation of the syllabus and the lesson, record keeping, classroom management, scene setting, language analysis, presernation of rulss governing grammar, phonology, morphology and spelling, discussion of cross-cultural issues, instructions or prompts, explanation errors, and assessment of comprehension,

Cook ( 2001b: 4177) suggests (roc important cases thal mighl load loarnets lo use

their L1:

1 As part of the main leaming activities

2 Within classroom aolivitios ( group/ pair work)

3, Asa way to the meaning of L2 words both inside and outside the classroom ( 2.2, the use of bilingual dictionaries)

Tlowever, regarding to using the first language in pair or group work, teachers are often advised about how to discourage students from using L1 One problem conecmning

LI use in smail groups is that “If they are talking in small groups, it can be quite difficult

lo gel some classes particularly, the less disciplined and motivated ons 10 keep to the target language” (Ur, 1996:121)

Yet, Cook (2001a:157); Harmer (2001); G Cook (2002) and Harbord (1992) argue Ukal code switching is a normal feature of 1.2 use When students share wo Tanguages without the distrust of L1, there is no reason why students should not resort to their L1, To Cook (2001 b), L1 provide scaffolding help: through L1 students may explain the tasks to each other, negotiate the role they are going to take, check their understanding or produvlion of the language againsl their poors According to him T.1 is especially helpful when the activities involve problem solving in which case students could put their heads together and discuss the sofution to the problems ( p 418) Likewise, Ilarbord (1897: 354) explains that L1 has a varicty of roles; explanation by students to pccrs who have not understood, giving individual help to weaker students during pair or group work, and siudent- student comparison or discussion Curmninghars (2000) makes a strong stalement thal denying the usc of L.1 int pait/ group work is almost tantamount lo denying slurdents? access to an important learning tool: the other students Students are drawing on each other’s knowledge (Atkinson 1993), Harmer (2001-132) believes that L1 use is quite

acceptable, for example, when students are working in pairs studying a reading text Le, however, docs warn Ital using T4 for an sotivily like oral Quenay is almost painless

L4 Theoretical and Research Evidence Favoring and Disfavering L1 Use

Except for few specific references mentioned for the benefits of not using LI ( e.g, Fllis (1984) and Chamber (1991 cited in Tawks 2001) who themselves da not give any detail accounts of L1 avoidance but based their arguments solely on practical survey, there

is hardly any research and theoretical evidence that validate the benefits of ignoring the Isamers' T1 in the 1.2 classroom, In this connection, Aucrbach (1993:9), fram instances, writes “evidence fiom research and practice suggests that the rationale used to justify English only in the classroom is neither conclusive nor pedagogically sound” Weschler (1997) tas cchacd simitar view, noting thal the English only approach is without any sound theory or substantiated research Marcaro (1997) adds that the exclusive use of L2

has not been justified yet Concurring with many of the above views, Cook (2001a:157)

reveals that second language acquisition researchers have been unable to provide any real reasons for kecping L1 from the L2 classrooms

On the other hand, findings fiom a small number of studies (e.g, Burden, 2001;

Schweers, 1999; Tang, 2002) in Japanese, Spanish and Chinese conlexls respectively have

shown that both University teachers and students have positive attitude towards the use of

LI in their English classrooms The results of their studies further suggested that a limited

Thus, as (Cook 2001a: 155) noles “if the twenty first century teaching is to continue to accept the ban on the first language imposed

by the late nineteenth century, it will have to look elsewhere for its rationale”

the use of T.1 ( Greeec) in their Engtish cl

LS Amount of 1.1 and the Learners’ Level

Stern (1992) claims that it would be advisable to allocate some time in which Li is used in order hal questions can be asked, meanings can be verified, uncertainties can be

clear and oxplaratious can be givon which may not he possible to the students through the use of L2 This view is also shared by Atkinson (1987), Harbord (1992) and Bolitho

(1983) For example the majority of teachers in Sehweers's (1999), Tang's (2002) and

Burden’s (2001) studies emphasize the importance of the occasional use of L1 in the L2

classrooms

However, what exactly constitutes the appropriate mixture of Li and L2 has not

been well investigated (Stern 1992); Tumbull (2001)firther recommends that more explorations need (a be done lo address this issue Atkinson (1987:236) suggests that “at

early levels a ratio of about 5% native to about 95 % target language may be profitable” In

a study of elementary Core Krench in Western Canada, Shapson, Kaufman and Durword

(1987) stipulated 75% of the target Tamguage as the acceptable quimlily by the teachers

(cited in Twnbull 2001) Similar study but a bit larger seale evaluation of the same program by Colman and Daniel (1988), in Central Canada shows that 95% use of the target

language was decizd appropriate by the researchers and school board While these

findings are not overtly conclusive, they do however illustrate that there is a disparity between the reports with regard to the L1-L2 proportion It seems ftom this that ‘'umbull (

2001) recommends farther studies to be carried out in this area

With regard to the level of students, Atkinson (1987), Stem (1992) and Hawks

(2001) suggest that the mother tongue has a variety of roles at all levels But as Stern

(1992) and Tawks (2001) nole it smy be snore important to use (he mother tongne

judiciously and gradually reduce that quantity of L1] as the students becomes more and

mote proficient in the target language

Tn general, though if is very difficult to quantify the possible amounl of mother

tongue required for etfective second or foreign language learning, it seems that it would be

at least important to be aware of the fact that L1 can be used systematically with varying

intensities for learners ranging from early levels io the more advanced ones On the other

lund, as significant amount of literature claims (e.g, Medgyes, 1994; Nuran ard Lamb, 1996; Murakami, 1999; Reis, 1996) an attempt to employ 100% target language,

especially, with students at lower level of L2 proficiency appears to be impractical If one

docs, it is to try to “teach the targct language with almost then the maximum possible

proficiency” (Atkinson 1987: 247) I also understand that the monolingual approach to L2

leaching may leave the learners uncerlain about the meanings of some words or concepls

oven with the aid of visual or contextual elnes

This chapter reviews the literature on L1 use As it is reflected in the chapter that

there has been a significant change in the way the role of L1 has been viewed In fact, there

has been abundant empirical evidence to support the use of LI in ths classroom Llowever, this

CHAPTER II: TIIE STUDY

‘This chapter will present the participants, the data collection instruments, the data analysis and the discussion of the findings

TL Participants

190 students were the participants of the present study, of which 105 were in grade

10, 66 were in grade 11 and 29 were in grade 12 All these students have leamt Lnglish at lower secondary school Their English were al pro-intermediats level More than half of them Jearn English so as to take the university entrance exam, At school they learn two kinds of textbook of the Ministry of Lducation and Training namely basic level and advanced level Tluce English teachers were the targct population of the study, The teacher participants have graduated from universitics for teacher of forcign languages Their experience of teaching English varies from 5 years to 30 years According to Nunan

all of therm

(19928), they are all in the category of experienced teachers, Like the studen

are native-speakers of Vietnamese

IL2 Data Collection Instruments

Roth quaHialive and quantitative Tusoarch methods were used, including class observations, interviews, and a student questionnaire to collect relevant information for the study

IL2.1 The student questionnaire

The questionnaire was administered 1 the students IL contains ten items including both close and open-ended items in Vietnamese so that the students can tally understand the questions (see appendix I) Some of the items were in fact adapted from Schweers (1999) in such a way that they suit the purpose of the study

The questionnaire emphasizes on

© The attitude of students towards the use of Vietnamese in the EFL classroom

* The extent of their actual classroom usc of the language

1.2.2 Classroom observations

Six classes (of shoul 45 minales in length) conducted by 3 teachers ware observed

to find out oceasions on which Vietnamese was used in the English classroom as well as the purpose of the mother tongue use ‘Lhe information obtained from the classroom

observation was also used to confirm the data obtained throngh the questionnaires Vor

Unstructured interview questions were sel lo solicil pertinent dala from the three

different teachers whose classes were observed and noted, Unstructured interview was preferred because if is thought that it gives a wider freedom to the interviewees to express their views and botiofs (Shohamy and Sctiger 1989; Wallacz 1998)

The interview was felt to be suitable for the stady for it was aimed to generate in depth information fiom the interviewees on matters related to the use and non use of sindonts first language in the EFL classroom, The intorview was conductod after the lessons

IL3 Procedures for data collection

The required data were collected in the second term of 2009- 2010 school year First, the questionnaire was given to students Instruction as to bow to complete the questionnaire was given in Vietnamese Next, 6 classes of three teachers were observed Finally, each leacher was interviewed right aller they had taught the two classes around 15 minutes,

IL4, Results

1.4.1 Student questionnaire

The student respondents revealed that they had positive attitudes towards Li use in the classrooms clearly shown in Table 1

It is interesting that only 10.64 % agreed that L1 use should be minimized in the

classroom, Nearly halCof the students (47.52%@)preferred LT use when they worked in pair work or group work and more than one third of the students (34,73%) would rather use a bilingual dictionary

Table { Students’ preference for E.1 use in the classroom (N= 199)

1 Th your opinion, should Viemamese be used in the

English classroom at a school level?

b When asking and answering questions 18.94

¢ When using Frgtish- Vietnamese dictionaries | 34.73

Why do you think that the use of Vietnamese is important in the English language classroom?

Because:

a It helps me to understand new vocabulary | 5315

item beltor (c.4¢ some abstract words)

b, It helps me to understand difficult concepts | 35.26 better

6 Thrmakes me fect al case, comfortable and tess | 39.47 stressed

¢ Other reasons (please spzcif})

In your opinion, how mich does English teachers?

use of Vietmamese help you to leam English ?

6 Low difficult do you think il would be for you lo

understand the English lessous if your English teacher exclusively used English?

a l¿xiremely difficult 18.13

v Very difficull 29.12

€ Diffñcult 4341 d= Not difficnlt 934

According to their responses to question 5, 40.52% thought an amount of 21-30%

of the classroom time devoted to L1 was reasonable Approximately 22% and 21% supported the idea that 1.1 shonid be used round 11-22% and 31-40% respectively Only 14.21% preferred the teachers to use LI up to 40-50% and 2.11% favored an amount of less than 10% of the classroom time for L1 use Question 6 showed students’ perception of

haw difficult it might be if the teacher used English exclusively in the classroom Nearly half of them (43.41%) believed if the teacher used English exclusively, it would be difficult for them to understand the lesson, In addition, 29.12% and 18,13% rated this as being very difficult and extremely difficult respectively Only a tiny percentage of the

respondents (9.34%) thought thal the teacher's cnlircly usc of English would nol be a serious problem to them in understanding the lesson

In items 7 and 8, students were asked to report on Teachers’ L1 use Results are

presented in Table 2 below

Table 2: Stustents’ self-report on Teacher’ LI use (N= 190)