a research into the role and the use of first language in general-english classes at hanoi university of industry = nghiên cứu về vai trò và việc sử dụng ngôn ngữ thứ nhất trong các lớp học tiếng anh cơ bản

Problem statement Among a number of experts in the field of second language acquisition, there are increasing contradicting views about whether to use the mother tongue of the students

MA THESIS English LANGUAGE

60 22 15

Hµ NéI – N¡M 2010

Field: English language Field code: 60 22 15

Supervisor: Dr Ha Cam Tam

Hµ NéI – N¡M 2010

Acknowledgement

Abstract

INTRODUCTION 1

1 Problem statement 1

2 Aims of the study 2

3 Scope of the study 3

4 Method of the study 3

5 Organization of the study 4

DEVELOPMENT 5

Chapter 1: Literature review 5

1.1 The historical view of the issue 5

1.2 The current mixed views 8

1.2.1 Support for the Monolingual Approach 8

1.2.2 Support for the Bilingual Approach 9

1.3 Approaches to vocabulary teaching 13

1.4 Adults L2 vocabulary acquisition model 13

1.5 Action research 15

Chapter 2: The study 18

2.1 Design of the study 18

2.1.1 Research hypotheses 18

2.1.2 Data collection instruments 18

2.1.3 Participants 21

2.1.4 Procedures 21

2.2 Analytical framework 23

Chapter 3: Analysis and discussion 24

3.1 Data preparation 24

3.2 Scoring the data 24

3.2 Results of the tests 25

3.4 Results of classroom observation 31

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS 37

2 Implications 37

3 Suggestions for further studies 38

Reference

Appendixes

INTRODUCTION

1 Problem statement

Among a number of experts in the field of second language acquisition, there are increasing contradicting views about whether to use the mother tongue of the students (L1)

in the foreign language (L2) classroom or learning environments

The monolingual approach suggests that the target language ought to be the sole medium

of communication, implying the prohibition of the native language would maximize the effectiveness of learning the target language However, there seems to be an increasing conviction that the first language (L1) has a necessary and facilitating role in the second and foreign language (L2) classroom

Many English language professionals dispute the L1 use in the classroom, something that should never happen in modern communicative lessons They wonder how students can truly appreciate target language exchanges if they are continually relying on their L1s (Mattioli, 2004) Ellis notes that too much L1 use could “deprive the learners of valuable input in the L2” (1984, p 133) Auerbach (1993) observes that in ESL classroom

a numbers of teachers, holding the belief that L1 use will impede progress in the acquisition of English, devising games, signals, and penalty systems to prevent the students from using their L1 This is evidenced by the article of Weinberg (1990), extolling the virtues of fining students for using their L1 “This is an English-only classroom If you speak Spanish or Cantonese or Mandarin or Vietnamese or Russian or Farsi, you pay me

25 cents.”

On the other hand, many professionals in the field of second language and foreign language acquisition agree that L1 should be used with students who are not highly proficient in the target language (Nation, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Atkinson, 1987; Tang, 2002; Auerbach, 1993; Mattioli, 2004) This may suggest that L1 plays an important role in language teaching, especially for the low proficiency learners (LPL) However, there are not many empirical studies that have examined specifically what good effects the use of L1 can have on teaching LPL

Therefore, it seems necessary to look at the approaches for L1 using from different perspectives and in different fields of L2 learning, that is from teachers‟ and students‟ points of view, in students‟ learning of grammar, vocabulary or skills, etc This study research focused on one of those factors – students‟ learning of vocabulary And it is hoped

that the findings of this study, to some extent, will contribute to the pedagogic methodology, especially in teaching English in general and in teaching vocabulary at universities in Vietnam as well as at Hanoi University of Industry in particular

The reason the researcher focused on vocabulary acquisition is that the acquisition

of vocabulary has a central role in learning a second language (Sökmen, 1997), and is of great significance to language learners, really important for the four language skills (Cook, 1991) Words are the building blocks of a language since they label objects, actions, ideas without which people cannot convey the intended meaning so second language learners need to have a substantial vocabulary size (Nation, 2001) The prominent role of vocabulary knowledge in second or foreign language learning has been recently recognized

by theorists and researchers in the field Accordingly, numerous types of approaches, techniques, exercises and practice have been introduced into the field to teach vocabulary (Hatch & Brown, 1995) The study of Ringbom in 1987 clearly indicates that L1 clearly has a very important role to play in the deliberator learning vocabulary (Nation, 2001) Auerbach (1993) claims that the use of the learner‟s L1 in the L2 classroom will have a positive effect on learners‟ second language learning, especially in the area of vocabulary However, what effects the use of L1 in English vocabulary teaching can cause to students‟ learning is still an unanswered question that the researcher is endeavoring to discover

2 Aims of the study

The issue this paper examined in more detail is in what ways the use of students‟ L1 in the classroom hinders or facilitates their learning of vocabulary of second language (in this case English)

The debate over whether English language classrooms should include or exclude students' native language has been a controversial issue for a long time (Brown, 2000) Although the use of mother tongue was banned by the supporters of the Direct Method at the end of the nineteenth century, the positive role of the mother tongue has recurrently been acknowledged as a rich resource which, if used judiciously, can assist second language teaching and learning (Cook, 2001) Still, so many teachers have questions about whether to provide L1 support, as TESOL programs at all levels on the market today provide neither explicit training nor adequate theoretical information on the subject Teachers are left to work things out on their own

For the researcher, the question of whether or not to use students' first language (L1 / Vietnamese) in English classes comes from personal daily teaching, recent literature she has read, presentations she has attended and the same concern of her peer teachers This position of being for the idea that L1 should be used at certain times may seem heretical in light of what most of us were taught when trained as ESL/EFL professionals, but it is surely worthy of serious consideration

Therefore, this research study tries to find evidence for the approval of using learners' mother tongue in a thoughtful way in second language teaching In essence then,

it is a form of action research where the findings could have a direct impact on this particular school and the way vocabulary is taught The research is done in order to find out the effects of using L1 in English classroom on students learning of vocabulary

3 Scope of the study

This study concentrates on “the role and the use of first language in

General-English classes at Hanoi University of Industry” In this study, L1 using will be investigated through applied-linguistic aspect However, English as a language consists of different fields to teach and learn, and Vietnamese can have different roles in teaching students of different levels Therefore, the study is mainly concerned with teacher‟s use and allowing the use of Vietnamese in teaching vocabulary to non-majored students of English at elementary level

4 Method of the study

This study is carried out in the form of an action research in which the teacher applied different approaches (including and excluding Vietnamese) in teaching vocabulary

to her students and studied the consequences of each method in order to compare their effectiveness The study consisted of two experiment: the first experiment with 4 classes divided into two groups (control and experimental group) which are taught with two different approaches After some early conclusion has been drawn based on the findings of the first experiment, the second one was conducted for the purpose of further strengthening those findings In the second experiment, though, the two different approaches were used with the same class in different lessons During the process of teaching experiments, observations of classroom interactions were made by the teacher researcher and some tests were delivered to student The records of the observation and the tests‟ results presented the effectiveness of Vietnamese using in students‟ learning English vocabulary

5 Organization of the study

The study consists of three chapters Before we can begin with the experiments, chapter 1 examines the issue of L1 use in a language classroom in detail, and more particularly in vocabulary lessons, so as to be able to place these experiments in the proper context Chapter 2 deals with the study which included two experiments from the design to analytical framework In chapter 3 results of the observations and tests will be found together with some discussion about English learning and teaching First of all, we should have a review of the issue in literature

DEVELOPMENT Chapter 1: Literature review

This chapter starts with historical view of the problem, then important findings and arguments from opponents and proponents of an English-only policy will be looked at, followed by a quick view of the action research method

A look at the history of L1 use in the L2 classroom quickly reveals periodic but regular changes in how it is viewed (Auerbach, 1999, p12) Several hundred years ago bilingual teaching was the „norm‟, with students learning through translation The use of L1 to study L2 was almost universal and readily accepted, in part because language teaching placed an emphasis on the written word above the spoken word In the 19

th

century, this trend slowly reversed itself (towards a monolingual approach), in part due to a shift towards an emphasis on the spoken word The impact of mass migration, colonialism and a large increase in research in the field, would further strengthen the Monolingual Approach in the 20

th

century

The mass migration of people to other countries, particularly from Europe to America was important because it forced educators to refocus their lessons, from smaller translation-oriented classes to bigger classes, and perhaps from students with a common L1

to students with a mixed L1 (Hawks, 2001, p47) No longer could teachers rely on using L1 to help them The only way to teach was to use the L2 as the medium of teaching

Experiences garnered by the many teachers who went abroad during the colonial teaching period would further help the monolingual tenet to evolve (Phillipson, 1992, p186) As English became the predominant culture in the British colonies, those who were not a part of it were forced to assimilate if they wished to better their life or be a part of the ruling elite This led to the perceived superiority of English above all other languages and would in part eventually lead to a commonly held assumption that English was the only language that should be spoken in the English-language classroom

The rise of an English-only classroom for political and practical reasons (of the teacher‟s, not the student‟s) conversely brought about the exclusion of the student‟s L1 Those caught using L1 were often punished or shamed for doing something wrong (Phillipson, 1992, p187) The idea of bilingual education was seen as unnatural or

inefficient (Pennycook, 1994, p136) Perhaps furthering the desirability of an English-only policy was the fact that many teachers themselves were monolingual They could not, nor did they perceive the need to speak the L1 of their students (Phillipson, 1992, p188) By enforcing an English-only policy, the teacher could assume control of the class, and would naturally be in a position of strength On the other hand, by using L1 in the classroom, the teacher risked undermining him/herself, as the students being the better speakers would control the communication

The emphasis on monolingual teaching of English also inherently implied that the native speaker was the ideal teacher This was closely tied not only to political agendas, but also to the economics of the global EFL field (Pennycook, 1994, p176) English speakers could control all the employment opportunities, by being seen as the „ideal teacher‟

The appearance of the Direct Method of teaching just over a hundred years ago also contributed greatly to the consolidation of the idea that all L1 languages should be excluded from the classroom (Harbord, 1992, p350) & (Pennycook, 1994, p169) The premise of the Direct Method was that second language learning mirrored first language acquisition: lots of oral interaction, little grammatical analysis and no translation The Direct Method would soon be discredited when it failed in the public education system (Brown, 1994, p44), but it would have a lasting influence on ESL/EFL classrooms

Also pivotal in forwarding the argument that L1 should not be used in the classroom was Krashen, who advocated maximum exposure to the target language He stated that all the lessons or as much as possible should be in L2 (English in our case), and that there was a definite relationship between comprehensible input in L2 and proficiency (Krashen, 1985, p14) Crucially though, this perhaps implied that time spent using L1 would only detract from learning He even suggested that the reason exposure was not always successful in facilitating proficiency, was because learners had access to their L1 either in class, or out of it (Krashen, 1985, p14) This idea that the L2 lesson should be taught in L2, in order to maximize exposure, and thereby learning, is perhaps the key concept which monolingual supporters have based their approach on

The Makere report in 1961 further reinforced the idea of using nothing but English

in the classroom There are five basic tenets originating from this report, which have been called into question, but which were taken as the „truth‟, at the time They are:

1 That English should be taught in a monolingual classroom

2 The ideal teacher should be a native English speaker

3 The earlier English is taught the better

4 The more English used in the classroom during lessons, the better

5 If other languages are used, English standards will drop (Phillipson, 1992, p185)

By the 1970s these five tenets would be incorporated into the Communicative Approach, which quickly came to dominate language teaching Native English teachers teaching only in English and excluding the students L1 would become the goal for many Communicative supporters As a whole, the Communicative Approach firmly believed the idea that monolingual teaching with authentic communication in L2 was the best way to learn a language (Pennycook, 1994, p169) Many linguists insisted that the target language

be used for all purposes in the classroom (Wringe, 1989, p9) even when the reasons for using it remained unclear (Hawks, 2001, p47) Communicative researchers not only believed in the use of L2 as the medium of teaching, but many others also believed that L1 use actually interfered with L2 learning and brought about „error transference‟ (Pracek, 2003), thereby hindering learning These errors from L1 interference would be formed into what is now known as the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (Brown, 1994, p193) It was thought that errors in L2 learning could be predicted by comparing and contrasting L2 with L1

Some researchers claimed that the learning of an L2 followed the same principles

as the learning of an L1 (Phillipson, 1992, p191), which further reinforced the idea of using only the target language to maximize exposure and consequently learning

Even as recently as the 1990s, the English-only movement has been further solidified by the various versions of the national curriculum orders in the UK, which established the use of the target language (TL) as the means of communication in the classroom (Pachler & Field, 2001, p84)

Recently though support for an English-only policy has been declining, and some researchers and teachers have begun to advocate a more bilingual approach to teaching, which would incorporate the students‟ L1 as a learning tool Others have even gone as far

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

Many researchers now believe that the search for a „best method‟ is a futile effort (Lewis, 1993, p189), because there can never be one method that suits all (Nunan 1999, in

Pracek, 2003) Many methods and many techniques have their place, depending on the differing circumstances of the teaching environment By excluding the students‟ L1, we are severely limiting the number of methods and techniques available to teachers

1.2.1 Support for the Monolingual Approach

There is some strong support for the Monolingual Approach to teaching in the literature and advocates usually organize their support around 3 claims:

1 The learning of an L2 should model the learning of an L1 (through maximum exposure to the L2)

2 Successful learning involves the separation and distinction of L1 and L2

3 Students should be shown the importance of the L2 through its continual use (Cook, 2001, p412)

According to Cook 2001, these are some of the fundamental principles of the Monolingual Approach

While the research may not be entirely convincing, it is considered likely that L2 acquisition is similar to L1 acquisition, which, crucially, is based on the notion of exposure

as being the determining factor for learning (Lewis, 1993, p54) Children learn their first language through listening and copying what those around them say, and exposure to the language is vital in the development of their linguistic skills The Communicative Approach generally favored a monolingual approach with adults for similar reasons, justified on the pretence of maximizing communication in L2 (Phillipson, 1992, p185) Many teachers themselves have come to believe that as the classroom is often the students‟ only exposure to English that exposure should be maximized (Burden, 2000, p5)

In regards to Cook‟s second point, supporters of the Monolingual Approach have stated that translating between L1 and L2 can be dangerous as it encourages the belief that there are 1 to 1 equivalents between the languages, which is not always the case (Pracek, 2003) They believe the two languages should be distinct and separate Supporters of the Bilingual Approach might argue that to make the separation or distinction between L1 and L2, explanations in L1 are necessary, because the teaching of grammar is so complex that without the use of L1, there would be little or no comprehension on the students‟ part, especially at lower levels This is not true according to others, who proclaim that actually quite a number of grammar points can be taught in the target language, especially through

the use of physical or visual displays (Pachler & Field, 2001, p92) Beside those extra lingual strategies which make use of pictures, objects, physical contexts, and other multimedia aids (Jiang, 2004), there seems to be a preference, explicitly stated or not, for intralinguas strategies over interlinguas strategies among many teachers and researchers Intralinguas strategies involve the use of linguistic means of the target language such as synonyms, definitions, or linguistic contexts Interlingual strategies utilize the L1 in the form of a bilingual dictionary, cognates, or L1 translation equivalents, often associated with word lists As pointed out by Schmitt (1997), intralinguas strategies are

„pedagogically correct‟ because they are consistent with principles of communicative language teaching or comprehensive input Interlingual strategies, however, have easy associations with the grammar translation method or contrastive analysis Many modern teaching methods treat L2 in isolation from L1, whether it is the communicative approach, the audio-lingual method, the mainstream EFL methods, or the older direct method, L1 is shunned in the classroom

Regarding Cook‟s third point, it seems that the use of L2 only in the classroom does help demonstrate the L2‟s importance and can portray the usage of the language being studied (Pachler & Field, 2001, p86)

Proponents of English-only also claim that using L1 in the classroom is not in accordance with SLA theories, which advocate modified input and negotiation in L2 as a means of learning (Polio, 1994, p156) Ironically though, negotiations of meaning and trial and error often lead to what has been dubbed an „interlanguage‟, where a mix of L1 and L2

is used to communicate and establish the correct way of communicating in the L2 (Weschler, 1997, p2) One area in which there is strong support for a Monolingual Approach is the multilingual classroom Unless the teacher is capable of speaking all the respective L1s in the classroom, there would seem to be no benefit of L1 use (Hawks,

2001, p49) and indeed it would probably hinder learning

1.2.2 Support for the Bilingual Approach

Despite growing opposition to the English-only movement, its supporters remain steadfast in their determination to use English as the target language and the medium (Auerbach, 1993, p9) even though there are few specific references referring to actual benefits derived from excluding the L1 from the classroom (Hawks, 2001, p48)

However, there is now a belief by some that the use of L1 could be a positive resource for teachers and that considerable attention and research should be focused on it (Atkinson,

1987, p241) There is also strong evidence that it is popular and students tend to prefer teachers who understand their L1 (Briggs, 2001, p1) A study by Schweers, 1999 found 88.7% of Spanish students studying English wanted L1 used in the class because it facilitates learning Students also desired up to 39% of class time be spent in L1 (Schweers, 1999, p7)

Much of the attempt to discredit the Monolingual Approach has focused on three points: it is impractical, native teachers are not necessarily the best teachers, and exposure alone is not sufficient for learning

The biggest problem with the Monolingual Approach to teaching is that it is really impractical (Phillipson, 1992, p191) One reason the exclusion of L1 is impractical is that the majority of English teachers are not native speakers (Hawks, 2001, p50) Sometimes these teachers‟ own English is not very good, and by insisting on an English only policy,

we can severely undermine their ability to communicate and consequently their ability to teach Another reason it is impractical is that to enforce the sole use of the TL can often lead to a reduced performance on the part of the teachers, and the alienation of students from the learning process (Pachler & Field, 2001, p85) Not only that, but excluding L1 can lead to a higher dropout rate in ESL schools, whereas when L1 is permitted, researchers and teachers alike report much more positive results (Auerbach, 1993, p18) Monolingual teaching can also create tension and a barrier between students and teachers, and there are many occasions when it is inappropriate or impossible (Pachler & Field,

2001, p86) When something in a lesson is not being understood, and is then clarified through the use of L1, that barrier and tension can be reduced or removed

The Monolingual Approach also supports the idea of the native teacher as being the ideal teacher This is certainly not the case as being a native speaker does not necessarily mean that the teacher is more qualified or better at teaching (Phillipson, 1992, p194) Actually, non-native teachers are possibly better teachers as they themselves have gone through the process of learning an L2 (usually the L2 they are now teaching), thereby acquiring for themselves an insider‟s perspective on learning the language (Phillipson,

1992, p195) By excluding these people and their knowledge from the learning process, we are wasting a valuable resource In addition, the term „native teacher‟ is problematic There

are many variations of English around the world, and as to what constitutes an authentic native English speaker, is open to endless debate Ultimately though, there is no scientific validity to support the notion of a native teacher being the ideal teacher (Phillipson, 1992, p195)

Another problem with the Monolingual Approach is its belief that exposure to language leads to learning Excluding the students‟ L1 for the sake of maximizing students‟ exposure to the L2 is not necessarily productive In fact there is no evidence that teaching in the TL directly leads to better learning of the TL (Pachler & Field, 2001, p85) Obviously the quantity of exposure is important, but other factors such as the quality of the text material, trained teachers, and sound methods of teaching are more important than the amount of exposure to English (Phillipson, 1992, p210) This is particularly obvious with struggling lower-level students Increasing the amount of L2 instead of a simple explanation in L1 is likely to have a negative effect and simply add to the frustration on the student‟s part (Burden, 2000, p6)

In addition to trying to discredit the Monolingual Approach, some researchers have attempted to demonstrate the positive effects of using L1 and have attempted to categorize when it should be used Humanistic views of teaching have speculated that students should

be allowed to express themselves, and while they are still learning a language it is only natural that they will periodically slip back into their mother tongue, which is more comfortable for them They will also naturally equate what they are learning with their L1

so trying to eliminate this process will only have negative consequences (Harbord, 1992, p351) and impede learning

One often widely misunderstood point which proponents of L1 use such as Auerbach, 1993 have been criticized for is that they are promoting the indiscriminate and wide use of L1 in the classroom Supporters of the Bilingual Approach have been quick to clarify by stating that they do not support widespread and indiscriminate use of L1 in the classroom (Auerbach in Polio, 1994, p157) In fact much research has focused on the specific situations in which L1 should be used, and situations when it should not be used Mitchell 1988, surveyed teachers and found situations where grammar was being explained were the area that most teachers felt L1 use was acceptable Other areas such as disciplining students, explaining instructions for activities, and giving out background

information were also areas where L1 use was considered acceptable (Mitchell, 1988, p29)

Other researchers have suggested the use of L1 in situations such as eliciting language, checking comprehension, giving instructions and helping learners cooperate with each other (Atkinson, 1987, p243)

Harbord, 1992, concluded that there are three reasons for using L1 in the classroom They are: facilitating communication, facilitating teacher-student relationships, and facilitating the learning of L2 (Harbord, 1992, p354) Cook elaborated further by stating teachers should use L1 to convey meaning and organize the class Students can use

it for scaffolding (building up the basics, from which further learning can be processed) and for cooperative learning with fellow classmates (Cook, 2001, p410) Perhaps the biggest reason for using L1 in the classroom though, is that it can save a lot of time and confusion (Harbord, 1992, p351)

While arguing for the option of using L1 in the classroom, most researchers have at the same time cautioned against the overuse of it (Burden, 2000, p9), because it can create

an over reliance on it (Polio, 1994, p153), oversimplify differences between the two languages, and create laziness among students and a failure to maximize English (Atkinson, 1987, p247)

Others though, have shown that the ratio of L1 to L2 use in the classroom does not determine the maintenance of L1, nor the acquisition of L2 (Chaudron, 1988, p124) Still others have shown that even when L1 is used frequently in the beginning, it does tend to give way to English as the students progress (Auerbach, 1993, p19)

Although the Monolingual and Bilingual Approaches are theoretically very opposed to one another, it is known that most teachers actually fall somewhere in the middle, using mostly the TL, but also using L1 when needed

In conclusion then, researchers have found that evidence for the practice of English-only is neither conclusive nor pedagogically sound (Auerbach, 1993, p15) The findings presented here indicate that the use of L1 in the classroom can be effective, and is perhaps necessary in certain situations (Auerbach, 1993, p9), (Hawks, 2001, p51) & (Zhou,

2003, p5)

“Although the mother tongue is not a suitable basis for a methodology, it has, at all levels, a variety of roles to play which are at present, consistently undervalued” (Atkinson,

1987, p247) The question here is: What specific differences or improvement (if any) can the use of L1 make in L2 vocabulary teaching and learning? And that is the reason why this study is being done But before looking deeper into the issue in the particular situation,

it is necessary to have a quick view of approaches to vocabulary teaching and learning

Sökmen (1997) states that vocabulary teaching was based on a top-down, naturalistic, and communicative approach which emphasized implicit and incidental learning of vocabulary The implicit approach, which includes inferring from the context and guessing, is commonly used in foreign language teaching classrooms Teachers often encourage students to guess the meaning of the words by looking at the context where the words are located They rarely use L1 in the classroom because they are concerned that students may just rely on their L1 Nevertheless, more studies show that implicit teaching may not be appropriate for LPL, it could cause more difficulties in the process of learning Several studies of vocabulary acquisition show that the combination of implicit and explicit vocabulary instruction is an effective way for acquiring vocabulary (Sökmen, 1997) Ramachandran and Rahim‟s (2004) study shows that explicit instruction which uses L1 could encourage ESL students whose English proficiency is at the elementary level to recall and retain the words more effectively

Whilst L1 is normally overlooked in TEFL, it seems that many teachers believe that English should be taught in English because it is the only way to expose students to the target language in the classroom Anyway, students‟ preference and progress can be the strongest base for teachers‟ choice of what language to use

Based on the characterization of the unique learning conditions adult L2 learners face, Jiang (2000) proposed a three-stage psycholinguistic model of adult L2 vocabulary acquisition

In the first, lexical association stage, adult learners recognize an orthographic or phonological form, or both, as a word They understand the word‟s meaning within an existing semantic structure, which is closely linked to their L1 To help themselves remember this L2 word, the learners associate it with its L1 translation However, unlike a L1 word whose entry contains all four types of lexical knowledge, that is, meaning and syntax in the lemma structure, and morphology and phonology/orthography in the lexeme

(Levelt, 1989), this L2 lexical entry contains only form knowledge, that is, phonology and orthography Other space in the entry is empty

Lexical processing and production at this stage rely on the activation and mediation

of L1 translations because no direct links exist between L2 words and concepts, or such links are very weak Because only lemma information in the L1 entry participates in and assists L2 word use, this part of the L1 entry receives the most activation The lexeme part that contains form specifications is gradually deactivated The outcome of continued exposure to (and productive use of) L2 is that the semantic and syntactic information in the L1 translation is copied or transferred into the empty space of the L2 words This leads to significant changes in lexical representation and processing of L2 word and signals the coming of the second stage in lexical development The L2 entry now contains a mixture

of L2 form specifications and semantic and syntactic specifications transferred from its L1 translation The presence of the semantic content in the entry means that the word is now linked directly to conceptual representations In processing terms, one may expect a L2 word at this stage to be used with more fluency or automaticity because this direct link makes the activation of L1 translation no longer necessary At the same time, there is still significant influence from the L1 in L2 word use because lexical processing and production are still mediated by the lemma information of its L1 translation, which now resides in the L2 entry Thus, from a processing perspective, this stage may be called L1 lemma mediation stage From a representational perspective, this stage may be called the hybrid-entry stage because a L2 entry at this stage contains a combination of L2 form information and L1 meaning and syntax information

In principle, there is a third stage in lexical development when lexical knowledge specific to a L2 word is integrated in its entry and L1 information is discarded As a result,

a L2 word can be used with not only more automaticity, but also more idiomaticity, with little influence from its L1 translation However, it is suggested by this model (Jiang, 2000) that many words may stop short of this third stage and L1 lemma mediation may become a steady state of lexical processing in advanced L2 learners

To sum up, the analyses above challenge the complete rejection of L1 in the L2 vocabulary teaching (especially for adult L2 learner) Many modern teaching methods treat L2 in isolation from L1, whether it is the communicative approach, the audio-lingual method, the mainstream EFL methods, or the older direct method, L1 is shunned in the classroom

(Johnson & Johnson, 1999) In fact, L1 is present in L2 learner‟s mind, whether the teacher wants it to be there or not, and the L2 knowledge that is being created in their mind is connected in all sorts of ways with their L1 knowledge

Kemmis and McTaggart defined action research as “deliberate, solution-oriented investigation that is group or personally owned and conducted It is characterized by spiraling cycles of problem identification, systematic data collection, reflection, analysis, data-driven action taken, and, finally, problem redefinition The linking of the terms

“action” and “research” highlights the essential features of this method: trying out ideas in practice as a means of increasing knowledge about or improving curriculum, teaching, and learning” (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988)

Similarly, Watts stated that action research is a process in which participants examine their own educational practice systematically and carefully, using the techniques

of research

Steps of an action research are shown in the figure below, which was adapted from Susman, 1983

ACTION PLANNING

Considering alternative courses

Action research can be a worthwhile pursuit for educators for a number of reasons Foremost among these is simply the desire to know more Good teachers are, after all, themselves students, and often look for ways to expand upon their existing knowledge Some other strong points of this research method are hereafter

First, research done with the teacher‟s students, in a setting with which the teacher

is familiar, helps to confer relevance and validity to a disciplined study

Second, it can be seen as a form of teacher professional development because through action research, teachers learn about themselves, their students, their colleagues, and can determine ways to continually improve

Furthermore, action research when done in pairs or by teams of teachers allows time to talk with others about teaching and teaching strategies and share their thoughts which develop stronger relationships between them

Besides, it offers potential for school change As teachers get into action research, they are more apt to look at questions that address school concerns Development of priorities for school-wide planning and assessment efforts arise from inquiry with potential

to motivate change for improvement‟s sake

One more benefit is, action research helps teachers reflect on their own practice They can also investigate what effect their teaching is having on their students, how they could work better with other teachers, or ways of changing the whole school for the better

Last but not least, action research improves communications as team work within the school or district brings individuals together for a shared purpose Educators involved

in action research become more flexible in their thinking and more open to new ideas (Pine, 1981) Studies by Little (1981) suggest positive changes in patterns of collegiality, communication, and networking

For all the advantages above, the researcher decided to apply this method in this study with the intent that the research will inform and change her practices in the future while posing some implications for potential changes in to English teaching at her school Like any other action researches, this study will not provide all the answers to our questions about how students learn or what educators can do to improve practice, but it happened at the place where the question arises; it happens where the real action is taking place; and it allows for immediate action

Chapter 2: The study

In this chapter, the study will be describe in detail, beginning with its design, with the analytical framework closely behind and the data analysis process as the last part

2.1 Design of the study

- L1 use makes it easier for students to learn the new vocabulary

- L1 use in defining and explaining new words improves student‟s long term memory

2.1.2 Data collection instruments

In this study, the instrument used to elicit and collect data was in the form of teaching experiments with teacher‟s self-observation and testing materials (pre-test & post-tests) Two experiments were carried out in order to find out the difference in students‟ involvement, and their comprehension and memorization of vocabulary with the two

different approaches (English-only and Vietnamese included) with certain techniques Each experiment included students‟ tests and teacher‟s observations of classes

2.1.2.1 Testing materials

The researcher decided to use tests as a tool of data collection because tests have long been proved to be one of the most reliable access to learners‟ achievement They tell the teacher what the students have learnt, and therefore how successful the teaching has been and what needs to be taught or improved in the future As well, they tell students how well they are progressing, and where they need to focus their attention as learners Regular tests also encourage students to take their learning seriously, and give them a series of definite goals to aim forwards (Adrian Doff, 1995) The purpose of the tests here was to measure students‟ achievement in vocabulary when Vietnamese was used in teaching and learning, and when it was not The tests focused on examining students‟ understanding of the words and expressions through direct translation and using them in suitable contexts The rate of correct answers for each question was recorded and the mean score of each group was calculated, compared and then discussed

There were 7 tests in two experiments of the study Experiment 1 included 3 test, test 1 was the diagnosing test, test 2 tested students‟ understanding of words and test 3 measured students memory of the words they learned Experiment 2 included 4 tests: tests

4 and 5 dealt with students comprehension of words taught in experimental lessons(which used Vietnamese) as well as in control lessons (which used English only in definitions and explanations of words); and tests 6 and 7 handled their memory of those words All the tests had the same format: multiple choice tests with four alternative answers The test consisted of two parts: (1) vocabulary in direct translation from English to Vietnamese and vice versa (10 items), and (2) vocabulary in context (10 items) The first task of tests – vocabulary in direct translation was to examine students‟ ability to recognise the words and link them with their L1 equivalents and whether they could pick out the correct English translation for Vietnamese words among words of the same category or similar forms This could be seen as a later phase of their lexical association stage in Jiang‟s three-stage psycholinguistic model of adult L2 vocabulary acquisition The second task was included

in the tests for the purpose of testing students ability to use the suitable words in contexts, that is to link the words directly to their conceptual representations Students being able to

do this would be considered in the second stage of L2 vocabulary acquisition when they can use the word more fluently and automatically with significant influence of L1

In the first test, all 20 words were taken from the previous units of the book New Headway Elementary that students had learnt not long before In tests 2 to 7, the words were taken from the units of the book that students learnt during research time

2.1.2.2 Classroom observations

The observation was chosen for its advantages One of the advantages of participant observation is its ability to facilitate the collection of 'rich' information that is frequently not available from other sources (Babbie, 1995) As such, it can be used to supplement, inform or contradict theorised research and it can greatly enhance the available knowledge on a subject as a result It can be used either as a preliminary step in a research study by which the researcher observes events 'as they occur' in order to formulate

a hypothesis for further investigation or it can be used at a more advanced stage of the research in order to test a hypothesis formed on the basis of theoretical research (Patton, 2002) It is believed to elicit 'real' and 'genuine' information that has not been filtered or amended by the research participants as can occur in relation to interview or questionnaire data and, as such, provides unique insights into the subjective viewpoint of the participants

in the study With observation, participants may not realise that they are being watched so they do not moderate their behaviour in any way thus the data gathered in unadulterated It also provides richer information than interviews or questionnaires because it can take into account non-verbal interaction and behaviour (Berg, 2003) As such, it can be a valuable method of researching the influence of structures or events on individuals and groups There is also the possibility that unexpected and unanticipated events will occur during the course of the observation hence its value in accessing unique data (Berg, 2003)

The teacher observed the classroom activities to see how enthusiastically and effectively students learn in two different groups of study or with two different approaches

to teaching In these observations, the teacher researcher acted as an observing-participant (teaching the classes while taking on the role of observer) In order to do that, the teacher had also to examine her own subjectivity and consider that participating in the group might lead to sympathetic or antagonistic interpretations of group behaviors Notes were taken on teacher‟s observations of what was happening during class time and then discussed

Observations focused on five aspects of students learning in the class, that is, students asking and answering questions, their competition and active learning, and the excitement

of the classroom

2.1.3 Participants

The subjects for the study were first-year students of non-English majors at Hanoi University of Industry They were chosen from 4 different English classes in which they were placed according to their result of the placement test They were given the pretest and

100 of those who have nearly the same scores were selected, 57 of whom were boys and 43 were girls They share the same mother tongue (L1) - Vietnamese and English is their L2

Two classes were assigned as an experimental group (receiving L1 in vocabulary instructions) and the other two classes were assigned as a control group (receiving no L1 in vocabulary instructions)

There is no obvious difference between the two selected groups (with the mean scores of the two groups in the pretest not significantly different), showing that they have roughly the same English proficiency, and we may take it for granted that the subjects have roughly the same English vocabulary size

The second experiment was conducted with the participation of only 26 students,

10 girls and 16 boys, from a class of experimental group

2.1.4 Procedures

To achieve the goal, the research focused on the participation and perception of the students as well as what students could keep in their memory through their learning of vocabulary with and without Vietnamese support The plan involved conducting lessons with two different research groups and two groups of lessons with the same class using different approaches so as to see how students reacted to these approaches

Two experiments were carried out in order to collect the data In the first experiment, the teacher applied different teaching approaches to the two groups: the experimental group received L1 support in teacher‟s instruction and explanation while the control group received no treatment

The books they had in hand were slightly different The New Headway Elementary (NHE) (Soars & Soars, 2004) was used with the control group, which has the word list at the end of the book with the part of speech, but there is no definition given The same

course book was used with the experimental group but with the addition of translation of difficult words at the bottom of each page and a word list at the end of the book with Vietnamese meaning

In regards to teaching techniques, for experimental group, the new words were introduced in an easy context with L1 definitions and explanations, and students were usually asked to give Vietnamese equivalents A small test was used to check students‟ understanding and whether they could remember the words or not The oral translation or dictation quiz took place at the beginning of every class The minitest included the translation of sentences or words from Vietnamese to English or vice versa, which were normally at the end of each class meeting of four class hours By contrast, for the control group, the teacher normally gave the definitions and explanation (of the meaning and the use of words or expressions) only in English, and the subjects were asked to underline each

of these words and expressions, but not to write down their Vietnamese meaning Quizzes and small tests were also used but with the exclusion of Vietnamese (i.e no translation exercises)

During class time, notes were taken on her observations of how students took part

in the lessons At the beginning of the experiment, students were asked to do the first test

to make sure they were at quite the same level of English vocabulary on the outset After a unit of eight class periods that students had during a week, test 2 was delivered in order to check how much of the vocabulary they had understood Test 3 was completed after three weeks to see what percentage of the words and expressions during the period could be remembered, so as to check how much difference there was between the two groups in memorizing the new words / expressions

The purpose of the second experiment was to further strengthen the claim brought about by findings of the first experiment, ensuring that those findings were valid and reliable Only one class was selected for the second experiment It was one of the classes in the first experiment in which Vietnamese was used, which had 26 students, 10 girls and 16 boys It was decided that two vocabulary lessons would be given to this class, one in the first week conducted as usual, utilizing L1 when needed; another was taught to them in the following week, without L1 usage being available At the end of both weeks, the students were tested to see how much they had learned (test 4 and 5) One week after test 5 students