An investigation into teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding using l1 in teaching english at yen dung 1 high school, bac giang

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES  ĐÀO THỊ NGÂN AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND PRA

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES



ĐÀO THỊ NGÂN

AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND

PRACTICES REGARDING USING L1 IN TEACHING ENGLISH AT

YEN DUNG 1 HIGH SCHOOL, BAC GIANG Nghiên cứu về tín niệm và việc sử dụng tiếng mẹ đẻ của giáo viên trong giảng dạy Tiếng Anh tại Trường THPT Yên Dũng 1, Bắc Giang

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60140111

HÀ NỘI – 2015

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES



ĐÀO THỊ NGÂN

AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND

PRACTICES REGARDING USING L1 IN TEACHING ENGLISH AT

YEN DUNG 1 HIGH SCHOOL, BAC GIANG Nghiên cứu về tín niệm và việc sử dụng tiếng mẹ đẻ của giáo viên trong giảng dạy Tiếng Anh tại Trường THPT Yên Dũng 1, Bắc Giang

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60140111

Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr Lê Văn Canh

HÀ NỘI – 2015

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP

I, Dao Thi Ngan, hereby declare that this project is conducted by myself for the purpose of qualifying for the Master‟s Degree in English language teaching methodology All others‟ works used in this study have been properly cited The study reported here has never been published elsewhere or for any other purposes

ĐÀO THỊ NGÂN

HÀ NỘI – 2015

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank the teachers and administrative staff of the Post-Graduate Study Faculty at the University of Languages and International Studies for providing me with the opportunity to develop my knowledge of teaching English methodology and better understand my own strengths and weaknesses My special thanks go to my supervisor for valuable advise and friendly support throughout the course and the thesis Lastly, a sincere thank-you to my family for their patience, kindness and encouragement

ABSTRACT

Opinions concerning the use of the L1 in L2 learning have differed markedly over the years For much of the past century, it has generally been asserted by theorists and methodologists that the L1 has a largely negative influence on L2 learning and that its use should therefore be kept to an absolute minimum in L2 teaching However, in recent years this position has been called into question, leading to the beginnings of a reassessment of previous views and assumptions

The thesis reports on an exploratory study which was conducted to explore the beliefs and classroom practices regarding the use of Vietnamese by a group of seven teachers working in a high school in Vietnam Drawing on the data obtained from interviews and classroom observations, the findings show that teachers held strong beliefs about the use of Vietnamese They believed that the use of Vietnamese helped their students whose English was limited to understand grammar and vocabulary better They also believed that an appropriate proportion of L1 use was 50% of the class time Observational data revealed that there were similarities between their stated beliefs and practices despite few differences The study concludes that L1 has a role in L2 learning and it is unrealistic to ban L1 in L2 classroom and that more attention should be given to the training of teachers in classroom language use as part of teacher professional programmes

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Participant Profiles

Table 2.2 Frequency of L1 use per lesson

TABLE OF CONTENT

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP………

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………

ABSTRACT………

LIST OF TABLES………

TABLE OF CONTENT………

PART A INTRODUCTION 1 Rationale of the study………

2 Aims and objectives of the study………

3 Research questions………

4 Research methods………

5 Scope of the study………

6 Significance of the study………

7 Structure of the thesis………

PART B THE DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Definition of teacher beliefs………

1.2 Beliefs vs Attitudes………

1.3 Empirical studies on L2 teacher beliefs………

1.4 The use of the L1………

1.5 Empirical studies on teacher L1 use………

1.6 Functions of L1 in the L2 classrooms………

1.7 Amount of teachers‟ L1 use in different contexts…………

1.8 Studies on teachers‟ beliefs about the L1 use………

1.9 Summary of the chapter………

CHAPTER II THE STUDY 2.1 The context of the study………

i

ii iii

iv

v

1

1

3

3

3

4

4

4

6

6

6

7

8

9

15

17

20

21

23

24

24

2.2 Participants………

2.3 Research methods and procedures………

2.4 Instrumentation………

2.4.1 Interviews ………

2.4.2 Classroom observation………

2.5 Data analysis………

2.6 Results………

2.7 Teachers‟ use of Vietnamese in their actual teaching………

2.8 Discussion………

2.9 Summary of the chapter………

PART C CONCLUSION 1 Summary of major findings………

2 Concluding remarks………

3 Implications for teacher development………

4 Limitations………

REFERENCES………

APPENDIX A THE INTERVIEW GUIDE ………

APPENDIX B A SAMPLE THE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT …………

APPENDIX C A SAMPLE OF OBSERVATION DATA ………

24

25

26

26

27

27

28

33

38

39

40

40

40

41

42

44

I

II

IX

PART A INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale of the study

In describing the state of English language teaching (ELT) in developing countries, Weddell offers the following sypnosis:

New English curriculum documents and teaching materials proliferate in state education systems worldwide English has become a compulsory subject for ever more years of basic schooling High stakes English tests are increasingly important gate-keepers for entry to higher levels of education Although there has been massive human and financial investment in such initiatives, outcomes to date have often been disappointing Reports suggest that there are relatively few state school classrooms anywhere in which most learners are developing a useable knowledge of English

(Weddell, 2011: 3) What Weddell describes above is also true to Vietnam, where a new initiative – the Foreign Language 2020 Project - has been under way as an attempt

to improve the students‟ ability to use English for communication One of the methodological issues that have been raised is the need to improve teachers‟ classroom language

The students‟ first language (L1) has been one of the controversial issues in the field of second language (L2) teaching In the past many scholars , researchers and methodologists in the field of second language acquisition proposed that students learned their second language much in the same way that they learned their first, and that L2 was best learned through massive amounts of exposure to the language with limited time spent using L1 (Tang, 2002) However, in recent years, focus has been shifting towards inclusion of L1 in the language classroom Research has shown that the occasional use of L1 by both students and teachers increases

both comprehension and learning of L2 (Cook, 2001; Tang, 2002; Wells, 1999) As

a result, several teaching methods and trends supporting the use of L1 as a helpful teaching and learning tool have emerged and many researchers and authors stress the value of using L1 and the positive role this plays in EFL teaching (Aurbach 1993; Tang 2002) Thus, many researchers and teachers have started to re-evaluate the role of L1 in the EFL classroom and think of ways to best incorporate it into EFL teaching

In the literature, a body of empirical studies has been documented explaining the reasons for teachers‟ and students‟ use of the L1 The results of these studies have been positive First, because they revealed teachers found the L1 practical (Macaro, 2001) and, second, a consensus among academics has developed that the L1 has a role in the classroom, as long as it is not overused and promotes effective language learning (e.g Cook, 2001; Hall & Cook, 2012; Turnball, 2012)

Despite this large positive development, empirical investigations into teachers‟ L1 use arguably remain limited (Thompson, 2006) Most studies focus on the L1 of the major global languages spoken by learners such as Madarin, Spanish, French, and Japanese There have been fewer published studies investigating teachers‟ use of Vietnamese in teaching English in Vietnamese contexts while in the classroom, from my personal observation, teachers did use Vietnamese quite frequently

Vietnamese teachers of English language, especially those who teach in high schools, have been very little affected by the changes both in theory and practice in the field There are teachers entirely depending on the use of L1 or totally refusing

it There are still teachers following the structural approach, and reform minded teachers do not appear to be rapidly replacing them

This motivates me to conduct this study The study, stemming from the experiences above, attempts to investigate the beliefs and practices regarding the

use of L1 in the teaching of English of a group of high school teachers working in a particular high school in a mountainous area of Bac Giang province It first reviews the literature then gives the methodology and describes the subjects and then concludes by commenting on the findings and giving further recommendations for teacher education regarding classroom language

2 Aims and objectives of the study

The overall aim of the study is to explore how high school teachers of English use Vietnamese (L1) in teaching English (L2) to their students as well as the underlying beliefs of their use of L1 in the classroom

The above aim is specified into the following objectives:

1 to uncover the high school teachers‟ beliefs about the use of Vietnamese in teaching English to their students

2 to explore their actual use of Vietnamese in their classroom teaching

that were used to gather the data for the study are face-to-face interviews and classroom observations The data obtained were analysed with qualitative methods

5 Scope of the study

The study limits itself to the exploration of the beliefs and practices of using Vietnamese in teaching English by a group of EFL teachers working in one high school It is not intended to find out the factors that shape teachers‟ beliefs Nor is it intended to investigate students‟ attitudes towards teachers‟ use of Vietnamese in English lessons Since, the participants are from just one school, there is no intention to generalize the findings

6 Significance of the study

Insights into teachers‟ beliefs and practices regarding the use of Vietnamese

in teaching English first of all are helpful to my personal professional development

By this I mean, through the exploration of the issue, I will challenge my own beliefs and practice in using classroom language so that I can have a new way of looking at classroom language Second, the findings may provide useful information for teacher educators about how to help in-service teachers to use classroom language

to support students‟ learning better

7 Structure of the thesis

The thesis is composed of three parts following the required format of the university Part A is the Introduction where the rationale, the aims and the scope of the study are presented Part B – the Development – consists of two chapters Chapter I reviews the literature relevant to the topic of teachers‟ beliefs and practices in using L1 to teach L2 In Chapter II, the most important chapter, the whole study including the context of the study, the participants, the research instruments and the findings as well as the discussion of the findings are presented

Part C – the Conclusion – summarizes the major findings of the study Then drawing on these findings, I will suggest the way teachers‟ classroom language can

be improved and the feasibility of the „teach-English-through-English‟ policy in the context of Vietnamese high schools

PART B THE DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews the literature relevant to this study First, the definition

of the key terms used in the study such as teacher beliefs and L1 is presented This

is followed by an extensive literature review on the use of L1 in L2 classrooms with

an emphasis on the recent emergence of the bilingual approach in both theory and practice Finally, major studies on teachers‟ beliefs about L1 use that are accessible are reviewed to create a conceptual framework for the study

1.1 Definition of teacher beliefs

One of the most important and interesting questions which researchers studying teaching behavior have sought to find out is why teachers teach the way they do The answer to this question has taken scholars and researchers to the study

of teacher beliefs Up to now, there has been a large literature on the study of teachers‟ beliefs both in education and in English Language Teaching (ELT) One general point to emerge from this research agenda is that the study of teacher beliefs

is central to a better understanding of teachers‟ teaching practices Beliefs influence teachers‟ learning to teach (Nespor, 1987) and they influence teachers‟ implementation of curricula (Fang, 1996)

An extremely important and difficult issue that researchers on teacher beliefs have to confront with is defining “beliefs” As Pajares (1992: 307) claims “beliefs should not be confused with knowledge” Pajares (1992: 313) explains that beliefs have been studied in different fields and therefore no specific definition has been adopted In the literature, various definitions of beliefs exists Borg (2003) reviewed L2 teacher belief studies which were carried out from the 1970s until the year 2001, and listed the following terms:

- Personal pedagogical systems (Borg,1998);

- Pedagogical principles (Breen et al., 2001);

- Theories for practice (Burns, 1996);

- Personal practical knowledge (Golombek, 1998);

- Conceptions of practice (Freeman, 1993);

- Pedagogical knowledge (Gatboton, 1999);

- Theoretical beliefs (Johnson, 1992);

a proposition which may be consciously or unconsciously held, is evaluative

in that it is accepted as true by the individual, and is therefore imbued with emotive commitment; further, it serves as a guide to thought and behavior

It is because teachers‟ beliefs influence their teaching practices that I decided

to study not only how teachers of English in one high school used the Vietnamese in the English lessons but also the beliefs behind their practices

1.2 Beliefs vs Attitudes

Beliefs are considered to be salient and when combined with outcome evaluations they lead to attitude, which, in turn, leads to intention to perform a behavior (French et al, 2005: 1825) French and his associates (2005: 1825) further explain that there are two components of attitudes: the affective component and the instrumental component They explain,

The affective component of attitude refers to emotions and drives

engendered by the prospect of performing a behavior This is in contrast to

the instrumental component of attitude, which refers to a more cognitive

consideration of the extent to which performing a behavior would be advantageous (e.g Breckler & Wiggins, 1989) (French et al, 2005: 1825, original emphasis)

Similarly, Petty and Caciopo (1981) make the following distinction between attitude and belief constructs,

…the term attitude should be used to refer to a general and enduring positive

or negative feeling about some person, object or issue … The term belief is

reserved for the information that a person has about other people, object and issues The information may be factual or it may be only one person‟s opinion Furthermore, the information may have positive, negative or no evaluative implication for the target of the information (cited in Goodhue,

1986, p 8)

It can be inferred from the above citation that beliefs are cognitive while attitudes are more affective Put another way, the distinction between beliefs and attitudes is similar to the distinction between cognition and affect Therefore, beliefs are tacit and only inferred from actual behaviors Borg (2006) cautions that in researching teachers‟ beliefs, verbal commentaries “may reveal teachers‟ stated beliefs and intentions, but, on their own, do not allow us to draw conclusions about what teachers actually do It is for this reason that interviews are often combined with classroom observation” (p 194)

1.3 Empirical studies on L2 teacher beliefs

Johnson (2006: 236) asserts,

Many factors have advanced in the field‟s [L2 teacher education] understanding of L2 teachers‟ work, but none is more significant than the emergence of a substantial body of research now referred to as teacher cognition [or teacher beliefs] This research has helped capture the complexities of who teachers are, what they know and believe, how they learn to teach, and how they carry out their work in diverse contexts throughout their careers

The relationship between L2 teachers‟ beliefs and their classroom practice have been one of the most investigated L2 teacher belief research inquiries Nation and Macalister (2010: 176) elaborate the influence of teachers‟ beliefs on their classroom practices and reiterate the need to gain insights into this aspect of language teaching They maintain,

What teachers do in the classroom is to some extent going to be determined

by what they believe The importance of examining the role that teacher beliefs play in deciding what happens in the classroom has been increasingly recognized in language education research

There has also been much interest in ELT in how teachers‟ beliefs are shaped Richards and Lockhart (1996) suggest a number of factors: teachers‟ experiences as language learners, their experience of what works best, established practice, personality factors, educational background and principles derived from teaching approaches or methods

1.4 The use of the L1

The L1, or mother tongue, “is the language which a person acquires in early years and which becomes his/her natural instrument of thought and communication (Atkinson, 1987: 43) In the field of EFL, the use of the L1 has been an issue of debate Stern (1992: 279) described the role of the L1 in L2 teaching as “one of the most long-standing controversies in the history of language pedagogy” According

to Littlewood and Yu (2011), there is still a lack of agreement on whether the students‟ L1 has a place in the classroom or, if it does, what that role is:

Positions range from insistence on total exclusion of the L1, towards varying degrees of recognition that it may provide valuable support for learning, either directly (e.g as an element in a teaching technique or to explain a difficult point) or indirectly (e.g to build positive relationships or help manage learning

(Littlewood & Yu, 2011: 64) Littlewood and Yu (2011: 64) also add, “For many decades, foreign language teaching has been dominated by the principle that teachers should only use the target language”, but this trend has changed in the last two decades First language has been largely regarded as a negative influence and L2 is seen as the optimal medium for the classroom Throughout the history of language teaching methods (Richards & Rodgers, 2001), some have advocated the English-only policy in English language teaching Advocators of this policy believe that the learning of a foreign language is similar to the natural process children follow in acquiring their mother tongue Hence, methodologists advise teachers to avoid or minimize the use

of L1 Examples of this view can be seen in the Direct Method, the Audio-Lingual Method, and the Total Physical Response (Asher, 1988) In the 1970s, communicative language teaching became the predominant approach, as a reaction

to the audio-lingual method‟s popularity in the 1960s and based on the beliefs that communicative competence develops through students‟ active participation in meaningful communicative contexts (Littlewood, 1981) The L1 continued to be excluded in the Communicative Approach

However, in the 1990s there was a shift in the pendulum and more importance was once again attached to the mother tongue in the foreign language classroom In fact, the change in views regarding the issue of the use of L1 in the L2

classroom started following the publication of Phllipson‟s (1992) Linguistic

Imperialism Phillipson‟s work has been particularly influential in critiquing various

tenets of the dominant ELT methodological principles, such as English being best taught monolingually and by native speakers This “monolingual fallacy”, Phillipson argues (pp 185-193), is rooted in the maintenance of colonial power and

is misguided and negative beliefs about bilingualism In terms of classroom practices, the imposition of an English-only approach or the Monolingual Approach can therefore be considered as authoritarian and reflecting a supposition of linguistic and cultural superiority The Monolingual Approach has been criticized

by researchers, teachers, and learners, who hold that L1 use is beneficial in EFL classes at more than one level In other words, the use of the mother tongue is looked at as a common feature in EFL, and is a natural act which seems to make positive contribution to the learning process if used judiciously Researchers who advocate this approach (e.g Atkinson, 1987); Harbord, 1992; Macaro, 2001; Auerbuch, 1993 and Cook, 2001) argue that L1 represents a powerful source that can be used to enhance FL learning, but it should be used in a principled way

Wells (1998) recommends that the distinction, recognition, and accommodation of the adult learning stage are essential in considering the exclusion

or inclusion of the L1 because:

Learning a foreign language in adulthood seems a completely different affairs …literate adult learners approach the enterprise with a very different set of potential strategies from those available to pre-linguistic infants In particular, there already have considerable knowledge about the world, including linguistic interaction, and they also have available a language through which they can objectify the target language as a system and negotiate the relationships between forms and intended meanings and the tasks in which they are used However, the way in which these characteristics

of adult foreign language learning can best be managed has been a matter of

considerable dispute in the last half century, and my impression is that, until recently, the use of the first language as a support for learning the second has not always been as fully exploited as it might have been (Wells, 1998: 352) However, the debate on the inclusion or exclusion of the L1 continued: Many researchers and practitioners are hesitant or even adamantly opposed

to the use of the native language in the foreign language class … This stance maintains that students learn the target language „better‟ when completely immersed and surrounded by it Research dealing with sociocultural approaches to second language acquisition provides a somewhat different view, illustrating a number of vital roles for L1 in L2 learning situation The strategic L1 roles as scaffolding tool, L1 as a vehicle for establishing intersubjectivity, and L1 as a psychological tool for regulation and task orientation (Schwarzer & Luke, 2001: 10-11)

Macaro ( 2001) argues that it is not only impractical to exclude the L1 from the classroom, but that it is also likely to deprive learners of an important tool for language learning Similarly, Auerbuch (1993) not only acknowledges the positive role of the mother tongue in the classroom, but also identifies the following uses of it: language analysis, class management, presenting grammar rules, giving instructions or prompts, explaining errors and checking for comprehension Within the same context, Harbord ( 1992) points out that many ELT teachers have tried to create English-only classrooms, but have found that they have failed to get the meaning across, leading to student incomprehension and resentment

Auerbach (1993) argues that starting with the L1 provides a sense of security and validates the learners‟ lived experiences, allowing them to express themselves The learner is then willing to experiment and take risks with English Weschler (1997) maintained that given the actual time needed to develop any real degree of

fluency, limited class time could be better spent on using the L1 as a means of teaching L2 communication skills and strategies

The efficiency argument for the use of L1 in teaching and learning L2 is further supported by Cook (2001), who suggests L1 use by teachers is more appropriate for task clarification and can lead to more effective learning According

to his multicompetence theory, Cook (2002) argues that L2 learners are multicompetent because of the compound state of a mind with two languages In the process of l2 learning, changes have been made in L2 learners with respect to their l1 knowledge, L2 knowledge and their minds The multicompetence theory has argued for the positive involvement of the L1 in L2 learning, and the characteristics

of L2 learners are said to justify the reconsideration of the role of the L1 Cook (2002, 2005) argues for learner rights in the use of L1 in L2 learning because of the characteristics of L2 users who have two tongues in their minds

In a provocative article, Auerbach (1993) gives a sociopolitical rationale for the use of the L1 in ESL classrooms She primarily addresses the situation of immigrant Esl learners studying in the United States Her conclusions, however, are applicable to any immigrant second language learners in any metropole In this article, she states that “everyday classroom practices, far from being neutral and natural, have ideological origins and consequences for relations of power both inside and outside the classroom” (p 29) She summarized her conclusion in the following way: “Starting with the L1 provides a sense of security and validates the learners‟ lived experiences, allowing them to express themselves The learner is then willing to experiment and take risks with English” (p 29)

While teachers are in favour of minimal L1 use, in practice L1 is used more widely than L2 teachers consider ideal for prompting L2 learning (Oguro, 2011) Scott and de la Fuente (2008) highlight L1 use as a natural and spontaneous cognitive strategy In the same vein, Sampson (2012) claimed that prohibiting L1 use in language classrooms might be detrimental to L2 development Ma (2009)

considers L1 use as a scaffolding instrument for L2 learners which might result in more effective L2 output

In a similar vein of research, code-switching, defined as systematic use of L1 within a conversation or utterance, is treated as a competence, even an advanced one, which permits the bilingual speakers to negotiate more fluently (Arnfast & Jorgensen, 2003) More precisely, code-switching requires competence in all languages involved, and it is simplistic to consider it as simple mixture of two languages (Wei, 2011) Interestingly enough, code-switching is observed wherever bilingual speakers talk to each other (Cook, 2008) Therefore, selective and principled code-switching in L2 learning classroom contexts should be seen as a reflection of bilingual and multilingual speakers‟ practices in everyday life (Turnbull & Dailey-O‟Cain, 2009) So, as it seems to be the case, L2 teachers, instead of considering code-switching as a sign of deficiency in the L2, should acknowledge bilingual competencies and the strategies bilingual learners use Similarly, it is also observed that code-switching might serve effective social and cognitive functions (Carless, 2008)

Some EFL materials that have recently been published (e.g the Headway series (Soars & Soars 1986 onwards)) include translation exercises The Council of Europe (2001: 99) suggested exercises which include the L1 However, the debate

on the incorporation of the L1 continues Widdowson (2003: 154) raises a very important question, “The very subject we teach is, by definition, bilingual How then can you teach a bilingual subject by means of a monolingual pedagogy” In spite of this logical question, “the belief that use of the learner‟s native language interferes with the learning of English and hampers the process of second language development has now passed into the realms of pedagogical common sense and professional orthodoxy” (Canagarajah, 1999: 126)

Despite the ongoing theoretical debate, bilingual teachers, in their classrooms, still resort to L1 to teach the L2 This fact motivates further research on teachers‟ underlying beliefs in such a practice

1.5 Empirical studies on teacher L1 use

Despite the debates over the role of L1, empirical studies have suggested that

it is likely to be unavoidable in L2 classes, especially when teachers share the L1 with their students Although the monolingual approach enjoys popularity and dominance in theories of language education (Richards & Rodgers, 2001), it seems

to be only partially implemented in L2 teaching practice Both teachers and students may inevitably resort to L1 and many researchers have begun to examine how teachers use L2 in teaching L2 from different perspectives (Turnbull & Arnett, 2002)

Studies about how much teachers use L1 in the classroom have generated varied results Macaro (2001), examined six student teachers in England, found a low percentage of L1 use in their teaching, ranging from 0% to 15.2% The four teachers in the study by Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002) also employed a low percentage of L1 in their teaching, with a cross-teacher average of 8.8% Other researchers, however, reported considerable variations among individual teachers in their studies For example, Duff and Polio (1990) illustrated that a group of 13 teachers, who taught different languages to English-speaking students in an American university, differed dramatically in their use of English, ranging from 0%

to 90% Liu, Baek and Han (2004) investigated 13 Korean teachers of English in high schools and found their use of Korean ranged from 10% to 90% of class time Kim and Elder (2005) examined seven teachers who taught foreign languages in New Zealand and showed that the proportion of target language use among these teachers varied from 23% to 88%, indicating a high level of variation in the use of student L1 The diversity concerning the quantification of teachers‟ use of L1 may result from the different contexts and different approaches involved in these studies

While it is impossible to generalize, it seems reasonable to conclude that teachers can hardly avoid the use of L1 when they shared it with their students, no matter in what contexts they teach

Lameta-Tufuga (1994) examined the effects of having learners discuss a task

in their first language before they had to carry it out in writing in the second language That is, they had they had the opportunity to fully understand the content

of the task through the medium of their first language, before they performed the written task in English The first language discussion of the task had some interesting features Firstly, the learners were all very actively involved in coming

to grips with the ideas Secondly, the first language discussion included quite a lot

of the second language vocabulary which would be used in the later task Thus the discussion not only helped learners to get on top of the content, but it also helped them gain control of relevant L2 vocabulary in a very supportive L1 context Knight (1996) also made a similar finding As a result, the learners who did the preparatory L1 discussion in groups did much better on the L2 written task than other learners who did preparatory L2 discussion even though that discussion was in the same language as the subsequent written task There is thus a useful role for the L1 in helping learners gain the knowledge needed to reach a higher level of L2 performance Whenever a teacher feels that a meaning based L2 task might be beyond the capabilities of the learners, a small amount of L1 discussion can help overcome some of the obstacles

Very recently, Copland and Neoklous (2010) reported their study, which uncovers the complexities and contradictions inherent in making decisions about L1 use in the English language classroom Through an analysis of data from classrooms

in a Cypriot context and from interviews with Cypriot teachers, the authors identified a number of functions for L1 use as well as the teachers‟ rationales for using L1 for different functions Teachers‟ decision making, it emerges, is often complex, based on either what they perceive as their students‟ affective needs or on

their cognitive processes What is more, teachers often under-report or differently report their use of L1 in the classroom, contradicting beliefs by their actions The construct of guilt is offered to explain these complexities and contradictions in the teachers‟ use of L1 in this study The authors concluded that teachers should be supported in finding local solutions to local teaching problems, so that they better understand and exploit the resources available to them

McMillan and Rivers (2011) surveyed 29 native-English speaker teachers at

a Japanese university where the exclusive use of the target language (English) is promoted as a key feature of the optimal foreign language learning environment Results indicated that, contrary to the official policy, many teachers believed that selective use of the students‟ L1, by the teachers or by the students, could enhance L2 learning in various ways within a communicative framework The authors argued that teachers and students themselves are best placed to determined, based

on their immediate context of the classroom, what constitutes optimal use of the target language and the L1

1.6 Functions of L1 in the L2 classrooms

To date, Second Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers have investigated L1 use in L2 learning from different perspectives, in particular the amount of L1 use (e.g de la Campa & Nassaji, 2009), functions of L1 in L2 learning (e.g Wilkerson, 2008), and language teachers‟ and learners‟ perceptions about L1 use in L2 classroom contexts Apart from quantitative methods, many studies adopt functional approaches to analyze the role of teacher L1 use Atkinson (1987) is seen one of the first supporters of L1 use in L2 classrooms He criticizes the gap in the ELT literature on the beneficial use of L1 and defines a suggested use of L1 in the EFL classroom According to his suggestions, L1 can be used for the following pedagogical functions in the L2 classroom:

1 Eliciting language : How do you say „X‟ in English?

2 Checking comprehension: How do you say „I‟ve been waiting for ten

minutes‟ in L1? (Also used for comprehension of a reading or listening text.)

3 Giving complex instructions to basic levels

4 Co-operating in groups: Learners compare and correct answers to exercises

or tasks in the L1 Students at times can explain new points better than the teacher

5 Explaining classroom methodology at basic levels

6 Use translation to highlight a recently taught language item

7 Check for sense: If students write or say something in the L2 that does not make sense, have them try to translate it into the L1 to realize their error

8 Testing : Translation items can be useful in testing mastery of forms and

meanings

9 Developing circumlocution strategies: When students do not know how to

say something in the L2, have them think of different ways to say the same

thing in L1, which may be easier to translate Strategies: negative antonym

3 Students can use L1 in their group work or pair work learning activities to provide scaffolding for each other

Liu et al (2004) grouped the uses of L1 into a number of categories, such as explaining difficult vocabulary and grammar, giving background information, overcoming communicative difficulties and saving time Kim and Elder (2005) employed a more complicated system of analysis, categorizing teaching acts into dozens of pedagogic functions, and examined how language choices relate to different teaching functions However, they did not find a systemic relationship between teachers‟ language choices and particular functions Littlewood and Yu (2011) found that L2 teachers use learners‟ L1 mainly to establish constructive social relationships, clarify complex meanings, ensure understanding, save time in class, and exert control over the classroom Liu, An, Baek, and Ahn (2004) observed that the South Korean high school teachers took advantage of L1 less than what their learners considered appropriate; the teachers‟ code-switching followed certain patterns and their use of L1 was effective for several functions, namely greetings, instructional comments, questions, lexical and grammatical explanations, offering background information, overcoming communication difficulties, managing students‟ behavior, compliments or confirmation, saving time, highlighting important information, and personal talk Cook (2008) asserted that L2 teachers might fall back on learners‟ L1 for two main reasons, namely for conveying meaning, i.e., using L1 for expressing meaning of lexical items or sentences, and for organizing the classroom, that is to say for managing the classroom, giving instructions for teaching activities, and testing

Kang (2008) reported a case study on Korean EFL teaching in a Korean elementary school in the context of Korean TETE (Teach English through English) policy that the teacher did not adopt TETE in its entirety She was revealed to use four types of language: exclusive use of L1, exclusive use of target language, use of L1 immediately followed by target language equivalents, and use of target language

immediately followed by L1 equivalents It was also revealed in the study that the teacher‟s language use in the classroom was mainly determined by her English proficiency

1.7 Amount of teachers’ L1 use in different contexts

Duff and Polio (1990) found a wider range of the target language use, with instructors using it from 10% to 100% of the time, with a mean target language use

of 67.9% and a median of 79% Macaro‟s (2001) research revealed that the amount

of L1 use by six student teachers ranged from 4-12%

In Vietnam, Kim Anh (2010) conducted a questionnaire survey with 12 university EFL teachers in Ho Chi Minh City and interviewed four of them She reported that the teachers showed great support for the use of Vietnamese (L1) in English (L2) language teaching Canh‟s (2014) case study showed that the teacher used Vietnamese between 23.0% and 31.7% in her 45-minute English lesson for a variety of functions such as giving instructions, explaining new words, explaining grammatical and phonological rules , enhancing students‟ motivation, checking students‟ comprehension and classroom management

According to Macaro (1997), teachers can take three positions when considering the value of teachers‟ L1 use in the classroom: the virtual; the maximal; and the optimal The „virtual‟ position argues that teachers should exclusively use the target language The „maximal‟ position posits that frequent L1 use can aid classroom communication, especially where learners have insufficient proficiency Lastly, the „optimal‟ position acknowledges that, as a naturally occurring phenomenon, occasional, targeted L1 use for specific contexts and functions could optimize effective language learning Nation (2003) advises to employ a “balanced approach”, which “sees a role for the L1 but also recognizes the importance of maximizing L2 use in the classroom” (p 7)

1.8 Studies on teachers’ beliefs about the L1 use

Teachers‟ language use in EFL or other foreign language classrooms has often been examined by eliciting teacher beliefs that determine a teacher‟s classroom behavior to a large extent However, the number of studies on non-native EFL teachers‟ beliefs and actual language use in the high school in developing countries like Vietnam remains limited Carless‟s (2004) study, one of the few investigations undertaken to provide much-awaited answers to the relevant questions, looked at the classroom language use of a Hong Kong elementary school EFL teacher whose target language (English) fluency and confidence were higher than those of other teachers The study found that teachers used target language predominantly more than L1 in the classroom, and her target language was mainly influenced by her target language proficiency

Crawford (2004) surveyed the language teachers‟ attitudes towards L1 use in Australia The results revealed that teachers‟ beliefs regarding the purpose of the programme might be a key factor in their attitudes towards L1-L2 choice The majority of the respondents believed that their L2 use maximizes learners‟ experience of L2, the use of L2 reflects teachers‟ confidence in learners‟ ability to learn, and L2 is more effective for teaching grammar However, Crawford did not observe the teachers , so it is not clear whether or not these teachers‟ beliefs were translated into teachers‟ classroom practices Song (2009) conducted a questionnaire survey on 61 Chinese teachers of English in a Chinese university The results showed that teachers differed in their attitudes towards L1 (Chinese) use in teaching English, ranging from full support of L1 use to completely against it It was also revealed in the study that teachers tended to resort to L1 when they were worried about student uunderstanding However, teachers did use L1 even when students had no difficulty in understanding English while there was both consistency and inconsistency between the teachers‟ stated beliefs and their

teaching practices Song cautioned that consistency did not mean a direct correlated relationship between stated beliefs and behaviours

Other researchers focused on the relationship between teachers‟ beliefs and actual use of the L1 Sabbari (2008) found that teachers who most „valued‟ the L1 also used it the most frequently, and vice-versa They stressed the importance of separating teacher beliefs from actual classroom behavior Understanding beliefs can help identify instances where teachers may refer to the L1, not for pedagogic, language or even classroom management processes but to save time Zacharias (2004) investigated the beliefs of tertiary teachers in Indonesia about the use of students‟ mother tongue in learning English In addition, it explored whether there were discrepancies between the teachers‟ beliefs and what they claimed to be their classroom practices The author reported that the teachers believed in the judicious use of L1 in the classroom Most teachers agreed that the use of L1 had potential benefits although many of them felt unsure as to how much the students‟ mother tongue should be used when teaching English However, the author did not observe teachers‟ actual teaching but relied on their verbalization of their classroom practices

Mohebbi and Alavi (2014) used a questionnaire to investigate the beliefs of

72 Iranian teachers of English and found that teachers used L2 (Persian) mainly to provide feedback, teach new vocabulary, explain grammar, build rapport, manage the class, give individual help to learners, and save time in lengthy task explanations

A number of factors influence teachers‟ beliefs These include teachers‟ own experience, either as learners or teachers and their own proficiency (Hall & Cook, 2012; Sabbari, 2008) Other factors include the attitudes and practice of their peers, managers, policy makers, academic research (Hall & Cook, 2012; Meij & Zhao, 2010)

1.9 Summary of the chapter

As revealed in this literature review, there has been significant change in the way L1 is viewed in L2 teaching and learning Most of scholars now agree on a bilingual approach to language teaching, according to which L1 is considered to be a useful resource for learning L2 Also, studies on teachers‟ beliefs about L1 use show that

in general teachers believe that L1 use is beneficial to their students The following chapter presents the study One of the concerns that is revealed in this literature review is that there have not yet been many empirical studies on teachers‟ use of Vietnamese to teach English in Vietnamese high schools From my personal experience, I know that teachers do use Vietnamese in teaching English Therefore,

a study on this issue will not only broaden the literature to include native Vietnamese-speaking teachers, but also deepen the literature by extending the general understanding of the extent of the L1 use in Vietnamese high schools, the beliefs underlying teachers‟ inclusion or exclusion of L1 This constitutes the rationale for me to conduct this study, which is presented in the following chapter

CHAPTER II THE STUDY

This chapter begins with the information about the context of the study Following this is the information about the study including the participants, the research methods and procedures as well as the findings resulted from the data analysis Finally, the discussion of the findings will be presented

2.1 The context of the study

This study was conducted in a high school which is located in a mountainous area of Bac Giang province There were eight teachers of English including the author of this study The most experienced one had 13 years of teaching English to the high school students and the least experienced one had 5 years of teaching The average class size was 40-50 students Like in every high school in Vietnam, English is one of the subjects in the curriculum Outside the school, both students and teachers hardly had any opportunity to use English for real communication As

a result, teaching and learning were aimed at helping the students to perform satisfactorily in standardized examinations such as the examination for the high school diploma and the university entrance examination According to the new initiative by the Ministry of Education and Training, these students are expected to achieve level 3 on the Proficiency Framework for Vietnamese students, corresponding to B1 on the Common European Framework of References for Languages (CEFR)

From my personal observation, all of them were responsible and dedicated teachers, who were always concerned about their students; learning outcomes

Table 2.1 Participant Profiles

2.3 Research methods and procedures

The overall aim of this study is to explore teachers‟ beliefs and practices regarding the use of Vietnamese (L1) in teaching English (L2) to Vietnamese-speaking students It is, therefore, a survey study, which is defined as any study that gathers “data on the characteristics and views of informants about the nature of language or language learning through the use of oral interviews or written questionnaires” (Brown, 2001: 2) The author of this study assume that the beliefs teachers hold about the use of L1 in teaching L2 reflect their views of language learning and teaching

2.4 Instrumentation

As stated in Chapter II – the Literature Review – researchers are advised to combine interviews with classroom observation to gain insights into teachers‟ beliefs and practices (Borg, 2006), data for this study were gathered by two qualitative methods: face-to-face interviews and classroom observations All the participants were interviewed first, and then observed

2.4.1 Interviews

McDonough and McDonough (1997) argue that interviewing is a very basic research tool in social science They divide interviews into (a) structured, (b) semi-structured and (c) unstructured Structured interviews are similar to the questionnaire and are used to “survey relatively large populations by asking the same questions in the same order” (McDonough & McDonough, 1997: 182) Semi-structured interviews, by contrast, “have a structured overall framework but allow for greater flexibility within that, for example in changing the order of questions and for more extensive follow-up responses” (McDonough & McDonough, 1997: 183) Unstructured interviewing is usually a loose one meaning the interviewer does not follow the same sequence of questioning Instead, the interviewer follows interviewee responses, with some of the characteristics of natural conversation

In this study, semi-structured interviewing was used This type of interviewing “has characteristics of both other types ….[but] it allows for richer interactions and more personalized responses” (McDonough & McDonough, 1997: 184) Before the interview was conducted, an interview guide was developed and consulted with the supervisor (see Appendix A) Each teacher was interviewed for approximately 30 minutes Vietnamese was used throughout the interviews because the author felt that it would be more comfortable to both the interviewer and the