Students’ attitudes towards using mother tongue in EFL classrooms a survey study at tien lang high school, hai phong

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOIUNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIESDEPARTMENT OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES ---***---ĐINH THỊ XUYẾN STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS USING MOTHER T

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOIUNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

-*** -ĐINH THỊ XUYẾN

STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS USING MOTHER TONGUE INEFL CLASSROOMS: A SURVEY STUDY AT TIEN LANG HIGH

SCHOOL, HAI PHONG

THÁI ĐỘ CỦA HỌC SINH ĐỐI VỚI VIỆC SỬ DỤNG TIẾNG MẸ ĐẺ TRONGCÁC LỚP HỌC TIẾNG ANH: MỘT NGHIÊN CỨU KHẢO SÁT TẠI TRƯỜNG

THPT TIÊN LÃNG, HẢI PHÒNG

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Language Teaching MethodologyCode: 60140111

HANOI – 2015

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOIUNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

-*** -ĐINH THỊ XUYẾN

STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS USING MOTHER TONGUE INEFL CLASSROOMS: A SURVEY STUDY AT TIEN LANG HIGH

SCHOOL, HAI PHONG

THÁI ĐỘ CỦA HỌC SINH ĐỐI VỚI VIỆC SỬ DỤNG TIẾNG MẸ ĐẺ TRONGCÁC LỚP HỌC TIẾNG ANH: MỘT NGHIÊN CỨU KHẢO SÁT TẠI TRƯỜNG

THPT TIÊN LÃNG, HẢI PHÒNG

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Language Teaching MethodologyCode: 60140111

Supervisor: Dr Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Quỳnh

HANOI – 2015

I – Đinh Thị Xuyến - hereby declare that the thesis entitled “Students’ Attitudes

Towards Using Mother Tongue In EFL Classrooms: A Survey Study At Tien Lang High School, HaiPhong” is the result of my own research in the fulfillment of the

requirement for the Degree of Master of Arts at Faculty of Post Graduate Studies University of Languages and International Studies, VNU, Hanoi and this thesis hasnot been submitted for any degree at any other university or institution

-Date:…….………

Signature: ………

I would like to convey my thanks to all my teachers of the Post Graduate,Cohort 21 whose fundamental knowledge about language teaching and learning is ofgreat importance to the achievement of my academic study.

It is my pleasure to acknowledge my debt to the Board of Management ofForeign Languages Department for their support and the favorable conditions theyhave granted me during my study

I would also like to take this opportunity to express my deepest thanks to all theteachers, especially Ms Nguyen Thi Nguyen, at Tien Lang High School for their help

in completing the survey questionnaires, for their constructive suggestions to thisresearch, and for their willingness to share their relevant problems with me

I am most thankful to the students of grade 11B8 and 11B2 at Tien Lang HighSchool whose cooperation is great significance to the completion of the study

Finally, I owe a great debt of gratitude to my parents whose loving support hasbeen encouraging me to fulfill this thesis successfully

ABSTRACTThis study is an attempt to investigate whether or not students at Tien LangHigh School support the use of Vietnamese in EFL classrooms and then compare highachievers’ and low achievers’ attitudes A questionnaire was administered to 91 11thgrade students at Tien Lang High School, Hai Phong Then, the responses of 24 highachievers (11th grade English final mark is above 8.0), and 29 low achievers (Englishfinal mark is below 5.5) were compared Ten students with different attitudes werethen further investigated through an interview The results show that all participantssupported both teacher’s and students’ use of L1 Also, there was almost no differencebetween two groups, except for some reasons of motivation, level of proficiency, andthe occasion of checking their production with their peers However, the study alsoindicates that for the best use of Vietnamese, it should be used reasonably in L2classrooms so as to expose students to English communicative opportunities as much

as possible

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

L1: the first language

L2: the second language

M1: high achievers’ mean

M2: low achievers’ mean

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables:

Table 1: Students’ reasons for supporting teacher’s use of L1 in EFL classrooms 24Table 2: Learning occasions in which students prefer their teacher to use L1 in EFLclassrooms 27Table 3: Students’ reasons for using L1 in EFL classrooms 29Table 4: Learning occasions in which students prefer to use L1 in EFL

classrooms 31

Figures:

Figure 1: Students' general attitude towards teacher's use of L1 in EFL

classrooms 23Figure 2: The frequency that Ss prefer teacher to use L1 in EFL classrooms 26Figure 3: Students' general attitude towards students' use of L1 in EFL

classrooms 28Figure 4: Students’ overall view regarding the frequency of their using L1

in L2 classes 30

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATIONS

ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS

ABSTRACT

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale

2 Aims and objectives of the study

3 Research questions

4 The methodology of the study

5 The scope of the study

6 The significance of the study

7 Design of the paper

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

1 Attitudes

1.1 Definition of attitudes

1.2 Language attitude and effects of language attitude

1.2.1 Effect of attitude on behavior

1.2.2 Effect of attitude on mental operation

1.2.3 Effect of attitude on affection

2 Use of mother tongue in EFL classrooms

2.1 Monolingual approach

2.1.1 Support for monolingual approach

2.1.2 The weaknesses of monolingual approach

2.2 Bilingual approach

2.2.1 Support for bilingual approach 11

3 Related studies 13

3.1 The role of mother tongue in learning English 13

3.2 Students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards using L1 in English classrooms 14 3.2.1 Studies on students’ attitudes towards using L1 in L2 classrooms 14

3.2.2 Studies on both Sts’ and Ts’ attitudes toward using L1 in English classrooms 15

CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY 17

1 The setting of the study 17

2 Subjects of the study 17

3 Instruments of collecting data 17

4 Data collection 18

5 Data analysis 20

CHAPTER THREE: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 22

1 Results 22

1.1 Students’ questionnaire 22

1.1.1 Students’ general attitude towards teacher’s use of L1 in L2 classes 22 1.1.2 Students’ reasons for supporting teacher’s use of Vietnamese in EFL classrooms 23

1.1.3 The expected frequency of teacher’s using Vietnamese in EFL classrooms 25

1.1.4 Learning occasions in which students prefer the teacher to use Vietnamese 26

1.2 What are Tien Lang students’ attitudes towards students’ use of Vietnamese in EFL classrooms? 28 1.2.1 Students’ general views on their own use of Vietnamese in L2 classes 28

1.2.2 Students’ reasons for using L1 in EFL classrooms 28

1.2.3 The expected frequency of students’ using Vietnamese in English classes 30

1.2.4 Learning occasions in which students prefer to use L1 31

2.1 What are high-achievers’ attitudes towards teachers’ use of Vietnamese in EFL classrooms compared to those of low-achievers? 32

2.1.1 Students’ general attitudes toward teacher’s use of Vietnamese 34

2.1.2 Students’ reasons for preferring teacher’s use of Vietnamese 34

2.1.3 Students’ expectation of the teacher’s frequency of using Vietnamese 35 2.1.4 Students’ preference of learning occasions in which teacher uses Vietnamese 35

2.2.1 Students’ general attitudes towards their own use of Vietnamese 37

2.2.2 Students’ reasons for using Vietnamese 37

2.2.3 Students’ preference of the frequency of using Vietnamese 38

2.2.4 Students’ preference of learning occasions 38

1.2 Students’ interview 39

PART C: CONCLUSION 43

1 A summary of study and implications 43

2 Limitations of the study 44

3 Suggestions for further research 44

REFERENCES 45 APPENDICES I

PART A: INTRODUCTIONPart A provides an introduction to the current study It discusses the rationale,the aims and objectives of the study In addition, two research questions are drawnand the scope, the significance and the design of the study are shown out clearly.

1 RationaleNowadays, while the monolingual approach is a widespread principleunderlying second language (L2, in this case, English) teaching, some studies havesuggested that this approach may not necessarily be the most appropriate, especiallywhen the teacher and the students share the same first language (L1, in this caseVietnamese) The issue of whether using L1 in EFL classrooms or not is an ongoingdebate Some educational institutions do not have specific policy and allow teachers

to use L1 in the classes, others give out a strict rule to the use of L1 in classrooms.They require teachers to keep to English only Some other institutions encourageinstructors to use English in classes; however, they have no strict rule about languageuse, so that L1 can be used in classroom instructions Teachers and studentsthemselves hold different views on the use of L1 in English as a Foreign Languageclassrooms

Generally, my own experience of first observing and then teaching English at ahigh school proved that policy makers and teachers tend to impose their students onmonolingual approach without considering the benefits of using L1 in Englishlessons Especially, in some formal classroom evaluation contexts, L1 is banned touse under any circumstances whereas in other situations, Vietnamese is used muchmore frequently than English because of students’ levels and examination – orientedmethod Although there have been a lot of studies supporting the inclusion oflearners’ mother tongue (Schweers 1999; Swain & Lapkin 2000; Burden 2001;Prodromou 2002; Tang 2002; Al-Nofaie 2010), such pedagogical decisions regarding

the exclusion of learners’ L1 have been made on ‘unexamined and taken-for-granted

assumptions’ (Auerbach 1993, p 29) In general, it seems quite reasonable that

English classrooms at high school level are conducted in English

only However, whether this policy enhances effective learning or not is still aquestion.

In addition, there have still been very few studies conducted to clarify the role

of L1 and students’ views on this issue in Vietnam context, though a lot of recentresearch shed light on the use of mother tongue in EFL classrooms The research byKim Anh (2010) only focused on university teachers’ attitudes towards usingVietnamese in teaching English Specially, there has never been any research onstudents’ attitudes with regard to using L1 in English classes at Tien Lang HighSchool Therefore, this paper is done to break this gap in the literature Since bothlearners and teachers are major stakeholders in learning and teaching process,learners’ voices need to be heard before effective pedagogical decisions can be made

This study was conducted in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms

in a high school where teachers and students are encouraged to use English only intheir class, especially in formal classroom evaluation contexts, the use of English islimited as much as possible The educational policy makers believe that only Englishclasses enhance students’ maximized exposure to target language as in line with theNatural Approach (Karashen, 1981)

2 Aims and objectives of the studySince there have been few of studies paying attention to the L1/L2 issue inVietnamese context, I have been motivated to undertake more investigation to findout the attitudes of Vietnamese students towards applying Vietnamese in EFLclassrooms

With the above aim, the objectives of the study are as followed:

 Explore whether or not Ss support both T’s use and Ss’ use of L1 in L2 classes, their reasons and in which contexts they prefer using L1

 Investigate the differences of Ss’ attitudes towards the use of L1

in L2 classrooms according to their language proficiency levels

3 Research questionsBasing on the given aims and objectives, the study finds the answers to

following questions:

EFL classrooms?

1.1 What are Tien Lang students’ attitudes towards teachers’ use of

Vietnamese in EFL classrooms?

1.2 What are Tien Lang students’ attitudes towards students’ use of

Vietnamese in EFL classrooms?

classrooms compared to those of low-achievers?

2.1 What are high-achievers’ attitudes towards teachers’ use of Vietnamese inEFL classrooms compared to those of low-achievers?

2.2 What are high-achievers’ attitudes towards students’ use of Vietnamese inEFL classrooms compared to those of low-achievers?

In this study, the term ‘attitudes’ is used to refer to participants’ tendencies toaccept or reject ideas by indicating whether or not they feel favorably towards theseideas or beliefs (Gay, Mills & Airasian, 2006)

4 The methodology of the study

The methods applied in this study are both quantitative and qualitative Thedata come from questionnaire and audio record for interview section

The participants of the study include 91 grade 11 students at Tien Lang HighSchool, who are randomly chosen by the researcher For research question 2, they arethen divided into two groups in terms of their English proficiency levels according tothe scores of their end-of-semester test: low-achievers (below 5.5), and

high-achievers (above 8.0) They at first fill out the questionnaire, and then ten ofthem take part in an interview.

Survey questionnaire is used to collect information and evidence for the study.Interview section is used to clarify some students’ responses in the questionnaire Allcomments, remarks, recommendations assumption and conclusion provided in thestudy base on the data analysis

5 The scope of the study

The study was conducted at Tien Lang High School, Hai Phong Because ofthe limited time, it only focused on investigating the attitudes of 11th grade studentstoward both teachers’ and students’ use of mother tongue in EFL classrooms, andwhether different English proficiency level students hold different views or not Theparticipants were students from two classes 11B2 and 11B8, who were non – Englishmajor students

6 The significance of the study

This study can contribute to help teachers and educators to know students’attitudes toward the use of Vietnamese in English lessons, to understand why theirstudents support or not the use of their first language in English language classrooms,and to understand in which contexts their students prefer to use their mother tongueinstead of using English Thanks to it, teachers will be better informed about whichmethods may facilitate their students’ language learning Therefore, this may lead tothe eventual improvement of the students’ English language skills in the classrooms.Besides, students themselves could have a better idea and explanation of theirattitudes toward learning target language By realizing their own justifications, theymay have a better chance to develop their English language skills

7 Design of the paper

The current thesis paper includes three main parts Part one is introduction

Part two includes three main chapters They are literature review, methodology, andresults and discussions The last part is about conclusion, implications for educators

as well as curriculum developers, limitations of the study and suggestions for furtherresearch

PART B: DEVELOPMENTCHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

Gardner (1985: 91) also points out that an attitude is an evaluative reaction tosome referent or attitude object, inferred on the basis of the individual’s beliefs or

opinions about the referent “Attitude is thus linked to a person’s values and beliefs

and promotes or discourages the choices made in all realms of activity, whether academic or informal.” (as cited in Padwick, 2010: 16).

Gardner’s argument leads Wenden (1991) to present a comprehensivedefinition of the attitude concept He classifies the term “attitude” into threeinterrelated components, namely cognitive, affective and behavioral The cognitivecomponent involves the beliefs, thoughts or viewpoints about the object of theattitude The affective component refers to the individual’s feelings and emotionstowards an object, whether he/she likes or dislikes The behavioral componentinvolves the way the attitude people have influences how they act or behave

All in all, Wenden’s definition (1991) shows out an overall and clear view on

“attitude” with three main components, which the researcher bases on to design asurvey questionnaire afterwards

1.2 Language attitude and effects of language attitude

According to Gardner and Lambert (1972), in order to master a secondlanguage, students themselves not only need mental competence or language skills,but also have positive attitudes and perceptions towards the target language Baker(1992: 9) as cited in Abidin (2012: 122) states that, “In the life of a language,attitudes to that language appear to be important in language restoration, preservation,decay or death.” In addition, De Bot et al (2005) assert that high motivation andpositive attitudes of students can facilitate second language learning process

Learning process is regarded as a positive change in the individual’spersonality in terms of the emotional, psychomotor (behavioral) as well as cognitivedomains, since when one has learned a specific subject, he/she is supposed to thinkand behave in a different manner and one’s beliefs have been distinguished (Kara,

2009, cited in Abidin, 2012: 123)

Furthermore, in addition to the cognitive aspect, ‘learning process has social

as well as psychological aspects’ The concept of attitudes can be viewed from threeeffects of attitudes on behavior, mental operation and affection

1.2.1 Effect of attitude on behavior

One of the effects of attitude is the effect on behavior This effect of attitudeinvolves the way one behaves and reacts in particular situations In fact, thesuccessful language learning improves learners’ identification with the nativespeakers of that language and ‘acquire or adopt various aspects of behaviors whichcharacterize the members of the target language community’ Kara, 2009, as cited inAbidin (2012: 123) states that,

“Positive attitudes lead to the exhibition of positive behaviors toward courses

of study, with participants absorbing themselves in courses and striving to learn more Such students are also observed to be more eager to solve problems, to acquire the information and skills useful for daily life and to engage themselves emotionally.”

1.2.2 Effect of attitude on mental operation

According to Abidin (2012: 122), ‘the beliefs of the language learners aboutthe knowledge that they receive and their understanding in the process of languagelearning’ is related to cognitive aspect of attitude This aspect of attitude can beclassified into four steps, i.e ‘connecting the previous knowledge and the new one,creating new knowledge, checking new knowledge, and applying the new knowledge

in many situations’

1.2.3 Effect of attitude on affection

Feng and Chen (2009), as cited in Abidin (2012: 123) state that, “Learning

process is an emotional process It is affected by different emotional factors The teacher and his students engage in various emotional activities in it and varied fruits

of emotions are yield.” Attitudes can help the learners to express whether they like or

dislike the objects or surrounding situations It is agreed that the inner feelings andemotions of FL learners influence their perspectives and their attitudes towards thetarget language (Choy &Troudi, 2006, cited in Abidin, 2012: 123)

This study mainly focuses on the effect of attitude on behaviors, mentaloperation and affection

2 Use of mother tongue in EFL classrooms

One of the major theoretical issues which has been dominated the field ofteaching and learning English as a foreign language is the use of students’ firstlanguage (L1) in second language (L2) classrooms The debate between supporters of

“monolingual approach” (avoid using L1) and “bilingual approach” (allowingstudents’ L1) has not seen an end yet to date Many supporters of “monolingualapproach” believe that students can become more proficient in L2 whenever theyhave many opportunities to be exposed to this language The opponents, on the otherhand, consider the effective use of L1 in the second language acquisition process.They claim that a moderate use of L1 in L2 classrooms can help encourage students

to learn English, get less tense and less lost (Schweers, 1999)

2.1 Monolingual approach

2.1.1 Support for monolingual approach

Monolingual approach means an approach avoiding the use of L1 for the sake

of focusing on target language The main reason for supporting this approach may bethe exposure to target language This theory is in accordance with Krashen’s InputHypotheses Krashen (1995) insists that learner’s first language should not be used inorder to maximize the exposure of using target language In fact, in EFL environment,students do not have many chances to expose to target language Therefore, thatteachers provide opportunities for them to use L2 as many as possible can enhancetheir language proficiency level Turnbull (2001) asserts that using L1 in classroomscan ‘take away students’ opportunities’ to practice target language In his research,Cook (2001) comes to believe that classroom interaction in L2 has been encouraged

to provide learners with a naturally communicative environment

Throughout the history, a number of teaching methods have been developed.Some methods are in line with the use of L1, others exclude learners’ first languageuse

In the sixteenth century, the appearance of Grammar Translation Method(GTM) required both teachers and students to make use of L1 in EFL classrooms.This language was used to translate sentences and make grammar understandable

From time to time, other methods have given birth One of the methods thatdoes not allow the use of L1 was Direct Method It is believed that words should beassociated directly to the objects, and thinking in L1 should be banned The othermethod known as Audiolingual Method does not encourage the use of L1

2.1.2 The weaknesses of monolingual approach

Although there are a number of researchers and linguists supporting themonolingual approach, it has been also received a huge of considerable criticism andopposition

Firstly, most L1 opponents argue that language learning by adults is similar tolanguage acquisition by children, and their reason is that both L1 children and L2

learners do not have any previous knowledge about the new language However, this

is not proved to be true There are many researchers proving the opponent, because it

is no doubt that age is one of the determining factors in learning process (Elmetwally,2012) Bley-Vroman (1990) presents a thorough explanation of five basic differencesbetween L1 acquisition by children and L2 learning by adults Firstly, children'sinnate ability to acquire their L1 disappears in adults Secondly, adults rely on theirL1 when learning L2, unlike children who do not have previous knowledge of theirmother language Thirdly, in contrast to children, adults' exposure to L2 is not enoughsince language input is confined to being in a learning environment such as schools.Moreover, children are helped by social factors as motivation and personal situationsthat adults lack Finally, notwithstanding adults' difficulties when learning, they dohave more mature cognitive abilities

Similarly, Brown (2007) makes a conclusion on the differences betweenchildren’s and adults’ learning process He claims that children learn two languagessimultaneously while adults do it systematically They tend to use their L1 knowledge

to bridge the linguistic gap they cannot fill in L2 It seems that mother tongue alwaysexists in learners’ mind even during their EFL/ ESL classes (Wechsler, 1997) Thismore or less affects the L2 learning process

Considering children who learn a foreign language, it could be difficult tohypothesize that their L2 learning is similar to their L1 acquisition It has beenbelieved that children can learn a foreign language better than adults This belief isrelated to the Critical Period Hypothesis which claims that effective foreign languagelearning occurs before puberty (Cameron, 2001)

Another drawback with the principle of monolingual approach is itsimpracticality This is because most of teachers of English are non-native speakers(Phillipson 1992: 191-192) and they do not master English at the same level ofproficiency

Last but not least, monolingual approach fails to differentiate between English

as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL)

While ESL refers to teaching English where “the language is necessary for everydaylife … or in a country in which English plays an important role in education,business, and government” (Richards & Schmidt, 2002: 180) in some countries likeCanada, the USA, Australia, etc., EFL “implies the use of English in a communitywhere it is not the usual means of communication” (Abbott, 2001) In other words, inESL context, learners do not share the same L1 and background, so they need to useEnglish as a tool to communicate in the outside world In contrast, in EFL context,English is only used in formal classroom settings Hence, they do not use Englishmuch in everyday life This difference gives some effective teaching approaches foreach learning context.

In conclusion, monolingual approach per se has been a subject of muchcriticism There is not enough evidence to prove that this is the most effectiveapproach in teaching English Therefore, the next section explores bilingualapproach

2.2 Bilingual approach

2.2.1 Support for bilingual approach

The bilingual approach which was developed by Dodson (1967) allowsstudents to switch from L1 to L2 and vice versa There are three main reasons for theemployment of this approach They are ‘maintaining a comfortable atmosphere inclass, promoting students’ comprehension and using class-time efficiently’(Tsukamoto, 2011:147)

In the history of teaching L2, besides GTM, it was revealed that a so-calledNew Current Method balanced the use of L1 and L2 in classrooms ‘Codeswitching’enhancing language learning should be ‘systematic and purposeful’ (Alnofaie, 2010).Moreover, a recent study by Raschka et al (2009) in a Taiwanese classroomconcludes that ‘code switching’ is a ‘frequent strategic device’ used by highlycommunicative competent teachers

However, the balance between L1 and L2 does not avoid problems Moremethods appear to limit the use of L1 in the EFL contexts They are Communicative

Language Teaching Method and Task-based Learning In CLT classrooms, L1 is onlyused for certain situations like giving instructions, etc In Task-based learning,learners can use different tools to communicate in L2 such as gestures and copyingwords from the task sheet, translation can be used as the last strategy as proposed byPrabhu (1987: 60) Several views claim the benefits of using L1 in L2 classrooms.Chavez (2002) concludes that students do not prefer using both L1 and L2 because

‘classroom is not real context for L2 social culture’ (as cited in Alnofaie, 2010)

Prodromou (2000), Atkinson (1987), and Cook (2001) conduct studies on theuse of L1 and students’ attitudes towards using L1 in L2 classrooms They all agreethat L1 is very benefit for students to:

To explain difficult concepts or vocabulary items

To motivate students in classes (To joke around with students)

To help students feel more comfortable and confident

To explain difficult grammar points

To check for comprehension

To explain the relationship between English and Vietnamese

To give difficult instructions

To give students comments

Besides, Cook (2001) also concludes that students’ mother tongue is advised to

be used in pair works or group works Furthermore, through using L1, they mayexplain the task to each other, negotiate the roles they are going to take, or check theirunderstanding or production of language against their peers through the L1

2.2.2 The weaknesses of bilingual approach

Although bilingual approach is useful for teaching L2 in many ways, there are stillsome weaknesses of this method, as followed:

 The focus is on the grammatical structures not on the day-to-day

conversation

 The teacher must be proficient in L1 and L2

 It does not follow any set theory

 Students become dependent on their mother tongue

 The methods and procedures are not different

 A possible disadvantage of the method is that if the teacher is notimaginative enough, this method may degenerate into the GrammarTranslation Method with all the attendant drawbacks

 Whereas, the Bilingual Method is useful at the secondary stage, the Direct Method is more useful than the Bilingual Method at the primary stage

(Aiiulistya, 2013)

3 Related studies

In the literature of the use of mother tongue in EFL classrooms, studies can becategorized into three kinds: the roles of L1 in second language learning, students orteachers’ attitudes towards the use of mother tongue and both teachers and students’perceptions on the use of L1 However, there are limited studies at school levels.Instead of this, they focus much on university teachers and students

3.1 The role of mother tongue in learning English

Recently, there have been many studies paying attention to the impact of L1 inlearning L2 For example, the research by Mattioli (2004) demonstrates that inChinese classrooms, ‘L1 is a valuable tool for socio-cognitive processes in languagelearning’ and enhances a ‘positive affective learning environment’ (Kavaliauskienė,2009: 3) L1 should also be inserted into lessons to create a dynamic classroom aswell as provide ‘a sense of security and validate the learners’ experience’ (Schweers,1999: 6) Swain &Lapkin (2000) argue that L1 may be beneficially used for taskmanagement, focusing attention, and interpersonal interaction Storch &Wigglesworth (2003) suggest that L1 also can be helpful when clarifying andmanaging the joint composition task, whereas it is used to discuss vocabulary on thereconstruction task

However, supporting mother tongue in L2 classrooms may lead to manydisadvantages, notably minimizing students’ opportunities to practice L2 Swain andLapkin (2000) argue that L1 use should be available for learners in the target

language classrooms However, it should not “be actively encouraged as it maysubstitute for, rather than support, second language learning” (Lapkin, 2000: 268).

Another risk of exploiting mother tongue in L2 learning is hindering learners’autonomy in FL communication (Cianflone, 2009: 2) Atkinson (1987), though headvocates the use of L1, believes that excessive use of L1 should be avoided In fact,the bilingual approach claims that L1 is an effective classroom resource thatfacilitates learning process However, teachers should consider the benefits anddrawbacks of using mother tongue in order to help students to achieve the best results

in learning L2

The studies highlighted above indicate that L1 has the potential as afacilitating learning tool However, there is still a need to explore learners’ andteachers’ views in this regard Decisions to adopt the monolingual or bilingualapproach have been made without taking learners’ and/or teachers’ input intoconsideration Since they are the ones who are directly affected by such decisions, thenext section aims to shed the light on some studies that examine their perceptionstoward the use of L1 in English classrooms

3.2 Students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards using L1 in English classrooms

3.2.1 Studies on students’ attitudes towards using L1 in L2 classrooms

A well-known research is conducted by Prodromou (2002) investigating theperceptions of 300 Greek students to the use of L1 in learning English The studyfinds out that there is a difference among learners’ proficiency levels That meansbeginners show a more positive attitude toward the use of Greek in Englishclassrooms than intermediate and advanced students They tend to accept using L1 toexplain grammar, explain differences in the use of L1 and L2 rules, and checkcomprehension In a similar study conducted in an Iranian context, Nazary (2008)strongly rejects using Farsi and prefers the sole exposure to English The resultsreveal that all three levels hold negative attitudes toward the use of the nativelanguage in leaning L2 whereas intermediate students have more negative attitudes

to the L1 inclusion This study is in contrast with other studies of Schweers (1999);Burden (2001); Tang (2002); Prodromou (2002) because surveyed students see alimited value of L1 in defining new vocabulary and explaining grammar points Inline with Prodromou’s work, Mouhanna (2009) asserts that the higher the Englishproficiency level was, the less reliant the students are on L1 use.

In an attempt to explore learners’ perceptions of using Spanish in Englishclassrooms, Brooks-Lewis (2009) carry out a study into adult learners’ perceptionstoward the use of their native language in the L2 classes He concludes that learnersshows an ‘overwhelming positive attitude’ towards the L1 inclusion as they believethat L1 use can help students to learn English much easier It is a facilitating tool tofoster learner-centered methodology “which not only allows but invites the learner tobecome actively and consciously involved in the language learning experience”(Brooks-Lewis, 2009: 234)

All the research above is helpful for teachers and educators in finding outstudents’ perceptions toward whether or not L1 should be used in L2 classes.However, the necessary amount of L1 using is not considered carefully Thefrequency of L1 using determines students’ exposure to target language Therefore,this requires a high level of awareness between teachers and student regarding whatcan be done in L1 and what should be carried out in L2 In the next section, bothstudents’ and teachers’ attitudes are going to be explored

3.2.2 Studies on both Sts’ and Ts’ attitudes toward using L1 in English classrooms

Burden (2001) investigates the issue of when learners and their teachers feltthere was a need to use Japanese in English classes The results indicate that there is ageneral agreement between teachers and students regarding the importance of L1 use

in the TL classes The surveyed teachers and students also accept to use L1 to explainnew vocabulary, give instructions, teach grammar and check comprehension

Tang (2002) also researches students’ and teachers’ attitudes toward usingChinese in English classes as a foreign language The study results indicate that bothteachers and students hold positive attitudes toward L1 inclusion in discussingdifficult grammatical rules and explaining challenging vocabulary items, practicingnew phrases and expression The researcher claims that a limited use of L1 can “assist

in the teaching and learning process”

In accordance with Al-Nofaie (2010), Arabic teachers and students agree withthe limited use of their native language in learning and teaching English process.They prefer to use Arabic to give exam instructions, translate new words, and contrastbetween English and Arabic

All the studies above share the same results of students’ and teachers’perceptions toward the use of L1 in L2 classes in spite of in different context Thesurveyed students believe that L1 should be utilized by both teachers and students.They all support L1 inclusion in L2 classrooms except for Nazary’s (2008) Theparticipants also agree that L1 should be used in many different classroom situationslike teaching grammar, explaining new vocabulary, comparing the L1 and L2 andchecking comprehension These studies also show the difference among learners’proficiency levels of English More specifically, lower achievers students tend to holdpositive attitudes toward the use of L1 than those of higher achievers On the otherhand, almost all teachers have positive attitudes to the use of mother tongue but in alimited way to avoid interference in teaching and learning English

All in all, this chapter provides a theoretical background behind monolingualand bilingual approach as well as empirical studies on the role of L1 and students’and teachers’ attitudes toward L1 inclusion The coming section will describe themethodology adopted in this paper, the study context, participants, data collectioninstruments, steps of conducting the study, and data analysis procedures

CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY

1 The setting of the study

Tien Lang High School is located in a small town of Hai Phong – Tien Langtown It is the first high school of Tien Lang, established in 1961 with a number ofsuccessful generations of students Honorably, the school is one of the three best highschools in Hai Phong with 41 classes and nearly 1,500 students Each year, the schoolselects two classes for gifted students from lower secondary schools based oncompetitive examinations for two sections: natural science and social sciencesections For 11th grade, the students aged from 16 to 18 have learned English for anumber of years and most of them have more or less mastered the basic grammarstructures and vocabulary However, those who learn at social science classes obtainhighest level of proficiency among those from non – gifted and natural science ones.This results in a big gap between those groups

2 Subjects of the study

The study was conducted in a high school in Hai Phong, i.e Tien Lang HighSchool For selecting participants, a random sampling was applied They included 91

11th grade students

In order to select students for interviewing, the Stratified Sampling type wasadopted This type of sampling is considered a mini-reproduction of the population(Sommer, 2006) The student subjects were classified into two categories in terms oftheir English proficiency levels according to the scores of their end-of-semester test:low-achievers (below 5.5), and high-achievers (above 8.0) The sample includedsubjects from the two strata to allow comparison Among those interested students to

be interviewed, ten were selected: five students of each level of proficiency

3 Instruments of collecting data

Both quantitative and qualitative methods were employed in order to reducepotential limitations of relying on a single approach and enhance confidence in the collected data as recommended by Nunan (1992)

Two instruments were employed to collect data They were questionnaire andinterview The questionnaire was adopted from the study of Elmetwally Elmenshawy(2012) and Wafa Al Sharaeai (2012) In order to help students follow easily and createthe suitability with the aims of the research, those questionnaire items were adaptedand re-ordered reasonably The Likert-type scale was widely used for its relativereliability, flexibility and ease in construction It also requires neither statisticalassumptions nor judges (Karavas-Doukas, 1996) Such a scale provides quantitativedata that are accurate, measurable and easy to analyze It also measures direction andintensity of attitudes through inviting respondents to determine to what extent theyagree or disagree to a set of statements (Albaum, 1997) The reliability in terms ofCronbach’s α for the items 1 – 7 was 0.707; items 9 – 18 was 0.7; items 19 – 25 was0.8; items 27 – 34 was 0.71, which achieved the reliability coefficient of 0.7recommended in most social science research situations (Santos, 1999).

The interview was opted for as they provided the researchers with an in-depthunderstanding of the interviewees’ perceptions, attitudes and feelings Among thedifferent types of interviews, a) structured, b) semi-structured and c) unstructured, thesemi-structured one seems to be more convenient for the purpose of this study, as it

“combine[s] the flexibility of unstructured, open-ended interview with thedirectionality and agenda of the survey instrument to produce focused, qualitative,textual data” (Schensul, Schensul & Le Compete 1999: 149) A semi-structuredinterview consists of a set of pre-formulated, open-ended questions related to an area

of interest in an attempt to identify and analyze the different factors and variablescontributing to a particular research area (Brown 2001; Schensul, Schensul & LeCompete, 1999) Unlike questionnaires, semi-structured interviews allow theresearcher to probe for more information to obtain rich, spontaneous and truthful data(Brown, 2001)

4 Data collection

Before delivering the questionnaire, a pilot was carried out in order to obtain

estimates about the expected response rates, data quality, the validity andcomprehensibility of the questionnaire, correcting inappropriate questions orambiguity, grouping and sequencing questions into an appropriate order beforestarting the real survey (Silman & Macfarlane, 2001) The average time, in the pilotstudy, for completion of the survey was 15–20 minutes.

In the middle of July, the questionnaire was handed out to 91 students at TienLang High School The researcher came to two chosen classes and explained anythingthat students were not clear when they filled in the survey questionnaire By this way,the researcher could not only assure that students would not make any copies of eachother’ answers but make them clear about what should be done in the questionnairealso The questionnaire was divided into two parts to examine students’ attitudestoward both of teacher’s use and students’ use of Vietnamese in English classrooms,using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’and ‘never’ to ‘every time’ in item 8 and 26 However, this type of scale is not free ofproblems The midpoint is not always easy to interpret It shows either respondents donot have a clear opinion or are not interested in a particular statement (McDonough &McDonough, 1997) The first part included demographic items related to age, gender,

11th grade English final marks and eighteen items related to students’ attitudes towardteacher’s use of Vietnamese; the second part included sixteen items and focused onstudents’ attitudes, perceptions to their own use of L1 in L2 classes The effect ofattitudes on affection, mental operation and behaviors are represented in thequestionnaire in terms of the way students express whether they prefer or not the use

of Vietnamese, the way they believe using Vietnamese is comfortable or not, and theirchoice of using Vietnamese in certain learning occasions

In order to accommodate students’ different levels of English proficiency, thequestionnaire was translated into Vietnamese On each questionnaire item, ‘stronglyagree’ and ‘agree’ both reflected students’ support and vice versa

After collecting questionnaire, for the sake of clarification of some responses,the researcher conducted a semi-structured interview to elicit more explanations.Audio-recorded was used to record interviews with students’ agreement Similar toquestionnaires, the interviews helped to clarify students’ attitudes and feelings Thequestions were designed to find more information that might not appear in thequestionnaires This kind of interview is quite beneficial for the researcher since it

“give interviewers a great deal of flexibility” (Nunan D., 1992: 150) becausequestions can be prepared ahead of time This allows the interviewer to be preparedand appear competent during the interview Semi-structured interviews also allowinformants the freedom to express their views in their own terms as well as providereliable and relevant data

5 Data analysis

5.1 Quantitative method

The thirty – four items were classified into two main parts Part one focuses onstudents’ attitudes towards teacher’s use of mother tongue in EFL classes In this part,there were eighteen items totally, which was divided into three sub groups: students’general attitudes, frequency of teacher’s use of Vietnamese and learning occasionsthat students prefer teachers to use Vietnamese The second part mainly focuses onstudents’ attitudes to their own use of L1 in L2 classes consists of sixteen items (items

19 – 34) Similar to the part one, it is also divided into three sub groups, i.e students’general attitudes to their own use of L1, frequency of students’ L1 use and learningoccasions in which students support for using L1 The collected data were analyzed

by using a counting method called central tendency Frequency count was utilized todeal with the responses to the close-ended questions In addition, where necessary,participants’ qualitative responses (parts of items 8 and 26) were discussed togetherwith the quantitative data

For the positive statements, participants’ responses were coded as followed:strongly disagree = 1, disagree = 2, neutral = 3, agree = 4, strongly agree = 5.Therefore, the higher the score, the more positive the attitudes towards the use of L1

in L2 classes For the frequency items, never = 1, almost never = 2, sometimes = 3,almost every time = 4, every time = 5 Thus, the higher the score is, the morefrequently Vietnamese is used by both teachers and students in English classes Aparticipants’ response to any item, as a result fell between the highest score (5) andthe lowest score (1).

After all 34 items had been coded, the two groups’ (low achievers and highachievers) average scores for the whole questionnaire, as well as average scores foreach part were calculated These average scores also fell within a range between 5and 1 For presentation purposes, a score of 3 was considered to be the neutral point

An average score higher than 3 for the whole questionnaire or for one of the subgroups would suggest a favorable attitude In order to determine whether there wereany significant differences between high achievers’ and low achievers’ attitudes,Mann Whitney U-tests were carried out with the alpha level set at 05 In addition,where necessary, participants’ qualitative responses (parts of items 8, 26) werediscussed together with the quantitative data

5.2 Qualitative method

A qualitative analysis was used for analyzing the additional points that theparticipants stated for the open ended questions in the interview part This part wasused to find more information whether students prefer the use of mother tongue in L2classes or not, their own reasons for their choices and in which learning occasionsstudents support the use of their first language

On one hand, for the positive statements, participants’ responses were

analyzed as followed: “I prefer…”, “ Vietnamese should be used frequently…”, “I

like… ” or “I do like…” On the other hand, for the negative statements,

participants’ responses should be “I feel difficult in…”, “I do not prefer….”, or

“….should never be used…”.

CHAPTER THREE: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

1.1.1 Students’ general attitude towards teacher’s use of L1 in L2 classes

Figure 1 illustrating item 1 indicates students’ general attitude towards

teacher’s use of L1 in L2 classes in percentage As can be seen from the table, 14% ofstudents did not agree with teacher’s use of mother tongue whereas a higherpercentage of students (65%) supported for teacher’s use of Vietnamese (Mean = 3.6;

SD = 1.05)

Figure 1: Students' general attitude towards teacher's use

Furthermore, Table 1 shows students’ reasons for supporting teacher’s use of

Vietnamese in English lessons There were four reasons why students agree with

teacher’s use of L1 in L2 classes They included students’ motivation (items 2, 3),language anxiety (item 4), level of proficiency (item 5) and L1’s assistance to L2learning (items 6,7)

As can be seen from this table, the students’ responses on all items 2-7indicate that a favorable attitudes to teacher’s use of L1 Out of 91 students, 71% and65% of students agreed that teacher’s use of L1 could make them feel comfortableand motivated to take part in English classroom activities This means that they werehighly motivated in English lessons if their teacher used their first language

Due to language anxiety, a high percentage of students supported the fact thatthey felt nervous when their teacher uses English only

Moreover, 53% of students thought that they preferred the teacher to useVietnamese because of their low language level of proficiency

Last but not least, the majority of students (62% and 73%) believed thatteacher’s use of Vietnamese in class helped them learn English and understand lesson

23

Figure 2 below shows the students’ overall view regarding the expected

frequency of teacher’s using Vietnamese in English classes As can be seen from the

table, about 2% of students believed that the teacher should never use Vietnamese inEnglish lessons This is partly because they thought that in order to help studentsreally master/acquire English, teacher had to use Vietnamese exclusively in theclassrooms They seemed to be aware of the potential drawbacks of using Vietnameseduring English classes They admitted that excessive use of Vietnamese limited theiropportunities to use English, as they got used to it It also demotivated and drovethem to be lazier

Thanks to it, students could have many more chances to practice listeningEnglish On the other hand, almost all students (72.5%) indicated that Vietnameseshould be sometimes used by their teachers in English classes Only 8.8% of studentssupported that the teacher should use Vietnamese every time

Figure 2: frequency of teacher's use of L1

8.8

almost never

15.4

72.5

1.1.4 Learning occasions in which students prefer the teacher to use Vietnamese

Table 2 presents three possible main learning occasions in which students prefer

the teacher to use Vietnamese These situations were adapted from the research of

Prodromou (2000), Atkinson (1987) and Cook (2001) They were motivating

students, conveying meanings and organizing class

26