Problem statement
Among a number of experts in the field of second language acquisition, there are increasing contradicting views about whether to use the mother tongue of the students (L1) in the foreign language (L2) classroom or learning environments
The monolingual approach suggests that the target language ought to be the sole medium of communication, implying the prohibition of the native language would maximize the effectiveness of learning the target language However, there seems to be an increasing conviction that the first language (L1) has a necessary and facilitating role in the second and foreign language (L2) classroom
Many English language professionals dispute the L1 use in the classroom, something that should never happen in modern communicative lessons They wonder how students can truly appreciate target language exchanges if they are continually relying on their L1s (Mattioli, 2004) Ellis notes that too much L1 use could “deprive the learners of valuable input in the L2” (1984, p 133) Auerbach (1993) observes that in ESL classroom a numbers of teachers, holding the belief that L1 use will impede progress in the acquisition of English, devising games, signals, and penalty systems to prevent the students from using their L1 This is evidenced by the article of Weinberg (1990), extolling the virtues of fining students for using their L1 “This is an English-only classroom If you speak Spanish or Cantonese or Mandarin or Vietnamese or Russian or Farsi, you pay me
On the other hand, many professionals in the field of second language and foreign language acquisition agree that L1 should be used with students who are not highly proficient in the target language (Nation, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Atkinson, 1987;
Tang, 2002; Auerbach, 1993; Mattioli, 2004) This may suggest that L1 plays an important role in language teaching, especially for the low proficiency learners (LPL) However, there are not many empirical studies that have examined specifically what good effects the use of L1 can have on teaching LPL
Therefore, it seems necessary to look at the approaches for L1 using from different perspectives and in different fields of L2 learning, that is from teachers‟ and students‟ points of view, in students‟ learning of grammar, vocabulary or skills, etc This study research focused on one of those factors – students‟ learning of vocabulary And it is hoped that the findings of this study, to some extent, will contribute to the pedagogic methodology, especially in teaching English in general and in teaching vocabulary at universities in Vietnam as well as at Hanoi University of Industry in particular
The reason the researcher focused on vocabulary acquisition is that the acquisition of vocabulary has a central role in learning a second language (Sửkmen, 1997), and is of great significance to language learners, really important for the four language skills (Cook,
1991) Words are the building blocks of a language since they label objects, actions, ideas without which people cannot convey the intended meaning so second language learners need to have a substantial vocabulary size (Nation, 2001) The prominent role of vocabulary knowledge in second or foreign language learning has been recently recognized by theorists and researchers in the field Accordingly, numerous types of approaches, techniques, exercises and practice have been introduced into the field to teach vocabulary (Hatch & Brown, 1995) The study of Ringbom in 1987 clearly indicates that L1 clearly has a very important role to play in the deliberator learning vocabulary (Nation, 2001)
Auerbach (1993) claims that the use of the learner‟s L1 in the L2 classroom will have a positive effect on learners‟ second language learning, especially in the area of vocabulary
However, what effects the use of L1 in English vocabulary teaching can cause to students‟ learning is still an unanswered question that the researcher is endeavoring to discover.
Aims of the study
The issue this paper examined in more detail is in what ways the use of students‟
L1 in the classroom hinders or facilitates their learning of vocabulary of second language (in this case English)
The debate over whether English language classrooms should include or exclude students' native language has been a controversial issue for a long time (Brown, 2000)
Although the use of mother tongue was banned by the supporters of the Direct Method at the end of the nineteenth century, the positive role of the mother tongue has recurrently been acknowledged as a rich resource which, if used judiciously, can assist second language teaching and learning (Cook, 2001) Still, so many teachers have questions about whether to provide L1 support, as TESOL programs at all levels on the market today provide neither explicit training nor adequate theoretical information on the subject
Teachers are left to work things out on their own
For the researcher, the question of whether or not to use students' first language (L1 / Vietnamese) in English classes comes from personal daily teaching, recent literature she has read, presentations she has attended and the same concern of her peer teachers This position of being for the idea that L1 should be used at certain times may seem heretical in light of what most of us were taught when trained as ESL/EFL professionals, but it is surely worthy of serious consideration
Therefore, this research study tries to find evidence for the approval of using learners' mother tongue in a thoughtful way in second language teaching In essence then, it is a form of action research where the findings could have a direct impact on this particular school and the way vocabulary is taught The research is done in order to find out the effects of using L1 in English classroom on students learning of vocabulary.
Scope of the study
This study concentrates on “the role and the use of first language in General-
English classes at Hanoi University of Industry” In this study, L1 using will be investigated through applied-linguistic aspect However, English as a language consists of different fields to teach and learn, and Vietnamese can have different roles in teaching students of different levels Therefore, the study is mainly concerned with teacher‟s use and allowing the use of Vietnamese in teaching vocabulary to non-majored students of English at elementary level.
Method of the study
This study is carried out in the form of an action research in which the teacher applied different approaches (including and excluding Vietnamese) in teaching vocabulary to her students and studied the consequences of each method in order to compare their effectiveness The study consisted of two experiment: the first experiment with 4 classes divided into two groups (control and experimental group) which are taught with two different approaches After some early conclusion has been drawn based on the findings of the first experiment, the second one was conducted for the purpose of further strengthening those findings In the second experiment, though, the two different approaches were used with the same class in different lessons During the process of teaching experiments, observations of classroom interactions were made by the teacher researcher and some tests were delivered to student The records of the observation and the tests‟ results presented the effectiveness of Vietnamese using in students‟ learning English vocabulary.
Organization of the study
The study consists of three chapters Before we can begin with the experiments, chapter 1 examines the issue of L1 use in a language classroom in detail, and more particularly in vocabulary lessons, so as to be able to place these experiments in the proper context Chapter 2 deals with the study which included two experiments from the design to analytical framework In chapter 3 results of the observations and tests will be found together with some discussion about English learning and teaching First of all, we should have a review of the issue in literature.
Literature review
The historical view of the issue
A look at the history of L1 use in the L2 classroom quickly reveals periodic but regular changes in how it is viewed (Auerbach, 1999, p12) Several hundred years ago bilingual teaching was the „norm‟, with students learning through translation The use of L1 to study L2 was almost universal and readily accepted, in part because language teaching placed an emphasis on the written word above the spoken word In the 19 th century, this trend slowly reversed itself (towards a monolingual approach), in part due to a shift towards an emphasis on the spoken word The impact of mass migration, colonialism and a large increase in research in the field, would further strengthen the Monolingual Approach in the 20 th century
The mass migration of people to other countries, particularly from Europe to America was important because it forced educators to refocus their lessons, from smaller translation-oriented classes to bigger classes, and perhaps from students with a common L1 to students with a mixed L1 (Hawks, 2001, p47) No longer could teachers rely on using L1 to help them The only way to teach was to use the L2 as the medium of teaching
Experiences garnered by the many teachers who went abroad during the colonial teaching period would further help the monolingual tenet to evolve (Phillipson, 1992, p186) As English became the predominant culture in the British colonies, those who were not a part of it were forced to assimilate if they wished to better their life or be a part of the ruling elite This led to the perceived superiority of English above all other languages and would in part eventually lead to a commonly held assumption that English was the only language that should be spoken in the English-language classroom
The rise of an English-only classroom for political and practical reasons (of the teacher‟s, not the student‟s) conversely brought about the exclusion of the student‟s L1
Those caught using L1 were often punished or shamed for doing something wrong (Phillipson, 1992, p187) The idea of bilingual education was seen as unnatural or inefficient (Pennycook, 1994, p136) Perhaps furthering the desirability of an English-only policy was the fact that many teachers themselves were monolingual They could not, nor did they perceive the need to speak the L1 of their students (Phillipson, 1992, p188) By enforcing an English-only policy, the teacher could assume control of the class, and would naturally be in a position of strength On the other hand, by using L1 in the classroom, the teacher risked undermining him/herself, as the students being the better speakers would control the communication
The emphasis on monolingual teaching of English also inherently implied that the native speaker was the ideal teacher This was closely tied not only to political agendas, but also to the economics of the global EFL field (Pennycook, 1994, p176) English speakers could control all the employment opportunities, by being seen as the „ideal teacher‟
The appearance of the Direct Method of teaching just over a hundred years ago also contributed greatly to the consolidation of the idea that all L1 languages should be excluded from the classroom (Harbord, 1992, p350) & (Pennycook, 1994, p169) The premise of the Direct Method was that second language learning mirrored first language acquisition: lots of oral interaction, little grammatical analysis and no translation The Direct Method would soon be discredited when it failed in the public education system (Brown, 1994, p44), but it would have a lasting influence on ESL/EFL classrooms
Also pivotal in forwarding the argument that L1 should not be used in the classroom was Krashen, who advocated maximum exposure to the target language He stated that all the lessons or as much as possible should be in L2 (English in our case), and that there was a definite relationship between comprehensible input in L2 and proficiency (Krashen, 1985, p14) Crucially though, this perhaps implied that time spent using L1 would only detract from learning He even suggested that the reason exposure was not always successful in facilitating proficiency, was because learners had access to their L1 either in class, or out of it (Krashen, 1985, p14) This idea that the L2 lesson should be taught in L2, in order to maximize exposure, and thereby learning, is perhaps the key concept which monolingual supporters have based their approach on
The Makere report in 1961 further reinforced the idea of using nothing but English in the classroom There are five basic tenets originating from this report, which have been called into question, but which were taken as the „truth‟, at the time They are:
1 That English should be taught in a monolingual classroom
2 The ideal teacher should be a native English speaker
3 The earlier English is taught the better
4 The more English used in the classroom during lessons, the better
5 If other languages are used, English standards will drop (Phillipson, 1992, p185)
By the 1970s these five tenets would be incorporated into the Communicative Approach, which quickly came to dominate language teaching Native English teachers teaching only in English and excluding the students L1 would become the goal for many Communicative supporters As a whole, the Communicative Approach firmly believed the idea that monolingual teaching with authentic communication in L2 was the best way to learn a language (Pennycook, 1994, p169) Many linguists insisted that the target language be used for all purposes in the classroom (Wringe, 1989, p9) even when the reasons for using it remained unclear (Hawks, 2001, p47) Communicative researchers not only believed in the use of L2 as the medium of teaching, but many others also believed that L1 use actually interfered with L2 learning and brought about „error transference‟ (Pracek,
2003), thereby hindering learning These errors from L1 interference would be formed into what is now known as the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (Brown, 1994, p193) It was thought that errors in L2 learning could be predicted by comparing and contrasting L2 with L1
Some researchers claimed that the learning of an L2 followed the same principles as the learning of an L1 (Phillipson, 1992, p191), which further reinforced the idea of using only the target language to maximize exposure and consequently learning
Even as recently as the 1990s, the English-only movement has been further solidified by the various versions of the national curriculum orders in the UK, which established the use of the target language (TL) as the means of communication in the classroom (Pachler & Field, 2001, p84)
Recently though support for an English-only policy has been declining, and some researchers and teachers have begun to advocate a more bilingual approach to teaching, which would incorporate the students‟ L1 as a learning tool Others have even gone as far as saying the use of L1 in the classroom is necessary (Schweers, 1999, p6)
Many researchers now believe that the search for a „best method‟ is a futile effort (Lewis, 1993, p189), because there can never be one method that suits all (Nunan 1999, in
Pracek, 2003) Many methods and many techniques have their place, depending on the differing circumstances of the teaching environment By excluding the students‟ L1, we are severely limiting the number of methods and techniques available to teachers.
The current mixed views
1.2.1 Support for the Monolingual Approach
There is some strong support for the Monolingual Approach to teaching in the literature and advocates usually organize their support around 3 claims:
1 The learning of an L2 should model the learning of an L1 (through maximum exposure to the L2)
2 Successful learning involves the separation and distinction of L1 and L2
3 Students should be shown the importance of the L2 through its continual use (Cook, 2001, p412)
According to Cook 2001, these are some of the fundamental principles of the Monolingual Approach
While the research may not be entirely convincing, it is considered likely that L2 acquisition is similar to L1 acquisition, which, crucially, is based on the notion of exposure as being the determining factor for learning (Lewis, 1993, p54) Children learn their first language through listening and copying what those around them say, and exposure to the language is vital in the development of their linguistic skills The Communicative Approach generally favored a monolingual approach with adults for similar reasons, justified on the pretence of maximizing communication in L2 (Phillipson, 1992, p185)
Many teachers themselves have come to believe that as the classroom is often the students‟ only exposure to English that exposure should be maximized (Burden, 2000, p5)
In regards to Cook‟s second point, supporters of the Monolingual Approach have stated that translating between L1 and L2 can be dangerous as it encourages the belief that there are 1 to 1 equivalents between the languages, which is not always the case (Pracek,
2003) They believe the two languages should be distinct and separate Supporters of the Bilingual Approach might argue that to make the separation or distinction between L1 and L2, explanations in L1 are necessary, because the teaching of grammar is so complex that without the use of L1, there would be little or no comprehension on the students‟ part, especially at lower levels This is not true according to others, who proclaim that actually quite a number of grammar points can be taught in the target language, especially through the use of physical or visual displays (Pachler & Field, 2001, p92) Beside those extra lingual strategies which make use of pictures, objects, physical contexts, and other multimedia aids (Jiang, 2004), there seems to be a preference, explicitly stated or not, for intralinguas strategies over interlinguas strategies among many teachers and researchers
Intralinguas strategies involve the use of linguistic means of the target language such as synonyms, definitions, or linguistic contexts Interlingual strategies utilize the L1 in the form of a bilingual dictionary, cognates, or L1 translation equivalents, often associated with word lists As pointed out by Schmitt (1997), intralinguas strategies are
„pedagogically correct‟ because they are consistent with principles of communicative language teaching or comprehensive input Interlingual strategies, however, have easy associations with the grammar translation method or contrastive analysis Many modern teaching methods treat L2 in isolation from L1, whether it is the communicative approach, the audio-lingual method, the mainstream EFL methods, or the older direct method, L1 is shunned in the classroom
Regarding Cook‟s third point, it seems that the use of L2 only in the classroom does help demonstrate the L2‟s importance and can portray the usage of the language being studied (Pachler & Field, 2001, p86)
Proponents of English-only also claim that using L1 in the classroom is not in accordance with SLA theories, which advocate modified input and negotiation in L2 as a means of learning (Polio, 1994, p156) Ironically though, negotiations of meaning and trial and error often lead to what has been dubbed an „interlanguage‟, where a mix of L1 and L2 is used to communicate and establish the correct way of communicating in the L2 (Weschler, 1997, p2) One area in which there is strong support for a Monolingual Approach is the multilingual classroom Unless the teacher is capable of speaking all the respective L1s in the classroom, there would seem to be no benefit of L1 use (Hawks,
2001, p49) and indeed it would probably hinder learning
1.2.2 Support for the Bilingual Approach
Despite growing opposition to the English-only movement, its supporters remain steadfast in their determination to use English as the target language and the medium (Auerbach, 1993, p9) even though there are few specific references referring to actual benefits derived from excluding the L1 from the classroom (Hawks, 2001, p48)
However, there is now a belief by some that the use of L1 could be a positive resource for teachers and that considerable attention and research should be focused on it (Atkinson,
1987, p241) There is also strong evidence that it is popular and students tend to prefer teachers who understand their L1 (Briggs, 2001, p1) A study by Schweers, 1999 found 88.7% of Spanish students studying English wanted L1 used in the class because it facilitates learning Students also desired up to 39% of class time be spent in L1 (Schweers, 1999, p7)
Much of the attempt to discredit the Monolingual Approach has focused on three points: it is impractical, native teachers are not necessarily the best teachers, and exposure alone is not sufficient for learning
The biggest problem with the Monolingual Approach to teaching is that it is really impractical (Phillipson, 1992, p191) One reason the exclusion of L1 is impractical is that the majority of English teachers are not native speakers (Hawks, 2001, p50) Sometimes these teachers‟ own English is not very good, and by insisting on an English only policy, we can severely undermine their ability to communicate and consequently their ability to teach Another reason it is impractical is that to enforce the sole use of the TL can often lead to a reduced performance on the part of the teachers, and the alienation of students from the learning process (Pachler & Field, 2001, p85) Not only that, but excluding L1 can lead to a higher dropout rate in ESL schools, whereas when L1 is permitted, researchers and teachers alike report much more positive results (Auerbach, 1993, p18)
Monolingual teaching can also create tension and a barrier between students and teachers, and there are many occasions when it is inappropriate or impossible (Pachler & Field,
2001, p86) When something in a lesson is not being understood, and is then clarified through the use of L1, that barrier and tension can be reduced or removed
The Monolingual Approach also supports the idea of the native teacher as being the ideal teacher This is certainly not the case as being a native speaker does not necessarily mean that the teacher is more qualified or better at teaching (Phillipson, 1992, p194)
Actually, non-native teachers are possibly better teachers as they themselves have gone through the process of learning an L2 (usually the L2 they are now teaching), thereby acquiring for themselves an insider‟s perspective on learning the language (Phillipson,
1992, p195) By excluding these people and their knowledge from the learning process, we are wasting a valuable resource In addition, the term „native teacher‟ is problematic There are many variations of English around the world, and as to what constitutes an authentic native English speaker, is open to endless debate Ultimately though, there is no scientific validity to support the notion of a native teacher being the ideal teacher (Phillipson, 1992, p195)
Another problem with the Monolingual Approach is its belief that exposure to language leads to learning Excluding the students‟ L1 for the sake of maximizing students‟ exposure to the L2 is not necessarily productive In fact there is no evidence that teaching in the TL directly leads to better learning of the TL (Pachler & Field, 2001, p85)
Approaches to vocabulary teaching
Sửkmen (1997) states that vocabulary teaching was based on a top-down, naturalistic, and communicative approach which emphasized implicit and incidental learning of vocabulary The implicit approach, which includes inferring from the context and guessing, is commonly used in foreign language teaching classrooms Teachers often encourage students to guess the meaning of the words by looking at the context where the words are located They rarely use L1 in the classroom because they are concerned that students may just rely on their L1 Nevertheless, more studies show that implicit teaching may not be appropriate for LPL, it could cause more difficulties in the process of learning
Several studies of vocabulary acquisition show that the combination of implicit and explicit vocabulary instruction is an effective way for acquiring vocabulary (Sửkmen,
1997) Ramachandran and Rahim‟s (2004) study shows that explicit instruction which uses L1 could encourage ESL students whose English proficiency is at the elementary level to recall and retain the words more effectively
Whilst L1 is normally overlooked in TEFL, it seems that many teachers believe that English should be taught in English because it is the only way to expose students to the target language in the classroom Anyway, students‟ preference and progress can be the strongest base for teachers‟ choice of what language to use.
Adults L2 vocabulary acquisition model
Based on the characterization of the unique learning conditions adult L2 learners face, Jiang (2000) proposed a three-stage psycholinguistic model of adult L2 vocabulary acquisition
In the first, lexical association stage, adult learners recognize an orthographic or phonological form, or both, as a word They understand the word‟s meaning within an existing semantic structure, which is closely linked to their L1 To help themselves remember this L2 word, the learners associate it with its L1 translation However, unlike a L1 word whose entry contains all four types of lexical knowledge, that is, meaning and syntax in the lemma structure, and morphology and phonology/orthography in the lexeme
(Levelt, 1989), this L2 lexical entry contains only form knowledge, that is, phonology and orthography Other space in the entry is empty
Lexical processing and production at this stage rely on the activation and mediation of L1 translations because no direct links exist between L2 words and concepts, or such links are very weak Because only lemma information in the L1 entry participates in and assists L2 word use, this part of the L1 entry receives the most activation The lexeme part that contains form specifications is gradually deactivated The outcome of continued exposure to (and productive use of) L2 is that the semantic and syntactic information in the L1 translation is copied or transferred into the empty space of the L2 words This leads to significant changes in lexical representation and processing of L2 word and signals the coming of the second stage in lexical development The L2 entry now contains a mixture of L2 form specifications and semantic and syntactic specifications transferred from its L1 translation The presence of the semantic content in the entry means that the word is now linked directly to conceptual representations In processing terms, one may expect a L2 word at this stage to be used with more fluency or automaticity because this direct link makes the activation of L1 translation no longer necessary At the same time, there is still significant influence from the L1 in L2 word use because lexical processing and production are still mediated by the lemma information of its L1 translation, which now resides in the L2 entry Thus, from a processing perspective, this stage may be called L1 lemma mediation stage From a representational perspective, this stage may be called the hybrid-entry stage because a L2 entry at this stage contains a combination of L2 form information and L1 meaning and syntax information
In principle, there is a third stage in lexical development when lexical knowledge specific to a L2 word is integrated in its entry and L1 information is discarded As a result, a L2 word can be used with not only more automaticity, but also more idiomaticity, with little influence from its L1 translation However, it is suggested by this model (Jiang, 2000) that many words may stop short of this third stage and L1 lemma mediation may become a steady state of lexical processing in advanced L2 learners
To sum up, the analyses above challenge the complete rejection of L1 in the L2 vocabulary teaching (especially for adult L2 learner) Many modern teaching methods treat L2 in isolation from L1, whether it is the communicative approach, the audio-lingual method, the mainstream EFL methods, or the older direct method, L1 is shunned in the classroom
(Johnson & Johnson, 1999) In fact, L1 is present in L2 learner‟s mind, whether the teacher wants it to be there or not, and the L2 knowledge that is being created in their mind is connected in all sorts of ways with their L1 knowledge.
Action research
Kemmis and McTaggart defined action research as “deliberate, solution-oriented investigation that is group or personally owned and conducted It is characterized by spiraling cycles of problem identification, systematic data collection, reflection, analysis, data-driven action taken, and, finally, problem redefinition The linking of the terms
“action” and “research” highlights the essential features of this method: trying out ideas in practice as a means of increasing knowledge about or improving curriculum, teaching, and learning” (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988)
Similarly, Watts stated that action research is a process in which participants examine their own educational practice systematically and carefully, using the techniques of research
Steps of an action research are shown in the figure below, which was adapted from Susman, 1983
Considering alternative courses of action
Studying the consequences of an action
Action research can be a worthwhile pursuit for educators for a number of reasons
Foremost among these is simply the desire to know more Good teachers are, after all, themselves students, and often look for ways to expand upon their existing knowledge
Some other strong points of this research method are hereafter
First, research done with the teacher‟s students, in a setting with which the teacher is familiar, helps to confer relevance and validity to a disciplined study
Second, it can be seen as a form of teacher professional development because through action research, teachers learn about themselves, their students, their colleagues, and can determine ways to continually improve
Furthermore, action research when done in pairs or by teams of teachers allows time to talk with others about teaching and teaching strategies and share their thoughts which develop stronger relationships between them
Besides, it offers potential for school change As teachers get into action research, they are more apt to look at questions that address school concerns Development of priorities for school-wide planning and assessment efforts arise from inquiry with potential to motivate change for improvement‟s sake
One more benefit is, action research helps teachers reflect on their own practice
They can also investigate what effect their teaching is having on their students, how they could work better with other teachers, or ways of changing the whole school for the better
Last but not least, action research improves communications as team work within the school or district brings individuals together for a shared purpose Educators involved in action research become more flexible in their thinking and more open to new ideas (Pine, 1981) Studies by Little (1981) suggest positive changes in patterns of collegiality, communication, and networking
For all the advantages above, the researcher decided to apply this method in this study with the intent that the research will inform and change her practices in the future while posing some implications for potential changes in to English teaching at her school
Like any other action researches, this study will not provide all the answers to our questions about how students learn or what educators can do to improve practice, but it happened at the place where the question arises; it happens where the real action is taking place; and it allows for immediate action.
The study
Design of the study
The study is conducted in order to find evidence for the acceptance or rejection of the following hypotheses:
- Teacher using and allowing L1 use in English classroom encourage students to get more involved in learning process
- L1 use makes it easier for students to learn the new vocabulary
- L1 use in defining and explaining new words improves student‟s long term memory
In this study, the instrument used to elicit and collect data was in the form of teaching experiments with teacher‟s self-observation and testing materials (pre-test & post- tests) Two experiments were carried out in order to find out the difference in students‟ involvement, and their comprehension and memorization of vocabulary with the two different approaches (English-only and Vietnamese included) with certain techniques
Each experiment included students‟ tests and teacher‟s observations of classes
The researcher decided to use tests as a tool of data collection because tests have long been proved to be one of the most reliable access to learners‟ achievement They tell the teacher what the students have learnt, and therefore how successful the teaching has been and what needs to be taught or improved in the future As well, they tell students how well they are progressing, and where they need to focus their attention as learners Regular tests also encourage students to take their learning seriously, and give them a series of definite goals to aim forwards (Adrian Doff, 1995) The purpose of the tests here was to measure students‟ achievement in vocabulary when Vietnamese was used in teaching and learning, and when it was not The tests focused on examining students‟ understanding of the words and expressions through direct translation and using them in suitable contexts
The rate of correct answers for each question was recorded and the mean score of each group was calculated, compared and then discussed
There were 7 tests in two experiments of the study Experiment 1 included 3 test, test 1 was the diagnosing test, test 2 tested students‟ understanding of words and test 3 measured students memory of the words they learned Experiment 2 included 4 tests: tests
4 and 5 dealt with students comprehension of words taught in experimental lessons(which used Vietnamese) as well as in control lessons (which used English only in definitions and explanations of words); and tests 6 and 7 handled their memory of those words All the tests had the same format: multiple choice tests with four alternative answers The test consisted of two parts: (1) vocabulary in direct translation from English to Vietnamese and vice versa (10 items), and (2) vocabulary in context (10 items) The first task of tests – vocabulary in direct translation was to examine students‟ ability to recognise the words and link them with their L1 equivalents and whether they could pick out the correct English translation for Vietnamese words among words of the same category or similar forms This could be seen as a later phase of their lexical association stage in Jiang‟s three-stage psycholinguistic model of adult L2 vocabulary acquisition The second task was included in the tests for the purpose of testing students ability to use the suitable words in contexts, that is to link the words directly to their conceptual representations Students being able to do this would be considered in the second stage of L2 vocabulary acquisition when they can use the word more fluently and automatically with significant influence of L1
In the first test, all 20 words were taken from the previous units of the book New Headway Elementary that students had learnt not long before In tests 2 to 7, the words were taken from the units of the book that students learnt during research time
The observation was chosen for its advantages One of the advantages of participant observation is its ability to facilitate the collection of 'rich' information that is frequently not available from other sources (Babbie, 1995) As such, it can be used to supplement, inform or contradict theorised research and it can greatly enhance the available knowledge on a subject as a result It can be used either as a preliminary step in a research study by which the researcher observes events 'as they occur' in order to formulate a hypothesis for further investigation or it can be used at a more advanced stage of the research in order to test a hypothesis formed on the basis of theoretical research (Patton,
2002) It is believed to elicit 'real' and 'genuine' information that has not been filtered or amended by the research participants as can occur in relation to interview or questionnaire data and, as such, provides unique insights into the subjective viewpoint of the participants in the study With observation, participants may not realise that they are being watched so they do not moderate their behaviour in any way thus the data gathered in unadulterated It also provides richer information than interviews or questionnaires because it can take into account non-verbal interaction and behaviour (Berg, 2003) As such, it can be a valuable method of researching the influence of structures or events on individuals and groups
There is also the possibility that unexpected and unanticipated events will occur during the course of the observation hence its value in accessing unique data (Berg, 2003)
The teacher observed the classroom activities to see how enthusiastically and effectively students learn in two different groups of study or with two different approaches to teaching In these observations, the teacher researcher acted as an observing-participant (teaching the classes while taking on the role of observer) In order to do that, the teacher had also to examine her own subjectivity and consider that participating in the group might lead to sympathetic or antagonistic interpretations of group behaviors Notes were taken on teacher‟s observations of what was happening during class time and then discussed
Observations focused on five aspects of students learning in the class, that is, students asking and answering questions, their competition and active learning, and the excitement of the classroom
The subjects for the study were first-year students of non-English majors at Hanoi University of Industry They were chosen from 4 different English classes in which they were placed according to their result of the placement test They were given the pretest and
100 of those who have nearly the same scores were selected, 57 of whom were boys and 43 were girls They share the same mother tongue (L1) - Vietnamese and English is their L2
Two classes were assigned as an experimental group (receiving L1 in vocabulary instructions) and the other two classes were assigned as a control group (receiving no L1 in vocabulary instructions)
There is no obvious difference between the two selected groups (with the mean scores of the two groups in the pretest not significantly different), showing that they have roughly the same English proficiency, and we may take it for granted that the subjects have roughly the same English vocabulary size
The second experiment was conducted with the participation of only 26 students,
10 girls and 16 boys, from a class of experimental group
To achieve the goal, the research focused on the participation and perception of the students as well as what students could keep in their memory through their learning of vocabulary with and without Vietnamese support The plan involved conducting lessons with two different research groups and two groups of lessons with the same class using different approaches so as to see how students reacted to these approaches
Two experiments were carried out in order to collect the data In the first experiment, the teacher applied different teaching approaches to the two groups: the experimental group received L1 support in teacher‟s instruction and explanation while the control group received no treatment
The books they had in hand were slightly different The New Headway Elementary (NHE) (Soars & Soars, 2004) was used with the control group, which has the word list at the end of the book with the part of speech, but there is no definition given The same course book was used with the experimental group but with the addition of translation of difficult words at the bottom of each page and a word list at the end of the book with Vietnamese meaning
In regards to teaching techniques, for experimental group, the new words were introduced in an easy context with L1 definitions and explanations, and students were usually asked to give Vietnamese equivalents A small test was used to check students‟ understanding and whether they could remember the words or not The oral translation or dictation quiz took place at the beginning of every class The minitest included the translation of sentences or words from Vietnamese to English or vice versa, which were normally at the end of each class meeting of four class hours By contrast, for the control group, the teacher normally gave the definitions and explanation (of the meaning and the use of words or expressions) only in English, and the subjects were asked to underline each of these words and expressions, but not to write down their Vietnamese meaning Quizzes and small tests were also used but with the exclusion of Vietnamese (i.e no translation exercises)
During class time, notes were taken on her observations of how students took part in the lessons At the beginning of the experiment, students were asked to do the first test to make sure they were at quite the same level of English vocabulary on the outset After a unit of eight class periods that students had during a week, test 2 was delivered in order to check how much of the vocabulary they had understood Test 3 was completed after three weeks to see what percentage of the words and expressions during the period could be remembered, so as to check how much difference there was between the two groups in memorizing the new words / expressions
Analytical framework
The first two stages in the three-stage adults L2 vocabulary acquisition model as proposed by Jiang (2000) presented in the previous chapter – the literature review – was used as the basis for data analysis and According to that model, in the first stage, when students see the word, they can recognise an orthographic or phonological form, or both, but the word‟s entry into their lexical knowledge does not contain lemma structure, which are meaning and syntax Therefore, they need to use their L1 translation as an activator and mediator The students are considered to have come to the second stage when their L2 words have a combination of L2 form specifications and semantic and syntactic specifications transferred from its L1 translation, and when they can use the words more fluently and automatically
The first stage in students acquisition of L2 vocabulary was tested with the task of words‟ direct translation from English to Vietnamese and vice versa If students could choose the correct translation for the words given, it meant they could recognise the form of the English word and could associate it with a Vietnamese word The second task of each test – vocabulary in context – was given in order to check whether students had come to the second stage in the acquisition process Contexts were given and students‟ ability to use the correct word in each context proved their ability to use the word with more fluency and automaticity
The rate of correct answers for each question was recorded and the mean score of each group was calculated, compared and then discussed
Observations focused on five aspects of students learning in the class, that is, students asking and answering questions, their competition and active learning, and the excitement of the classroom Notes were taken on teacher‟s observations of what was happening during class time and then discussed
According to the results of the tests and observations, conclusions were drawn on the issue of “to use or not to use” the mother tongue in teaching vocabulary to students at
Hanoi University of Industry, and some implications on L1 use in teaching university students
Chapter 3: Data analysis and discussion
This chapter first presents students‟ test scores together with some remarks, then describes and discusses the results of teacher‟s observations
Test results can be found below as well as in appendixes together with an example of the tests that the researcher had delivered to students during the study Test 1‟s results are shown in Table 1 Table 2 presents comparison of students mean scores for tests 2 and
3, whereas the number of correct answers for each words of tests 2 and 3 are in charts 1,2,3 and 4 Results for tests 4 and 5 are to be seen in table 3 and those for test 6 and 7 are in table 4
It is possible to see an overall superiority in the scores of students in experimental group and experimental lessons over students in control group and control lessons, although the significance in their difference may be varied Students in the experimental group who received L1 in teaching new words outperformed those in the control group in both vocabulary in direct translation and vocabulary in context The same discrepancy was also found in the higher achievement of students in the tests after the experimental lessons over their achievement in tests after the control lessons The most remarkable difference was 4.14 points (on the 20 point scale) in students‟ scores for the memorization tests after control and experimental lessons
When both the two groups started the experiment at the similar vocabulary level then what caused their different performances in the following tests?
There are two possible explanations for the achievement of the experimental group
First, words were assigned definitions and explanations in Vietnamese This might help students to understand the meaning of the words clearly On the other hand, in the control classes, teachers were expected to explain the words in English and not to give equivalent words in L1 So, in the control class, even though the teachers could recognize new words and explained them, it was difficult for students to understand the meaning of the words In both the groups, students were required to memorize new words in every class, and there was a vocabulary quiz/test in every class In each class before starting a lesson, the teacher reviewed the words, which the students had learned in the scheduled period This kind of test is a very good tool to motivate students Repeated vocabulary tests pushed students to memorize words provided, of course, that they have grasped the words or expressions
Otherwise, it just further the gap between students‟ progress Only in the experimental group was Vietnamese used through either oral translation or dictation Therefore it might be more difficult for students in the control classes to grasp the words or expressions thoroughly In general, the above two reasons were deemed to be the most essential, and they have implications for vocabulary acquisition While most other varieties were carefully managed and kept unchanged, the most obvious reason for this comparison was the complete prohibition of Vietnamese use in one group which was a real alienation to students and the more cautious use of the mother tongue in the other one So, we can come to a preliminary remark that the use of Vietnamese helped students learn the vocabulary better
3.1.1 Results for the diagnosing test
Table 1: Students‟ mean scores for test 1
Table 1 shows results for test 1 – the diagnosing test As can be seen from students‟ mean scores, there was no significant difference between the two groups, with the control group‟s mean scores a bit higher in both the direct translation and vocabulary in context tasks Students‟ mean scores for direct translation were 7.87 in control group and 7.63 in experimental group, and their mean score for vocabulary in context were 8.11 and 7.71 respectively
3.1.2 Results for the tests on students’ vocabulary comprehension
Results of tests 2, 4, and 5 revealed students‟ comprehension of words The results of all the three tests showed evidence for the positive role of L1 support in English vocabulary teaching
Table 2: Students‟ mean scores for tests 2 and 3 Mean scores
Control group Experimental group Direct
Test 2 was completed by both control and experimental groups after one week (8 class periods) learning the first unit of the experiment (unit 9, NHE 2004) The comparison in scores between the two groups changed slightly, resulting in a higher position for the experimental group The mean score for both the tasks in test 2 declined a little in the control group as compared with that of the first test, while that of the experimental group increased by 0.75 point for each task, that is 1.5 points overall
Though they started with quite the same size of vocabulary, the balance of scores on test 2 changed remarkably The mean scores for students in control group were 7.17 for direct translation and 7.08 for vocabulary in context while those of experimental group were 8.42 and 8.33 respectively This brought to a difference of 2.50 in overall mean score between two groups It‟s noticeable that in the control group, 5 students did not attempt to complete the tests and those were the ones with lower proficiency than others As can be seen from the bar chart, in the first task of this test in which students were asked to choose the best translations, the rate of correct answers for each word was higher in experimental group for most of the words The most significant difference in rate of correct answers was with words like lend, dessert, disgusting In most of the wrong answer, students mistook lend for land (6 in the experimental group and 9 in the control one), possibly because they are orthographically and phonologically similar For the word dessert, students were confused with this word, as teacher explained “things we eat after our lunch or dinner”, they thought it meant fruit or candies Disgusting was a big problem with students in control group because it was quite new and not often used, which needed some L1 assistance for better understanding The smallest gap was found with words like shopping list, together and beef This might be because the words used in definition and explanation for these words were not so difficult for them to understand, thus the difference between approaches that included and excluded Vietnamese was not clear
As the researcher had expected, the results of tests 4 and 5 in the second experiment, which are to be found in table 3, offered stronger support for our theory that Vietnamese use can help students learn and improve their vocabulary more effectively than English-only approach The overall score for the vocabulary comprehension test of students after the experimental lesson in the second experiment was 2.79 higher than after the control lesson, as was that of students in the experimental group compared with the control group – 2.50 points higher More convincingly, these results even showed a little greater difference in students‟ learning of vocabulary
Test 4 was done by students in an experimental class after they were taught a unit with support of Vietnamese in explanation and test 5 was given to the same students after another unit taught without any Vietnamese being used These two tests‟ results had the same balance as that between the experimental and the control groups in test 2 The test scores for each students in these tests can be found in table 3 In test 4, the mean score for students in this class were 8.65 and 8.20 for the two tasks In the experimental lesson when they were taught in English with support of Vietnamese, students‟ achievement remained stable as compared with that in the first experiment Still those students, when the monolingual methods were used in lessons, the mean scores decreased considerably by 2.19 points for the translation and 1.95 points for the context task When changing from the previous week when Vietnamese was used in teaching them to the second one when it was not used, students had a drop of 4.14 in their general scores We can easily see students‟ scores for both the tasks in test 4 outweighed those in test 5, which was true for almost all students The student who had the most noticeable change was student 2, who scored 6 points lower in test 5 than he did in test 4, 4 points for the direct translation and 2 points for vocabulary in context His results for test 4 (19 points) as well as for the previous tests showed that he was at quite good vocabulary level and learned quite well with Vietnamese explanation However, his achievement dropped sharply when mother tongue was excluded Though at quite a high level of vocabulary, he still had difficulty with words like deodorant, immediately, and annoyed Similarly, students 7, 15, 16, 19 had scores that are
5 points lower in test 5 Only several students had little fall in their scores in test 5 as compared with test 4 (2 points lower): students 6, 13, 14, 23 Interestingly, these were students who seemed to be good enough to understand teacher‟s English explanations or illustrations