Điều tra việc sử dụng tiếng việt của giáo viên trong quá trình dạy tiếng anh cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ tại trường đại học hà tỉnh

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis itself Date: …./ …./ 20… Signature i ABSTRACT The study investigates teachers‟ use of Vietnamese in teaching English to nonlanguage students at Ha Tinh University The study then aims to find out teachers‟ perceptions on the necessity and benefit of L1 in EFL classroom as well as their attitude to the areas where L1 can not be avoided and to identify some situations for using L1 and the possible frequency of using it in these situations The participants of this study were 26 language teachers at the Department of Foreign Languages at Ha Tinh University The instruments used in the study were questionnaires, observation sheets and a semi-interview checklist The data were analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative methods The findings from the research showed that most of the teachers thought that the use of L1 in teaching is necessary and can not be avoided in some situations but they did not overuse it They showed their approval of the role of L1 in some situations such as “explaining difficult and complex concepts or words”, “explaining grammatical rules”, “talking about American or British culture”, “giving feedback to individual” and “encouraging students to find extra materials” and they expressed their frequency of using L1 in these situations from “sometimes” to “often” Besides, they also showed their disapproval of using L1 in other situations such as “drilling the pronunciation” or “brainstorming or leading-in the lesson” Basing on the findings, the study offered some suggestions with the purposes of improving the quality of teaching and learning English at Ha Tinh University ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis has been completed with the help and support of a lot of people Therefore, I would like to express my grateful gratitude to all of them First and foremost, I would like to express my great thanks to my supervisor, A/prof Truong Vien, at the Department of English, College of Foreign Languages, Hue University, for his devotion, encouragement, enthusiastic instruction, and invaluable advice I would like to show all my heartfelt gratitude to his detailed comments, correction and giving feedback to my paper many times before the final draft Second, I would like to extend my special thanks to A/prof Le Pham HoaiHuong who suggested the topic for this thesis during all of her lectures Third, I am also thankful to A/prof Tran Van Phuoc and Dr Truong Bach Le for giving me many comments and suggestions on the first stage of the thesis (proposal) Then, I would like to be grateful to most of the language teachers at Ha Tinh University who took part in this study by sharing their ideas and experiences through questionnaires, interviews and let me observe their class to get information needed for the thesis Last but not least, I would like to show my deep thanks to my classmates, my family for their love and supporting during the time I did my thesis iii TABLES OF CONTENT STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY i ABSTRACT ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii ABBREVIATIONS vi TABLES OF CONTENT iv LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF CHARTS viii CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION .1 1.1.Rationale .1 1.2.Research aims 1.3.Research questions 1.4 Organization of the thesis CHAPTER II - LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1.Native Language 2.2.Non-major English students 2.3.Recommendation for language use in the classroom 2.4.The use of L1 in English teaching in different methods of teaching 2.4.1.Grammar translation method (GTM) 2.4.2.Direct method .5 2.4.3.Audio-lingual method 2.4.4.The Communicative approach 2.5.Debate surrounding the role of L1 in L2 classroom .6 2.5.1.Support for the monolingual approach .6 2.5.2 Support for the bilingual approach 2.6 Danger of overuse 2.7 Previous studies 10 2.8.Chapter summary 14 CHAPTER III - THE METHODOLOGY 15 3.1 Research design………………………………………………… ………… 15 iv 3.2 Participants 15 3.3 Instruments 16 3.3.1 Questionnaire 17 3.3.2 Observation 19 3.3.3 Interview 19 3.4 Procedures of data collection 20 3.4.1 Administering the piloting of the questionnaire 20 3.4.2 Administering the questionnaire 20 3.4.3 Observing classes .20 3.4.4 Interviewing .21 3.5 Procedures of data analysis 21 CHAPTER IV - FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 22 4.1Questionnaire .22 4.1.1 Teachers‟ perceptions on the use of L1 in teaching English to non-language students at Ha Tinh University 22 4.1.1.1 Teachers‟ perception on the necessity and the benefit of L1 22 4.1.1.2 Teacher‟s perception on the areas that L1 can be used 24 4.1.2 Frequency of using L1 by language teacher in teaching English to nonlanguage students 33 4.1.3 Comparing the mean score of Clusters 40 4.2 Observation 42 4.3 Interview .43 CHAPTER V - CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 48 5.1 Summary of the key findings 48 5.2 Implications and suggestions 49 5.3 Limitations of the study 52 5.4 Suggestions for further research 52 REFERENCES 54 APPENDIX 59 v ABBREVIATIONS L1: The first language L2: The second language EFL: English as a Foreign Language vi LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Profile of the participants 15 Table 3.2: Questionnaire 18 Table 3.3 The reliability of the pilot questionnaire 20 Table 4.1: Thereliability of questionnaire 22 Table 4.2: The mean score of Cluster 22 Table 4.4: The extent of agreement to each item of Cluster 23 Table 4.5: The mean score of Cluster 25 Table 4.7: The extent of agreement to each item of Cluster 26 Table 4.8: The mean score of Cluster 28 Table 4.10: The extent of agreement to each item of Cluster 28 Table 4.11: The mean score of Cluster 29 Table 4.12: The extent of agreement to each item of Cluster 30 Table 4.15: the extent of agreement to each item of Cluster 32 Table 4.16: The means score of Cluster 33 Table 4.18: The frequency of using L1 in each item of Cluster 34 Table 4.19: The mean score of Cluster 35 Table 4.20: The frequency of using L1 in each item of Cluster 36 Table 4.22: The frequency of using L1 in each item of Cluster 37 Table 4.23: The mean score of Cluster 39 Table 4.25: The frequency of using L1 in each item of Cluster 39 vii LIST OF CHARTS Chart 4.3: The mean score of each item of Cluster 23 Chart 4.6: The mean score of each item of Cluster 25 Chart 4.9: The mean score of each item in Cluster 28 Chart 4.14: The mean score of each item of Cluster 31 Chart 4.17: The mean score of each item of Cluster 34 Chart 4.21: The mean score of each item of Cluster 37 Chart 4.24: The mean score of each item of Cluster 39 Chart 4.26: The summaries of clusters‟ mean score 40 Chart 4.27: Doing social functions in class and talking about American or British culture 45 Chart 4.28: Giving feedback to individual students 46 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale For a long time, English has become “the most global of languages” (Pham, 2006) According to Crystal(1997), there are about 670 million people in the world using English with a native or near native comment It is the official language in a lot of countries such as Singapore, India, Philippines, Pakistan and so on Also, “English is a dominant language in arts, theater, music and cinema” (Pham, 2006, p.28) The international language for internet and in a lot of published books is English Then it is inevitable that English has become a vehicle for people to get information or even jobs In other words, English is more and more important; people all over the world have more and more motivations and demands to learn it Vietnam has adopted a socialist –oriented market economy since 1986 and recently has become the 150th member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Consequently, there are more and more investors who have poured capital into this country Most of these investors require English as a means of communication As a result, it raises the demand of learning English in Vietnam So far, English has become a compulsory subject in education program It is one of the main subjects from class to class 12 for a long time It is also a compulsory subject for non-language students at university Besides their major subjects, they have to learn English for three or even five semesters (students of economics often learn English for five semesters at some universities) The problem is that after graduating from university, theirEnglish proficiency is not good enough to meet the demand of the society Several researches were carried out with the aim of improving the quality of teaching English in Vietnam indicated that “traditional pedagogy, emphasizing the acquisition of grammar and vocabulary rather than communicative competence” (Pham, 2005,p.1) is one of the causes.However, Communicative Language Teaching has become popular and familiar in Vietnam since the beginning of 1990s Then, how can language teachers adapt it to suit the Vietnamese students to improve the quality of teaching? Among these answers, one question is raised “should we use only English or both English and Vietnamese in English class?”In the past, “it seems that the only use of English in ELT is widely supported” (Kieu, 2010, p 119) But nowadays, the role of Vietnamese in the process of teaching English is considered (Nguyen, 2006, p 1) However, there are still few researches about the use of Vietnamese in teaching English especially at Ha Tinh University Moreover, teaching English to nonlanguage students is a situation which should be considered much more.Due to these reasons, I conduct the study: “An investigation into the use of Vietnameseby language teachers in teaching English to non-major English students at Ha Tinh University” 1.2 Research aims The study aims to investigate the use ofthe first language(L1) by language teachers in teaching English to non-language students at Ha TinhUniversity and the perception of language teachers on the roles of L1 in teaching English to nonlanguage students With such aims, the study seeks to make some suggestions with the purposes of improving the quality of teaching and learning English at Ha Tinh University 1.3 Research questions The study thus addresses the following research questions: What are language teachers’ perceptionson the use of L1 in teaching English to non-major English students at Ha Tinh University? What is the reality of using Vietnameseby language teachers to teach English to non-major English students at Ha Tinh University? 1.4 Organization of the thesis This thesis includes five chapters: Introduction, Literature review, the methodology, Finding and Discussion, and Implications and Conclusions Is necessary for teachers to save time Can make students feel safe Can reduce students‟ anxiety Can compensate for the inadequacy of students (low language ability, low motivation, poor discipline) Can compensate for the inadequacy of teachers(lack of preparation, lack of knowledge of subject matter, lack of interest) 1.2 This part consists of 25 items; each is about teacher’s perception on the areas that L1 can be used Please read each statement and put a check mark ( ) in the column to indicate your agreement on each Each number means the following: 1: you strongly disagree 2: you disagree 3: you are neutral 4: you agree 5: you strongly agree Use of L1 is necessary in 10 Reviewing old lesson before starting new lesson 11 Organizing the games 12 Brain-storming and leading in the lesson 13 Summarizing what have just been covered (cluster 2) 14 Explaining difficult and complex Presenting concepts or words the target 15 Explaining grammatical rules language 16 Drilling the pronunciation input 17 Giving instructions 18 Talking about American or British culture 19 Explaining the content of reading texts or listening texts 60 Perception 20 Discussing a task before carrying it out in writing in English 21 Introducing the new materials (setting the scene, explaining the context of a dialogue ) 22 Checking for comprehension (cluster 3) 23 Organizing group work Classroom 24 Drawing students‟ attention management 25 Maintaining the discipline 26 Warning or reprimanding students (cluster4) 27 Checking students‟ exercises 28.Correcting students‟ mistakes Correcting and giving 29.Giving feed-back to individual students feedback 30 Organizing peer-feedback 31.Testing (e.g doing translation test) (cluster 5) 32 Doing social functions in class (joking, chatting, relaxing with students) Others 33 Giving homework 34 Encouraging students to find extra materials Part 2: Situation and frequency of using Vietnamese in teaching English to non-language students Please tick the column on the scale Each number means the following: “1” means that you this never “2” means that you this rarely “3” means that you this sometimes “4” means that you this often “5” means that you very often this Situations Frequency 35 Reviewing old lesson before starting new lesson 36 Organizing the games 37 Brain-storming and leading in the lesson 61 38 Summarizing what have just been (cluster 6) covered 39 Explaining difficult and complex Presenting the target concepts or words language 40 Explaining grammatical rules input 41 Drilling the pronunciation 42 Giving instructions 43 Talking about American or British culture 44 Explaining the content of reading texts or listening texts 45 Discussing a task before carrying it out in writing in English 46 Introducing the new materials (setting the scene, explaining the context of a dialogue ) 47 Checking for comprehension (cluster 7) 48 Organizing group work Classroom 49 Drawing students‟ attention management 50 Maintaining the discipline 51 Warning or reprimanding students (cluster 8) 52 Checking students‟ exercises 53.Correcting students‟ mistakes Correcting and giving 54.Giving feed-back to individual students feedback 55 Organizing peer-feedback 56.Testing (e.g doing translation test) (cluster 9) 57 Doing social functions (joking, chatting, relaxing with students) Others 58 Giving homework 59 Encouraging students to find extra materials 62 Part 3: Background information Please provide your personal information by putting a check mark () in the appropriate box or writing your responses where necessary Full name: ………………………… Gender: male female Age: under 30 years old 31-40 years old Number of years teaching English Less than years From years to less than 10 years From 10 years to more Highest academic degree: Bachelor‟s degree Master‟s degree Doctorate‟s degree Other Thank you so much for your participation 63 over 40 APPENDIX Interview questions Do you use L1 in teaching English to non-language students at Ha Tinh University? If no, why should not teachers use L1 in teaching English to non-language students at Ha Tinh University? If yes, in what situations teachers can use L1 in non-language studentclass? And why? How often you use L1 in non-language student class? 64 APPENDIX Observation sheet Observation date: Name of the teacher: Class: Name of the lesson: Textbook: Process The first language use (how often/how) Warm-up Pre- While- Post- 65 APPENDIX The reliability of the pilot questionnaire Case Processing Summary Cases N % Valid 10 100.0 Excludeda 0 Total 10 100.0 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on N of Items Standardized Items 959 956 59 Summary Item Statistics Mean Minimum Maximum Range Item Means 2.759 1.600 4.200 Maximum / Minimum 2.600 Variance 2.625 251 N of Items 59 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item Deleted if Item Deleted Corrected Squared Cronbach's Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item Correlation Correlation Deleted Q1 159.10 1147.878 646 958 Q2 159.50 1229.389 -.411 962 Q3 160.20 1145.289 671 958 Q4 159.00 1149.111 803 957 66 Q5 160.30 1155.789 534 958 Q6 160.20 1136.622 783 957 Q7 159.90 1156.322 480 959 Q8 159.50 1214.278 -.182 961 Q9 159.90 1148.544 533 958 Q10 160.80 1157.511 576 958 Q11 160.30 1190.011 157 959 Q12 160.30 1147.344 703 958 Q13 160.00 1136.000 819 957 Q14 158.60 1198.489 015 960 Q15 159.70 1211.344 -.139 961 Q16 161.20 1146.400 804 957 Q17 159.90 1136.322 714 958 Q18 159.70 1173.789 423 959 Q19 160.40 1197.600 058 959 Q20 159.80 1130.400 879 957 Q21 160.30 1129.344 874 957 Q22 160.30 1123.789 876 957 Q23 160.20 1119.289 822 957 Q24 160.70 1137.344 827 957 Q25 160.60 1152.711 744 958 Q26 160.00 1136.222 816 957 Q27 160.60 1166.044 776 958 Q28 160.30 1143.344 759 957 Q29 160.20 1143.733 757 957 Q30 160.00 1119.778 836 957 Q31 159.90 1153.656 552 958 Q32 159.60 1147.156 537 958 Q33 160.20 1125.733 799 957 67 Q34 159.40 1145.378 619 958 Q35 160.20 1195.511 117 959 Q36 160.50 1219.389 -.583 960 Q37 160.60 1152.489 599 958 Q38 160.10 1143.656 863 957 Q39 158.80 1207.067 -.163 960 Q40 159.50 1200.722 -.025 960 Q41 161.20 1154.400 608 958 Q42 160.10 1175.878 510 959 Q43 159.70 1188.011 224 959 Q44 159.90 1189.211 266 959 Q45 160.10 1182.100 531 959 Q46 160.00 1160.889 448 959 Q47 160.40 1139.600 816 957 Q48 160.40 1136.489 860 957 Q49 160.50 1107.833 955 956 Q50 159.80 1123.511 896 957 Q51 160.40 1182.044 256 959 Q52 160.50 1146.722 815 957 Q53 160.00 1146.889 743 958 Q54 160.00 1192.444 252 959 Q55 159.80 1157.289 579 958 Q56 160.30 1170.456 383 959 Q57 159.50 1221.389 -.237 962 Q58 159.80 1156.178 541 958 Q59 159.70 1164.011 391 959 Scale Statistics Mean Variance Std Deviation N of Items 162.80 1199.956 34.640 59 68 APPENDIX The reliability of questionnaire Case Processing Summary Cases N % Valid 26 100.0 Excludeda 0 Total 26 100.0 a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure Reliability Statistics Cronbac h's Alpha Cronbac h's N of Alpha Items Based on Standardized Items 941 940 59 Summary Item Statistics Mean Minimum Maximum Range Item Means 2.734 1.385 4.231 Maximum / Minimum 2.846 Variance 3.056 N of Items 337 59 Item-Total Statistics Q1 Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Squared Cronbach's Item Deleted if Item Deleted Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item Correlation Correlation Deleted 559 940 157.54 697.698 69 Q2 157.88 742.346 -.296 944 Q3 158.65 700.235 571 940 Q4 157.73 699.565 649 939 Q5 158.88 705.226 458 940 Q6 158.65 698.795 602 939 Q7 158.38 704.006 408 940 Q8 157.88 738.026 -.193 944 Q9 158.42 698.894 476 940 Q10 159.46 711.618 352 941 Q11 159.12 713.146 311 941 Q12 159.08 689.594 663 939 Q13 158.58 696.894 568 940 Q14 157.08 728.554 -.028 942 Q15 157.77 733.705 -.114 944 Q16 159.92 705.594 591 940 Q17 158.77 684.185 713 939 Q18 158.08 715.034 302 941 Q19 158.96 724.838 064 942 Q20 158.38 687.526 739 939 Q21 158.77 686.345 753 938 Q22 159.00 682.400 811 938 Q23 159.08 682.394 742 938 Q24 159.08 696.154 543 940 Q25 159.15 693.255 695 939 Q26 158.65 687.995 676 939 Q27 158.81 705.842 576 940 Q28 158.65 703.035 617 940 Q29 158.42 701.934 587 940 Q30 158.69 685.182 699 939 70 Q31 158.50 693.220 562 940 Q32 157.73 707.325 332 941 Q33 158.54 690.178 678 939 Q34 158.08 694.074 542 940 Q35 159.08 715.034 282 941 Q36 159.31 728.142 -.017 942 Q37 159.35 694.315 595 939 Q38 158.65 703.995 552 940 Q39 157.38 724.886 048 942 Q40 157.62 728.486 -.028 943 Q41 159.85 715.975 245 941 Q42 158.85 709.735 407 940 Q43 158.08 712.634 300 941 Q44 158.42 719.214 267 941 Q45 158.50 711.380 401 940 Q46 158.58 694.494 548 940 Q47 159.12 690.026 790 938 Q48 159.19 688.162 818 938 Q49 158.96 686.118 644 939 Q50 158.65 680.875 834 938 Q51 158.69 715.022 253 941 Q52 158.88 705.786 581 940 Q53 158.54 698.498 597 939 Q54 158.23 723.305 127 942 Q55 158.50 691.460 613 939 Q56 158.92 700.234 474 940 Q57 157.69 735.102 -.129 944 Q58 158.42 697.774 534 940 Q59 158.00 693.920 490 940 71 APPENDIX The mean score of each item in cluster Number Number Mean SD Minimum Maximum valid missed Q10 26 1.85 834 Q11 26 2.19 849 Q12 26 2.23 1.070 Q13 26 2.73 1.002 Q14 26 4.23 710 Q15 26 3.54 1.140 Q16 26 1.38 697 Q17 26 2.54 1.140 Q18 26 3.23 765 Q29 26 2.35 745 Q20 26 2.92 1.017 Q21 26 2.54 1.029 72 APPENDIX The mean score of each item in cluster Number Number Mean SD Minimum Maximum valid missing Q22 26 2.31 1.050 Q23 26 2.23 1.142 Q24 26 2.23 1.070 Q25 26 2.15 925 Q26 26 2.65 1.093 APPENDIX The mean score of each item in cluster Number Number valid missing Q31 26 Q32 Mean SD Minimum Maximum 2.81 1.132 26 3.58 1.102 Q33 26 2.77 1.032 Q34 26 3.23 1.142 73 APPENDIX The mean score of each item in cluster Number Number Mean SD Minimum Maximum valid missing Q35 26 2.23 815 Q36 26 2.00 693 Q37 26 1.96 1.038 Q38 26 2.65 797 Q39 26 3.92 891 Q40 26 3.69 970 Q41 26 1.46 859 Q42 26 2.46 811 Q43 26 3.23 908 Q44 26 2.88 588 Q45 26 2.81 749 Q46 26 2.73 1.116 APPENDIX 10 The mean score of each item of cluster Number Number Mean SD Minimum Maximum valid missing Q56 26 2.38 1.061 Q57 26 3.62 1.235 Q58 26 2.88 1.033 Q59 26 3.31 1.258 74