‘Điển cứu về việc sử dụng tiếng mẹ đẻ của giáo viên trong lớp học tiếng Anh cho trẻ em ở một trung tâm ngoại ngữ.’

Qua việc quan sát lớp học cũng như tiến hành các buổi phỏng vấn, nghiên cứu này đạt được các kết quả sau đây. Tiếng mẹ đẻ chỉ được sử dụng trong một số giai đoạn nhất định như giải thích ngữ pháp, hướng dẫn các hoạt động …trong lớp học. Tiếng Việt chỉ chiếm 12 hoăc 13 so với tiếng Anh. Điều này đồng nghĩa với tiếng Anh là ngôn ngữ chi phối trong lớp học. Đối với mỗi cấp độ học khác nhau tiếng Việt được sử dụng ở mỗi giai đoạn cũng khác nhau. Trong lớp học cho học sinh từ 56 tuổi, tiếng mẹ đẻ được dùng nhiều nhất khi đưa ra các hướng dẫn trong khi tại các lớp cho học sinh từ 68 và từ 812 tuổi tiếng Việt chủ yếu được dung để giải thích ngữ pháp, và các từ vựng khó. Về các lý do mà giáo viên đưa ra trong việc sử dụng tiếng mẹ đẻ, cả ba giáo viên đồng ý rằng họ sử dụng tiếng Viêt vì học sinh còn nhỏ, và để giúp học sinh hiểu bài hơn. Bên cạnh đó, mỗi giáo viên đưa ra lý do khác nhau. Giáo viên thứ nhất khẳng định dung tiếng Việt do tiếng Việt là ngôn ngữ có ‘quyền lực’ hơn tiếng Anh, và nó như là thói quen giữa những người cùng ngôn ngữ, và tiếng Anh vẫn chưa được huấn luyện tốt cho học sinh. Giáo viên thứ hai khẳng định dung tiếng Việt vì nó giúp quá trình học được trôi chảy. Giáo viên thứ ba lấy lí do về thời gian hạn hẹp cho việc sử dụng tiếng Việt. Cả 3 giáo viên đều có quan điểm tích cực về tiếng mẹ đẻ trong lớp học. Có sự lien kết giữa quan điểm của giáo viên và những hoạt động trên lớp của họ.

PART I: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale of the study

In the process of foreign language teaching, the issue of the mother tongue (MT)itself has been debated for many years The various views are reflections on themethodological changes in English language teaching, which have in such way broughtdifferent perspectives on the role of mother tongue For a long time, many popularEnglish language-teaching methods tend to discourage the use of the first language(L1) in the second language (L2) classroom As a result, the English only approach hasbecome a dominant and often understood to be the hallmarks of good languageteaching Despite the almost undeniable acceptance of the monolingual belief to EFLclasses, recent years have witnessed a considerable shift of views among the ELTprofessionals concerning the utility of students’ mother tongue (MT) in the L2classroom What the reasons for the ignorance of MT use are, when and how the MTcan be applied in the classroom and how much L1 should be used in the classroom arecurrently main seeking among scholars, linguists and teachers

In the global scale, there have been various studies focusing on this topic such

as the studies conducted by Schweers (1999) at the University of Puerto Rico, Beressa(2003) at Adama Teachers College, Tang (2002) at a university in Beijing, Duff andPolio (2009) at University of California, Al-Nofaie (2010) in Saudi public schools It

is obvious that most of them have investigated this issue at high level of education Inaddition, these studies emphasized mainly the use of the first language from two sides:teachers and learners In Vietnamese context, however, it is rather difficult to findresearch in this topic Kieu Hang Kim Anh (2010) investigated the attitudes ofVietnamese University teachers toward Vietnamese use in English language teaching.Some other research is carried out by graduate students as their M A thesis like theworks by Tran Ngoc Thuong (2010) on teachers’ and students’ attitude toward the use

of the MT at a high school, or Do Thi Khanh Van (2010) with her emphasis on the role

and use of the L1 in learning vocabulary in English classes at a university Comes tothe conclusion, there still exists huge gaps on the reality of using the mother tongue inclassroom at every level, in every aspect in Vietnam

Therefore, there is a need to investigate the issue of the MT use in secondlanguage classroom from different perspectives and in different fields such as fromteachers’ and students’ views, in learning of grammar, vocabulary, skills, etc Thisstudy focused on only one of those factors that are teacher’s use of MT in classes foryoung learners The reason the researcher focused on teachers’ use of the MT is thatteachers’ talk or language choice in the L2 classroom has a central role and is of greatsignificance to language learners One of the main reasons for the interest is that EFLclassroom and teachers are the only and the primary resources of the L2 for EFLstudents (Polio & Duff, 1994) Schweers (1999) also pointed out that if the teacherused L2, the learners would use it also, and this created the opportunity for them tointeract with their teachers and peers However, Song (2009) asserted that if teachersshared the same MT with their students, they might hardly avoid the use of L1.Hopefully, the findings of this study will contribute to the pedagogic methodology,especially in teaching English to young children

2 Aims and objectives of the study

The aim of this study is to examine teacher’s use of the MT- Vietnamese inEnglish language classroom for young learners at an English centre

The objectives of the study are investigating the amount of L1 use by teachers

of different levels and the reasons underlying their L1 using In addition, teachers’belief about L1 use is also addressed in order to find out the concordance to theirpractices

In order to achieve the aim, the study addresses these following main questions:

1 How much L1 is used and in which sections do teachers use L1 in theclassroom?

2 Why do teachers use the mother tongue?

3 What are teachers’ beliefs about MT use? Do teacher’s beliefs correlate to theirpractices?

3 Scope of the study

In practice, L1 can be used by both students and teachers in L2 classroom However,within the framework of this minor thesis, the study only focuses on teachers’ use ofthe MT in English classes for young learners Specifically, the study aims atinvestigating the amount of L1 use by teachers of different levels and the reasonsunderlying their L1 using In addition, teachers’ belief about L1 use is also addressed

in order to find out the concordance to their practices

4 Methods of the study

The study is carried out in form of a qualitative multi case study approach inwhich three teachers teaching three different levels for young learners will beinvestigated in order to compare and contrast their MT use in L2 classroom Threeresearch methods, including classroom observation, stimulated recall interview, andsemi- structured interview are used to reach the aim of the study The researcherbelieves that the combination of different methods to collect data could provide more

reliable and valid information for analysis Classroom observations are used to

discover the amount and in which sections Vietnamese was used Stimulated recallinterview was applied to gain insights into teachers’ rationale of using the MT in theclassroom The recall interviews were fully transcribed and analyzed qualitativelyaccording to emerging themes The semi-structured interviews are to explore teachers’opinions of the use of the first language in the classroom, and then compared withteacher’s practices Semi structured interviews were conducted after finishing allobservations and stimulated interviews As in the case of stimulated recall, semistructured interviews were transcribed fully

5 Layout of the thesis

This thesis consists of three parts, namely Introduction, Development andConclusion

Part I, the Introduction, presents the rationale, the aims, the scope, the method and the

design of the study

Part II, the development, consists of three chapters Chapter 1, the Literature review,

presents background of the study This includes major arguments against and for theuse of L1, the use and amount of L1 in L2 classroom In addition, it reviews someprevious studies related to the topic Chapter 2, the Methodology, introduces theparticipants, the data collection instruments and data analysis procedure Chapter 3(Results and Discussions) mainly deals with the results and the discussion of thefindings

Part III is the Conclusion of the study In this part, the major findings, some

recommendations, limitations of the research as well as suggestions for further studyare presented

The appendixes are the last part of the study following the reference

PART II: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter provides background information on the use of L1 in the L2classroom Firstly, it presents definitions of young learners Secondly, it discusses therole of L1 in major ELT methodologies Thirdly, it gives an insight into theoretical andpractical research favoring or not favoring the use of L1 Fourthly, it deals with the useand amount of L1 use in the English class It also discusses some empirical researches

on the L1 use in L2 classroom

1.1 Young learners

A young learner- who is he or she? This term in fact covers a wide age range ofchildren Scott and Ytreberg (2001) distinguished between two groups of younglearners, one between five and seven and another between eight and twelve,considering mainly their ability to perceive the abstract and concrete Another author,Linse (2005) also defined young learner at the age of 5 to 12 Partly shared this view isthe definition by Richard & Schmidt (2010: 643) They cited that young learners inlanguage teaching were children of pre-primary and primary school age while othersecond language learner age groups were referred to as adolescent learners, and adultlearners Phillip (1993) defined the ‘young learners’ as the children from the first year

of formal schooling (5 or 6 years old) to 12 years of age It is obvious that there is ageneral agreement in the literature about the definition of young language learners Forthe purposes of this study, the researcher referred to children from the ages of five totwelve Therefore, children as young as three and four would not be under consider inthis study

1.2 History of the use of L1 in L2 classroom

Looking at the literature related to language teaching methods, it is easily seenthat the role of L1 in L2 teaching is one of the most long-standing controversies in the

history of language pedagogy The use of the L1 keeps changing periodically andregularly

The ideas of using L1 in L2 classroom were favored during era of the GrammarTranslation Method (GTM) According to Larsen- Freeman (2000), its purpose is tosupport students to read and understand foreign language literature, and translate eachlanguage into the other It is believed that everything in English should be taught bytranslating from the target language into the MT and vice versa (Larsen- Freeman,2000:74) Therefore, the language most used in the class is the students’ nativelanguage Patel and Jain (2008) also state that, in GTM, because of the translation intothe MT, students’ understanding become better and quicker (p 75) It is obviously that,

in this method, students’ L1 is the medium of the instruction and its role in the L2classroom is very crucial

In the late of the nineteenth century saw the emergence of the Direct Method,which pays its whole attention to the spoken language and naturalistic principle oflanguage learning The Direct Method is based on the belief that languages were bestlearned in a way that imitated a child’s natural L1 language learning In this light, it isargued that a foreign language could be taught without translation or the use of thelearners’ native tongue and meaning was conveyed directly through demonstration,visual aids and action (Richards and Rodgers, 1986: 9) Therefore, learners should beimmersed in L2 through the use of L2 as a means of instruction and communication; so

it is clearly that there is no ground for L1 in Direct Method

The move away from L1 use was later reinforced by the appearance of lingual method (1940s- 1960s) which saw language learning as a process of ‘habitformation’ (Larsen- Freeman, 2004: 43) In Audio-lingualism, the L1 was seen asalready established habits, which would interfere with the students’ attempts to masterthe target language (TL) Therefore, the TL, not student native tongue, was used in theclassroom (Larsen- Freeman, 2004: 45)

Audio-In the Communicative Approach, which has attracted most attention from thelanguage teaching profession during the past five decades, the restricted use of nativelanguage is allowed where feasible and translation may be used when learners find itessential or helpful The purpose of L1 use is to provide a bridge from the familiar tothe unfamiliar (Larsen- Freeman, 2004) In addition, in later stage more and more ofthe TL can be used

Recently, there has been an increasing attention to the merits of the L1 use inthe language classroom among the language teaching profession Researchers andteachers have begun to advocate more bilingual approach, which would incorporate thestudents’ native tongue as a learning tool Several studies related to the role of L1 inthe teaching of L2 have been carried out around the world in order to develop post-communicative methods, which consider L1 as ‘a classroom resource’ (Atkinson, 1987

& Cook, 2001) The Functional-Translation Method by Robert Weschler, whichcombines “the best of traditional “grammar translation” with the best of modern

“direct, communicative” methods”, can be taken as an example He stated that therewere many possible ways to learn English and there was a time and a place foreverything- including the use of the L1 (Weschler, 1997)

In short, the use of L1 has been in and out of fashion through the history ofteaching The pendulum of L1 use swings with the methodological change

1.3 Debating surrounding the use of L1 in the L2 classroom

1.3.1 Arguments against L1 use

There is a variety of arguments against using the MT in the ESL or EFLclassroom Cook (2001) presented three main arguments for the ignorance of the L1use in the target language classroom They are: (i) The L1 acquisition argument; (ii)The language Compartmentalization argument; (iii) The maximum Provision of the L2argument

The first principle is based on the way in which L1 is acquired It is believedthat monolingual L1 children cannot fall back on another language L2 learning canfollow a process similar to L1 learning which means L2 learners should not rely onother language, claim that exposure is vital in the learning of L2 In other words,learners of L2 should be exposed to an L2 environment as much as possible Krashen(1981), a pivotal promoter of the only-L2 use in the classroom and an expert in thefield of linguistics, shared this idea when claiming that humans master language only

in one way by understanding messages or reviving comprehensible input What derivesfrom the comprehensive input is that one can learn a language successfully by exposingthe target language, and L1 should be banned in the classroom

Regarding the second principle, the supporters of the monolingual approachindicated that the main obstruction to L2 learning is the interference from L1knowledge (Cook, 2001) The interference is a major source of difficulty in the targetlanguage learning and to avoid that, the separation of L1 and L2 should be made.Krashen (1981) also suggested that errors in learners’ L2 performance result from L1.Based on research findings, he reported that “a high amount of first languageinfluence” is found in “situations … where translation exercises are frequent”(Krashen, 1981: 66)

A further argument is that using L1 might affect students' learning processnegatively, since it reduces the exposure learners get to the L2 and reduces theiropportunities for using the target language (Atkinson, 1987; Philipson, 1992; Polio &Duff, 1994; Cook, 2001; and Deller & Rinvolucri, 2002) Atkinson (1987) said thatone could ‘learn English by speaking English’ or in other words to learn a foreignlanguage a person needs to encounter and use it He then stated that ‘every secondspent using L1 is a second not spent using L2’ (p 12) In agreement with the previousview, Auerbach (1993) also indicated that "the more students are exposed to English,the more quickly they will learn; as they hear and use English, they will internalize it

and begin to think in English”(p 14) If English is not the main language used in theclassroom, the learners are not going to learn very much English (Atkinson, 1993:12.)The argument of maximum TL use then means that L1 should not be used in the L2classroom at any cost

In addition to the above fundamental principles, the avoidance of L1 in the L2classroom, results from the backwash effect whereby native speakers often receive a

‘disproportionate’ degree of status in foreign language teaching institution (Atkinson,1987: 242) It is believed in the monolingual approach a native speaker teacher is thebest embodiment of the target and norm for learners (Phillipson, 1992:194) This belief

is based on the assumption that native L2 speakers teacher really know English well, sothey have fewer problem of words coming up in the class and it is easier for studentsuse English simply because they do not know the students’ language (Atkinson, 1993).This native speaker principle is quite popular in several countries including Vietnam.One can easily realize the strong preference of Vietnamese learners of English fornative speakers of English through the advertisements put by foreign language centers

in newspapers or websites like the advertisement by British Academic Centre on thewebsite bac.edu.vn ‘learning English with 100% native teachers from America andEngland’

I myself agreed that teachers should fill the classroom with as much L2 aspossible However, ‘English only’ may be too challenging to students, it tends not toensure students’ comprehension of the meanings of certain L2 elements L1 use isnecessary to facilitate L2 input, so it is advisable that teachers should use L1 wherepossible, where necessary This view has been accepted in recent literature, which will

be discussed in the following section

1.3.2 Arguments favoring L1 use

Professionals in L2 acquisition have become increasingly aware of the role the

MT plays in the EFL classroom There is a considerable amount of literature which

strongly suggests that the use of L1 in the L2 classrooms can be productive or mayeven be necessary at times (e.g., Atkinson 1987; Cook, 2001; Cole, 1998; Schweers,1999; Auerbach, 1993) The use of L1 in L2 classroom is a common feature and isnatural acts, which make a positive contribution to the learning process (Nation, 1993).There is now a belief that the L1 can be a classroom resource (Atkinson, 1987; Cook,2001) and that substantial attention and research should be focused on

The supporters of the bilingual approach have given much of attempts todiscredit the Monolingual Approach by focusing on three points: it is impractical,native teachers are not necessarily the best teachers and exposure alone is not sufficientfor learning

Phillipson (1992:191) claimed that impracticality is the biggest problem ofEnglish only in the classroom because non-native English teachers across the worldoutnumber native English teachers These teachers, sometimes, may not confident orcompetent enough to use the foreign language for full range of classroom functions(Cameron, 2001: 200) Cameron further stated that only English policy might beagainst the natural communication between teacher and students who share a commonlanguage Another reason for the monolingual approach’s impracticality is thepractically impossible elimination of L1 in lower-level monolingual classes (Cameron,2001: 199) In addition, Monolingual teaching can also create tension and a barrierbetween students and teachers because in fact there are many occasions when it isimpossible and inappropriate (Pachler & Field, 2001: 86) When something in a lesson

is unclear to a student, and then it is clarified by the use of L1, that barrier and tensioncan be reduced or removed

Concerning the belief supported by the Monolingual Approach that nativeteachers are the best teachers, Phillipson (1992) said that being native teachers do notnecessarily means that the teacher is more qualified or better at L2 teaching He alsoclaimed that non- native teachers could achieve all of the characteristics such as

fluency and appropriate use of language in the process of training He went further inarguing that non-native teachers seem to be better than native ones as they themselveshave experienced the process of learning L2 Therefore, they could provide a betterlearner model, teach language-learning strategies more effectively, supply moreinformation about the English language, better anticipate and prevent languagedifficulties, be more sensitive to their students (Medgyes, 1992) In this light,Phillipson (1992: 195) suggests that the ideal teacher is the person who “has near-native speaker proficiency in the foreign language, and comes from the same linguisticand cultural background as the learners” On the other side, the term ‘native teacher’ isproblematic It is true that there are many variations of English around the world, and

to the question of what constitutes an authentic native teacher, is open to an endlessdebate Ultimately, there is no scientific and practical evidence to support the concept

of a native teacher being an ideal teacher (Phillipson, 1992: 195)

The monolingual approach also receives criticism concerning its claim thatmaximum exposure to L2 leads to the success of L2 learning Eliminating the L1 forthe sake of maximizing students’ exposure to L2 is not necessarily productive There

is, in fact, no evidence that teaching in the target language results in successful learning(Pachler & Field, 2001: 85) Agreed with Pachler’s & Field’s view, Phillipson (1992)cited that “…there is no correlation between quantity of L2 input, in an environmentwhere the learners are exposed to L2 in the community, and the academic success” Healso cited Cummins (1984) who quoted “a maximum exposure assumption is fallacy”(Phillipson, 1992: 211) Although maximizing L2 input is important, other factors such

as the quality of teaching materials, teachers and methods of teaching are of moresignificance

Apart from discrediting the monolingual approach, the advocates of thebilingual approach raise the benefits of using L1 in L2 teaching Gabrielatos (2001)affirmed that we as teachers should not treat L1 as a ‘sin’ and L1 actually does have a

place in ELT methodology (p 6) Supporters of L1 in the L2 classroom also contendedthat there are many instances when L1 is appropriate (Atkinson, 1987; Cook, 2001).Atkinson (1987) claimed that ‘the potential of mother tongue, as a classroom resource

is so great that its role should merit considerable attention and discussion in anyattempt to develop a Post-communicative Approach to TEFL for adolescents andadults’ (p 241) He then offered three general reasons for allowing a judicious L1 use

in the L2 classroom: as a learner preferred strategy, a humanistic approach, and anefficient use of time Another author, Auerbach (1993) presented benefits of the L1 inthe way that it can reduce anxiety, enhance the affective environment for learning,facilitate incorporation of learners’ experiences into the learning process, promotelearner-centered curriculum development, and allow language to be used as a meaning-making tool She also claimed that use of L1 is beneficial for learners at all skill levels,not only, as some have argued, for low-level learners

In conclusion, researchers have found that evidence from both research andpractice suggested that the rationale used to justify English only in the classroom isneither conclusive nor pedagogically sound (Auerbach, 1993: 15) It should beapparent that the use of the mother tongue in and of itself in texts and in the classroom

is not the problem (Weschler, 1997) The mother tongue can and should be used as anintegral element in an English language program It can supply the student with theessential sense of need to learn the language as well as the tools and motivation to do

so effectively As Atkinson (1987: 247) pointed out that ‘although the mother tongue isnot a suitable basic for a methodology, it has, at all levels, a variety roles to play whichare at present, consistently undervalued’

1.4 Use of L1 in L2 classroom

As far as the proponents of L1 are concerned, teachers can take advantages of

their students’ L1 in many occasions Atkinson (1987) listed appropriate uses for the

L1 in the L2 classroom They are (1) Eliciting language; (2) Checking comprehension

of a concept behind structure, a reading or listening text; (3) Giving complexinstructions to basic levels; (4) Co-operating among learners; (5) Explaining classroommethodology; (6) presentation and reinforcement of the language; (7) Checking forsense; (8) Testing; (9) Developing circumlocution strategies

On the other side, Cook (2001) mentioned the positive applications of the MT in

a different way He focused on three main uses of the MT namely teacher conveyingmeaning (check meaning of words, sentences and explain grammar), teacherorganizing the class (organizing tasks, maintaining discipline, contacting withindividual students, and testing) and students using L1 within the classroom

Cameron (2001: 201) proposed eleven ways that teachers could apply the MT inteaching English for young learners They are (1) explaining aspects of the targetlanguage; (2) translating words or sentences; (3) giving instructions; (4) checkingunderstanding of concept, talk, text, instructions; (5) eliciting language; (6) focusingstudents attention; (7) testing; (8) talking about learning; (9) giving feedback; (10)disciplining and control; (11) informal, friendly talk with students

In spite of the different way of classifying the uses of the L1, these scholars still meeteach other in many respects

1.5 The amount of L1 in the English classroom

It is obvious that it is time to open a door that has been firmly shut in languageteaching for over a hundred years, namely the use of the L1 in the classroom However,there still exists one question need to be addressed, which is ‘how much the L1 is there

in the foreign language classroom?’ According to Atkinson (1987), it is necessary toavoid the overuse of the mother tongue He further suggested that ‘ at early levels aratio of about 5 & native to about 95 & target language may be profitable’ (p 236).There will appear some possible dangers if teachers depend excessively on the L1 Inaddition, Cook (2001) claimed that the mother tongue could become an effectiveresource in the L2 classroom if it is used ‘deliberately and systematically’ In the

studies by Schweers (1999) and Tang (2002), the majority of teachers emphasized theimportance of the occasional use of the L1 in the L2 classroom However, the exactappropriate amount of L1 in the L2 classroom has not been well investigated Cameron(2001) recommends useful principles for language choice in classroom that whileteachers use the target language as much as possible, but ensure that the use of firstlanguage supports the children learning In a study by Duff & Polio (1990), in attempt

to determine the amount of L2 at university, conducted a research and their resultrevealed that there was a range from 10% to 100 % foreign language used in theclassroom While these findings are not overtly conclusive, they do however show thatthere is a disparity between the reports concerning the L1- L2 proportion Therefore,more studies need to be carried out to address this issue

1.6 Empirical researches

Al-Buraiki (2008) investigated teachers' attitudes and practices regarding the use

of the L1 in young learner English classrooms in Oman The researcher found that theL1 was commonly used in English lessons, though for a range of purposes and withvarying degrees of frequency The study also showed that, overall, the teachers in thisstudy believed that the L1 had a role to play in the young learner English classroom.Furthermore, they identified different factors which influenced their decision to use theL1 such as the time available, learners’ knowledge of concepts, vocabulary andgrammar, learners’ proficiency, and learners’ age

Drosatou (2009), in his M.A thesis, focused on teachers’ and learners’ beliefsabout the use of Greek and English in the English language classroom for younglearners, by relating them, also with their actual practices The findings revealed thatgiving instructions, presenting/ explaining grammatical item and disciplining theclassroom were the first, second and third sections that MT was most used Learners,

on the other side, used MT to respond to their teachers or to ask questions/ help fromteachers / peers By drawing a connection between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs and

their practices, it is observed that although the teachers were aware of the benefits of

TL use, they hesitate to use it in the classroom

Al-Nofaie (2010) noticed that the participants preferred to use Arabic withbeginners and low-proficiency level students The results revealed that teachers andstudents generally had positive attitudes towards the use of Arabic in the classroom.The learners' level and the teachers' professional experience also affect the degree towhich teachers resort to L1

Tang (2002) studied the use of the L1 by Chinese teachers of English as well astheir learners’ attitudes towards it The results showed that both teachers and learnersresponded positively to using the L1 as a supportive and facilitating teaching tool

Schweers (1999) investigated the attitudes towards using the L1 of teachers andlearners in an EFL context where the L1 was Spanish This study also showed that themajority of the teachers and learners agreed that the L1 should be used sometimes

Prodromou (2000) conducted another survey about L1 use with Greek learners

of English He found that most beginner and intermediate learners, but only a minority

of advanced learners, felt the use of the L1 in the English classroom was acceptable

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 2.1 Qualitative Multi case study approach

Creswell (1998, in Duff, 2008: 21) defined a case study is an exploration of a

“bounded system” or a case (or multiple cases) over time through detailed, in-depthdata collection involving multiple sources of information rich in context Case studymethodology is believed to be flexible to suit various purposes of the study includingqualitative, quantitative, and descriptive In the present study, a qualitative multiplecase study approach was employed due to the following reasons:

To begin with, a multiple case study was conducted because it helps understandthe case in depth and detailed description of specific phenomenon According toCohen, Manion, & Morrison (2007), case studies are useful for analytic rather thanstatistical generalization This approach has the potential to deal with simple throughcomplex situations It enables the researcher to answer “how” and “why” typequestions, while taking into consideration how a phenomenon is influenced by thecontext within which it is situated For the novice research, a case study is an excellentopportunity to gain tremendous insight into a case (Baxter and Jack, 2008: 556).Consequently, the researcher believed that to conduct a study concerning the issue ofteachers’ use of the MT in the L2 classroom, it was advisable to access descriptive anddetailed data rather than a wide and superficial one

Secondly, collective case study enables the researcher to analyze within eachsetting and across setting In a multiple case study, some cases are being examined tounderstand the similarities and differences between the cases (Baxter and Jack, 2008:550) Knowing these features, the researcher decided to use this approach to investigatemore than one case As a result, it will be easier and more logical to compare andcontrast teachers’ L1 use in the L2 classroom Therefore, the data could be moreconcise and persuasive when reflecting different behaviors of various teachers fromdifferent English classroom levels

In general, qualitative multi-case study research was considered to be the mostappropriate approach for the present study It was believe that the study couldcontribute somehow for further investigation in teacher’s use of L1 in L2 classroom

2.2 Setting and Participants

2.2.1 Setting

The study was conducted in an English Centre The centre addresses children with age

range from three to twelve years old Students are divided into classes due to their ageand sometimes their level The center’s purpose is building complete English learningenvironment, emphasizing learning English at school and at home The children aretaught in a modern environment with electronic board, touch and talk pen, safe andcomfortable classroom, rational light, complete series of course book with varieties of

CD, DVD, CD-ROM There are three kinds of course book ‘Talky Talky English’- theseries of book focusing on theme is written for preschooler Phonics series with 12books focus on the consonants, vowels, R- vowels, diphthongs, consonant digraphs andblends The last course book series are the Popodoo Book levels A, B, C with 20 units

in each level The units are organized from easy to complex content which emphasize

on vocabulary, conversation, sentences, grammar, MTV- songs and chants Childrenfrom five to six years old learn natural phonics with the selected parts in PopodooBook A which focus on pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary and also simple sentences(speaking and listening) while younger students (below 5) learn ‘Talky Talky English’.Children from six to eight learn the Phonics and the whole Popodoo Book level A andthose who above nine also learn the same book with children from six to eight but withfaster pace, expanding parts and harder content for each lesson In this English centre,Vietnamese is the only mother tongue and English as the foreign language

2.2.2 Participants

Since teachers are core participants of this research, they were chosen undervoluntary agreement, so that the researcher could make sure about their commitment in

getting involved in the study Three teachers of English, who are teaching threedifferent levels at this English Center, then were invited to share their opinion andexperience on the investigated issue

Although they can come from diverse education background, all three teachersalready passed the training courses in teaching English for kids, the condition to work

in the English School, which hold by the headquarter In addition, teachers also attendannual workshop which invite experts in teaching kids to train new skills It then can

be concluded that these teachers are well- qualified in this field and they received thesame education in teaching young learners Like students, all of them are nativespeakers of Vietnamese

2.3 Data collection Instruments

The techniques employed in this study were non- participant classroomobservation, stimulated recall technique and semi- structured interviews Thecombination of these three instruments was used to achieve a triangulation of data andthus generate the validity and reliability of the study These instruments will bedescribed in further detail below

2.3.1 Classroom observation (See Appendix 1)

Since the research is on a practical issue, classroom observation was regarded as

an effective tool to achieve data Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007: 305) claimed

“observational data are attractive as they afford the researcher the opportunity to gather

‘live’ data from ‘live’ situations” Observations enable the researcher to rely on realsituation facts rather than on ‘second hand accounts’ (Cohen, Manion and Morrison,2007: 396) This merit is particularly significant in this research where the author aims

to investigate the reality of using the mother tongue and to test whether the teachers’practices are congruent with their stated beliefs

In the study, a structured observation format, which was modified from Cook(2001), Atkinson (1987), and Cameron (2001), was used What was observed during

the class was the amount of the MT and the TL used by teachers in different lessonsections The researcher observed three different level English classes (each class will

be observed four times) The researcher played as non- participant observation

2.3.2 Stimulated Recall (Appendix 2)

To find out the reasons why teachers used the mother tongue in the classroom,stimulated recall (SR) interview was applied SR is a research method towards theinvestigation of cognitive processes through inviting participants to recall theirconcurrent thinking during an event when prompted by video and audio recordings(Fox- Turnbull, 2009: 204) SR is a valuable tool since it provided an opportunity forreal life context In addition, the use of multimedia sources in recall section has thebenefits of replaying and reintroducing cues that were present during the task (Sime,2006) By using this method, the researcher could assess participants’ reflection onmental processes and their explanation for their decision making

In this study, SR was conducted during 24 hour after the observed lesson inorder to make sure that the information was fresh and the research would get the bestinformation Because of the limited time, the researcher could not interview teacher inall four observed lessons, just two of them will be chosen to implement an interview.Since the researcher was afraid that teachers’ proficiency under study was not goodenough to express all of their thinking, so the interview was conducted in Vietnamese.Another reason for applying Vietnamese in interview is that both participants and theresearcher are Vietnamese, so it is easily to exchange idea and to dig deeply theinformation The researcher audio taped each SR interview and then transcribed

2.3.3 Semi structured Interview (See Appendix 3)

Interviews are a valuable tool in themselves The use of interview results inclearer and sharper research questions The data derived from interviews can be quiterich and in-depth (Paltridgle & Phakiti, 2010) In this research, the interview employed

to seek teachers’ opinions of the use of the first language in the classroom A

semi-structured interview was conducted with three teachers after finishing all observationsand stimulated interviews As teachers’ responses might vary in the topic questioned, alist of prepared questions was used as a guide Therefore, some changes could beapplied due to the interviewees’ answers Semi structured interview also wasconducted in Vietnamese and then interpreted in English The questions were asked in

a fixed order and the interviews were audio recorded for transcription later

In conclusion, the combination of the three most common tools namelyobservation, Stimulated Recall, and semi- structured interview brought to theresearcher a rich amount of valid and reliable data, the analysis of which would bepresented in the next chapter

2.4 Data collection procedure

Data collection started by contacting the principal of the private language centerinforming her about the purpose of the study and asking for her consent for theresearch to take place Secondly, the teachers were contacted in person asking for theirconsent to observe the classes and being involved in the SR and semi- structuredinterview procedure

The research started with classroom observations Each teacher was observedfour times in a 60 minutes lesson of the different levels Two of the observed lessonswere chosen in advance for stimulated recall interview SR interviews were conductedwithin 24 hours after the observation After finishing all observations and SR, semistructure interview was conducted to find out teachers’ belief about the L1 use in theclassroom

2.5 Data analysis

This research applied qualitative and quantitative data analysis techniques.Firstly, from the data in the observation sheet, the quantity of Vietnamese language andEnglish utterance during four observed lessons were calculated The L1 use in differentsections were sorted out, summarized and analyzed qualitatively Secondly, the data

from the stimulated interview was analyzed according to the emerging theme in theinterview Finally, after finishing semi-structured interview, the researcher summarizedeach teacher’s ideas, and then compared with the data obtained from the observation

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter will include the results obtained from data collected by the use ofclassroom observation, SR interview and semi structure interview The above resultsthen will be also analyzed and discussed according to the literature and other empiricalresearches mentioned in chapter 1

3.1 Findings

3.1.1 Case 1 (teacher in class for 5-6 years old students)

Question 1: How much L1 is used and in which sections do teachers use it in the classroom?

As presented in the Methodology part, classroom observation was held toexamine the amount of L1 use and occasions on which teacher actually used L1 Afterobserving four English lessons of this teacher, the research counted the times that theteacher used Vietnamese and English in all four lessons The result was shown in thetable below

Table 1: Teacher’s use of Vietnamese in English classroom for 5-6 years old students

Comparing and/or contrasting English and Vietnamese languages (e.g.,

phonology, morphology, grammar)

As can be seen from table, the amount of Vietnamese used in this classroom isjust about 49 times- a third of English used in the classroom The frequency of the L1use was for different functions The most frequent use of L1 was for giving