Use of Vietnamese in English language teaching in Vietnam Attitudes of Vietnamese university teachers and students

The present study investigates the attitudes of Vietnamese university teachers and students toward the use of Vietnamese in English language teaching ELT in the context of Vietnam with a

20§€ _ 4 4t7.n2

K

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

-

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (TESOL)

Submitted by KIEU HANG KIM ANH, BA

Supervisor

HA HAI CHAU, MA

HOCHIMINH CITY March , 2009

ABSTRACT

The present study investigates the attitudes of Vietnamese university teachers and students toward the use of Vietnamese in English language teaching (ELT) in the context of Vietnam with a view to disclose future perspectives for studies of this

issue in the country A total of 12 teachers and 381 students from three universities

in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam volunteered to participate in the study The data was collected via questionnaire, classroom observation and semi-structured interview

The results of this study highlight five main points First; most of the respondents held a supportive view on the use of Vietnamese in ELT in the context

of Vietnam Second, “helping students improve listening and speaking skills” was the reason for not using Vietnamese in ELT stated by the majority of the student respondents who rejected the use of Vietnamese in ELT (no teacher respondent objected to the use of Vietnamese in ELT) Third, the participants suggested several situations in which teachers should use Vietnamese in ELT such as “explaining grammatical points”, “explaining new words”, “checking for understanding” and

“foking with students” Fourth, many reasons for the use of Vietnamese in ELT

were also stated by the participants, including “helping students understand

complex grammatical points better”, “helping students understand difficult new words more clearly”, “making sure that students understand the lessons” and

“making students feel less stressed” Finally, most of the respondents supported the limited use, not the overuse of Vietnamese in ELT The teacher respondents suggested a judicious use of Vietnamese in ELT which could be adapted to suit the context of a specific class ~

ws -

1.1, Background to the study

1.2 Significance of the study

2.2.1 Reasons for the neglect ofL1

2.2.2 Support for the monolingual approach 2.2.3 Support for the bilingual approach

2.2.4 Translation

2.3 Studies exploring L1 use in L2 teaching

2.3.1 Studies aiming at demonstrating the positive role of Li in L2 teaching

2.3.2 Studies focusing on teachers and learners’ attitudes toward L1 use in L2 teaching and specific situations in which L1 should be used ih the L2 classroom .- -s - 2.4 ConcÌuSiOn - St n1 r.rrerrrrrrrrerrrree

Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Series

3.1 Research method : 3.2 Environment

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

Chapter 5:

3.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

Chapter 6:

6.1

6.2

6.3

4.1.1 Quantitative results

4.1.2 Qualitative results collected from the classroom observations

Reasons why teachers should not „se Vietnamese in ELT

4.2.1 Quantitative results collected from the student questionnaires 4.2.2 Qualitative results collected from the student questionnaires

Situations in which teachers should use Vietnamese in ELT

4.3.1 Quantitative results collected from both of the teacher and Student questionnaires 2.2 ceescssescssssssessesecsceenscesescassesesensens 4.3.2 Qualitative results we Reasons why teachers should use Vietnamese in ELT

4.4.1 Quantitative results collected from both of the teacher and sfudenf quesfÏOnnẠT€§ cv nrsetrseHerưàc 4.4.2 Qualitative results collected from the interviews

Frequency of teachers” use of Vietnamese in ELT .

4.5.1 Quantitative resulfs . "

4.5.2 Qualitative results collccted from the interviews

SUIMATY Gà TQ H2H,1212122212111111111111111114411E.E1111T.1ELcE 090305015155 —

Use of Vietnamese in ELT, ác cá 2c St 2 St Set 21121 errree Reasons why teachers should not use Vietnamese in ELT "

Situations in which teachers should use Vietnamese in ELT

Reasons why teachers should use Vietnamese in EL/T

Frequency of teachers’ use of Vietnamese in ELT

0.000

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS .ce<es- Summarized findings

Limitations

Implications for future researc

1439.390190) 1A1

APPENDICES APPENDIX l - eerirririrre APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 4 SH 11111 Errrrrrrrkerkrrrrrsrrk

7I

76

76

82

88 89

Teacher participants by university, gender and depree

Teacher participants by age and year(s) of teaching experience

Student participants by university, gender, age and English level

Reasons why teachers should not use Vietnamese in ELT stated by the student respondents .eeceecseessesceseceeeeeeeeeeseeteeseneneeseseeeetenenes Situations in which teachers should use Vietnamese in ELT stated

by the teacher and student respondenfs ccceceeieeere Reasons why teachers should use Vietnamese in ELT stated by the teacher and student respondenis -<.ceie

Reasons why teachers should use Vietnamese in ELT stated by the teacher and student respondents XE HH re hy

Frequency of teachers’ use of Vietnamese in the situations

mentioned in Table 4.3.1 stated by the teacher and student

TCSDOPI€TIES Á- HT HH ng TH TH TH n0 010p

Frequency of teachers’ use of Vietnamese in ELT in general stated

by the teacher and student respondents teens

The number of times Vietnamese was used by the five teachers in

the five observed cÌaSS€S, .- cà SÁT HH, 2ee Situations in which LI should be used in ELT - Situations in which L1 should be used in ELT -

Reasons why LI should be used in ELTT c +2

Reasons why L1 should be used in ELT - Reasons why LI should be used in ELT ——

‘English as a foreign language

‘English language teaching :English as a second language

:Foreign Trade University

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This thesis presents at its core a study that investigated the attitudes of Vietnamese university teachers and students toward the use of Vietnamese in ELT

in the context of Vietnam This chapter deals with the background, significance of

the study as well as its research questions The structure of the thesis is also included in this chapter

1,1 Background to the study:

At the Sixth National Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party

organized in 1986, Vietnam adopted a socialist-oriented market economy under the

State management Since then, the economic relations between Vietnam and other countries in the region and in the world have ceaselessly expanded Vietnam joined the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), participated in the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), implemented the Vietnam-US Bilateral Trade Agreement, and recently has become the 150th member of the World Trade Organization

(WTO) Accordingly, more and more investors, most of whom require English as a means of communication, have poured capital into the country As a result of this

international integration, the demand for a skilled labor force having good

command of English has become increased and consequently, English has been the foreign language of first choice in the country However, the communicative competence in English of Vietnamese workforce has not met the requirements of the employers A large number of fresh university graduates have not been employed by foreign enterprises because of their poor English listening and speaking skills (Ha, 2007, p 9)

Several studies conducted with the aim of improving the quality of teaching

and learning English in Vietnam show that “traditional pedagogy, emphasizing the

acquisition of grammar and vocabulary rather than communicative competence” (Pham, 2005, para 2) is one of the causes of the problem Since the early 1990s, therefore, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has quickly become popular

in Vietnam (Pham, 2005, para 2) In accordance with the popularity of CLT in the country, it seems that the only use of English in ELT is widely supported However, the use of Vietnamese in the process of teaching English is common in Vietnam (Nguyen, 2006, para 1) These have led to controversial opinions among

Vietnamese teachers and students on the use of Vietnamese in ELT (Nguyen, 2006,

para 1), such as: whether Vietnamese should or should not be used in ELT and whether the use of Vietnamese has positive or negative effects on the learning of

English

A look at the relevant literature shows that the use of learners’ first language

(L1) in the English classroom has been a controversial topic not only in the context

of Vietnam but also in the international context (Brown, 2000, p 195) Opponents

of the use of L1 in the teaching of a second language (L2) claim that L2 learners should be exposed to L2 as much as possible because exposure is vital in the acquisition of L2 (Krashen, 1986, cited in Brown, 2000, p 280) Moreover, they

state that L1 interferes with L2 learning In other words, L1 is a source of errors in learners’ L2 performance (Krashen, 1981, p 64) Meanwhile, supporters of the use

of L1 believe that “exposure alone is not sufficient” (Miles, 2004, p 12) Phillipson (1992, p 210) expresses his support for the use of L1, pointing out that although maximizing L2 input is important, other factors such as the quality of teaching materials, teachers and methods of teaching are more significant Corder (1992, cited in Ellis, 2003, p 94), another adherent of the L1 use, proposes that L1 can help learners “in the process of discovery and creation”; thus the effect of L1 on L2 learning is “facilitatory” (The debate over the use of L1 in the L2 classroom will be discussed in more details in the next chapter)

1.2 Significance of the study:

As previously mentioned, the debate over the issue whether learners’ native

language should or should not be used in the English language classroom has been controversial for a long time (Brown, 2000, p 195) Although a large number of studies of the L1 use in ELT have been conducted in the world, there have been a

limited number of studies of this type carried out in Vietnam Analyzing Vietnamese teachers and students’ attitudes toward the use of Vietnamese in ELT in the context of Vietnam can be the first step in exploring this issue because these two

_are mainly and directly involved in ELT The outcome of the study may disclose future perspectives for studies of this issue, aiming at improving the quality of teaching and learning of English as a foreign language (EFL) in Vietnam

1,3 Research questions:

This research aims to investigate the attitudes of Vietnamese university teachers and students toward the use of Vietnamese in ELT in the context of Vietnam The

main question it addresses is:

1 “Should teachers use Vietnamese in ELT in Vietnam?”

Underlying this main research question are the following sub-questions:

In case the answer to the main question is negative (“No”), the sub-question is:

2 Why should not teachers use Vietnamese in ELT?

In case the answer to the main question is positive (“Yes”), the sub-questions

are:

3 In what situations should teachers use Vietnamese in ELT?

4, Why should teachers use Vietnamese in ELT?

5 How often should teachers use Vietnamese in ELT?

1.4, Structure of the thesis:

In addition to this chapter of introduction, the current thesis-includes five

Chapter 4 describes the quantitative and qualitative results of the study

Chapter 5 discusses the results referring to the theories, studies and hypotheses presented in Chapter 2

Chapter 6 summarizes the findings of the present study and points out its limitations and the implications for future research

1.5 Definitions of terms:

In order to avoid confusion in terminology, the two terms of L! and L2 are defined according to (Stern, 1983, p 11), as follows:

-L1 refers to the language “acquired first in early childhood” and “of

dominant and preferred use”

-L2 refers to the language acquired later than L1 and not being

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, the history of the language teaching methods focusing on the use of L1 in L2 teaching will be examined It will be followed by a look at the popular opinions on the role of L1 in the L2 classroom in general and in the English

classroom in particular Finally, recent studies of this issue will be reviewed

2.1 History of language teaching methods focusing on L1 use in L2 teaching:

A brief review of the literature related to language teaching methods shows that “the role of L1 in L2 teaching” is “one of the most long-standing controversies

in the history of language pedagogy” (Stern, 1992, p 279) The following glimpse

in the historical sequence of the most-recognized language teaching methods will highlight periodic changes in the role of L1 in L2 teaching

The Grammar Translation Method derived from “the teaching of the classical languages, Latin and Greek” over centuries (Larsen-Freeman, 1986, p 4) is the first one to be considered here In the early years of the nineteenth century in Western countries, the Grammar Translation Method dominated the L2 classroom During this period, L2 was taught through grammar illustration, bilingual vocabulary lists and translation exercises This method emphasizes on the literary language since its fundamental goal is to help learners be able to read literature written in L2, not to provide them with the ability to communicate verbally in L2 According to this method, L1 is freely used as “‘a reference system” in the process of L2 acquisition

(Stern, 1983, p 455)

In the late of the nineteenth century, the Western world experienced a big change in the need of learning L2 as commercial contact and travel between European nations increased more and more People tended to learn L2 with the aim

of communicating, not reading literature written in L2 as before This led to the

emergence of the Direct Method, which pays its whole attention to the spoken

language The Direct Method is based on the belief that L2 learning should be an imitation of L1 learning In this light, learners should be immersed in L2 through

the use of L2 “as a means of instruction and communication in the language

classroom”, and through “the avoidance of the use of L1 and of translation as a technique” (Stern, 1983, p 456) After its highest popularity during the period from the late nineteenth century to the first quarter of the twentieth century, the Direct Method began to decline because, as Brown (1994, p 56) points out, "(it} did not take well in public education where the constraints of budget, classroom size, time, and teacher background made such a method difficult to use." However, the method

has laid foundation upon which many of the later methods and approaches expanded and developed Among: them are the Audiolingual Method and | Communicative Approach

The Audiolingual Method, the origin of which is found in the Army Method developed in response to the need for Americans to lear the languages of their allies and enemies alike during World War I, aims at helping learners “to be able to

use the target language communicatively” (Larsen-Freeman, 1986, p 43) Like the Direct Method, the Audiolingual Method focuses on the spoken language and forbids translation at early level and the use of the students’ native language in the classroom (Finocchiaro & Brumfit, 1983, cited in Ellis, 2003, p 84) Meanwhile in the Communicative Approach, which has attracted most attention from the language

teaching profession during the past five decades, the restricted use of native language is allowed where feasible and translation may be used when learners find

it essential or helpful (Finocchiaro & Brumfit, 1983, cited in Ellis, 2003, pp 84-85) Recently, there has been an increasing attention to the merits of the L1 use in the language classroom among the language teaching profession Several studies

related to the role of L1 in the teaching of L2 have been carried out around the world (This will be discussed in more details in the final section of this chapter) in

order to develop post-communicative methods which consider L1 as a classroom

resource The Functional-Translation Method by Robert Weschler, which combines

“the best of traditional “grammar translation” with the best of modern “direct, communicative” methods”, can be taken as an example (Weschler, 1997, para 3) 2.2 Popular opinions:

The role of L1 in ELT has been ignored since the appearance of the Direct

Method in the late of the nineteenth century Despite the unchanged determination

of the proponents of the monolingual approach to use only Epglish in the classroom (Auerbach, 1993, para 1), there has been an increasing attention to the role of L1 in L2 teaching, and indeed, particularly in the teaching of English This section will identify the reasons for the lack of attention paid to L1 and the reasons why L2 should or should not be the sole medium of instruction and communication in the classroom, as well as detail the arguments for the valuable role of translation in the L2 classroom

2.2.1 Reasons for the neglect of L1:

According to Ellis (2003, p 93), “the contention that L1 has largely been

ignored in the teaching of ESL (and EFL) needs little defense” Five highly

influential reasons are behind the neglect of L1:

1 The association of the use of LI with the Grammar Translation Method, which is now seen as old-fashioned (Atkinson, 1987, p 242)

2 The influence of the Direct Method on language teaching practice, which

was detailed in the section of 2.1 (Atkinson, 1987, p 242; and Harbord,

3 The training of non-native teachers of English from countries where they

share their learners’ L1 has followed the L2-only training model from

English-speaking countries, where teachers usually deal with the multilingual class (Canagarajah, 1999, cited in Ellis, 2003, p 93)

4, The impact of Krashen (1981 and passim) (Atkinson, 1987, p 242), “who advocates maximum exposure to the target language” (Miles, 2004, p 4)

©

at

5 The widely held truism that “you can only learn English by speaking ~

English” (Atkinson, 1987 p 242)

2.2.2 Support for the monolingual approach:

There exists a strong support for the monolingual approach in the literature

on the issue: whether L1 should or should not be used in L2 teaching (Miles, 2004,

p 7) This support is organized around three fundamental principles:

1 The learning of an L2 should (be) 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, cited in Miles, 2004, p 7)

The first principle is based on the rationale that from childhood, human beings are exposed to the surrounding sound environment We listen, imitate and

respond to what we hear around us and then we succeed in mastering our L1 As a result, the proponents of the monolingual approach, who believe that L2 learning follows a process similar to L1 learning, 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 Gatenby (1965, cited in Phillipson, 1992, p 185), one of the

founding fathers of ELT, claims that “What is essential is that the language being

studied should be as far as possible the sole medium of communication in any given

environment.” Krashen, a pivotal advocate of the only-L2 use in the classroom and

an expert in the field of linguistics, continues this idea, stating that “comprehensible

input is the only causative variable in second language acqujsition” (1986, cited in Brown, 2000, p 280) He means that “success in a foreign language can be

attributed to input alone” (Brown, 2000, p 280) Implicit in this statement is the

belief that L2 should be used in all situations in the L2 classroom and “an exclusive focus on L2 will maximize the learning of the language, regardless of whatever other languages the learner may know” (Phillipson 1992, p 185) As mentioned earlier, the Communicative Approach, which has dominated the classroom during the past five decades, generally follows this principle The supporters of the

monolingual teaching also identify the multilingual classroom as a situation which offers further support for the monolingual approach They contend that the use of L1 in L2 teaching in such a classroom seems to have no benefit, even may hinder

the learning of L2 if the teacher is unable to speak all learners’ L1s (Hawks, 2001,

cited in Miles, 2004, p 8)

Regarding the sécond principle, the supporters of the monolingual approach

indicate that the main impediment to L2 learning is the interference from LÍ knowledge Krashen, (1981, p 64) in his influential “Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning”, suggests that L1 is a source of errors in learners’

L2 performance Based on research findings, he reports that “a high amount of first

language influence” is found in “situations where translation exercises are

frequent” (Krashen, 1981, p 66) Moreover, according to the advocates of the only- L2-use approach, translating between L1 and L2 can make students believe that every word or structure in L2 has an equivalent in L1 and vice versa, which in fact

is not true (Pracek, 2003, cited in Miles, 2004, p 7) Thus, they argue L1 and L2

should be distinct and separate

As for the third principle, it is believed that the use of only L2 for all

interactions in the L2 classroom can proclaim the significance of L2 in satisfying

learners’ communicative needs (Littlewood, 1981, cited in Cook, 2001, p 409) and depict the usage of the target language (Pachler & Field, 2001, cited in Miles, 2004,

In addition to the above fundamental principles, the monolingual approach supports that “the ideal teacher is a native speaker, somebody with native speaker proficiency in English (L2) who can serve as a model for the pupils” (Phillipson,

1992, p 193) The advocates of the monolingual approach believe that “the teacher

who is a native speaker is the best embodiment of the target and norm for learners” (Phillipson, 1992, p 194) This belief is based on the assumption that native L2 speakers possess “‘greater facility in demonstrating fluent, idiomatically appropriate

language, in appreciating the cultural connotations of the language, and in being the final arbiter of the acceptability of any given samples of the language”, which seem to make them “intrinsically better qualified than the non-native” (Phillipson,

1992, p 194) This native speaker principle is quite popular in several countries including Vietnam Orie can easily realize the strong preference of Vietnamese

learners of English for native speakers of English through the advertisements put by

foreign language centers in Tuoi Tre Newspaper- one of the most popular and prestigious newspapers in Vietnam For example, Eduworld— an English language

11

school in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam - advertised in Tuoi Tre Newspaper dated December 05, 2008 that “in Eduworld, you will learn English with 100% native

2.2.3 Support for the bilingual approach:

Recently, there has been a widespread opposition to the English-only education and support for the bilingual approach in the ELT profession (Auerbach,

1993, para 1)

(a) Problems of the monolingual approach:

Miles (2004, p.12) indicates three points on which the proponents of the

bilingual approach have focused their efforts to discredit the monolingual approach:

I It is impractical

2 Exposure alone is not sufficient for learning

3 Native teachers are not necessarily the best teachers

According to Phillipson (1992, p 191), the biggest problem of the

monolingual approach is that it is impractical There is the fact that non-native speakers account for the vast majority of teachers of English across the world

(Hawks, 2001, cited in Miles, 2004, p 9).-These teachers’ English is usually not good enough to carry out the English-only teaching in the classroom; thus, the insistence on the monolingual approach may result in their reduced ability to communicate and consequently their reduced teaching performance (Miles, 2004, p 9) Cook (2001, p 189) states that “bringing the L1 back from exile may lead not

only to the improvement of existing teaching methods but also to innovations in

methodology” Another reason for the monolingual approach’s impracticality is that

the exclusion of L1 in lower-level monolingual classes is practically impossible

(Nunan & Lamb, 1996, cited in Vaezi & Mirzaei, 2007, para 7) As a result, the English-only teaching in the classroom may create “the alienation of learners from the learning process” (Pachler & Field, 2001, cited in Miles, 2004, p 14) One hundred-percent English approach can also cause stressfulness and frustration, and then “the limited use of L1 can have a powerful, positive effect here” (Atkinson,

1993 p 13) The prohibition of L1 may also cause a higher drop-out rate in English

as a second language (ESL) courses (Auerbach, 1993, para 27) meanwhile when L1

is included, the return of former learners who dropped out is reported (Auerbach,

1993, para 31)

The monolingual approach also receives criticism regarding its belief that maximum exposure to L2 leads to the success of L2 learning According to Phillipson (1992, p 211) this is not the case as “ there is no correlation between

quantity of L2 input, in an environment where the learners are exposed to L2 in the

community, and the academic success” He cites Cummins (1984), as stating that “a maximum exposure assumption is fallacy” (Phillipson, 1992, p 211) He further points out that although maximizing L2 input is important, other factors such as the quality of teaching materials, teachers and methods of teaching are of more significance (Phillipson, 1992, p 210) The supporters of the bilingual approach suggest that L1 can play a complementary role in the classroom In this regard, Stern (1992, p 285) claims that "the use of L1 and target language should be seen

as complementary, depending on the characteristics and stages of the language

learning process" Auerbach (1993, para 32) concurs this in saying that the use of

L1 “reduces affective barriers to English acquisition and allows for more rapid progress to or in ESL learning”

13

The native speaker principle also raises questions:

First, although a lot of efforts have been made to concepthalize the term

“native speaker’, it seems that there is no satisfactory definition of this term

Bloomfield (1933, cited in Cook, 1999, pp 185-186) claims that “the first language

a human being learns to speak is his native language; he is a native speaker of this

language” Similarly, McArthur (1998, cited in Zacharias, 2003, p 22) “defines a native speaker as a person who acquires a certain language in early childhood” Detailing what constitutes a native speaker is another way adopted to define “native

speaker” Stern (1983, pp 342-344) suggests features that make up a native speaker

4 Linguistic and communicative competence manifests itself in language behaviors receptively and productively

5 The native speaker uses the first language ‘creatively’

Apart from the five characteristics above, Davies (1996, cited in Cook, 1999,

p 186) adds three more:

1, The ability to produce fluent discourse

2 The knowledge of differences between their own speech and that of the

“standard” form of the language,

Second, in a discussion related to the question of who should teach ESL and EFL, Zacharias (2003, p 24) cites Cook (2001), as stating that “the characteristics which are commonly associated with native speakers are not necessarily the prerogative of native speakers” Phillipson (1992, p 194) shares the same idea, saying that all of these characteristics such as fluency apd appropriate use of language can be achieved in the process of training He goes further in arguing that non-native teachers seem to be better than native ones as they themselves have experienced the process of learning L2, acquiring insight into the need of their learners, which is a valuable resource for their teaching (Phillipson, 1992, p 195) Seidlhofer (1999, cited in Zacharias, 2003, p 26) shares a similar view She

considers a non-native speaker as a ‘double agent’ who can offer the following

advantages:

1 They are at home with the language(s) and culture(s) they share with their students, but they also know the relevant terrain inhabited by the target language Thus, they are suitable to be agents facilitating learning

by mediating between the different languages and cultures through

appropriate pedagogy

2 Since they were once learners of the language themselves, bilingual

teachers usually develop a high degree of consciousness/declarative, knowledge of the internal organization of the code itself

(Seidthofer , 1999, cited in Zacharias, 2003, p 26)

15

In this light, Phillipson (1992, p 195) suggests that the ideal teacher is the person who “has near-native speaker proficiency in the foreign language, and comes from the same linguistic and cultural background as the learners”

Apart from discrediting the monolingual approach, the advocates of the

bilingual approach indicate the benefits of using L1 and identify specific situations

in which L1 should be used

(b) Benefits of L1 use in L2 teaching:

Based on the belief that L1 is part of adult learners’ pxperience which they bring into the classroom, Corder (1992, cited in Ellis, 2003, p 94) states that:

Second language learners not only already possess a language system which

is potentially available as a factor in the acquisition of the second language, but equally importantly they already know something of what a language is for, what its communicative functions and potentials are

He proposes that L1 can help learners “in the process of discovery and creation”; thus “the effect of the mother tongue on learning L2” is “facilitatory” (Corder, 1992, cited in Ellis, 2003, p 94)

Cook (2001, p 407) cites many scholars; maintaining that L1 and L2 “are

interwoven in the L2 user’s mind in vocabulary (Beauvillain & Grainger, 1987), in

syntax (Cook, 1994), in phonology (Obler, 1982), and in pragmatics (Locastro, 1987)” Cook continues his idea, claiming that:

The L2 meanings do not exist separately from the L1 meanings in the learner’s mind, regardless of whether they are part of the same vocabulary

store or parts of different stores mediated by a single conceptual system (Cook, 1997, cited in Cook, 2001) Learning an L2 is not just the adding of rooms to your house by building an extension at the back: it ty the rebuilding

of all internal walls Trying to put language in separate compartments in the mind is doomed to failure since the compartments are connected in many

Atkinson (1987, p 242), in his discussion about general advantages of L1

use, claims that to let learners use their L1 is “a humanistic approach” which allows them to “say what they really want to say sometimes” He also indicates that the use

of LI can be very effective in terms of the amount of time spent explaining (Atkinson, 1987, p 242)

Zacharias (2003) emphasizes the advantages of using L1 in L2 teaching based on three metaphors, two of which are suggested by Prodromou (2001) and the

last one by herself:

I Mother tongue as a window: The mother tongue is the window into

students’ understanding of the concepts being taught It can be used to ensure that “students have correctly understood a particular concept (Zacharias, 2003, p 34)

2 Mother tongue as a lubricant: It can be used to provide a quick and accurate translation of an English word, especially abstract words, that

17

might take several minutes to explain in the target language, with no guarantee that students understood the explanation correctly In other words, translation is ‘a lubricant’ that makes the learning and teaching

of the target language go faster and smoother

(Zacharias, 2003, p 35)

Mother tongue as a shelter: According to Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis, the ‘affective filter’ is “an imaginary barrier which prevents learners from acquiring language.” (Lightbown and Spada 1999-39) Examples of ‘affect’ are such things as motives, needs, attitudes, and emotional states (Lightbown and Spada 1999) Thus, Knibbeler (1989)

suggests that the best situations for language learning are those which

provide lower anxiety levels Auerbach (1993) clajms that the use of the

El helps to create a less threatening atmosphere, consequently enhances the affective environment for learning

(Zacharias, 2003, p 36)

There is “a broader, more sociolinguistic argument for the inclusion of L1 in

the learning process made by Collingham (1988), Hopkins (1988) and Piasecka (1986) and concerns the role of L1 in the adult’s concept of self” (Ellis, 2003, p 96) Piasecka (1986) states that the learners’ sense of identity can not be separated from their L1 and in case their L1 is ignored, their sense of identity may be threatened (cited in Ellis, 2003, p 96)

Hopkins (1988) shares a similar view, pointing out that LI is “part of a person’s essence and connected with his or her group identity” (cited in Ellis, 2003,

According to Collingham (1988), the use of L1 will contribute to heightening the status of minority languages in the community (cited in Ellis, 2003, p 96) She

believes that this will lead to the raise of the learners’ self-esteem and consequently help them to learn more effectively (Collingham, 1988, cited in Ellis, 2003, p 96) (c) Specific situations for L1 use in L2 teaching:

Identifying specific situations in which L1 should be used is the next

important step made by the adherents of the bilingual approach on the way of arguing for the valuable role of L1 in L2 teaching The following are some suggestions for the use of LI in the L2 classroom (Atkinson, 1987 & 1993,

Auerbach, 1993 and Cook, 2001):

1 Explaining grammar: This is particularly useful in helping learners

understand the grammatical differences between their L1 and L2 ~ (Zacharias, 2003, pp 36-37)

2 Conveying meaning of words or sentences: One of the major problems which have persistently troubled the monolingual approach is “how to

convey meaning without translating and how to safeguard against

misunderstanding without reference to the first language” (Stern, 1983, p 460) “Trying to explain hospitable or nuclear family in Lesson 3 of an English beginners’ course may be waste of time” (Mohamed & Acklam,

1992, cited in Cook, 2001, p 414) “Explaining /a biologie or la physique

to a French class using cartoons of a frog and mathematical formula is not likely to be successful - unless of course it relies on the surreptitious

L2/L1 equation of cognates in the students’ minds” (Terrell, Rogers, Bares & Wolff-Hessini, 1993, cited in Cook, 2001 p 414) Thus, using

LI in conveying meaning is likely to be an effective way to help the

learning of L2

19

3 Giving instructions about activities in L2 and asking learners to repeat in

their L1 will ensure that learners completely know what to do (Atkinson,

1987, p 243) ~

4 Checking comprehension: “L1 can be used to check comprehension of the concept behind a structure”, e.g ‘How do you say “I’ve been waiting for ten minutes” in Spanish?” (Atkinson, 1987, p 243) “This technique

encourages students to develop the ability to distinguish between

‘structural, semantic and pragmatic’ equivalence” (Widdowson, 1974,

cited in Atkinson 1987, p 243)

_ 5, Explaining classroom methodology: It seems that it is necessary for the

teacher to understand students’ attitudes toward what will happen in the

classroom, and all learners have a right to talk about, their opinions related

to this as clearly as possible (Atkinson, 1987, p 244) As a result, it is

advisable for the teacher to conduct the discussion of methodology in

low-level classes in either a mixture of both languages: L1 & L2 or

absolutely in the learners’ L1 (Atkinson, 1987, p 244)

6 Testing: The use of L1 “can help to maximize the validity and reliability

of many types of tests” (Atkinson, 1987, p 244) “There is undoubtedly a sense in which it is true that translation is the ‘supreme test of knowledge

of two languages’” (Cunningham, 1929, cited in Atkinson, 1987, p 244)

Most authors, in calling for attention to the use of L1 in the classroom, acknowledge that there is a difference between the limited and principled use of L1 and the overuse of it in L2 teaching Atkinson (1987, p 246), a key supporter of the

bilingual approach, stresses that the excessive dependency on L1 can lead to

1 The teachers’ and/or students’ over-reliance on translation that makes

them only understand a new item of language when it is translated

2 The teachers’ and/or students’ failure to see the differences between the two languages in terms of form, meaning and pragmatic features

3 Students’ habit of speaking to the teacher in their L1, even they are able to express what they mean in English (the target language)

4 Students’ failure to realize the significance of the use of only English in many classroom activities

2.2.4 Translation:

Since translation, as a teaching and learning tool, is associated with the Grammar Translation Method, which is considered old-fashioned today, it has been avoided as much as possible in the L2 classroom However, several scholars have argued for its place as a valuable teaching and learning tool Seidlhofer (1999)

points out that

Translation relates the language to be learnt to the linguistic experience that people have already had, and this of course can reduce a good deal of the threat of the new subject, and help the learner to appropriate the new language It is entirely natural to seek to make new experience meaningful by

referring it to conceptual categories drawn from previous experience, and so translation is, in this respect, the reflex of natural learning

21

This combination of freedom and constraints allow the students to contribute their own thoughts to a discussion which has a clear focus — the text

Atkinson (1993, p 53) goes further in detailing some benefits of translation activities:

1 Translation forces learners to think carefully about meaning, not just to

manipulate forms in a way that many ‘mechanical’ grammar exercises

do

2 It allows learners to think comparatively When students do translation

activities they have to compare their L1 with English This can help them

to become more aware of the differences between fhe two languages and

to avoid making all sorts of ‘typical’ mistakes common in their L1 group

3 Translation activities can be used to encourage students to take risks rather than avoid them When translating, learners can not look for ways

of avoiding saying ‘difficult’ things; instead, they have to find some way

of saying them in the other language,

4 A brief translation activity is a good way of changing the pace of lesson

If the teacher has just done a lively communicative activity, following it with some translation can make the focus of the lesson calmer and more reflective

5 Translation is a real life activity If learners need English in their jobs (now or in the future) they may well have to spend some time translating

In order to illustrate his point, Atkinson (1993, p 58) provides an example of the use of translation in a communicative activity In this activity, learners discuss advantages and disadvantages of many holiday destinations During the activity,

learners are asked to write down things which they want to say but ‘can’t’ say in

English When the activity finishes, the teacher takes the notes and write them up on

the board for groups to discuss This step involves all sorts of strategies such as

using the antonym of the word they do not know, and giving an explanation of things they would like to talk about Through this activity, learners come to realize

that their shared L1 can play a facilitatory role, not is a hindrance in their process of L2 learning

Considering mental translation, Atkinson (1987, p 242) refers to it as a natural process as well as “a part of preferred learning strategies of most learners in most places” because in the process of learning L2, learners tend to translate

whether the teacher encourages it or not He suggests that “a belief in the way one

approaches a task is likely to effect one’s chances of success” (Atkinson, 1987, p 242), or in other words, if learners use translation during the process of learning L2

and think that translation is useful for the development of their L2, it is likely that ` this will increase their chances of success in learning L2 Thus, this tendency is

better “directed productively, rather than ignored or prohibited” (Ellis, 2004, p

100)

2.3 Studies exploring L1 use in L2 teaching:

In parallel with the increasing attention given to the use of L1 in L2 teaching,

several studies have been carried out across the world during the past three decades

with the aim of demonstrating the positive role of L1 in L2 teaching, finding out

teachers and learners’ attitudes toward this issue and identifying specific situations

in which L1 should be used in the L2 classroom

2.3.1, Studies aiming at demonstrating the positive role of L1 in L2 teaching:

A study conducted by Osburne and Harss-Covaleski (1991, cited in

Auerbach, 1993, para 37) theorized that the widely disapproved practice of writing

23

first in L1 and then translating into the L2 was not harmful to the quality of

learners’ written products In order to investigate the validity of the claim that translating should not be allowed in the classroom as this will cause learners to

“make more errors, distract them from thinking in English”, consequently “would

negatively affect on their writing”, the two authors “compared ESL compositions

written directly in English with others written first in L1 and then translated into

English” (Osburne & Harss-Covaleski, 1991, cited in Auerbach, 1993, para 37) Based on the results that showed “no significant difference in the quality or quantity

of the written products”, they concluded that "it seems then that there is no need for teachers to become overly anxious if students choose to employ translation as a composing strategy at times" (Osburne & Harss-Covaleski, 1991, cited in Auerbach, 1993, para 37)

More recently, Vaezi and Mirzaei (2007, para 22) conducted a study in order

to answer the following question:

Does the use of translation from L1 to L2 have any effect on the improvement

of Iranian EFL learners' linguistic accuracy—focus on form?

To achieve the aim of this study, 155 participants (70 male and 85 female) Iranian pre-intermediate learners of EFL between the age of 13 to 24 studying in several language centers in Iran were given a pre-test, aiming at identifying the

participants who were not familiar with the four chosen structures of the study

namely “Passive voice, Indirect reported speech, Conditional type 2, and Wish+ simple past” (Vaezi & Mirzaei, 2007, para 27) Based on the results of the pre-test,

72 participants were selected and were divided into two groups: the experimental and comparison groups The experimental group was asked to translate Persian

sentences into English using the structures that they have been taught meanwhile

the other group was requested to do grammar exercises in the course book Then

both groups were given a post-test The results of the post-test showed that “the experimental group outperformed the comparison group in terms of accuracy” (Vaezi & Mirzaei, 2007, para 3); this supported Atkinson's 4987, p 244) statements:

An exercise involving translation into the target language of a paragraph or set of sentences which highlight the recently taught language item can provide useful reinforcement of structural, conceptual and sociolinguistic differences between the native and target languages This activity is not, of course, communicative, but its aim is to improve accuracy

The study also concluded that “mother tongue, if used purposefully and

systematically, can have a constructive role in teaching othef languages” (Vaezi & Mirzaei, 2007, para 44) Similarly, Florez (2000, cited in Ellis, 2003, p 100), ina study on whether or not to use L1 in the monolingual ESL class, stated that the restricted and systematic use of L1 was beneficial

Miles (2004, p 15) carried out two experiments at the University of Kent, England in the attempt to substantiate that the use of L1 in the classroom not only

does not hinder the learning of L2 but also can facilitate the development of L2 In

the first experiment, three low-level classes were compared One class did not use

LI, another did use it (in this class, the teacher could not speak Japanese; however, Japanese used by the students was allowed to an extent) and the third did utilize it (in this class, the teacher could speak Japanese and use it periodically) In the second experiment, the attention was paid to one class Four lessons were taught to

this class, two using L1 and two not using L1 All the participants who were male of

the age between 18 and 19 enrolled at a university in Tokyo, Japan, but spent their first year studying English in England, regardless of their majors (English or a different subject) Japanese was their L1, and most of them had learnt English for 6

25

years at high-school Generally, the findings from the two experiments were supportive of the use of L1 in the classroom (Miles, 2004, pp 36-37)

-

2.3.2 Studies focusing on teachers and learners’ attitudes toward L1 use in L2

teaching and_ specific situations in which L1 should_be_used_in the L2 classroom;

In several other studies conducted by the supporters of the bilingual approach, the focus tends to be on teachers and learners’ attitudes toward the use of L1 in L2 teaching and specific situations in which L1 should be used in the L2

classroom Teachers and learners’ favorable views of the place of L1 in the EFL

classroom can be found in a research on the use of L1 in English classes at the University of Puerto Rico, Bayamon Campus, Puerto Rico Participants including teachers (n =19) and students (the number of the student participants was not mentioned in the study) were asked to fill out a questionnaire about their attitudes toward the use of Spanish in the English classroom Schweers (1999, para 5), the

author of the research, also recorded a 35-minute sample from three classes at the

beginning, middle, and end of the first semester of the 1997-1998 academic year in

order to see how frequently and in what situations these teachers used Spanish in

their classes According to the study, the majority of the respondents supported the

use of L1 in ELT and would like Li to be used in English classes “sometimes” Regarding the reasons for their preference for the use of Spanish in the classroom,

the respondents answered that it could aid comprehension and make students feel more comfortable, less tense and less lost The research also listed possible

applications of L1 in the classroom such as explaining difficult concepts, checking

comprehension, defining new vocabulary items, joking around with students and testing Based on the study’s findings, Schweers (1999, paras 25-26) argued that

a second language can be learned through raising awareness to the

similarities and differences between the LI and the L2

Additionally, bringing Spanish into the English classes has made learning English appear to be less of a threat to their vernacular They learn first hand that the two languages can coexist Finally, usiag Spanish has led to positive attitudes toward the process of learning English and better yet, encourage students to learn more English

Inspired by Schweers’s research, Tang (2002, para 9) and Dujmovié (2007, para 3) carried out two similar studies in two other EFL contexts: China and Croatia, respectively Results obtained from the questionnaires filled out by the participants of these studies (100 first-year English-majored university students and

20 teachers in Tang’s study and 100 first-year university students in Dujmovié’s one), interviews and classroom observations (only in Tang’s study) shared many similarities with Schweers’s study in the context of Puerto Rico There existed ` certain differences in the occasions when L1 should be used and the reasons for the use of L1 in the classroom Tang’s study suggested two more reasons for the use of Chinese in the English classroom, namely “it is more effective” and “it is less time-

consuming” Both of the studies concluded that

The research seems to show that limited and judicious use of the mother tongue in the English classroom does not reduce students’ exposure to English, but rather can assist in the teaching and learning processes This is not to overstate the role of the L1 or advocate greater use of L1 in the EFL

classroom, but rather to clarify some misconceptions that have troubled

foreign language teachers for years, such as whether they should use the

mother tongue when there is a need for it and whether the often-mentioned

principle of no native language in the classroom is justifiable

(Tang, 2002, para 33)

27

Other researchers, Nguyen (1999, p 40) and Zacharias (2003, p 74) reported their studies on the use of L1 in L2 teaching and concluded that most of the respondents held supportive views on the role of L1 in the English classroom

Zacharias (2003, p 74) further pointed out the possible uses of L1 in the process of

teaching L2 including explaining the meaning of new words and grammatical points, giving instructions, checking learners’ understanding and giving feedback to individual learners

2.4 Conclusion:

The above review of the relevant literature has led to the following possible conclusions: -

1 The reasons for the only use of L2 in L2 teaching, and indeed,

particularly for the only use of English in ELT supported by the monolingual approach are largely discredited by the advocates of the bilingual approach

2 The use of L1 in ELT is rejected by the supporters of the monolingual approach because of the following reasons:

- Exposure is vital in learning English

- LI knowledge interferes with the learning of English

- English learning must be continuous

3 L1 can have a facilitatory role in certain situations including:

explaining new words explaining grammatical points

giving instructions about activities

t checking for understanding

- giving feed-back to individuals

- joking with students

- testing

4 The use of L1 in ELT is supported because of the following reasons:

- It aids comprehension

- It makes learners feel comfortable and less stressed

- It makes learners feel less lost

- Itis more effective

- Itis less time-consuming

5 The overuse of L1 in ELT should be avoided

Based on the above conclusions, my hypotheses were formulated as follows:

1 Most of Vietnamese teachers and learners of English support that Vietnamese should be used in ELT in Vietnam

2 However, a small group of Vietnamese teachers and learners of English

advocate that Vietnamese should not be used in ELT because of the

following reasons:

- Exposure is vital in learning English

- Vietnamese language knowledge interferes with the learning of English

- English learning must be continuous

3 Vietnamese teachers and learners of English suggest that Vietnamese should be used in the following situations:

29

- explaining new words

- explaining grammatical points

- giving instructions about activities ~

- checking for understanding

- giving feed-back to individuals

- joking with students

- discussing classroom methods

- testing

4 Vietnamese teachers and learners of English suggest that Vietnamese should be used in ELT in Vietnam because of the following reasons:

- It aids comprehension

- It makes learners feel comfortable and less stressed

- It makes learners feel less lost

- Itis more effective

- It is less time-consuming

5 Vietnamese teachers and learners of English suggest that Vietnamese should not be overused in ELT in Vietnam

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methodological aspects of the »present study,

including: research method, environment, participants, instruments and data collection procedures

3.1, Research method:

This cross-sectional, quantitative and qualitative study was carried out in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, from May 05, 2008 to May 24, 2008

3.2 Environment: +

The environment involved three universities in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam,

including University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City (UEH), Foreign Trade University (FTU), Ho Chi Minh City Campus and The Banking University of Ho Chi Minh City (BUH) Though the three universities are in the same field of economics, each university has its own properties UEH is more oriented toward

economics in general, FTU specializes in foreign trading, and BUH focuses on banking

3.3 Participants:

The participants included all the teachers and students who volunteered to

participate in the current study They were distinguished into two groups: teachers and students of EFL

31

3.3.1 Teachers of EFL:

Twelve Vietnamese teachers of EFL (10 females and 2 males}-from the three

universities (5 teachers from UEH, 4 from FTU, Ho Chi Minh City Campus and 3

from BUH) volunteered to respond to the questionnaires designed for the study The percentage of the teachers with a bachelor degree was little higher than that of those with a master’s degree The teachers differed considerably with respect to the age and the year(s) of teaching experience Table 3.3.1a describes the teachers in

terms of university, gender and degree meanwhile Table 3.3.1b provides information on the age and year(s) of teaching experience of the teachers

UEH Female Bachelor

number 5 number 10 number 7 percentage 42% percentage 83% percentage 58% FTU Male Master

number 4 number 2 number 5 percentage 33% percentage 17% percentage 42%

number 3 number 12 number 12

Table 3.3.1b: Teacher participants by age and year(s) of teaching experience

Of the twelve teacher respondents to the questionnaires, only five teachers (3 from UEH, 1 from FTU, Ho Chi Minh City Campus and 1 from BUH) allowed classroom observation Each classroom observation lasted for 60 minutes Each teacher was observed once The personal information of the teacher participants for the observation was as follows:

1 Teacher 1:

Teacher 1 was a male, 36 years old He had a master degree and had

taught English for 2 years At the time of the observation, he was teaching a Business English class

33

Teacher 2:

Teacher 2 was a male, 26 years old He held a bachelor degree and had

taught English for 3 years At the time of the observation, he was

teaching a General-English class

Teacher 3

Teacher 3 was a female, 42 years old She had a master degree and had

taught English for 18 years At the time of the observation, she was

teaching a General-English class

Teacher 4

Teacher 04 was a female, 49 years old She held a bachelor degree and

had taught English for 23 years At the time of the observation, she was

teaching a General-English class «

Teacher 5

Teacher 5 was a female, 35 years old She held a master degree and had taught English for 10 years At the time of the observation, she was teaching a General-English class

Among the five observed teachers, only four teachers (1, 2, 3 and 5) were interviewed

3.3.2 Students of EFL:

A total of 381 non English-majored students (1" year to 3" year students) from the classes of the teacher participants volunteered to participate in the current study The student participants included 145 students (38%) from UEH, 137 (36%)

from FTU, Ho Chi Mirth City Campus and 99 (26%) from BUH Students of the 4"

year were not included in the study because students from UEH and BUH finish all their English courses at the 3 academic year and the 2™ academic year,

respectively, meanwhile English courses for the 4" year students at FTU, Ho Chi