An investigation into teachers' and students' attitudes toward the use of mother tongue in English language classrooms at Hongai High school

Page Chapter I: Literature review 4 I.1 An overview on the history of the mother tongue used in EFL classroom 4 I.2.1.2 The language Compartmetalization Argument 6 I.2.1.3 Provision o

  

TRẦN NGỌC THƯỜNG

AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD THE USE OF MOTHER TONGUE

IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS

AT HON GAI HIGH SCHOOL

tiếng mẹ đẻ trong lớp học tiếng Anh ở trường THPT Hòn Gai)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

FIELD: METHODOLOGY CODE: 601410

HANOI - 2010

Page

Chapter I: Literature review 4

I.1 An overview on the history of the mother tongue used in EFL classroom 4

I.2.1.2 The language Compartmetalization Argument 6

I.2.1.3 Provision of the Maximum Target Language Argument 8

I.4 Theoretical and Research Evidence Favoring and Disfavoring L1 Use 13

II.1 Participants 16

Table 1 Students’ preference for L1 use in the classroom

Table 2 Students’ self- report on Teacher’ L1 use

Table 3 Students’ self – report on the purpose of Teacher’s L1 use

Table 4 Students’ hypothetical opinions of Teachers’ reactions to their use of L1 in

the classroom

Table 5 The frequency of teachers’ use of L1 in various lessons

L1: First language

L2: Second language

EFL: English as a foreign language

GMT: Grammar Translation Method

to examine how the L1 is used in the English language classroom Hopefully, the current study‟s findings will partially help more people especially foreign language teachers acknowledge the role of L1 in the EFL classroom as well as know how to balance L1 and L2 use in the EFL classroom appropriately

2 Scope of the study

The study limits itself to the use of students‟ native language as well as the teachers

and students‟ attitudes towards the use of L1 in the English language classroom The study

is conducted at Hon Gai Upper Secondary School in Quang Ninh

3 Aims of the study

The study aims to investigate the use of students‟ mother tongue- Vietnamese- in the English classroom at Hon Gai Upper Secondary School More specifically, the study tries to seek answers to the following basic questions:

1 What is the attitude of teachers and students towards using Vietnamese in the English classroom?

2 How often do teachers and students use Vietnamese in EFL classroom?

3 What do teachers and students use Vietnamese in EFL classroom for ?

4 Methods of the study

Both qualitative and quantitative research methods are used, including classroom observations, interviews, and questionnaire

 Classroom observations

Six conveniently- selected classes (of about 45 minutes in length) taught by three different teachers were observed to find out how frequently and on what occasions Vietnamese is used

 Interviews

Post- observation interviews were conducted in order to gain insights into the teachers‟ rationale of using L1 in the classroom The interviews were transcribed fully and analyzed qualitatively according to emerging themes

 Questionnaire

A questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was administered to 190 students to find out their attitudes towards using Vietnamese in the English classroom The questionnaire items were developed with reference to the literature on the benefits and limitations of using students‟ L1 in an L2 classroom

5 Design of the study

The thesis consists of three parts:

Part A is the introduction, which presents the rationale, the scope, the aims, the methods

and the design of the study

Part B consists of two chapters

Chapter I, the literature review, starts with a brief review of the literature on the role of

mother tongue in EFL classrooms This includes major arguments against and for the use

of L1, and the pedagogic purposes for which student‟s native language could be employed

in the L2 classroom Finally, an insight into the theoretical and research evidence favoring and disfavoring the use of L1 are presented

Chapter II, the study, presents the participants, the data collection instruments, the results

and the discussion of the findings

Part C is the conclusion of the study In this part, some recommendations on the use of

mother tongue in EFL classroom, the limitation of the study and some suggestions on further research are presented

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

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews briefly the literature on the role of mother tongue in EFL classrooms Major arguments against and for the use of L1 and the pedagogic purposes for which students‟ native language could be employed in the L2 classrooms are discussed in order to create a theoretical framework for the current study

I.1 An overview on the history of the mother tongue used in EFL classroom

Looking at the history of mother tongue (L1) used in the L2 classroom, it can be easily seen that the use of L1 keeps changing periodically and regularly Several hundred years ago, bilingual teaching was favoured, with students learning through translation Howatt (1984) tells us that the ideas of using L1 in the L2 classroom was a respected view during the era of The Grammar Translation Method-“GTM” GTM had dominated late 19thand early 20th century teaching, and saw language learning as a means towards intellectual development rather than as being for utilitarian, communicative purpose- the method in which nearly all phrases of the lesson employ the use of students‟ L1 and translation technique The use of L1 to study L2 was almost universal and readily accepted, partly because language teaching placed an emphasis on the written word above the spoken words However, right after the First World War, L1 use was seriously objected due to GTM resulting in the lack of everyday realistic spoken language content Moreover, the mass migration of people to other countries particular from Europe to America slowly reversed this trend toward a monolingual approach “It was important for educators then to refocus their lesson from students with a common L1 to students with mixed L1” (Hawks,

2001, p47) No longer could teacher rely on using L1 to help them The solution to such linguistically- mixed classes was using the L2 as the medium of teaching and the language teaching placed an emphasis on the spoken language

A sudden and immediate removal of L1 from the classroom happened at the time of the Direct Method of the early 20th century This approach aimed at oral competence and believed languages were best learnt in a way that emulated the “natural” language learning

of the child Therefore, there was no place for translation in the classroom, i.e with no

analysis of translation The Direct Method would soon be discredited when it failed in the public education system (Brown, 1994, p44), but it would have a lasting influence on ESL/ EFL classrooms

The move away from L1 use was later reinforced by Audiolingualism (1940s- 1960s) which saw language as a matter of habit formation L1 was seen as a collection of already established linguistic habits which would “interfere” with the establishment of the new set of linguistic habits that constituted the target language, and was thus to be avoided

at all costs This theoretical opposition to the use of L1 was compounded by the development of the TEFL “industry”- there are now many situations in which the teacher simply doesn‟t speak or even understand the students‟ language, simply because the teacher is an English native speaker who does not speak the students‟ native language

In the last thirty years or so, there have continued to be some methodologies which avoid the use the L1, with Total Physical Response being one of these methodologies But others, like Suggestopaedia and Counselling Language Learning have included it as an integral part of classroom pedagogy

Recently though support for an English only policy has been declining, and some researchers and teachers have begun to advocate more bilingual approach to teaching , which would incorporate the students‟ L1 as a learning tool Others have even gone far as saying the use of L1 in the classroom is necessary (Schweers, 1999, p6) Additionally,, new empirical findings of bilingual research have recently supported the use of L1 in the classroom with a central argument that the side-effect of L1 may be unwanted, resulting from the attitude of disaffected teacher (Butzcam,2003)

In short, the pendulum of L1 use swings with the methodological change For example, during the heydays of the communicative approach, L1 use tended to be discouraged (Cole,1998; Cook,1999; 2001a, 2001b; Prodromou, 2001) The avoidance of learners‟ L1 was also reflected in most of the L2 teaching material during this period (Atkinson,1987, 1995; Buckmaster, 2002; G Cook, 2001 b; Hawks, 2001)

I.2 Arguments against and for L1 use

I.2.1 Arguments against L1 use

There is a variety of arguments against using the students‟ mother tongue (L1) in the ESL or EFL classroom Cook,V (2001b) presents three main arguments for avoiding using L1 in the target language classroom

1 The L1 Acquisition Argument

2 The Language Compartmentalization Argument

3 The Maximum Provision of the L2 Argument

I.2.1.1 The L1 Acquisition Argument

While research may not be entirely convincing, Krashen (1981) and Lewis (1993) claim that adults learn the L2 similar to the way children pick up their mother tongue It is crucially based on the notion of exposure as being the determining factor for learning Children learn their first language through listening and copying what those around them say That is L1 acquisition does not rely on another language or children in the L1 can not fall back on another language However, according to Cook, (2001a, 2001b) the argument that L1 children do not fall back on another language neither supports nor rejects the use of L1 in an L2 classroom There are indeed, differences between the first and the second language acquisition in terms of age and situations Similarly, Weschler (1997) explains

“Children take years following the natural order of acquisition to master the concrete before the abstract On the contrary, having mastered the letter, adults can take shortcut”(p.4) Cook (2002) notes that the misguided vision of the first language acquisition is one of those factors that have outlawed the role of transition in second/ foreign language teaching I myself believe that in terms of language leaning, it is unreasonable to generalize what is true for children is also true for adults It is inevitable that adults make reference to their L1 knowledge while learning L2 This tells us that an attempt to avoid students‟ L1 is unrealistic in the L2 classroom

I.2.1.2 The language Compartmetalization Agument

This is the view that “successful learning involves the separation and distinction of L1 and L2 for fear of interference” (Cook 2001b: 406) He goes on to argue that theoretically, the two languages are distinct, they are interrelated in the L2 users‟ mind in many ways (phonology, morphology, syntax and pragmatics) Thus L1 is affected by L2 and vice versa Therefore, scholars such as Atkinson (1987); Cook (2002); Cohen (1996) cited in Weshler (1997); Edie (1999); Harbord (1992); Swan (1985) claim that it is impossible to separate L1 and L2 Stern (1992), for instance, notes that “the L1-L2 connection is undisputable fact of life, whether we like it or not the new knowledge is learnt on the basis of previous acquired language” (p.208) Likewise, Cook (2002:6) feels that switching and negotiation between languages are a part and parcel of everyday

language use for the majority of the world population These scholars have agreed that since the mother tongue and target language co–exist in the learners‟ mind, in the learning activities they involve, there is no point in making an attempt to keep L1 from L2

In terms of translation between L1 and L2, some scholars think that translation can

be dangerous as it encourages the belief that there are 1 to 1 equivalents between the languages, which is not always the case (Pacek, 2003) For instance, Haltai (1989: 88) argues that translation is considered as bad name for the fear of interfere errors Similarly, Cook (2002) maintains that translation fosters a sense of false equivalence between the two languages resulting in the inter-language errors The danger of translation in encouraging structural or lexical equivalence is also clearly described in Gowers and Walters “Teaching Practice Handbook” (1983) In contrast, Januleviciene and Kavaliauskiene (2002) assume that language interference is an important characteristics of second language learning Stern (1992) rightly argues that since L2 learners often use their L1 for reference, it is impossible to avoid the interference errors at any cost, rather we need to acknowledge them as psycholinguistics given He also states that by demonstrating where the L1 and L2 are similar or different in terms of phonology, lexical and grammar, we can help learners to respond to the likely errors in advance (p.297) Richards (1986 cited in Wesheler,1997) holds a similar view that comparing and contrasting of the two languages would allow the learners to predict the possible L1 interference It is suggested by Richards that interfere problems can be addressed through carefully designed teaching materials

The importance of contrastive analysis is also validated by research study conducted by Tomasello and Herron (1989) in the context of Portuguese Their findings indicate that translation techniques that stress the comparison and contrast between L1 and L2 elements ( Phonology, morphology, etc) are effective ways of dealing with the interference and over generalization errors The result of the study partly helps learners or teachers reexamine the L1 avoidance because its use results in the fallacy of equivalence between the two languages

Taking those empirical findings into consideration, it‟s safe to say that if there‟s L1 interference, encouraging learners to relate L2 to L1 to discover the similarities and differences between the two languages would reduce the possible occurrences of the transfer errors As far as I am concerned, L1 interference can not be avoided because this is one of the learning strategies L2 learners use in the process of L2 acquisition However, an

overemphasis on L1 transfer is likely to lead to the ignorance of the benefits of L1 I believe that L1 is helpful in helping L2 learners to internalize L2 input when used appropriately This will be discussed in the subsequent sections

I.2.1.3 Provision of the Maximum Target Language Argument

According to Tang (2002), this is the most common argument against the use in the L2 classroom Scholars who hold the opponents of the L1 use in the class assume that L2 learners often have little or no exposure to the target language outside the classroom Hence, teachers should make an advantages of his valuable classroom time for using L2 instead of L1

The desirability of classroom communication in the target language as much as possible is the view that most teachers and theorists agree upon (Harbord1992:351)

“Every second spent using L1 is a second not spent using English” (David Atkinson: 1993: p.12) However, Cook (2001b); Turnbull (2001); Dajani (2002) suggest that L1 should not be used at any cost, teachers are advised to maximize the use of the target language without overlooking the students‟ first language In other words, according to these scholars, exposure to L2 is necessary but not sufficient for L2 acquisition or intake Richard Miles (2004) thinks that monolingual teaching can create tension and a barrier between students and teachers, and there are many occasions when it is inappropriate and impossible When something in a lesson is not being understood, and is then clarified through the use of L1, that barrier and tension can be reduced or removed Therefore, “a principle that promotes maximum teachers‟ use of the target language acknowledges that L1 and L2 can exist simultaneously” (Turnbull 2001: 535)

I myself agree with the idea that teachers should fill the classroom with as much of L2 as possible However, “English only” may be too challenging to students, it tends not to ensure students‟ comprehension of the meanings of the certain L2 language elements It is not sufficient for learners to acquire L2 The use of learners‟ L1 is necessary to facilitate L2 intake, so it is advisable for language teacher to "use English where possible and L2 where necessary” Weschler (1997:5) This view has been accepted in the recent literature

of L1 use, which will be discussed in the following section

I.2.2 Arguments Favouring L1 Use

In the past two decades, the monolingual approach has been questioned and reexamined, in consideration of the fact that it is more based on political grounds than on

methodological ones (Auerbach, 1993; Cole, 1998; Lucas & Kantz, 1994) According to Auerbach (1993), an English only policy in the L2 classroom “is rooted in a particular ideological perspective, rests on unexamined assumptions, and serves to reinforce inequalities in broader social order”(p.9) Since then, there has been a movement of promoting the use of the mother tongue in the language classroom Professionals in second language acquisition have become increasingly aware of the roles of the mother tongue in the EFL classroom such as the pedagogical role, the psychological role and the socio-cultural role, which are going to be in turn argued as follows:

I.2.2.1 The Pedagogical Role

Contrary to the claim that the use of L1 will harm or affect the progress or effectiveness of L2 learning, many scholars argue that L1 has its pedagogical values and should have a place in L2 learning The mother tongue is learners‟ linguistic schemata and resources to which learners refer while trying to acquire L2 To be more specific, the mother tongue is a source for the learners to draw their existing linguistic knowledge from and perceive the new language Gabrielatos (2001) says that L2 learners tend to rely on their existing knowledge (L1 and L2) to understand the logic and organizational principles

of the target language Both Swan (1985) and Dajani (2002) maintain that learning a second language is the continuation of the already existing L1 knowledge L2 learners refer to their knowledge of L1 in order to help them to learn the L2 Their L1 is a resource

in understanding the target language Hence, Auerbach (1993, p7) asserts that students‟ linguistic resources can be beneficial for learners at all levels of proficiency She emphasizes that allowing the use of the L1 in early second language acquisition facilitates the transition to English Nation (2001) also supports this argument concerning the L2 vocabulary acquisition through translation to be a very effective strategy for speeding up vocabulary growth The argument that translation causes negative transfer is no longer valid Translation, on the contrary, is believed to be an important tool in bridging the gap between what learners bring and the one which is new and difficult (i.e L2) In fact, one bridging function of translation is its usefulness to create opportunities for comparative analysis between the mother tongue and the target language (Murakami, 1999, Namushin , 2002.) According to Chomsky (1976:29), “The grammar of a language consists of universal principles of a language” Building on this idea, Towell and Hawkins (1994) indicate that L2 learners transfer the grammatical properties of their L1 into their L2

grammar This possibility of transferring L1 knowledge to L2 learning is also a strategy used by most L2 learners in most of the places ( Harbord, 1992; Rubin; Stern 1992)

Deller (2003) demonstrates seven uses of L1 as an excellent resource for L2 learning especially for students at lower level of L2 proficiency if used effectively as follows:

1 It is useful to notice difference and similarities between the two languages

2 Learners can enjoy materials that might otherwise be too difficult for them

3 Learners can develop and produce their own materials including their own tests

4 Allowing the use of mother tongue can encourage spontaneity and fluency

5 Using mother tongue can equip learners with the words or expression they really want or need in English

6 Using mother tongue can have beneficial effect on group dynamics

7 Using mother tongue ensures that learners are able to give on going feedback

(Deller 2003:3)

I.2.2.2 The Psychological Role

L1 is believed to reduce the affective barriers to L2 acquisitions Study by Gacia (2000) shows that the use of L1 lowers students‟ language anxiety and enhances positive affective environment for the students to make progress in their L2 learning The most important benefit of L1 use in the classroom is that it “allows for the language to be used

as a meaning-making tool and for language learning to become a means of communicating ideas rather than an end in its self” ( Auerbach, 1993,pp 10-11)

Shamash (1990) believes that using the mother tongue allows the learners to experiment and take risks in English Building on Shamash‟s (1990) belief, Auerbach (1993:19) points out that “starting with L1 provides a sense of security and validates the learners‟ lived experiences, allowing them to express themselves” She also asserts that the use of L1 reduces the psychological barriers to English learning and allows for a more rapid progression This view is shared by Janulevicine and Kavlaliauskiene (2002) who claim that “the ability to switch to a native language, even for a short time, gives learners

an opportunity to preserve self image, get rid of anxiety, build confidence and feel independent in their choice of expression” For Atkinson (1993), the occasional use of L1 allows learners (particularly adults and teenagers) to show that they are intelligent and sophisticated people

In short, L1 use in the class helps students feel secure and creates a more comfortable learning atmosphere, which in turn enhances the L2 acquisition

I.2.2.3 The Socio- cultural Role

Prodromou (2001) sees the use of mother tongue as a means through which L2 learners bring their cultural background into the L2 classroom He believes that classroom ethnic cultures are indeed a starting point for a variety of classroom activities The classroom culture and the culture of the society in which learners live is a good starting point for helping students to authenticate the target language Choffey (2001) has demonstrated that students‟ L1 culture and physical environment are of great help in designing L2 classroom activities He lists three major reasons for using the L1 culture and physical environment to learn the L2:

1 To link the activities to the students‟ situation ( experience)

2 Students learn how to deal with specific lexical items between the L1 and the L2 cultures

3 To establish firm relationships between L1 and L2

It‟s advisable to consider the following lists of Prodromou‟s (2001) metaphoric expressions which might briefly summarise the above mentioned three claims for the merit

of using L1 and the problems that may ensure as a result of its imprudent use He uses the following metarphors for the upside and downside of L1 use in the L2 classroom Thus, L1 can be viewed as:

1 a drug ( through with therapeutic potential, it can damage your health and may become additive)

2 a reservoir ( a resource from which we draw)

3 a wall ( an obstacle to teaching)

4 a window ( which opens out to the world outside the classroom; if we look through it we see the students‟ previous experience, their interest, their knowledge of the world, their culture

5 a crutch ( it can help us get by in a lesson, but it is a recognition of weakness)

6 a lubricant ( it helps the wheels of a lesson moving smoothly, it thus saves time)

(Prodromou, 2001:2)

I.3 Uses of mother tongue in L2 acquisition

As far as the proponents of L1 are concerned, teachers can take advantages of their students‟ first language in many occasions Atkinson (1987:245-44) has listed the following as an area of language teaching in which teachers can make use of L1: eliciting language, checking comprehension, giving instruction, discussion of classroom methodologies, checking for sense, presentation and reinforcement of language, and testing Cook (2001 b: 414-416) suggests that teachers can use L1 as a way to: convey and

check meanings of words or sentences, explain grammar, organize class, maintain disciplines, gain contact with individual students and test Aurebach (1993: 21) includes the following in her lists of possible occasions for using mother tongue : negotiation of the syllabus and the lesson, record keeping, classroom management, scene setting, language analysis, presentation of rules governing grammar, phonology, morphology and spelling, discussion of cross-cultural issues, instructions or prompts, explanation errors, and assessment of comprehension

Cook ( 2001b: 417) suggests three important cases that might lead learners to use their L1:

1 As part of the main learning activities

2 Within classroom activities ( group/ pair work)

3 As a way to the meaning of L2 words both inside and outside the classroom ( e.g, the use of bilingual dictionaries)

However, regarding to using the first language in pair or group work, teachers are often advised about how to discourage students from using L1 One problem concerning L1 use in small groups is that “ If they are talking in small groups, it can be quite difficult

to get some classes particularly, the less disciplined and motivated ones to keep to the target language” (Ur, 1996:121)

Yet, Cook (2001a:157); Harmer (2001); G Cook (2002) and Harbord (1992) argue that code switching is a normal feature of L2 use When students share two languages without the distrust of L1, there is no reason why students should not resort to their L1 To Cook (2001 b), L1 provide scaffolding help: through L1 students may explain the tasks to each other, negotiate the role they are going to take, check their understanding or production of the language against their peers According to him L1 is especially helpful when the activities involve problem solving in which case students could put their heads together and discuss the solution to the problems ( p 418) Likewise, Harbord (1992: 354) explains that L1 has a variety of roles: explanation by students to peers who have not understood, giving individual help to weaker students during pair or group work, and student- student comparison or discussion Cunnningham (2000) makes a strong statement that denying the use of L1 in pair/ group work is almost tantamount to denying students‟ access to an important learning tool: the other students Students are drawing on each other‟s knowledge (Atkinson 1993) Harmer (2001:132) believes that L1 use is quite

acceptable, for example, when students are working in pairs studying a reading text He, however, does warn that using L1 for an activity like oral fluency is almost pointless

I.4 Theoretical and Research Evidence Favoring and Disfavoring L1 Use

Except for few specific references mentioned for the benefits of not using L1 ( e.g, Ellis (1984) and Chamber (1991 cited in Hawks 2001) who themselves do not give any detail accounts of L1 avoidance but based their arguments solely on practical survey, there

is hardly any research and theoretical evidence that validate the benefits of ignoring the learners‟ L1 in the L2 classroom In this connection, Auerbach (1993:9), from instance, writes “evidence from research and practice suggests that the rationale used to justify English only in the classroom is neither conclusive nor pedagogically sound” Weschler (1997) has echoed similar view, noting that the English only approach is without any sound theory or substantiated research Marcaro (1997) adds that the exclusive use of L2 has not been justified yet Concurring with many of the above views, Cook (2001a:157) reveals that second language acquisition researchers have been unable to provide any real reasons for keeping L1 from the L2 classrooms

On the other hand, findings from a small number of studies (e.g Burden, 2001; Schweers, 1999; Tang, 2002) in Japanese, Spanish and Chinese contexts respectively have shown that both University teachers and students have positive attitude towards the use of L1 in their English classrooms The results of their studies further suggested that a limited amounts of L1 has a supportive and facilitating role in the English classes and thus it needs

to be welcomed In the case of Prodromou‟s (2001) study however, university students were skeptical about the role of L1 (Greece) at the university level On the contrary, both teachers and students at beginner and intermediate levels have overwhelmingly accepted the use of L1 ( Greece) in their English classes Thus, as (Cook 2001a: 155) notes “if the twenty first century teaching is to continue to accept the ban on the first language imposed

by the late nineteenth century, it will have to look elsewhere for its rationale”

I.5 Amount of L1 and the Learners’ Level

Stern (1992) claims that it would be advisable to allocate some time in which L1 is used in order that questions can be asked, meanings can be verified, uncertainties can be clear and explanations can be given which may not be possible to the students through the use of L2 This view is also shared by Atkinson (1987), Harbord (1992) and Bolitho (1983) For example, the majority of teachers in Schweers‟s (1999), Tang‟s (2002) and

Burden‟s (2001) studies emphasize the importance of the occasional use of L1 in the L2 classrooms

However, what exactly constitutes the appropriate mixture of L1 and L2 has not been well investigated (Stern 1992); Turnbull (2001)further recommends that more explorations need to be done to address this issue Atkinson (1987:236) suggests that “at early levels a ratio of about 5% native to about 95 % target language may be profitable” In

a study of elementary Core French in Western Canada, Shapson, Kaufman and Durword (1987) stipulated 75% of the target language as the acceptable quantity by the teachers (cited in Turnbull 2001) Similar study but a bit larger scale evaluation of the same program by Colman and Daniel (1988), in Central Canada shows that 95% use of the target language was deemed appropriate by the researchers and school board While these findings are not overtly conclusive, they do however illustrate that there is a disparity between the reports with regard to the L1-L2 proportion It seems from this that Turnbull ( 2001) recommends further studies to be carried out in this area

With regard to the level of students, Atkinson (1987), Stern (1992) and Hawks (2001) suggest that the mother tongue has a variety of roles at all levels But as Stern (1992) and Hawks (2001) note it may be more important to use the mother tongue judiciously and gradually reduce that quantity of L1 as the students becomes more and more proficient in the target language

In general, though it is very difficult to quantify the possible amount of mother tongue required for effective second or foreign language learning, it seems that it would be

at least important to be aware of the fact that L1 can be used systematically with varying intensities for learners ranging from early levels to the more advanced ones On the other hand, as significant amount of literature claims (e.g, Medgyes, 1994; Nunan and Lamb, 1996; Murakami, 1999; Reis, 1996) an attempt to employ 100% target language, especially, with students at lower level of L2 proficiency appears to be impractical If one does, it is to try to “teach the target language with almost then the maximum possible proficiency” (Atkinson 1987: 247) I also understand that the monolingual approach to L2 teaching may leave the learners uncertain about the meanings of some words or concepts even with the aid of visual or contextual clues

This chapter reviews the literature on L1 use As it is reflected in the chapter that there has been a significant change in the way the role of L1 has been viewed In fact, there

has been abundant empirical evidence to support the use of L1 in the classroom However, this issue remains under-researched in the context of Vietnamese upper secondary school This small-case study is an attempt to fill this gap The following chapter presents the study

CHAPTER II: THE STUDY

This chapter will present the participants, the data collection instruments, the data analysis and the discussion of the findings

II.1 Participants

190 students were the participants of the present study, of which 105 were in grade

10, 66 were in grade 11 and 29 were in grade 12 All these students have learnt English at lower secondary school Their English were at pre-intermediate level More than half of them learn English so as to take the university entrance exam At school they learn two kinds of textbook of the Ministry of Education and Training namely basic level and advanced level Three English teachers were the target population of the study The teacher participants have graduated from universities for teacher of foreign languages Their experience of teaching English varies from 5 years to 30 years According to Nunan

(1992b), they are all in the category of experienced teachers Like the students, all of them are native-speakers of Vietnamese

II.2 Data Collection Instruments

Both qualitative and quantitative research methods were used, including class observations, interviews, and a student questionnaire to collect relevant information for the study

II.2.1 The student questionnaire

The questionnaire was administered to the students It contains ten items including both close and open-ended items in Vietnamese so that the students can fully understand the questions (see appendix 1) Some of the items were in fact adapted from Schweers (1999) in such a way that they suit the purpose of the study

The questionnaire emphasizes on

 The attitude of students towards the use of Vietnamese in the EFL classroom

 The extent of their actual classroom use of the language

II.2.2 Classroom observations

Six classes (of about 45 minutes in length) conducted by 3 teachers were observed

to find out occasions on which Vietnamese was used in the English classroom as well as the purpose of the mother tongue use The information obtained from the classroom

observation was also used to confirm the data obtained through the questionnaires For technical reasons, the lessons were not video-taped Instead, I observed and noted the moments when the teacher used Vietnamese and the purpose of such use of Vietnamese

II.2.3 Interviews

Unstructured interview questions were set to solicit pertinent data from the three different teachers whose classes were observed and noted Unstructured interview was preferred because it is thought that it gives a wider freedom to the interviewees to express their views and beliefs (Shohamy and Seliger 1989; Wallace 1998)

The interview was felt to be suitable for the study for it was aimed to generate in depth information from the interviewees on matters related to the use and non use of students first language in the EFL classroom The interview was conducted after the lessons

II.3 Procedures for data collection

The required data were collected in the second term of 2009- 2010 school year First, the questionnaire was given to students Instruction as to how to complete the questionnaire was given in Vietnamese Next, 6 classes of three teachers were observed Finally, each teacher was interviewed right after they had taught the two classes around 15 minutes

II.4 Results

II.4.1 Student questionnaire

The student respondents revealed that they had positive attitudes towards L1 use in the classrooms clearly shown in Table 1

It is interesting that only 10.64 % agreed that L1 use should be minimized in the classroom Nearly half of the students (47.52%)preferred L1 use when they worked in pair work or group work and more than one third of the students (34,73%) would rather use a bilingual dictionary

Table 1 Students’ preference for L1 use in the classroom (N= 190)

Item

No

Item‟s stem and options Responses

(%)

1 In your opinion, should Vietnamese be used in the

English classroom at a school level?

a Yes

b No

87,9 12,1

2 When do you like to use Vietnamese in the

classroom?

a During pair or group work

b When asking and answering questions

c When using English- Vietnamese dictionaries

d Other occasions ( please specify)

47.52 18.94 34.73 5.7

d I feel less lost

e Other reasons ( please specify)

In your opinion, how much does English teachers‟

use of Vietnamese help you to learn English ?

a a lot

b some

c very little

32.98 56.38 10.64

5 What percentage of time do you think should

English teacher use Vietnamese in a forty-five minute period ?

a less or equal to 10%

b 11- 20%

c 21- 30%

2.11 22,11 40.52

d 31- 40%

e 40- 50%

21.05 14.21

6 How difficult do you think it would be for you to

understand the English lessons if your English teacher exclusively used English?

According to their responses to question 5, 40.52% thought an amount of 21-30%

of the classroom time devoted to L1 was reasonable Approximately 22% and 21% supported the idea that L1 should be used round 11-22% and 31-40% respectively Only 14.21% preferred the teachers to use L1 up to 40-50% and 2.11% favored an amount of less than 10% of the classroom time for L1 use Question 6 showed students‟ perception of how difficult it might be if the teacher used English exclusively in the classroom Nearly half of them (43.41%) believed if the teacher used English exclusively, it would be difficult for them to understand the lesson In addition, 29.12% and 18.13% rated this as being very difficult and extremely difficult respectively Only a tiny percentage of the respondents (9.34%) thought that the teacher‟s entirely use of English would not be a serious problem to them in understanding the lesson

In items 7 and 8, students were asked to report on Teachers‟ L1 use Results are presented in Table 2 below

Table 2: Students’ self- report on Teacher’ L1 use (N= 190)

Item

No

Item‟s stem and options Responses

(%)

7 Does your school English teacher use the

Vietnamese language in your English class?

a Yes

b No

96.84 3.16