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

1
PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study
In the process of foreign language teaching, the issue of the mother tongue (MT)
itself has been debated for many years. The various views are reflections on the
methodological changes in English language teaching, which have in such way brought
different perspectives on the role of mother tongue. For a long time, many popular
English language-teaching methods tend to discourage the use of the first language
(L1) in the second language (L2) classroom. As a result, the English only approach has
become a dominant and often understood to be the hallmarks of good language
teaching. Despite the almost undeniable acceptance of the monolingual belief to EFL
classes, recent years have witnessed a considerable shift of views among the ELT
professionals concerning the utility of students’ mother tongue (MT) in the L2
classroom. What the reasons for the ignorance of MT use are, when and how the MT
can be applied in the classroom and how much L1 should be used in the classroom are
currently main seeking among scholars, linguists and teachers.
In the global scale, there have been various studies focusing on this topic such
as the studies conducted by Schweers (1999) at the University of Puerto Rico, Beressa
(2003) at Adama Teachers College, Tang (2002) at a university in Beijing, Duff and
Polio (2009) at University of California, Al-Nofaie (2010) in Saudi public schools. It
is obvious that most of them have investigated this issue at high level of education. In
addition, these studies emphasized mainly the use of the first language from two sides:
teachers and learners. In Vietnamese context, however, it is rather difficult to find
research in this topic. Kieu Hang Kim Anh (2010) investigated the attitudes of
Vietnamese University teachers toward Vietnamese use in English language teaching.
Some other research is carried out by graduate students as their M. A thesis like the
works by Tran Ngoc Thuong (2010) on teachers’ and students’ attitude toward the use
of the MT at a high school, or Do Thi Khanh Van (2010) with her emphasis on the role
2
and use of the L1 in learning vocabulary in English classes at a university. Comes to
the conclusion, there still exists huge gaps on the reality of using the mother tongue in

classroom at every level, in every aspect in Vietnam.
Therefore, there is a need to investigate the issue of the MT use in second
language classroom from different perspectives and in different fields such as from
teachers’ and students’ views, in learning of grammar, vocabulary, skills, etc. This
study focused on only one of those factors that are teacher’s use of MT in classes for
young learners. The reason the researcher focused on teachers’ use of the MT is that
teachers’ talk or language choice in the L2 classroom has a central role and is of great
significance to language learners. One of the main reasons for the interest is that EFL
classroom and teachers are the only and the primary resources of the L2 for EFL
students (Polio & Duff, 1994). Schweers (1999) also pointed out that if the teacher
used L2, the learners would use it also, and this created the opportunity for them to
interact with their teachers and peers. However, Song (2009) asserted that if teachers
shared the same MT with their students, they might hardly avoid the use of L1.
Hopefully, the findings of this study will contribute to the pedagogic methodology,
especially in teaching English to young children.
2. Aims and objectives of the study
The aim of this study is to examine teacher’s use of the MT- Vietnamese in
English language classroom for young learners at an English centre.
The objectives of the study are investigating the amount of L1 use by teachers
of different levels and the reasons underlying their L1 using. In addition, teachers’
belief about L1 use is also addressed in order to find out the concordance to their
practices.
In order to achieve the aim, the study addresses these following main questions:
1. How much L1 is used and in which sections do teachers use L1 in the
classroom?
3
2. Why do teachers use the mother tongue?
3. What are teachers’ beliefs about MT use? Do teacher’s beliefs correlate to their
practices?
3. Scope of the study

In practice, L1 can be used by both students and teachers in L2 classroom. However,
within the framework of this minor thesis, the study only focuses on teachers’ use of
the MT in English classes for young learners. Specifically, the study aims at
investigating the amount of L1 use by teachers of different levels and the reasons
underlying their L1 using. In addition, teachers’ belief about L1 use is also addressed
in order to find out the concordance to their practices.
4. Methods of the study
The study is carried out in form of a qualitative multi case study approach in
which three teachers teaching three different levels for young learners will be
investigated in order to compare and contrast their MT use in L2 classroom. Three
research methods, including classroom observation, stimulated recall interview, and
semi- structured interview are used to reach the aim of the study. The researcher
believes that the combination of different methods to collect data could provide more
reliable and valid information for analysis. Classroom observations are used to
discover the amount and in which sections Vietnamese was used. Stimulated recall
interview was applied to gain insights into teachers’ rationale of using the MT in the
classroom. The recall interviews were fully transcribed and analyzed qualitatively
according to emerging themes. The semi-structured interviews are to explore teachers’
opinions of the use of the first language in the classroom, and then compared with
teacher’s practices. Semi structured interviews were conducted after finishing all
observations and stimulated interviews. As in the case of stimulated recall, semi
structured interviews were transcribed fully.
5. Layout of the thesis
4
This thesis consists of three parts, namely Introduction, Development and
Conclusion.
Part I, the Introduction, presents the rationale, the aims, the scope, the method and the
design of the study.
Part II, the development, consists of three chapters. Chapter 1, the Literature review,
presents background of the study. This includes major arguments against and for the

use of L1, the use and amount of L1 in L2 classroom. In addition, it reviews some
previous studies related to the topic. Chapter 2, the Methodology, introduces the
participants, the data collection instruments and data analysis procedure. Chapter 3
(Results and Discussions) mainly deals with the results and the discussion of the
findings.
Part III is the Conclusion of the study. In this part, the major findings, some
recommendations, limitations of the research as well as suggestions for further study
are presented.
The appendixes are the last part of the study following the reference.
5
PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides background information on the use of L1 in the L2
classroom. Firstly, it presents definitions of young learners. Secondly, it discusses the
role of L1 in major ELT methodologies. Thirdly, it gives an insight into theoretical and
practical research favoring or not favoring the use of L1. Fourthly, it deals with the use
and amount of L1 use in the English class. It also discusses some empirical researches
on the L1 use in L2 classroom.
1.1. Young learners
A young learner- who is he or she? This term in fact covers a wide age range of
children. Scott and Ytreberg (2001) distinguished between two groups of young
learners, one between five and seven and another between eight and twelve,
considering mainly their ability to perceive the abstract and concrete. Another author,
Linse (2005) also defined young learner at the age of 5 to 12. Partly shared this view is
the definition by Richard & Schmidt (2010: 643). They cited that young learners in
language teaching were children of pre-primary and primary school age while other
second language learner age groups were referred to as adolescent learners, and adult
learners. Phillip (1993) defined the ‘young learners’ as the children from the first year
of formal schooling (5 or 6 years old) to 12 years of age. It is obvious that there is a
general agreement in the literature about the definition of young language learners. For

the purposes of this study, the researcher referred to children from the ages of five to
twelve. Therefore, children as young as three and four would not be under consider in
this study.
1.2. History of the use of L1 in L2 classroom
Looking at the literature related to language teaching methods, it is easily seen
that the role of L1 in L2 teaching is one of the most long-standing controversies in the
6
history of language pedagogy. The use of the L1 keeps changing periodically and
regularly.
The ideas of using L1 in L2 classroom were favored during era of the Grammar
Translation Method (GTM). According to Larsen- Freeman (2000), its purpose is to
support students to read and understand foreign language literature, and translate each
language into the other. It is believed that everything in English should be taught by
translating from the target language into the MT and vice versa (Larsen- Freeman,
2000:74). Therefore, the language most used in the class is the students’ native
language. Patel and Jain (2008) also state that, in GTM, because of the translation into
the MT, students’ understanding become better and quicker (p. 75). It is obviously that,
in this method, students’ L1 is the medium of the instruction and its role in the L2
classroom is very crucial.
In the late of the nineteenth century saw the emergence of the Direct Method,
which pays its whole attention to the spoken language and naturalistic principle of
language learning. The Direct Method is based on the belief that languages were best
learned in a way that imitated a child’s natural L1 language learning. In this light, it is
argued that a foreign language could be taught without translation or the use of the
learners’ native tongue and meaning was conveyed directly through demonstration,
visual aids and action (Richards and Rodgers, 1986: 9). Therefore, learners should be
immersed in L2 through the use of L2 as a means of instruction and communication; so
it is clearly that there is no ground for L1 in Direct Method.
The move away from L1 use was later reinforced by the appearance of Audio-
lingual method (1940s- 1960s) which saw language learning as a process of ‘habit

formation’ (Larsen- Freeman, 2004: 43). In Audio-lingualism, the L1 was seen as
already established habits, which would interfere with the students’ attempts to master
the target language (TL). Therefore, the TL, not student native tongue, was used in the
classroom (Larsen- Freeman, 2004: 45).
7
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. The purpose of L1 use is to provide a bridge from the familiar to
the unfamiliar (Larsen- Freeman, 2004). In addition, in later stage more and more of
the TL can be used.
Recently, there has been an increasing attention to the merits of the L1 use in
the language classroom among the language teaching profession. Researchers and
teachers have begun to advocate more bilingual approach, which would incorporate the
students’ native tongue as a learning tool. Several studies related to the role of L1 in
the teaching of L2 have been carried out around the world in order to develop post-
communicative methods, which consider L1 as ‘a classroom resource’ (Atkinson, 1987
& Cook, 2001). The Functional-Translation Method by Robert Weschler, which
combines “the best of traditional “grammar translation” with the best of modern
“direct, communicative” methods”, can be taken as an example. He stated that there
were many possible ways to learn English and there was a time and a place for
everything- including the use of the L1 (Weschler, 1997).
In short, the use of L1 has been in and out of fashion through the history of
teaching. The pendulum of L1 use swings with the methodological change.
1.3. Debating surrounding the use of L1 in the L2 classroom
1.3.1. Arguments against L1 use
There is a variety of arguments against using the MT in the ESL or EFL
classroom. Cook (2001) presented three main arguments for the ignorance of the L1
use in the target language classroom. They are: (i) The L1 acquisition argument; (ii)
The language Compartmentalization argument; (iii) The maximum Provision of the L2

argument.
8
The first principle is based on the way in which L1 is acquired. It is believed
that monolingual L1 children cannot fall back on another language. L2 learning can
follow a process similar to L1 learning which means L2 learners should not rely on
other language, claim that exposure is vital in the learning of L2. In other words,
learners of L2 should be exposed to an L2 environment as much as possible. Krashen
(1981), a pivotal promoter of the only-L2 use in the classroom and an expert in the
field of linguistics, shared this idea when claiming that humans master language only
in one way by understanding messages or reviving comprehensible input. What derives
from the comprehensive input is that one can learn a language successfully by exposing
the target language, and L1 should be banned in the classroom.
Regarding the second principle, the supporters of the monolingual approach
indicated that the main obstruction to L2 learning is the interference from L1
knowledge (Cook, 2001). The interference is a major source of difficulty in the target
language learning and to avoid that, the separation of L1 and L2 should be made.
Krashen (1981) also suggested that errors in learners’ L2 performance result from L1.
Based on research findings, he reported that “a high amount of first language
influence” is found in “situations … where translation exercises are frequent”
(Krashen, 1981: 66).
A further argument is that using L1 might affect students' learning process
negatively, since it reduces the exposure learners get to the L2 and reduces their
opportunities for using the target language (Atkinson, 1987; Philipson, 1992; Polio &
Duff, 1994; Cook, 2001; and Deller & Rinvolucri, 2002). Atkinson (1987) said that
one could ‘learn English by speaking English’ or in other words to learn a foreign
language a person needs to encounter and use it. He then stated that ‘every second
spent using L1 is a second not spent using L2’ (p. 12). In agreement with the previous
view, Auerbach (1993) also indicated that "the more students are exposed to English,
the more quickly they will learn; as they hear and use English, they will internalize it
9

and begin to think in English”(p. 14). If English is not the main language used in the
classroom, the learners are not going to learn very much English (Atkinson, 1993:12.)
The argument of maximum TL use then means that L1 should not be used in the L2
classroom at any cost.
In addition to the above fundamental principles, the avoidance of L1 in the L2
classroom, results from the backwash effect whereby native speakers often receive a
‘disproportionate’ degree of status in foreign language teaching institution (Atkinson,
1987: 242). It is believed in the monolingual approach a native speaker teacher is the
best embodiment of the target and norm for learners (Phillipson, 1992:194). This belief
is based on the assumption that native L2 speakers teacher really know English well, so
they have fewer problem of words coming up in the class and it is easier for students
use English simply because they do not know the students’ language (Atkinson, 1993).
This native speaker principle is quite popular in several countries including Vietnam.
One can easily realize the strong preference of Vietnamese learners of English for
native speakers of English through the advertisements put by foreign language centers
in newspapers or websites like the advertisement by British Academic Centre on the
website bac.edu.vn ‘learning English with 100% native teachers from America and
England’.
I myself agreed that teachers should fill the classroom with as much L2 as
possible. However, ‘English only’ may be too challenging to students, it tends not to
ensure students’ comprehension of the meanings of certain L2 elements. L1 use is
necessary to facilitate L2 input, so it is advisable that teachers should use L1 where
possible, where necessary. This view has been accepted in recent literature, which will
be discussed in the following section.
1.3.2. Arguments favoring L1 use
Professionals in L2 acquisition have become increasingly aware of the role the
MT plays in the EFL classroom. There is a considerable amount of literature which
10
strongly suggests that the use of L1 in the L2 classrooms can be productive or may
even be necessary at times (e.g., Atkinson 1987; Cook, 2001; Cole, 1998; Schweers,

1999; Auerbach, 1993). The use of L1 in L2 classroom is a common feature and is
natural acts, which make a positive contribution to the learning process (Nation, 1993).
There is now a belief that the L1 can be a classroom resource (Atkinson, 1987; Cook,
2001) and that substantial attention and research should be focused on.
The supporters of the bilingual approach have given much of attempts to
discredit the Monolingual Approach by focusing on three points: it is impractical,
native teachers are not necessarily the best teachers and exposure alone is not sufficient
for learning.
Phillipson (1992:191) claimed that impracticality is the biggest problem of
English only in the classroom because non-native English teachers across the world
outnumber native English teachers. These teachers, sometimes, may not confident or
competent enough to use the foreign language for full range of classroom functions
(Cameron, 2001: 200). Cameron further stated that only English policy might be
against the natural communication between teacher and students who share a common
language. Another reason for the monolingual approach’s impracticality is the
practically impossible elimination of L1 in lower-level monolingual classes (Cameron,
2001: 199). In addition, Monolingual teaching can also create tension and a barrier
between students and teachers because in fact there are many occasions when it is
impossible and inappropriate (Pachler & Field, 2001: 86). When something in a lesson
is unclear to a student, and then it is clarified by the use of L1, that barrier and tension
can be reduced or removed.
Concerning the belief supported by the Monolingual Approach that native
teachers are the best teachers, Phillipson (1992) said that being native teachers do not
necessarily means that the teacher is more qualified or better at L2 teaching. He also
claimed that non- native teachers could achieve all of the characteristics such as
11
fluency and appropriate use of language in the process of training. He went further in
arguing that non-native teachers seem to be better than native ones as they themselves
have experienced the process of learning L2. Therefore, they could provide a better
learner model, teach language-learning strategies more effectively, supply more

information about the English language, better anticipate and prevent language
difficulties, be more sensitive to their students (Medgyes, 1992). In this light,
Phillipson (1992: 195) suggests that the ideal teacher is the person who “has near-
native speaker proficiency in the foreign language, and comes from the same linguistic
and cultural background as the learners”. On the other side, the term ‘native teacher’ is
problematic. It is true that there are many variations of English around the world, and
to the question of what constitutes an authentic native teacher, is open to an endless
debate. Ultimately, there is no scientific and practical evidence to support the concept
of a native teacher being an ideal teacher (Phillipson, 1992: 195).
The monolingual approach also receives criticism concerning its claim that
maximum exposure to L2 leads to the success of L2 learning. Eliminating the L1 for
the sake of maximizing students’ exposure to L2 is not necessarily productive. There
is, in fact, no evidence that teaching in the target language results in successful learning
(Pachler & Field, 2001: 85). Agreed with Pachler’s & Field’s view, Phillipson (1992)
cited that “…there is no correlation between quantity of L2 input, in an environment
where the learners are exposed to L2 in the community, and the academic success”. He
also cited Cummins (1984) who quoted “a maximum exposure assumption is fallacy”
(Phillipson, 1992: 211). Although maximizing L2 input is important, other factors such
as the quality of teaching materials, teachers and methods of teaching are of more
significance.
Apart from discrediting the monolingual approach, the advocates of the
bilingual approach raise the benefits of using L1 in L2 teaching. Gabrielatos (2001)
affirmed that we as teachers should not treat L1 as a ‘sin’ and L1 actually does have a
12
place in ELT methodology (p. 6). Supporters of L1 in the L2 classroom also contended
that there are many instances when L1 is appropriate (Atkinson, 1987; Cook, 2001).
Atkinson (1987) claimed that ‘the potential of mother tongue, as a classroom resource
is so great that its role should merit considerable attention and discussion in any
attempt to develop a Post-communicative Approach to TEFL for adolescents and
adults’ (p. 241). He then offered three general reasons for allowing a judicious L1 use

in the L2 classroom: as a learner preferred strategy, a humanistic approach, and an
efficient use of time. Another author, Auerbach (1993) presented benefits of the L1 in
the way that it can reduce anxiety, enhance the affective environment for learning,
facilitate incorporation of learners’ experiences into the learning process, promote
learner-centered curriculum development, and allow language to be used as a meaning-
making tool. She also claimed that use of L1 is beneficial for learners at all skill levels,
not only, as some have argued, for low-level learners.
In conclusion, researchers have found that evidence from both research and
practice suggested that the rationale used to justify English only in the classroom is
neither conclusive nor pedagogically sound (Auerbach, 1993: 15). It should be
apparent that the use of the mother tongue in and of itself in texts and in the classroom
is not the problem (Weschler, 1997). The mother tongue can and should be used as an
integral element in an English language program. It can supply the student with the
essential sense of need to learn the language as well as the tools and motivation to do
so effectively. As Atkinson (1987: 247) pointed out that ‘although the mother tongue is
not a suitable basic for a methodology, it has, at all levels, a variety roles to play which
are at present, consistently undervalued’.
1.4. Use of L1 in L2 classroom
As far as the proponents of L1 are concerned, teachers can take advantages of
their students’ L1 in many occasions. Atkinson (1987) listed appropriate uses for the
L1 in the L2 classroom. They are (1) Eliciting language; (2) Checking comprehension
13
of a concept behind structure, a reading or listening text; (3) Giving complex
instructions to basic levels; (4) Co-operating among learners; (5) Explaining classroom
methodology; (6) presentation and reinforcement of the language; (7) Checking for
sense; (8) Testing; (9) Developing circumlocution strategies.
On the other side, Cook (2001) mentioned the positive applications of the MT in
a different way. He focused on three main uses of the MT namely teacher conveying
meaning (check meaning of words, sentences and explain grammar), teacher
organizing the class (organizing tasks, maintaining discipline, contacting with

individual students, and testing) and students using L1 within the classroom.
Cameron (2001: 201) proposed eleven ways that teachers could apply the MT in
teaching English for young learners. They are (1) explaining aspects of the target
language; (2) translating words or sentences; (3) giving instructions; (4) checking
understanding of concept, talk, text, instructions; (5) eliciting language; (6) focusing
students attention; (7) testing; (8) talking about learning; (9) giving feedback; (10)
disciplining and control; (11) informal, friendly talk with students.
In spite of the different way of classifying the uses of the L1, these scholars still meet
each other in many respects.
1.5. The amount of L1 in the English classroom
It is obvious that it is time to open a door that has been firmly shut in language
teaching for over a hundred years, namely the use of the L1 in the classroom. However,
there still exists one question need to be addressed, which is ‘how much the L1 is there
in the foreign language classroom?’ According to Atkinson (1987), it is necessary to
avoid the overuse of the mother tongue. He further suggested that ‘ at early levels a
ratio of about 5 & native to about 95 & target language may be profitable’ (p. 236).
There will appear some possible dangers if teachers depend excessively on the L1. In
addition, Cook (2001) claimed that the mother tongue could become an effective
resource in the L2 classroom if it is used ‘deliberately and systematically’. In the
14
studies by Schweers (1999) and Tang (2002), the majority of teachers emphasized the
importance of the occasional use of the L1 in the L2 classroom. However, the exact
appropriate amount of L1 in the L2 classroom has not been well investigated. Cameron
(2001) recommends useful principles for language choice in classroom that while
teachers use the target language as much as possible, but ensure that the use of first
language supports the children learning. In a study by Duff & Polio (1990), in attempt
to determine the amount of L2 at university, conducted a research and their result
revealed that there was a range from 10% to 100 % foreign language used in the
classroom. While these findings are not overtly conclusive, they do however show that
there is a disparity between the reports concerning the L1- L2 proportion. Therefore,

more studies need to be carried out to address this issue.
1.6. Empirical researches
Al-Buraiki (2008) investigated teachers' attitudes and practices regarding the use
of the L1 in young learner English classrooms in Oman. The researcher found that the
L1 was commonly used in English lessons, though for a range of purposes and with
varying degrees of frequency. The study also showed that, overall, the teachers in this
study believed that the L1 had a role to play in the young learner English classroom.
Furthermore, they identified different factors which influenced their decision to use the
L1 such as the time available, learners’ knowledge of concepts, vocabulary and
grammar, learners’ proficiency, and learners’ age.
Drosatou (2009), in his M.A thesis, focused on teachers’ and learners’ beliefs
about the use of Greek and English in the English language classroom for young
learners, by relating them, also with their actual practices. The findings revealed that
giving instructions, presenting/ explaining grammatical item and disciplining the
classroom were the first, second and third sections that MT was most used. Learners,
on the other side, used MT to respond to their teachers or to ask questions/ help from
teachers / peers. By drawing a connection between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs and
15
their practices, it is observed that although the teachers were aware of the benefits of
TL use, they hesitate to use it in the classroom.
Al-Nofaie (2010) noticed that the participants preferred to use Arabic with
beginners and low-proficiency level students. The results revealed that teachers and
students generally had positive attitudes towards the use of Arabic in the classroom.
The learners' level and the teachers' professional experience also affect the degree to
which teachers resort to L1.
Tang (2002) studied the use of the L1 by Chinese teachers of English as well as
their learners’ attitudes towards it. The results showed that both teachers and learners
responded positively to using the L1 as a supportive and facilitating teaching tool.
Schweers (1999) investigated the attitudes towards using the L1 of teachers and
learners in an EFL context where the L1 was Spanish. This study also showed that the

majority of the teachers and learners agreed that the L1 should be used sometimes.
Prodromou (2000) conducted another survey about L1 use with Greek learners
of English. He found that most beginner and intermediate learners, but only a minority
of advanced learners, felt the use of the L1 in the English classroom was acceptable.
16
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
2.1. Qualitative Multi case study approach
Creswell (1998, in Duff, 2008: 21) defined a case study is an exploration of a
“bounded system” or a case (or multiple cases) over time through detailed, in-depth
data collection involving multiple sources of information rich in context. Case study
methodology is believed to be flexible to suit various purposes of the study including
qualitative, quantitative, and descriptive. In the present study, a qualitative multiple
case study approach was employed due to the following reasons:
To begin with, a multiple case study was conducted because it helps understand
the case in depth and detailed description of specific phenomenon. According to
Cohen, Manion, & Morrison (2007), case studies are useful for analytic rather than
statistical generalization. This approach has the potential to deal with simple through
complex situations. It enables the researcher to answer “how” and “why” type
questions, while taking into consideration how a phenomenon is influenced by the
context within which it is situated. For the novice research, a case study is an excellent
opportunity to gain tremendous insight into a case (Baxter and Jack, 2008: 556).
Consequently, the researcher believed that to conduct a study concerning the issue of
teachers’ use of the MT in the L2 classroom, it was advisable to access descriptive and
detailed data rather than a wide and superficial one.
Secondly, collective case study enables the researcher to analyze within each
setting and across setting. In a multiple case study, some cases are being examined to
understand the similarities and differences between the cases (Baxter and Jack, 2008:
550). Knowing these features, the researcher decided to use this approach to investigate
more than one case. As a result, it will be easier and more logical to compare and
contrast teachers’ L1 use in the L2 classroom. Therefore, the data could be more

concise and persuasive when reflecting different behaviors of various teachers from
different English classroom levels.
17
In general, qualitative multi-case study research was considered to be the most
appropriate approach for the present study. It was believe that the study could
contribute somehow for further investigation in teacher’s use of L1 in L2 classroom.
2.2. Setting and Participants
2.2.1. Setting
The study was conducted in an English Centre. The centre addresses children with age
range from three to twelve years old. Students are divided into classes due to their age
and sometimes their level. The center’s purpose is building complete English learning
environment, emphasizing learning English at school and at home. The children are
taught in a modern environment with electronic board, touch and talk pen, safe and
comfortable classroom, rational light, complete series of course book with varieties of
CD, DVD, CD-ROM. There are three kinds of course book. ‘Talky Talky English’- the
series of book focusing on theme is written for preschooler. Phonics series with 12
books focus on the consonants, vowels, R- vowels, diphthongs, consonant digraphs and
blends. The last course book series are the Popodoo Book levels A, B, C with 20 units
in each level. The units are organized from easy to complex content which emphasize
on vocabulary, conversation, sentences, grammar, MTV- songs and chants. Children
from five to six years old learn natural phonics with the selected parts in Popodoo
Book A which focus on pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary and also simple sentences
(speaking and listening) while younger students (below 5) learn ‘Talky Talky English’.
Children from six to eight learn the Phonics and the whole Popodoo Book level A and
those who above nine also learn the same book with children from six to eight but with
faster pace, expanding parts and harder content for each lesson. In this English centre,
Vietnamese is the only mother tongue and English as the foreign language.
2.2.2. Participants
Since teachers are core participants of this research, they were chosen under
voluntary agreement, so that the researcher could make sure about their commitment in

18
getting involved in the study. Three teachers of English, who are teaching three
different levels at this English Center, then were invited to share their opinion and
experience on the investigated issue.
Although they can come from diverse education background, all three teachers
already passed the training courses in teaching English for kids, the condition to work
in the English School, which hold by the headquarter. In addition, teachers also attend
annual workshop which invite experts in teaching kids to train new skills. It then can
be concluded that these teachers are well- qualified in this field and they received the
same education in teaching young learners. Like students, all of them are native
speakers of Vietnamese.
2.3. Data collection Instruments
The techniques employed in this study were non- participant classroom
observation, stimulated recall technique and semi- structured interviews. The
combination of these three instruments was used to achieve a triangulation of data and
thus generate the validity and reliability of the study. These instruments will be
described in further detail below.
2.3.1. Classroom observation (See Appendix 1)
Since the research is on a practical issue, classroom observation was regarded as
an effective tool to achieve data. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007: 305) claimed
“observational data are attractive as they afford the researcher the opportunity to gather
‘live’ data from ‘live’ situations”. Observations enable the researcher to rely on real
situation facts rather than on ‘second hand accounts’ (Cohen, Manion and Morrison,
2007: 396). This merit is particularly significant in this research where the author aims
to investigate the reality of using the mother tongue and to test whether the teachers’
practices are congruent with their stated beliefs.
In the study, a structured observation format, which was modified from Cook
(2001), Atkinson (1987), and Cameron (2001), was used. What was observed during
19
the class was the amount of the MT and the TL used by teachers in different lesson

sections. The researcher observed three different level English classes (each class will
be observed four times). The researcher played as non- participant observation.
2.3.2. Stimulated Recall (Appendix 2)
To find out the reasons why teachers used the mother tongue in the classroom,
stimulated recall (SR) interview was applied. SR is a research method towards the
investigation of cognitive processes through inviting participants to recall their
concurrent thinking during an event when prompted by video and audio recordings
(Fox- Turnbull, 2009: 204). SR is a valuable tool since it provided an opportunity for
real life context. In addition, the use of multimedia sources in recall section has the
benefits of replaying and reintroducing cues that were present during the task (Sime,
2006). By using this method, the researcher could assess participants’ reflection on
mental processes and their explanation for their decision making.
In this study, SR was conducted during 24 hour after the observed lesson in
order to make sure that the information was fresh and the research would get the best
information. Because of the limited time, the researcher could not interview teacher in
all four observed lessons, just two of them will be chosen to implement an interview.
Since the researcher was afraid that teachers’ proficiency under study was not good
enough to express all of their thinking, so the interview was conducted in Vietnamese.
Another reason for applying Vietnamese in interview is that both participants and the
researcher are Vietnamese, so it is easily to exchange idea and to dig deeply the
information. The researcher audio taped each SR interview and then transcribed.
2.3.3. Semi structured Interview (See Appendix 3)
Interviews are a valuable tool in themselves. The use of interview results in
clearer and sharper research questions. The data derived from interviews can be quite
rich and in-depth (Paltridgle & Phakiti, 2010). In this research, the interview employed
to seek teachers’ opinions of the use of the first language in the classroom. A semi-
20
structured interview was conducted with three teachers after finishing all observations
and stimulated interviews. As teachers’ responses might vary in the topic questioned, a
list of prepared questions was used as a guide. Therefore, some changes could be

applied due to the interviewees’ answers. Semi structured interview also was
conducted in Vietnamese and then interpreted in English. The questions were asked in
a fixed order and the interviews were audio recorded for transcription later.
In conclusion, the combination of the three most common tools namely
observation, Stimulated Recall, and semi- structured interview brought to the
researcher a rich amount of valid and reliable data, the analysis of which would be
presented in the next chapter.
2.4. Data collection procedure
Data collection started by contacting the principal of the private language center
informing her about the purpose of the study and asking for her consent for the
research to take place. Secondly, the teachers were contacted in person asking for their
consent to observe the classes and being involved in the SR and semi- structured
interview procedure.
The research started with classroom observations. Each teacher was observed
four times in a 60 minutes lesson of the different levels. Two of the observed lessons
were chosen in advance for stimulated recall interview. SR interviews were conducted
within 24 hours after the observation. After finishing all observations and SR, semi
structure interview was conducted to find out teachers’ belief about the L1 use in the
classroom.
2.5. Data analysis
This research applied qualitative and quantitative data analysis techniques.
Firstly, from the data in the observation sheet, the quantity of Vietnamese language and
English utterance during four observed lessons were calculated. The L1 use in different
sections were sorted out, summarized and analyzed qualitatively. Secondly, the data
21
from the stimulated interview was analyzed according to the emerging theme in the
interview. Finally, after finishing semi-structured interview, the researcher summarized
each teacher’s ideas, and then compared with the data obtained from the observation.
22
CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter will include the results obtained from data collected by the use of
classroom observation, SR interview and semi structure interview. The above results
then will be also analyzed and discussed according to the literature and other empirical
researches mentioned in chapter 1.
3.1. Findings
3.1.1. Case 1 (teacher in class for 5-6 years old students)
Question 1: How much L1 is used and in which sections do teachers use it in the
classroom?
As presented in the Methodology part, classroom observation was held to
examine the amount of L1 use and occasions on which teacher actually used L1. After
observing four English lessons of this teacher, the research counted the times that the
teacher used Vietnamese and English in all four lessons. The result was shown in the
table below.
Table 1: Teacher’s use of Vietnamese in English classroom for 5-6 years old students.
Uses L1 L2 Note
Greeting 0 15
Presenting/ explaining new vocabulary items, grammar structures, the aim
of the lesson
5 13
Comparing and/or contrasting English and Vietnamese languages (e.g.,
phonology, morphology, grammar)
0 0
Giving instructions 18 10
Checking understanding of concept, talk, text, instructions 3 38
Eliciting language 6 20
Talking about learning/ methodology 0 0
Giving feedback 3 25
Disciplining and control 12 8
Informal, friendly talk with students 10 4
Other uses 8 10

Total 49 143
As can be seen from table, the amount of Vietnamese used in this classroom is
just about 49 times- a third of English used in the classroom. The frequency of the L1
use was for different functions. The most frequent use of L1 was for giving
23
instructions. Teacher often used L1 when guiding students how to play a game, or how
to dance.
Example 1:
Teacher: cô chia 2 đội, mỗi đội sẽ có lần lượt 1 bạn lên chơi, khi nghe cô đọc từ nào
các bạn chạy nhanh lấy bóng có màu đó. Ví dụ red, chạy lên lấy red. Mỗi lần chỉ lấy 1
bóng thôi. Sau đó chạy nhanh bỏ bóng vào giỏ của đội mình và tiếp tục chạy lên lấy
tiếp bóng màu đỏ. Nhớ phải lấy hết nghe chưa’.
(Phonics letter M and Color theme lesson)
Secondly, Vietnamese was used frequently for disciplining the classroom and
for informal talk with students. As I observed in the classroom, young learners are
often very naughty and have short time attention, therefore, it is easy to find
Vietnamese sentences to remind students to sit on their chairs or stop chatting. Teacher
also used L1 only to ask students about their health if teacher saw tired face of students
or students cried in the classroom.
As evidence from table 1, Vietnamese was less frequently used for presenting or
explaining vocabulary and grammar structures (five times in four observed lessons)
and giving feedback (three times only). This is because the focus of English in this age
is just on the simple and daily life/ topic vocabulary, so teacher often used pictures,
objects to teach students. For giving feedback, teacher often used some short phrases
like ‘well done’, ‘good job’, ‘excellent’… after each student’s performance.
Question 2: Why do teachers use the mother tongue?
Following the classroom observation, the researcher also recorded lesson for SR
interview to find out the reason why teacher used Vietnamese in the classroom.
According to the data from SR interview with teacher, there are four reasons that force
teacher to use L1 in the classroom.

The first reason is given based on the age/ level of student and the structure of
language used. When asked about the reason of using L1, she stated that because her
24
students were too young, so they could not understand the long and complex sentences.
In this teacher’s thought, students at this age are at low proficiency level since this is
the first time they learn English, so they only understand short and simple sentences or
phrases. Therefore, she only used English in short and simple sentences, and
Vietnamese in long and complicated sentences. In general, using Vietnamese in some
cases supported students understanding the issues.
Another reason for the use of the L1 was proposed was the immediate effect of
Vietnamese to the students. Regarding this point, she shared that many times she used
English in the class but students have no reaction to her saying even they understand
what she said. She argued
‘You know, in this situation, I say stand up but student do nothing, so I have to
use Vietnamese instead. In fact, many times I used English but students have no
reaction to my saying, but when I said the same sentence in Vietnamese they follow my
sayings. I don’t know why but it seems that Vietnamese have some power in the
classroom’.
The next stated reason was that using Vietnamese is as a habit. She claimed that
‘I can not control my talk every second. Many times, it is like a habit, just saying
Vietnamese to Vietnamese people.’ In this sense, teaching includes maintain the
relationship between teachers and students, so it is natural to use Vietnamese in the
classroom because both teacher and students are Vietnamese.
The last reason, also the interesting one is that in some cases, the teacher have
not trained students to listen to English. In her idea, teacher can use English in the
classroom if students have been trained to listen to them. Once students listened to
English sentences many times, they can understand what teacher said. For example,
this teacher trained students sentences such as ‘what does this word mean in
Vietnamese?’ or ‘which one is big letter, which one is small letter? …Now use your
25

finger/ head/ bottom/ waist…/ to write letter …’ Therefore, she always used these
English sentences in the classroom.
Question 3: What are teachers’ beliefs about MT use? Do teacher’s beliefs
correlate to their practices?
By relating these questions, the research explored whether what the teacher
expressed in the interview agrees with that she actually practiced in the classroom. As
arises from the data obtained from the interviews, the teacher admitted using the MT.
She added that the use of Vietnamese should be dynamic and reasonable, depending on
the students’ age and level. In her idea, ‘there should have a reasonable combination
between English use and Vietnamese use in the classroom’. This teacher also clearly
stated that the use of Vietnamese could prove beneficial for young learners.
Additionally, she stated:
‘the effectiveness of a lesson does not rely on the majority time of using English
in the classroom; it lies on student’s behavior and performance- students understand
and remember the knowledge, and also attend activities.’
She admitted making the language choice according to what happens during the
lesson. She labeled four sections that she thought Vietnamese used more often. They
were presenting / explaining vocabulary or grammar; giving long, complex instruction;
maintaining discipline; and chatting with students in the classroom. These beliefs were
already revealed through the result from the observation that showed occasional L1
use. Relating to that, the teacher reported using L1 in giving instructions. Probably,
this is because she thought that giving instructions in Vietnamese would not affect the
learner’s actual learning, but in fact, it helped students understand what they have to
do. The answer may be similar to as why she stated using the MT to impose discipline
in the classroom. The teacher also resorted to Vietnamese in chatting with students to
maintain a relaxed environment and a good relationship with a student, which is also