a research into the role and the use of first language in general-english classes at hanoi university of industry = nghiên cứu về vai trò và việc sử dụng ngôn ngữ thứ nhất trong các lớp học tiếng anh cơ bản

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

Đỗ THị KHáNH VÂN



A research into the role and the use of first language in
General-English classes at Hanoi University of Industry
(Nghiên cứu về vai trò và việc sử dụng ngôn ngữ thứ nhất
trong các lớp học Tiếng Anh cơ bản ở Tr-ờng Đại học Công
nghiệp Hà Nội).
MA THESIS
English LANGUAGE
60 22 15





Hà NộI NĂM 2010
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

Đỗ THị KHáNH VÂN



A research into the role and the use of first language in
General-English classes at Hanoi University of Industry
(Nghiên cứu về vai trò và việc sử dụng ngôn ngữ thứ nhất

trong các lớp học Tiếng Anh cơ bản ở Tr-ờng Đại học Công
nghiệp Hà Nội).
Field: English language
Field code: 60 22 15
Supervisor: Dr. Ha Cam Tam




Hà NộI NĂM 2010
i

TABLE OF CONTENT
Acknowledgement
Abstract
INTRODUCTION 1
1. Problem statement 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Scope of the study 3
4. Method of the study 3
5. Organization of the study 4
DEVELOPMENT 5
Chapter 1: Literature review 5
1.1. The historical view of the issue 5
1.2. The current mixed views 8
1.2.1. Support for the Monolingual Approach 8
1.2.2. Support for the Bilingual Approach 9
1.3. Approaches to vocabulary teaching 13
1.4. Adults L2 vocabulary acquisition model 13
1.5. Action research 15

Chapter 2: The study 18
2.1. Design of the study 18
2.1.1. Research hypotheses 18
2.1.2. Data collection instruments 18
2.1.3. Participants 21
2.1.4. Procedures 21
2.2. Analytical framework 23
Chapter 3: Analysis and discussion 24
3.1. Data preparation 24
3.2. Scoring the data 24
3.2. Results of the tests 25
3.4. Results of classroom observation 31
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS 37
ii

1. Concluding remarks 37
2. Implications 37
3. Suggestions for further studies 38
Reference
Appendixes
1


INTRODUCTION
1. Problem statement
Among a number of experts in the field of second language acquisition, there are
increasing contradicting views about whether to use the mother tongue of the students (L1)
in the foreign language (L2) classroom or learning environments.
The monolingual approach suggests that the target language ought to be the sole medium
of communication, implying the prohibition of the native language would maximize the

effectiveness of learning the target language. However, there seems to be an increasing
conviction that the first language (L1) has a necessary and facilitating role in the second
and foreign language (L2) classroom.
Many English language professionals dispute the L1 use in the classroom,
something that should never happen in modern communicative lessons. They wonder how
students can truly appreciate target language exchanges if they are continually relying on
their L1s (Mattioli, 2004). Ellis notes that too much L1 use could “deprive the learners of
valuable input in the L2” (1984, p. 133). Auerbach (1993) observes that in ESL classroom
a numbers of teachers, holding the belief that L1 use will impede progress in the
acquisition of English, devising games, signals, and penalty systems to prevent the students
from using their L1. This is evidenced by the article of Weinberg (1990), extolling the
virtues of fining students for using their L1. “This is an English-only classroom. If you
speak Spanish or Cantonese or Mandarin or Vietnamese or Russian or Farsi, you pay me
25 cents.”
On the other hand, many professionals in the field of second language and foreign
language acquisition agree that L1 should be used with students who are not highly
proficient in the target language (Nation, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Atkinson, 1987;
Tang, 2002; Auerbach, 1993; Mattioli, 2004). This may suggest that L1 plays an important
role in language teaching, especially for the low proficiency learners (LPL). However,
there are not many empirical studies that have examined specifically what good effects the
use of L1 can have on teaching LPL.
Therefore, it seems necessary to look at the approaches for L1 using from different
perspectives and in different fields of L2 learning, that is from teachers‟ and students‟
points of view, in students‟ learning of grammar, vocabulary or skills, etc. This study
research focused on one of those factors – students‟ learning of vocabulary. And it is hoped
2


that the findings of this study, to some extent, will contribute to the pedagogic
methodology, especially in teaching English in general and in teaching vocabulary at

universities in Vietnam as well as at Hanoi University of Industry in particular.
The reason the researcher focused on vocabulary acquisition is that the acquisition
of vocabulary has a central role in learning a second language (Sökmen, 1997), and is of
great significance to language learners, really important for the four language skills (Cook,
1991). Words are the building blocks of a language since they label objects, actions, ideas
without which people cannot convey the intended meaning so second language learners
need to have a substantial vocabulary size (Nation, 2001). The prominent role of
vocabulary knowledge in second or foreign language learning has been recently recognized
by theorists and researchers in the field. Accordingly, numerous types of approaches,
techniques, exercises and practice have been introduced into the field to teach vocabulary
(Hatch & Brown, 1995). The study of Ringbom in 1987 clearly indicates that L1 clearly
has a very important role to play in the deliberator learning vocabulary (Nation, 2001).
Auerbach (1993) claims that the use of the learner‟s L1 in the L2 classroom will have a
positive effect on learners‟ second language learning, especially in the area of vocabulary.
However, what effects the use of L1 in English vocabulary teaching can cause to students‟
learning is still an unanswered question that the researcher is endeavoring to discover.
2. Aims of the study
The issue this paper examined in more detail is in what ways the use of students‟
L1 in the classroom hinders or facilitates their learning of vocabulary of second language
(in this case English).
The debate over whether English language classrooms should include or exclude
students' native language has been a controversial issue for a long time (Brown, 2000).
Although the use of mother tongue was banned by the supporters of the Direct Method at
the end of the nineteenth century, the positive role of the mother tongue has recurrently
been acknowledged as a rich resource which, if used judiciously, can assist second
language teaching and learning (Cook, 2001). Still, so many teachers have questions about
whether to provide L1 support, as TESOL programs at all levels on the market today
provide neither explicit training nor adequate theoretical information on the subject.
Teachers are left to work things out on their own.
3

For the researcher, the question of whether or not to use students' first language (L1
/ Vietnamese) in English classes comes from personal daily teaching, recent literature she
has read, presentations she has attended and the same concern of her peer teachers. This
position of being for the idea that L1 should be used at certain times may seem heretical in
light of what most of us were taught when trained as ESL/EFL professionals, but it is
surely worthy of serious consideration.
Therefore, this research study tries to find evidence for the approval of using
learners' mother tongue in a thoughtful way in second language teaching. In essence then,
it is a form of action research where the findings could have a direct impact on this
particular school and the way vocabulary is taught. The research is done in order to find
out the effects of using L1 in English classroom on students learning of vocabulary.
3. Scope of the study
This study concentrates on “the role and the use of first language in General-
English classes at Hanoi University of Industry”. In this study, L1 using will be
investigated through applied-linguistic aspect. However, English as a language consists of
different fields to teach and learn, and Vietnamese can have different roles in teaching
students of different levels. Therefore, the study is mainly concerned with teacher‟s use
and allowing the use of Vietnamese in teaching vocabulary to non-majored students of
English at elementary level.
4. Method of the study
This study is carried out in the form of an action research in which the teacher
applied different approaches (including and excluding Vietnamese) in teaching vocabulary
to her students and studied the consequences of each method in order to compare their
effectiveness. The study consisted of two experiment: the first experiment with 4 classes
divided into two groups (control and experimental group) which are taught with two
different approaches. After some early conclusion has been drawn based on the findings of
the first experiment, the second one was conducted for the purpose of further strengthening
those findings. In the second experiment, though, the two different approaches were used

with the same class in different lessons. During the process of teaching experiments,
observations of classroom interactions were made by the teacher researcher and some tests
were delivered to student. The records of the observation and the tests‟ results presented
the effectiveness of Vietnamese using in students‟ learning English vocabulary.
4


5. Organization of the study
The study consists of three chapters. Before we can begin with the experiments,
chapter 1 examines the issue of L1 use in a language classroom in detail, and more
particularly in vocabulary lessons, so as to be able to place these experiments in the proper
context. Chapter 2 deals with the study which included two experiments from the design to
analytical framework. In chapter 3 results of the observations and tests will be found
together with some discussion about English learning and teaching. First of all, we should
have a review of the issue in literature.
5


DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1: Literature review
This chapter starts with historical view of the problem, then important findings and
arguments from opponents and proponents of an English-only policy will be looked at,
followed by a quick view of the action research method.
1.1. The historical view of the issue
A look at the history of L1 use in the L2 classroom quickly reveals periodic but
regular changes in how it is viewed (Auerbach, 1999, p12). Several hundred years ago
bilingual teaching was the „norm‟, with students learning through translation. The use of
L1 to study L2 was almost universal and readily accepted, in part because language
teaching placed an emphasis on the written word above the spoken word. In the 19
th

century, this trend slowly reversed itself (towards a monolingual approach), in part due to a
shift towards an emphasis on the spoken word. The impact of mass migration, colonialism
and a large increase in research in the field, would further strengthen the Monolingual
Approach in the 20
th
century.
The mass migration of people to other countries, particularly from Europe to
America was important because it forced educators to refocus their lessons, from smaller
translation-oriented classes to bigger classes, and perhaps from students with a common L1
to students with a mixed L1 (Hawks, 2001, p47). No longer could teachers rely on using
L1 to help them. The only way to teach was to use the L2 as the medium of teaching.
Experiences garnered by the many teachers who went abroad during the colonial
teaching period would further help the monolingual tenet to evolve (Phillipson, 1992,
p186). As English became the predominant culture in the British colonies, those who were
not a part of it were forced to assimilate if they wished to better their life or be a part of the
ruling elite. This led to the perceived superiority of English above all other languages and
would in part eventually lead to a commonly held assumption that English was the only
language that should be spoken in the English-language classroom.
The rise of an English-only classroom for political and practical reasons (of the
teacher‟s, not the student‟s) conversely brought about the exclusion of the student‟s L1.
Those caught using L1 were often punished or shamed for doing something wrong
(Phillipson, 1992, p187). The idea of bilingual education was seen as unnatural or
6


inefficient (Pennycook, 1994, p136). Perhaps furthering the desirability of an English-only
policy was the fact that many teachers themselves were monolingual. They could not, nor
did they perceive the need to speak the L1 of their students (Phillipson, 1992, p188). By
enforcing an English-only policy, the teacher could assume control of the class, and would
naturally be in a position of strength. On the other hand, by using L1 in the classroom, the

teacher risked undermining him/herself, as the students being the better speakers would
control the communication.
The emphasis on monolingual teaching of English also inherently implied that the
native speaker was the ideal teacher. This was closely tied not only to political agendas,
but also to the economics of the global EFL field (Pennycook, 1994, p176). English
speakers could control all the employment opportunities, by being seen as the „ideal
teacher‟.
The appearance of the Direct Method of teaching just over a hundred years ago also
contributed greatly to the consolidation of the idea that all L1 languages should be
excluded from the classroom (Harbord, 1992, p350) & (Pennycook, 1994, p169). The
premise of the Direct Method was that second language learning mirrored first language
acquisition: lots of oral interaction, little grammatical analysis and no 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.
Also pivotal in forwarding the argument that L1 should not be used in the
classroom was Krashen, who advocated maximum exposure to the target language. He
stated that all the lessons or as much as possible should be in L2 (English in our case), and
that there was a definite relationship between comprehensible input in L2 and proficiency
(Krashen, 1985, p14). Crucially though, this perhaps implied that time spent using L1
would only detract from learning. He even suggested that the reason exposure was not
always successful in facilitating proficiency, was because learners had access to their L1
either in class, or out of it (Krashen, 1985, p14). This idea that the L2 lesson should be
taught in L2, in order to maximize exposure, and thereby learning, is perhaps the key
concept which monolingual supporters have based their approach on.
The Makere report in 1961 further reinforced the idea of using nothing but English
in the classroom. There are five basic tenets originating from this report, which have been
called into question, but which were taken as the „truth‟, at the time. They are:
7

1. That English should be taught in a monolingual classroom.
2. The ideal teacher should be a native English speaker.
3. The earlier English is taught the better.
4. The more English used in the classroom during lessons, the better.
5. If other languages are used, English standards will drop (Phillipson, 1992, p185).
By the 1970s these five tenets would be incorporated into the Communicative
Approach, which quickly came to dominate language teaching. Native English teachers
teaching only in English and excluding the students L1 would become the goal for many
Communicative supporters. As a whole, the Communicative Approach firmly believed the
idea that monolingual teaching with authentic communication in L2 was the best way to
learn a language (Pennycook, 1994, p169). Many linguists insisted that the target language
be used for all purposes in the classroom (Wringe, 1989, p9) even when the reasons for
using it remained unclear (Hawks, 2001, p47). Communicative researchers not only
believed in the use of L2 as the medium of teaching, but many others also believed that L1
use actually interfered with L2 learning and brought about „error transference‟ (Pracek,
2003), thereby hindering learning. These errors from L1 interference would be formed into
what is now known as the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (Brown, 1994, p193). It was
thought that errors in L2 learning could be predicted by comparing and contrasting L2 with
L1.
Some researchers claimed that the learning of an L2 followed the same principles
as the learning of an L1 (Phillipson, 1992, p191), which further reinforced the idea of using
only the target language to maximize exposure and consequently learning.
Even as recently as the 1990s, the English-only movement has been further
solidified by the various versions of the national curriculum orders in the UK, which
established the use of the target language (TL) as the means of communication in the
classroom (Pachler & Field, 2001, p84).
Recently though support for an English-only policy has been declining, and some
researchers and teachers have begun to advocate a more bilingual approach to teaching,
which would incorporate the students‟ L1 as a learning tool. Others have even gone as far
as saying the use of L1 in the classroom is necessary (Schweers, 1999, p6).

Many researchers now believe that the search for a „best method‟ is a futile effort
(Lewis, 1993, p189), because there can never be one method that suits all (Nunan 1999, in
8


Pracek, 2003). Many methods and many techniques have their place, depending on the
differing circumstances of the teaching environment. By excluding the students‟ L1, we are
severely limiting the number of methods and techniques available to teachers.
1.2. The current mixed view
1.2.1. Support for the Monolingual Approach
There is some strong support for the Monolingual Approach to teaching in the
literature and advocates usually organize their support around 3 claims:
1. The learning of an L2 should model the learning of an L1 (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, p412).
According to Cook 2001, these are some of the fundamental principles of the
Monolingual Approach.
While the research may not be entirely convincing, it is considered likely that L2
acquisition is similar to L1 acquisition, which, crucially, is based on the notion of exposure
as being the determining factor for learning (Lewis, 1993, p54). Children learn their first
language through listening and copying what those around them say, and exposure to the
language is vital in the development of their linguistic skills. The Communicative
Approach generally favored a monolingual approach with adults for similar reasons,
justified on the pretence of maximizing communication in L2 (Phillipson, 1992, p185).
Many teachers themselves have come to believe that as the classroom is often the students‟
only exposure to English that exposure should be maximized (Burden, 2000, p5).
In regards to Cook‟s second point, supporters of the Monolingual Approach have
stated that translating between L1 and L2 can be dangerous as it encourages the belief that

there are 1 to 1 equivalents between the languages, which is not always the case (Pracek,
2003). They believe the two languages should be distinct and separate. Supporters of the
Bilingual Approach might argue that to make the separation or distinction between L1 and
L2, explanations in L1 are necessary, because the teaching of grammar is so complex that
without the use of L1, there would be little or no comprehension on the students‟ part,
especially at lower levels. This is not true according to others, who proclaim that actually
quite a number of grammar points can be taught in the target language, especially through
9


the use of physical or visual displays (Pachler & Field, 2001, p92). Beside those extra
lingual strategies which make use of pictures, objects, physical contexts, and other
multimedia aids (Jiang, 2004), there seems to be a preference, explicitly stated or not, for
intralinguas strategies over interlinguas strategies among many teachers and researchers.
Intralinguas strategies involve the use of linguistic means of the target language such as
synonyms, definitions, or linguistic contexts. Interlingual strategies utilize the L1 in the
form of a bilingual dictionary, cognates, or L1 translation equivalents, often associated
with word lists. As pointed out by Schmitt (1997), intralinguas strategies are
„pedagogically correct‟ because they are consistent with principles of communicative
language teaching or comprehensive input. Interlingual strategies, however, have easy
associations with the grammar translation method or contrastive analysis. Many modern
teaching methods treat L2 in isolation from L1, whether it is the communicative approach,
the audio-lingual method, the mainstream EFL methods, or the older direct method, L1 is
shunned in the classroom.
Regarding Cook‟s third point, it seems that the use of L2 only in the classroom
does help demonstrate the L2‟s importance and can portray the usage of the language being
studied (Pachler & Field, 2001, p86).
Proponents of English-only also claim that using L1 in the classroom is not in
accordance with SLA theories, which advocate modified input and negotiation in L2 as a
means of learning (Polio, 1994, p156). Ironically though, negotiations of meaning and trial

and error often lead to what has been dubbed an „interlanguage‟, where a mix of L1 and L2
is used to communicate and establish the correct way of communicating in the L2
(Weschler, 1997, p2). One area in which there is strong support for a Monolingual
Approach is the multilingual classroom. Unless the teacher is capable of speaking all the
respective L1s in the classroom, there would seem to be no benefit of L1 use (Hawks,
2001, p49) and indeed it would probably hinder learning.
1.2.2. Support for the Bilingual Approach
Despite growing opposition to the English-only movement, its supporters remain
steadfast in their determination to use English as the target language and the medium
(Auerbach, 1993, p9) even though there are few specific references referring to actual
benefits derived from excluding the L1 from the classroom (Hawks, 2001, p48).
10


However, there is now a belief by some that the use of L1 could be a positive resource for
teachers and that considerable attention and research should be focused on it (Atkinson,
1987, p241). There is also strong evidence that it is popular and students tend to prefer
teachers who understand their L1 (Briggs, 2001, p1). A study by Schweers, 1999 found
88.7% of Spanish students studying English wanted L1 used in the class because it
facilitates learning. Students also desired up to 39% of class time be spent in L1
(Schweers, 1999, p7).
Much of the attempt to discredit the Monolingual Approach has focused on three
points: it is impractical, native teachers are not necessarily the best teachers, and exposure
alone is not sufficient for learning.
The biggest problem with the Monolingual Approach to teaching is that it is really
impractical (Phillipson, 1992, p191). One reason the exclusion of L1 is impractical is that
the majority of English teachers are not native speakers (Hawks, 2001, p50). Sometimes
these teachers‟ own English is not very good, and by insisting on an English only policy,
we can severely undermine their ability to communicate and consequently their ability to
teach. Another reason it is impractical is that to enforce the sole use of the TL can often

lead to a reduced performance on the part of the teachers, and the alienation of students
from the learning process (Pachler & Field, 2001, p85). Not only that, but excluding L1
can lead to a higher dropout rate in ESL schools, whereas when L1 is permitted,
researchers and teachers alike report much more positive results (Auerbach, 1993, p18).
Monolingual teaching can also create tension and a barrier between students and teachers,
and there are many occasions when it is inappropriate or impossible (Pachler & Field,
2001, p86). 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.
The Monolingual Approach also supports the idea of the native teacher as being the
ideal teacher. This is certainly not the case as being a native speaker does not necessarily
mean that the teacher is more qualified or better at teaching (Phillipson, 1992, p194).
Actually, non-native teachers are possibly better teachers as they themselves have gone
through the process of learning an L2 (usually the L2 they are now teaching), thereby
acquiring for themselves an insider‟s perspective on learning the language (Phillipson,
1992, p195). By excluding these people and their knowledge from the learning process, we
are wasting a valuable resource. In addition, the term „native teacher‟ is problematic. There
11


are many variations of English around the world, and as to what constitutes an authentic
native English speaker, is open to endless debate. Ultimately though, there is no scientific
validity to support the notion of a native teacher being the ideal teacher (Phillipson, 1992,
p195).
Another problem with the Monolingual Approach is its belief that exposure to
language leads to learning. Excluding the students‟ L1 for the sake of maximizing
students‟ exposure to the L2 is not necessarily productive. In fact there is no evidence that
teaching in the TL directly leads to better learning of the TL (Pachler & Field, 2001, p85).
Obviously the quantity of exposure is important, but other factors such as the quality of the
text material, trained teachers, and sound methods of teaching are more important than the
amount of exposure to English (Phillipson, 1992, p210). This is particularly obvious with

struggling lower-level students. Increasing the amount of L2 instead of a simple
explanation in L1 is likely to have a negative effect and simply add to the frustration on the
student‟s part (Burden, 2000, p6).
In addition to trying to discredit the Monolingual Approach, some researchers have
attempted to demonstrate the positive effects of using L1 and have attempted to categorize
when it should be used. Humanistic views of teaching have speculated that students should
be allowed to express themselves, and while they are still learning a language it is only
natural that they will periodically slip back into their mother tongue, which is more
comfortable for them. They will also naturally equate what they are learning with their L1
so trying to eliminate this process will only have negative consequences (Harbord, 1992,
p351) and impede learning.
One often widely misunderstood point which proponents of L1 use such as
Auerbach, 1993 have been criticized for is that they are promoting the indiscriminate and
wide use of L1 in the classroom. Supporters of the Bilingual Approach have been quick to
clarify by stating that they do not support widespread and indiscriminate use of L1 in the
classroom (Auerbach in Polio, 1994, p157). In fact much research has focused on the
specific situations in which L1 should be used, and situations when it should not be used.
Mitchell 1988, surveyed teachers and found situations where grammar was being explained
were the area that most teachers felt L1 use was acceptable. Other areas such as
disciplining students, explaining instructions for activities, and giving out background
12


information were also areas where L1 use was considered acceptable (Mitchell, 1988,
p29).
Other researchers have suggested the use of L1 in situations such as eliciting
language, checking comprehension, giving instructions and helping learners cooperate with
each other (Atkinson, 1987, p243).
Harbord, 1992, concluded that there are three reasons for using L1 in the
classroom. They are: facilitating communication, facilitating teacher-student relationships,

and facilitating the learning of L2 (Harbord, 1992, p354). Cook elaborated further by
stating teachers should use L1 to convey meaning and organize the class. Students can use
it for scaffolding (building up the basics, from which further learning can be processed)
and for cooperative learning with fellow classmates (Cook, 2001, p410). Perhaps the
biggest reason for using L1 in the classroom though, is that it can save a lot of time and
confusion (Harbord, 1992, p351).
While arguing for the option of using L1 in the classroom, most researchers have at
the same time cautioned against the overuse of it (Burden, 2000, p9), because it can create
an over reliance on it (Polio, 1994, p153), oversimplify differences between the two
languages, and create laziness among students and a failure to maximize English
(Atkinson, 1987, p247).
Others though, have shown that the ratio of L1 to L2 use in the classroom does not
determine the maintenance of L1, nor the acquisition of L2 (Chaudron, 1988, p124). Still
others have shown that even when L1 is used frequently in the beginning, it does tend to
give way to English as the students progress (Auerbach, 1993, p19).
Although the Monolingual and Bilingual Approaches are theoretically very opposed to one
another, it is known that most teachers actually fall somewhere in the middle, using mostly
the TL, but also using L1 when needed.
In conclusion then, researchers have found that evidence for the practice of
English-only is neither conclusive nor pedagogically sound (Auerbach, 1993, p15). The
findings presented here indicate that the use of L1 in the classroom can be effective, and is
perhaps necessary in certain situations (Auerbach, 1993, p9), (Hawks, 2001, p51) & (Zhou,
2003, p5).
“Although the mother tongue is not a suitable basis for a methodology, it has, at all
levels, a variety of roles to play which are at present, consistently undervalued”. (Atkinson,
13


1987, p247). The question here is: What specific differences or improvement (if any) can
the use of L1 make in L2 vocabulary teaching and learning? And that is the reason why

this study is being done. But before looking deeper into the issue in the particular situation,
it is necessary to have a quick view of approaches to vocabulary teaching and learning.
1.3. Approaches to vocabulary teaching
Sökmen (1997) states that vocabulary teaching was based on a top-down,
naturalistic, and communicative approach which emphasized implicit and incidental
learning of vocabulary. The implicit approach, which includes inferring from the context
and guessing, is commonly used in foreign language teaching classrooms. Teachers often
encourage students to guess the meaning of the words by looking at the context where the
words are located. They rarely use L1 in the classroom because they are concerned that
students may just rely on their L1. Nevertheless, more studies show that implicit teaching
may not be appropriate for LPL, it could cause more difficulties in the process of learning.
Several studies of vocabulary acquisition show that the combination of implicit and
explicit vocabulary instruction is an effective way for acquiring vocabulary (Sökmen,
1997). Ramachandran and Rahim‟s (2004) study shows that explicit instruction which uses
L1 could encourage ESL students whose English proficiency is at the elementary level to
recall and retain the words more effectively.
Whilst L1 is normally overlooked in TEFL, it seems that many teachers believe that
English should be taught in English because it is the only way to expose students to the
target language in the classroom. Anyway, students‟ preference and progress can be the
strongest base for teachers‟ choice of what language to use.
1.4. Adults L2 vocabulary acquisition model
Based on the characterization of the unique learning conditions adult L2 learners
face, Jiang (2000) proposed a three-stage psycholinguistic model of adult L2 vocabulary
acquisition.
In the first, lexical association stage, adult learners recognize an orthographic or
phonological form, or both, as a word. They understand the word‟s meaning within an
existing semantic structure, which is closely linked to their L1. To help themselves
remember this L2 word, the learners associate it with its L1 translation. However, unlike a
L1 word whose entry contains all four types of lexical knowledge, that is, meaning and
syntax in the lemma structure, and morphology and phonology/orthography in the lexeme

14


(Levelt, 1989), this L2 lexical entry contains only form knowledge, that is, phonology and
orthography. Other space in the entry is empty.
Lexical processing and production at this stage rely on the activation and mediation
of L1 translations because no direct links exist between L2 words and concepts, or such
links are very weak. Because only lemma information in the L1 entry participates in and
assists L2 word use, this part of the L1 entry receives the most activation. The lexeme part
that contains form specifications is gradually deactivated. The outcome of continued
exposure to (and productive use of) L2 is that the semantic and syntactic information in the
L1 translation is copied or transferred into the empty space of the L2 words. This leads to
significant changes in lexical representation and processing of L2 word and signals the
coming of the second stage in lexical development. The L2 entry now contains a mixture
of L2 form specifications and semantic and syntactic specifications transferred from its L1
translation. The presence of the semantic content in the entry means that the word is now
linked directly to conceptual representations. In processing terms, one may expect a L2
word at this stage to be used with more fluency or automaticity because this direct link
makes the activation of L1 translation no longer necessary. At the same time, there is still
significant influence from the L1 in L2 word use because lexical processing and
production are still mediated by the lemma information of its L1 translation, which now
resides in the L2 entry. Thus, from a processing perspective, this stage may be called L1
lemma mediation stage. From a representational perspective, this stage may be called the
hybrid-entry stage because a L2 entry at this stage contains a combination of L2 form
information and L1 meaning and syntax information.
In principle, there is a third stage in lexical development when lexical knowledge
specific to a L2 word is integrated in its entry and L1 information is discarded. As a result,
a L2 word can be used with not only more automaticity, but also more idiomaticity, with
little influence from its L1 translation. However, it is suggested by this model (Jiang, 2000)
that many words may stop short of this third stage and L1 lemma mediation may become a

steady state of lexical processing in advanced L2 learners.
To sum up, the analyses above challenge the complete rejection of L1 in the L2 vocabulary
teaching (especially for adult L2 learner). Many modern teaching methods treat L2 in
isolation from L1, whether it is the communicative approach, the audio-lingual method, the
mainstream EFL methods, or the older direct method, L1 is shunned in the classroom
15


(Johnson & Johnson, 1999). In fact, L1 is present in L2 learner‟s mind, whether the teacher
wants it to be there or not, and the L2 knowledge that is being created in their mind is
connected in all sorts of ways with their L1 knowledge.
1.5. Action research
Kemmis and McTaggart defined action research as “deliberate, solution-oriented
investigation that is group or personally owned and conducted. It is characterized by
spiraling cycles of problem identification, systematic data collection, reflection, analysis,
data-driven action taken, and, finally, problem redefinition. The linking of the terms
“action” and “research” highlights the essential features of this method: trying out ideas in
practice as a means of increasing knowledge about or improving curriculum, teaching, and
learning” (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988).
Similarly, Watts stated that action research is a process in which participants
examine their own educational practice systematically and carefully, using the techniques
of research.
Steps of an action research are shown in the figure below, which was adapted from
Susman, 1983.


16

ACTION
PLANNING
Considering
alternative courses
of action
TAKING ACTION
Selecting a course
of action
EVALUATING
Studying the
consequences of an
action
SPECIFYING
LEARNING
Indentifying general
findings
DIAGNOSING
Indentfying or
defining a problem

Action research can be a worthwhile pursuit for educators for a number of reasons.
Foremost among these is simply the desire to know more. Good teachers are, after all,
themselves students, and often look for ways to expand upon their existing knowledge.
Some other strong points of this research method are hereafter.
First, research done with the teacher‟s students, in a setting with which the teacher
is familiar, helps to confer relevance and validity to a disciplined study.
Second, it can be seen as a form of teacher professional development because
through action research, teachers learn about themselves, their students, their colleagues,
and can determine ways to continually improve.
Furthermore, action research when done in pairs or by teams of teachers allows

time to talk with others about teaching and teaching strategies and share their thoughts
which develop stronger relationships between them.
Besides, it offers potential for school change. As teachers get into action research,
they are more apt to look at questions that address school concerns. Development of
priorities for school-wide planning and assessment efforts arise from inquiry with potential
to motivate change for improvement‟s sake.
17


One more benefit is, action research helps teachers reflect on their own practice.
They can also investigate what effect their teaching is having on their students, how they
could work better with other teachers, or ways of changing the whole school for the better.
Last but not least, action research improves communications as team work within
the school or district brings individuals together for a shared purpose. Educators involved
in action research become more flexible in their thinking and more open to new ideas
(Pine, 1981). Studies by Little (1981) suggest positive changes in patterns of collegiality,
communication, and networking.
For all the advantages above, the researcher decided to apply this method in this
study with the intent that the research will inform and change her practices in the future
while posing some implications for potential changes in to English teaching at her school.
Like any other action researches, this study will not provide all the answers to our
questions about how students learn or what educators can do to improve practice, but it
happened at the place where the question arises; it happens where the real action is taking
place; and it allows for immediate action.
Chapter 2: The study
In this chapter, the study will be describe in detail, beginning with its design, with
the analytical framework closely behind and the data analysis process as the last part.
2.1. Design of the study
2.1.1. Hypotheses
The study is conducted in order to find evidence for the acceptance or rejection of

the following hypotheses:
- Teacher using and allowing L1 use in English classroom encourage students to get
more involved in learning process
- L1 use makes it easier for students to learn the new vocabulary
- L1 use in defining and explaining new words improves student‟s long term
memory.
2.1.2. Data collection instruments
In this study, the instrument used to elicit and collect data was in the form of
teaching experiments with teacher‟s self-observation and testing materials (pre-test & post-
tests). Two experiments were carried out in order to find out the difference in students‟
involvement, and their comprehension and memorization of vocabulary with the two
18


different approaches (English-only and Vietnamese included) with certain techniques.
Each experiment included students‟ tests and teacher‟s observations of classes.
2.1.2.1. Testing materials
The researcher decided to use tests as a tool of data collection because tests have
long been proved to be one of the most reliable access to learners‟ achievement. They tell
the teacher what the students have learnt, and therefore how successful the teaching has
been and what needs to be taught or improved in the future. As well, they tell students how
well they are progressing, and where they need to focus their attention as learners. Regular
tests also encourage students to take their learning seriously, and give them a series of
definite goals to aim forwards (Adrian Doff, 1995). The purpose of the tests here was to
measure students‟ achievement in vocabulary when Vietnamese was used in teaching and
learning, and when it was not. The tests focused on examining students‟ understanding of
the words and expressions through direct translation and using them in suitable contexts.
The rate of correct answers for each question was recorded and the mean score of each
group was calculated, compared and then discussed.
There were 7 tests in two experiments of the study. Experiment 1 included 3 test,

test 1 was the diagnosing test, test 2 tested students‟ understanding of words and test 3
measured students memory of the words they learned. Experiment 2 included 4 tests: tests
4 and 5 dealt with students comprehension of words taught in experimental lessons(which
used Vietnamese) as well as in control lessons (which used English only in definitions and
explanations of words); and tests 6 and 7 handled their memory of those words. All the
tests had the same format: multiple choice tests with four alternative answers. The test
consisted of two parts: (1) vocabulary in direct translation from English to Vietnamese and
vice versa (10 items), and (2) vocabulary in context (10 items). The first task of tests –
vocabulary in direct translation was to examine students‟ ability to recognise the words and
link them with their L1 equivalents and whether they could pick out the correct English
translation for Vietnamese words among words of the same category or similar forms. This
could be seen as a later phase of their lexical association stage in Jiang‟s three-stage
psycholinguistic model of adult L2 vocabulary acquisition. The second task was included
in the tests for the purpose of testing students ability to use the suitable words in contexts,
that is to link the words directly to their conceptual representations. Students being able to
19


do this would be considered in the second stage of L2 vocabulary acquisition when they
can use the word more fluently and automatically with significant influence of L1.
In the first test, all 20 words were taken from the previous units of the book New
Headway Elementary that students had learnt not long before. In tests 2 to 7, the words
were taken from the units of the book that students learnt during research time.
2.1.2.2. Classroom observations
The observation was chosen for its advantages. One of the advantages of
participant observation is its ability to facilitate the collection of 'rich' information that is
frequently not available from other sources (Babbie, 1995). As such, it can be used to
supplement, inform or contradict theorised research and it can greatly enhance the
available knowledge on a subject as a result. It can be used either as a preliminary step in a
research study by which the researcher observes events 'as they occur' in order to formulate

a hypothesis for further investigation or it can be used at a more advanced stage of the
research in order to test a hypothesis formed on the basis of theoretical research (Patton,
2002). It is believed to elicit 'real' and 'genuine' information that has not been filtered or
amended by the research participants as can occur in relation to interview or questionnaire
data and, as such, provides unique insights into the subjective viewpoint of the participants
in the study. With observation, participants may not realise that they are being watched so
they do not moderate their behaviour in any way thus the data gathered in unadulterated. It
also provides richer information than interviews or questionnaires because it can take into
account non-verbal interaction and behaviour (Berg, 2003). As such, it can be a valuable
method of researching the influence of structures or events on individuals and groups.
There is also the possibility that unexpected and unanticipated events will occur during the
course of the observation hence its value in accessing unique data (Berg, 2003).
The teacher observed the classroom activities to see how enthusiastically and
effectively students learn in two different groups of study or with two different approaches
to teaching. In these observations, the teacher researcher acted as an observing-participant
(teaching the classes while taking on the role of observer). In order to do that, the teacher
had also to examine her own subjectivity and consider that participating in the group might
lead to sympathetic or antagonistic interpretations of group behaviors. Notes were taken on
teacher‟s observations of what was happening during class time and then discussed.
20


Observations focused on five aspects of students learning in the class, that is, students
asking and answering questions, their competition and active learning, and the excitement
of the classroom.
2.1.3. Participants
The subjects for the study were first-year students of non-English majors at Hanoi
University of Industry. They were chosen from 4 different English classes in which they
were placed according to their result of the placement test. They were given the pretest and
100 of those who have nearly the same scores were selected, 57 of whom were boys and 43

were girls. They share the same mother tongue (L1) - Vietnamese and English is their L2.
Two classes were assigned as an experimental group (receiving L1 in vocabulary
instructions) and the other two classes were assigned as a control group (receiving no L1 in
vocabulary instructions).
There is no obvious difference between the two selected groups (with the mean
scores of the two groups in the pretest not significantly different), showing that they have
roughly the same English proficiency, and we may take it for granted that the subjects have
roughly the same English vocabulary size.
The second experiment was conducted with the participation of only 26 students,
10 girls and 16 boys, from a class of experimental group.
2.1.4. Procedures
To achieve the goal, the research focused on the participation and perception of the
students as well as what students could keep in their memory through their learning of
vocabulary with and without Vietnamese support. The plan involved conducting lessons
with two different research groups and two groups of lessons with the same class using
different approaches so as to see how students reacted to these approaches.
Two experiments were carried out in order to collect the data. In the first
experiment, the teacher applied different teaching approaches to the two groups: the
experimental group received L1 support in teacher‟s instruction and explanation while the
control group received no treatment.
The books they had in hand were slightly different. The New Headway Elementary
(NHE) (Soars & Soars, 2004) was used with the control group, which has the word list at
the end of the book with the part of speech, but there is no definition given. The same
21


course book was used with the experimental group but with the addition of translation of
difficult words at the bottom of each page and a word list at the end of the book with
Vietnamese meaning.
In regards to teaching techniques, for experimental group, the new words were

introduced in an easy context with L1 definitions and explanations, and students were
usually asked to give Vietnamese equivalents. A small test was used to check students‟
understanding and whether they could remember the words or not. The oral translation or
dictation quiz took place at the beginning of every class. The minitest included the
translation of sentences or words from Vietnamese to English or vice versa, which were
normally at the end of each class meeting of four class hours. By contrast, for the control
group, the teacher normally gave the definitions and explanation (of the meaning and the
use of words or expressions) only in English, and the subjects were asked to underline each
of these words and expressions, but not to write down their Vietnamese meaning. Quizzes
and small tests were also used but with the exclusion of Vietnamese (i.e. no translation
exercises).
During class time, notes were taken on her observations of how students took part
in the lessons. At the beginning of the experiment, students were asked to do the first test
to make sure they were at quite the same level of English vocabulary on the outset. After a
unit of eight class periods that students had during a week, test 2 was delivered in order to
check how much of the vocabulary they had understood. Test 3 was completed after three
weeks to see what percentage of the words and expressions during the period could be
remembered, so as to check how much difference there was between the two groups in
memorizing the new words / expressions.
The purpose of the second experiment was to further strengthen the claim brought
about by findings of the first experiment, ensuring that those findings were valid and
reliable. Only one class was selected for the second experiment. It was one of the classes in
the first experiment in which Vietnamese was used, which had 26 students, 10 girls and 16
boys. It was decided that two vocabulary lessons would be given to this class, one in the
first week conducted as usual, utilizing L1 when needed; another was taught to them in the
following week, without L1 usage being available. At the end of both weeks, the students
were tested to see how much they had learned (test 4 and 5). One week after test 5 students