The use of first language in teaching english vocabulary to elementary level learners a study at vietnamese american english center a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY
--------------------------------------

THE USE OF FIRST LANGUAGE IN TEACHING ENGLISH
VOCABULARY TO ELEMENTARY LEVEL LEARNERS: A
STUDY AT VIETNAMESE AMERICAN ENGLISH CENTER

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts (TESOL)

Submitted by ĐẶNG VĂN KHƯƠNG

Supervisor
Dr. PHẠM NGUYỄN HUY HOÀNG

Ho Chi Minh City, September 2016


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
I certify my authorship of the thesis submitted today entitled “The Use of First
Language in Teaching English Vocabulary to Elementary Level Learners: A Study at
Vietnamese American English Center” as the statement of requirements for thesis in
Master’s Programs at Ho Chi Minh City Open University, issued by the Higher
Degree Committee.
Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis does not contain
material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis by which I
have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma.
No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main text
of the thesis.

This thesis has not been submitted for any degree in any other tertiary institution.

Ho Chi Minh City, 2016

ĐẶNG VĂN KHƯƠNG

i


RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS
I hereby state that I, Dang Van Khuong, being the candidate for the degree of Master
of TESOL, accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and use
of Master’s Theses deposited in the Library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the
Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in accordance with
the normal conditions established by the Library for the care, loan or reproduction of
theses.

ii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to many people who have helped me achieve this final product. This
thesis has been completed with the help and counsel of many people whom I now
wish to acknowledge with very deep appreciation and gratitude.
First and foremost, I would like to express special thanks to my supervisor Dr.
Pham Nguyen Huy Hoang for revising my thesis, for his valuable advice, kind and
helpful assistance that he provided me throughout the thesis. He has been a
tremendous mentor to me while I was writing up my master thesis.
My special thanks also go to all the teachers who have instructed me at Ho Chi

Minh City Open University (HCMCOU) for their precious lectures in class, by which
I have been motivated to explore a lot of interesting issues concerning English
language teaching and learning.
I would like to extend my special thanks to Mr. Phan Tang - the headmaster of
VAE Center, and my special thanks to the administrators of VAE Center for assisting
me in obtaining the data for the study analysis. I would like to express my sincere
gratitude to all the teachers and the learners who took part in my study and made it
possible for me to analyze their attitudes on the use of Vietnamese in teaching English
vocabulary.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my close friends Nguyen Van
Khanh, Nham Chi Buu, Chau Tuan Nam, and Doan Quynh Nhu for their contribution
on the first draft of this study, and for their sharing with me a lot of reading materials
which were very useful for me to conduct my study.

iii


ABSTRACT
There has been a long-standing debate over the issue of including or excluding the
learner’s mother tongue (L1) in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom.
There are two opinions in this regard: monolingual approach and bilingual approach.
While advocates of monolingual approach suggest that learning is determined by the
exposure to the target language, those advocating the bilingual approach think that L1
makes a valuable contribution to the learning process. Although the widespread use
English-only in EFL classes, the use of first language is still a perennial topic. So this
study attempts to examine the use of Vietnamese language in English classes at a
foreign language center in Go Vap District, Ho Chi Minh City. The main objective
was to find out whether L1 plays a positive role or negative role in teaching English
vocabulary to the elementary learners in Vietnamese context nowadays. The approach
employed to conduct this study was mixed one: quantitative and qualitative approach.

The tools which were used to collect data were classroom observation, questionnaire,
and interview. The participants were ten teachers and 153 elementary level learners at
Vietnamese American English Foreign Language Center. The results indicated that all
the teacher participants overused Vietnamese in teaching English vocabulary to
elementary learners. The main reasons were to help the learners understand the
meaning of difficult words, and to help the teachers save time. The learners’ attitudes
towards the way their teachers used Vietnamese in vocabulary teaching were
supportive.

iv


CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ..................................................................................................... I
RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS ...................................................................................... II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................. III
ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................................................IV
CONTENTS.......................................................................................................................................... V
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND CHARTS ...............................................................................IX
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... XII
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1.

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ................................................................................................. 1

1.2.

PROBLEM STATEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 4

1.3.

AIM OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................................. 6

1.4.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................ 7

1.5.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY.................................................................................................. 7

1.6.

ASSUMPTION OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................... 8

1.7.

STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY ..................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 10
2.1.

DEFINITION OF TERMS ........................................................................................................... 10

2.1.1.

Vocabulary teaching ..................................................................................................... 10

2.1.2.

L1 and L2 ...................................................................................................................... 10

2.1.3.

Elementary level learners ............................................................................................. 11

2.2.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY........................................................................ 12

2.2.1.

The role of L1 in teaching methodology ....................................................................... 12

2.2.2.

Positive roles of L1 in FL classrooms ........................................................................... 14

2.2.3.

Negative roles of L1 in FL classrooms ......................................................................... 19

2.3.

VOCABULARY TEACHING ...................................................................................................... 24

2.3.1.

How many words are there in English and how many do teachers need to teach? ...... 24

2.3.2.

What do teachers need to teach about vocabulary? ..................................................... 25

2.3.3.

Techniques for vocabulary teaching ............................................................................. 26

2.3.4.

The use of L1 in L2 vocabulary teaching ...................................................................... 30

v


2.4.

PREVIOUS STUDIES SUPPORTING THE POSITIVE ROLES OF L1 IN L2 VOCABULARY TEACHING
33

2.5.

LEARNERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS L1 USE IN L2 VOCABULARY TEACHING.......................... 42

2.6.

CHAPTER SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 45

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................... 46
3.1.

RESEARCH DESIGN ................................................................................................................ 46

3.2.

SAMPLING ............................................................................................................................. 47

3.2.1.

Population ..................................................................................................................... 47

3.2.2.

Sample ........................................................................................................................... 48

3.3.

INSTRUMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 49

3.3.1.

Observation ................................................................................................................... 49

3.3.2.

Questionnaire ................................................................................................................ 52

3.3.3.

Interview ....................................................................................................................... 56

3.3.4.

Data collection process ................................................................................................. 57

3.3.5.

Validity and reliability of instruments........................................................................... 58

3.3.6.

Means ............................................................................................................................ 59

3.4.

DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 59

3.4.1.

Research question 1: To what extent is L1 used in teaching English vocabulary to

elementary learners? .................................................................................................................... 60
3.4.2.

Research question 2: What are the rationales for the teachers’ use of L1 in teaching

English vocabulary to elementary learners? ................................................................................ 61
3.4.3.

Research question 3: What are the learners’ attitudes towards the way they learn

English vocabulary with L1? ........................................................................................................ 61
3.5.

PILOT STUDY ......................................................................................................................... 62

3.5.1.

Vocabulary items explained in the pilot study .............................................................. 64

3.5.2.

Vocabulary items taught without using Vietnamese ..................................................... 65

3.5.3.

Using Vietnamese in teaching English vocabulary ....................................................... 66

3.5.4.

Refinements of the observation sheet ............................................................................ 66

3.5.5.

Refinements of the learner questionnaire ..................................................................... 67

3.5.6.

Refinements of the interview questions for both teachers and learners ........................ 68

3.5.7.

Answering the three research questions ....................................................................... 68

3.6.

CHAPTER SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 70

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS OF THE FINDINGS .......................................... 71
4.1.

RESEARCH QUESTION 1: TO WHAT EXTENT IS L1 USED IN TEACHING ENGLISH VOCABULARY

TO ELEMENTARY LEARNERS? ............................................................................................................ 71

vi


4.1.1.

Quantitative data collected from classroom observation ............................................. 72

4.1.2.

Quantitative data collected from the teacher questionnaire ......................................... 77

4.1.3.

Qualitative data collected from teacher interview ........................................................ 80

4.2.

RESEARCH QUESTION 2: WHAT ARE THE RATIONALES FOR THE TEACHERS’ USE OF L1 IN

TEACHING ENGLISH VOCABULARY TO ELEMENTARY LEARNERS?.................................................... 82

4.2.1.

Quantitative data collected from teacher questionnaire ............................................... 82

4.2.2.

Qualitative data collected from teacher interview ........................................................ 86

4.3.

RESEARCH QUESTION 3: WHAT ARE THE LEARNERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE WAY THEY

LEARN ENGLISH VOCABULARY WITH L1?......................................................................................... 94

4.3.1.

Quantitative data collected from learner questionnaire ............................................... 95

4.3.2.

Qualitative data collected from the learner questionnaire ......................................... 100

4.3.3.

Qualitative data collected from the learner interview ................................................ 106

4.4.

CHAPTER SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 117

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND LIMITATIONS................... 119
5.1.

CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 119

5.2.

RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 122

5.3.

LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 123

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 125
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 131
APPENDIX 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 131
APPENDIX 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 132
APPENDIX 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 134
APPENDIX 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 135
APPENDIX 5 ..................................................................................................................................... 136
APPENDIX 6 ..................................................................................................................................... 140
APPENDIX 7 ..................................................................................................................................... 144
APPENDIX 8 ..................................................................................................................................... 163
APPENDIX 9 ..................................................................................................................................... 165

APPENDIX 10 ................................................................................................................................... 167
APPENDIX 11 ................................................................................................................................... 171
APPENDIX 12 ................................................................................................................................... 175

vii


APPENDIX 13 ................................................................................................................................... 179
APPENDIX 14 ................................................................................................................................... 183
APPENDIX 15 ................................................................................................................................... 187
APPENDIX 16 ................................................................................................................................... 189
APPENDIX 17 ................................................................................................................................... 191
APPENDIX 18 ................................................................................................................................... 198
APPENDIX 19 ................................................................................................................................... 200
APPENDIX 20 ................................................................................................................................... 202
APPENDIX 21 ................................................................................................................................... 209
APPENDIX 22 ................................................................................................................................... 218

viii


LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND CHARTS
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.2.2: POSITIVE ROLES OF L1 IN FL CLASSROOMS. .................................................... 18
TABLE 2.2.3: NEGATIVE ROLES OF L1 IN FL CLASSROOMS. .................................................. 23
TABLE 2.4A: REASONS WHY TEACHERS USED L1 IN L2 VOCABULARY TEACHING. ...... 40
TABLE 2.4B: OTHER REASONS WHY TEACHERS USED L1 IN THE CLASSROOMS. ........... 41
TABLE 2.5: SYNOPSIS OF DATA OF LEARNERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE USE OF L1
IN TEACHING L2 VOCABULARY. .................................................................................................. 43
TABLE 3.5: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SCHEDULE OF THE PILOT STUDY. .................... 63

TABLE 3.5.1: NUMBER OF VOCABULARY ITEMS TAUGHT IN THE PILOT STUDY. ........... 64
TABLE 4.1.1A: NUMBER OF VOCABULARY ITEMS TAUGHT THROUGH THIRTY
OBSERVATIONS. ............................................................................................................................... 72
TABLE 4.1.1B: WAYS OF USING VIETNAMESE IN VOCABULARY TEACHING. .................. 74
TABLE 4.1.2: FREQUENCY OF THE WAYS TEACHERS TAUGHT VOCABULARY WITH
USING VIETNAMESE. ....................................................................................................................... 78
TABLE 4.1.3: SITUATIONS TEACHERS USED VIETNAMESE TO TEACH ENGLISH
VOCABULARY. .................................................................................................................................. 80
TABLE 4.2.1: FREQUENCY OF THE REASONS WHY TEACHERS USED VIETNAMESE IN
VOCABULARY TEACHING. ............................................................................................................ 83
TABLE 4.2.2A: REASONS WHY TEACHERS USED VIETNAMESE IN ENGLISH
VOCABULARY TEACHING. ............................................................................................................ 86
TABLE 4.2.2B: USING OR NOT USING VIETNAMESE, WHICH WAS BETTER? ..................... 89
TABLE 4.2.2C: STRONG POINTS OF USING VIETNAMESE IN VOCABULARY TEACHING.90
TABLE 4.2.2D: DISADVANTAGES OF USING VIETNAMESE IN ENGLISH VOCABULARY
TEACHING. ......................................................................................................................................... 91
TABLE 4.2.2E: WHEN TEACHERS SHOULD USE VIETNAMESE IN VOCABULARY
TEACHING. ......................................................................................................................................... 92

ix


TABLE 4.2.2F: WHEN TEACHERS SHOULD NOT USE VIETNAMESE IN VOCABULARY
TEACHING. ......................................................................................................................................... 93
TABLE 4.3.1A: FREQUENCY TEACHERS USED L1 COMPARED WITH FREQUENCY
LEARNERS THOUGHT L1 SHOULD BE USED. ............................................................................ 96
TABLE 4.3.1B: REASONS WHY LEARNERS LIKED THEIR TEACHERS TO USE
VIETNAMESE IN VOCABULARY TEACHING. ............................................................................. 98
TABLE 4.3.2A: REASONS WHY LEARNERS LIKED THEIR TEACHERS TO USE
VIETNAMESE IN VOCABULARY TEACHING. ........................................................................... 100

TABLE 4.3.2B: REASONS WHY LEARNERS DID NOT LIKE THEIR TEACHERS TO USE
VIETNAMESE IN VOCABULARY TEACHING. ........................................................................... 102
TABLE 4.3.2C: WHEN L1 SHOULD BE USED IN TEACHING VOCABULARY....................... 104
TABLE 4.3.2D: WHEN L1 SHOULD NOT BE USED IN TEACHING VOCABULARY. ............ 105
TABLE 4.3.3A: HOW YOUR TEACHERS USED VIETNAMESE IN VOCABULARY
TEACHING. ....................................................................................................................................... 107
TABLE 4.3.3B: SITUATIONS TEACHERS USED VIETNAMESE IN VOCABULARY
TEACHING. ....................................................................................................................................... 108
TABLE 4.3.3C: SITUATIONS LEARNERS LIKED THEIR TEACHERS TO USE VIETNAMESE
IN VOCABULARY TEACHING. ..................................................................................................... 109
TABLE 4.3.3D: REASONS WHY THE LEARNERS LIKED THEIR TEACHER TO USE
VIETNAMESE IN VOCABULARY TEACHING. ........................................................................... 110
TABLE 4.3.3E: USING VIETNAMESE WAS BETTER IN ENGLISH VOCABULARY
TEACHING. ....................................................................................................................................... 112
TABLE 4.3.3F: NOT USING VIETNAMESE WAS BETTER IN ENGLISH VOCABULARY
TEACHING. ....................................................................................................................................... 112
TABLE 4.3.3G: DISADVANTAGES OF USING VIETNAMESE TO TEACH VOCABULARY. 113
TABLE 4.3.3H: WHEN L1 SHOULD BE USED IN TEACHING VOCABULARY. ..................... 115
TABLE 4.3.3I: WHEN L1 SHOULD NOT BE USED IN TEACHING VOCABULARY. .............. 115

x


LIST OF CHARTS
CHART 4.1.1: TIME SPENT ON TEACHING VOCABULARY IN THE MAIN STUDY. ............. 73
CHART 4.3.1: PERCENTAGE OF LEARNERS LIKED AND DISLIKED THEIR TEACHERS
USED L1 IN VOCABULARY TEACHING. ...................................................................................... 95

xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ALM

Audio-Lingual Method

CLT

Communicative Language Teaching

DM

Direct Method

EFL

English as a Foreign Language

ELT

English Language Teaching

ESL

English as a Second Language

FL

Foreign Language

GTM

Grammar Translation Method

HCMCOU

Ho Chi Minh City Open University

L1

First Language

L2

Second Language

SPSS

Statistical Package for Social Science

TESOL

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages

TPR

Total Physical Response

VAE Center Vietnamese American English Foreign Language Center

xii


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the researcher will present the background information of the
study. It is the use of L1 in FL teaching in general. Then there will be the aim of the
study that leads to three research questions that guides the study. The significance of
the study, the assumption of the study, and the structure of the study will also be
introduced.
1.1.

Background to the study
In foreign language (FL) teaching, there have always been contradicting views

about whether to use the learners’ mother tongue (L1) in English classrooms or not.
Supporters of the monolingual approach have argued that people who learn foreign
language should follow the basic route as a baby acquires its mother language, so the
use of L1 in classrooms should be minimized or neglected. However, supporters of the
bilingual approach have become aware of the positive role of L1 in English
classrooms because they believe that it could make a valuable contribution to the
learning process, and therefore L1 could be used in facilitating the process of teaching
and learning. The issue of including or excluding the learners’ mother tongue in the
FL classrooms will be always a subject of ongoing discussion and controversy. This
study is going to examine in detail whether or not the use of learners’ L1 in the
classroom may hinder or facilitate the process of learning new vocabulary in a second
language.
About the positive role of learners’ mother tongue, Weschler (1997), in the
introduction of his study, gave an interesting example to indicate the role of L1
(Japanese) in the English classroom:
The teacher stares down at the wide eyes of his new students, “Class. We are here to

learn English. As of today, you are not to use any Japanese in this room. This is an
‘English-only’ class.” And it is from that moment, I would argue, that the class is lost. (p.
87)

1


Weschler (1997) definitely emphasized what was called the “timely use of the
students’ first language.” It was not that L1 can be used all the time, but it was used
appropriately. When students learn a foreign language, it is the target language which
they aim at, and there are certainly many means for them to reach this goal. Weschler
(1997) indicated that the use of learners’ L1 was one of those means. The matter is
how and when the teachers should use this means to exploit the advantages of mother
tongue to the full. Depending on each particular circumstance, teachers can apply L1
appropriately. Damra & Qudah (2012) also said that when L1 was used appropriately,
it would be very helpful for students to learn a foreign language. But the prerequisite
is that teachers and learners must share the same L1. So Damra & Qudah (2012)
assumed that teachers who know their students’ mother tongue have more advantages
than the ones who do not know.
The use of learners’ L1 in the classrooms contrasts the pedagogy of teaching
English through English. In English-only class, teachers often ask students to “think in
English”. But we do not know how they really think when they learn the target
language, and whether translation silently happens in their mind. As Weschler (1997)
said that they constantly ask themselves, “What does it mean?” And then they answer
themselves by using their L1, no matter how the teacher asks them to think during the
learning session. Therefore, whether the teacher likes it or not, L1 still interferes in the
process of learning English. Weschler (1997) asserted that it is not if but to what
degree students think in their L1 when they try to understand L2 (second language).
Besides, Kavaliauskienë & Kaminskienë (2007) also said that no matter how good the
students are, the majority of them “keep mentally translating from L2 into L1 and vice

versa.” This fact makes teachers of English aware of the importance L1 in EFL
classrooms. Harmer (2007) called the process of translating what the students are
learning in their heads is a “natural part of any language learner’s behavior,” because
the learners always try to make sense a new language through a language which they
already know.
The use of L1 in English classrooms is mainly the use of translation from L1 into
L2 and from L2 into L1. Translation has an important role in language teaching
2


because language learners use it during their lifetime. Carreres (2006) believed that
“the translator as a life-long language learner and the language learner as a natural
translator.” Translation sometimes can be seen as the fifth skill besides the four basic
skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). “Translation from L1 to L2 and L2 to
L1 is recognized as the fifth skill and the most important social skill since it promotes
communication and understanding between strangers.” (Ross, 2000, as cited in
Kavaliauskienë & Kaminskienë, 2007, p. 133). Indeed, translation is a useful
technique to help learners compare the target language with their mother tongue. The
authors Kavaliauskienë & Kaminskienë (2007) said that the real usefulness of
translation in English classes is to compare grammar, vocabulary, word order and
other language points in English with their L1. They added that translation in L2
classrooms is the way of comparing the similarities and differences between the two
languages. And they concluded that “translation activities help raise learners’
awareness of language transfer and may facilitate linguistic development” (p. 138). So
L1 can be seen as an effective tool in the classroom.
Once L1 is recognized a valuable tool in English classrooms, it might cause bad
effects if teachers overuses it. The question is how to balance L1 in the learning
process. What factors should teachers of foreign language consider in balancing L1?
There are four factors suggested by Atkinson (1993, as cited in Kavaliauskienë &
Kaminskienë, 2007), namely the students’ previous experience, the students’ level, the

stage of the course, and the stage of the individual lesson. So it can be said that
depending on who the students are, where they are in the learning process and what
they are learning, teachers could choose to use the L1 in a suitable degree. The study
of Kavaliauskienë & Kaminskienë (2007) at Mykolas Romeris University showed that
the use of L1 in English classes is quite positive, but the amount of L1 depends on the
learners’ proficiency level. And they said that the less proficient learners need more
reference to the L1.
What if some teachers exclude or neglect L1 in language classrooms? If so, it
might be related to some cultural problems. Harmer (2007) said that “it makes no
sense to deny the importance of the students’ L1 in their L2 learning,” (p. 135)
3


because even both teacher and the students do not share the same L1, the teacher can
discuss the issues of L1 and L2 with the class. Indeed, it is not only the matter of
languages but also the matter of culture. Cook (n.d., as cited in Kavaliauskienë &
Kaminskienë, 2007) said that the students’ culture is part of their language; and if the
teacher neglects their language, he or she neglects their culture, and then neglect their
identity as well. He added that it was neither scientific nor pedagogic to exclude L1
from the teaching process. When people try to learn a foreign language, they always
face a new culture which they must accept. They should not look down on this new
culture because its values between the two languages must be considered the same. As
Schweers (1999) said that L1 made students realize their mother tongue and their own
culture values are not less worth than the L2 ones.
In this study, the idea that learners’ L1 is used in teaching new vocabulary is
considered. But the question is why teachers should apply it to teaching vocabulary.
Sedita (2005) said that knowledge of vocabulary is very important because it includes
all the words which people need to have to link their background knowledge, to
express their ideas, to communicate, and to learn new concepts. It can be said that
students who have wide vocabularies could learn better because they can understand

new concepts more quickly. Linguist David Wilkins said, “Without grammar very
little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed” (cited in
Thornbury, 2002, p. 13). Most teachers acknowledge the importance of vocabulary
teaching. However, vocabulary instruction may be a very difficult task for many
teachers because they are not confident about the best way in vocabulary teaching
(Bintz, 2011). There are a lot of choices related to the means of vocabulary instruction
such as using real objects, using actions or gestures, using pictures, definitions,
translation, etc. Of these ways, according to traditional methods, translation has been
most widely used in presenting the meaning of new words. It means that, to some
extent, learners’ L1 might be used in teaching new vocabulary.
1.2.

Problem statements
The researcher has been an English learner and an English teacher in several

foreign language centers in Vietnam. And the researcher sees that in most foreign
4


language classes in Vietnam, teachers of English are not allowed to use too much
Vietnamese in classrooms, it means L1 should be minimized as much as possible.
They are encouraged to use English in all cases to show that English is a real vehicle
of communication, not just a subject to learn. At the time this study was conducted,
the researcher was working at Vietnamese American English Foreign Language
Center (VAE Center), an English Center in Go Vap District, Ho Chi Minh City, where
the teachers were advised to use the Direct Method as a main means. The official
guidelines recommended that lessons should be planned to be as monolingual as
possible. It means that L1 was restricted to use there because it was believed that this
method is helpful to the learners, especially elementary level learners. However, the
researcher saw that many of the teachers still used L1 frequently in their classrooms,

especially in teaching English vocabulary.
There might be some reasons which make the teachers use L1 in teaching English
vocabulary at VAE Center. In the two main textbooks, Streamline English Departures
and Streamline English Connections, all vocabulary items are given Vietnamese
meanings. In the other books used for elementary level at this center, new words are
not given Vietnamese meanings but they are often illustrated with pictures. However,
the principal of the center complains that the teachers still use too much Vietnamese in
explaining the meaning of the words even though the meaning is available in the
books. The meanings presented in the books may not clear for the students. Whether
they use L1 to help the students understand the meaning or they use it to facilitate the
process of teaching vocabulary, these teachers might have their own reasons for this.
At VAE Center, teachers are strongly recommended to maximize the use of
English in the classroom. According to the Headmaster, all English classes should be
“English-only” ones. That is a rule at this center; however, few teachers obey it.
However, Weschler (1997) posed a question which the researcher thinks it suits this
situation: “Could an English-only work?” The author answered ‘yes’, but with some
conditions, for example: with enough time given, with very limited goals, and with the
right circumstances. The researcher has been working for this center for some years,
and the researcher sees that the teachers almost have not enough time to follow the
5


curriculum. They have to teach fast, and get to the point what are needed for the exam.
And the most important thing is that there are a lot of goals set for the teachers, for
example students must pass the exam at high rate, students can speak English well,
and teachers use English only in the classroom, etc. These goals are certainly difficult
for the teachers to reach at the same time.
There was a study which showed that using L1 in teaching vocabulary could help
elementary learners retain the words in their mind longer. Bouangeune (2009) said
that many English professionals do not pay much attention to the use of L1 in teaching

English because they think that English must be taught in English so that learners
could expose to the target language as much as possible. However, this author
conducted a study to find out the positive use of L1 in teaching vocabulary. From
National University of Laos, Bouangeune (2009) made an important study in the area
of vocabulary for learners at low proficiency level. His study indicated that using
learners’ L1 to teach English vocabulary increased their retention of new words in
both isolation and context. And he thought that this was because the clear definitions
and explanations in L1 that make the learners remember better.
From the results of Bouangeune’s (2009) study and from the researcher’s real
learning and teaching situations, the researcher would like to conduct a study on the
use of Vietnamese language in teaching English vocabulary to learners who are at
elementary level in Vietnamese context. On the one hand, there have been many
professionals who believed that L1 should be used to teach students who are low
proficient in the target language, for example Auerbach (1993) and Nation (2001).
According to these authors, L1 plays an important role in language teaching for low
proficient learners. On the other hand, our colleagues kept using Vietnamese in
teaching English vocabulary although they were advised not to do so. Therefore the
researcher would like to seek the reasons why the teachers use L1 in teaching English
vocabulary for elementary level learners.
1.3.

Aim of the study
The aim of the present study is to investigate the use of Vietnamese language in

teaching English vocabulary to elementary level learners. The researcher will try to
6


find out whether learners’ L1 plays a positive role or negative role in teaching English
vocabulary to elementary learners in Vietnamese context nowadays. This includes

how frequently the teachers use L1, why they use it to teach English vocabulary, and
what learners think about the use of L1 in teaching English vocabulary. This study
will focus on the three main points: (1) identifying to what extent the teachers use L1;
(2) examining the factors which influence the teachers’ decision to use the L1; and (3)
finding out whether the students felt satisfied with their teacher’s way of using L1.
1.4.

Research questions
This study aims at answering the following questions:

1) To what extent is L1 used in teaching English vocabulary to elementary
learners?
2) What are the rationales for the teachers’ use of L1 in teaching English
vocabulary to elementary learners?
3) What are the learners’ attitudes towards the way they learn English vocabulary
with L1?
1.5.

Significance of the study
The implications of L1 in relation to vocabulary teaching were explored, and then

there was a discussion on principles, advantages and disadvantages of using L1 in
teaching L2 vocabulary. The positive as well as negative roles of Vietnamese
language in teaching English vocabulary was found, and then teachers might have
different views on the ways they teach English vocabulary in the future because they
have to make up their mind on the use of L1 in teaching L2 vocabulary to elementary
learners in today’s context. Although most English classrooms nowadays are well
equipped with modern facilities which help teachers to teach new vocabulary better
than before, teachers may use L1 to some extent to help learners understand the
meaning of new vocabulary better, and to help learners avoid misunderstanding of the

meaning when teachers use English to teach vocabulary.
Because the issue of using learners’ mother tongue in the classroom is still
controversial in the world, especially its use in teaching vocabulary to elementary
7


learners in Vietnam has not been carried out much, it is important to conduct a study
to disclose the existing reality in Vietnamese context. The results of this study may
also serve as an input for designing English teaching programs for elementary schools
or language centers. Finally, the benefit might extend up to improving the quality of
teaching FL in general and the quality of teaching English vocabulary in specific.
1.6.

Assumption of the study
This study assumes that English should be maximized in English language

classrooms. The target language should be used as much as possible for both teachers
and learners. However, there should be also a place for the use of L1, as Harmer
(2007) said that there is an acknowledgement of the place of L1 in the learning of L2.
The role of L1 may be positive if it is used at right time and right places. Using
‘English-only’ might take a lot of time and might cause some problems with words’
meanings especially when they learn L2 vocabulary, so learners’ L1 could interfere to
help teachers save the time and facilitate learning process. The primary goal of this
study is to find evidence to support the idea that learners’ L1 can facilitate the process
of teaching L2 vocabulary. Whether the findings show that L1 has a positive role or
negative role on L2 vocabulary teaching, it will be a meaningful contribution to the
area of FL teaching. The important role of L1 in teaching English vocabulary to
elementary learners seems worthy of consideration since there have been few studies
conducted to this topic in Vietnamese context.
1.7.

Structure of the study
The present study consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 provides a brief introduction

to the thesis and an overview of the study such as the background, the problem
statements, the purpose, and the significance of the study. Chapter 2 reviews relevant
literature including the reasons why L1 should be used in L1 teaching, the positive as
well as negative roles of L1 in EFL classrooms, and the techniques for teaching
vocabulary. Chapter 3 describes the methods used in this study in order to collect data
for answering the research questions. Chapter 4 presents and analyzes the collected
data from the classroom observation, questionnaire, and interview. This chapter also
presents the discussions of the findings based on the collected data. Chapter 5 gives
8


conclusions of the study, the limitations of the study, and recommendations for further
research. After those five chapters, there are also the references and the appendices.

9


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews theories and literature related to the positive role as well as
negative role of Vietnamese in teaching English vocabulary to elementary learners.
The literature review of this study will assess typical characteristics of L1 use in L2
teaching and how L2 vocabulary could be used with L1 in order to help learners
understand the meaning and retain new vocabulary better. Findings from previous
studies will also be presented in lines of arguments to indicate the research gaps for
the current study.
2.1.

Definition of terms
There are some terms which were used in the present study, namely vocabulary

teaching, L1, L2, and elementary level learners. These terms are defined as follows.
2.1.1. Vocabulary teaching
In the present study, vocabulary teaching involves explaining the meaning of new
vocabulary. There are several related things which should be explained when a teacher
teaches vocabulary such as the spoken and written forms, different meanings, parts of
speech, pronunciation, grammatical forms, words in contexts, British English and
American English, etc. In general, anything that needs to be done to help learners
learn vocabulary is termed vocabulary teaching. In the present study, the vocabulary
items which need to be explained can be listed in the textbooks which are suggested to
be taught, or they can be picked out from the lessons at any time in the classroom by
either the teachers or the learners. They can be the words which the learners ask the
teacher, or which the teacher wants to put forward. They can be either active
vocabulary or passive vocabulary.
2.1.2. L1 and L2
In the present study, the L1 is Vietnamese language. It can be termed the first
language, the mother tongue, or the native language of the learners and the teachers.
In this study, these terms are meant to be synonymous and they are used
interchangeably. Both Khati (2011) and Dujmović (2014) said that the three terms
10


‘mother tongue’, ‘first language’ and ‘native language’ all are the same although it is
possible to argue that there are some cases which may show they mean different
things. All of them are Vietnamese language because all the teacher and learner
participants are Vietnamese people. They all speak Vietnamese as their mother
tongue. And L2 is the second language or foreign language or the target language. In

this study, L2 is mainly used to refer to English. Sometimes it refers to other
languages rather than English especially in previous studies.
2.1.3. Elementary level learners
Harmer (2007) said that students are generally divided into three levels: beginner,
intermediate, and advanced; and that between beginner and intermediate, students are
classed as elementary. The level of the learner participants in this study is elementary
level, and it is usually called Level A in Vietnam. At this level, under VAE Center’s
regulations, the learners have to learn English with the main materials such as the
book Streamline English Departure by Hartley & Viney (2010) and the first half of
the book Streamline English Connections by Hartley & Viney (2013). After the
course, they have to take a final exam which is organized by Ho Chi Minh City
Department of Education & Training. They are tested with the four skills: writing,
reading, listening, and speaking. The first two skills (writing and reading) are
combined into one test with the total time allotted 90 minutes for examinees to finish
it. For listening skill, examinees also have a test with time allotted 30 minutes. And
for speaking skill, a conversation between examiners and one examinee is made from
five minutes to seven minutes. At this level of English, the learners can communicate
a little in English, they can use their English in some situations such as personal
identification, house and home, life at home, education and future career, free time
and entertainment.
At VAE Center, elementary learners have to learn English around twenty months,
or they have to finish about 480 forty-five-minute periods before they take the exam.
Under VAE Center’s regulations in 2016, the textbooks which were used as teaching
materials for elementary level were: Hartley & Viney (2010); Hartley & Viney

11


(2013); Cambridge ESOL. (2011); Cambridge ESOL. (2013); Thompson & Simmons
(2009); Driscoll (2009); Simmons (2010a); and Simmons (2010b).

2.2.

Theoretical framework for the study

2.2.1. The role of L1 in teaching methodology
To explore the role of learner’s L1 in EFL classrooms, one way is to look at the
basic methods which teachers of English use in the process of language instruction in
the classroom. Foley (2012) said that there is a wide variety of ways of teaching and
learning English around the world. In the field of English teaching, there are five
traditional teaching methods in which the role of L1 in L2 teaching has changed over
time. While one method accepts the positive role of L1 in L2 teaching, the other does
not accept it or even prohibits it. The five methods examined here are the GrammarTranslation Method, the Direct Method, the Audio-Lingual Method, Total Physical
Response, and Communicative Language Teaching. In this section, the aim is to list
those teaching methods in order to discuss the role of L1 in each of them briefly. A
glimpse of those methods shows the periodic changes in the role of L1 use in L2
teaching.
From 1800s, there was a classical method which was called the Grammar
Translation Method (GTM). At the beginning of the century, this method was used to
help students learn foreign literature and it was used to teach classical languages such
as Latin and Greek (Larsen-Freeman, 1986). This method allows teacher and learners
to use L1 freely as a main means to acquire the target language. Both grammar and
vocabulary are taught through L1 translation. According to this method, nearly all
phases of the lesson apply the use of learners’ L1 and translation techniques. The
standard medium instruction was the learners’ mother tongue, the grammar point was
practiced through translation of sentences, and vocabulary was learnt by heart from
bilingual lists (Klapper, 2006).
From 1900s, there was a method which did not allow teacher and learners to use
L1 in L2 teaching and learning, it was called the Direct Method (DM). This method
appeared because people set a new goal for their learning – it was to learn to use a
12