An investigation into teachers and students attitudes toward the use of mother tongue in english language classrooms at hongai high school

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES


TRẦN NGỌC THƯỜNG

AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’
ATTITUDES TOWARD THE USE OF MOTHER TONGUE
IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS
AT HON GAI HIGH SCHOOL
( Điều tra thái độ của giáo viên và học sinh đối với việc sử dụng
tiếng mẹ đẻ trong lớp học tiếng Anh ở trường THPT Hòn Gai)
M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

FIELD: METHODOLOGY
CODE: 601410

HANOI - 2010


vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Declaration

i

Acknowledgement

ii

List of table

iii

List of abbreviations

iv

Abstract

v

Table of contents

vi

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1

1. Rationale

2

2. Scope of the study

2

3. Aims of the study

2

4. Method of the study

2

5. Design of the study

2

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

4

Chapter I: Literature review

4

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

4

I.2 Arguments against and for L1 use

5

I.2.1 Arguments against L1 use

5

I.2.1.1 The L1 Acquisition Argument

5

I.2.1.2 The language Compartmetalization Argument

6

I.2.1.3 Provision of the Maximum Target Language Argument

8

I.2.2 Arguments Favouring L1 Use

8

I.2.2.1 The Pedagogical Role

9

I.2.2.2 The Psychological Role

10

I.2.2.3 The Socio- cultural Role

10

I.3 Uses of mother tongue in L2 acquisition

11

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

13

I.5 Amount of L1 and the Learners’ Level

13


vii
Chapter II The study

16

II.1 Participants

16

II..2 Data Collection Instruments

16

II.2.1 The student questionnaire

16

II.2.2 Classroom observations

16

II.2.3 Interviews

17

II.3 Procedures for data collection

17

II.4 Results

17

II.4.1 Student questionnaire

17

II.4.2 Classroom observations

23

II.4.3 Interviews

25

II.5 Discussion

27

PART C: Conclusion and Recommendation

31

1. Conclusions

31

2. Recommendations

32

3. Limitations

34

4. Suggestions for further research

34

Reference

35

Appendix 1

I

Appendix 2

III

Appendix 3

IV


iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.

Students’ preference for L1 use in the classroom

Table 2.

Students’ self- report on Teacher’ L1 use

Table 3.

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

Table 4

Students’ hypothetical opinions of Teachers’ reactions to their use of L1 in
the classroom.

Table 5.

The frequency of teachers’ use of L1 in various lessons.


iv

LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS

L1:

First language

L2:

Second language

EFL: English as a foreign language
GMT: Grammar Translation Method


1

PART A: INTRODUCTION

This part presents the rationale, scope, aims, method, design and research
questions.
1. Rationale
The role of mother tongue or L1 in L2 classrooms is a controversial issue in L2
education. Different researchers, teachers and students hold different attitudes towards this

issue. Advocates of a monolingual approach suggest that the target language should be the
sole medium of communication. In other words, L1 should be prohibited in the classroom
for optimal use of the target language. As Atkinson (1993) has pointed out “every second
spent using L1 is a second not spent using English” (p.12). The mother tongue has been
treated as a taboo subject, source of guilt and a hint of teachers‟ weakness to teach properly
(Prodromou, 2001), a waste of time (Januleviciene and Kavakiauskiene, 2002). This
position has been influential and often assumed to be the hallmarks of good language
teaching (Atkinson, 1995). In contrast, scholars such as Schweers (1999), Kramsch (1993),
Atkinson (1987) argue that classroom use of the learners‟ native language has certain
advantages in some ways. L1 can have productive pedagogical, affective and sociocultural roles. Atkinson (1987) claims that “the potential of mother tongue, as a classroom
resource is so great that its role should merit considerable attention and discussion in any
attempt to develop a „post- communicative approach‟ to TEFL for adolescents and
adults”(p.241). Therefore, the use of students native language should not be banned.
From my personal experience both as a student and teacher of English as a foreign
language, I believe that the appropriate use of the students‟ native language is of some
benefits to students‟ learning. This belief motivates me to carry out this study, which aims
to examine how the L1 is used in the English language classroom. Hopefully, the current
study‟s findings will partially help more people especially foreign language teachers
acknowledge the role of L1 in the EFL classroom as well as know how to balance L1 and
L2 use in the EFL classroom appropriately.
2. Scope of the study
The study limits itself to the use of students‟ native language as well as the teachers


2

and students‟ attitudes towards the use of L1 in the English language classroom. The study
is conducted at Hon Gai Upper Secondary School in Quang Ninh
3. Aims of the study
The study aims to investigate the use of students‟ mother tongue- Vietnamese- in

the English classroom at Hon Gai Upper Secondary School. More specifically, the study
tries to seek answers to the following basic questions:
1. What is the attitude of teachers and students towards using Vietnamese in the
English classroom?
2. How often do teachers and students use Vietnamese in EFL classroom?
3. What do teachers and students use Vietnamese in EFL classroom for ?
4. Methods of the study
Both qualitative and quantitative research methods are used, including classroom
observations, interviews, and questionnaire


Classroom observations
Six conveniently- selected classes (of about 45 minutes in length) taught by three

different teachers were observed to find out how

frequently and on what occasions

Vietnamese is used.


Interviews
Post- observation interviews were conducted in order to gain insights into the

teachers‟ rationale of using L1 in the classroom. The interviews were transcribed fully and
analyzed qualitatively according to emerging themes.


Questionnaire.
A questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was administered to 190 students to find out their

attitudes towards using Vietnamese in the English classroom. The questionnaire items
were developed with reference to the literature on the benefits and limitations of using
students‟ L1 in an L2 classroom.
5. Design of the study
The thesis consists of three parts:
Part A is the introduction, which presents the rationale, the scope, the aims, the methods
and the design of the study.
Part B consists of two chapters.


3

Chapter I, the literature review, starts with a brief review of the literature on the role of
mother tongue in EFL classrooms. This includes major arguments against and for the use
of L1, and the pedagogic purposes for which student‟s native language could be employed
in the L2 classroom. Finally, an insight into the theoretical and research evidence favoring
and disfavoring the use of L1 are presented.
Chapter II, the study, presents the participants, the data collection instruments, the results
and the discussion of the findings.
Part C is the conclusion of the study. In this part, some recommendations on the use of
mother tongue in EFL classroom, the limitation of the study and some suggestions on
further research are presented.
The appendixes are the last part of the study following the reference.


4

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews briefly the literature on the role of mother tongue in EFL
classrooms. Major arguments against and for the use of L1 and the pedagogic purposes for
which students‟ native language could be employed in the L2 classrooms are discussed in
order to create a theoretical framework for the current study.
I.1. An overview on the history of the mother tongue used in EFL classroom
Looking at the history of mother tongue (L1) used in the L2 classroom, it can be
easily seen that the use of L1 keeps changing periodically and regularly. Several hundred
years ago, bilingual teaching was favoured, with students learning through translation.
Howatt (1984) tells us that the ideas of using L1 in the L2 classroom was a respected view
during the era of The Grammar Translation Method-“GTM”. GTM had dominated late 19th
and early 20th century teaching, and saw language learning as a means towards intellectual
development rather than as being for utilitarian, communicative purpose- the method in
which nearly all phrases of the lesson employ the use of students‟ L1 and translation
technique. The use of L1 to study L2 was almost universal and readily accepted, partly
because language teaching placed an emphasis on the written word above the spoken
words. However, right after the First World War, L1 use was seriously objected due to
GTM resulting in the lack of everyday realistic spoken language content. Moreover, the
mass migration of people to other countries particular from Europe to America slowly
reversed this trend toward a monolingual approach. “It was important for educators then to
refocus their lesson from students with a common L1 to students with mixed L1” (Hawks,
2001, p47). No longer could teacher rely on using L1 to help them. The solution to such
linguistically- mixed classes was using the L2 as the medium of teaching and the language
teaching placed an emphasis on the spoken language.
A sudden and immediate removal of L1 from the classroom happened at the time of
the Direct Method of the early 20 th century. This approach aimed at oral competence and
believed languages were best learnt in a way that emulated the “natural” language learning
of the child. Therefore, there was no place for translation in the classroom, i.e with no

5

analysis of translation. The Direct Method would soon be discredited when it failed in the
public education system (Brown, 1994, p44), but it would have a lasting influence on ESL/
EFL classrooms.
The move away from L1 use was later reinforced by Audiolingualism (1940s1960s) which saw language as a matter of habit formation. L1 was seen as a collection of
already established linguistic habits which would “interfere” with the establishment of the
new set of linguistic habits that constituted the target language, and was thus to be avoided
at all costs. This theoretical opposition to the use of L1 was compounded by the
development of the TEFL “industry”- there are now many situations in which the teacher
simply doesn‟t speak or even understand the students‟ language, simply because the
teacher is an English native speaker who does not speak the students‟ native language.
In the last thirty years or so, there have continued to be some methodologies which
avoid the use the L1, with Total Physical Response being one of these methodologies. But
others, like Suggestopaedia and Counselling Language Learning have included it as an
integral part of classroom pedagogy.
Recently though support for an English only policy has been declining, and some
researchers and teachers have begun to advocate more bilingual approach to teaching ,
which would incorporate the students‟ L1 as a learning tool. Others have even gone far as
saying the use of L1 in the classroom is necessary (Schweers, 1999, p6). Additionally,,
new empirical findings of bilingual research have recently supported the use of L1 in the
classroom with a central argument that the side-effect of L1 may be unwanted, resulting
from the attitude of disaffected teacher (Butzcam,2003)
In short, the pendulum of L1 use swings with the methodological change. For
example, during the heydays of the communicative approach, L1 use tended to be
discouraged (Cole,1998; Cook,1999; 2001a, 2001b; Prodromou, 2001). The avoidance of
learners‟ L1 was also reflected in most of the L2 teaching material during this period
(Atkinson,1987, 1995; Buckmaster, 2002; G. Cook, 2001 b; Hawks, 2001).
I.2. Arguments against and for L1 use
I.2.1. Arguments against L1 use

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


6

1. The L1 Acquisition Argument
2. The Language Compartmentalization Argument
3. The Maximum Provision of the L2 Argument
I.2.1.1. The L1 Acquisition Argument
While research may not be entirely convincing, Krashen (1981) and Lewis (1993)
claim that adults learn the L2 similar to the way children pick up their mother tongue. It is
crucially based on the notion of exposure as being the determining factor for learning.
Children learn their first language through listening and copying what those around them
say. That is L1 acquisition does not rely on another language or children in the L1 can not
fall back on another language. However, according to Cook, (2001a, 2001b) the argument
that L1 children do not fall back on another language neither supports nor rejects the use of
L1 in an L2 classroom. There are indeed, differences between the first and the second
language acquisition in terms of age and situations. Similarly, Weschler (1997) explains
“Children take years following the natural order of acquisition to master the concrete
before the abstract. On the contrary, having mastered the letter, adults can take
shortcut”(p.4). Cook (2002) notes that the misguided vision of the first language
acquisition is one of those factors that have outlawed the role of transition in second/
foreign language teaching. I myself believe that in terms of language leaning, it is
unreasonable to generalize what is true for children is also true for adults. It is inevitable
that adults make reference to their L1 knowledge while learning L2. This tells us that an
attempt to avoid students‟ L1 is unrealistic in the L2 classroom.
I.2.1.2. The language Compartmetalization Agument
This is the view that “successful learning involves the separation and distinction of

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


7

language use for the majority of the world population. These scholars have agreed that
since the mother tongue and target language co–exist in the learners‟ mind, in the learning
activities they involve, there is no point in making an attempt to keep L1 from L2.
In terms of translation between L1 and L2, some scholars think that translation can
be dangerous as it encourages the belief that there are 1 to 1 equivalents between the
languages, which is not always the case (Pacek, 2003). For instance, Haltai (1989: 88)
argues that translation is considered as bad name for the fear of interfere errors. Similarly,
Cook (2002) maintains that translation fosters a sense of false equivalence between the two
languages resulting in the inter-language errors. The danger of translation in encouraging
structural or lexical equivalence is also clearly described in Gowers and Walters “Teaching
Practice Handbook” (1983). In contrast, Januleviciene and Kavaliauskiene (2002) assume
that language interference is an important characteristics of second language learning.
Stern (1992) rightly argues that since L2 learners often use their L1 for reference, it is
impossible to avoid the interference errors at any cost, rather we need to acknowledge
them as psycholinguistics given. He also states that by demonstrating where the L1 and L2
are similar or different in terms of phonology, lexical and grammar, we can help learners to
respond to the likely errors in advance (p.297). Richards (1986 cited in Wesheler,1997)

holds a similar view that comparing and contrasting of the two languages would allow the
learners to predict the possible L1 interference. It is suggested by Richards that interfere
problems can be addressed through carefully designed teaching materials.
The importance of contrastive analysis

is also validated by research study

conducted by Tomasello and Herron (1989) in the context of Portuguese. Their findings
indicate that translation techniques that stress the comparison and contrast between L1 and
L2 elements ( Phonology, morphology, etc) are effective ways of dealing with the
interference and over generalization errors. The result of the study partly helps learners or
teachers reexamine the L1 avoidance because its use results in the fallacy of equivalence
between the two languages.
Taking those empirical findings into consideration, it‟s safe to say that if there‟s L1
interference, encouraging learners to relate L2 to L1 to discover the similarities and
differences between the two languages would reduce the possible occurrences of the
transfer errors. As far as I am concerned, L1 interference can not be avoided because this is
one of the learning strategies L2 learners use in the process of L2 acquisition. However, an


8

overemphasis on L1 transfer is likely to lead to the ignorance of the benefits of L1. I
believe that L1 is helpful in helping L2 learners to internalize L2 input when used
appropriately. This will be discussed in the subsequent sections
I.2.1.3. Provision of the Maximum Target Language Argument
According to Tang (2002), this is the most common argument against the use in the
L2 classroom. Scholars who hold the opponents of the L1 use in the class assume that L2
learners often have little or no exposure to the target language outside the classroom.
Hence, teachers should make an advantages of his valuable classroom time for using L2

instead of L1.
The desirability of classroom communication in the target language as much as
possible is the view that most teachers and theorists agree upon (Harbord1992:351).
“Every second spent using L1 is a second not spent using English”. (David Atkinson:
1993: p.12). However, Cook (2001b); Turnbull (2001); Dajani (2002) suggest that L1
should not be used at any cost, teachers are advised to maximize the use of the target
language without overlooking the students‟ first language. In other words, according to
these scholars, exposure to L2 is necessary but not sufficient for L2 acquisition or intake.
Richard Miles (2004) thinks that monolingual teaching can create tension and a barrier
between students and teachers, and there are many occasions when it is inappropriate and
impossible. When something in a lesson is not being understood, and is then clarified
through the use of L1, that barrier and tension can be reduced or removed. Therefore, “a
principle that promotes maximum teachers‟ use of the target language acknowledges that
L1 and L2 can exist simultaneously” (Turnbull 2001: 535).
I myself agree with the idea that teachers should fill the classroom with as much of
L2 as possible. However, “English only” may be too challenging to students, it tends not to
ensure students‟ comprehension of the meanings of the certain L2 language elements. It is
not sufficient for learners to acquire L2. The use of learners‟ L1 is necessary to facilitate
L2 intake, so it is advisable for language teacher to "use English where possible and L2
where necessary” Weschler (1997:5). This view has been accepted in the recent literature
of L1 use, which will be discussed in the following section.
I.2.2. Arguments Favouring L1 Use
In the past two decades, the monolingual approach has been questioned and
reexamined, in consideration of the fact that it is more based on political grounds than on


9

methodological ones (Auerbach, 1993; Cole, 1998; Lucas & Kantz, 1994). According to
Auerbach (1993), an English only policy in the L2 classroom “is rooted in a particular

ideological perspective, rests on unexamined assumptions, and serves to reinforce
inequalities in broader social order”(p.9)

Since then, there has been a movement of

promoting the use of the mother tongue in the language classroom. Professionals in
second language acquisition have become increasingly aware of the roles of the mother
tongue in the EFL classroom such as the pedagogical role, the psychological role and the
socio-cultural role, which are going to be in turn argued as follows:
I.2.2.1. The Pedagogical Role
Contrary to the claim that the use of L1 will harm or affect the progress or
effectiveness of L2 learning, many scholars argue that L1 has its pedagogical values and
should have a place in L2 learning. The mother tongue is learners‟ linguistic schemata and
resources to which learners refer while trying to acquire L2. To be more specific, the
mother tongue is a source for the learners to draw their existing linguistic knowledge from
and perceive the new language. Gabrielatos (2001) says that L2 learners tend to rely on
their existing knowledge (L1 and L2) to understand the logic and organizational principles
of the target language. Both Swan (1985) and Dajani (2002) maintain that learning a
second language is the continuation of the already existing L1 knowledge. L2 learners
refer to their knowledge of L1 in order to help them to learn the L2. Their L1 is a resource
in understanding the target language. Hence, Auerbach (1993, p7) asserts that students‟
linguistic resources can be beneficial for learners at all levels of proficiency. She
emphasizes that allowing the use of the L1 in early second language acquisition facilitates
the transition to English. Nation (2001) also supports this argument concerning the L2
vocabulary acquisition through translation to be a very effective strategy for speeding up
vocabulary growth. The argument that translation causes negative transfer is no longer
valid. Translation, on the contrary, is believed to be an important tool in bridging the gap
between what learners bring and the one which is new and difficult (i.e. L2). In fact, one
bridging function of translation is its usefulness to create opportunities for comparative
analysis between the mother tongue and the target language (Murakami, 1999, Namushin ,

2002.). According to Chomsky (1976:29), “The grammar of a language consists of
universal principles of a language”. Building on this idea, Towell and Hawkins (1994)
indicate that L2 learners transfer the grammatical properties of their L1 into their L2


10

grammar. This possibility of transferring L1 knowledge to L2 learning is also a strategy
used by most L2 learners in most of the places ( Harbord, 1992; Rubin; Stern 1992).
Deller (2003) demonstrates seven uses of L1 as an excellent resource for L2 learning
especially for students at lower level of L2 proficiency if used effectively as follows:
1.

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

2.

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

3.

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

4.

Allowing the use of mother tongue can encourage spontaneity and fluency

5.

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

English

6.

Using mother tongue can have beneficial effect on group dynamics.

7. Using mother tongue ensures that learners are able to give on going feedback
(Deller 2003:3)

I.2.2.2. The Psychological Role
L1 is believed to reduce the affective barriers to L2 acquisitions. Study by Gacia
(2000) shows that the use of L1 lowers students‟ language anxiety and enhances positive
affective environment for the students to make progress in their L2 learning. The most
important benefit of L1 use in the classroom is that it “allows for the language to be used
as a meaning-making tool and for language learning to become a means of communicating
ideas rather than an end in its self” ( Auerbach, 1993,pp. 10-11).
Shamash (1990) believes that using the mother tongue allows the learners to
experiment and take risks in English. Building on Shamash‟s (1990) belief, Auerbach
(1993:19) points out that “starting with L1 provides a sense of security and validates the
learners‟ lived experiences, allowing them to express themselves”. She also asserts that the
use of L1 reduces the psychological barriers to English learning and allows for a more
rapid progression. This view is shared by Janulevicine and Kavlaliauskiene (2002) who
claim that “the ability to switch to a native language, even for a short time, gives learners
an opportunity to preserve self image, get rid of anxiety, build confidence and feel
independent in their choice of expression”. For Atkinson (1993), the occasional use of L1
allows learners (particularly adults and teenagers) to show that they are intelligent and
sophisticated people.
In short, L1 use in the class helps students feel secure and creates a more
comfortable learning atmosphere, which in turn enhances the L2 acquisition.

11

I.2.2.3. The Socio- cultural Role
Prodromou (2001) sees the use of mother tongue as a means through which L2
learners bring their cultural background into the L2 classroom. He believes that classroom
ethnic cultures are indeed a starting point for a variety of classroom activities. The
classroom culture and the culture of the society in which learners live is a good starting
point for helping students to authenticate the target language. Choffey (2001) has
demonstrated that students‟ L1 culture and physical environment are of great help in
designing L2 classroom activities. He lists three major reasons for using the L1 culture and
physical environment to learn the L2:
1. To link the activities to the students‟ situation ( experience)
2. Students learn how to deal with specific lexical items between the L1 and the L2
cultures
3. To establish firm relationships between L1 and L2
It‟s advisable to consider the following lists of Prodromou‟s (2001) metaphoric
expressions which might briefly summarise the above mentioned three claims for the merit
of using L1 and the problems that may ensure as a result of its imprudent use. He uses the
following metarphors for the upside and downside of L1 use in the L2 classroom. Thus,
L1 can be viewed as:
1.

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

2.

a reservoir ( a resource from which we draw)

3.

a wall ( an obstacle to teaching)

4.

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

5.

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

6.

a lubricant ( it helps the wheels of a lesson moving smoothly, it thus saves time)
(Prodromou, 2001:2)

I.3. Uses of mother tongue in L2 acquisition.
As far as the proponents of L1 are concerned, teachers can take advantages of their
students‟ first language in many occasions. Atkinson (1987:245-44) has listed the
following as an area of language teaching in which teachers can make use of L1: eliciting
language, checking comprehension, giving instruction, discussion of classroom
methodologies, checking for sense, presentation and reinforcement of language, and
testing. Cook (2001 b: 414-416) suggests that teachers can use L1 as a way to: convey and


12

check meanings of words or sentences, explain grammar, organize class, maintain
disciplines, gain contact with individual students and test. Aurebach (1993: 21) includes

the following in her lists of possible occasions for using mother tongue : negotiation of the
syllabus and the lesson, record keeping, classroom management, scene setting, language
analysis, presentation of rules governing grammar, phonology, morphology and spelling,
discussion of cross-cultural issues, instructions or prompts, explanation errors, and
assessment of comprehension.
Cook ( 2001b: 417) suggests three important cases that might lead learners to use
their L1:
1. As part of the main learning activities.
2. Within classroom activities ( group/ pair work).
3. As a way to the meaning of L2 words both inside and outside the classroom ( e.g,
the use of bilingual dictionaries).
However, regarding to using the first language in pair or group work, teachers are
often advised about how to discourage students from using L1. One problem concerning
L1 use in small groups is that “ If they are talking in small groups, it can be quite difficult
to get some classes particularly, the less disciplined and motivated ones to keep to the
target language” (Ur, 1996:121).
Yet, Cook (2001a:157); Harmer (2001); G. Cook (2002) and Harbord (1992) argue
that code switching is a normal feature of L2 use. When students share two languages
without the distrust of L1, there is no reason why students should not resort to their L1. To
Cook (2001 b), L1 provide scaffolding help: through L1 students may explain the tasks to
each other, negotiate the role they are going to take, check their understanding or
production of the language against their peers. According to him L1 is especially helpful
when the activities involve problem solving in which case students could put their heads
together and discuss the solution to the problems ( p. 418). Likewise, Harbord (1992: 354)
explains that L1 has a variety of roles: explanation by students to peers who have not
understood, giving individual help to weaker students during pair or group work, and
student- student comparison or discussion. Cunnningham (2000) makes a strong statement
that denying the use of L1 in pair/ group work is almost tantamount to denying students‟
access to an important learning tool: the other students. Students are drawing on each
other‟s knowledge (Atkinson 1993). Harmer (2001:132) believes that L1 use is quite

13

acceptable, for example, when students are working in pairs studying a reading text. He,
however, does warn that using L1 for an activity like oral fluency is almost pointless.
I.4. Theoretical and Research Evidence Favoring and Disfavoring L1 Use
Except for few specific references mentioned for the benefits of not using L1 ( e.g,
Ellis (1984) and Chamber (1991 cited in Hawks 2001) who themselves do not give any
detail accounts of L1 avoidance but based their arguments solely on practical survey, there
is hardly any research and theoretical evidence that validate the benefits of ignoring the
learners‟ L1 in the L2 classroom. In this connection, Auerbach (1993:9), from instance,
writes “evidence from research and practice suggests that the rationale used to justify
English only in the classroom is neither conclusive nor pedagogically sound”. Weschler
(1997) has echoed similar view, noting that the English only approach is without any
sound theory or substantiated research. Marcaro (1997) adds that the exclusive use of L2
has not been justified yet. Concurring with many of the above views, Cook (2001a:157)
reveals that second language acquisition researchers have been unable to provide any real
reasons for keeping L1 from the L2 classrooms.
On the other hand, findings from a small number of studies (e.g. Burden, 2001;
Schweers, 1999; Tang, 2002) in Japanese, Spanish and Chinese contexts respectively have
shown that both University teachers and students have positive attitude towards the use of
L1 in their English classrooms. The results of their studies further suggested that a limited
amounts of L1 has a supportive and facilitating role in the English classes and thus it needs
to be welcomed.. In the case of Prodromou‟s (2001) study however, university students
were skeptical about the role of L1 (Greece) at the university level. On the contrary, both
teachers and students at beginner and intermediate levels have overwhelmingly accepted
the use of L1 ( Greece) in their English classes. Thus, as (Cook 2001a: 155) notes “if the
twenty first century teaching is to continue to accept the ban on the first language imposed
by the late nineteenth century, it will have to look elsewhere for its rationale”

I.5. Amount of L1 and the Learners’ Level
Stern (1992) claims that it would be advisable to allocate some time in which L1 is
used in order that questions can be asked, meanings can be verified, uncertainties can be
clear and explanations can be given which may not be possible to the students through the
use of L2. This view is also shared by Atkinson (1987), Harbord (1992) and Bolitho
(1983). For example, the majority of teachers in Schweers‟s (1999), Tang‟s (2002) and


14

Burden‟s (2001) studies emphasize the importance of the occasional use of L1 in the L2
classrooms.
However, what exactly constitutes the appropriate mixture of L1 and L2 has not
been well investigated (Stern 1992); Turnbull (2001)further recommends that more
explorations need to be done to address this issue. Atkinson (1987:236) suggests that “at
early levels a ratio of about 5% native to about 95 % target language may be profitable” In
a study of elementary Core French in Western Canada, Shapson, Kaufman and Durword
(1987) stipulated 75% of the target language as the acceptable quantity by the teachers
(cited in Turnbull 2001). Similar study but a bit larger scale evaluation of the same
program by Colman and Daniel (1988), in Central Canada shows that 95% use of the target
language was deemed appropriate by the researchers and school board. While these
findings are not overtly conclusive, they do however illustrate that there is a disparity
between the reports with regard to the L1-L2 proportion. It seems from this that Turnbull (
2001) recommends further studies to be carried out in this area.
With regard to the level of students, Atkinson (1987), Stern (1992) and Hawks
(2001) suggest that the mother tongue has a variety of roles at all levels. But as Stern
(1992) and Hawks (2001) note it may be more important to use the mother tongue
judiciously and gradually reduce that quantity of L1 as the students becomes more and
more proficient in the target language.
In general, though it is very difficult to quantify the possible amount of mother

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


15

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


16

CHAPTER II: THE STUDY
This chapter will present the participants, the data collection instruments, the data
analysis and the discussion of the findings.
II.1. Participants
190 students were the participants of the present study, of which 105 were in grade
10, 66 were in grade 11 and 29 were in grade 12. All these students have learnt English at

lower secondary school. Their English were at pre-intermediate level. More than half of
them learn English so as to take the university entrance exam. At school they learn two
kinds of textbook of the Ministry of Education and Training namely basic level and
advanced level. Three English teachers were the target population of the study. The teacher
participants have graduated from universities

for teacher of foreign languages. Their

experience of teaching English varies from 5 years to 30 years. According to Nunan
(1992b), they are all in the category of experienced teachers. Like the students, all of them
are native-speakers of Vietnamese.
II.2. Data Collection Instruments
Both qualitative and quantitative research methods were used, including class
observations, interviews, and a student questionnaire to collect relevant information for the
study.
II.2.1. The student questionnaire
The questionnaire was administered to the students. It contains ten items including
both close and open-ended items in Vietnamese so that the students can fully understand
the questions (see appendix 1). Some of the items were in fact adapted from Schweers
(1999) in such a way that they suit the purpose of the study.
The questionnaire emphasizes on


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



The extent of their actual classroom use of the language.

II.2.2 Classroom observations

Six classes (of about 45 minutes in length) conducted by 3 teachers were observed
to find out occasions on which Vietnamese was used in the English classroom as well as
the purpose of the mother tongue use. The information obtained from the classroom


17

observation was also used to confirm the data obtained through the questionnaires. For
technical reasons, the lessons were not video-taped. Instead, I observed and noted the
moments when the teacher used Vietnamese and the purpose of such use of Vietnamese.
II.2.3. Interviews
Unstructured interview questions were set to solicit pertinent data from the three
different teachers whose classes were observed and noted. Unstructured interview was
preferred because it is thought that it gives a wider freedom to the interviewees to express
their views and beliefs (Shohamy and Seliger 1989; Wallace 1998)
The interview was felt to be suitable for the study for it was aimed to generate in
depth information from the interviewees on matters related to the use and non use of
students first language in the EFL classroom. The interview was conducted after the
lessons.
II.3. Procedures for data collection
The required data were collected in the second term of 2009- 2010 school year.
First, the questionnaire was given to students. Instruction as to how to complete the
questionnaire was given in Vietnamese. Next, 6 classes of three teachers were observed.
Finally, each teacher was interviewed right after they had taught the two classes around 15
minutes.
II.4. Results
II.4.1. Student questionnaire
The student respondents revealed that they had positive attitudes towards L1 use in
the classrooms clearly shown in Table 1.
It is interesting that only 10.64 % agreed that L1 use should be minimized in the

classroom. Nearly half of the students (47.52%)preferred L1 use when they worked in pair
work or group work and more than one third of the students (34,73%) would rather use a
bilingual dictionary.
Table 1. Students’ preference for L1 use in the classroom (N= 190)
Item

Item‟s stem and options

No
1

Responses
(%)

In your opinion, should Vietnamese be used in the
English classroom at a school level?


18

2

a. Yes

87,9

b. No

12,1

When do you like to use Vietnamese in the
classroom?

3

a. During pair or group work

47.52

b. When asking and answering questions

18.94

c. When using English- Vietnamese dictionaries

34.73

d. Other occasions ( please specify)____

5.7

Why do you think that the use of Vietnamese is
important in the English language classroom?
Because:
a. It helps me to understand new vocabulary

53.15

items better ( e.g: some abstract words)
b. It helps me to understand difficult concepts

35.26

better
c. It makes me feel at ease, comfortable and less

39.47

stressed
d. I feel less lost

15.78

e. Other reasons ( please specify)________
4

In your opinion, how much does English teachers‟
use of Vietnamese help you to learn English ?

5

a. a lot

32.98

b. some

56.38

c. very little

10.64

What percentage of time do you think should
English teacher use

Vietnamese in a forty-five

minute period ?
a. less or equal to 10%

2.11

b. 11- 20%

22,11

c. 21- 30%

40.52


19

6

d. 31- 40%

21.05

e. 40- 50%

14.21

How difficult do you think it would be for you to
understand the English lessons if your English teacher
exclusively used English?
a. Extremely difficult

18.13

b. Very difficult

29.12

c. Difficult

43.41

d. Not difficult

9.34

According to their responses to question 5, 40.52% thought an amount of 21-30%
of the classroom time devoted to L1 was reasonable. Approximately 22% and 21%
supported the idea that L1 should be used round 11-22% and 31-40% respectively. Only
14.21% preferred the teachers to use L1 up to 40-50% and 2.11% favored an amount of
less than 10% of the classroom time for L1 use. Question 6 showed students‟ perception of
how difficult it might be if the teacher used English exclusively in the classroom. Nearly
half of them (43.41%) believed if the teacher used English exclusively, it would be

difficult for them to understand the lesson. In addition, 29.12% and 18.13% rated this as
being very difficult and extremely difficult respectively. Only a tiny percentage of the
respondents (9.34%) thought that the teacher‟s entirely use of English would not be a
serious problem to them in understanding the lesson.
In items 7 and 8, students were asked to report on Teachers‟ L1 use. Results are
presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Students’ self- report on Teacher’ L1 use (N= 190)
Item‟s stem and options

Item

Responses

No
7

(%)
Does

your

school

English

teacher

use

the

Vietnamese language in your English class?
a. Yes

96.84

b. No

3.16


20

8

If “Yes”, how often does he or she use it ( say, in
one lesson period ) ?
a. fairly frequently

26.84

b. sometimes

65.79

c. rarely

7.37

26.84% of the students claimed that their teacher used the mother tongue fairly

frequently and the minority of students (7.37 %) thought that their teacher rarely used
Vietnamese in the EFL class. The results of students‟ report on the purposes for which
teacher employed Vietnamese are presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Students’ self – report on the purpose of Teacher’s L1 use (N= 190)
Item‟s stem and options

Item
No
9

Responses
(%)

a.

to explain new vocabulary items

83.15

b.

to explain difficult concepts

38.42

c.

to compare and/ or contrast English and Vietnamese

13.68

language (e.g phonology, morphology, grammar)
d.

to explain complex grammar rules

86.31

e.

to check comprehension

46.84

f.

to give complex instructions

53.68

g.

to elicit language

18.42

h.

(e.g, How do we say X in English?)
h.

to correct errors

77.36

i.

to give suggestions on how to learn English

8.94

effectively

44.73

j.

to give feedback

k.

other cases ( please specify) ______

As is clear from the results in the table, the majority of the students (86.31% and