Novice teachers’ beliefs and practices of using L1 in EFL classrooms: A case study at English division I, FELTE, ULIS

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

PHẠM THỊ ANH PHƯƠNG

NOVICE TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND PRACTICES OF
USING L1 IN EFL CLASSROOMS: A CASE STUDY AT
ENGLISH DIVISION I, FELTE, ULIS
(Quan niệm và thực tiễn sử dụng ngôn ngữ thứ nhất trong lớp học tiếng Anh
của giáo viên mới vào nghề: Một nghiên cứu tại Tổ tiếng Anh I, Khoa Sư
phạm tiếng Anh, trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ, Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Major: Theory & Methodology in Teaching English
Major code: 60140111

HANOI - 2014


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

PHẠM THỊ ANH PHƯƠNG

NOVICE TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND PRACTICES OF
USING L1 IN EFL CLASSROOMS: A CASE STUDY AT

ENGLISH DIVISION I, FELTE, ULIS
(Quan niệm và thực tiễn sử dụng ngôn ngữ thứ nhất trong lớp học tiếng Anh
của giáo viên mới vào nghề: Một nghiên cứu tại Tổ tiếng Anh I, Khoa Sư
phạm tiếng Anh, trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ, Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Major: Theory & Methodology in Teaching English
Major code: 60140111
Supervisor: Nguyễn Thị Thu Hà (Ph.D.)

HANOI - 2014


ACCEPTANCE
I hereby state that I: Phạm Thị Anh Phương, 08.1.E1, being a candidate for the
degree of Master of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements of the University relating to
the retention and use of Master’s Graduation Paper deposited in the library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the
library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with
the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of
the paper.
Signature
Phạm Thị Anh Phương

September 29th, 2014


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To complete this graduation paper, I owe profound indebtedness to a lot of

people for their invaluable help during the conduct of my research.
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my
supervisor, Dr. Nguyen Thi Thu Ha, for her precious support and helpful instructions
during all stages of the study and beyond, which have always been decisive factors in
the completion of this paper.
Second, I would love to send my heartfelt thanks to the five novice teachers and
their first-year students at English Division I, FELTE, ULIS for their enthusiastic help
and participation in the conduct of my research. Without their help, I would not have
been able to complete this thesis.
Furthermore, I would like to give my sincere thanks to the lecturers of Faculty
of Post-graduate Studies for the valuable lessons on all the aspects of language learning
and teaching as well as the process of academic writing and research conducting,
thanks to which I could overcome all the difficulties when working on the study.
Last but not least, I also owe a great debt of gratitude to my beloved family and
friends, who have constantly encouraged me during the time I conducted this research.

i


ABSTRACT
The present study was a case study which examined novice teachers’ beliefs and
practices of using L1 in EFL classrooms at English Division I, FELTE, ULIS. To gain
a vivid understanding of this issue, the research was conducted with five two-yearexperience novice teachers of the faculty and ten first-year mainstream classes in
which these teachers were assigned to deliver English lessons. For the data collection, a
combination of questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, classroom observations and
audio-recordings was employed. The results supported the judicious use of Vietnamese
in some situations and suggested that L1 should be used flexibly according to students’
levels and lessons’ contents. Besides, some teaching implications for novice teachers’
more effective use of L1 were also discussed.

ii


TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................i
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ii
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................vi
PART A: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
1. Statement of the problem and rationale for the study .............................................. 1
2. Aims and objectives of the study ............................................................................. 2
3. Scope of the study .................................................................................................... 3
4. Significance of the study .......................................................................................... 3
5. Design of the study................................................................................................... 4
PART B: DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................... 5
1.1. Key concepts ......................................................................................................... 5
1.1.1. Novice teachers .............................................................................................. 5
1.1.1.1. Definition of novice teachers ................................................................... 5
1.1.1.2. Characteristics of novice teachers ............................................................ 6
1.1.2. Teachers’ beliefs ............................................................................................ 7
1.1.2.1. Definition of teachers’ beliefs .................................................................. 7
1.1.2.2. Factors affecting teachers’ beliefs............................................................ 8
1.1.2.3. Relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices in language
teaching .................................................................................................................... 9
1.1.3. L1 use in EFL classroom ............................................................................. 10
1.1.3.1. Arguments against L1 use in EFL classroom ........................................ 10
1.1.3.2. Arguments for L1 use in EFL classroom ............................................... 11
1.2. Related studies .................................................................................................... 14
1.2.1. Review of related studies worldwide ........................................................... 14

iii


1.2.2. Review of related studies in Vietnam .......................................................... 15
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 18
2.1. Selection of subjects ............................................................................................ 18
2.1.1. Participants ................................................................................................... 18
2.1.1.1. Novice teachers ...................................................................................... 18
2.1.1.2. First-year mainstream students .............................................................. 18
2.1.2. Sampling methods ........................................................................................ 19
2.2. Research design ................................................................................................... 20
2.2.1. Questionnaires .............................................................................................. 20
2.2.2. Observations ................................................................................................. 21
2.2.3. Interviews ..................................................................................................... 22
2.3. Procedures of data collection .............................................................................. 22
2.4. Procedures of data analysis ................................................................................. 23
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................... 25
3.1. Findings ............................................................................................................... 25
3.1.1. Research question 1: What are novice teachers’ beliefs of using L1 in EFL
classrooms? ............................................................................................................ 25
3.1.2. Research question 2: How did novice teachers employ L1 in EFL
classrooms? ............................................................................................................ 27
3.1.3. Research question 3: To what extent was this practice effective in
facilitating first-year students’ English learning at FELTE, ULIS as perceived by
the students? ........................................................................................................... 30
3.2. Pedagogical implications and recommendations ................................................ 32
PART C: CONCLUSION............................................................................................ 34
1. Summary of findings .............................................................................................. 34
2. Limitations of the study ......................................................................................... 35
3. Suggestions for further studies ............................................................................... 35

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 36

iv


APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ I
APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRES FOR STUDENTS ............................................ I
APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW SCHEDULES FOR TEACHERS ..............................IV
APPENDIX 3: TRANSCRIPTIONS OF THE RECORDINGS ................................ V
APPENDIX 4: TRANSCRIPTIONS OF THE INTERVIEWS........................... XLIII

v


LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND
ABBREVIATIONS
List of tables
Table 1.

Mean score for the effectiveness of the teachers’ L1 use in their EFL

classrooms as perceived by the students

List of figures
Figure 1.

The actual amount of L1 employment of Novice teachers

List of abbreviations
CLT

Communicative Language Teaching

EFL

English as Foreign Language

FELTE

Faculty of English Language Teacher Education

L1

The first language

L2

The second language

ULIS

University of Languages and International Studies

VNU

Vietnam National University, Hanoi

vi

PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Statement of the problem and rationale for the study
Since the rise of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in 1970s, the use of
students’ mother tongue in EFL classrooms has become a controversial issue through a
large body of research worldwide. It is noted that the idea of whether L1 should be
included or excluded in English language learning and teaching has divided opinions.
On the one hand, it is believed that teaching English monolingually will help
learners develop their language learning and truly appreciate the target language
exchanges without relying on their L1 (Weschler, 1997; Cook, 2001; Bouangeune,
2009). According to Ellis (1984), several authors even assert that L1 has no essential
role to play in EFL teaching and that too much L1 use might deprive learners of
valuable input in L2. On the other hand, advocates of L1 use in EFL classrooms
dispute that students’ native language has a positive contribution to English learning
and teaching if it is used at appropriate times and for appropriate reasons (Cameron,
2001; Tang, 2002; Nation, 2003; Sharma, 2006). However, the question of how many
times and in which situations are considered appropriate for using L1 in EFL
classrooms still needs researching. Recently, several teaching methods and trends
supporting the use of L1 as a helpful teaching and learning tool have widely emerged
(Al-Nofaie, 2010). Numerous researchers and teachers have started to re-evaluate the
role of L1 in EFL classrooms and think of ways to find the answer to this question.
Among them, teachers’ beliefs and practices of using L1 in EFL classrooms seems to
be a focal concern.
In Vietnam, although CLT has been adopted for a long time, it has gained
limited outcomes owing to the dominance of the Grammar Translation Method (GTM),
especially in high schools where teachers often make use of L1 to transfer their
knowledge to students. This matter leads to the fact that the majority of Vietnamese

1

high school students find it difficult to understand an English lesson without the help of
teachers’ use of Vietnamese when they come to a foreign language specializing
university. Thus, even in this L2 favoring environment, teachers still need to employ
L1 as an essential tool to facilitate the English teaching and learning. Specifically, from
the researcher’s observation, this practice also exists in the context of English Division
I, FELTE, ULIS. Nevertheless, little attention has been given to teachers’ exploitation
of L1 and its effectiveness in EFL classrooms as perceived by both teachers and their
first-year students. In fact, teachers with more teaching experience seem to be more
aware of utilizing L1 in their EFL classrooms than those new and young do.
Over the past few years, more and more Vietnamese researchers, including Kieu
(2010) and Nguyen (2011), have studied on the issue of teachers’ beliefs and practices
of employing L1 in their EFL classrooms and reach an agreement that judicious L1 use
is supported by both language teachers and students due to the fact that it facilitates the
foreign language learning and teaching. However, the subjects of these studies are
mostly experienced teachers. Meanwhile, there have not been any studies focusing on
those of university novice teachers who are new and have little experience in teaching.
All of the above-mentioned reasons, henceforth, have offered the researcher an
interest in conducting a study on “Novice teachers’ beliefs and practices of using L1
in EFL classrooms: A case study at English Division I, FELTE, ULIS” with a view
to filling the pointed gap in the research field as well as facilitating further studies into
the same topic.
2. Aims and objectives of the study
First, the research paper aimed at exploring novice teachers’ beliefs and
practices of using L1 in teaching English for first-year students at FELTE, ULIS. Then,
a deeper investigation into the effectiveness of this practice as perceived by the
students was carried out. Finally, teaching implications for novice teachers’ use of L1

2

in EFL classrooms were also drawn out from these findings with a view to helping
them be more aware of its effectiveness in each specific context.
In brief, these objectives could be summarized into three research questions as
follows:
1. What are novice teachers’ beliefs of using L1 in EFL classrooms?
2. How did novice teachers employ L1 in EFL classrooms?
3. To what extent was this practice effective in facilitating first-year students’
English learning at FELTE, ULIS as perceived by the students?
3. Scope of the study
This study specifically aimed at investigating the use of L1 among novice
teachers at English Division I, FELTE, ULIS during the second year of their teaching
career for the fact that these teachers were in the middle of their three year mentoring
program; therefore, they have witnessed the effectiveness of their own L1 use in EFL
classrooms for two years, and still have one more year to adjust their practices before
becoming real professional teachers, which would have certain effects on their lifelong
career afterwards. Hence, the target participants of the study were particularly five twoyear-experience teachers at English Division I, FELTE, ULIS. Moreover, regarding the
feasibility and scope of such a small scale study, the researcher only expected to
measure the amount of L1 used by the novice teachers and did not plan to analyze the
discourse.
4. Significance of the study
This research is expected to be of benefits for novice teachers, first-year
students at FELTE, ULIS, as well as other researchers who are interested in the same
field. Since the study investigated novice teachers’ beliefs and practices of using L1 in
EFL classrooms, the teaching implications drawn out from the study are hoped to help
novice teachers be aware of using L1 more effectively in their teaching. This, as a
result, would reduce the stress of first-year students when they first enter an L2
3


favoring environment so that they could understand and enjoy the lessons to the fullest.

Last but not least, regarding researchers who share the same interest in the topic, they
could also rely on this study to find reliable and helpful information to develop their
related studies in the future.
5. Design of the study
There are three main parts in the study: Introduction, Development, and
Conclusion.
The introduction states the problem and the rationale of the study, together with
the aims, objectives, the scope, the significance, and the design of the whole paper.
Above all, it is in this chapter that three research questions are identified to work as
clear guidelines for the entire research.
The development consists of three chapters. Chapter one provides the theoretical
background of the study, including a detailed elaboration of the three key concepts,
namely “novice teachers”, “teachers’ beliefs”, and “L1 use in EFL classrooms” as well
as a brief review of the related studies worldwide and in Vietnam. Chapter two sheds
light on the methodology applied in the study by discussing in detail the participants,
the instruments and the procedure of data collection and analysis. Chapter three
presents, analyzes, and discusses the findings found out from the data collected
according to the three research questions at the beginning of the thesis.
The conclusion gives the summary of the main issues discussed in the paper, the
limitations of the research and some suggestions for further studies.

4


PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Key concepts
1.1.1. Novice teachers
1.1.1.1. Definition of novice teachers
The notion of “novice”, according to Hornby (2010), is defined as “a person

who is new and has little experience in a skill, job or situation”. With regard to
teaching profession, this definition, however, is too broad since the two terms “new”
and “little experience” are not specific enough for all scholars to reach a consensus on
how new a teacher is and how much experience he has to be classified as a novice
teacher. As a result, there have been a number of different interpretations in the
literature of what novice teachers actually are. Specifically, in his study, Ozturk (2008)
defines novice teachers as newly graduate ones who are “in the transition period from
studentship to teaching occupation” (p. 9). Sharing the same viewpoint, Gatbonton
(2008) broadens the term as those with “little or no classroom experience”, including
student teachers or teachers with less than two years of teaching experience. Putting
emphasis on the characteristics of novice teachers, Kim & Roth (2011) suggest a more
detailed definition as teachers with no more than 5 years of teaching experience who
“have difficulties dealing with their tasks at work” (p. 4).
It is noted that the amount of teaching experience used to define novice teachers
is not fixed; rather, it is a suggested range from 0-5 years. Nevertheless, for the
purposes of this study, the term “novice teachers” is understood as newly graduate
teachers with less than 3 years of teaching experience who are trying to survive
through the three-year-mentoring program and whose teaching tends to establish basic

5


classroom routines (Sherin & Drake, 2000) before they become the real professional
teachers.
1.1.1.2. Characteristics of novice teachers
Various attempts have been made to identify the characteristics of novice
teachers by comparing the cognitive processes of expert and novice teachers in terms
of their planning, thinking and decision making in different phases of teaching, namely
preactive, interactive, and postactive phases. However, as Clark and Peterson (1986)
have pointed out, the distinction in teachers’ thinking between the preactive and the

postactive phases is not as marked as that between the preactive and interactive phases,
only the first two phases when teachers are planning the lesson, evaluating and
selecting teaching methods and materials, as well as the time when they are interacting
with students in the classroom are analyzed.
Specifically, in the preactive phase, there are four main characteristics of novice
teachers’ thinking identified in the literature. Firstly, novice teachers’ planning is often
guided by rules and models without concerning about the context, which makes it
problematic for them to implement their plans in the real classroom with a variety of
contextual elements affecting the general direction of the lesson. Secondly, although
novice teachers spend much time planning than expert teachers do, their lesson plans
are not as efficient as those of the experts because they do not have enough hands-on
experience of the real teaching to make any amendments to their plans. Thirdly, since
novice teachers often consider context as “something external and ignored” (Tsui,
2003, p.30), they are less flexible in planning and not ready to make changes to their
plans accordingly. Finally, unlike expert teachers who possess a rich and integrated
knowledge base of the curriculum, students, teaching methods and strategies as well as
some external contexts such as classroom setting and expectations of the principal and
parents, etc., novice teachers are quite new to these factors, therefore, their planning
thoughts are simple and normally separate from some of the mentioned elements.
6


When it comes to the interactive phase, it seems that novice teachers are less
efficient and selective in processing information in the classroom than expert teachers
do. In their study, Sabers et al. (1991) found out that expert teachers were able to make
sense of the complex information that “puzzled” novice teachers. For example, when
asked to comment on the classroom events and the teacher’s instructional practices,
while beginning teachers only gave detailed but descriptive comments, expert teachers
often assigned meaning to the events that they saw and made evaluative judgments
about them (Sabers et al., 1991, p. 73). Furthermore, due to the lack of experience,

novice teachers are also not as good as their expert colleagues in responding to
students’ needs and classroom situations that require decision making on the spot. In
fact, expert teachers’ representation and analysis of problems are usually deeper and
they are more likely to offer solutions that are guided by principles (Tsui, 2003).
All things considered, beginning teachers often have difficulties in their first
years of teaching mainly due to the lack of practical experience and the understanding
of the context affecting the teaching and learning process.
1.1.2. Teachers’ beliefs
1.1.2.1. Definition of teachers’ beliefs
‘Belief’ is a commonly seen concept that has been discussed through a large
body of research in various fields worldwide such as anthropology, philosophy,
sociology, and many other disciplines. According to Fishbein and Ajzen, (1975), belief
is a representation of the information someone holds about an object or a “person’s
understanding of himself and his environment” (p. 131). Sharing the same viewpoint
but setting belief as a system of ideas, Pajares (1992) considers it as “personal guide by
helping individuals define and understand the world and themselves” (p.74).
When it comes to the field of education and language teaching, much attention
has been paid to the term “teachers’ beliefs” by a number of scholars, including Borg
(2001); Basturkmen, Loewen, and Ellis (2004); Mohamed (2006); Zheng (2009) and
7


Kuzborska (2011). According to Basturkmen, Loewen, & Ellis (2004), teachers’
beliefs are “statements teachers made about their ideas, thoughts, and knowledge that
are expressed as evaluations of what ‘should be done’, ‘should be the case’, and ‘is
preferable’” (p. 244). This definition is then understood by Mohamed (2006) as “a
complex, inter-related system of often tacitly held theories, values and assumptions that
the teacher deems to be true, and which serve as cognitive filters that interpret new
experiences and guide the teacher’s thoughts and behaviors”. Whether a belief is held
consciously or unconsciously, it is always accepted as true by the individual, and is

“imbued with emotive commitment” (Borg 2001, p.186), serving further as a guide to
thoughts and behaviors. In other words, it is teachers’ beliefs that influence their own
knowledge acquisition and interpretation (Nespor, 1987), teachers' implementation of
the curriculum (Fang, 1996), as well as their underline planning, decision making, and
teaching behaviors in the classroom (Zheng, 2009).
As this study focuses on exploring teachers’ beliefs and their practices of using
L1 in their EFL classrooms, the researcher adopts definition of teachers’ beliefs
following Mohamed’s position for its reliability and consistency.
1.1.2.2. Factors affecting teachers’ beliefs
In order to better understand why teachers behave in the ways they do, a number
of factors that shape teachers’ beliefs have been presented in different studies.
According to Zeichner & Gore (1990), teachers’ education can strongly
influence their teaching beliefs. Sharing the same viewpoint, Johnson (1994) adds that
teachers’ beliefs are formed as a result of not only their education but also their own
experience, namely personal experience, experience with schooling and instruction,
and experience with formal knowledge (Richardson, 1996). As explained by Mohamed
(2006), teachers usually base on their previous experiences of language learning and
teaching to evaluate whether a teaching method or technique is “useful, applicable or
effective” (p. 234). In addition to teachers’ learning and teaching experiences, Richards
8


& Lockhart (1996) propose a more vivid group of factors, including teachers’
experience as language learners, their experience of what works best, established
practice, personality factors, educational-based or research-based principles, and
principles derived from an approach or method, which have been agreed and backed up
by various authors such as Graves (2000) and Mohamed (2006). What is more, other
elements also worth taking into consideration can consist of teachers’ ongoing
professional development, student expectations, syllabus requirements and available
teaching materials (Graves, 2000; Mohamed, 2006).

So far, certain factors affecting teachers’ beliefs have been discussed. Among
them, teachers’ learning and teaching experience during their ongoing professional
development seem to be the most significant elements that shape their beliefs about
language teaching, whose implementations, in turn, may influence the classroom
practices of the teachers themselves.
1.1.2.3. Relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices in language teaching
Over the past few decades, a large body of research on teacher education has
gained remarkable achievement in studying the complex relationship between teachers’
beliefs and their practices, acknowledging the interactive relationship between them.
Although these studies have reached a consensus that “language teachers’ classroom
practices are shaped by a wide range of interacting and often conflicting factors”
(Borg, 2003, p. 91), they also agree that teachers’ beliefs have a significant impact on
their ways of teaching in the real classrooms (Fang, 1996; Richardson, 1996; Zheng,
2009; Sang et al., 2012). According to Clark and Peterson (1986), teachers’ behaviors
are “substantially influenced and even determined by teachers’ thought processes” (p.
255) as they represent the teachers’ knowledge and assumptions through their planning
and practices. For example, if a teacher thinks that L2 learning largely involves
acquiring vocabulary, he will probably focus on teaching vocabulary (Horwitz, 1988).
If, for another example, a teacher believe that the role of learners in an EFL classroom
9


is to listen and speak only when being asked to answer questions, it might be likely that
the amount of students’ talking time in class is little (Zheng, 2009).
It is true, as mentioned above, that teachers hold different conceptual
orientations towards teaching, which will then lead to the differences in their teaching
behaviors. In other words, teachers’ beliefs present a window to study the teachers’
decision-making, and therefore, understanding them is a better approach to realizing
how they typically teach in their real language classroom (Richard & Lockhart, 1996)
1.1.3. L1 use in EFL classroom

1.1.3.1. Arguments against L1 use in EFL classroom
The monolingual approach has long been supported in the field of English
Language Teaching (Philipson, 1992; Macaro, 2001) as well as in other contexts
(Turnbull, 2001; McMillan et al., 2009). Numerous scholars who object to using L1 in
EFL teaching mainly justify that it hinders L2 learning. In fact, the proponents of this
approach suggest more than one reason for their attitude, which has been summarized
by Cook (2001) into the three following fundamental principles:
1. The learning of an L2 should model the learning of an L1.
2. Successful learning involves the separation and distinction of L1 and L2.
3. Students should be shown the importance of the L2 through its continual use.
The first reason that supporters for monolingual approach raise is the exposure
to the target language (Krashen & Terrell, 1983; Turnbull, 2001). According to
Krashen and Terrell (1983), learners acquire L2 following the same path they acquire
L1, therefore, the students’ mother tongue should not be used in the classroom in order
to maximize the exposure of the target language. Moreover, as pointed out by Turnbull
(2001) and Deller & Rinvolucri (2002), using L1 in EFL classrooms might have
negative impact on learners’ L2 acquisition since it reduces not only their exposure to
the target language but also their opportunities for using it. Besides, Auerbach (1993)
and Ellis (2005) also indicate that the more L2 exposure students receive, the faster
10


they learn “as they hear and use English, they will internalize it and begin to think in
English" (Auerbach, 1993, p.14).
Another common argument against L1 use is that it interferes in the process of
L2 learning through negative transfer (Marton, 1988). As defined by Dulay, Burt &
Krashen (1982, cited in Al-Harbi, 2010, p. 145), interference is “the automatic transfer,
due to habit, of the surface structure of the first language onto the surface of the target
language". However, when L1 transfer is used, errors might occur due to the
differences existing between the two languages, which make interference a major

source of difficulty in the target language learning (Richards, 1971; Cook, 2001).
Hence, to avoid that, the separation and distinction of L1 and L2 should be made and
L1 use should be banned as it makes students believe that word for word translation is
a useful technique; consequently, they will work towards transferring meaning in
learning the foreign language (Harbord, 1992).
Finally, opponents of L1 use also point out that if the teachers minimize the use
of the target language in the classroom, learners will be confused about whether the
foreign language they are learning could be an effective means of communication
(Littlewood, 1992, p. 45). Therefore, students should be shown the role of L2 by using
it continually in classroom simulations of real-life situations (McDonald, 1993).
Indeed, it is only through the actual L2 use that students acknowledge its worth.
Specifically, Ellis (1985) justifies that EFL teachers, who are considered by Turnbull
(2001) as the sole linguistic models and main sources of the foreign language input in
their EFL classrooms, should use the target language for both language related and
classroom management functions in order to avoid depriving the learners of “valuable
input in the L2” during the process of helping them achieve L2 competence.
1.1.3.2. Arguments for L1 use in EFL classroom
The Monolingual Approach has been criticized to be impractical by numerous
researchers, teachers, and learners who believe that limited L1 use is a very natural and
11


useful tool in EFL classrooms. According to Auerbach (1993), "when the native
language is used, practitioners, researchers, and learners consistently report positive
results" (p. 18). As shown by Schweers (1999); Macaro (2001); Deller and Rinvolucri
(2002); Nation (2003); Butzkamm (2003) and Willis and Willis (2007), the mother
tongue can play a supportive and facilitating role in the EFL classroom as a valuable
linguistic resource, and therefore, it should not be totally avoided but used in a suitable
way instead. In other words, the principle of teaching English should be "use English
where possible and L1 where necessary" (Atkinson, 1993). Specifically, with a view to

countering what have been supported by Monolingual Approach proponents, advocates
of Bilingual Approach have proposed a number of benefits of L1 use in EFL
classrooms to serve as the main reasons for their argument, which could be classified
into the following three: to maintain a comfortable classroom atmosphere, to promote
the students’ comprehension and to use the class-time efficiently.
First and foremost, L1 could help create a relaxing atmosphere in the classroom
(Polio and Duff, 1994). In his research, Burden (2000) uses Monolingual Approach for
his classes and realizes that he begins to feel “remote” from the students as individuals
since there is little natural conversational interaction in English or Japanese (p. 5).
What is more, he also finds out that when L1 is used, students seem to have a sense of
security, which activates their personal experience and allows them to express
themselves more freely. The learner is then willing to experiment and take risks with
English (Burden, 2000). In attempt to summarize the principles and advantages of
using L1, Butzkamm (2003) also states that a friendly EFL atmosphere is best achieved
through selective use of L1 which saves learners from a feeling of frustration they
might have within their L2 learning in order to be stress-free. Particularly, when
teachers use L1 to clarify something in a lesson that students cannot understand, the
barrier and pressure between students and teachers following the Monolingual
Approach could be lessened or eliminated (Miles, 2004)
12


Secondly, L1 use in EFL classrooms can help facilitate students’
comprehension. According to Auerbach (1993), the bilingual policy is both effective
and necessary for adult EFL learners since the use of L1 had a positive effect in
lowering students’ anxiety levels and other influential obstacles, which can help them
understand the target language more easily. Similarly, in his study, Krashen (1987)
states that exposure to comprehensible input is vital for L2 learners to acquire the
foreign language successfully. If the students cannot understand what has been
mentioned, they will find it difficult to keep it in their mind or complete a task. He also

points out that qualified bilingual education provides students with knowledge and
literacy in their mother tongue, which indirectly but strongly facilitate them to gain
English proficiency (Krashen, 1987). Thus, Cook (2001) disputes that in EFL teaching,
learners should have in their minds as many L1-L2 connections as possible. As L2
learners naturally associate what they are learning with their L1, trying to eliminate this
process will only result in negative consequences (Harbord, 1992, p. 351).
Finally, using students’ mother tongue helps teachers save a lot of time that can
be used for more productive activities. As justified by Atkinson (1987), L1 is a useful
technique for exploiting class time to check students’ comprehension, give instructions,
enhance cooperation among learners as well as improving presentation and
reinforcement. For example, instead of going through long explanations in the target
language, it would sometimes be simpler and more effective to translate a vocabulary
item or an explanation of a grammar point in the students’ mother tongue (Sharma,
2006). What is more, according to Harbord (1992), L1 can also help keep and develop
the flow of communication in the classroom. However, it is suggested that teachers and
learners should prepare guidelines for situations in which L1 can be used in the class
with a view to avoiding the overuse of the mother tongue (Willis and Willis, 2007).
All things considered, it seems that the arguments for L1 use in EFL classrooms
outweigh those presented by the Monolingual Approach proponents since the L1
13


opponents have not provided strong evidence for avoiding learners’ mother tongue, nor
have clear reasons for banning it (Macaro, 2001). As a result, Bilingual Approach with
appropriate L1 use begins to be a focal concern in this welcomed situation.
Nevertheless, the question of how much L1 is considered appropriate still needs further
researching in order to reach a consensus among scholars worldwide.
1.2. Related studies
1.2.1. Review of related studies worldwide
Teachers’ beliefs and practices of using of L1 in EFL classrooms have been

discussed through a large body of research studies in the field of language learning and
teaching worldwide. On the question of should learners’ mother tongue be employed in
an English lesson, there arises another question of in which situations and to what
extent this practice might be possible and effective if it is applied in EFL classrooms,
which, more importantly, seems to be a focal concern of the literature in this field.
In attempt to find the answer for this question, Schweers (1999) carries out a
study on the topic “Using L1 in the L2 classroom” in his Puerto Rican university and
reveals that all of the surveyed teachers and 88.7% of their students support the use of
L1 (i.e. Spanish) in their English classes. Specifically, as perceived by the students,
87% say that L1 should be used to explain complex terms and two-thirds feel that their
mother tongue guides them to keep track of their study. To conclude, Schweers (1999)
shows his favor of using L1 to promote classroom atmosphere, activate students’
personal experiences and help them feel free to express themselves.
Conducting a similar research in the context of China, Tang (2002) points out
that limited and judicious use of L1 does not reduce L2 learners’ exposure to the target
language. Instead, it supports and facilitates the foreign language learning and teaching
process. In comparison with the results drawn from Schweers’, Tang (2002) reveals
that the majority of teachers in both studies are in favor of using L1 in their L2
classrooms, which also receives positive responses from students in both contexts.
14


Having the same interest in the topic of L1 use in EFL classrooms, Al-Nofaie
(2010), in his paper, finds out that the use of L1 is unavoidable. However, since
teachers are aware of the drawbacks of using too much mother tongue in the language
classroom, their L1 use mostly depends on their students’ specific needs. Particularly,
they are in favor of utilizing it to explain grammar points, teach new vocabulary and
deliver instructions for exam to students of low levels. However, they do not prefer
showing students the differences between the two languages, which opposes to the
suggestions of some earlier studies.

More recently, in order to explore teachers' attitudes towards using Arabic in the
primary English classrooms in Palestine, Salah (2012) realizes that his result is similar
to those of Schweers' (1999), Tang's (2002) and AL-Nofaie's (2010) which show that
the use of students’ mother tongue is unavoidable and teachers are in favor of
occasional use of L1 for particular reasons. Among them, “translating abstract words”
is the most common one (Salah, 2012, p. 424). On the other hand, the result also
reveals that excessive L1 use in L2 classroom will reduce students’ exposure to English
to learn the target language better, which supports the belief of some Monolingual
Approach proponents mentioned above. Regarding years of teaching experience as a
factor that might influence teachers’ L1 use in their English classes, it seems that
novice teachers use less L1 than those experienced ones. Besides, other factors such as
students’ proficiency levels, grades, teaching and learning materials, and the age of the
students, etc. are also considered affecting teachers’ practices.
1.2.2. Review of related studies in Vietnam
Since CLT approach has become more and more popular in Vietnam, the topic
around the use of L1 in EFL classrooms has been concerned by numerous Vietnamese
scholars for the last few years.
Conducting a study on “Use of Vietnamese in English Language Teaching in
Vietnam: Attitudes of Vietnamese University Teachers” with twelve teachers from
15


three universities in Ho Chi Minh City, Kieu (2010) finds out that although Vietnamese
is preferred in some EFL classroom situations such as: explaining grammar items,
clarifying vocabulary, and checking students’ comprehension, etc., its use is different
in each class basing on each specific classroom context. What is more, as emphasized
by most of the surveyed teachers, the amount of L1 use should be limited in order to
avoid its overuse because it could “deprive the learners of valuable input in the L2”
(Ellis, 1985). This finding appears to be in line with those of the related studies
worldwide reviewed in the previous part.

Carrying out a similar research on “attitudes toward L1 using in EFL
classrooms” but setting a different context in which both teachers and students at Ba Vi
high school, Hanoi are chosen as participants, Nguyen (2011) reveals that L1 use also
gains supports from most of the respondents in her study. This is because they find
Vietnamese effective in helping students understand what they are learning as well as
promoting a comfortable learning atmosphere in the classroom. Nevertheless, similar
to Kieu’s (2010), this study also suggests that the amount of Vietnamese and English
should be reasonably adjusted with a view to maximizing the students’ exposure to the
target language and minimizing the overuse of L1 in L2 classrooms. Particularly, as
justified by the participants, there are three main situations in which Vietnamese could
be employed, including clarifying difficult grammar structures, explaining vocabulary,
and making clear abstract ideas.
It is undeniable that these two studies’ results have a significant contribution to
the issue. However, the main subjects of both papers are teachers who have more than
three years of teaching experience. Meanwhile, there have not been any studies
focusing on novice teachers who are in the middle of their three-year-mentoring
program. This apparently offers a gap for the researcher to conduct a study in a more
comprehensive way with different participants – two-year-experience novice teachers

16