An investigation into teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding using l1 in teaching english at yen dung 1 high school, bac giang

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF
LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES



ĐÀO THỊ NGÂN

AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND
PRACTICES REGARDING USING L1 IN TEACHING ENGLISH AT
YEN DUNG 1 HIGH SCHOOL, BAC GIANG
Nghiên cứu về tín niệm và việc sử dụng tiếng mẹ đẻ của giáo viên trong
giảng dạy Tiếng Anh tại Trường THPT Yên Dũng 1, Bắc Giang

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111

HÀ NỘI – 2015


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF
LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES



ĐÀO THỊ NGÂN

AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND
PRACTICES REGARDING USING L1 IN TEACHING ENGLISH AT
YEN DUNG 1 HIGH SCHOOL, BAC GIANG

Nghiên cứu về tín niệm và việc sử dụng tiếng mẹ đẻ của giáo viên trong
giảng dạy Tiếng Anh tại Trường THPT Yên Dũng 1, Bắc Giang

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lê Văn Canh

HÀ NỘI – 2015


STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP
I, Dao Thi Ngan, hereby declare that this project is conducted by myself for the
purpose of qualifying for the Master‟s Degree in English language teaching
methodology. All others‟ works used in this study have been properly cited. The
study reported here has never been published elsewhere or for any other purposes.

ĐÀO THỊ NGÂN

HÀ NỘI – 2015

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank the teachers and administrative staff of the Post-Graduate
Study Faculty at the University of Languages and International Studies for
providing me with the opportunity to develop my knowledge of teaching English
methodology and better understand my own strengths and weaknesses. My special

thanks go to my supervisor for valuable advise and friendly support throughout the
course and the thesis. Lastly, a sincere thank-you to my family for their patience,
kindness and encouragement.

ii


ABSTRACT
Opinions concerning the use of the L1 in L2 learning have differed markedly
over the years. For much of the past century, it has generally been asserted by
theorists and methodologists that the L1 has a largely negative influence on L2
learning and that its use should therefore be kept to an absolute minimum in L2
teaching. However, in recent years this position has been called into question,
leading to the beginnings of a reassessment of previous views and assumptions.
The thesis reports on an exploratory study which was conducted to explore
the beliefs and classroom practices regarding the use of Vietnamese by a group of
seven teachers working in a high school in Vietnam. Drawing on the data obtained
from interviews and classroom observations, the findings show that teachers held
strong beliefs about the use of Vietnamese. They believed that the use of
Vietnamese helped their students whose English was limited to understand grammar
and vocabulary better. They also believed that an appropriate proportion of L1 use
was 50% of the class time. Observational data revealed that there were similarities
between their stated beliefs and practices despite few differences. The study
concludes that L1 has a role in L2 learning and it is unrealistic to ban L1 in L2
classroom and that more attention should be given to the training of teachers in
classroom language use as part of teacher professional programmes.

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Participant Profiles
Table 2.2. Frequency of L1 use per lesson

iv


TABLE OF CONTENT
STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP…………………………………………….
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT…………………………………………………….
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………..
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………
TABLE OF CONTENT………………………………………………………
PART A. INTRODUCTION
1.

Rationale of the study……………………………………………

2.

Aims and objectives of the study……………………………......

3.

Research questions…………………………………………

4.

Research methods…………………………………………

5.

Scope of the study……………………………………………....

6.

Significance of the study…………………………………………

7.

Structure of the thesis……………………………………………
PART B. THE DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1.

Definition of teacher beliefs………………………………

1.2.

Beliefs vs. Attitudes………………………………………

1.3.

Empirical studies on L2 teacher beliefs……………………

1.4.

The use of the L1…………………………………………

1.5.

Empirical studies on teacher L1 use………………………

1.6.

Functions of L1 in the L2 classrooms……………………

1.7.

Amount of teachers‟ L1 use in different contexts……

1.8.

Studies on teachers‟ beliefs about the L1 use……………

1.9.

Summary of the chapter……………………………………

CHAPTER II. THE STUDY
2.1.

The context of the study……………………………………

v


2.2.

Participants………………………………………

2.3.

Research methods and procedures………………

2.4.

Instrumentation……………………………………

2.4.1.

Interviews ……………………………………………

2.4.2.

Classroom observation………………………………

2.5.

Data analysis………………………………………

2.6.

Results……………………………………………

2.7.

Teachers‟ use of Vietnamese in their actual teach

2.8.

Discussion…………………………………………

2.9.

Summary of the chapter…………………………
PART C. CONCLUSION

1.

Summary of major findings……………………………………

2.

Concluding remarks………………………………

3.

Implications for teacher development…………………………

4.

Limitations………………………………………

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………..
APPENDIX A. THE INTERVIEW GUIDE …………………………...........
APPENDIX B. A SAMPLE THE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT …………...
APPENDIX C. A SAMPLE OF OBSERVATION DATA..…………………

vi


PART A. INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study
In describing the state of English language teaching (ELT) in developing
countries, Weddell offers the following sypnosis:
New English curriculum documents and teaching materials proliferate in
state education systems worldwide. English has become a compulsory
subject for ever more years of basic schooling. High stakes English tests are
increasingly important gate-keepers for entry to higher levels of education.
Although there has been massive human and financial investment in such
initiatives, outcomes to date have often been disappointing. Reports suggest
that there are relatively few state school classrooms anywhere in which most
learners are developing a useable knowledge of English.
(Weddell, 2011: 3)
What Weddell describes above is also true to Vietnam, where a new initiative
– the Foreign Language 2020 Project - has been under way as an attempt to improve
the students‟ ability to use English for communication. One of the methodological
issues that have been raised is the need to improve teachers‟ classroom language.
The students‟ first language (L1) has been one of the controversial issues in
the field of second language (L2) teaching. In the past many scholars , researchers
and methodologists in the field of second language acquisition proposed that
students learned their second language much in the same way that they learned their
first, and that L2 was best learned through massive amounts of exposure to the
language with limited time spent using L1 (Tang, 2002). However, in recent years,
focus has been shifting towards inclusion of L1 in the language classroom. Research
has shown that the occasional use of L1 by both students and teachers increases

1


both comprehension and learning of L2 (Cook, 2001; Tang, 2002; Wells, 1999). As
a result, several teaching methods and trends supporting the use of L1 as a helpful
teaching and learning tool have emerged and many researchers and authors stress
the value of using L1 and the positive role this plays in EFL teaching (Aurbach
1993; Tang 2002). Thus, many researchers and teachers have started to re-evaluate
the role of L1 in the EFL classroom and think of ways to best incorporate it into
EFL teaching.
In the literature, a body of empirical studies has been documented explaining
the reasons for teachers‟ and students‟ use of the L1. The results of these studies
have been positive. First, because they revealed teachers found the L1 practical
(Macaro, 2001) and, second, a consensus among academics has developed that the
L1 has a role in the classroom, as long as it is not overused and promotes effective
language learning (e.g. Cook, 2001; Hall & Cook, 2012; Turnball, 2012).
Despite this large positive development, empirical investigations into
teachers‟ L1 use arguably remain limited (Thompson, 2006). Most studies focus on
the L1 of the major global languages spoken by learners such as Madarin, Spanish,
French, and Japanese. There have been fewer published studies investigating
teachers‟ use of Vietnamese in teaching English in Vietnamese contexts while in the
classroom, from my personal observation, teachers did use Vietnamese quite
frequently.
Vietnamese teachers of English language, especially those who teach in high
schools, have been very little affected by the changes both in theory and practice in
the field. There are teachers entirely depending on the use of L1 or totally refusing
it. There are still teachers following the structural approach, and reform minded
teachers do not appear to be rapidly replacing them.
This motivates me to conduct this study. The study, stemming from the
experiences above, attempts to investigate the beliefs and practices regarding the

2


use of L1 in the teaching of English of a group of high school teachers working in a
particular high school in a mountainous area of Bac Giang province. It first reviews
the literature then gives the methodology and describes the subjects and then
concludes by commenting on the findings and giving further recommendations for
teacher education regarding classroom language.
2. Aims and objectives of the study
The overall aim of the study is to explore how high school teachers of
English use Vietnamese (L1) in teaching English (L2) to their students as well as the
underlying beliefs of their use of L1 in the classroom.
The above aim is specified into the following objectives:
1.

to uncover the high school teachers‟ beliefs about the use of

Vietnamese in teaching English to their students.
2.

to explore their actual use of Vietnamese in their classroom teaching.

3.

Research questions

In an attempt to achieve the above-stated aim and objectives, the study is
designed to seek answers to the following questions:
1.

What are the high school teachers‟ beliefs about the use of

Vietnamese in teaching English?
2.

To what extent are their beliefs similar to, and/or different from,

their actual teaching practices?
4. Research methods
As the purpose of the study is to explore teachers‟ beliefs and their actual
practices in the classroom regarding the use of Vietnamese in teaching English as a
school subject to their students within the context of one particular high school in
Bac Giang province, the study is exploratory in nature. Thus, two major methods

3


that were used to gather the data for the study are face-to-face interviews and
classroom observations. The data obtained were analysed with qualitative methods.
5. Scope of the study
The study limits itself to the exploration of the beliefs and practices of using
Vietnamese in teaching English by a group of EFL teachers working in one high
school. It is not intended to find out the factors that shape teachers‟ beliefs. Nor is it
intended to investigate students‟ attitudes towards teachers‟ use of Vietnamese in
English lessons. Since, the participants are from just one school, there is no
intention to generalize the findings.
6. Significance of the study
Insights into teachers‟ beliefs and practices regarding the use of Vietnamese
in teaching English first of all are helpful to my personal professional development.

By this I mean, through the exploration of the issue, I will challenge my own beliefs
and practice in using classroom language so that I can have a new way of looking at
classroom language. Second, the findings may provide useful information for
teacher educators about how to help in-service teachers to use classroom language
to support students‟ learning better.
7. Structure of the thesis
The thesis is composed of three parts following the required format of the
university. Part A is the Introduction where the rationale, the aims and the scope of
the study are presented. Part B – the Development – consists of two chapters.
Chapter I reviews the literature relevant to the topic of teachers‟ beliefs and
practices in using L1 to teach L2. In Chapter II, the most important chapter, the
whole study including the context of the study, the participants, the research
instruments and the findings as well as the discussion of the findings are presented.

4


Part C – the Conclusion – summarizes the major findings of the study. Then
drawing on these findings, I will suggest the way teachers‟ classroom language can
be improved and the feasibility of the „teach-English-through-English‟ policy in the
context of Vietnamese high schools.

5


PART B. THE DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews the literature relevant to this study. First, the definition
of the key terms used in the study such as teacher beliefs and L1 is presented. This
is followed by an extensive literature review on the use of L1 in L2 classrooms with

an emphasis on the recent emergence of the bilingual approach in both theory and
practice. Finally, major studies on teachers‟ beliefs about L1 use that are accessible
are reviewed to create a conceptual framework for the study.
1.1.

Definition of teacher beliefs
One of the most important and interesting questions which researchers

studying teaching behavior have sought to find out is why teachers teach the way
they do. The answer to this question has taken scholars and researchers to the study
of teacher beliefs. Up to now, there has been a large literature on the study of
teachers‟ beliefs both in education and in English Language Teaching (ELT). One
general point to emerge from this research agenda is that the study of teacher beliefs
is central to a better understanding of teachers‟ teaching practices. Beliefs influence
teachers‟ learning to teach (Nespor, 1987) and they influence teachers‟
implementation of curricula (Fang, 1996).
An extremely important and difficult issue that researchers on teacher beliefs
have to confront with is defining “beliefs”. As Pajares (1992: 307) claims “beliefs
should not be confused with knowledge”. Pajares (1992: 313) explains that beliefs
have been studied in different fields and therefore no specific definition has been
adopted. In the literature, various definitions of beliefs exists. Borg (2003) reviewed
L2 teacher belief studies which were carried out from the 1970s until the year 2001,
and listed the following terms:

6


-

Personal pedagogical systems (Borg,1998);

-

Pedagogical principles (Breen et. al., 2001);

-

Theories for practice (Burns, 1996);

-

Personal practical knowledge (Golombek, 1998);

-

Conceptions of practice (Freeman, 1993);

-

Pedagogical knowledge (Gatboton, 1999);

-

Theoretical beliefs (Johnson, 1992);

-

Maxims (Richards, 1996);

-

BAK (i.e., Beliefs, Assumptions, and pedagogical Knowledge)

(Woods, 1996)
Since the 2000s, the L2 teacher belief terminology has been regrouping under
more commonly accepted and used term. The term „belief‟ seems to be gaining
wider recognition among L2 researchers (e.g. Altan, 2012; Basturkmen et. al., 2004;
Borg, 2012; Underwood, 2012). Therefore, in this the term „teacher beliefs‟ is used.
According to M. Borg (2001: 186) a belief is
a proposition which may be consciously or unconsciously held, is evaluative
in that it is accepted as true by the individual, and is therefore imbued with
emotive commitment; further, it serves as a guide to thought and behavior.
It is because teachers‟ beliefs influence their teaching practices that I
decided to study not only how teachers of English in one high school used the
Vietnamese in the English lessons but also the beliefs behind their practices.
1.2.

Beliefs vs. Attitudes

Beliefs are considered to be salient and when combined with outcome
evaluations they lead to attitude, which, in turn, leads to intention to perform a
behavior (French et al, 2005: 1825). French and his associates (2005: 1825) further
explain that there are two components of attitudes: the affective component and the
instrumental component. They explain,
7


The affective component of attitude refers to emotions and drives
engendered by the prospect of performing a behavior. This is in contrast to
the instrumental component of attitude, which refers to a more cognitive

consideration of the extent to which performing a behavior would be
advantageous (e.g. Breckler & Wiggins, 1989) (French et al, 2005: 1825,
original emphasis).
Similarly, Petty and Caciopo (1981) make the following distinction between
attitude and belief constructs,
…the term attitude should be used to refer to a general and enduring positive
or negative feeling about some person, object or issue. … The term belief is
reserved for the information that a person has about other people, object and
issues. The information may be factual or it may be only one person‟s
opinion. Furthermore, the information may have positive, negative or no
evaluative implication for the target of the information (cited in Goodhue,
1986, p. 8)
It can be inferred from the above citation that beliefs are cognitive while
attitudes are more affective. Put another way, the distinction between beliefs and
attitudes is similar to the distinction between cognition and affect. Therefore, beliefs
are tacit and only inferred from actual behaviors. Borg (2006) cautions that in
researching teachers‟ beliefs, verbal commentaries “may reveal teachers‟ stated
beliefs and intentions, but, on their own, do not allow us to draw conclusions about
what teachers actually do. It is for this reason that interviews are often combined
with classroom observation” (p. 194).
1.3.

Empirical studies on L2 teacher beliefs

Johnson (2006: 236) asserts,

8


Many factors have advanced in the field‟s [L2 teacher education]

understanding of L2 teachers‟ work, but none is more significant than the
emergence of a substantial body of research now referred to as teacher
cognition [or teacher beliefs]. .. This research has helped capture the
complexities of who teachers are, what they know and believe, how they
learn to teach, and how they carry out their work in diverse contexts
throughout their careers.
The relationship between L2 teachers‟ beliefs and their classroom practice
have been one of the most investigated L2 teacher belief research inquiries. Nation
and Macalister (2010: 176) elaborate the influence of teachers‟ beliefs on their
classroom practices and reiterate the need to gain insights into this aspect of
language teaching. They maintain,
What teachers do in the classroom is to some extent going to be determined
by what they believe. The importance of examining the role that teacher
beliefs play in deciding what happens in the classroom has been
increasingly recognized in language education research.
There has also been much interest in ELT in how teachers‟ beliefs are
shaped. Richards and Lockhart (1996) suggest a number of factors: teachers‟
experiences as language learners, their experience of what works best, established
practice, personality factors, educational background and principles derived from
teaching approaches or methods.
1.4.

The use of the L1

The L1, or mother tongue, “is the language which a person acquires in early
years and which becomes his/her natural instrument of thought and communication
(Atkinson, 1987: 43). In the field of EFL, the use of the L1 has been an issue of
debate. Stern (1992: 279) described the role of the L1 in L2 teaching as “one of the
most long-standing controversies in the history of language pedagogy”. According
9

to Littlewood and Yu (2011), there is still a lack of agreement on whether the
students‟ L1 has a place in the classroom or, if it does, what that role is:
Positions range from insistence on total exclusion of the L1, towards varying
degrees of recognition that it may provide valuable support for learning,
either directly (e.g. as an element in a teaching technique or to explain a
difficult point) or indirectly (e.g. to build positive relationships or help
manage learning.
(Littlewood & Yu, 2011: 64)
Littlewood and Yu (2011: 64) also add, “For many decades, foreign language
teaching has been dominated by the principle that teachers should only use the
target language”, but this trend has changed in the last two decades. First language
has been largely regarded as a negative influence and L2 is seen as the optimal
medium for the classroom. Throughout the history of language teaching methods
(Richards & Rodgers, 2001), some have advocated the English-only policy in
English language teaching. Advocators of this policy believe that the learning of a
foreign language is similar to the natural process children follow in acquiring their
mother tongue. Hence, methodologists advise teachers to avoid or minimize the use
of L1. Examples of this view can be seen in the Direct Method, the Audio-Lingual
Method, and the Total Physical Response (Asher, 1988). In the 1970s,
communicative language teaching became the predominant approach, as a reaction
to the audio-lingual method‟s popularity in the 1960s and based on the beliefs that
communicative competence develops through students‟ active participation in
meaningful communicative contexts (Littlewood, 1981). The L1 continued to be
excluded in the Communicative Approach.
However, in the 1990s there was a shift in the pendulum and more importance
was once again attached to the mother tongue in the foreign language classroom. In
fact, the change in views regarding the issue of the use of L1 in the L2

10


classroom started following the publication of Phllipson‟s (1992) Linguistic
Imperialism. Phillipson‟s work has been particularly influential in critiquing various
tenets of the dominant ELT methodological principles, such as English being best
taught monolingually and by native speakers. This “monolingual fallacy”,
Phillipson argues (pp. 185-193), is rooted in the maintenance of colonial power and
is misguided and negative beliefs about bilingualism. In terms of classroom
practices, the imposition of an English-only approach or the Monolingual Approach
can therefore be considered as authoritarian and reflecting a supposition of
linguistic and cultural superiority. The Monolingual Approach has been criticized by
researchers, teachers, and learners, who hold that L1 use is beneficial in EFL classes
at more than one level. In other words, the use of the mother tongue is looked at as a
common feature in EFL, and is a natural act which seems to make positive
contribution to the learning process if used judiciously. Researchers who advocate
this approach (e.g. Atkinson, 1987); Harbord, 1992; Macaro, 2001; Auerbuch, 1993
and Cook, 2001) argue that L1 represents a powerful source that can be used to
enhance FL learning, but it should be used in a principled way.
Wells

(1998)

recommends

that

the

distinction,

recognition,

and

accommodation of the adult learning stage are essential in considering the exclusion
or inclusion of the L1 because:
Learning a foreign language in adulthood seems a completely different
affairs …literate adult learners approach the enterprise with a very different
set of potential strategies from those available to pre-linguistic infants. In
particular, there already have considerable knowledge about the world,
including linguistic interaction, and they also have available a language
through which they can objectify the target language as a system and
negotiate the relationships between forms and intended meanings and the
tasks in which they are used. However, the way in which these characteristics
of adult foreign language learning can best be managed has been a matter of

11


considerable dispute in the last half century, and my impression is that, until
recently, the use of the first language as a support for learning the second has
not always been as fully exploited as it might have been (Wells, 1998: 352).
However, the debate on the inclusion or exclusion of the L1 continued:
Many researchers and practitioners are hesitant or even adamantly opposed
to the use of the native language in the foreign language class. … This stance
maintains that students learn the target language „better‟ when completely
immersed and surrounded by it. Research dealing with sociocultural
approaches to second language acquisition provides a somewhat different
view, illustrating a number of vital roles for L1 in L2 learning situation. The

strategic L1 roles as scaffolding tool, L1 as a vehicle for establishing
intersubjectivity, and L1 as a psychological tool for regulation and task
orientation. (Schwarzer & Luke, 2001: 10-11)
Macaro ( 2001) argues that it is not only impractical to exclude the L1 from
the classroom, but that it is also likely to deprive learners of an important tool for
language learning. Similarly, Auerbuch (1993) not only acknowledges the positive
role of the mother tongue in the classroom, but also identifies the following uses of
it: language analysis, class management, presenting grammar rules, giving
instructions or prompts, explaining errors and checking for comprehension. Within
the same context, Harbord ( 1992) points out that many ELT teachers have tried to
create English-only classrooms, but have found that they have failed to get the
meaning across, leading to student incomprehension and resentment.
Auerbach (1993) argues that starting with the L1 provides a sense of security
and validates the learners‟ lived experiences, allowing them to express themselves.
The learner is then willing to experiment and take risks with English. Weschler
(1997) maintained that given the actual time needed to develop any real degree of

12


fluency, limited class time could be better spent on using the L1 as a means of
teaching L2 communication skills and strategies.
The efficiency argument for the use of L1 in teaching and learning L2 is
further supported by Cook (2001), who suggests L1 use by teachers is more
appropriate for task clarification and can lead to more effective learning. According
to his multicompetence theory, Cook (2002) argues that L2 learners are
multicompetent because of the compound state of a mind with two languages. In the
process of l2 learning, changes have been made in L2 learners with respect to their
l1 knowledge, L2 knowledge and their minds. The multicompetence theory has
argued for the positive involvement of the L1 in L2 learning, and the characteristics

of L2 learners are said to justify the reconsideration of the role of the L1. Cook
(2002, 2005) argues for learner rights in the use of L1 in L2 learning because of the
characteristics of L2 users who have two tongues in their minds.
In a provocative article, Auerbach (1993) gives a sociopolitical rationale for
the use of the L1 in ESL classrooms. She primarily addresses the situation of
immigrant Esl learners studying in the United States. Her conclusions, however, are
applicable to any immigrant second language learners in any metropole. In this
article, she states that “everyday classroom practices, far from being neutral and
natural, have ideological origins and consequences for relations of power both
inside and outside the classroom” (p. 29). She summarized her conclusion in the
following way: “Starting with the L1 provides a sense of security and validates the
learners‟ lived experiences, allowing them to express themselves. The learner is
then willing to experiment and take risks with English” (p. 29).
While teachers are in favour of minimal L1 use, in practice L1 is used more
widely than L2 teachers consider ideal for prompting L2 learning (Oguro, 2011).
Scott and de la Fuente (2008) highlight L1 use as a natural and spontaneous
cognitive strategy. In the same vein, Sampson (2012) claimed that prohibiting L1
use in language classrooms might be detrimental to L2 development. Ma (2009)
13


considers L1 use as a scaffolding instrument for L2 learners which might result in
more effective L2 output.
In a similar vein of research, code-switching, defined as systematic use of L1
within a conversation or utterance, is treated as a competence, even an advanced
one, which permits the bilingual speakers to negotiate more fluently (Arnfast &
Jorgensen, 2003). More precisely, code-switching requires competence in all
languages involved, and it is simplistic to consider it as simple mixture of two
languages (Wei, 2011). Interestingly enough, code-switching is observed wherever
bilingual speakers talk to each other (Cook, 2008). Therefore, selective and

principled code-switching in L2 learning classroom contexts should be seen as a
reflection of bilingual and multilingual speakers‟ practices in everyday life
(Turnbull & Dailey-O‟Cain, 2009). So, as it seems to be the case, L2 teachers,
instead of considering code-switching as a sign of deficiency in the L2, should
acknowledge bilingual competencies and the strategies bilingual learners use.
Similarly, it is also observed that code-switching might serve effective social and
cognitive functions (Carless, 2008).
Some EFL materials that have recently been published (e.g. the Headway
series (Soars & Soars 1986 onwards)) include translation exercises. The Council of
Europe (2001: 99) suggested exercises which include the L1. However, the debate
on the incorporation of the L1 continues. Widdowson (2003: 154) raises a very
important question, “The very subject we teach is, by definition, bilingual. How
then can you teach a bilingual subject by means of a monolingual pedagogy”. In
spite of this logical question, “the belief that use of the learner‟s native language
interferes with the learning of English and hampers the process of second language
development has now passed into the realms of pedagogical common sense and
professional orthodoxy” (Canagarajah, 1999: 126).

14


Despite the ongoing theoretical debate, bilingual teachers, in their
classrooms, still resort to L1 to teach the L2. This fact motivates further research on
teachers‟ underlying beliefs in such a practice.
1.5.

Empirical studies on teacher L1 use

Despite the debates over the role of L1, empirical studies have suggested that
it is likely to be unavoidable in L2 classes, especially when teachers share the L1

with their students. Although the monolingual approach enjoys popularity and
dominance in theories of language education (Richards & Rodgers, 2001), it seems
to be only partially implemented in L2 teaching practice. Both teachers and students
may inevitably resort to L1 and many researchers have begun to examine how
teachers use L2 in teaching L2 from different perspectives (Turnbull & Arnett,
2002).
Studies about how much teachers use L1 in the classroom have generated
varied results. Macaro (2001), examined six student teachers in England, found a
low percentage of L1 use in their teaching, ranging from 0% to 15.2%. The four
teachers in the study by Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002) also employed a low
percentage of L1 in their teaching, with a cross-teacher average of 8.8%. Other
researchers, however, reported considerable variations among individual teachers in
their studies. For example, Duff and Polio (1990) illustrated that a group of 13
teachers, who taught different languages to English-speaking students in an
American university, differed dramatically in their use of English, ranging from 0%
to 90%. Liu, Baek and Han (2004) investigated 13 Korean teachers of English in
high schools and found their use of Korean ranged from 10% to 90% of class time.
Kim and Elder (2005) examined seven teachers who taught foreign languages in
New Zealand and showed that the proportion of target language use among these
teachers varied from 23% to 88%, indicating a high level of variation in the use of
student L1. The diversity concerning the quantification of teachers‟ use of L1 may
result from the different contexts and different approaches involved in these studies.
15


While it is impossible to generalize, it seems reasonable to conclude that teachers
can hardly avoid the use of L1 when they shared it with their students, no matter in
what contexts they teach.
Lameta-Tufuga (1994) examined the effects of having learners discuss a task
in their first language before they had to carry it out in writing in the second

language. That is, they had they had the opportunity to fully understand the content
of the task through the medium of their first language, before they performed the
written task in English. The first language discussion of the task had some
interesting features. Firstly, the learners were all very actively involved in coming to
grips with the ideas. Secondly, the first language discussion included quite a lot of
the second language vocabulary which would be used in the later task. Thus the
discussion not only helped learners to get on top of the content, but it also helped
them gain control of relevant L2 vocabulary in a very supportive L1 context. Knight
(1996) also made a similar finding. As a result, the learners who did the preparatory
L1 discussion in groups did much better on the L2 written task than other learners
who did preparatory L2 discussion even though that discussion was in the same
language as the subsequent written task. There is thus a useful role for the L1 in
helping learners gain the knowledge needed to reach a higher level of L2
performance. Whenever a teacher feels that a meaning based L2 task might be
beyond the capabilities of the learners, a small amount of L1 discussion can help
overcome some of the obstacles.
Very recently, Copland and Neoklous (2010) reported their study, which
uncovers the complexities and contradictions inherent in making decisions about L1
use in the English language classroom. Through an analysis of data from classrooms
in a Cypriot context and from interviews with Cypriot teachers, the authors
identified a number of functions for L1 use as well as the teachers‟ rationales for
using L1 for different functions. Teachers‟ decision making, it emerges, is often
complex, based on either what they perceive as their students‟ affective needs or on

16


their cognitive processes. What is more, teachers often under-report or differently
report their use of L1 in the classroom, contradicting beliefs by their actions. The
construct of guilt is offered to explain these complexities and contradictions in the

teachers‟ use of L1 in this study. The authors concluded that teachers should be
supported in finding local solutions to local teaching problems, so that they better
understand and exploit the resources available to them.
McMillan and Rivers (2011) surveyed 29 native-English speaker teachers at
a Japanese university where the exclusive use of the target language (English) is
promoted as a key feature of the optimal foreign language learning environment.
Results indicated that, contrary to the official policy, many teachers believed that
selective use of the students‟ L1, by the teachers or by the students, could enhance
L2 learning in various ways within a communicative framework. The authors
argued that teachers and students themselves are best placed to determined, based
on their immediate context of the classroom, what constitutes optimal use of the
target language and the L1.
1.6.

Functions of L1 in the L2 classrooms

To date, Second Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers have investigated L1
use in L2 learning from different perspectives, in particular the amount of L1 use
(e.g. de la Campa & Nassaji, 2009), functions of L1 in L2 learning (e.g. Wilkerson,
2008), and language teachers‟ and learners‟ perceptions about L1 use in L2
classroom contexts. Apart from quantitative methods, many studies adopt functional
approaches to analyze the role of teacher L1 use. Atkinson (1987) is seen one of the
first supporters of L1 use in L2 classrooms. He criticizes the gap in the ELT
literature on the beneficial use of L1 and defines a suggested use of L1 in the EFL
classroom. According to his suggestions, L1 can be used for the following
pedagogical functions in the L2 classroom:
1.

Eliciting language : How do you say „X‟ in English?

17