Using english as the medium of instruction in english classes for the first year non english majored students – a case study at a university

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN THỊ PHƯƠNG THẢO

USING ENGLISH AS THE MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION
IN ENGLISH CLASSES FOR THE FIRST-YEAR NON-ENGLISH
MAJORED STUDENTS – A CASE STUDY AT A UNIVERSITY
(Sử dụng tiếng Anh làm phương tiện ngôn ngữ dạy học trong lớp tiếng Anh
cho sinh viên không chuyên Anh năm thứ nhất –
Nghiên cứu trường hợp tại một trường Đại học)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Major: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 8140231.01

HANOI - 2018


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN THỊ PHƯƠNG THẢO

USING ENGLISH AS THE MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION
IN ENGLISH CLASSES FOR THE FIRST-YEAR NON-ENGLISH
MAJORED STUDENTS – A CASE STUDY AT A UNIVERSITY

(Sử dụng tiếng Anh làm phương tiện ngôn ngữ dạy học trong lớp tiếng Anh
cho sinh viên không chuyên Anh năm thứ nhất –
Nghiên cứu trường hợp tại một trường Đại học)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Major: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 8140231.01
Supervisor: Dr. Nguyễn Thị Mai Hương

Nguyễn Thị Mai Hương

HANOI - 2018


STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY
I hereby state that the Master’s thesis entitled “Using English as the medium of
instruction in English classes for the first-year non-English majored students – A
case study at a university” was carried out by me for the degree of Master of English
Teaching Methodology under the guidance and supervision of Dr. Nguyễn Thị Mai
Hương. Where I have quoted from the work of others, the sources are always given.
With the exception of such quotations, this thesis is entirely on my own work. I confirm
that the work has not be submitted for any other degree or professional qualification.
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

Nguyễn Thị Phương
Thảo
Hanoi, …………………….20….

i


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
On the completion of this paper, I wish to express my gratitude to my teachers,
teacher- and student-participants, friends and family.
First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratefulness to my supervisor.
Her intellectual consultancy, valuable comments and spiritual encouragement were
an indispensable factor in the fulfillment of this research.
I was also obliged to the teachers at the Faculty of Post-graduate Studies of
University of Languages and International studies for their precious lessons. They
provided me with understandings and skills relating to English language teaching,
which supported much for the completion of this study particularly and my career
generally.
Furthermore, I sincerely appreciate the cooperation of the teacher- and
student-participants. I would like to thank Teacher A and Teacher B for their
willingness to let me observe their EFL classes and enthusiastic participation in my
interviews. I am also thankful to 93 students of the two A2 classes for agreeing to
participate in the survey. They are the ones who directly influenced the results of this
study.
Last but not least, I am also indebted to my beloved family, who has
constantly supported me since I started participating in the Master programme, and
my friends, who have always encouraged me and gave me valuable suggestions.

ii


ABSTRACT
In the context of Vietnam, Vietnamese is still commonly utilized in English

teaching while the use of English is encouraged. With the deep concerns about this
situation, the researcher carried out study titled “Using English as the medium of
instruction in English classes for the first-year non-English majored students: A
case study at a university”. The main purpose of this research was to find out the
teachers’ and students’ perceptions of using English as the medium of instruction, as
well as to look for possible factors hindering the use of English to teach English. The
participants were 93 first-year non-English majored students from a university and
their English teachers. The methods adopted were both quantitative and qualitative
approaches. Questionnaires, interviews and observations were employed to
triangulate the information from various aspects, hence ensure the validity and the
reliability of the research. The results showed that teachers and students were aware
of the necessity of using English in EFL classes, however, in fact, teachers used both
English and Vietnamese. The combination of two languages was caused due to
various hindering factors relating mainly to both teachers and students. Basing on
these major findings, a number of suggestions for better use of English as medium of
instruction in EFL classes were indicated. Therefore, the paper would be a good
reference for researchers, teachers and students to have a closer look on the issue as
well as to improve their performances in EFL classes.
Key words: medium of instruction, EFL classes, non-English majored students

iii


EFL
L1/ L2
CLT
MOI
T
Ss

Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4

Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.5
iv


TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART A: INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1
1. Statement of the problem and rationale of the study................................................ 1
2. Aims and research questions............................................................................................. 3
3. Significance of the study..................................................................................................... 3
5. Methods of the study............................................................................................................ 4
6. Organization of the thesis................................................................................................... 5
PART B: DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................... 6
1.1. Second Language Acquisition........................................................................................ 6
1.1.1. The Input Hypothesis................................................................................................... 6

1.1.2. The Output Hypothesis................................................................................................ 7
1.1.3. The Interaction Hypothesis......................................................................................... 8
1.2. Medium of instruction...................................................................................................... 8
1.2.1. Definition........................................................................................................................ 8
1.2.2. Different viewpoints on medium of instruction in EFL classes......................... 9
1.2.3. Classification of teacher’s language in class........................................................ 12
1.2.4. Using English as medium of instruction effectively.......................................... 13
1.2.5. Factors affecting the use of English as the medium of instruction.................17
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY......................................................................................... 19
2.1. Design of the study.......................................................................................................... 19
2.1.1. Case study.................................................................................................................... 19
2.1.2. Mixed method............................................................................................................. 19
2.2. Participants........................................................................................................................ 20
2.2.1. Sampling method........................................................................................................ 20
2.2.2. Student-participants................................................................................................... 21
2.2.3. Teacher-participants................................................................................................... 22
2.3. Data collection instruments.......................................................................................... 22
2.3.1. Questionnaire............................................................................................................... 22
2.3.2. Semi-structured interview........................................................................................ 25
2.3.3. Observation.................................................................................................................. 27
v


2.4. Data collection procedure............................................................................................. 28
2.5. Data analysis methods.................................................................................................... 29
2.5.1. Quantitative Analysis Strategy................................................................................ 30
2.5.2. Qualitative Analysis Strategy.................................................................................. 30
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS................................................................ 32
3.1. The perceptions of teachers and students of using English as medium of
instruction in English classes............................................................................................... 32

3.1.1. Results from questionnaire....................................................................................... 32
3.1.2. Results from interview.............................................................................................. 37
3.1.3. Results from observation.......................................................................................... 39
3.1.4. Discussion.................................................................................................................... 41
3.2. Factors hindering the use of English as medium of instruction in English
classes for the first-year non-English majored students............................................. 44
3.2.1. Results from questionnaire....................................................................................... 44
3.2.2. Results from interview.............................................................................................. 46
3.2.3. Results from observation.......................................................................................... 48
3.2.4. Discussion.................................................................................................................... 52
3.3. Implications and suggestions....................................................................................... 56
3.3.1. Controlling teacher talk time................................................................................... 56
3.3.2. Maximizing English teacher talk and focusing on grading the language .. 57
3.3.3. Improving students’ autonomy and motivation................................................... 58
PART C: CONCLUSION......................................................................................................... 60
1. Summary of findings.......................................................................................................... 60
2. Limitations............................................................................................................................ 61
3. Suggestions for further research.................................................................................... 62
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................. 63
APPENDICES................................................................................................................................. I
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE........................................................................................ I
APPENDIX B: GUIDED QUESTIONS FOR INTERVIEW........................................ V
APPENDIX C: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION CHECKLIST.............................. VII

vi


PART A: INTRODUCTION
In this part, some brief information about the paper is provided. Five main
points presented are (1) statement of the problem and rationale of the study, (2) aims

and objectives of the study, (3) significance of the study, (4) scope of the study, (5)
method of the study and (6) organization of the thesis.
1. Statement of the problem and rationale of the study
In 1986, Vietnam adopted a socialist-oriented market economy under the State
management. Since then, the economics relations between Vietnam and other
countries in the region and in the world have rapidly expanded, which was officially
marked with the participation of Vietnam in Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) in 1995 and the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2007. As a result of
this international integration, English is required as a means of communication, and
the importance of English teaching and learning in Vietnam has rapidly grown and
expanded. Since the early 1990s, due to the acknowledgement that communication is
the key in language use, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has quickly
become popular in Vietnam (Kieu, 2012). In accordance with the popularity of CLT in
the country, the use of English in English teaching is widely supported.
The issue of encouraging EFL teachers to use target language in classrooms is
not brand new but has been raised for a long time by different researchers. For Ellis
and Wells (1980), if learners do not have opportunities to expose to the target
language, they cannot acquire it. The reason is that acquiring a target language is
similar to the first language acquisition, which is a slow and laborious process. Knop
(1995) also shares the same viewpoint about using English to teach English.
According to him, for EFL learners, it is very important to experience real
communicative environments in which they will learn how to express their own
opinions and viewpoints, and to develop their oral fluency and accuracy. He
considers travelling abroad and immersion experiences two of many factors greatly
affect the language acquisition process. In fact, travelling or living abroad seems to

1


be impossible for almost students, and foreign language classrooms become the main

environment in which students learn to communicate in the language.
In spite of the need for oral communication skills and the requirement for CLT
in Vietnam, most teachers continue to apply grammar-translation methods in English
classes, in which the emphasis still remains on grammar rather than on
communicative competence (Le, 2011), and the use of Vietnamese in the process of
teaching is still common. These have led to a controversial opinion among
Vietnamese teachers, whether English or Vietnamese should be used as medium of
instruction in EFL classes.
There have been prior research on using English as the medium of instruction
in EFL classes. “The effectiveness of using English as the sole medium of instruction
in English classes: student responses and improved English proficiency” of Wong
(2009) and “English Only’ Language Instruction to Japanese University Students in
Low-Level Speaking & Listening Classes” of Lee (2013) are typical ones. It was
revealed that students had great interest in English as the medium of instruction.
Moreover, thanks to the use of English as the sole medium of instruction, their
English proficiency had been improved. Unlike these prior research, which explored
the issue of using English as medium of instruction in EFL classes basing on
students’ viewpoint, this study investigated both teachers’ and students’ perceptions.
In Vietnam, a considerable number of previous research have been conducted on the
issue of instruction language in English classes, such as Do (2010) and Phung (2010).
Nevertheless, they mostly evaluated the use of mother tongue, Vietnamese. In this
study, the use of target language – English – to teach English, was investigated.
Particularly, this study provides an insight into the English teaching and
learning practices at a university which is located in a small rural town in Vietnam.
The geographical location was supposed to prevent its students from being exposed
to real English commutative environments, and EFL classes were considered playing
a vital role in teaching and learning English successfully. Additionally,
2

there has not had any research studying the use of English to teach English at this
university. Last but not least, in the case of the first-year non-English majored
students, who just entered university and many of whom had relatively low
proficiency in English, the researcher wondered whether English instructions work or
put too much pressure on them. Those reasons encouraged the researcher to conduct a
research to find out the situation of applying English as the medium of instruction to
teach English for the first-year non-English majored students at a university in
Vietnam.
2. Aims and research questions
The proposed research aims to find out the teachers’ and students’ perceptions
of using English as the medium of instruction in EFL classes. It also looks for
possible factors hindering the process of using English to teach and learn English.
Basing on such findings, some implications to apply English as the medium of
instruction effectively were suggested.
To achieve these aims, the current research answers the following questions:
(1) What are the students’ and teachers’ perceptions of using English as the

medium of instruction in EFL classes?
(2) What factors hinder the use of English as the medium of instruction in EFL

classes for the first year non-English majored students?
The results of this study will hopefully contribute to the insights into effective
approaches of using instruction language, especially English instruction, when
teaching first year non-English majored students. As a result, the first-year nonEnglish majored students at the investigated university in particular and other EFL
learners in general might have a better environment to learn and practice English.
3. Significance of the study
With this study, the researcher expected to gain insights into students’ and
teachers’ perceptions of using English as medium of instruction in English classes for
the first-year non-English majored students. At the same time, the major factors
3

that hindered the procedure of using English to teach English were also addressed.
From that, some suggestions for improvement were also indicated. Once completed,
the research would serve as references for EFL teachers and learners who wish to
improve the use of English as medium of instruction in English classes. The findings
might also be a primary resource for further research on related issues.
4. Scope of the study
Medium of instruction might be understood in various ways. It could refer to
Content and Language Integrated Learning, teaching English as a foreign language
through English, English for Specific Purposes, or even English for Academic
Purposes. Moreover, the term medium of instruction covers the language choice of
either mother tongue or second language. To be able to have in-depth understanding
of the research problem, this research focused on only second language used by
teachers in language class, which means English medium of instruction used by
teachers to teach English as a foreign language.
Moreover, the participants of the study were restricted to the first-year nonEnglish majored students at a certain university in Vietnam and the teachers who
were in charge of teaching English for them. The first-year students were required to
make acquaintance with the university environment, particularly the language
curriculum which required them to do all of the four linguistic skills – listening,
speaking, reading, and writing. The use of English as medium of instruction to teach
them was expected to support their learning but might met a number of hindering
factors. It was also worth emphasizing that participants of the study were 93 first-year
non-English majored students. This number was hopefully well-represented because
it counted for more than two fifths of the population.
5. Methods of the study
The research was designed as a case study, which provided an insight into a
particular issue – the use of English as the medium of instruction in EFL classes, as
well as gained a deeper understanding of the issue applied on particular subjects – the
first-year non-English majored students at a university in Vietnam. In this case

4


study, the researcher adopted both quantitative and qualitative approaches. As
quantitative procedures required instrument-based questions, survey design was used.
On the other hand, as qualitative procedures involved open-ended questions,
interview and observation design were utilized. Therefore, the study is a mixed
design with the application of three types of data collection methods, observation of
language classroom, questionnaire and interview.
6. Organization of the thesis
The results are presented into a thesis and overall conclude three main parts.
Part A: Introduction: deals with the rationale, aims, significance, scope, and
structure of the research.
Part B: Development: consists of three chapters.
Chapter 1: Literature Review: provides the definitions of key concepts and the
theoretical framework which creates the base of the research.
Chapter 2: Methodology: describes the selection of subjects, research
instruments, data collection and data analysis procedure.
Chapter 3: Results and discussions: presents, analyzes and discusses the
findings obtained from the data collection procedure.
Part C: Conclusion: summarizes the main points discussed in the research,
briefly mentions some limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies.

5


PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter summarizes the theoretical framework which described the most
important issues in the theories relating to the research. It consists of two main

sections. The first section presents general content of second language acquisition,
which explains much for the choice of instructional language in EFL classes. The
second one focused on the direct issue of this research – medium of instruction,
which are different viewpoints on using medium of instruction, classification of
teacher’s language in classroom, how to use medium of instruction effectively, and
some factors affecting the use of English as medium of instruction.
1.1. Second Language Acquisition
Krashen (1985) defined Second Language Acquisition as the process by which
an L2 student learns the language. To be more specific, the subject of Second
Language Acquisition theories is “the developing knowledge and use of a language
by children and adults who already know at least one other language” (Spada &
Lightbown, cited in Liu, 2015). It is obvious that the application of English as the
medium of instruction in EFL classes has a close relation with the theories of Second
Language Acquisition. The three most typical ones are the Input Hypothesis, the
Output Hypothesis and the Interaction Hypothesis.
1.1.1. The Input Hypothesis
One of the most relevant Second Language Acquisition theories to the use of
English as medium of instruction in EFL classes is Krashen’s Comprehensible Input
hypothesis. According to Krashen (1985), there are two modes of L2 development,
subconscious language acquisition and conscious language learning. He states that
learners improve their language ability not by learning but by acquiring language,
which means generally not consciously aware of the rules but have a feel for the
correctness. For Krashen, input plays a critical role in language development because
humans acquire language in only one way – by understanding messages, or

6


by receiving comprehensible input. It is explained in the structure “i+1”, in which
learner’s current linguistic level is “i”, and “1” stands for the items learners intend to

learn. Acquisition occurs, which means learners move from “i” - their current level,
to “i+1” - the next level provided that they understand language contained in “i+1”
with the help of context, knowledge of the world, and previous acquired linguistic
competence. Long (1983) also shares the same viewpoint with Krashen. He firmly
confirms three arguments to support for the important role of comprehensible input,
which are:
(1) Access to comprehensible input is a characteristic of all cases of

successful acquisition.
(2) Greater quantities of comprehensible input seem to result in better

acquisition.
(3) Lack of access to comprehensible input results in little or no acquisition.

In other words, the use of L2 should be maximized in the classroom; however,
this L2 input must be comprehensible, which means not too easy and not too difficult
for the learners.
1.1.2. The Output Hypothesis
The Input Hypothesis has been criticized for the argument that input may play
a vital role but it is not a sufficient condition for second language acquisition. This
argument is raised by Swain (1985). In Swain’s Output Hypothesis, she emphasizes
the importance of output, which is the language produced by students, in second
language acquisition. Being pushed to produce language provides learners with the
opportunity to test their hypothesis about the language. It is possible for them to try
out means of expression, even modify the output, and then see if it works. After that,
when feedback is given, they may notice their problems or gaps in the target
language. This awareness could encourage the learners to fill in their holes of
language skills, correct their errors, and develop their target language level. As can be
seen that during this procedure, feedback has a critical function. Swain believes that
learners can improve the accuracy of output if they receive proper

7


feedback from their teachers. In short, for the Output Hypothesis, although teacher’s
language is important during the process of language learning, teachers should also
manage to push their students to produce output, provide them with opportunities to
practice the target language and then give them feedback.
1.1.3. The Interaction Hypothesis
Long (1996) proposes his Interaction Hypothesis as an extension of Krashen’s
Input Hypothesis. Both researchers emphasize comprehensible target language input,
however, the major difference is that Krashen focuses on one-way input while Long
acknowledges the importance of two-way communication in target language. Long
(1996) states that when a language learner interacts with a native speaker or another
non-native speaker of a higher level, a naturalistic SLA environment is created.
Through input and interaction, language learners have opportunities to notice
differences between their own formulations of target language and the language of
their partners, and then become aware of gaps in their target language knowledge.
Moreover, they also learn from negotiation of meaning in which the linguistic input
they receive is modified during the conversation and they are pushed to modify their
output accordingly. As can be seen that conversation is not only a medium of practice,
but also the means by which learning takes place. According to Xiao-yan (2006),
classroom interaction is mainly happened with the model of teachers’ initiate –
students’ respond – teachers’ feedback, which means that teachers often initiate
interaction by asking questions and then guide students to participate in negotiation of
meaning during the conversation.
1.2. Medium of instruction
1.2.1. Definition
British Council (1998) defines that medium of instruction is the language used
by the teacher to teach a language or an educational content. It may or may not be the
official language and the issue of which language should be used is controversial. In

case of teaching a language, the use of target language increases
8


the opportunities the learners expose to it and communicate in it, and therefore, to
develop their control of it.
According to Dearden (2014), English medium of instruction is considered as
the use of English language to teach academic subjects in countries where the first
language of the majority of the population is not English. From the language teaching
literature, he asserts that the use of English instructions brings learners benefits to
acquire the second language; however, there exists limitations in some cases.
As can be seen that these definitions have similar points. The term “medium of
instruction” shares certain features with “teacher talk”, which is defined in Longman
dictionary of Language teaching and applied language (2002) as the variety of
language used by teachers when they are in the process of teaching. Besides, it should
be noted medium of instruction is a pedagogic discourse which is often modified and
has a well-defined structure (Coulhard, 1977, cited in Susana, 2002).
Dearden (2014) also adds that English medium of instruction is a new and
non-fixed concept that is used in some countries and not in others. It can be confused
with many other terms like CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), EFL
(teaching English as a Foreign Language through English), ESP (English for Specific
Purposes) and EAP (English for Academic Purposes). Due to the limit of this current
study, English medium of instruction is understood as the English language which
teacher uses in EFL classes to serve pedagogic purposes (Wong, 2009; Lee, 2013).
1.2.2. Different viewpoints on medium of instruction in EFL classes
There are different viewpoints on which medium of instruction should be
utilized in EFL classes. The debate over whether EFL classroom should include or
exclude students’ native language has been a contentious issue for a long time. Both
the ones who approve using mother tongue (L1) and the others who support using

9


target language (L2) as medium of instruction have their own reasons and
explanation.
1.2.2.1. Using first language as medium of instruction
The approach of using first language as medium of instruction in EFL classes
can be traced back to the idea of the early linguistic and scientific theorist Sweet
(p.193, 1964) that language instruction must “begin with a knowledge of one’s own
language” and “the first preparation for the study of a foreign language is the
acquisition of a thorough knowledge of the peculiarities of one’s own language”.
Palmer (1956) also sees the potential of using native language in learning another
language. He considers the use of L1 as harmless ad in many cases positively
potential. Since then, a number of researchers has supported for the use of first
language (L1) in foreign language class due to its different advantages, such as multifunctions, time-saving, confusing-lowering and relationship-facilitating.
A number of studies have documented the important functions of L1
instruction. In a foreign language class, L1 can be used to explain grammar, explain
activities and give out background information (Mitchell, cited in Miles, 2004), elicit
language, check comprehension and give instructions (Atkinson, cited in Miles,
2004).
Particularly, Harbord (1992) emphasizes that the use of L1 can help teachers
save time. Skinner (cited in Turnbull & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009) supports for this
argument by explaining that some L1 can facilitate connections between the target
language and prior knowledge and ideas already developed in L1. Therefore, the use
of L1 is especially necessary in teaching and learning contexts where the cognitive
load of many tasks is heavy and students’ target language skills are limited.
Last but not least, lowering students’ confusion, facilitating teacher and
student relationship (Harbord, 1992) and helping learners cooperating with each other
(Atkinson, cited in Miles, 2004) are also argued. It is due to the fact that L1 is
familiar with students and taking part in a classroom with L1 gives them a sense of

10


security, allow them to express themselves in ways they may not in L2-only setting,
experience higher levels of motivation for learning L2, and develop a greater sense of
comfort participating in pair, group as well as whole-class activities.
1.2.2.2. Using second language as medium of instruction
During the time, various researchers have supported for using target language
as medium of instruction in foreign language classes, which is generally called using
English as the medium of instruction in EFL classroom due to the limitation of the
current study. To explain for this approach, many reasons such as enriching the input,
creating favorable environment for the output, and increasing students’ motivation
have been raised.
First of all, the use of English as the medium of instruction helps enrich the
input. In language learning, input is defined as the language data which learners are
exposed to. It plays a vital role in forming language proficiency because language
learning is a slow and laborious process, the more exposure the learners receive, the
more and the faster they will learn (Ellis & Wells, 1980). Thanks to the use of English
medium of instruction, “the academic dimension of language becomes part of the
students’ language learning experience”. In other words, the use of English medium
of instruction in EFL classes should be maximized.
Moreover, using English as the medium of instruction in EFL classes provides
learners with a favorable environment to make output. Output is the language
produced by learners, a necessary requirement for successful language learning. In
the classroom, if teacher uses the target language, there will be a lot of situations
offering students chances not only to hear but also to use phrases that are useful in the
real world, teachers’ L2 encourages students’ L2 and language in the classroom will
come to “resemble ordinary academic interaction more and more” (Hughes, 2007,
p.32), and “the communicative potential is closer to real interaction than is often
assumed” (Hughes, 1981, p.6). As a result, English medium of instruction usage

allows the meaningful situational use of language.

11


Last but not least, with the use of English medium of instruction in EFL
classes, students’ motivation can increase. MacDonald (cited in Turnbull & DaileyO’Cain, 2009) supports for this argument by explaining that students can see how
knowledge of the second language will be immediately useful to them. Similarly, as
said by Varshney (cited in Jones, 2010, p.9), without continuous target language
input, students tend to lose confidence in using that language, which leads to “lose
interest in or are discouraged from participating in future second language
endeavors”.
To conclude, applying English as the medium of instruction benefits the
second language acquisition of learners and many researchers agree to maximize it in
EFL classes. Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney (2008) even confirms that L2 should be used
in all instructions to eliminate teachers’ overuse of L1 and students’ dependence on
L1.
1.2.3. Classification of teacher’s language in class
Apart from the categorization basing on the language position (first, second, or
foreign language), teacher’s language in class has also been classified in another way
following the standard of language function or the contexts in which language is
used. This categorization has been accepted and documented by a range of
researchers.
Evans (2000) lists out a wide variation of the teacher’s language use for
purposes: teaching the whole class, giving instructions to the students, answering
students’ questions in front of the whole class, managing the classroom, discussing
ideas with the whole class, and talking to individual students about their work. This
division seems to be unequal, managing classroom is general while the other
functions are specific.
According to Kaneko (1992, cited in Zulfah, Rasyid, Rahman & Rahman,

2015), teacher’s language use is divided into three categories basing on its functions:
language used for core goals, framework goals and social goals.

12


Firstly, language used for core goals means being used for explicit pedagogic
purpose of the lesson. It is similar to the instructional talk defined by Zulfah, Rasyid,
Rahman & Rahman (2015), the teacher’s language relates to transfer of teaching
materials like giving lecture, giving explanation, giving correction, asking and
answering question. Weddel (2008) adds more with giving instruction, making
transition between activities, giving feedback after a task and checking students’
understanding.
Besides, language used for framework goals is the one which support for
organization requirements in classroom. Zulfah, Rasyid, Rahman & Rahman (2015)
call this category of teacher’s language with another name, management talk.
According to them, this type of language relates to control and discipline in the
classroom. Checking attendance, giving announcement and dismissing the class are
mentioned as typical examples.
Thirdly, language used for social goals can be understood as the language
teacher uses for private information such as greetings, personal experience talk
(Kaneko (1992, cited in Zulfah, Rasyid, Rahman & Rahman, 2015), warm-up chat
(Weddel, 2008), giving advice, making humor (Zulfah, Rasyid, Rahman & Rahman,
2015). As evaluated by these researchers, this classification has little relation to the
pedagogic purpose of the lesson, therefore, it would be out of the research problem of
this study.
In short, this study would investigate the English language which teacher uses
in EFL classes for core goals – instructional talk, and framework goals – management
talk, for example checking attendance, giving lecture, giving instruction, giving
correction, giving feedback, giving explanation, giving announcement, asking and

answering question, and dismissing the class.
1.2.4. Using English as medium of instruction effectively
Using English as the medium of instruction in EFL classes provides many
advantages for the teaching and learning process. However, it is not easy to apply
English medium of instruction to teach first-year non-English majored students
13


because there may exist different hindering factors. To be successful in the process,
teachers should be well aware of how much they should talk, how the language
should be, as well as equip themselves necessary techniques.
1.2.4.1. Teacher talk time
The amount of teacher talks, which is called teacher talk time, has
considerable influences on learners’ L2 acquisition. Darn (2008) lists out various bad
effects caused by the over-use of teacher talk such as limiting the amount of student
talk time, leading to students’ loss of concentration and enthusiasm, and restricting
student autonomy. This issue has been mentioned by many other former researchers.
It is asserted by Xiao-Yan (2006) that if the classroom is dominated by teacher talk,
students will have few opportunities to talk, discuss, and then be restricted from
developing their language proficiency. Paul (2003) also confirms that the greater
amount of teacher talk, the less time students get to practice L2 in a classroom and
therefore, the less effectiveness of the lesson. Allwright (1982) claims good language
teachers to be able to provide students with opportunities to work in the classroom
rather than work too much themselves. For him, the teachers who talk too much in the
classroom weren’t teaching effectively. As a result, a number of researchers call on
minimizing teacher talk time while maximizing student talk time.
Darn (2008) and Davies (2011) suggests a useful guideline for the amount of
teacher talk is “a limit of 30% of a lesson, and no more than 10 minutes at one time.”
To be able to reduce teacher talk time, he encourages teachers to give students more
pair work or group work instead of teacher-led activities. Even when some activities

need to be done individually, they can be checked in pairs. Students should also be
asked to give feedback on their tasks among themselves before receiving feedback
from teachers. Moreover, teachers do not need to present clear examples and
explanations all the times, but use elicitation, body language, mime, gestures or facial
expressions. Last but not least, silence is advised to be tolerated because it is
considered as students’ processing time. Being patient to wait for
14


students’ response is sometimes better than unnecessary talking. Particularly,
according to Darn (2008), there exists some forms of teacher talk which would make
the 30% of a lesson beneficial. They are questioning, which demands students to
brainstorm to respond, holds students’ attention and involvement; natural
conversation, which helps introduce functional and everyday language in a more
memorable way than lessons; personalized presentation, in which teachers talk about
real issues to interest students in the content; and story or joke telling, which may be
used to stimulate students’ interest during the lesson.
1.2.4.2. Grading language
One of the most major theories related to the idea of graded language should
be Krashen’s Comprehensible Input (1985). The theory highly concerns about the
input which needs being slightly beyond the level which learners are currently at.
This is a vital condition for language acquisition, learners’ subconscious procedure to
achieve language. It should be noted that Krashen was not the first researcher who
pointed out this issue. Another earlier theory closely related to Krashen’s is Vgotsky’s
Zone of Proximal Development. Vgotsky (1986) makes no clear distinction between
learning and acquisition; nevertheless, he asserts children grasp language concepts
quite naturally. He adds more that learning can take place if the material is something
just slightly higher than learners’ current ability. On the one hand it's crucial for
learners' development that they are able to interact with more knowledgeable others,
but on the other hand they will be pulled along if the presented material is too

difficult.
The following issue is that in which ways input of target language can be
made comprehensible to learners. According to Chaudron (1988), teacher talk is
simplified in various ways – syntactically, phonologically and semantically. In
details, a number of features of teacher speech might be modified such as:
(1) Pauses between utterances, which may be evidence of the speaker

planning more, are possibly more frequent and longer.
(2) Overall rate of speech appears to be slower.

15


(3) Pronunciation tends to be clearer and exaggerated. Pitch range is higher

and wider. More stresses are used and rhythm is obvious and clear.
Contracted form of language is less used. For example, teachers use more
“He will” instead of “He’ll” in pronunciation.
(4) Vocabulary use is more basic. Teachers carefully select the words they use

according to the students’ proficiency and level.
(5) Degree of subordination is lower.
(6) More declaratives and statements are used than questions.
(7) Teachers may self-repeat more frequently.

1.2.4.3. Some useful techniques
The following techniques are raised basing on the guideline by Ur (1996).
Firstly, teachers should have a thorough preparation before giving English
instruction in class. According to Ur (p.16), teachers’ explanations “are often not as
clear to their students as they are to themselves”. For this reason, preparation is worth

noticing and this calls for a need of thinking about the words to use, the illustration to
provide for every complicated instruction.
Secondly, instructions need to be brief and clear. Instructions should be broken
down into small separate steps to help students understand them completely,
especially when there is a lot of information in instructions and teachers want
students to understand every word. Modifying language, using simple words,
sentence structures, common expressions and slow speech will be helpful.
In addition, there is a need for repetition when giving English instructions.
Presenting the information more than once provides students with a second chance to
understand thoroughly what they have to do since “learners’ attention wanders
occasionally.” Teachers can represent the instructions in different modes, either
restating or writing it up.
Lastly, getting feedback from students after giving instructions is very
important. Merely asking the students if they understand the instructions is not
enough. Students may say that they do even if in fact they do not. Instead,
16


requesting students either to paraphrase the instructions or do illustrations of their
own is a better choice for checking instructions. According to Rosenshine (2012),
these checks support the process of moving new learning into long-term memory and
let teachers know if students are developing misconceptions as well.
To sum up, English is utilized as medium of instruction effectively when
teachers have a good preparation; instructions are short, precise and simple; the
information is repeated in different ways; and students’ understanding is regularly
checked after the information is given.
1.2.5. Factors affecting the use of English as the medium of instruction
Even though English is encouraged to be used as the medium of instruction as
much as possible, there is a fact that several factors may influence its effectiveness.
These factors may exist in students, teachers as well as resources.

For students, their low English proficiency and passive learning style may
prevent teachers from using English medium of instruction effectively. Because of the
low English proficiency, students cannot understand what their teacher talks. Knop
(1995) wonders how one can expect the first-year students to understand and use the
language when they cannot understand the interactions and the materials in the target
language. Coyne, Kami’enui & Carnine (2010) shares the same idea by saying that
students may fail to understand what teacher is talking about, and may become
frustrated when they have an idea but cannot adequately express their thoughts in
English. As a result, students’ learning motivation and concentration decreases during
class time. Besides, in some cases, students with passive learning style, who are “not
willing to make efforts to hear and use target language during activities or
interactions, simply tune out during class sessions” (Knop, 1995).
For teachers, they may lack understanding about their students, teaching skills,
and English proficiency as well. According to the results from the research of Flores
(cited in Weddel, 2008), English medium of instruction usage is not effective when
teachers use very complicated language that distract or confuse learners. Weddel
(2008) emphasizes that teacher talk needs to be authentic, meaningful,
17