Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)
Qua việc quan sát lớp học cũng như tiến hành các buổi phỏng vấn, nghiên cứu này đạt được các kết quả sau đây. Tiếng mẹ đẻ chỉ được sử dụng trong một số giai đoạn nhất định như giải thích ngữ pháp, hướng dẫn các hoạt động …trong lớp học. Tiếng Việt chỉ chiếm 12 hoăc 13 so với tiếng Anh. Điều này đồng nghĩa với tiếng Anh là ngôn ngữ chi phối trong lớp học. Đối với mỗi cấp độ học khác nhau tiếng Việt được sử dụng ở mỗi giai đoạn cũng khác nhau. Trong lớp học cho học sinh từ 56 tuổi, tiếng mẹ đẻ được dùng nhiều nhất khi đưa ra các hướng dẫn trong khi tại các lớp cho học sinh từ 68 và từ 812 tuổi tiếng Việt chủ yếu được dung để giải thích ngữ pháp, và các từ vựng khó. Về các lý do mà giáo viên đưa ra trong việc sử dụng tiếng mẹ đẻ, cả ba giáo viên đồng ý rằng họ sử dụng tiếng Viêt vì học sinh còn nhỏ, và để giúp học sinh hiểu bài hơn. Bên cạnh đó, mỗi giáo viên đưa ra lý do khác nhau. Giáo viên thứ nhất khẳng định dung tiếng Việt do tiếng Việt là ngôn ngữ có ‘quyền lực’ hơn tiếng Anh, và nó như là thói quen giữa những người cùng ngôn ngữ, và tiếng Anh vẫn chưa được huấn luyện tốt cho học sinh. Giáo viên thứ hai khẳng định dung tiếng Việt vì nó giúp quá trình học được trôi chảy. Giáo viên thứ ba lấy lí do về thời gian hạn hẹp cho việc sử dụng tiếng Việt. Cả 3 giáo viên đều có quan điểm tích cực về tiếng mẹ đẻ trong lớp học. Có sự lien kết giữa quan điểm của giáo viên và những hoạt động trên lớp của họ.
1 PART I: INTRODUCTION Rationale of the study In the process of foreign language teaching, the issue of the mother tongue (MT) itself has been debated for many years The various views are reflections on the methodological changes in English language teaching, which have in such way brought different perspectives on the role of mother tongue For a long time, many popular English language-teaching methods tend to discourage the use of the first language (L1) in the second language (L2) classroom As a result, the English only approach has become a dominant and often understood to be the hallmarks of good language teaching Despite the almost undeniable acceptance of the monolingual belief to EFL classes, recent years have witnessed a considerable shift of views among the ELT professionals concerning the utility of students’ mother tongue (MT) in the L2 classroom What the reasons for the ignorance of MT use are, when and how the MT can be applied in the classroom and how much L1 should be used in the classroom are currently main seeking among scholars, linguists and teachers In the global scale, there have been various studies focusing on this topic such as the studies conducted by Schweers (1999) at the University of Puerto Rico, Beressa (2003) at Adama Teachers College, Tang (2002) at a university in Beijing, Duff and Polio (2009) at University of California, Al-Nofaie (2010) in Saudi public schools It is obvious that most of them have investigated this issue at high level of education In addition, these studies emphasized mainly the use of the first language from two sides: teachers and learners In Vietnamese context, however, it is rather difficult to find research in this topic Kieu Hang Kim Anh (2010) investigated the attitudes of Vietnamese University teachers toward Vietnamese use in English language teaching Some other research is carried out by graduate students as their M A thesis like the works by Tran Ngoc Thuong (2010) on teachers’ and students’ attitude toward the use of the MT at a high school, or Do Thi Khanh Van (2010) with her emphasis on the role and use of the L1 in learning vocabulary in English classes at a university Comes to the conclusion, there still exists huge gaps on the reality of using the mother tongue in classroom at every level, in every aspect in Vietnam Therefore, there is a need to investigate the issue of the MT use in second language classroom from different perspectives and in different fields such as from teachers’ and students’ views, in learning of grammar, vocabulary, skills, etc This study focused on only one of those factors that are teacher’s use of MT in classes for young learners The reason the researcher focused on teachers’ use of the MT is that teachers’ talk or language choice in the L2 classroom has a central role and is of great significance to language learners One of the main reasons for the interest is that EFL classroom and teachers are the only and the primary resources of the L2 for EFL students (Polio & Duff, 1994) Schweers (1999) also pointed out that if the teacher used L2, the learners would use it also, and this created the opportunity for them to interact with their teachers and peers However, Song (2009) asserted that if teachers shared the same MT with their students, they might hardly avoid the use of L1 Hopefully, the findings of this study will contribute to the pedagogic methodology, especially in teaching English to young children Aims and objectives of the study The aim of this study is to examine teacher’s use of the MT- Vietnamese in English language classroom for young learners at an English centre The objectives of the study are investigating the amount of L1 use by teachers of different levels and the reasons underlying their L1 using In addition, teachers’ belief about L1 use is also addressed in order to find out the concordance to their practices In order to achieve the aim, the study addresses these following main questions: How much L1 is used and in which sections teachers use L1 in the classroom? Why teachers use the mother tongue? What are teachers’ beliefs about MT use? Do teacher’s beliefs correlate to their practices? Scope of the study In practice, L1 can be used by both students and teachers in L2 classroom However, within the framework of this minor thesis, the study only focuses on teachers’ use of the MT in English classes for young learners Specifically, the study aims at investigating the amount of L1 use by teachers of different levels and the reasons underlying their L1 using In addition, teachers’ belief about L1 use is also addressed in order to find out the concordance to their practices Methods of the study The study is carried out in form of a qualitative multi case study approach in which three teachers teaching three different levels for young learners will be investigated in order to compare and contrast their MT use in L2 classroom Three research methods, including classroom observation, stimulated recall interview, and semi- structured interview are used to reach the aim of the study The researcher believes that the combination of different methods to collect data could provide more reliable and valid information for analysis Classroom observations are used to discover the amount and in which sections Vietnamese was used Stimulated recall interview was applied to gain insights into teachers’ rationale of using the MT in the classroom The recall interviews were fully transcribed and analyzed qualitatively according to emerging themes The semi-structured interviews are to explore teachers’ opinions of the use of the first language in the classroom, and then compared with teacher’s practices Semi structured interviews were conducted after finishing all observations and stimulated interviews As in the case of stimulated recall, semi structured interviews were transcribed fully Layout of the thesis This thesis consists of three parts, namely Introduction, Development and Conclusion Part I, the Introduction, presents the rationale, the aims, the scope, the method and the design of the study Part II, the development, consists of three chapters Chapter 1, the Literature review, presents background of the study This includes major arguments against and for the use of L1, the use and amount of L1 in L2 classroom In addition, it reviews some previous studies related to the topic Chapter 2, the Methodology, introduces the participants, the data collection instruments and data analysis procedure Chapter (Results and Discussions) mainly deals with the results and the discussion of the findings Part III is the Conclusion of the study In this part, the major findings, some recommendations, limitations of the research as well as suggestions for further study are presented The appendixes are the last part of the study following the reference PART II: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter provides background information on the use of L1 in the L2 classroom Firstly, it presents definitions of young learners Secondly, it discusses the role of L1 in major ELT methodologies Thirdly, it gives an insight into theoretical and practical research favoring or not favoring the use of L1 Fourthly, it deals with the use and amount of L1 use in the English class It also discusses some empirical researches on the L1 use in L2 classroom 1.1 Young learners A young learner- who is he or she? This term in fact covers a wide age range of children Scott and Ytreberg (2001) distinguished between two groups of young learners, one between five and seven and another between eight and twelve, considering mainly their ability to perceive the abstract and concrete Another author, Linse (2005) also defined young learner at the age of to 12 Partly shared this view is the definition by Richard & Schmidt (2010: 643) They cited that young learners in language teaching were children of pre-primary and primary school age while other second language learner age groups were referred to as adolescent learners, and adult learners Phillip (1993) defined the ‘young learners’ as the children from the first year of formal schooling (5 or years old) to 12 years of age It is obvious that there is a general agreement in the literature about the definition of young language learners For the purposes of this study, the researcher referred to children from the ages of five to twelve Therefore, children as young as three and four would not be under consider in this study 1.2 History of the use of L1 in L2 classroom Looking at the literature related to language teaching methods, it is easily seen that the role of L1 in L2 teaching is one of the most long-standing controversies in the history of language pedagogy The use of the L1 keeps changing periodically and regularly The ideas of using L1 in L2 classroom were favored during era of the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) According to Larsen- Freeman (2000), its purpose is to support students to read and understand foreign language literature, and translate each language into the other It is believed that everything in English should be taught by translating from the target language into the MT and vice versa (Larsen- Freeman, 2000:74) Therefore, the language most used in the class is the students’ native language Patel and Jain (2008) also state that, in GTM, because of the translation into the MT, students’ understanding become better and quicker (p 75) It is obviously that, in this method, students’ L1 is the medium of the instruction and its role in the L2 classroom is very crucial In the late of the nineteenth century saw the emergence of the Direct Method, which pays its whole attention to the spoken language and naturalistic principle of language learning The Direct Method is based on the belief that languages were best learned in a way that imitated a child’s natural L1 language learning In this light, it is argued that a foreign language could be taught without translation or the use of the learners’ native tongue and meaning was conveyed directly through demonstration, visual aids and action (Richards and Rodgers, 1986: 9) Therefore, learners should be immersed in L2 through the use of L2 as a means of instruction and communication; so it is clearly that there is no ground for L1 in Direct Method The move away from L1 use was later reinforced by the appearance of Audiolingual method (1940s- 1960s) which saw language learning as a process of ‘habit formation’ (Larsen- Freeman, 2004: 43) In Audio-lingualism, the L1 was seen as already established habits, which would interfere with the students’ attempts to master the target language (TL) Therefore, the TL, not student native tongue, was used in the classroom (Larsen- Freeman, 2004: 45) In the Communicative Approach, which has attracted most attention from the language teaching profession during the past five decades, the restricted use of native language is allowed where feasible and translation may be used when learners find it essential or helpful The purpose of L1 use is to provide a bridge from the familiar to the unfamiliar (Larsen- Freeman, 2004) In addition, in later stage more and more of the TL can be used Recently, there has been an increasing attention to the merits of the L1 use in the language classroom among the language teaching profession Researchers and teachers have begun to advocate more bilingual approach, which would incorporate the students’ native tongue as a learning tool Several studies related to the role of L1 in the teaching of L2 have been carried out around the world in order to develop postcommunicative methods, which consider L1 as ‘a classroom resource’ (Atkinson, 1987 & Cook, 2001) The Functional-Translation Method by Robert Weschler, which combines “the best of traditional “grammar translation” with the best of modern “direct, communicative” methods”, can be taken as an example He stated that there were many possible ways to learn English and there was a time and a place for everything- including the use of the L1 (Weschler, 1997) In short, the use of L1 has been in and out of fashion through the history of teaching The pendulum of L1 use swings with the methodological change 1.3 Debating surrounding the use of L1 in the L2 classroom 1.3.1 Arguments against L1 use There is a variety of arguments against using the MT in the ESL or EFL classroom Cook (2001) presented three main arguments for the ignorance of the L1 use in the target language classroom They are: (i) The L1 acquisition argument; (ii) The language Compartmentalization argument; (iii) The maximum Provision of the L2 argument The first principle is based on the way in which L1 is acquired It is believed that monolingual L1 children cannot fall back on another language L2 learning can follow a process similar to L1 learning which means L2 learners should not rely on other language, claim that exposure is vital in the learning of L2 In other words, learners of L2 should be exposed to an L2 environment as much as possible Krashen (1981), a pivotal promoter of the only-L2 use in the classroom and an expert in the field of linguistics, shared this idea when claiming that humans master language only in one way by understanding messages or reviving comprehensible input What derives from the comprehensive input is that one can learn a language successfully by exposing the target language, and L1 should be banned in the classroom Regarding the second principle, the supporters of the monolingual approach indicated that the main obstruction to L2 learning is the interference from L1 knowledge (Cook, 2001) The interference is a major source of difficulty in the target language learning and to avoid that, the separation of L1 and L2 should be made Krashen (1981) also suggested that errors in learners’ L2 performance result from L1 Based on research findings, he reported that “a high amount of first language influence” is found in “situations … where translation exercises are frequent” (Krashen, 1981: 66) A further argument is that using L1 might affect students' learning process negatively, since it reduces the exposure learners get to the L2 and reduces their opportunities for using the target language (Atkinson, 1987; Philipson, 1992; Polio & Duff, 1994; Cook, 2001; and Deller & Rinvolucri, 2002) Atkinson (1987) said that one could ‘learn English by speaking English’ or in other words to learn a foreign language a person needs to encounter and use it He then stated that ‘every second spent using L1 is a second not spent using L2’ (p 12) In agreement with the previous view, Auerbach (1993) also indicated that "the more students are exposed to English, the more quickly they will learn; as they hear and use English, they will internalize it and begin to think in English”(p 14) If English is not the main language used in the classroom, the learners are not going to learn very much English (Atkinson, 1993:12.) The argument of maximum TL use then means that L1 should not be used in the L2 classroom at any cost In addition to the above fundamental principles, the avoidance of L1 in the L2 classroom, results from the backwash effect whereby native speakers often receive a ‘disproportionate’ degree of status in foreign language teaching institution (Atkinson, 1987: 242) It is believed in the monolingual approach a native speaker teacher is the best embodiment of the target and norm for learners (Phillipson, 1992:194) This belief is based on the assumption that native L2 speakers teacher really know English well, so they have fewer problem of words coming up in the class and it is easier for students use English simply because they not know the students’ language (Atkinson, 1993) This native speaker principle is quite popular in several countries including Vietnam One can easily realize the strong preference of Vietnamese learners of English for native speakers of English through the advertisements put by foreign language centers in newspapers or websites like the advertisement by British Academic Centre on the website bac.edu.vn ‘learning English with 100% native teachers from America and England’ I myself agreed that teachers should fill the classroom with as much L2 as possible However, ‘English only’ may be too challenging to students, it tends not to ensure students’ comprehension of the meanings of certain L2 elements L1 use is necessary to facilitate L2 input, so it is advisable that teachers should use L1 where possible, where necessary This view has been accepted in recent literature, which will be discussed in the following section 1.3.2 Arguments favoring L1 use Professionals in L2 acquisition have become increasingly aware of the role the MT plays in the EFL classroom There is a considerable amount of literature which 10 strongly suggests that the use of L1 in the L2 classrooms can be productive or may even be necessary at times (e.g., Atkinson 1987; Cook, 2001; Cole, 1998; Schweers, 1999; Auerbach, 1993) The use of L1 in L2 classroom is a common feature and is natural acts, which make a positive contribution to the learning process (Nation, 1993) There is now a belief that the L1 can be a classroom resource (Atkinson, 1987; Cook, 2001) and that substantial attention and research should be focused on The supporters of the bilingual approach have given much of attempts to discredit the Monolingual Approach by focusing on three points: it is impractical, native teachers are not necessarily the best teachers and exposure alone is not sufficient for learning Phillipson (1992:191) claimed that impracticality is the biggest problem of English only in the classroom because non-native English teachers across the world outnumber native English teachers These teachers, sometimes, may not confident or competent enough to use the foreign language for full range of classroom functions (Cameron, 2001: 200) Cameron further stated that only English policy might be against the natural communication between teacher and students who share a common language Another reason for the monolingual approach’s impracticality is the practically impossible elimination of L1 in lower-level monolingual classes (Cameron, 2001: 199) In addition, Monolingual teaching can also create tension and a barrier between students and teachers because in fact there are many occasions when it is impossible and inappropriate (Pachler & Field, 2001: 86) When something in a lesson is unclear to a student, and then it is clarified by the use of L1, that barrier and tension can be reduced or removed Concerning the belief supported by the Monolingual Approach that native teachers are the best teachers, Phillipson (1992) said that being native teachers not necessarily means that the teacher is more qualified or better at L2 teaching He also claimed that non- native teachers could achieve all of the characteristics such as 31 According to this teacher, using English might, in some aspects, restrict students’ understanding because their proficient level is not high and not all of the students are good at English She quoted that ‘if I used English only many students may get confused, so I often translate into Vietnamese or speak in Vietnamese to explain grammar rules or difficult vocabularies.’ She also added that sometimes when she was using English to explain grammar or vocabulary, her students asked her retort to Vietnamese because they could not understand The use of Vietnamese when explaining grammar and vocabulary helped students comprehend the target language better As the researcher observed in some lessons, after teacher applied L1 to explain grammar rules, students could easily understand and carry out the tasks properly Moreover, she claimed that Vietnamese use in some activities helped students know exactly what they had to do, so they would not go wrong This teacher continued saying that using English sentences to explain grammar items such as ‘a cup of, a bowl of, a jar of, a slice of’; countable and non countable noun; or giving instructions in writing activity took much time, while many students still looked confused and might not understand anything In addition, she stated that ‘you know, each period last only 60 minutes, and during that time I have to cover both Phonics book, Popodoo book, check students’ previous exercises and guide new ones Therefore, time in the class is limited and it was waste of time if I continue trying to use English Therefore, using Vietnamese in these situations help me save time and guarantee the curriculum.’ Question 3: What are teachers’ beliefs about MT use? Do teacher’s beliefs correlate to their practices? Like two other teachers, this teacher also supported the use of the L1 in the classroom In her opinion, Vietnamese did not affect the learning process and it should not be banned in the L2 classroom as some scholars said She proposed that ‘I approve the trend that the mother tongue should be used in the classroom because it can 32 propose some benefits However, I think the use of the L1 should be suitable to specific situations, and teachers should avoid overuse it.’ In her idea, the situation of using the MT should be carefully considered Secondly, she claimed not to plan L1 use before going to the classroom, but she said teacher should plan how and when L1 use in each lesson Regarding the sections that most applied the L1, she affirmed two sections that need the presence of the L1: explaining grammar, vocabularies and giving difficult instruction (especially instruction for the new activities or games) In comparison with the observation, this teacher belief in fact correlated to her thinking She often used Vietnamese in the class in grammar and vocabulary sections, and when instructing students in writing and other difficult activities To sum up, it is noticeable that the use of Vietnamese for students about eight is rather limited and found mainly in the phrase of presenting and explaining new vocabulary and grammar The teacher raised two reasons urging her to use Vietnamese, which were student’s understanding and time limitation Also like the two above cases, this case showed a correlation between teacher’s beliefs and her performance in the class 3.2 Discussion The results of this study on teacher’s use of Vietnamese in English classroom for young learners bear many similarities, differences to previous studies, which can be discussed as follows Overall, the results of the current study revealed that the MT was used by all of participants This finding is the same as that by Al-Buraiki (2008) who concluded that all six teachers under the study used Arabic (the MT) in young learners classroom, though to differing degrees and for different reasons In addition, the amount of Vietnamese in the current research was used as much as nearly a half (the cases of teachers in classes for 6-8 and above years old) or a third (the case of teacher in 5-6 years old class) in comparison with English It means that the target language, not 33 Vietnamese, is the prevalent language in the English classroom for young learners What arises is that Vietnamese is not the main medium of instruction in the classroom, maximizing in this way learners’ chance of being exposed to maximum comprehensible input (Krashen, 1981) This finding is contradictory to that of Drosato (2009) which showed that Greek (the MT) is the language mostly used in the lessons for young learners The class observation showed that the frequency of the L1 use was for different lesson sections To each case, the amount of Vietnamese used in separate section is quite different In the case of class for 6-8 years old and above years old, presenting/ explaining new vocabulary items and grammar structures is the section that Vietnamese was found most This finding agrees with that of other researches (Prodromou, 2000; Drosato, 2009) in which MT use for teaching grammar scored the highest percentage Harbord (1992) accounts for this practices by arguing that teachers lack capability of explaining grammar in the target language In the meantime, in the case of teacher in class for 5-6 years old students, Vietnamese was used most commonly in giving instruction This difference might result from the differences in the curriculum in each level Curriculum for 5-6 years old students focused on learning concrete vocabulary and very simple sentences, familiar topic With young learners, concrete nouns, simple vocabulary could be explained through other means like posters, pictures, mines, puppets, etc, rather than use the MT to make students understand (Brewster et all, 2002) In addition, in many activities/ games the instructions needed to carry out the task may be more linguistically complex than the language of the task itself (Morris, 1999 cited in Deller and Rinvolucri, 2002) Whereas 6-8 and above years old students started to learn complex or abstract words, and centered more on grammar It is argued that L1 is the more effective than other methods in language focused learning probably because L1 use are usually clear, short and familiar, qualities which are very important in effective definitions (Nation, 2003) 34 Another section that also concerned more Vietnamese use is dealing with discipline problems, including focusing learners’ attention (classes for 5-6 and 6-8 years old students) This one section scored high in other researches (Macaro, 2001; Cook, 2001) which also reported high use of the L1 to keep control of the class Next, the results obtained from the observation concerning the effect of each language type on different sections, which were not mentioned above, would be briefly analyzed With reference to the greeting and farewell section, it is observed that it is all conducted in the TL These results are in agreement with Kang’s research (2008), Drosato (2009) In providing positive feedback, teachers used the TL, using prefabricating patterns such as ‘Well done’ ‘Very good’ Exellent’ ‘Good job’ ‘Give me fine- Yeah’ For negative feedback, they resorted the MT In addition, they used the MT because of the learners’ level and wanted to explain why the error was made Teachers had various reasons for employing Vietnamese All three teachers under study firstly shared the same reason that they used Vietnamese because of students’ understanding and the learners’ level The three interviewed teachers agreed that young learners- beginners in English- need more explanation in Vietnamese because they have not made good progress in English yet This finding supported Cole’s argument that at the beginning and low levels, it may be helpful to the mother tongue since the students at this stage have no/ little knowledge about the L2 (Cole, 1997) Besides this agreement, each teacher responded differently for their L1 employing The first case (teachers for 5-6 years old) cited three more reasons Firstly, she mentioned L1 use as an effective tool by its immediate effect to the task Secondly, she confirmed her L1 use as a part of habit These two reasons might derive from the fact that both students and teachers shared the same first language- that is Vietnamese It means that all of them are better at Vietnamese than at English Therefore, it is understandable when this teacher said that many times, she used English but students 35 have no reaction to her saying, but when she turned into Vietnamese, students followed it In addition, teachers used the MT in English classroom is also a natural acts if they shared the same language Hence, L1 as a habit can be seen as a tool to achieve natural communication between teachers and students In accordance with the previous view, Auerbach (1993) and Nation (2003) indicated that achieving a good relationship between students and teachers is a desirable aim that can be fulfilled through L1 use The last reason for L1 use is that she has not trained students to listen to English She meant that she could use more TL if she trained students to form the habit of listening in English Unlike teacher1’s three above reasons, teacher stated that using Vietnamese in the class facilitated the learning process This correlates to Harbord who concluded that L1 could be used in the classroom for facilitating communication, facilitating teacherstudent relationships, and facilitating the learning of L2 (Harbord, 1992) In addition, L1 could help teachers facilitate learning through conveying meaning and organizing the class (Cook, 2001) The notion of L1 serving as "a time–saving device" is another different justification for L1 use given by teacher in class for students above eight as noted in Atkinson (1987) Auerbach (1993); Schweers (1999) and Prodromou (2000) also agreed that saving time is a justified reason for using L1 especially at lower levels In term of teachers’ belief toward L1 use, the interview revealed teachers’ positive attitudes towards L1 use in English class This finding seems to be consistent with those of Al- Nofaie (2010), Tang (2002), and Schweer (1999) which showed that both teachers and students responded positively towards the use of L1 Teachers said that the MT could facilitate learning in cases it is used judiciously and carefully with avoidance of the overuse of the L1, a view that agrees with some attitudes (Cameron, 2001; Cook, 2001; Atkinson, 1987) 36 Two out of three teachers stated that they did not plan before the lesson which language they are going to use They made the language choice basing on the learning process and students’ reaction Only one teacher stated she planed most of the time (in her mind) which language is suitable for which part Nevertheless, planning is mentioned by Brewster et all (2002) as a prerequisite for maximizing scaffolded comprehensible input Regarding the question in which sections MT should be used more common, all of the teachers labeled grammar as the section where teachers should resort more often They agreed that using Vietnamese to explain grammar rules made it easier for learners to understand This finding is in accordance with the majority of researchers (Cook, 2001; Auerbach, 1993; Atkinson, 1987; Drosatou, 2009) who believe that L1 is more suitable for grammar Lastly, the evidence from this study suggested that teachers’ beliefs about the use of the L1 and their classroom practices were generally in agreement All three teachers said in the interviews that they valued the use of the L1; they also used it in different lesson sections This result is in accordance with Al-Alawi (2008) which also showed the correlation between teachers’ belief and their practices 37 PART III: CONCLUSION This concluding chapter provides the summary and evaluation of the whole paper by giving summary of main findings, stating the recommendations, limitations of the study as well as providing several suggestions for further investigation on L1 use in English class for young children Summary of main findings Based on the data obtained through the three instruments the following findings could be presented: Results revealed that the TL is the main medium of instruction in the classroom, while Vietnamese was used occasionally when teachers found L2 failed to work The idea of total avoidance of L1 in L2 classroom was disapproved by all of the teachers It also indicated that the use of Vietnamese was an unavoidable phenomenon in English 38 classrooms for young learners Judicious use of the MT does not reduce students’ exposure to English but supports the English teaching and learning Concerning the use of the MT in various sections, results showed significant differences among different levels Giving instruction, was the area that scored the highest in MT use in classes for 5-6 years old while presenting/ explaining grammar and vocabulary was the section applying MT in classes for 6-8 and above years old As regard the effect of each language type on each lesson section, greetings and farewells as well as providing positive feedback were mainly conducted in the TL Classroom management and chatting between teachers and students often were carried out in the MT Teachers had various reasons for employing Vietnamese The common reason that all teachers gave was the support of students’ understanding and learners’ level The three teachers agreed that young learners- beginners in English- need more explanation in L1 because they have not made good progress in English yet Beside this agreement, each teacher responded differently for her L1 employing The first case (teachers for 5-6 years old) cited three more reasons for her applying L1 Unlike teacher1’s reasons, teacher proposed that using Vietnamese in the class facilitated the learning process The notion of L1 serving as "a time–saving device" is one justification for L1 use given by teacher Next, teachers have positive attitudes towards to the use of Vietnamese in English language classroom They shared the view that teachers’ occasional use of the MT played a supportive and facilitating role in L2 learning environment Teachers in the study believed in the various pedagogic uses of the MT, the major ones being explaining grammar and vocabulary, giving instructions, disciplining classroom However, two out of three teachers not plan when they are going to use English or Vietnamese in the lesson By drawing a connection between teachers’ beliefs and their 39 actions, it is observed that there is a general match between teachers’ thought and their performance Researcher’s position as a result of this study is that ‘the MT taboo has been with us for a long time, but fortunately now things seem to be changing I believe that many teachers have continued to use the MT because it is both necessary and effective’ (Deller and Rincoluci, 2002:3) Teachers, then, can benefit from exploring their own views on this issue and becoming aware of their reasons for using (or avoiding) the L1 in their English lessons Recommendations Based on the findings of the present study, the following recommendations are offered The amount of L1 use and how it is employed should vary with classroom environment For young learners who are not proficient enough in English, Vietnamese can be sometimes used as a facilitating tool It is advised that L1 be used in a limited manner, at appropriate times and in appropriate places Following Atkinson (1987), the researchers think that teachers should use English where possible and the L1 where necessary, which means that the L1 is a consciously chosen option with an auxiliary role Maximizing L2 use should be the goal in every classroom (Meyer, 2008) However, teachers also have to find ways to modify their English input For example, they can use visual aids such as pictures, flash cards and gestures to make their input understandable (Polio & Duff, 1994) The L2 should be used as much as possible It also is recommendable that maximum L2 can be achieved through habit formation and training Planning the language is going to be used in particular lesson sections could help teachers be more consistent with the use of each language Furthermore, by 40 knowing which language type facilitating the learning process in each lesson section could help them achieve better results in teaching It is also recommended that the Ministry of Education should hold workshops, programs and seminars on the role of the native languages in the EFL classroom Limitations Although the study went smoothly, there is always room for improvement The study was conducted in one small language center with restricted sample size Therefore, generalization of the findings should be cautioned Another limitation is that although the teachers in this study were observed and interviewed, the number of observations was still limited and the interviews did not yield sufficient in-depth information because the researcher was lack of interview skill and experience Suggestions for further research It is firstly suggested that in order to attain more convincing findings than the ones collected in this paper, there are several areas which need improving Most obviously, the limitations of this research will be overcome with the increased number of participants, which will make it more possible to generalize findings Furthermore, this research only attempted to investigate the amount of Vietnamese, the reasons that force teachers using L1 together with the correlation between teachers’ belief and their practices Further studies should be carried out to focus on the relation between teachers’ proficiency, teaching experience, teachers’ gender with their L1 use In addition, other studies could also look at the relationship between teachers’ practices in using the L1 and learners’ proficiency or an analysis of learners’ perspectives on teachers’ L1 use would also further develop the understandings of the issues Another way to reach this issue is conducting researches of the student’s use of L1 in the classroom Overall, there are many ways in which this research could be expanded in order to attain deep information of the issue 41 REFERENCES Al-Alawi, T M (2008) Teachers’ beliefs and practices about the use of L1 In S Borg (Ed.) Investigating English language teaching and learning in Oman Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman Al-Buraiki, M.A (2008) The L1 in Young Learner Classrooms: Teachers' Views and Practices Retrieved September, 12, 2012 from www.moe.gov.om/Portal/sitebuilder/sites/EPS/English/MOE/ /Ch2.pdf Al-Nofaie, H (2010) The attitudes of teachers and students towards using Arabic in EFL classrooms in Saudi public schools- A case study Novitas Royal Research on Youth and Language, (1), 64-95 42 Atkinson, D (1987) The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource? ELT Journal, 41/4, 241-247 Atkinson, D (1993) Teaching monolingual Classes London: Longman Auerbach, E R (1993) Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom RESOL Quarterly, 27 (1), 1-18 Available at http://jalt-publications.org/old_tlt/files/98/dec/cole.html Baxter, P., & Jack, S (2008) Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation for novice researchers The Qualitative Report, 13/4, 544-559 Brewster et al (2002) The primary English teacher’s guide Harlow: Pearson Education Limited Brown, H D (2000) Principles of language learning and teaching: Fourth edition New York: Pearson Education Company Cameron, L (2001) Teaching languages to young learners Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K (2007) Research methods in education: Sixth edition New York: Routledge Cole, S (1998) The use of L1 in communicative classroom The language teacher JALT Journal Online internet Cook, V (2001) Using the First Language in the Classroom Retrieved February 24, 2012, from http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/5482v66743955633/ Deller, S & Rinvolucri, M (2002) Using the Mother Tongue Making the Most of the Learner's Language London: First pearson Publishing Do, T K V (2010) A research into the role and the use of first language in General English classes at Hanoi University of Industry Unpublished Master of art, Vietnam National University Hanoi, University of Languages and International Studies, Hanoi Drosatou, V (2009) The use of the mother tongue in English language classes for 43 young learners in Greece Unpublished Master of Arts in ELT dissertation, University of Essex Duff, P A (2008) Case study research in applied linguitics New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Duff, P A., & Polio, C G (1990) How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 74 (2), 154-166 Fox-Turnbull, W (2009) Stimulated recall using autophotography: A method for investigating technology education In A Bekker, I Mottier, & M J de Vries (Eds.) Proceedings of the 22nd Int Technology & Engineering Educator's Association Conference (pp 204 - 217) Retrieved May, 26 2012 from http://www.iteaconnect.org/Conference/PATT/PATT22/FoxTurnbull.pdf Gabrielatos, C (2001) L1 Use in ELT: not a skeletone, but a bone of contention: A response to Prodromou TESOL Greece Newsletter, 70, 6-9 Harbord, J (1992) The Use of the Mother Tongue in the Classroom ELT Journal, 46, 350-355 Kang, D (2008) The classroom Language use of a Korean Elementary School: EFL teacher: another look at TETE System 36, 214- 226 Science Direct Kieu, H.K.A (2010) Use of Vietnamese in English language teaching in Vietnam: Attitudes of Vietnamese university teachers English Language Teaching, 3/2, 119-128 Krashen, S D (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning Oxford: Pergamon Press Inc Larsen-Freeman, D (2000) Techniques and principles in language teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press Linse, C T (2005) Practical English language teaching: young learners New York: McGraw- Hill Comapanies, Inc Macaro, E (2001) Analysing Student Teachers’ Codeswitching in Foreign Language 44 Classrooms: Theories and Decision Making The Modern Language Journal 85 (4), 531-548 Medgyes, P (2001) ‘When the teacher is a non-native speaker’ in M.CelceMurcia(ed.) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Meyer, H (2008) The Pedagogical Implications of L1 Use in the L2 Classroom Retrieved September 12, 2012 from http://www.kyoai.ac.jp/college/ronshuu/no08/meyer1.pdf Nation, P (2003) The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning The Asian EFL Journal, 5(2), 1-8 Retrieved September, 5, 2012 from: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/staff/Publications/paul-nation/2003-Role-of-L1Asian- EFL.pdf Pachler, N & Field, K (2001) Learning to Teach Modern Foreign Languages in the Secondary School Routledge: London Paltridgle, B & Phakiti, A (2010) Continuum Companion to Research Methods in Applied Linguistics London/ New York: Continuum International Publishing Group Patel, M F., & Jain, P M (2008) English language teaching: methods, tools, & techniques Jaiput: Sunrise Publishers & Distributors Phillip, S (1993) Young learners Oxford: Oxford University Press Phillipson, R (1992) Linguistics imperialism Oxford: Oxford University press Prodromou, L (2000) From Mother Tongue to Other Tongue TESOL Quarterly, 67, 7-12 Retrieved July 5, 2010 from: www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/methodology/mother_tongue.shtml Richard, J C., & Schmidt, R (2010) Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics: fourth edition Harlow: Pearson Education Limited Richards, J C., & Rodgers, T S (1986) Approaches and methods in language 45 teaching: a description and analysis Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Schweers, C W (1999) Using L1 in the L2 classroom English Teaching Forum, 37/2, 6-9 Scott, W A., & Ytreberg, L H (2004) Teaching English to children London: Longman Song, Y (2009) An Investigation into L2 Teacher Beliefs about L1 in China TESOL, 24(1), 30-39 Tang, J (2002) Using L1 in the English classroom English Teaching Forum, 40/1 Tran, N T (2010) An investigation into teachers' and students' attitudes toward the use of mother tongue in English language classrooms at Hon Gai high school Unpublished M.A thesis, Vietnam National University Hanoi, University of Languages and International Studies, Hanoi Weschler, R (1997) Uses of Japanese (L1) in the English Classroom: Introducing the Functional Translation Method The Internet TESL Journal, 3(1), 1-12 Retrieved July 25, 2012 from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Weschler-UsingL1.html Internet website http://bac.edu.vn ... according to emerging themes The semi-structured interviews are to explore teachers’ opinions of the use of the first language in the classroom, and then compared with teacher’s practices Semi structured... the strong preference of Vietnamese learners of English for native speakers of English through the advertisements put by foreign language centers in newspapers or websites like the advertisement... of them are native speakers of Vietnamese 2.3 Data collection Instruments The techniques employed in this study were non- participant classroom observation, stimulated recall technique and semi-