1.- EVALUATING THE USE OF L1 IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
CLASSROOM
By Richard Miles
Introduction
The issue this paper is going to examine in more
detail is whether or not the use of students’ L1 in the classroom by either,
the teacher, the students, or both, hinders the learning of a second language
(in this case English) or can facilitate it. Currently there is a loosely
enforced English-only policy at the institution where this research was carried
out and recently there has been debate as to its validity. This project in
essence then is a form of action research where the findings could have a
direct impact on this particular school and the way lessons are taught.
While there have been many theoretical arguments both
for and against the use of L1 in the L2 classroom, (which will be looked at in
more detail in Chapters 2.2 and 2.3) there has been little research carried out
which has measured the exact effects of L1 use in the classroom. Perhaps the
difficult nature of measuring and gathering evidence in an attempt to answer
such a difficult question is the reason behind this. Not only must a valid and
reliable way of measuring and assessing student learning be established, but at
least two languages must be used correctly and clearly in the classroom as well.
How to measure the effects of using L1 on learning,
poses a difficult and complicated question. One obvious way to measure L1’s
effects on learning is by trying to control all the other variables, and then
measuring the improvement of the respective students. If student learning can
be attributed directly to the use of L1 then a strong case can be made in favor
of using L1 in the language classroom. This is essentially the goal of this
paper.
As in any research field, terminology can often
confuse and obscure the real issue. ‘Mother tongue’, ‘first language’ and
‘native language/tongue’, are essentially all the same though it is possible to
argue that there are instances when they mean different things. For example; an
Inuit person living in
Due to the specific nature of the subjects in this
research experiment (all of them are Japanese) the aforementioned terms will be
used interchangeably. None of the students speaks another language, and all
consider Japanese as their first language, native language and mother tongue.
Proponents of an English-only policy will collectively
be known as the Monolingual Approach. Those advocating the use of L1 in the
classroom will be known as the Bilingual Approach. It is recognized of course
that this may be oversimplifying, but for the sake of convenience, these terms
will be used as they are, in this paper.
The primary goal of this paper then is to find
evidence to support the theory that L1 can facilitate the learning of an L2, at
least in this particular situation and to demonstrate that the use of L1 in the
classroom does not hinder learning. Such a conclusion would reinforce the
researcher’s own personal bias, which has come about through his own teaching
experience.
A Historical View of the Issue
A look at the history of L1 use in the L2 classroom
quickly reveals periodic but regular changes in how it is viewed (Auerbach,
1999, p12). Several hundred years ago bilingual teaching was the ‘norm’, with
students learning through translation. The use of L1 to study L2 was almost
universal and readily accepted, in part because language teaching placed an
emphasis on the written word above the spoken word. In the 19th Century, this
trend slowly reversed itself (towards a monolingual approach), in part due to a
shift towards an emphasis on the spoken word. The impact of mass migration,
colonialism and a large increase in research in the field, would further
strengthen the Monolingual Approach in the 20th Century.
The mass migration of peoples to other countries,
particularly from Europe to America was important because it forced educators
to refocus their lessons, from smaller translation-oriented classes to bigger
classes, and perhaps more importantly, from students with a common L1 to
students with a mixed L1 (Hawks, 2001, p47). No longer could teachers rely on
using L1 to help them. The only way to teach was to use the L2 as the medium of
teaching.
Experiences garnered by the many teachers who went
abroad during the colonial teaching period would further help the monolingual
tenet to evolve (Phillipson, 1992, p186), as would British colonial and
neo-colonial policies (Hawks, 2001, p47). As English became the predominant
culture in the British colonies, those who were not a part of it, were forced
to assimilate if they wished to better their life or be a part of the ruling
elite. Those moving to
The rise of an English-only classroom for political
and practical reasons (of the teacher’s, not the student’s) conversely brought
about the exclusion of the student’s L1. Those caught using L1 were often
punished or shamed for doing something wrong (Phillipson, 1992, p187). The idea
of bilingual education was seen as unnatural or inefficient (Pennycook, 1994,
p136). Perhaps furthering the desirability of an English-only policy was the
fact that many teachers themselves were monolingual. They could not, nor did
they perceive the need to speak the L1 of their students (Phillipson, 1992,
p188). By enforcing an English-only policy, the teacher could assume control of
the class, and would naturally be in a position of strength. On the other hand,
by using L1 in the classroom, the teacher risked undermining him/herself, as
the students being the better speakers, would control the communication.
The emphasis on monolingual teaching of English also
inherently implied that the native speaker was the ideal teacher. This was
closely tied not only to political agendas, but also to the economics of the
global EFL field (Pennycook, 1994, p176). English speakers could control all
the employment opportunities, by being seen as the ‘ideal teacher’.
The appearance of the Direct Method of teaching just
over a hundred years ago also contributed greatly to the consolidation of the
idea that all L1 languages should be excluded from the classroom (Harbord,
1992, p350) & (Pennycook, 1994, p169). The premise of the Direct Method was
that second language learning mirrored first language acquisition: lots of oral
interaction, little grammatical analysis and no translation. The Direct Method
would soon be discredited when it failed in the public education system (Brown,
1994, p44), but it would have a lasting influence on ESL/EFL classrooms.
Also, pivotal in forwarding the argument that L1
should not be used in the classroom, was Krashen, who advocated maximum
exposure to the target language. He stated that all the lesson or as much as
possible should be in L2 (English in our case), and that there was a definite
relationship between comprehensible input in L2 and proficiency (Krashen, 1985,
p14). Crucially though, this perhaps implied that time spent using L1 would only
detract from learning. He even suggested that the reason exposure was not
always successful in facilitating proficiency, was
because learners had access to their L1 either in class, or out of it (Krashen,
1985, p14). Others such as Gatenby 1950 (in Phillipson, p185, 1992) agreed, by
claiming that the language being studied should be the mode of communication in
the lesson. This idea that the L2 lesson should be taught in L2, in order to
maximize exposure, and thereby learning, is perhaps the key concept which
monolingual supporters have based their approach on.
The Makere report in 1961 further reinforced the idea
of using nothing but English in the classroom. There are five basic tenets
originating from this report, which have been called into question, but which
were taken as the ‘truth’, at the time. They are:
·
That English should be taught in a monolingual
classroom.
·
The ideal teacher should be a native English
speaker.
·
The earlier English is taught the better.
·
The more English used in the classroom during
lessons, the better.
·
If other languages are used, English standards
will drop (Phillipson, 1992, p185).
Phillipson has described these as the ‘five fallacies’
of modern English language teaching (Phillipson, 1992, p185) but the
implications of these tenets are far-reaching and their influence can be found
almost everywhere English is taught, even today. For the purpose of this paper,
the first tenet is obviously the most important one. Nevertheless, it becomes
difficult to separate them, as they are all interrelated and when combined they
strongly proclaim an English-only policy in the classroom. Tenet 1 proclaims
English-only is what should be striven for and conversely Tenet 5 claims that
the use of L1 will hurt learning. The more English used the better (Tenet 4)
also directly implies the less L1 use the better. The native teacher tenet
(Tenet 2) also implies native English speaking teachers are more valued than
non native English teachers, further emphasizing the superiority of English and
conversely, the inferiority of the student’s L1. Tenet 3 implies that it is
better to learn an L2 when you are younger, through direct exposure to the
language, rather than when you are older and can utilize your L1 knowledge
directly to help in learning L2.
By the 1970s these five tenets would be incorporated
into the Communicative Approach, which quickly came to dominate language
teaching. Native English teachers teaching only in English and excluding the
students L1 would become the goal for many
Communicative supporters. As a whole, the
Communicative Approach firmly believed the idea that monolingual teaching with
authentic communication in L2 was the best way to learn a language (Pennycook,
1994, p169). Many linguists insisted that the target language be used for all
purposes in the classroom (Wringe, 1989, p9) even when the reasons for using it
remained unclear (Hawks, 2001, p47). Communicative researchers not only
believed in the use of L2 as the medium of teaching, but many others also
believed that L1 use actually interfered with L2 learning and brought about
‘error transference’ (Pacek, 2003), thereby hindering learning. These errors
from L1 interference would be formed into what is now known as the Contrastive
Analysis Hypothesis (Brown, 1994, p193). It was thought that errors in L2
learning could be predicted by comparing and contrasting L2 with L1.
Some researchers claimed that the learning of an L2
followed the same principles as the learning of an L1 (Phillipson, 1992, p191),
which further reinforced the idea of using only the target language to maximize
exposure and consequently learning.
Even as recently as the 1990s, the English-only
movement has been further solidified by the various versions of the national
curriculum orders in the UK, which established the use of the target language
(TL) as the means of communication in the classroom (Pachler & Field, 2001,
p84).
Recently though support for an English-only policy has
been declining, and some researchers and teachers have begun to advocate a more
bilingual approach to teaching, which would incorporate the students’ L1 as a
learning tool. Others have even gone as far as saying the use of L1 in the
classroom is necessary (Schweers, 1999, p6). Countries, such as
Many researchers now believe that the search for a
‘best method’ is a futile effort (Lewis, 1993, p189), because there can never
be one method that suits all (Nunan 1999, in Pracek, 2003). Many methods have
their place, and many techniques have their place, depending on the differing
circumstances of the teaching environment. By excluding the students’ L1, we
are severely limiting the number of methods and techniques available to
teachers.
After looking at the relative merits of the
Monolingual versus Bilingual approach to teaching L2, this paper will attempt
to answer a simple but significant question: Can the use of L1 in an L2
classroom facilitate learning?
The Context
This experiment was conducted at the University of
Kent, in England. More specifically, at Chaucer College, which is situated
within the university, but is for first-year Japanese students only. All the
students enter university in Tokyo, Japan, but spend their first year studying
English in England, regardless of whether their major is English or a different
subject such as Business, Science or Computing. All the students are aged 18-19
years old. They all speak Japanese as their first language, and almost all have
studied English for 6 years at secondary school. All the students in our
experiment were male.
Upon arrival in England they are tested. The test used
every year is the KET test (the Cambridge Key English Test). This test is the
first level of Cambridge exams in English for speakers of other languages
(ESOL). Only the reading, writing and listening sections were used (the
speaking section was replaced by our own speaking test). These scores determine
which class they are placed in, ranging from level 1 to level 10, with 1 being the
highest and 10 being the lowest level. The students stay for one year, living
on campus and study from Monday to Friday, from 9:15-4:00pm. There are 7-12
students per class and in addition to studying English they also study
business, history, geography, current issues, developmental studies and
computing (all in English).
At the start of their year it would be fair to assess
the levels of the students as ranging from false beginners to intermediate (our
experiment deals with the former). Even the highest-level students would not be
able to attend a regular English university, and the lower levels, can barely
communicate or function in English. At the end of their year though, a few top
students apply to the University of Kent, while the rest return home, to
continue their studies.
The teachers are all very experienced teachers and all
native speakers. Some have taught at the school for 10 years, while a few have
joined recently. Some of them have also been to Japan, and can speak Japanese.
While the official school policy is English-only, some teachers who are able to
speak Japanese, and who are teaching low-level students, use Japanese in class,
to varying extents. All the teachers are qualified teachers and many posses at
least a graduate degree in either education, EFL/ESL teaching or in another
field.
As the students live together, they unfortunately
spend a lot of time speaking Japanese, and have little or no exposure to
English outside the classroom, apart from simple shopping, commuting and eating
out.
The First Experiment
There are actually two different experiments in this
study. The first one will compare the progress of three classes, as they study
English. They are the three bottom classes in the school, from here on in known
as MG8, MG9 and MG10 (with MG8 being the highest and MG10 being the lowest
class). They all studied English for the same amount of time, and used the same
textbooks in England. On the first placement test (KET test), all their scores
were very low but showed some slight differences. After five months, they were
given a similar test (KET test), and their progress analysed and compared.
The main difference between the classes in terms of
how they studied was that MG9's teacher could speak Japanese and did so
periodically in class. He used Japanese to help explain things when they were
not clear, to quickly clarify new vocabulary and grammar, and sometimes to
explain instructions. While English was the predominant language used in the
classroom, he described it as necessary to incorporate Japanese as a tool for
teaching and learning.
The teachers in the other two classes were unable to
speak Japanese. Of course this did not preclude the students from using it in
class, but it did mean that Japanese was largely excluded from the teaching
process. In MG8 Japanese was not allowed at anytime, even in student-to-student
exchanges. Naturally this was difficult to rigidly enforce, but it was
explained to the students that it was in their best interest to attempt to
speak in L2 only and that this would lead to quicker improvement and learning
on their part. The teacher teaching this class firmly believed in the
Monolingual Approach so he enforced the rule as strictly as possible. There was
a little resentment at first, but afterwards there was almost complete
acceptance. Naturally there were a few occasions when students would lapse into
L1. In MG10, however, Japanese spoken by the students was permitted to an
extent although the teacher was unable to speak Japanese. Unfortunately the teacher
was unable to verify exactly what the Japanese was used for.
The first part of the experiment compared the progress
of these three classes, to see what, if any effect, the use of L1 by the
teacher and students had on overall learning.
The second experiment (see Chapter 4.0) is an
inter-class experiment. Four lessons were taught to MG9: two with an
English-only policy and two using Japanese when necessary.
Chapter 3.3: The Expected Findings
It was expected that while all classes would hopefully
show an improvement, MG9 would show a significantly greater improvement on the
second KET test. In the second experiment it was hoped that the students would
exhibit learning/more learning in the lessons where Japanese was available for
them. If both these claims were to be validated, then the researcher could
claim to have found evidence for his theory that the use of L1 can facilitate
the learning of an L2 and should not be excluded from the classroom.
The Baseline
As was mentioned before, the students all took a
placement test a few days after they arrived at the college. The main purpose
of this test was that it provided teachers and the school with a way to
allocate students into classes. Coincidentally, it served as a good baseline
for our research purposes. While it is recognized that this was not necessarily
the best way to go about establishing a baseline, this test has proven to be a
reliable way of testing students entering the college. The KET test of English
tests the reading, writing and listening skills respectively, in different
sections. A separate oral test was also given so that the students could
demonstrate their speaking skills as well. The oral score was not used for
placement, but was recorded nevertheless. The other three sections of the test
were averaged to give a score out of 100, which is recorded in Table 3.4.1. The
oral scores were scores out of 20 and were done by individual teachers using
strict criteria of questions and prompts, for which students were assigned
points. Points were given for having progressed to certain stages, without
help, having been able to answer questions, and talk about the prescribed
topics and demonstrate viable understanding, as well as using correct English.
Here are the results for the three respective classes:
As can be seen from the data above, all the scores
were below 30%, and ranged all the way down to 9%. There was never more than a
2 percentage point difference between any of the students, but the averages for
each class were significantly different. MG8 averaged 26.12%, while MG9
averaged 20.31% and MG10 averaged about 13.35%, for an average difference of
about 6-7% between classes. All the classes were separated into groups of 12,
except MG9 and MG10, where the line was arbitrarily drawn between 17% and 16%.
The total number of students in MG9 was only 8, while the total number of
students in MG10 was only 7. It should be noted that one student in MG10
returned home for personal reasons after a few weeks, so his score was not
included as no follow up score could be obtained.
The Follow up
The follow up test was conducted about 5 months after
the baseline. All students sat the same exam, at the same time. The test was
once again a KET test, although a different version. The main purpose of the
exam was that it served as a midterm exam for the students, but for the purpose
of this experiment, it serves as a good way to check on the improvements made
by the students.
The results can be seen in Table 3.5.1., below and are
presented along with the results from
The Results
It is possible to see a big overall improvement in the
scores of each class, although a few students actually scored lower the second
time in the oral exams for MG8. One student scored the same in MG10 on the oral
exam, but all the students improved in MG9, on all the exams.
The Oral exams offer the strongest support for our
theory that L1 use can help students learn and improve. The overall scores for
MG9 (for which L1 was used) more than doubled, as did the scores of MG10 (in
which L1 was permitted), but the scores for MG8 (where L1 was not permitted),
while they did improve, increased approximately 33.5% only. Surprisingly MG10
actually improved more than MG9, but there is a logical explanation. One
student did very well in MG10, far above the rest, meaning he could be
considered a statistical anomaly and perhaps skewed some of our data. If his
score is not included, then MG10’s overall improvement is about 98%, compared
with MG9’s, which is 111%. If the highest student in MG10 is included, their
overall improvement rate is 112%. There is only a small difference in the
improvement between the two classes in which L1 (Japanese) was permitted. In
MG8, where it was not permitted, the improvement was substantially lower at
33.5%.
Overall, MG9 averaged the highest in the oral exams at
10.93, followed by MG10 at 10.14, and then MG8 at 9.95. In the original test,
MG8 were at the top with an average score of 7.45, followed by MG9 with 5.18
and then lastly by MG10 at 4.78. The data here is also favourable to our claim.
It is also interesting to note that in MG8 the scores
of two students actually declined, and one stayed the same. In MG10 one
student’s score also stayed the same. All the students improved in MG9,
although, the highest scoring student in the original test, showed the lowest
improvement overall, with an increase of only 5.55%.
On the KET exams, the results are more mixed, and
generally not supportive of our argument. Again, all the classes showed great
improvement, and all the students scored higher in the second test. The levels
of improvement ranged from 29.6% to 123% in MG8, 65% to 247% in MG9, and from
62% to a 722% improvement in MG10.
The percentages for improvement overall are as
follows; MG8 improved about 95.5%,
MG9 improved about 130%, and MG10 improved 189.9%.
While we were expecting the improvement of MG8 to be the lowest, we were
surprised to find that the improvement in MG10 (where L1 is permitted but not
used by the teacher) was higher than the improvement in MG9 (where L1 is
permitted and used by the teacher). When looking at the total overall averages
though, MG8 were still better than MG9 and MG10 were still at the bottom.
The Second Experiment
While some of the evidence in the first experiment
appears to support our thesis, there are still some problems establishing
causality (this will be discussed in Chapter 5.4). So, in order to further
strengthen the claim that the use of L1 in the classroom can facilitate
learning, it was necessary to carry out a second experiment. Only one class
(MG9) was selected for the second part of our experiment. It was felt that this
class was the best choice as the teacher could speak Japanese, thereby removing
a lot of potential obstacles from the design of the experiment. It was also
felt that MG9 would be best suited for the experiment as they were used to
using Japanese in the classroom and were also used to having periods when they
were not allowed to use it. Unlike other classes, the experiment could be
carried out in a natural environment, without the students being aware of it,
and without having to adjust the established learning conditions. By having one
teacher and one class, it was felt that the conditions could be controlled
better, and any findings that were found would be more reliable and valid.
The Background Context
The experiment was carried out at the same school as
the first experiment, but focused on MG9 only. As was mentioned before, in this
class, the teacher was able to speak Japanese (L1), and utilized it when he
deemed necessary. The students were also allowed to speak Japanese when they
needed to (usually when their level of English prohibited them from expressing
what they wished to say or ask). Primarily Japanese was used to help learning
(explaining grammar, clarifying queries, translating new words, clearing up
confusion), but inevitably it was sometimes used for casual daily conversation.
However, there were several hours of lessons a week in which Japanese was
prohibited, in an effort to challenge the students to speak more English. So,
it was relatively easy to conduct the experiment within the normal confines of
this classroom.
It was decided that in the first week a lesson would
be conducted as usual, utilizing L1 when needed. The following week, another
lesson was taught to them, without L1 usage being available. At the end of both
weeks, the students were tested to see how much they had learned. The two-week
cycle was then repeated in reverse order with two new lessons, so as to try and
establish a measure of reliability if any positive (or negative) findings were
found.
The Design of the Second Experiment
Due to logistical limitations, it was not possible to
carry out an experiment that was as comprehensive as we would have liked.
Ideally it would have been better if we could have separated the class into two
groups, and used one as a control group, and one as an experimental group.
Instead we had to use the same group and vary the lessons to make a comparison.
An attempt was made to account for as many variables
as possible. All four lessons were carried out with the same group of students,
and the same teacher. All the lessons were deemed to have been of a similar
level of difficulty, and the same time was spent on each lesson in class. The
tests and lessons administered were essentially the same as would have occurred
in any other given week, during the course, so as to prevent any surprises and
to prevent unfamiliarity from affecting the results obtained. The students were
not told of the experiment because it was thought that prior knowledge of this
information could influence the results. After the results were collected, the
students were debriefed, and their consent was obtained.
As the lessons were part of a well-established
routine, the students were aware of when they could use L1, and when they could
not, so this was not a problem. In the lessons where Japanese was used, it was
thought that as per usual, Japanese spoken by the students would be allowed
when it was needed. Consequently, it was the students who determined when L1
was used and for what purpose it was used. However, all students abided by a
prior class rule, that they were to use English unless it was not possible, in
which case Japanese was allowed. The teacher would usually not initiate
anything in Japanese, but would use Japanese if the students prompted him. His
Japanese was recorded so that it could be checked and verified later by a
native Japanese speaker to ensure that any Japanese he used, was used correctly
and did not mislead students.
Each lesson had similar components, such as the
initial learning of new vocabulary, which was necessary for mastering the key
concepts in the main part of the lesson. After the meaning of the vocabulary
was established, the vocabulary was demonstrated by the teacher and then
manipulated by the students, with the teacher providing the appropriate
feedback. When L1 was permitted, students would often translate the new word
into Japanese, and check to see which part of speech it was. Then they would practice
using it, helped by some demonstrations from the teacher. A class set of cards
was also made, so that the information could be readily accessed by anyone who
needed it. The same pattern was followed in the English-only lessons, except that
they were not allowed to translate the word into L1, but had to define the new
vocabulary in words they already knew (L2 only). The teacher obviously assisted
with this, by providing plenty of examples, so that they could deduce the
meaning of the word from the context of its usage.
In the next part of the lesson, examples of the key
structure for the week were examined, explained and manipulated. Students were
then required to perform certain tasks, which helped them learn the key
concepts further. After the point had been understood to the teacher’s
satisfaction, various tasks were given out to the students, where they had to
manipulate and use the new structures and grammar, to communicate with each
other, negotiate and exchange information. Efforts were made to insure as
realistic activities as possible.
At the end of the week, students were required to do a
test where they could demonstrate they knew the new vocabulary, could use it
correctly, and could also demonstrate that they understood and could use the
key concepts of the lesson for that week.
In order to provide evidence of learning, a baseline
test was given to the class at the beginning of each week. The baseline tests
were similar to the final tests the students were given, but obviously different
in terms of the specific content, which was varied. A comparison of these two
tests and the differences between them would provide the data showing how much
learning had taken place.
The content of each lesson was based on four
consecutive units in the course book. The titles of the lessons reflected the
key grammar components of each lesson. The lessons were as follows:
·
Superlatives (L1 use permitted)
·
Past habits / used to (English only)
·
Conjunctions (English only)
·
Time clauses (L1 use permitted)
It should be noted that the method of teaching in
these classes, could be criticized for not incorporating the latest findings in
SLA (Second Language Acquisition) and although reflective learning and
consciousness raising were encouraged, a lot of the lesson could be said to
have followed PPP (presentation, practice, and production). However, it was
felt that as this was the standard method for teaching in this school, and the
students were familiar with it, it would be counterproductive to attempt anything
radically new just for the sake of these experiments. The lessons in the
experiment were more representative of the type of lessons that generally occur
at this school, so if significant findings were found, they would be more
meaningful.
The Results
Here are the results for the first lesson on
‘Superlatives’ (L1 permitted)
From the results we can see that the students were
best prepared for Lesson 3, as they scored 61.83% on the baseline. They also
did well on Lesson 1 in the baseline, by scoring 60.67%, but did far worse on
Lessons 4, where they scored 41.1%, and on Lesson 2, where they scored 32.46%
After a week’s worth
of lessons, they did considerably better overall. Lesson 1 showed the highest
score at week’s end, with 89.18%, followed by Lesson 3 with an average score of
67.25%. The two lowest scoring lessons in the baseline showed significant
improvement and almost surpassed the average of Lesson 3. Lesson 2 averaged
66.38%, and Lesson 4 averaged 64.1%.
In terms of improvement, Lessons 2 and 4 showed the
greatest amount of statistical improvement, no doubt because their initial
scores were so low. In Lesson 2 the average score increased by 104%. In Lesson
4, the average score increased by about 56%. Lessons 1 and 4 also exhibited
increases in the average score, but as their initial scores were higher, the
increase was relatively lower. In Lesson 1, the average score increased about
47%, whereas in Lesson 3 the average score increased about only 9%.
Analysis
With the completion of the research and the collection
of the data, we can now turn our attention to analyzing the results. Our
analysis will focus on answering two questions. The first is whether the use of
L1 in the classroom hindered learning. The second is whether the use of L1 in
the classroom helped students more than the prohibition of it. Overall it would
be fair to categorize our conclusions as positive, in terms of validating our
research thesis. Results indicate that the use of L1 in the classroom does not
seem to hinder the learning of an L2, and in fact seems to facilitate it in
some situations. Results also show that English-only can help learning and lead
to improvements. However, upon closer examination there seems to be evidence
that the use of L1 in the classroom does actually help learning and lead to
more improvement among the students than English-only. It should be noted
though, that there were some problems with this study, which may have
influenced the results.
Analysis of Experiment 1
The results from the first experiment suggest that the
use of L1 in the language classroom does not hinder learning. All the students
in MG9 improved considerably in all aspects of their L2 as evidenced by the KET
test and the oral exam. Some improved more than others, but the fact that they
all improved (quite considerably in most cases) would seem to contradict the
notion that using some L1 in the classroom hinders the learning of an L2. Of
course it could be argued that the students in MG8 and MG10 also improved,
without the use of L1 by their teachers. This is not completely unexpected
though, as the students studied intensely for five months, and were living in
an environment where they needed L2.
The key to the results in Experiment 1 is that while
all the classes improved, MG9 improved more than MG8 who were a higher class
(based on the initial tests). This improvement is most evident in the oral
section. Not only did MG9 (where L1 was used) improve more than the other two
classes, but they also scored higher overall than the other two classes. These
results are probably the strongest evidence we found in Experiment 1, to
support our original thesis. The use of L1 in MG9 certainly did not hinder
their progress, and actually appears to have helped it.
The reason for this might lie less in a direct
relationship between learning and L1 use,
but more in a sense of confidence that developed
between the students and the teacher. A quick survey among other, non language
teachers, who taught all three classes, found that they were almost unanimous
in the opinion that MG9 exhibited far greater confidence when speaking,
compared to the other two classes. The students themselves agreed and many said
that perhaps the biggest reason for their apparent confidence was the relaxed
atmosphere in the classroom. They knew that if they made a mistake or got stuck
and couldn’t express themselves, they could always fall back on L1, knowing the
teacher could understand easily and would help them. Consequently, they also
didn’t worry about making mistakes as much, and considered expressing
themselves the primary objective of speaking. Interestingly enough, students in
MG8 seemed to agree that they became hesitant when speaking in L2, knowing they
were fairly low-level, and that if they were not understood or got into
difficulty, they could not get help via L1. The students in MG9 reported that
by sometimes conversing with the teacher in L1 (especially near the beginning
of the course), they felt they could get to know the teacher better, whereby
they could relax more, and feel more confident when attempting to speak in L2,
knowing the teacher and trusting he would support them when necessary.
It would seem likely then that although the use of L1
in the classroom did not perhaps directly contribute to the superior
improvement in speaking of MG9, it did serve a purpose, which led to the
aforementioned improvement. Conversely, the prohibition of L1 in the classroom,
lead to lasting insecurities among the students of MG8, which contributed to
their slow improvement with regards to speaking.
In terms of the other test, which was administered
(the KET test), the results are less supportive of our position. MG9 did not
exhibit any substantially greater improvement than either MG8 or MG10. However,
they still exhibited a very good improvement rate, which further diminishes the
notion that L1 use can hinder development. Clearly learning was not hindered in
this case, by the use of L1 in the classroom.
The results of Experiment 1 show that not only does
the use of L1 not hinder the development and improvement of an L2, it can
actually facilitate it, by installing a sense of confidence among the students,
based on a trust in the teacher to support them when needed.
Analysis of Experiment 2
The results for Experiment 2 could be described in the
same way as Experiment 1. Overall it would be fair to say that they were fairly
supportive of our original thesis. In all four lessons, the average score for
the class improved (possibly as a result of testing so soon after having taught
the structures). Only in a couple of instances, did a student’s individual
score decrease from the baseline. Regardless of whether the lesson was
English-only or a bilingual lesson, the students as a whole improved, further
supporting our initial theory that the use of L1 does not hinder the learning
of an L2.
Upon further examination it can be seen that the
students seemed to have a good grasp of two of the lessons, before they were
taught, both averaging about 60% on the baseline test. The other two were
obviously more difficult as the students averaged about 32% and 41% on the
baseline test. Fortunately for the researcher this unexpected finding provided
a unique opportunity. By coincidence rather than design, one of the more
difficult lessons was English-only, and one wasn’t. The same is true of the two
easier lessons. This gives us the additional chance of being able to further
compare the differences between English-only lessons and lessons where L1 is
used.
Firstly, the results from the easier lessons will be
analysed. Lesson 1 was on Superlatives, and the students averaged 60.67% on the
baseline test. Compare that to Lesson 3 on Conjunctions, where the students
averaged fractionally higher, with 61.83%. The difference between the baseline
tests was insignificant. In Lesson 1, L1 was used/permitted during the course
of the week, whereas in Lesson 3 it was not. At the end of each week final
tests were administered and the results were quite different. In Lesson 1,
where L1 was used, the student average improved from 60.67% to 89.18%, but in
Lesson 3 where L1 was prohibited the student average only increased from 61.83%
to 67.25%. These figures indicate possible support for our argument that L1 use
in the classroom can facilitate the learning of an L2.
It is also interesting to look at the figures of some
individual students. In Lesson 1 the weakest student (Student F) improved from
39.47% on the baseline to 85.5% on the final test. His score more than doubled.
In fact every student in the class showed an increase of at least 13%, or more.
Compare this with Lesson 3, and we can see that while some students did
improve, Student G showed no improvement, and Students A, B, F and H actually
scored lower on the second test.
Initially these figures also seem to support our
thesis claim. Unfortunately there are some problems with these figures with
regards to comparing different lessons (see Chapter 5.4). There is also the
possibility that the second test in Lesson 3 was substantially more difficult
than the baseline test, thereby causing the scores of several students to drop,
and not properly reflecting the true learning that had occurred.
We can also compare Lessons 2 and 4 for further data
regarding our thesis. Lesson 2 was on habits/ used to, and students found this
difficult, as evidenced by their very low baseline scores; 32.46%. Lesson 4 was
on time clauses, and the students faired marginally better, by averaging 41.1%
on the baseline. In Lesson 2 L1 was not permitted but this did not prevent the
students from improving greatly over the course of the week, and scoring 66.38%
on the final test. All the students improved their scores, although two
students still did fairly poorly on the final test, showing that while they had
learned something, they had not fully grasped the full concepts of the lesson.
In Lesson 4, L1 was permitted and used by the students
and the teacher alike. The average score was only 41.1% on the baseline,
showing the students had a great deal of trouble with the use of time clauses. After
a week of lessons in which L1 was permitted, they showed considerable
improvement, as in other lessons. They averaged 64.1%. The results of this
lesson compared with the results of Lesson 2 provide some rather interesting
findings. It is often assumed that the use of the student’s L1 in the classroom
is most appropriate in low-level classes, where there is little or no
understanding. In lessons 2 and 4, our low level class exhibited low
understanding of the lesson material in the baseline test, particularly in
Lesson 2. It was hypothesized that as they seemed to have more of a grasp of
Lesson 4, and that they could use L1 in the lesson to help them understand,
they would naturally improve more significantly, in Lesson 4. The results show
otherwise, and this is a serious blow to our research thesis. The students did
improve considerably in Lesson 4, further providing support for our argument
that L1 use does not hinder learning. However, the second part of our thesis is
not supported by the comparisons between Lessons 2 and 4. In Lesson 2 where L1
was not permitted, the students improved substantially more than they did in
Lesson 4 where L1 was permitted. Even though they scored lower in Lesson 2 on
the baseline test, they actually scored higher on the final test, than they did
in Lesson 4. This could suggest that perhaps Lesson 2 was easier to understand,
or that possibly L1 use is not very important when trying to understand a
difficult lesson.
If we look at the results for Experiment 2 together
though, they are still favourable in terms of supporting our thesis. In both
the lessons where L1 was used, the students all improved considerably, compared
to only one of the two lessons where L1 was prohibited. The use of L1 clearly
did not hinder learning and a strong argument could be made that it actually
helped learning.
An Evaluation of the Experiments
While there were problems with this study, its design
worked fairly well, for the most part. Because of the circumstances in which it
was carried out, it was not possible to design the experiments exactly as we
would have liked. For example, it would have been better had we been able to
separate MG9 into a control group and an experimental group. A retest a few
weeks later would also have been beneficial.
Still there, were a lot of strengths regarding the
design of these experiments. The homogenous group of subjects meant that many
possible variables were controlled. The similarity in level of the three groups
in the first experiment also meant that comparisons could be made fairly
easily, as did the fact that the same textbooks were used in each class, the
same amount of time was spent on lessons, and the same tests were taken at the
beginning and end of the experiment stage.
As with most research studies though, there were
problems, which have to a certain extent, undermined the findings discussed in
Chapters 5.1 and 5.2. In Chapter 5.4 these weaknesses will be discussed and
presented along with suggestions on how to improve this kind of experiment in
Chapter 5.5.
Problems with this Study
There are two major weaknesses with this study. They
are: the failure to establish causality in Experiment 1, and the comparison of
possibly incomparable statistics in Experiment 2.
Causality is obviously vital for any research study.
Even with favourable results, such as in Experiment 1, the inability to clearly
demonstrate causality hurts any claim that can be made.
One reason why causality was weakened was the possible
presence of other variables. While many variables such as time, lesson content,
student ability, nationality, and tests were accounted for, a few variables
were not, such as: teaching methods, teacher personalities or even student
factors. All of these could have skewed the results in Experiment 1. For example:
it was widely thought among the teaching staff that MG9 were on the whole, a
more outgoing and talkative class. Perhaps this is why they scored higher on
the oral tests, but not in the KET tests. It is also possible that MG9 and MG10
improved more in comparison with MG8, because they were smaller classes,
thereby allowing each student more talking time in class. Because variables
such as these cannot be ruled out, it is more difficult to argue that the use
of L1 in the learning process was the factor or cause, which contributed to
MG9’s higher scores in the oral exams.
The second major weakness with this study is the
reliance on statistics as evidence of learning. Tests and test scores are of
course not always the best indicators of learning. There is also the problem
with interpreting statistics. Comparing the improvement of classes based on
percentages can be problematic, and in Experiment 2 it is possible to argue
that the figures obtained are not necessarily indicative of learning and
possibly not comparable. For instance, it is difficult to say that 1 percentage
point on one test/lesson equals a percentage point on a completely different
test/lesson.
Also damaging to our theory is that MG10 improved more
than MG9 on the KET test. Although they were expected to improve more than MG8,
the fact that they outperformed MG9 was surprising. It is possible to argue
that they were also allowed to use Japanese in the classroom, and that this
actually supports our theory, but of course the teacher did not use Japanese,
so this actually undermines our theory, and perhaps gives support to the idea
that L1 does not need to be used in the classroom.
Future Research
In order to attain more convincing findings than the
ones collected in this paper, there are several areas, which need improving.
The most obvious would be to create a control group. This would allow the same
lessons taught by the same teachers, to similar students, to be evaluated. By
controlling almost every variable and only altering whether the group is able
to use Japanese or not, causality could be attained. This would also allow the
experimenter to compare near identical lessons, instead of similar lessons,
which are potentially problematic. Naturally it would be important to make sure
that the experimenting did not come at the expense of student’s education.
To further strengthen claims, it would have been
better to expand this experiment to include not only low-level students, and
also to go beyond using only Japanese students. It is quite possible that
nationality or student ability could have played a part in the findings. With
increased subject numbers and a more varied subject pool, it would be more
possible to generalize findings.
Another area that we would have liked to investigate
more had we had the resources and time would have been to try and ascertain in
what specific situations L1 can help, within a lesson.
Conclusions
The results of this experiment have partially
confirmed the original thesis. Due to a personal bias, and an increase in
recent research supporting this bias, we investigated the use of L1 in the
English language classroom. Before the experiment it was hypothesized that L1
use in the classroom does not hinder learning, as many have claimed, but that
it actually helps learning. The purpose of this research was to try and prove
these two theories and find evidence to validate our claims, so that it could
be put into use at the college where this research was carried out. Indeed, as
a result of this research serious consideration has been given to the school’s
English-only policy. Early indications are that it will be abolished.
The experiment actually involved two different
experiments. In the first, three low-level first-year university classes were
compared. One class did not permit the use of L1 in the classroom, another did
permit it, and the third actually utilized L1. The classes were similar in many
respects and this enabled us to compare their progress over a five-month
period. The results showed that in the class where L1 was utilized, the
students showed a significantly higher improvement in the area of speaking. The
reason suggested here is that confidence was the determining factor, and that
L1 use helped to foster this confidence.
In the second part of our experiment, one class was
focused on. Four separate lessons were taught to this class, two utilizing L1
and two which did not utilize L1. Results were mixed in this experiment. The
first part of our thesis was favourably supported, as the classes utilizing L1
improved significantly; thereby showing that L1 use had not hindered learning.
There was mixed evidence regarding the second part of our thesis though. In one
comparison, the class using L1 outperformed the one, which did not use it.
However in another comparison, the reverse was true, casting some doubt on the
validity of the first findings. The mixed results were perhaps due to the
design of the experiment, which relied on comparing different lessons, and
assuming they were equal. If these problems could be addressed next time, more
valid and reliable findings could be obtained.
Overall though, the findings in this experiment could
be classified as positive. While there were problems, the findings were
generally favourable and supportive of our original thesis, that L1 use in the
English classroom does not hinder the learning of an
L2, and can actually facilitate it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------