Problem statement
Experts in second language acquisition are increasingly divided on the use of students' mother tongue (L1) in foreign language (L2) classrooms, with varying opinions on its effectiveness in enhancing learning outcomes.
The monolingual approach advocates for using only the target language in communication, believing that excluding the native language enhances learning effectiveness However, there is a growing belief that the first language (L1) plays a crucial and supportive role in teaching second and foreign languages (L2).
The debate over the use of students' first language (L1) in English language classrooms remains contentious among professionals Critics argue that reliance on L1 hinders students' ability to engage fully in target language exchanges, as highlighted by Mattioli (2004), while Ellis (1984) cautions that excessive L1 use can deprive learners of essential input in the second language (L2) Auerbach (1993) notes that many ESL teachers believe L1 use obstructs English acquisition, leading them to implement strategies such as games and penalties to discourage it This perspective is further supported by Weinberg (1990), who advocates for strict English-only policies, even suggesting fines for students using their native languages.
Many experts in second language acquisition advocate for the use of the first language (L1) in teaching students with low proficiency in the target language, as supported by various studies (Nation, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Atkinson, 1987; Tang, 2002; Auerbach, 1993; Mattioli, 2004) This highlights the significant role L1 can play in language instruction for low proficiency learners (LPL) However, there is a lack of empirical research specifically investigating the positive effects of L1 usage in teaching these learners.
This study explores various approaches to first language (L1) use in the context of second language (L2) learning, specifically from the perspectives of both teachers and students Focusing on students' vocabulary acquisition, the research aims to enhance pedagogical methodologies in English language teaching, particularly at universities in Vietnam, including Hanoi University of Industry The findings are expected to contribute to more effective vocabulary instruction in these educational settings.
The researcher emphasizes the importance of vocabulary acquisition in second language learning, highlighting its central role and significance for language learners Vocabulary is crucial for developing the four essential language skills, underscoring its impact on overall language proficiency.
Vocabulary is essential for effective communication, as it enables individuals to label objects, actions, and ideas (Nation, 2001) Recognizing its significance, researchers and theorists have developed various approaches and techniques to enhance vocabulary acquisition in second language learners (Hatch & Brown, 1995) Ringbom's study (1987) highlights the crucial role of the first language (L1) in facilitating vocabulary learning (Nation, 2001) Auerbach (1993) supports this by asserting that incorporating L1 in L2 classrooms positively impacts vocabulary learning However, the specific effects of L1 usage on students' English vocabulary acquisition remain an area of ongoing research.
Aims of the study
This paper explores how the use of students' first language (L1) in the classroom impacts their vocabulary acquisition in English as a second language It investigates the potential hindrances and benefits of integrating L1 in the learning process, aiming to understand its role in enhancing or obstructing vocabulary development.
The inclusion of students' native language in English language classrooms remains a contentious issue, as highlighted by Brown (2000) While the Direct Method advocates historically banned the use of mother tongue, its potential benefits for second language acquisition have been recognized (Cook, 2001) However, many educators still grapple with the decision to incorporate L1 support due to a lack of explicit training and theoretical guidance in current TESOL programs Consequently, teachers often find themselves navigating this complex issue independently.
The researcher questions the use of students' first language (L1), specifically Vietnamese, in English classes based on her personal teaching experiences, recent literature, and discussions with fellow educators While advocating for the occasional use of L1 may contradict traditional ESL/EFL training, it merits thoughtful consideration in the context of effective language instruction.
This research study seeks to provide evidence for the thoughtful incorporation of learners' mother tongue (L1) in second language teaching, specifically focusing on vocabulary instruction Conducted as action research, the findings aim to directly influence teaching practices at the school level The primary objective is to assess the effects of using L1 in English classrooms on students' vocabulary acquisition.
Scope of the study
This study concentrates on “the role and the use of first language in General-
This study investigates the role of Vietnamese (L1) in English classes at Hanoi University of Industry, focusing on its application in teaching vocabulary to non-majored students at the elementary level It emphasizes the importance of understanding how Vietnamese can support English language instruction across various proficiency levels, particularly in enhancing vocabulary acquisition for beginners.
Method of the study
This action research study investigates the effectiveness of different approaches, including the use of Vietnamese, in teaching vocabulary to students The research involved two experiments: the first with four classes divided into control and experimental groups, each taught using distinct methods Initial findings from the first experiment informed a second experiment, where the same class experienced both approaches across different lessons Throughout the study, the teacher researcher observed classroom interactions and administered tests to students The results from these observations and assessments highlighted the positive impact of incorporating Vietnamese in enhancing students' English vocabulary learning.
Organization of the study
The study is structured into three chapters, beginning with Chapter 1, which thoroughly explores the role of L1 use in language classrooms, specifically in vocabulary lessons, to provide context for the subsequent experiments Chapter 2 outlines the design and analytical framework of two experiments conducted in the study Finally, Chapter 3 presents the results of observations and tests, accompanied by a discussion on English language learning and teaching To set the stage for these findings, a review of relevant literature is essential.
Literature review
The historical view of the issue
The history of L1 use in L2 classrooms has seen significant shifts over time, as noted by Auerbach (1999) Centuries ago, bilingual teaching was common, with students primarily learning through translation, as the focus was on written language However, in the 19th century, this approach began to decline in favor of a monolingual method, driven by a growing emphasis on spoken language The 20th century saw the rise of the Monolingual Approach, influenced by factors such as mass migration, colonialism, and increased research in language education.
The mass migration from Europe to America significantly impacted education, prompting educators to adapt their teaching methods As classrooms transitioned from smaller, translation-focused groups to larger, diverse settings with mixed first languages (L1), reliance on L1 for instruction diminished Consequently, teachers were required to use the second language (L2) as the primary medium of instruction, reshaping the learning environment and teaching strategies.
The experiences of teachers who taught abroad during the colonial era contributed to the evolution of the monolingual approach in education (Phillipson, 1992, p.186) As English emerged as the dominant culture in British colonies, individuals outside this sphere felt compelled to assimilate to improve their social standing or join the ruling elite This dynamic fostered a belief in the superiority of English over other languages, leading to the widespread assumption that English should be the sole language used in English-language classrooms.
The shift towards an English-only classroom, driven by the political and practical motivations of teachers rather than students, led to the exclusion of students' native languages (L1) Those who used their L1 often faced punishment or shame (Phillipson, 1992, p 187), as bilingual education was viewed as unnatural and inefficient (Pennycook, 1994, p 136) The prevalence of monolingual teachers further reinforced this policy, as many educators neither spoke nor saw the need to communicate in their students' L1 (Phillipson, 1992, p 188) By enforcing an English-only approach, teachers could maintain control over the classroom, whereas incorporating L1 risked diminishing their authority, as students, being more proficient speakers, could dominate the communication.
The focus on monolingual English instruction has positioned native speakers as the preferred educators, a notion influenced by both political motives and the economic dynamics of the global English as a Foreign Language (EFL) sector This perception allows native speakers to dominate employment opportunities, reinforcing their status as the "ideal teacher" in the field.
The Direct Method of teaching, emerging over a century ago, significantly reinforced the notion that first languages (L1) should be excluded from language classrooms (Harbord, 1992; Pennycook, 1994) This approach posited that second language acquisition should closely resemble first language learning, emphasizing extensive oral interaction while minimizing grammatical analysis and eliminating translation Although the Direct Method was eventually discredited due to its shortcomings in public education (Brown, 1994), its impact on ESL and EFL classrooms remains influential.
Krashen emphasized the importance of maximizing exposure to the target language (L2) in the classroom, advocating that lessons should predominantly be conducted in English He argued that there is a clear connection between comprehensible input in L2 and language proficiency, suggesting that reliance on the first language (L1) could hinder learning Krashen posited that limited success in language acquisition often stems from learners' access to their L1, both in and out of the classroom This principle of conducting lessons in L2 to enhance exposure and learning forms the foundation of the monolingual approach in language education.
The 1961 Makere report strongly advocated for the exclusive use of English in classrooms, establishing five fundamental principles that, despite being challenged over time, were widely accepted as truth during that era.
1 That English should be taught in a monolingual classroom
2 The ideal teacher should be a native English speaker
3 The earlier English is taught the better
4 The more English used in the classroom during lessons, the better
5 If other languages are used, English standards will drop (Phillipson, 1992, p185)
By the 1970s, the Communicative Approach emerged as a dominant method in language teaching, emphasizing the importance of monolingual instruction by native English teachers who taught exclusively in English, thereby excluding the students' first language (L1) This approach was rooted in the belief that authentic communication in the target language (L2) was the most effective way to learn Many linguists advocated for the exclusive use of L2 in the classroom, even when the rationale for its use was not always clear Additionally, researchers in the field argued that reliance on L1 could hinder L2 acquisition and lead to "error transference."
L1 interference can significantly hinder L2 learning, leading to predictable errors based on the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis This hypothesis suggests that by comparing and contrasting a learner's first language (L1) with their second language (L2), educators can identify and anticipate potential difficulties in the learning process.
Some researchers argue that learning a second language (L2) mirrors the principles of first language (L1) acquisition, as noted by Phillipson (1992, p 191) This perspective supports the notion that using solely the target language enhances exposure and facilitates more effective learning.
Since the 1990s, the English-only movement in the UK has been reinforced by national curriculum orders that mandate the use of the target language (TL) as the primary mode of communication in classrooms (Pachler & Field, 2001, p 84).
Support for an English-only teaching policy is waning, with researchers and educators increasingly promoting a bilingual approach that utilizes students' first language (L1) as a valuable learning tool Some experts argue that incorporating L1 in the classroom is essential for effective learning (Schweers, 1999, p 6).
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
According to Pracek (2003), various methods and techniques are essential in teaching, as their effectiveness can vary based on the specific circumstances of the learning environment Excluding students' first language (L1) significantly restricts the range of teaching strategies available to educators.
The current mixed views
1.2.1 Support for the Monolingual Approach
There is some strong support for the Monolingual Approach to teaching in the literature and advocates usually organize their support around 3 claims:
1 The learning of an L2 should model the learning of an L1 (through maximum exposure to the L2)
2 Successful learning involves the separation and distinction of L1 and L2
3 Students should be shown the importance of the L2 through its continual use (Cook, 2001, p412)
According to Cook 2001, these are some of the fundamental principles of the Monolingual Approach
Research suggests that second language (L2) acquisition resembles first language (L1) acquisition, with exposure being a crucial factor for effective learning (Lewis, 1993, p 54) Children naturally acquire their first language by listening and imitating their surroundings, highlighting the importance of exposure in developing linguistic skills The Communicative Approach supports a monolingual strategy for adults, aiming to enhance communication in L2 (Phillipson, 1992, p 185) Many educators believe that maximizing exposure to English in the classroom is essential, as it often serves as the students' primary opportunity to engage with the language (Burden, 2000, p 5).
Supporters of the Monolingual Approach argue that translating between a learner's first language (L1) and the target language (L2) can be risky, as it fosters the misconception that there are direct one-to-one equivalents between the two languages, which is often not true (Pracek).
Supporters of the Bilingual Approach argue that explanations in the first language (L1) are essential for understanding complex grammar concepts, especially for lower-level students However, many educators and researchers contend that numerous grammar points can effectively be taught in the target language (L2) using physical or visual aids This perspective highlights a preference for intralingual strategies, which utilize synonyms, definitions, and contextual clues within the target language, over interlingual strategies that rely on the first language, such as bilingual dictionaries and translations.
Modern language teaching methods, including the communicative approach and audio-lingual method, often exclude the use of the first language (L1) in the classroom, focusing instead on second language (L2) acquisition in isolation This approach contrasts with interlingual strategies, which are associated with traditional methods like grammar translation and contrastive analysis While contemporary methods aim for pedagogical correctness by adhering to principles of communicative language teaching and comprehensive input, they tend to overlook the potential benefits of integrating L1 in the learning process.
Cook's third point highlights that utilizing only the second language (L2) in the classroom effectively emphasizes its significance and illustrates the practical application of the language being learned (Pachler & Field, 2001, p 86).
Proponents of the English-only approach argue that using a student's first language (L1) in the classroom contradicts Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theories, which emphasize the importance of modified input and negotiation in learning a second language (L2) (Polio, 1994, p 156) However, the process of negotiating meaning often results in what is known as "interlanguage," a blend of L1 and L2 used to facilitate communication and refine language skills (Weschler, 1997, p 2) In multilingual classrooms, there is considerable support for a Monolingual Approach, as the effectiveness of L1 use diminishes if the teacher cannot speak all the different L1s present (Hawks).
2001, p49) and indeed it would probably hinder learning
1.2.2 Support for the Bilingual Approach
Despite increasing resistance to the English-only movement, proponents continue to advocate for English as the primary language of instruction While there is limited evidence highlighting the advantages of excluding the first language (L1) from educational settings, supporters remain committed to this approach.
However, there is now a belief by some that the use of L1 could be a positive resource for teachers and that considerable attention and research should be focused on it (Atkinson,
Research indicates that students favor teachers who are proficient in their native language (L1), as it enhances their learning experience (Briggs, 2001) A study conducted by Schweers (1999) revealed that 88.7% of Spanish students learning English preferred the use of L1 in the classroom, citing its role in facilitating comprehension Additionally, students expressed a desire for up to 39% of class time to be dedicated to L1 instruction (Schweers, 1999).
Critics of the Monolingual Approach argue that it is impractical, that native teachers may not always be the most effective educators, and that mere exposure to a language is inadequate for true learning.
The Monolingual Approach to teaching presents significant challenges, primarily due to its impracticality (Phillipson, 1992, p191) A key issue is that most English teachers are non-native speakers, and enforcing an English-only policy can hinder their communication skills and teaching effectiveness (Hawks, 2001, p50) Additionally, this approach can lead to decreased teacher performance and alienate students from the learning process (Pachler & Field, 2001, p85) Research indicates that excluding the first language (L1) may result in higher dropout rates in ESL schools, while allowing L1 use fosters more positive outcomes (Auerbach, 1993, p18) Furthermore, monolingual teaching can create tension and barriers between students and teachers, making it inappropriate or unfeasible in many situations (Pachler & Field).
2001, p86) When something in a lesson is not being understood, and is then clarified through the use of L1, that barrier and tension can be reduced or removed
The Monolingual Approach suggests that native speakers are the ideal teachers; however, this is a misconception, as native fluency does not equate to teaching proficiency (Phillipson, 1992, p 194) In fact, non-native teachers may be more effective, as they have experienced the challenges of learning a second language themselves, providing them with a valuable insider's perspective on the learning process.
Excluding individuals with diverse knowledge from the learning process squanders a valuable resource The concept of a "native teacher" is also contentious, as English exists in many variations globally, leading to ongoing debates about what defines an authentic native English speaker Ultimately, there is no scientific evidence to substantiate the idea that a native teacher is the ideal educator.
The Monolingual Approach assumes that increased exposure to a target language (L2) automatically enhances learning, disregarding the role of a student's first language (L1) However, research indicates that teaching solely in the target language does not guarantee improved learning outcomes (Pachler & Field, 2001) While the quantity of exposure is significant, factors such as the quality of instructional materials, the expertise of teachers, and effective teaching methodologies play a more crucial role in language acquisition (Phillipson, 1992) This is especially evident for struggling lower-level students, where excessive exposure to L2 without clear explanations in L1 can lead to frustration and hinder progress (Burden, 2000).
Some researchers have challenged the Monolingual Approach by highlighting the benefits of incorporating the first language (L1) in language learning and identifying appropriate contexts for its use Humanistic teaching perspectives suggest that allowing students to express themselves in their native language is essential, especially as they navigate the complexities of learning a new language Since students naturally relate new concepts to their L1, attempting to eliminate this connection can hinder their learning process and lead to negative outcomes (Harbord, 1992, p 351).
Proponents of L1 in the classroom, such as Auerbach (1993), have faced criticism for allegedly advocating for its indiscriminate use; however, supporters of the Bilingual Approach clarify that they do not endorse widespread L1 usage (Auerbach in Polio, 1994, p 157) Research has identified specific contexts where L1 is appropriate and others where it is not For instance, a survey by Mitchell (1988) revealed that teachers generally accept L1 use when explaining grammar, as well as in situations involving discipline, providing instructions for activities, and sharing background information (Mitchell, 1988, p 29).
Other researchers have suggested the use of L1 in situations such as eliciting language, checking comprehension, giving instructions and helping learners cooperate with each other (Atkinson, 1987, p243)
Approaches to vocabulary teaching
Sửkmen (1997) highlights that vocabulary teaching traditionally employs a top-down, naturalistic, and communicative approach, focusing on implicit and incidental learning In foreign language classrooms, teachers often encourage students to infer meanings from context rather than using their first language (L1), fearing dependency on it However, recent studies suggest that relying solely on implicit teaching methods may hinder language learning for some students Research indicates that a blend of implicit and explicit vocabulary instruction is more effective for vocabulary acquisition.
A study by Ramachandran and Rahim (2004) indicates that explicit instruction utilizing the first language (L1) can significantly enhance vocabulary recall and retention among elementary-level ESL students.
In TEFL, the use of the first language (L1) is often neglected, as many educators advocate for teaching English exclusively in English to immerse students in the target language However, considering students' preferences and progress can provide valuable insights for teachers when deciding which language to utilize in the classroom.
Adults L2 vocabulary acquisition model
Based on the characterization of the unique learning conditions adult L2 learners face, Jiang (2000) proposed a three-stage psycholinguistic model of adult L2 vocabulary acquisition
In the initial lexical association stage, adult learners identify a second language (L2) word by recognizing its orthographic or phonological form, often relating it to their first language (L1) for meaning They create associations with L1 translations to aid memory retention However, unlike L1 words, which encompass comprehensive lexical knowledge—including meaning, syntax, morphology, and phonology/orthography—L2 words may lack this depth in their lemma and lexeme structures.
(Levelt, 1989), this L2 lexical entry contains only form knowledge, that is, phonology and orthography Other space in the entry is empty
At this stage of lexical development, L2 word processing relies heavily on L1 translations due to weak or nonexistent direct links between L2 words and their concepts The activation primarily involves lemma information from the L1 entry, while the lexeme part with form specifications becomes less active As learners are exposed to and use L2 more, semantic and syntactic information from L1 translates into L2, leading to significant changes in lexical representation Consequently, the L2 entry evolves to include a blend of L2 form specifications along with transferred L1 semantic and syntactic information, establishing direct links to conceptual representations This results in greater fluency and automaticity in L2 usage, although L1 influence remains prevalent as lexical processing is still mediated by L1 lemma information This stage can be characterized as the L1 lemma mediation stage from a processing perspective and the hybrid-entry stage from a representational standpoint, highlighting the coexistence of L2 form and L1 meaning and syntax.
In the third stage of lexical development, L2 words integrate specific lexical knowledge while discarding L1 information, allowing for more automatic and idiomatic usage with minimal influence from L1 translations However, according to Jiang's model (2000), many advanced L2 learners may not fully reach this stage, resulting in a persistent reliance on L1 lemma mediation during lexical processing.
In conclusion, the analyses presented challenge the outright dismissal of first language (L1) in second language (L2) vocabulary instruction, particularly for adult learners Many contemporary teaching methodologies, including the communicative approach, audio-lingual method, mainstream English as a Foreign Language (EFL) techniques, and traditional direct methods, often exclude L1 from the classroom environment.
Johnson & Johnson (1999) emphasizes that a learner's first language (L1) is inherently present in their mind, regardless of the teacher's intentions This connection means that the knowledge being developed in a second language (L2) is intricately linked to the learner's existing L1 knowledge in various ways.
Action research
Kemmis and McTaggart describe action research as a purposeful and solution-focused investigation that is either collectively or individually owned This method involves iterative cycles that include identifying problems, systematically collecting data, reflecting on the findings, analyzing the information, implementing data-driven actions, and ultimately redefining the problems.
“action” and “research” highlights the essential features of this method: trying out ideas in practice as a means of increasing knowledge about or improving curriculum, teaching, and learning” (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988)
Similarly, Watts stated that action research is a process in which participants examine their own educational practice systematically and carefully, using the techniques of research
Steps of an action research are shown in the figure below, which was adapted from Susman, 1983
Considering alternative courses of action
Studying the consequences of an action
Action research is a valuable endeavor for educators, driven by their innate curiosity and desire for knowledge Good teachers continuously seek to enhance their understanding and improve their practices This research method offers numerous benefits, making it an essential tool for professional growth and development in the educational field.
First, research done with the teacher‟s students, in a setting with which the teacher is familiar, helps to confer relevance and validity to a disciplined study
Action research serves as a vital form of professional development for teachers, enabling them to gain insights into their own practices, understand their students better, and collaborate effectively with colleagues This ongoing process fosters continuous improvement in teaching methods and student learning outcomes.
Collaborative action research among pairs or teams of teachers fosters meaningful discussions about teaching strategies, enhancing their professional relationships and promoting a supportive learning environment.
Engaging in action research empowers teachers to focus on critical questions related to school challenges, fostering a culture of inquiry that drives school-wide planning and assessment This collaborative approach not only identifies priorities but also holds the potential to inspire meaningful changes aimed at continuous improvement within the educational environment.
Action research enables teachers to critically reflect on their teaching practices, assess the impact of their instruction on student learning, collaborate more effectively with colleagues, and identify strategies for improving the overall school environment.
Action research enhances communication within schools and districts by fostering collaboration among educators who unite for a common goal Participants in action research exhibit increased flexibility in their thinking and openness to new ideas (Pine, 1981) Research by Little (1981) indicates that this collaborative approach leads to improved collegiality, communication, and networking among educators.
The researcher chose to implement this method in her study to enhance her future teaching practices and suggest potential improvements in English instruction at her school While this action research may not answer all questions regarding student learning or educational improvement, it is conducted in the context where these questions emerge, enabling immediate and relevant action.
The study
Design of the study
The study is conducted in order to find evidence for the acceptance or rejection of the following hypotheses:
- Teacher using and allowing L1 use in English classroom encourage students to get more involved in learning process
- L1 use makes it easier for students to learn the new vocabulary
- L1 use in defining and explaining new words improves student‟s long term memory
This study utilized teaching experiments, incorporating teacher self-observation and pre-test and post-test materials, to collect data on student involvement and vocabulary comprehension Two distinct experiments were conducted to compare the effects of English-only and bilingual (English and Vietnamese) approaches on students' vocabulary retention Each experiment involved administering tests to students and observing classroom dynamics to assess the effectiveness of the different instructional techniques.
The researcher utilized tests as a data collection tool due to their proven reliability in assessing learners' achievements Tests provide valuable insights into students' learning outcomes, enabling teachers to evaluate the effectiveness of their instruction and identify areas for improvement They also help students gauge their progress and focus on their learning needs Regular testing fosters a serious approach to learning by setting clear goals for students (Adrian Doff, 1995) In this study, the tests aimed to measure students' vocabulary achievement in both Vietnamese-instructed and non-Vietnamese-instructed settings, focusing on their understanding of words and expressions through direct translation and contextual usage The correct answer rates for each question were recorded, and the mean scores of each group were calculated, compared, and discussed.
The study consisted of two experiments featuring a total of seven tests Experiment 1 comprised three tests: the first was a diagnostic test, the second assessed students' understanding of vocabulary, and the third evaluated their memory retention of the learned words In Experiment 2, four additional tests were conducted to further analyze the students' performance.
The study focused on students' comprehension of vocabulary taught through experimental lessons using Vietnamese and control lessons using English definitions Tests assessed both comprehension and memory through multiple-choice formats, consisting of two parts: direct translation and contextual vocabulary The first part evaluated students' ability to recognize words and connect them to their L1 equivalents, reflecting a later phase in Jiang's psycholinguistic model of L2 vocabulary acquisition The second part aimed to assess students' ability to use words appropriately in context, indicating their progression to a more fluent and automatic use of vocabulary influenced by their L1.
In the initial test, all 20 words were sourced from earlier units of the New Headway Elementary book that students had recently studied For tests 2 through 7, the vocabulary was derived from the units covered during the research phase of their learning.
Participant observation is a valuable research method due to its ability to gather 'rich' information often unavailable through other sources This approach can enhance understanding of a subject by supplementing, informing, or contradicting existing theories It serves as a preliminary step for researchers to observe events in real-time, helping to formulate hypotheses, or it can be applied later in the research process to test hypotheses developed from theoretical frameworks.
Observation is a valuable research method that captures 'real' and 'genuine' information, free from the biases often present in interviews or questionnaires By allowing participants to behave naturally without the awareness of being observed, this method yields unfiltered data that reflects their true subjective viewpoints Moreover, observation can provide richer insights by accounting for non-verbal interactions and behaviors, making it particularly effective for studying the impact of structures or events on individuals and groups Additionally, the potential for unexpected occurrences during observation enhances its ability to uncover unique and valuable data (Berg, 2003).
The teacher conducted observations of classroom activities to assess student engagement and learning effectiveness across two different teaching approaches Acting as both instructor and observer, the teacher researcher recognized the need to reflect on her own biases, understanding that her involvement could influence interpretations of student behavior Detailed notes were recorded during class sessions and subsequently analyzed to enhance understanding of the dynamics at play.
Observations focused on five aspects of students learning in the class, that is, students asking and answering questions, their competition and active learning, and the excitement of the classroom
The study focused on first-year non-English major students at Hanoi University of Industry, selected from four distinct English classes based on their placement test results Participants completed a pretest to assess their initial English proficiency.
100 of those who have nearly the same scores were selected, 57 of whom were boys and 43 were girls They share the same mother tongue (L1) - Vietnamese and English is their L2
Two classes were assigned as an experimental group (receiving L1 in vocabulary instructions) and the other two classes were assigned as a control group (receiving no L1 in vocabulary instructions)
The analysis reveals no significant difference in the mean scores of the two selected groups in the pretest, indicating that both groups possess comparable English proficiency levels Therefore, it can be inferred that the subjects likely have similar English vocabulary sizes.
The second experiment was conducted with the participation of only 26 students,
10 girls and 16 boys, from a class of experimental group
The research aimed to explore student participation and perception in vocabulary learning, comparing the effectiveness of lessons with and without Vietnamese support By conducting lessons with two distinct research groups and employing different teaching methods within the same class, the study sought to analyze student reactions to these varied approaches.
Two experiments were conducted to gather data on teaching approaches In the first experiment, the teacher utilized varied instructional methods for two groups: the experimental group benefited from L1 support during instruction and explanations, while the control group did not receive any treatment.
The study utilized two variations of the New Headway Elementary (NHE) textbook by Soars & Soars (2004) for different groups The control group had access to the standard version, which includes a word list at the end categorized by part of speech but lacks definitions In contrast, the experimental group used the same textbook enhanced with translations of difficult words at the bottom of each page, along with a word list at the end that provides Vietnamese meanings.
In the experimental group, new vocabulary was introduced with L1 definitions and students were encouraged to provide Vietnamese equivalents, complemented by small tests to assess their understanding and retention Each class began with oral translation or dictation quizzes, while mini-tests, focusing on translating sentences or words between Vietnamese and English, were conducted at the end of four class sessions Conversely, the control group received definitions and explanations solely in English, where students underlined words without translating them into Vietnamese Their assessments included quizzes and small tests that did not involve any translation exercises.
During the experiment, observations were made on student participation in lessons, and initial vocabulary assessments were conducted to ensure a uniform starting level Following eight class periods within a week, a second test evaluated students' understanding of the vocabulary taught A third test, administered three weeks later, assessed retention rates of the new words and expressions, allowing for a comparison of memorization differences between the two groups.
Analytical framework
The first two stages of the three-stage adult L2 vocabulary acquisition model proposed by Jiang (2000) serve as the foundation for data analysis In the initial stage, students recognize the orthographic or phonological forms of words, but these do not yet include lemma structures, such as meaning and syntax Consequently, learners rely on L1 translation as a crucial tool for activation and mediation Progressing to the second stage, students develop a combination of L2 form specifications along with semantic and syntactic information derived from their L1, enabling them to use the words with greater fluency and automaticity.
The initial phase of L2 vocabulary acquisition among students was evaluated through a direct translation task between English and Vietnamese Successful translation indicated that students could recognize the English word forms and associate them with their Vietnamese counterparts The subsequent task, focusing on vocabulary in context, aimed to assess whether students had progressed to the next stage of acquisition By providing specific contexts, the test measured students' ability to select the appropriate word, demonstrating their fluency and automaticity in using the vocabulary.
The rate of correct answers for each question was recorded and the mean score of each group was calculated, compared and then discussed
Observations centered on five key aspects of student learning in the classroom: student engagement through asking and answering questions, fostering competition, promoting active learning, and generating excitement Detailed notes were taken on the teacher's observations of classroom dynamics, which were subsequently discussed to enhance understanding of the learning environment.
Based on test results and observations, conclusions were reached regarding the effectiveness of using the mother tongue in vocabulary instruction for students.
Hanoi University of Industry, and some implications on L1 use in teaching university students
Chapter 3: Data analysis and discussion
This chapter first presents students‟ test scores together with some remarks, then describes and discusses the results of teacher‟s observations
The test results are available below and in the appendices, along with examples of the tests administered to students during the study Results for Test 1 are detailed in Table 1, while Table 2 compares the mean scores of students for Tests 2 and 3.
The results of the tests reveal the number of correct answers for each word, with data for tests 2 and 3 illustrated in charts 1, 2, 3, and 4 Additionally, the outcomes for tests 4 and 5 are presented in table 3, while the results for tests 6 and 7 can be found in table 4.
Students in the experimental group demonstrated superior scores compared to those in the control group, particularly in vocabulary acquisition through direct translation and contextual understanding This trend was also evident in the higher test scores following experimental lessons versus control lessons, with a notable difference of 4.14 points on a 20-point scale in memorization tests.
When both the two groups started the experiment at the similar vocabulary level then what caused their different performances in the following tests?
The achievement of the experimental group can be attributed to two key factors Firstly, assigning definitions and explanations in Vietnamese enabled students to understand new words more clearly, unlike the control group where teachers explained words solely in English without providing L1 equivalents This lack of clarity made it challenging for control class students to grasp meanings, despite teachers’ efforts Both groups were required to memorize vocabulary and participate in quizzes, which served as motivation; however, without a solid understanding, this could widen the gap in student progress The experimental group utilized Vietnamese through oral translation and dictation, facilitating better comprehension of vocabulary Ultimately, the contrasting approaches highlight that the strategic use of Vietnamese significantly enhanced vocabulary acquisition among students.
3.1.1 Results for the diagnosing test
Table 1: Students‟ mean scores for test 1
Table 1 presents the results of Test 1, the diagnosing test, indicating no significant difference in mean scores between the control and experimental groups The control group scored slightly higher in both direct translation and vocabulary in context tasks, with mean scores of 7.87 and 8.11, compared to the experimental group's scores of 7.63 and 7.71, respectively.
3.1.2 Results for the tests on students’ vocabulary comprehension
Results of tests 2, 4, and 5 revealed students‟ comprehension of words The results of all the three tests showed evidence for the positive role of L1 support in English vocabulary teaching
Table 2: Students‟ mean scores for tests 2 and 3
Control group Experimental group Direct
Test 2 was completed by both control and experimental groups after one week (8 class periods) learning the first unit of the experiment (unit 9, NHE 2004) The comparison in scores between the two groups changed slightly, resulting in a higher position for the experimental group The mean score for both the tasks in test 2 declined a little in the control group as compared with that of the first test, while that of the experimental group increased by 0.75 point for each task, that is 1.5 points overall
The second test revealed a significant difference in mean scores between the control and experimental groups, with the control group averaging 7.17 for direct translation and 7.08 for vocabulary in context, while the experimental group scored 8.42 and 8.33, respectively, resulting in a 2.50 point overall difference Notably, five students in the control group, who exhibited lower proficiency, did not complete the tests The experimental group outperformed the control group in identifying correct translations, particularly for words like "lend," "dessert," and "disgusting," where confusion often arose due to phonetic similarities or unfamiliarity with the terms For instance, students frequently confused "lend" with "land," and misinterpreted "dessert" as fruit or candies based on the teacher's explanation The control group struggled significantly with "disgusting," a less familiar word, indicating a need for first-language support In contrast, the smallest discrepancies were observed with simpler words like "shopping list," "together," and "beef," suggesting that the definitions provided were accessible enough to blur the effectiveness of the different instructional approaches.
The results of tests 4 and 5 from the second experiment, detailed in table 3, strongly support the theory that using Vietnamese can enhance students' vocabulary learning more effectively than an English-only approach After the experimental lesson, students' overall scores on the vocabulary comprehension test increased by 2.79 points compared to the control lesson, with the experimental group scoring 2.50 points higher than the control group Notably, these findings indicate a significant improvement in students' vocabulary acquisition.
Test 4 was done by students in an experimental class after they were taught a unit with support of Vietnamese in explanation and test 5 was given to the same students after another unit taught without any Vietnamese being used These two tests‟ results had the same balance as that between the experimental and the control groups in test 2 The test scores for each students in these tests can be found in table 3 In test 4, the mean score for students in this class were 8.65 and 8.20 for the two tasks In the experimental lesson when they were taught in English with support of Vietnamese, students‟ achievement remained stable as compared with that in the first experiment Still those students, when the monolingual methods were used in lessons, the mean scores decreased considerably by 2.19 points for the translation and 1.95 points for the context task When changing from the previous week when Vietnamese was used in teaching them to the second one when it was not used, students had a drop of 4.14 in their general scores We can easily see students‟ scores for both the tasks in test 4 outweighed those in test 5, which was true for almost all students The student who had the most noticeable change was student 2, who scored 6 points lower in test 5 than he did in test 4, 4 points for the direct translation and 2 points for vocabulary in context His results for test 4 (19 points) as well as for the previous tests showed that he was at quite good vocabulary level and learned quite well with Vietnamese explanation However, his achievement dropped sharply when mother tongue was excluded Though at quite a high level of vocabulary, he still had difficulty with words like deodorant, immediately, and annoyed Similarly, students 7, 15, 16, 19 had scores that are
In test 5, only a few students experienced a minor decline in their scores, with a decrease of just 2 points compared to test 4 Notably, these students—specifically students 6, 13, 14, and 23—demonstrated a solid understanding of the teacher's English explanations and illustrations, suggesting that their comprehension skills remained strong despite the slight drop in performance.
The test results indicate that the use of Vietnamese significantly enhances students' understanding of new English vocabulary Specifically, incorporating Vietnamese in defining and explaining words has proven beneficial in improving students' comprehension of English expressions.
3.1.3 Results of the tests on students’ vocabulary memorization