INTRODUCTION
Rationale
The role of students' first language (L1) in target language (TL) classrooms has been a longstanding debate among educators Some theorists, including Krashen, argue against the use of the first language in language instruction.
In 1982, the prohibition of the first language (L1) was believed to enhance comprehensible input in the target language (TG) and improve English language acquisition Cook (2008) argues that learners acquire a foreign language similarly to how they learn their mother tongue Conversely, proponents of L1 use suggest that it can facilitate English acquisition when used judiciously Swain & Lapkin (2000) emphasize that denying students' L1 deprives them of a valuable cognitive tool This study aims to determine whether an English-only approach or a mixed instruction medium, combining Vietnamese and English, is more effective for students' English language acquisition English teachers must consider students' language preferences to assess the effectiveness of either method Auerbach (1993) advocates for allowing students to decide when to use English only or a mixed approach, as they are best positioned to understand their learning needs Therefore, acknowledging students’ perspectives on language use in the classroom is crucial for teachers in today’s educational landscape.
At Nghe An College of Economics, English is a mandatory subject for students, beginning with General English in their first year and transitioning to English for Specific Purposes (ESP) in the second year Most English lessons utilize a mixed instruction medium, enhancing the learning experience.
English only or mixed instruction medium better facilitates students' acquisition of English language knowledge and the EFL university students’ preference for medium of instruction remain a question
Researchers have explored whether English-only instruction or a mixed instruction medium is the more effective option, aiming to provide valuable insights for those interested in this topic.
Aims of the study
This thesis investigates the effectiveness of two instructional mediums—English only and mixed instruction—on the acquisition of English language knowledge among EFL university students By comparing the outcomes of two participant groups, the study aims to determine which medium better facilitates learning Additionally, it explores the preferences of EFL university students regarding their preferred medium of instruction.
Research questions
The thesis seeks to answer the following research questions:
1 Which type of instruction medium better facilitates EFL university students' acquisition of English language knowledge?
2 Which type of instruction medium is preferred by EFL university students?
Scope of the study
This study examines the impact of instructional medium on English language acquisition among EFL university students, specifically focusing on their preferences for the medium of instruction Conducted at Nghe An College of Economics, the research involved two first-year classes due to time constraints.
Thesis organization
The thesis includes five chapters as follows:
Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION – provides the rationale, the aims, the research questions, the scope and the organization of the study,
Chapter 2 – THEORETICAL BACKGROUND – presents some concepts serving as the theoretical basis for the study and previous studies related to the topic
Chapter 3 – METHODOLOGY – describes the research questions, the study setting, the participants, the materials, and the research procedures
Chapter 4 – FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION – presents the results and discussions
Chapter 5 – CONCLUSION– summarizes the main issues touched upon in the research, the limitations of the research and some suggestions for further studies
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Trends in language teaching: An overview
Before exploring various language teaching trends and their impact on a teacher's language choice, it's essential to clarify the terminology used in this context The term "teaching style," as suggested by Cook (2001), is more neutral than "teaching method," as it does not imply rigidity An "approach" encompasses broader linguistic and psychological insights into language and learning, while a "method" is a specific application of an approach, as noted by Bell (1981) However, the terms "approach" and "method" are sometimes used interchangeably For instance, Baker and Jones (1998) refer to grammar translation as an approach, whereas Cook labels it a teaching style, and Bell categorizes it as a method Lastly, "teaching technique" pertains to specific exercises used to teach language items, as defined by Cook (2001).
This study adopts Bell’s perspective, using the term "teaching method" to describe language instruction, while "approach" is viewed as a broader concept To encompass both, we refer to them collectively as "language teaching trends." Despite appearing outdated, many of these methods and approaches continue to influence modern language teaching significantly Additionally, the various language teaching trends may have shaped the perceptions of the student teachers involved in this study Therefore, it is essential to discuss these trends and their implications for selecting classroom language The following section will provide a brief overview of well-known methods and approaches, highlighting their fundamental principles.
5 described and, more importantly, the implications regarding the teacher’s language choice are addressed
2.1.1 Mother tongue as the medium of instruction
The Grammar-Translation Method, the earliest language teaching approach, primarily relies on the mother tongue (L1) for classroom communication According to Larsen-Freeman (2000), this method emphasizes reading literature in the target language and aims to enhance general thinking and understanding of one's mother tongue through foreign language grammar However, as Cook (2001) points out, the method does not focus on enabling learners to use the language practically Instead, it prioritizes the acquisition of linguistic knowledge, valuing written language over spoken language Consequently, learners develop skills in reading and writing, with spoken language rarely utilized in the classroom, except during reading exercises (Ericsson 1989) Thus, teachers predominantly communicate in L1 during grammar-translation lessons (Baker and Prys Jones 1998).
In contemporary language teaching trends, the target language is predominantly used, while the use of the first language (L1) is often viewed negatively and generally avoided As a result, linguistic comparisons between L1 and the target language are infrequent A notable example of this approach is the Direct Method, also known as the Natural Approach According to Larsen-Freeman (2000:26-27), the Direct Method contrasts sharply with the Grammar-Translation method, emphasizing spoken language as its primary focus.
Learning a language involves developing the ability to communicate effectively in that language It emphasizes the importance of minimizing the use of the first language (L1) to establish a direct connection between meanings and expressions in the target language According to Larsen-Freeman, this approach enhances the learning experience by fostering a more immersive environment.
The Direct Method emphasizes thinking in the target language, excluding the learners' mother tongue (L1) entirely, with teaching conducted solely in the target language To aid comprehension, teachers utilize mime and gestures, despite the potential efficiency of using the L1 (Baker and Prys Jones, 1998) This approach mirrors first language acquisition, focusing on oral practice (Brown, 1994) While Baker and Prys Jones view the Direct Method and Natural Approach as similar, Brown distinguishes them, noting that both require teachers to provide comprehensible input and expect learners to begin using the target language as their skills develop The Natural Approach emphasizes input, whereas the Direct Method prioritizes practice (Richards and Rodgers, 1986) Similarly, the Audio-lingual Method, rooted in structural linguistics and behavioral psychology, stresses oral communication, habit formation, and memorization, with a focus on language forms and structures, aiming for practical language use over grammatical understanding (Larsen Freeman, 2000).
The debate surrounding language learning methods highlights differing perspectives on the role of the first language (L1) and the target language Larsen-Freeman (2000) emphasizes that the L1 should be kept separate to prevent interference, while Baker and Prys Jones (1998) argue that a contrastive approach, comparing the target language and L1, is essential, particularly in American audio-lingualism The teacher's role is pivotal, serving as a language model in the classroom, where the target language predominates, although some use of L1 is permitted (Celce-Murcia and Prator, 1979) However, Edmonson (2004) challenges this view, suggesting that non-native teachers may rely on L1 due to perceived inadequacies, while audio recordings serve as the primary source of target language input Furthermore, the Total Physical Response method, rooted in the Comprehension Approach, emphasizes listening comprehension as a key component of language acquisition (Larsen-Freeman, 2000).
Total Physical Response (TPR) plays a crucial role in language learning, enabling learners to produce language spontaneously when they are ready, similar to the Direct Method/Natural Approach TPR emphasizes that learning occurs through physical actions, aligning with the idea that foreign language acquisition should mirror first language learning In this method, teachers employ imperative and interrogative forms, prompting learners to respond to target language commands, while primarily using the target language in the classroom Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) further elevates the target language's role, focusing on communication rather than linguistics, and viewing language as a tool for interaction While judicious use of the learner's first language (L1) is permitted, the primary mode of communication in CLT is the target language, reinforcing the understanding that language is not just an academic subject but a means of communication.
21) recognizes the domination of the target language in the communicative classroom From his description it becomes clear that, following the method, the
In the classroom, both learners and teachers should utilize the target language (TL) for communication, with the first language (L1) being permitted only when necessary to facilitate the learning process The distinction between authentic and simulated communication is highlighted, with classroom discourse representing authentic communication A significant trend in language teaching, as identified by Larsen-Freeman (2000), emphasizes learning through communication rather than for communication, encompassing methods such as content-based, task-based, and participatory learning Content-based learning integrates language with subject matter, while task-based learning focuses on problem-solving, and participatory learning addresses topics of personal relevance to learners These methods position the TL as the primary language of instruction, viewing it as a tool for learning rather than an object of study Consequently, in content-based and participatory contexts, language acquisition may be a secondary outcome, with the primary focus lying elsewhere Cook (2001) categorizes communicative teaching as an umbrella term that encompasses various methods, including Total Physical Response (TPR), which emphasizes the social aspects of communication and the exchange of information.
The teaching methodologies discussed include content-based learning, Total Physical Response, and task-based learning, all emphasizing the target language as the primary medium of instruction The Silent Way method, highlighted by Larsen-Freeman (2000), positions learners as active participants responsible for their own learning, while the teacher's role is minimized Speaking, alongside listening, writing, and reading, is recognized as a crucial skill, with learners doing the majority of the talking and the teacher using only minimal target language phrases Although the first language (L1) may be employed when necessary to aid comprehension, its use is limited, contrasting sharply with the Direct Method/Natural Approach, which does not leverage L1 knowledge in the same way.
The two different approaches in EFL teaching
The Monolingual approach, also known as the English-only policy, is based on three key principles Firstly, EFL teachers often lack knowledge of all their students' first languages (L1s) in a multilingual classroom According to Hawks (2001), if a teacher cannot effectively utilize all L1s, they should avoid attempting to do so, as it may undermine their authority Additionally, unsuccessful efforts to incorporate L1 can hinder the learning process.
Opponents of the view that the first language (L1) is essential for teaching complex language structures in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms argue that effective teaching can be achieved through the use of visual aids, suitable body language, and modeling speech tailored to the learners' language proficiency levels According to Pachler and Field (2001) and Willis (1981), these strategies can effectively convey even the most challenging aspects of English language structure without relying on the learners' native language.
The third key point emphasizes that maximum exposure to the target language (TL) is crucial for second language acquisition (SLA) According to Krashen (1982), the TL should dominate classroom interactions, especially since many English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners encounter English primarily in educational settings This perspective is rooted in the behaviorist theory, which suggests that language development occurs through imitation and the formation of habits.
Vigotsky (1962), one of the earliest proponents of this approach, argued that
Success in learning a foreign language is closely linked to the level of maturity in the learner's native language Cummins’ linguistic developmental interdependence hypothesis further supports this notion, highlighting that proficiency in a second language (L2) is influenced by the development and competence in the first language (L1) The bilingual approach gained significant attention when researchers presented a detailed framework for utilizing L1 in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms.
When Use the L1 in the English Classroom?
In 1987, Atkinson made the first scientific attempt to identify scenarios where the L1 could be effectively utilized in EFL classrooms, proposing nine specific instances such as eliciting the target language, checking comprehension, and giving complex instructions to beginners His framework also included using L1 for group work cooperation, explaining classroom methodologies, highlighting recently taught items, checking understanding, clarifying testing instructions, and developing circumlocution strategies These concepts were subsequently explored in various studies by researchers including Auerbach (1993), Macaro (1997), Franklin (1990), Cook (2002), and Bradshaw (2006), revealing some differences in their approaches.
Balosa (2006) advocates for the use of the L1 in English classes to enhance self-esteem in shy students, clarify complex instructions and language concepts, and foster intercultural understanding among learners.
Why Use the L1 in the English Classroom
The use of a learner's L1 in the EFL classroom is beneficial for two primary reasons Firstly, it enhances the teaching and learning experience by fostering an atmosphere of confidence and camaraderie, which promotes harmony and cooperation among students This approach also instills feelings of security and self-confidence, motivating learners and making them feel more comfortable Additionally, incorporating the L1 can save valuable teaching time and simplify comprehension, allowing for more effective communication and understanding of the material.
The use of the first language (L1) significantly enhances learners' cognitive and socio-professional development by facilitating connections between new and prior knowledge, thus activating their existing understanding (Paradowski, 2008; Caine & Caine, 1994) Auerbach (1993) emphasizes that starting with the L1 fosters a sense of security and validates learners' experiences, encouraging them to express themselves and take risks with English This approach helps build learners' confidence and self-esteem, making the learning experience more enjoyable, as they do not feel torn between their native language and English (Halliday, 1968; Rinvolucri, 2001) Furthermore, the thoughtful integration of L1 in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom enhances metalinguistic awareness (Cook, 2002) and fully engages learners' linguistic intelligence (Rinvolucri, 2001).
From a socio-professional perspective, L1 use in the EFL classroom allows both teachers and learners to achieve some educational and occupational goals For
Using L1 in English classrooms can ignite students' interest in translation, potentially fostering careers in translation and interpretation, while still aligning with the teacher's educational goals Additionally, incorporating translation activities can greatly enhance the promotion of bilingualism among students.
How to use another language in the English classroom
Proponents of the bilingual approach advocate for effective utilization of the first language (L1) in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms Strategies such as the L1 break for summarizing content, "sandwich stories," "bilingual vocabulary tennis," and "semantic flip-flops" encourage a balanced integration of English and L1 throughout lessons, enhancing comprehension and engagement.
History of language use in EFL classes
This section outlines the evolution of language usage movements in English foreign language classrooms worldwide, highlighting the shift from limiting the use of the target language to promoting its exclusive use during English instruction.
Since the late nineteenth century, the role of learners' L1 in English language instruction has sparked controversy among educators (Auerbach, 1993; Turnbull & Arnett, 2002) Traditionally, the Grammar-Translation Method dominated language teaching, emphasizing L1 use through grammar study and translation exercises between L1 and L2, primarily aimed at enabling students to read literature in the target language (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011) However, this approach did not foster idiomatic communication, leading many instructors to reject translation methods Consequently, in the 1880s, new teaching methodologies emerged that entirely dismissed translation techniques, focusing instead on immersive language learning.
14 spoken language and the use of English in the classroom (Cook, 2008) This new teaching approach was called the ‘English only’ approach
In the early 1920s, the 'English only' movement emerged in the United States as a reaction against the Grammar-Translation Method and subsequently gained global traction Throughout the twentieth century, various popular teaching methods, such as the Direct Method, Audio-Lingual Method, and Task-Based Learning Method, minimized the use of the first language (L1) in classrooms These approaches operate on the premise that increased exposure to English enhances the quality of instruction, highlighting the significant influence of the 'English only' movement in shaping language education practices.
In the teaching of English, many educators still uphold the belief that English should be taught exclusively in the target language, with native speakers as the ideal instructors, fearing that incorporating students' first language (L1) will diminish English proficiency (Auerbach, 1993; Deller & Rinvolucri, 2002) This perspective has led to a stigma around using L1 in the classroom, causing teachers to feel guilt and shame when they resort to it, as illustrated by one teacher's admission of feeling like a failure when speaking L1 due to students' frustration (Ceo-DiFransesco, 2013) Some educators implement strict measures, such as fines for using L1 and rewards for speaking English, driven by the conviction that L1 usage hinders students' English language development (Pablo et al., 2011; Auerbach, 1993).
English as a medium of instruction in EFL classrooms
2.4.1 The use of target language in the ESL classroom
To effectively learn a new language, students must hear and practice speaking it, making the teacher the primary source of the Target Language (TL) in the classroom It is essential for educators to be mindful of their use of TL, understanding when and why they employ it This section will explore the advantages and challenges of incorporating TL in the classroom, enhancing our comprehension of its impact on language acquisition.
Why is it important to use the Target Language (TL) in the ESL classroom?
Many novice language teachers often feel anxious about incorporating the target language (TL) in their classrooms They struggle to balance the use of their local language with the TL, which can lead to stress However, utilizing the TL is crucial for effective language learning and development.
Utilizing the target language (TL) in the classroom significantly enhances students' exposure to it, which is crucial in foreign language education where the TL is rarely encountered outside of class The objective is to create an environment that closely resembles a real-life context, allowing students to experience the TL as they would in a second language setting, thereby maximizing their linguistic exposure.
Secondly, by using the TL in the classroom, students are receiving more comprehensible input (Krashen) thus leading to more complex language structures
Utilizing the target language (TL) allows students to learn both about the language itself and through its practical application Frequent use of specific classroom commands and common expressions facilitates their acquisition in a natural and routine manner.
Utilizing the target language (TL) in the classroom serves as a valuable model for students, influencing both their language production and their attitudes toward it When teachers consistently demonstrate proper language usage, they provide students with a reliable example to emulate, enhancing their learning experience and encouraging effective communication skills.
When teachers demonstrate the value of a language beyond mere academic study, students are more likely to develop a deeper appreciation for it By actively using the language in various contexts, educators can inspire learners to engage with it more meaningfully.
Research consistently emphasizes the significance of using the target language (TL) in language classrooms Peter Dickson, in his article "Using the Target Language: A View from the Classroom," argues that employing the TL fosters natural language acquisition, while reliance on the mother tongue (L1) detracts from students' learning focus (Dickson, p.1) This perspective aligns with Stephen Krashen's theories, which highlight the crucial roles of language acquisition and comprehensible input in effective language learning.
2.4.2 The use of target language in the EFL classroom
In foreign language learning, students often find themselves in a classroom setting where they share a common mother tongue with both their teacher and peers, leading to a lack of intrinsic motivation to use the target language for communication This creates an artificial learning environment where the primary function of using the target language is to practice linguistic forms rather than engage in meaningful conversation According to Krashen (1985), "input is the essential environmental ingredient," suggesting that if the target language is not utilized as the main mode of communication in the classroom, learners may miss out on essential real-world communication experiences that are crucial for their language development.
In a classroom setting, when a teacher uses a cardboard clock to prompt students to tell the time in a foreign language, the emphasis is on linguistic form rather than meaning Conversely, when the teacher, having forgotten his watch, asks a student for the time in the foreign language, it fosters genuine communicative interaction, shifting the focus to meaningful engagement.
The use of the target language by foreign language teachers primarily focuses on effective communication within the classroom This often includes essential tasks such as taking attendance, distributing materials, managing student behavior, and providing instructions for language practice activities.
2.4.3 Arguments for and against ‘English only’
Supporters of the English Only (EO) approach argue that increased exposure to a second language (L2) enhances language learning, as noted by Ellis (2005) They contend that EO classrooms should emulate real-world environments, offering a language-rich experience that fosters genuine communication By enforcing English-only interactions, teachers encourage students to negotiate meaning and overcome communication barriers, which in turn pushes them to improve their linguistic skills This negotiation process is vital for language acquisition, as it prepares students for real-life scenarios where they cannot rely on their first language (L1) or a teacher for assistance Moreover, students develop essential coping strategies as they learn to rethink and refine their language use While it is crucial for students to engage in independent problem-solving, teachers must also provide guidance and communication strategies to support students in their language development, especially when their skills are still emerging.
Many Japanese university students struggle with confidence in language learning due to a perceived inadequacy in speaking skills fostered by the state education system An effective approach to enhance this confidence involves creating numerous communication opportunities that encourage risk-taking and spontaneous exchanges, rather than relying on extensive preparation By fostering a classroom culture that embraces speaking and accepts mistakes as a natural part of authentic communication, students can learn to view errors positively This shift in mindset will ultimately boost their confidence in engaging in communicative interactions in English.
English Only (EO) teachers emphasize the importance of rich and intense L2 input in the classroom, especially for Japanese students who have limited opportunities to use English outside of school To foster successful language acquisition, it is essential to maximize English usage during lessons, reinforcing the idea that using L2 is a natural part of learning When teachers or students resort to the first language (L1), it undermines this goal; thus, teachers play a crucial role in promoting L2 as the sole language permitted in the classroom Effective classroom management in L2 not only serves as the medium of instruction but also encompasses various activities, such as giving instructions, maintaining rapport, and explaining concepts By utilizing L2 in these contexts, educators create an immersive language environment that enhances learning and engagement.
19 practice, it is also “one of the most genuine opportunities for teacher-student communication on the classroom” (Harbord, 1992, p.353)
Moreover, ‘English only’ advocates’ argument is that second language learners acquire the L2 in the same way as they acquired their mother tongue (Cook, 2001,
2008), with caregivers ensuring a constant stream of comprehensible input in the
The ideology of teaching languages through immersion is rooted in Krashen’s comprehensible input theory, which posits that students acquire a foreign language effectively when they receive understandable input Advocates of this approach argue that teachers should provide ample opportunities for genuine exposure to the target language, thereby using only the L2 for classroom interactions This exclusion of the first language (L1) is believed to maximize L2 input and enhance language acquisition Proponents also assert that students should learn to think independently in the L2, keeping cognitive processes for L1 and L2 separate, which fosters the development of coordinate bilingualism—where both languages are processed distinctly—over compound bilingualism, where they are intertwined.
EO instruction focuses on maximizing the use of the target language (L2) in the classroom, emphasizing authentic communication scenarios that require negotiation of meaning through effective communicative strategies The goal is to foster independent language users who can navigate without teacher support or reliance on their first language (L1) While this approach may appear less sensitive to students' emotional well-being and can impose greater psychological pressure, the teacher's expertise is vital in creating a safe classroom environment This supportive atmosphere encourages students to take risks in their language use without feeling threatened, which is essential for successful EO instruction.
Mixed instruction medium in EFL classrooms
Many researchers have suggested that the L1 has a facilitating and natural role within the English classroom (see Brooks-Lewis, 2009; Cook, 2001; Deller & Rinvolucri, 2002; Levine, 2003; Mart, 2013; Pablo et al., 2011; Swain & Lapkin,
Swain and Lapkin (2000) conducted a study on 8th grade students learning French as a second language, revealing that students utilized their first language (L1) significantly more than expected during pair work, averaging about 25% of the time Notably, only 12% of this L1 usage was off-task, while the remainder served vital cognitive and social functions The primary reasons for using L1 included facilitating task progression, focusing on language form and vocabulary, and enhancing interpersonal interaction The researchers emphasized that the absence of L1 could hinder students' success in completing tasks, asserting that the strategic use of L1 supports second language (L2) learning Their findings highlight that L1 plays a crucial role in helping students achieve better outcomes in foreign language tasks, a conclusion supported by various other studies in the field.
22 language classroom They have explained how excluding students’ first language hinders effective comprehension of the L2 and prevents 24 language achievement (Mart, 2013; Pablo et al., 2011; Levine, 2003) Levine (2003) has stated that
Denying the role of the first language (L1) in the classroom is seen as unproductive, as teachers and students are encouraged to utilize it when necessary (Deller & Rinvolucri, 2002) The authors emphasize that students' L1 is a valuable resource that enhances the language learning experience, particularly for beginners who benefit from support in their native language At advanced levels, students can leverage their L1 to fully engage their linguistic intelligence Furthermore, the integration of both languages fosters linguistic awareness across various aspects of English and the mother tongue Overall, research highlights the significance of the first language as a crucial cognitive tool throughout all stages of second language acquisition.
2.5.2 Uses for the L1 in EFL classes
Researchers have explored the reasons behind the use of the L1 in EFL classrooms, highlighting its role as an effective pedagogical tool for clarification According to Pablo et al (2011), both teachers and students recognize the importance of the L1 for explaining instructions, teaching grammar, and clarifying unfamiliar vocabulary and expressions They argue that utilizing the L1 can save time, streamline lessons, and maintain the flow of instruction Notably, a significant number of teachers find the L1 to be more effective than the target language (TL) for grammar instruction, a viewpoint supported by further research (Crawford, 2004; Dickson, 1996) Additionally, Cook (2001) emphasizes that even advanced TL learners benefit from the use of their L1 in the learning process.
Many educators assert that teaching grammar in the first language (L1) enhances students' understanding of the target language (TL) by allowing for comparative analysis (Dickson, 1996; Mart, 2013; Pablo et al., 2011) This approach facilitates discussions on the differences between the L1 and TL, which is beneficial for language development Furthermore, research indicates that using the L1 is vital for building relationships between teachers and students According to Pablo et al (2011), teachers find it essential to communicate with students in their L1 to foster connections, as strong rapport is linked to increased motivation and effective learning (Dickson, 1996) Many teachers express concern about sacrificing their relationships with students for the sake of maximizing TL usage, highlighting the importance of casual conversations in the L1 to strengthen these bonds.
Many teachers frequently utilize the L1 to enhance classroom dynamics, often sharing a light-hearted joke in the students' native language at the end of class This practice helps to foster trust and lower students' affective filters, ultimately creating a more comfortable and effective learning environment.
Research indicates that students often prefer to socialize in their mother tongue, valuing this language for connecting with peers on non-academic topics (Levine, 2003; Pablo et al., 2011) Piasecka (as cited in Auerbach, 1993) emphasizes the importance of using the first language for various classroom activities, including syllabus negotiation, record keeping, classroom management, and discussing cross-cultural issues Cook (2001) supports this approach by encouraging the use of the first language for organizing tasks and managing discipline Furthermore, Deller and Rinvolucri (2002) highlight the role of the first language in fostering cooperation among students.
Research indicates that both teachers and students recognize the importance of incorporating students' first language in second language classrooms Engaging in group work, receiving feedback from peers, and participating in vocabulary and translation exercises are essential strategies that enhance language learning.
2.5.3 Arguments for and against ‘mixed instruction medium’
2.5.3.1 Arguments for ‘mixed instruction medium’
Recent discussions challenge the notion of avoiding the mother tongue in foreign language teaching, suggesting that its use can enhance the effectiveness of language instruction A study featured on the BBC Teaching English website surveyed 641 teachers regarding their use of the mother tongue in English classrooms The results showed that 21% of teachers exclusively use English, while 58% sometimes incorporate the mother tongue, 8% do so frequently, 7% most of the time, and 6% about half the time (Kavaliauskiené, 2009) Advocates for a 'mixed instruction medium' argue that it saves time, reduces anxiety, aids in explaining complex concepts, and helps manage the classroom effectively.
The use of L1 by teachers can be seen as a time-saving strategy, as noted by Atkinson (1987), particularly in English classes with limited duration This approach allows for more productive tasks and enhanced language learning However, this justification has significant weaknesses Firstly, while it may seem that time is saved, valuable opportunities for L2 input from the teacher are lost, particularly if that input could have been tailored to the students' comprehension levels Secondly, there is a lack of principled reasoning behind prioritizing time savings over L2 exposure, especially since students often have limited weekly L2 interactions necessary for effective language acquisition Lastly, the convenient use of L1 can sometimes reflect a teacher's reluctance to engage deeply with the meaning of the material.
Many native speaker teachers, who are often enthusiastic learners of Japanese, may find it convenient to prioritize their own language interests over the use of the target language, leading to the inclusion of 25 unknown lexicons This time-saving approach can sometimes hinder effective communication in the classroom.
Allowing students to use their mother tongue (L1) in the classroom can reduce anxiety levels and alleviate affective barriers to learning, as it provides a sense of reassurance during lessons While this approach aligns with humanistic teaching beliefs, there is a risk that some students may over-rely on L1 instead of attempting to use the target language (L2) Effective teachers can create an anxiety-free environment without resorting to L1, as many educators successfully teach multilingual EFL classes without it Furthermore, while L1 can facilitate communication during tasks by allowing students to confirm and consult with peers, it may inadvertently undermine their confidence in using English Encouraging students to communicate in L2, despite the potential for miscommunication and mistakes, fosters their confidence and promotes language development through practice.
26 encourage confidence as they learn to appreciate that speaking spontaneously without preparation involves mistakes, risk-taking, and negotiating meaning - a scenario that mirrors real life L2 communication
The use of a teacher's L1 to clarify grammar and conceptual language issues is seen as beneficial, particularly in high school English classes, as students often struggle with grammar explanations in their second language (L2) However, many EFL teachers operate in multilingual classrooms where a shared L1 may not exist, and some may lack proficiency in their students' L1 to provide clear grammar explanations Instead, they effectively convey grammatical meanings using L2 teaching techniques such as 'time lines' and 'concept questions.' Teachers often justify their use of L1 as a practical tool for various classroom purposes, from management to building rapport with students, but they recognize the need for selective and appropriate usage While literature supports careful, prudent, and judicious use of L1, many teachers do not systematically monitor their L1 usage and often rely on intuition, leading to inconsistent application of L1 in the classroom.
Many educators have integrated L1 use into their lessons without questioning its necessity However, to enhance language instruction, it is crucial to establish clear guidelines for L1 usage rather than relying on vague standards like "appropriate use."
‘judicious use’ and ‘20% L1’ is, as Prodromou (2002) commented, an invitation to
The use of L1 in the classroom, while often justified by practical and intuitive arguments, lacks robust theoretical support from second language acquisition theories Proponents of the pro-L1 approach, including references to Krashen’s concept of the ‘affective filter’ to alleviate anxiety, have not substantiated their claims with empirical evidence This reliance on personal beliefs and psychological factors raises questions about the effectiveness of L1 in second language learning In contrast, the forthcoming section will explore the arguments for an English Only approach, assessing whether they are supported by stronger theoretical foundations.
2.5.3.2 Arguments against ‘mixed instruction medium’
Many linguists discourage the use of the mother tongue in language classrooms, viewing it as indicative of teachers' low proficiency The effectiveness of foreign language instructors is often judged by their ability to conduct lessons solely in the target language Historically, the exclusive use of the target language has been a key principle in second language acquisition, with the avoidance of the mother tongue seen as a hallmark of effective teaching, particularly during the Direct and Audio-lingual methods (Kayaoglu, 2012) The underlying belief is that students' native language habits can hinder their efforts to master the target language.
Medium of instruction and its effects on learners’ language acquisition
Research indicates that language learners require exposure to the target language (TL) for effective learning (Krashen, 1982), yet the optimal amount of exposure remains uncertain (Turnbull & Arnett, 2002) Teachers often interpret maximizing TL use as avoiding the first language (L1) entirely in classrooms, but Cook (2001) suggests that exclusive TL use can hinder teaching effectiveness, advocating for the L1 as a valuable resource Instances where L1 should be utilized include grammar explanations, task organization, and student discipline (Cook, 2001) Moreover, Cook emphasizes that L1 may be necessary when TL use proves inefficient or problematic for learners Studies reveal that teachers frequently switch codes to contrast TL with L1, aiming to prevent negative transfer (Turnbull & Arnett, 2002) Macaro's (1997) research highlights that many educators hold positive beliefs about integrating both TL and L1 in language instruction.
“impossible and undesirable to use the target language exclusively with all but the most motivated classes” However, a majority of these teachers felt that the target
30 language was an important component of the foreign language pedagogy (Macaro
In 1997, it was found that the first language (L1) was favored for discipline, socialization, and clarifying challenging grammar concepts Teachers indicated that the use of the target language (TL) is contingent upon students' proficiency in it This aligns with Cook's (2001) findings, which suggest that the target language should be avoided if it poses difficulties for learners.
A study by Aalst and Lustig (2008) revealed that target language use in grammar instruction is notably low, with one in five foreign language teachers indicating that they would still resort to teaching in Dutch, even under ideal circumstances Despite this, many educators expressed a desire to increase their use of the target language The main obstacles they face include concerns about student comprehension, reliance on Dutch course materials, classroom management challenges, and a tendency towards inactivity.
The effectiveness of different instructional mediums in enhancing English language acquisition among EFL university students in Nghe An province, Vietnam, remains unclear This gap in knowledge motivated my research to identify more appropriate and efficient methods for teaching English.
METHODOLOGY
Research questions
The study aimed to seek the answers for the following questions:
1 Which type of instruction medium better facilitates EFL university students' acquisition of English language knowledge?
2 Which type of instruction medium is preferred by EFL university students?
Study setting
The study conducted at Nghe An College of Economics (NACE) highlights the challenges faced by over 3,000 students learning English as a compulsory foreign language With ages ranging from 18 to 25, these students come from various districts in Nghe An, where learning conditions are often subpar Their English proficiency is generally low and varies widely, as some have studied the language for up to seven years, while others have no prior experience This lack of communication skills leads to feelings of shyness and fear of making mistakes, exacerbated by traditional teaching methods that fail to address real-life communication needs Additionally, many students view English as a non-essential subject, focusing primarily on passing exams rather than developing practical skills The absence of effective learning strategies and independent study habits further hampers their progress, resulting in minimal preparation and review outside the classroom.
Students at NACE are highly motivated to learn English due to practical reasons; failing to master the language can result in failing exams and not obtaining the B1 English certificate, which is essential for graduation Consequently, this could lead to missed job opportunities.
The teaching material is currently used for the non-English major learners is the
"New Cutting Edge," authored by Peter Moor, Sarah Cunningham, and Jane Comyns Carr, is a comprehensive textbook designed to enhance the four essential language skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing It effectively blends traditional teaching methods with modern communicative approaches The textbook consists of 15 modules, structured for instruction over two semesters and 105 periods, as outlined in table 3.1.
Table 3.2: Distribution of time and modules in 2 semesters
Semester Time (50- minute lesson period/ week) Modules Textbook
1 45 lesson periods per 15 weeks 1-7 New Cutting Edge
Students must complete a mid-term test within one semester to earn marks that qualify them for the end-of-semester exam.
The university and its Department prioritize methodological renovation to enhance the quality of English language teaching A key factor influencing English language acquisition is the choice of teaching methods, particularly the medium of instruction Currently, most lessons are delivered using the mother tongue as the primary medium of instruction.
Participants
The experiment involved first-year non-English major students at Nghe An College of Economics, all of whom had successfully passed their university entrance examination, including an English test Most participants had studied English for at least three years in high school, dedicating approximately four hours per week to the language They were enrolled in a comprehensive English program covering reading, speaking, listening, writing, and grammar lessons.
In a study involving 60 students, participants were randomly assigned to two groups: Group A, which received instruction exclusively in English, and Group B, which experienced a mixed instruction medium Each group consisted of 30 students.
33 group The respondents’ ages vary from 18 to 21 Most of them learned English However, their time of learning English is quite different The minimum is less than
3 years, and the maximum is more than 10 years Some learnt French at secondary and high school This big gap has a certain effect on the students’ learning attitudes.
Materials
In order to get information for the research, survey questionnaires for students, and tests were carried out
At the start of the study, participants from both group A and group B completed pre-questionnaires designed to assess their perceptions and feelings regarding English Only instruction versus mixed instruction mediums The pre-questionnaires consisted of 18 questions, while the post-questionnaires included 20 questions, all of which were administered during class time and took approximately 15 minutes to complete.
To facilitate accurate comprehension among students prior to responding, all questions were presented in Vietnamese This approach allowed students to articulate their thoughts freely and thoroughly in their answers, also written in Vietnamese.
The questionnaire featured a variety of question types, including Yes/No, multiple-choice, and both close and open-ended questions To ensure clarity and facilitate immediate clarification, the questionnaires were administered by the researcher rather than being self-completed by respondents.
Following the EO instruction, Group A completed a 20-question survey to assess changes in their perspectives and feelings regarding teaching and learning through English Only instruction The questionnaires were administered during class time and took approximately 15 minutes to complete.
The group B was also asked to do the questionnaires to check whether their views and feelings about teaching and learning through mixed instruction changed or not
The survey questionnaire, which included 20 questions (See Appendix 7) were distributed to them in class time and lasted15 minutes
After the completion of the survey, the statistical data were collected and analyzed with the use of Excel
3.4.2 Pre-test and post-test
This research employed pre-test and post-test assessments, derived from the Cambridge Key English Test 2, to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching methods across two classes The tests assessed four key skills: Listening, Reading, Writing, and Speaking, allowing the researcher to compare the outcomes of traditional versus mixed instructional approaches.
All participants underwent a pre-test before and after the treatment, utilizing a test sourced from the Cambridge Key English Test 2 The administration of these tests was conducted discreetly, ensuring that participants were unaware that their performance was being evaluated for the study.
Participants completed two distinct tests, one serving as a pre-test and the other as a post-test, ensuring that each individual engaged in both assessments The experimental groups received instruction through the EO medium course facilitated by the researcher.
Procedure
The procedures of the research were carried out according to the following steps:
1 Collecting data through questionnaire and test
2 Clarifying the data into intended groups
4 Describing the collected data presented in tables and figures
5 Generalizing and giving comments and evaluations