Using the L1 in the L2 classroom: The students speak

7/28/2019 Using the L1 in the L2 classroom: The students speak

1/12

The Language TeacherFEATURE ARTICLE | 41

The goal of this study was to elucidate how stu-GHQWVSUHIHUHQFHVUHJDUGLQJWKHLUUVWODQJXDJHuse (L1, or Japanese) in the second language/RU(QJOLVKFODVVYDULHGZLWKSURFLHQF\3DUWLFLSDQWVZHUHUVWDQGVHFRQG\HDUVWX-dents in English-language courses in InternationalStudies and Information Technology departmentsin a Japanese university. Research questions: 1)'LGGHVLUHVIRU/VXSSRUWYDU\ZLWKSURFLHQF\3URFLHQF\(IIHFWGLGSURFLHQF\OHYHOVLQXHQFHZKHQ/VXSSRUWZDVGHVLUDEOHand 3) undesirable? Participants selected yes/

lti l h i i

Using the L1 in theL2 classroom:

The students speakEleanor Carson

Hidenori KashiharaHiroshima City University

This study focuses on evaluating using theUVWODQJXDJH/LQWKHIRUHLJQODQJXDJH(L2) classroom in a largely monolingual

t (J ) Th l i thi t d


2/12

lti l h i i t (J ) Th l i thi t d

The Language Teacher Featured Article

education policy in Japan (Honna, 2005; Hughes,2005; Frederick, 2011).

Monolingual instruction has been used tomaximize students exposure to, and use of, theL2, and even to push students with incom-prehensible input. Unfortunately, it encouragesan asymmetrical teacher-student relationship,and smacks of linguistic imperialism (Yonesaka,2005). Among literature comparing views of

teacher beliefs, in none have the majority favoredexcluding the students L1 (Macaro, 2001).

Stephens (2006) states that Japanese institu-tions prefer monolingual English instructionfor pedagogical reasons, which are based onunsound assumptions, as critiqued by Auerbach(1993). If data explored in the present papersupport their allegations, then monolingualinstruction is unnecessary and potentiallydetrimental in countries like Japan, where the L1is dominant.

EFL context and Japan

Many Japanese students take compulsory

E li h b t i ti l d

Furthermore, if students want their teachers touse the L1 but the teachers do not perceive or

respond to this need, it can lead to an unhappyclassroom experience for all (Burden, 2001).

Careful use of the L1 can assist studentsto make higher cognitive adjustments whilelearning a language. Used effectively, the L1can be a facilitating, and not just an interferingfactor, to overcome the assumptions created by

WKHUVWODQJXDJH


3/12

Carson & Kashihara: Using the L1 in the L2 classroom: The students speak

Schweers (1999): Students and teachers

In a study with university students and teachersin Puerto Rico, Schweers (1999), investigated thedesired use of L1 (Spanish) in the L2 (English)classroom. While all teachers felt the L1 should

be used occasionally, some students felt it shouldnot. Schweers (1999) reported that students andteachers wanted more use of the L1 to aid com-prehension, particularly of new vocabulary and

GLIFXOWFRQFHSWV)HZVWXGHQWVDQGWHDFKHUVIHOWthat the L1 was appropriate when summarizingmaterial already covered. Regarding cultural andmorale support, fewer students than teachersfelt the use of L1 was appropriate. Conversely,Schweers reported that more students thanteachers felt that the L1 might help students feelPRUHFRPIRUWDEOHDQGFRQGHQWLQWKHFODVV-room. During small-group work, both studentsand teachers agreed that the L1 was not helpful.We feel that differences might be explained inpart by the fact that this study took place inclasses where teachers, who might not share thestudents L1, preferred monolingual instruction,DQGE\WKHGLIFXOW\RIH[SODLQLQJSUREOHPDWLF

t i h t i ht h b th t h

L1 at all. Perhaps, already having experiencedan all-English environment, they were more

comfortable with that situation in the classroom.Norman found no correlation between varyingOHYHOVRIVWXGHQWSURFLHQF\ZLWKLQJURXSVDQGtheir preference for L1 use, while there was aVLJQLFDQWGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQJURXSV,QRSHQended responses, students reported that L1 usehelped them to understand the content and

explanations used in the classroom. They couldask questions in the L1, the teacher could explaincommon mistakes L2 learners used in the L1,they had a good perception of and relationshipwith the teacher, and they felt that the classproceeded smoothly. The disadvantages werethat they could become lazy and not try to learnthe L2, they lost the chance to hear the L2 used

by the English teacher, and their listening abilitywould not improve much (Norman, 2008).

Problem

We feel that, while Norman addressed factorsnot assessed in Schweers study, his results werelimited to the three distinct groups he analysed,

d did t dd d i l id ti


4/12


does your latest TOEIC score stand in thefollowing scale?, was included to assess English

SURFLHQF\WRWHVW1RUPDQVQGLQJVUHJDUGLQJGLIIHULQJ(QJOLVKSURFLHQF\OHYHOV1RUPDQ2008). Question 2, Should the instructor knowthe L1?, was added following its use in Burden(2001) and Norman (2008). This question wasadded to check whether student responsesFKDQJHGDFFRUGLQJWRWKHLU/SURFLHQF\OHYHOV

as measured by TOEIC scores rather than theyear of the class they were in or whether theyhad overseas English experience.

Procedure

Instructors distributed questionnaires tostudents in class. Participation was voluntaryand required about 10 minutes. Participantswere asked for their most recent TOEIC score inQuestion 1 (N=305). Questionnaires were sortedLQWRYHJURXSVEDVHGRQWKHLU72(,&VFRUHVBeginners, Group 1=800,

: I OW WK W WK 72(,& W

the classroom, beginners favored the use of L1,decreasing to Group 5 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Students desired use of L1

5HJDUGLQJWKHVSHFLFXVHRIWKH/LQWKHclassroom, students chose only those variables

that they agreed should be used. These resultsare reported in terms of Instruction: High L1desire, and Classroom Management and Affect:Low L1 desire.

Instruction: High L1 desire

Most students believed that the L1 should be

G W O L GLI OW W LWK W


5/12

Carson & Kashihara: Using the L1 in the L2 classroom: The students speak

Emotional support and classroom management:Low L1 desire

When considering these scores, as the responsi-bility for classroom experience moves away frominstruction and more towards general classroomexperience, students prefer less L1 support. Withscores generally decreasing from Group 1 toGroup 5, students felt that it was not importantfor the instructor to use the L1 to test, joke

around with students, or to help students feelPRUHFRPIRUWDEOHDQGFRQGHQWVHH)LJXUH

Figure 3. Proficiency: Low L1 desire and

ti l t

Students views

$VVWXGHQWVDELOLWLHVDQGFRQGHQFHURVHWKHLUperceived need for Japanese support decreased.

Students were asked what percentage of thetime they thought Japanese should be usedin the English-language classroom (Q6). Themajority of all groups preferred L1 to be used inthe classroom less than 40% of the time, and thisGHFUHDVHGZLWKSURFLHQF\

Regarding how often Japanese should be usedin the English classroom to aid comprehension4WKHVSUHDGRIVFRUHVUHHFWHGVWXGHQWEnglish ability. Rarely was chosen in increas-ing amounts (5% to 50%) and Sometimes wasFKRVHQLQGHFUHDVLQJDPRXQWVDVSURFLHQF\increased (59% to 33%).

Students chose one or more of three possiblereasons they preferred the use of Japanese intheir classroom (Q8). From Group 1 to Group5, most students chose I feel less lost (83% to57%). Fewer students preferred Japanese to beused to help them feel more comfortable (5% to17%), or to feel less tense (13% to 0%).

St d t ll f lt th t i th L1 i th


6/12


L1 support for these factors. We focused on theIDFWRUVXQFRYHUHGE\WKHUVWSDWWHUQ

Results generally support Schweers (1999)QGLQJVEXWDVWURQJ3URFLHQF\(IIHFWZDVdiscovered which Schweers study does not ad-GUHVV$3URFLHQF\(IIHFWFDQDOVREHREVHUYHG

between groups in Normans (2008) study. Whilemost students believed that instructors shouldknow the L1, their desire for teachers to use the

L1 in class was lower and declined with increas-ing L2 ability. Students do not necessarily needWRKHDUWKH/LQFODVVWREHQHWIURPLQVWUXFWRUVknowledge of it.

Regarding instructive use of L1, beginnerstudents hope to rely on L1 support in class morethan advanced students. This pattern can be seenZLWKH[SODLQLQJGLIFXOWFRQFHSWVLQFODVVDQGGHQLQJQHZZRUGVERWKRIZKLFKVKRZHGDVWURQJ3URFLHQF\(IIHFWZKLFKZDVQRWXQFRY-ered in Schweers study but supports NormansQGLQJV6WXGHQWVKRSHGIRUWKH/VXVHin explaining the relationship between Japaneseand English and checking comprehension, butthis desire dropped by Group 5.

S h (1999) d A b h (1993) f d

extensively used in the education system in Ja-pan to provide an initial assessment of language

SURFLHQF\2WKHUVFDQHDVLO\XQGHUVWDQGDSSO\DQGWHVWWKHVHUHVXOWV,WZRXOGEHEHQHFLDOWRGHWHUPLQHSURFLHQF\OHYHOVXVLQJWHVWVWDUJHW-ing the productive aspects of language, such asthe special TOEIC Writing and Speaking tests,EIKEN or TOEFL, in future studies.

A second limitation of this study is the

uneven number of participants in each group.7KLVZDVXQDYRLGDEOH&RQYHUVHO\LWUHHFWVDspread of English abilities that could occur inany classroom. We feel that the large number ofparticipants was enough to show learning prefer-ence patterns among students. Future studiescould attempt to standardize the number ofSDUWLFLSDQWVZLWKLQSURFLHQF\OHYHOV

A third limitation regarded the simplicity ofanalysis. The use of more rigorous statisticalmethods might provide more reliable andVLJQLFDQWQGLQJV+RZHYHUZHFKRVHWRXVHthe simpler percentage analysis to make theseQGLQJVHDVLHUWRFRPSDUHZLWKVLPLODUVWXGLHV

$QDOOLPLWDWLRQRIWKLVVWXG\ZDVWKHUHVHDUFK

d i i li it Th i f t b d


7/12


8/12


9/12

!"

!#$"

!#%"

!#&"

!#'"

("

(#$"

(")*$++," "$")-!!.-++," "-")%!!./++," "%")&!!.0++," "/")1'!!,"

!"#$$%$&')$#*$&'+"$

,#-.)/(

2$3"456789":;7?=6>"@;6A"B(C"

2-3"456789"B("DE"7


10/12

!"

!#!$"

!#%"

!#%$"

!#&"

!#&$"

!#'"

!#'$"

!#("

%")*&++," "&")'!!-'++," "'")(!!-$++," "(").!!-/++," "$")01!!,"

!"#$$%$&')$

#*$&'+"$

,#-.)/(

$2#"34"5675"

$6#"34"8496"

$:#";5"?4@:4>5"A"

?4BC26B?6"


11/12

!"

!#$"

!#%"

!#&"

!#'"

!#("

!#)"

!#*"

!#+"

!#,"

$"

$"-.%,,/" "%"-&!!0&,,/" "&"-'!!0(,,/" "'"-)!!0*,,/" "("-1+!!/"

!"#$$%

$&')$#*$&'+"$

,#-.)/(

(2#"3456278"97:;E5F?C?8@7>8"

(7#"3456278"F?62G>8@C75"H$"289"H%"

(I#"J?K8?"8?L"M>;2N


12/12

!"

!#!$"

!#%"

!#%$"

!#&"

!#&$"

!#'"

!#'$"

%"()&**+" "&"('!!,'**+" "'"(-!!,$**+" "-"(.!!,/**+" "$"(01!!+"

!"#$$%$&'

)$#*$&'+"$

,#-./0(

(

$2#"34"567849:;?7?@@"E84:F"=48G"

Documents

Using the L1 in the L2 classroom: The students speak