Course paper
Download 46.13 Kb.
|
USE OF L1 L2 BY LEARNERS AND TEACHERS
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- References Andersson, R. (2007). Licentiate Thesis. Retrieved from Boras Academic Digital Archive: http://bada.hb.se/handle/2320/1777
- Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9-32. Bateman, B. (2008).
- Winterhager, Representations of Science and Technology(pp. 225-239). Leiden: DSWO Press.
- Bouangeune, S. (2009). Using L1 in teaching vocabulary to low English proficiency level students: A case study at the University of Laos. English Language Teaching Journal, 186-193.
- Buckland, M., Gey, F. (1994). The relationship between recall and precision. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 12-19.
- Castellotti, V. (2001). La Langue maternelle en classe de langue etrangere.Paris: CLE International.
- Cianflone, E. (2009). L1 use in English courses at university level. ESP World, 1-6.
- Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 402-423.
- Dujmovic, M. (2007). The use of Croatian in the EFLclassroom. Metodicki Obzori. Azelin Mohamed Noor et al. 85
|
MINISTRY OF HIGHER AND SECONDARY SPECIALIZED EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN Andizhan State University named after Zakhiriddin Mukhammad Babur Faculty of Foreign Languages Department of the English Language and Literature 5111400 – Foreign Language and Literature (English) COURSE PAPER Theme: “USE OF L1 L2 BY LEARNERS AND TEACHERS” Group: ____ Student: _______________ Supervisor: _______________ USE OF L1 L2 BY LEARNERS AND TEACHERS PLAN INTRODUCTION 1 THE IMPORTANCE OF USING L1 AND L2 2 The Amount, Purpose, and Reasons for Using L1 in L2 Classrooms 3 Using L1 in L2 classrooms by four approaches (listening, speaking, writing, reading) Conclusion Reference
It was kick started as the improvement in the performance of the Academy of Sciences followed by the establishment of a state commission and agency for science and technology as well as a foundation to support and advance scientific and technological activities. In accordance with the Decree, the State Commission for Science and Technology headed by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Uzbekistan has been set up, tasked with elaborating and introducing for consideration an integrated government policy in the field of scientific and technical activity, in the identification of priority directions for innovation programs. However, analysis of the current system of organizing language learning shows that learning standards, curricula and textbooks do not fully meet the current requirements, particularly in the use of advanced information and media technologies. Education is mainly conducted in traditional methods. Further development of a continuum of foreign languages learning at all levels of education; improving skills of teachers and provision of modern teaching materials are required. According to the decree, starting from 2013/2014 school year foreign languages, mainly English, gradually throughout the country will be taught from the first year of schooling in the form form of lesson-games and speaking games, continuing to learning the alphabet, reading and spelling in the second year (grade).Also it is envisaged that university modules, especially in technical and international areas, will be offered in English and other foreign languages at higher education institutions. The State Testing Centre, along with other relevant agencies, is tasked with preparing draft proposals on introducing foreign languages testing to the entrance examinations for all higher educational institutions. In order to increase teaching standarts in distant rural areas, the higher educational institutions are allowed targeted admission of people living in distant areas to foreign language programs on the condition that they will oblige themselves to work in the acquired specialty at their residence area for at least 5 years after graduation. The decree also envisages 30% salary increase for foreign language teachers in rural areas, 15% increase for those in other areas. Special attention must be given to education, literature, art and others. Education provides creative inspiration for the spirituality of the people of Uzbekistan. It helps us discover the best abilities of the up and coming generation, while continuously improving the skills of professionals. Education helps elucidate and pass down the wisdom and experiences of the older generation to the younger. Young people, with their budding talents and thirst for knowledge begin to understand spirituality through education. In the process of higher school reformation, we must consolidate their contacts with higher educational institutions in other countries. It's necessary to promote the encouragement of foreign teachers in Uzbekistan. It would be expedient to organize the education of our graduate students in the educational canters of developed countries without interference of any ideology.
The place of L1 has been an argument in ELT history for ages. While one side such as Situational language teaching and Audio Lingual method see L1 as a block before learning L2 and strictly avoid using the native tongue in language teaching, on the other side the humanistic and communicative methodologies consider using L1 as a reference and believe in the contribution of the native language in the acquisition of the target language. This paper reviews the literature on using L1 in the teaching of L2 and by analyzing the attitudes of English teachers in the use of L1, comments on the findings from the interviews. The research concludes that ELT teachers in this study emphasize the necessary use of L1 in structural teaching and prefer the "teach English in English" motto in communicative teaching in general. Also the research shows the specific ways ELT teachers prefer using L1, which breaks the psychological barriers before the teaching begins and that the use of L1 creates a low anxiety atmosphere for both the learners and the teachers. As expressed in the poetry above by Klaus Groth (2009), how we feel better using or how we express ourselves well is the mother tongue, or in terms of language teaching the first language (L1), which has always been a discussion in language teaching. The debate begins from the very strict opinion that it prevents learners from acquiring the target language and ends with the opposing idea that L1 is the verification of learning the target language. English language teaching (ELT) history has witnessed many arguments for and against the use of L1. The former theory judges the L1 as the main reason for the learning of an L2 while in practice teachers of English -even still today- have faced the dilemma of allowing, limiting or forbidding the use L1 in their classrooms. Despite the ease of the theoretical assumptions, the practical realities of the classroom have compelled the methodologist to conduct new studies and reassess the use of L1 in ELT literature. Is an English teacher trying to give the impression that he or she does not know the L1 in spite of the fact that he or she is the native speaker of that language like the ugly duckling trying to be a part of the other family? Is the behavior in not using L1 burying all of their L1 world knowledge and potential? Should the bilingual teacher act as a monolingual person to prevent his or her should prove the theory if the results were what Modernism and the democratic movement in the world have moved from behaviorism to cognitive belief; strictness against the use of L1 is decreasing in the classroom. Many course books today have included the use of L1 in their syllabus. This theory is also more humanistic accepting that L1 brings some wealth and richness in thinking has beco Turkish teachers of English language have been very little affected by these changes both in theory and practice since the beginning of the century. There are teachers entirely depending on the use of L1 or totally refusing it. There are still teachers following the structural approach, and reform minded teachers do not appear to be rapidly replacing them. This study, stemming from the experiences above, attempts to investigate the attitudes of teachers on using L1 in the teaching of English. It first reviews the literature then gives the methodology and describes the subjects and then concludes by commenting on the findings and giving further recommendations. 2. The case for and against L1 in ELT: A Brief Account The first and the most traditional language teaching method is the Grammar Translation Method (GTM), which totally depends on the use of the first language in the teaching of the target language. The use of L1 is almost tantamount to the emergence times of GTM because sentences had to be translated from the target language (L2) The methods developed under the influence of behaviorism strictly refused the use of L1 as one of the principles of The Oral Approach and Situational Language Teaching. (Richards and Rodgers 2002, page 39) The Audio-lingual Method, the American twin of The Oral Approach and Situational Language Teaching, also rejects the use of L1 in the L2 classroom by advocating that use of L2 in the learning of the target language is more effective if everything is taught in the target language. And this method avoids the use of L1 at all costs as it argues that it would cause the formation of bad habits and interfere the methodology banishing all forms of language processing including the use or referencing of L1. (Harmer, 2001) From those practices sternly forbidding L1 there emerge other traditional methodologies with different levels of tolerance toward the use of L1.The use of L1 in the other traditional methods ranges from using it to give instructions as in the Silent Way, to explain the dialogue in Suggestopedia, to security in Community Language Learning or to reasonable use in Communicative Language Teaching. As explained in this brief history the first method is excessive on the use of L1, depending much on its use, while on the other side the following language innovators advocate that it should be kept outside the class. The softeners 4341 Fatih Yavuz / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 ( 2012 ) 4339 – 4344 (more humanistic and cognitive linguists) strive to find the middle ground by asserting that there should be a limit to the use of L1 in the teaching of an L2. 3. The current case of L1 use in ELT Following the methodological elucidations on language teaching, eyes turned to the individual linguists and practitioners. Although we can observe some linguists such (Chaudron, 1988; Krashen, 1982; Macdonald, 1993) strongly advocate the use of the target language in the classroom for the sake of comprehensible input, according to Cook et al.(1979) the learning of a first language is not simply a matter of learning syntax and vocabulary; rather it is environmental and linguistic as well as emotional. Thus ignoring L1 would decrease the cognitive level of that learner. Swan believes that when learning a new language learners habitually attempt to find ways to comprehend the new structures in the L2 by trying to find the equivalents in their L1. (Swan, 1985:96). This is the very logical rationale for taking the L1 reference. Atkinson (1993) supports the use of L1 at and in appropriate times and ways. He argues the teacher should find a balance and decide if the use of L1 is excessive or not. Auerbach (1993), after introducing the very interesting idea that forcing people to use an L2 violates human rights, states that the use of L2 in the classroom is a prime example of Fairclough's notion of covert ideological control. This point of view is of great interest because it describes an implicit way of forcing people to use the target language which may aim to break ties with his or her native language and its culture. Quoting this view is not meant as an attack on L2 use but a part of analyzing the case in all its aspects. The American Pledge below perhaps is an example of an acting point or the political ideology to keep the use of L2 in language classrooms. Auerbach (1993) uses this oath as evidence to support the notion of ideological control or the Americanization movement. Pledge for Children 2. That I will say a good American "yes" and "no" in place of an Indian grunt "um-hum" and "nupum" or a foreign "ya" or "yeh" and "nope." 3. That I will do my best to improve American speech by avoiding loud, rough tones, by enunciating distinctly, and by speaking pleasantly, clearly, and sincerely. Following the same ideology Phillipson claims that an Englishknowledge, fails to understand the nature of bilingualism and psycholinguistically ignores first-language learning experiences as the foreign-language learner is expected to start with no existing language resources.(Quoted from Higereda et al.,2009). Harmer (2007, pp. 133-134) also believes that L1 use encourages interaction between teacher and students at a basic level, allows learners to talk about learning, and enhances the social atmosphere in the classroom.( Quoted from Higereda et al., 2009 p.44). Atkinson (1987) is seen one of the first supporters of L1 use in L2 classrooms. He criticizes the gap in the ELT literature on the beneficial use of L1.and defines a suggested use of L1 in the EFL classroom. 4342 Fatih Yavuz / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 ( 2012 ) 4339 – 4344 Table 1. Suggested Uses for L1 in the EFL Classroom 1. Eliciting Language "How do you say `X' in English?" 2. Checking comprehension "How do you say `I've been waiting for ten minutes in Spanish?" (Also used for comprehension of a reading or listening text.) 3. Giving complex instructions to basic levels 4. Co-operating in groups Learners compare and correct answers to exercises or tasks in the L1. Students at times can explain new points better than the teacher. 5. Explaining classroom methodology at basic levels 6. Using translation to highlight a recently taught language item 7. Checking for sense If students write or say something in the L2 that does not make sense, have them try to translate it into the L1 to realize their error. 8. Testing Translation items can be useful in testing mastery of forms and meanings. 9. Developing circumlocution strategies When students do not know how to say something in the L2, have them think if different ways to say the same thing in the L1, which may be easier to translate. Some research exists on the use of L1 in a foreign/second language classroom. The very early study conducted by Patti (1994) asking 21 college teachers their attitudes on L1 use showed that 71 % reported that all ESL teachers at the college should know and use some L1( in the study L1 is Spanish) and a quick use of L1 would save time. tches to L1 when students fail to give appropriate answers (Hosoda, 2000, p.86 quoted from Birch 2010 p.20.) Liskin and Gasparro (2011) mention that Macaro presents the findings of two studies on codeswitching and vocabulary acquisition and he concluding that there is no evidence pointing to any negative effects of codeswitching. Brooks, Donato, and McGlone (1997 quoted from Scott. and Fuente,2008) observed that communication problems were often resolved when learners reverted to L1.Tomlinson (2000) stressed the importance of the inner voice in L2 learning. His findings indicated that L2 learners make use of an L1 inner voice, often failing to develop an L2 inner voice. In their research Scott and Fuente (2008) conducted a study on 12 students (half studying Spanish, the other half studying French) asking the first half to use L2 and the second to use both L1 and L2 when trying to understand grammar rules. The findings from this study indicated that learners use L1 even when they type of task appears to inhibit collaborative interaction strategies. Anton and DiCamilla (1998, quoted in Mouhanna, 2009) conducted a study in which L1 was found to contribute to scaffolding and increase learner interest in demanding reasoning tasks. Myoji L1 use in listening skills shows that using L2 is helpful in improving their listening comprehension skills. Her study concentrates only on the listening skill comprehension in L2 depending on only one variable whether teachers use L1 or L2 during listening sessions, but it does not mention the support of L1 in the cognitive development of other aspects of L2 acquisition. 4.The Research Method and the Participants The study was conducted among twelve English teachers at twelve different All of the teachers are Turkish and have a significant experience. The majority were female. The teachers were interviewed about the use of L1 in their classes. Pseudonyms were used for the teachers. No theoretical questions were directed to the teachers in the interview. of L1 in your The idea was to get their thoughts and see if they would comply with the findings in the literature. The data from the interviews were collected and analyzed. The evaluation of the interviews was commented on and discussed in the last part of the study. 4343 Fatih Yavuz / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 ( 2012 ) 4339 – 4344 Result
The teachers in the study asserted that more communicative skills require the least use of L1. If an activity is more including interactional-based than structural, both learners and the teacher rely on the target language. They also stated that the physical condition of the classroom is the reason for using L1; crowded classes force the teachers to use the first language to instruct and control the learners. Another reason is that the education system is based on preparing for the examinations. Teachers reported receiving requests from both learners and parents to instruct students in their L1 because the result-based examinations do not entail the use of the target language. In support of this view teacher Gabriel stated that it would be nonsense to talk about the use of L1 while one is still using the Grammar Translation as the method in teaching. The existence of the course material allows either the use of L1 or L2, stated another teacher. If he or she doesn have enough course material he or she uses L1. Material in this sense should be understood to be any kind of course supplements that will facilitate the use of L2 in the classroom. Lack of interest in the course also encourages the teacher to use L1 to energize the students. Teacher Rosa reported that to get the students come back to the classroom she switches to L2. The teacher Amanda feels the necessity to use L1 when the students seem to lose their self- confidence. Another felt the need to depend on L1 in the teaching of the abstract vocabulary. Additional reasons were to check for comprehension and to explain the activity. Only one teacher out of the twelve said she never uses L1 in her teaching because she believes that overuse of L1 is making the students lazy. She believes that when students switch to their native language they are neither cognitive nor analytic in understanding the target language. 4. Conclusion All in all L1 cannot neither be ignored nor overused in language classrooms. The teachability of the subject is a good rationale for the use of L1. As seen in the findings it is evident that the reason for using L1 in the classroom is mostly a methodological issue; teachers in fact do not take their support from the theory but from their experiences and perceptions. Pedagogical training for pre- and in- service teachers is seen inevitable in teacher training courses and faculties. Teachers were observed to be using the native language not for the acceptable reasons explained in the literature. This is due to the lack of ELT methodology. The other side is certainly supported by other studies and researchers arguing negotiating states: you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language that goes to his heart. The richness of a learners L1 knowledge and experience is unquestionably an accessible source for L2 learning. Teaching a learner without his native language is not only disregards his or her identity and culture but also turns him or her into new born baby with an adult mind.
This study examined the amount, the purposes, and the reasons why L1 isused in L2 classrooms. Data consist of video and audio recording of samples of two instructors’ L2 classes over the course of a 12-week semester in two second-year German conversation university courses, instructor interviews, and stimulated recall sessions. Results revealed that the instructors used L1 quite frequently in their classrooms and that they did it for many reasons and purposes. They also believed that L1 should be used in L2 classrooms and that its use facilitates L2 learning. Findings provide evidence that despite disagreement on the use of L1 among L2 researchers, these instructors of German as a foreign language used L1 in their classrooms for important instructional purposes. The use of students’ first language (L1) in language teaching has been an issue of ongoing debate in the field of second language acquisition (SLA; e.g., Guthrie, 1987; Kharma & Hajjaj, 1989; Nizegorodcew, 1996; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003; Tang, 2002). Although reactions against the use of L1 have become less strict in recent years than before, according to Cummins (2007), the dominant approach in second language (L2) teaching has advocated no use of L1 in L2 classrooms. Thus, many language teaching approaches continue to assume that L2 instruction should be mainly through the L2 and that if there is recourse to the L1, it should be minimized as much as possible (Turnbull, 2001). Some even may believe that instructors should avoid using L1 altogether and that those who use it may be inadequate pedagogues (G. Chambers, 1992; Cook, 2001). This study examined the use of L1 in two second-year German conversation courses at the university level. The aims were to find out whether these instructors used L1 and if so to what extent and for what purposes. The study also examined the specific reasons why the instructors used L1. Literature Review The use of L1 in L2 classrooms has long been a controversial issue in the field of L2 teaching and learning. Although the use of L1 is gaining more support from some L2 researchers, there are many who have argued that the use of L1 should be limited in L2 instruction. These opponents of L1 use make a number of arguments to support their position. They argue that the use of L1 may have detrimental effects on the instructors’ use of L2 because if instructors use L1, the quantity of comprehensible L2 input decreases, which is thought to hamper learners’ L2 learning. They argue that adult L2 learning should take place in the same fashion as child L1 learning and that the L2 should be ‘‘largely acquired rather than consciously learned, from messageoriented experience of its use’’ (Mitchell, 1988, as cited in F. Chambers, 1991, p. 28). These arguments may stem from beliefs in naturalistic approaches to language teaching that emphasize a focus on immersion of the learner in the L2 and providing abundant opportunities for exposure to the target language (e.g., Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Therefore, these people may view the use of L1 as characteristic of the oldfashioned grammar translation method, which largely focused on translating from L2 to L1 as a way of learning the L2 (Polio & Duff, 1994). In other words, opponents of L1 use believe that L2 teaching should take place without interference from L1. They also believe that L1 use is a sign of insufficiently trained, nonnative speaker instructors succumbing to pressure from students and colleagues not to use L2 all the time (Harbord, 1992). Therefore, opponents of L1 use view exclusive use of L2 in the classroom as the only way in which language should be taught and hence consider ‘‘no L1 use’’ an undisputed premise (e.g., F. Chambers, 1991; Franklin, 1990). There are, on the other hand, researchers who argue that L1 should not be abandoned in L2 classrooms, and they provide both cognitive and sociolinguistic reasons for their position. From a cognitive perspective, they contend that learners who have mastered their L1 are sophisticated cognitive individuals, who invariably draw upon their L1 to make sense of the world, new concepts, and a new language (Butzkamm, 1998; Cook, 2001; van Lier, 1995). Thus, the use of L1 would provide them with a valuable cognitive tool (Artemeva, 1995; Hinkel, 1980). Banning L1 from the language classroom, on the other hand, would ignore the cognitive reality that connecting new concepts to preexisting knowledge creates better chances for language learning success. In addition, L1 can be a valuable sociocognitive tool to collect ideas that can in turn help mediate the learning of L2 and promote interaction among learners in the L2 environment (Anton & DiCamilla, 1999; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003; Thoms, Liao, & Szustak, 2005; Wells, 1998). Furthermore, as the use of L1 is a sign of learners’ sociolinguistic expression of their emerging bilingual status, it bridges their identity as speakers of L1 with the creation of a new self in the L2 (Belz, 2003; Chavez,2003; Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2004). Due to the debate surrounding the use of L1, a number of studies have examined the use of L1 in L2 classrooms (e.g., Duff & Polio, 1990; Edstrom, 2006; Polio & Duff, 1994; Rolin-Ianziti & Brownlie, 2002). These studies have explored the degree to which L1 is used in L2 classrooms and have also examined the attitudes and perceptions of instructors and students regarding the role of L1 in different contexts (e.g., Macaro, 2001; Mpras, 2003). They have generally found that although instructors acknowledge the importance of teaching in L2, most of them still use L1 to a certain degree in their classrooms (e.g., Duff & Polio, 1990; Levine, 2003; Macaro, 1995; Foreign Language Annalsvol. 42, No. 4 743 Mpras, 2003; Schweers, 1999). Studies have also found a large variability of L1 use among instructors. Duff and Polio (1990) examined the use of L1 in foreign language classes taught at the University of California and found L1 use ranging from 0 to 90%. Polio and Duff (1994) also found that instructors used L1 for a range of purposes, from administration to grammar instruction and classroom management. Similarly, in a Chinese university English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context, Tang (2002) found that the most common purposes for which L1 was used were giving activity instructions and explaining abstract or culturally specific words, while Kaneko (1992) found in a Japanese secondary school EFL context that instructors used L1 to provide explanations and activity instructions, manage the lesson, and build rapport with the students. Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002) examined the use of L1 at a university in Australia. These researchers found an average of 8.8% and a range from 0 to 18.1% L1 use in five first-year French courses. In a case study of six student teachers of French with teenage students across four state schools in southern England, Macaro (2001) found a low amount of L1 use, between 0 and 15.2%, with an average of 6.9%. On the other hand, in studying the use of L1 in 12 English classesat a Japanese high school, Kaneko (1992) found that instructors and students used L1 51 to 74% in senior classes and 64 to 83% in junior classes. These studies suggest that the teaching context may have an important influence on L1 use in L2 classrooms. Although a number of studies have examined L1 use, few have investigated the exact thoughts of the instructors when they use L1 in the classroom. The present study investigated the use of L1 (i.e., English) in two German-as-a-foreign-language classrooms and at the same time explored the instructors’ reasoning at those moments they used L1. The study also examined the extent as well as the purposes for which instructors used L1. One of the instructors participating in the study was highly experienced, and the other one was a novice. Therefore, the study also examined whether there was a difference between these two instructors in the extent to which and the ways in which they used L1 in their classrooms as well as in their reasoning. Methods
The Context The study was carried out in two sections of the same second-year German-as-a-foreignlanguage course at an Anglophone university in western Canada. The classes were of a conversational nature and were taught by two native German speakers. The course objectives described in the course syllabus were acquiring oral language proficiency, increasing learners’ lexical and syntactic skills, and providing insights into the L2 culture. The course was designed for students who wanted to improve their German speaking skills. The prerequisite of the course was the completion of two first-year German courses. The classes were held in different time slots during the week. One was held twice a week for 1.5 hours, and the other three times a week for 1 hour. The courses were held during a three-month term. Each class contained 18 students ranging in age from 18 to 55. One class had 10 female and 8 male students, while the other had 13 female and 5 male students. Except for four students in both classes (a total of 8 among the 36 students) who were exchange students from other countries, all the other students had grown up in Canada. The Instructors The instructors were two native speakers of German. One, Michael (names are pseudonyms), is an experienced instructor who has taught German in Canada for about 20 years. He earned his doctoral teaching degree from a German university. The other instructor was Sandra, a novice teacher with little past teaching experience (she has completed only a four-week practicum teaching German to immigrants in Germany). Her teaching in Canada was part of 744 Winter 2009 a two-semester practicum requirement for the completion of her master’s teaching degree at a German university. During the time the study was carried out, she taught the conversation course three times a week and a grammar-focused first-year level course. Both instructors are fluent in English. Data Collection Procedures There were three sources of data used in thestudy: video and audio recordings of the German classes, instructor interviews, and stimulated recall sessions immediately following the class recordings. The video and audio recordings were used to capture the moments when the instructors used L1. The selection of the lessons for recording took place after consultation with the instructors and was based on two criteria: (1) the lessons should cover the same course content, and (2) no quizzes or tests were to be administered on that day. The lessons were recorded with a digital video recorder placed at the back of the class and a digital audio recorder in front to capture as much of the instructor’s speech as possible. Each class was recorded four times for 50 minutes. Thus, a total of 400 minutes (eight recordings of 50 minutes, four per course section) were recorded. To make up for the classes’ different schedules, the class that took place twice a week for 1.5 hours was recorded starting half an hour into the lesson, while the other class taking place three times a week for one hour was recorded in its entirety. The class recordingswere then transcribed and coded for instances of L1 use using a computer program called CHILDES (Child Language Data Exchange System) (see ‘‘Data Coding and Analysis’’ below for more detail on CHILDES). Interviews were conducted with each of the instructors individually to explore their general beliefs and attitudes toward using L1 as well as the general purposes for which they use L1 in their classrooms. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded. The interviews took place after the completion of classroom recordings in order not to influence the instructors’ practice with the interview questions. The interviews were semi-structured, with a set of questions guiding the interviews. As the researcher (the first author) and the instructors are native speakers of German, the interviews were conducted mostly in German but contained occasional recourse to English. The interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and translated back to English. A content analysis was conducted on the data to determine the instructors’ beliefs about L1 use. In addition to interviews, the study also used stimulated recall sessions with each instructor after all classroom recordingswere completed. Stimulated recall is an introspective research instrument used to gather information about participants’ thought processes about a recent action they partook in (Gass & Mackey, 2000). These thought processes are usually investigated by presenting the participants with an audio or visual recording of themselves doing the task, which then serves as a prompt to help them recall their thoughts during the activity (Calderhead, 1981; Gass & Mackey, 2000). The purpose of the stimulated recall was to investigate the instructors’ specific reasons for using particular instances of L1 at particular moments of time in the course of their teaching.For the stimulated recall sessions, the researchers selected a sample of 20 L1-based episodes from each of the instructors and presented it to the same instructor for comment. We considered two factors in choosing these episodes. First, because one’s ability to remember details becomes less reliable as time passes (Gass & Mackey, 2000), it was important to minimize the elapsed time between classroom recordings and the stimulated recall sessions. Therefore, we conducted the stimulated recall immediately after the sessions. Second, we chose the episodes from those that clearly depicted an instance of L1 use. The researchers conducted the stimulated recall sessions with the individual instructors and began with explanations of Foreign Language Annalsvol. 42, No. 4 745 stimulated recall as well as the procedure. Next, the instructors viewed each individual episode. After each episode, we stopped the recording and asked the instructors why they had used L1 during that moment. The stimulated recall sessions were conducted in German, recorded, transcribed, translated back into English, and then coded for analysis. Data Coding and Analysis To determine the amount and purposes of L1 use in the classes, first, the researchers transcribed the classroom data and then coded them for all instances of L1 use. Coding was conducted using CHILDES (MacWhinney, 1994), a computer program designed to carry out conversational discourse analyses and language learning– related research. CHILDES consists of two subsystems: CHAT, a subsystem used to transcribe the data, and CLAN, another subsystem that provides a variety of search queries that can be run on the transcribed data to examine different features, depending on the research focus. For example, the frequency of a word can be determined. In order to determine the amount of L1 used in the observed classes, first, we carried out a word count of all L1 and L2 words. Then we calculated and compared the proportion of L1 use in each class and each session. To determine the purposes of L1 use, first, we identified all L1 utterances. An L1 utterance was an utterance in which an instance of L1 had been used. Following Mackey, Oliver, and Leeman (2003), we defined an utterance as ‘‘a stream of speech with at least one of the following characteristics: a) occurring under one intonation contour, b) bounded by a pause, and c) constituting a single semantic unit’’ (p. 45). In addition, when a student’s turn ended or interrupted the instructor’s stream of speech in which L1 had been used, that instructor’s stream of speech was considered an L1 utterance. In such a case, the turn boundary acted as an utterance delimiter, and if the instructor continued using L1 after the student’s interruption, a new L1 utterance began. The following excerpt from the transcription shows a conversational exchange between the instructor (T) and the student (S) and contains three L1 utterances said by the instructor (shown in italics). The first two are semantic units; the third one is delimited by the student’s comment. T: Stecher kommt von stechen [Stabber comes from stabbing],meaning to stab someone with a knife. T:That means if you use a knife, you put it somewhere, man sticht [one stabs]. T:The activity, using the knife to putting it in. S: Stabber. To determine the purposes of L1 utterances, the first author, who was the only rater and a native speaker of German, examined all the L1 utterances in the database for the purposes they served in their particular contexts. These purposes were called ‘‘functional categories’’ and were based on a modified version of the coding scheme developed by Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002). The researcher identified the functional categories by reading and rereading the transcription and identifying the L1 utterances and their purposes. Modifications were made to the initial coding scheme to reflect the purposes of the L1 utterances that were present in the data. The final coding scheme contained 14 main functional categories. Table 1 shows all the categories generated from the data along with definitions and examples from the data. After the coding of the purposes was completed, an intra-rater reliability check was conducted. To that end, 16 weeks after the initial coding, a second coding of 25% of the L1 utterances took place. The researchers then compared the results of this coding to the results of the initial coding and established an intra-rater agreement of 95%. After the coding of the data was completed, the frequency and the distribution of L1
Listening - L1 in L2 Classroom Although the five teachers had strongly believed in the complete immersion approach for second language learning, it just could not be practiced. When English was used in the classroom, a majority of their students did not understand. The use of simpler words could not alleviate the problem. They had no choice but to use L1 or Bahasa Malaysia. Code switching became predominant specifically in giving instructions. When giving instructions, these teachers would write and read them in English but this would always be followed with a translation. All texts are translated. Helping words for essays were also translated. Two teachers and four students described enjoying stories during vocabulary lessons. Stories were real-life experiences and teachers recalled observing some students jotting down the words. The stories were narrated in Bahasa Malaysia and English vocabulary was introduced at several parts of the stories. One of the teachers told stories with humour which were related to the topics to be discussed and she added personal touch. She brought in characters like her parents, children and those close to her so that her students feel included to her life experiences. This was corroborated by data received from her students. The student shared, “She really made the whole class laugh. Her grandmother’s village had a big flood one night and when all of the villagers were sleeping, the water level started to rise. Then the water went to the septic tank and then up came things from the tank. The…the…shit start to float all over!” According to Loomax & Moosavi (1998) studies have shown that humour is an excellent education tool that “reduces tension, improves classroom climate, increase enjoyment, increases student-teacher rapport and even facilitate learning.” This teacher could be on the right track if she aimed to encourage students to listen using humour. The students felt a sense of unity through learning when they laugh for that brief moment when they understood the joke. Ifused appropriately, humour allows students to feelpart of the class and could contribute without losing face, feeling exposed or vulnerable (Provine, 2002). Speaking - Linear learning When teachers are expected to provide all input fortopics of discussion in class, then linear learning is taking place. The teachers in this school regard group discussions futile since most of their studentswere unable to participate. Other than the attempts fromabove-average students, the teachers were unable to get the rest of the class to speak. An interview excerpt reveals the classroom ambience: “I use pictures to get them to verbalize a simple sentence but they cannot… Not entirely true, they can form simple sentences but not 100% accurate. They are unable to form complex sentences…The only question they know and say perfectly is, “Teacher, may I go out?” Writing - Reluctant students On the task of summary writing, the above average and average students were taught to summarize by scanning and identifying words that would suggest the meaning of each paragraph in a passage. The below-average students were given a different set of instructions. They were to identify sentences which could contain the main idea and “pick up the sentences” which may contain the main ideas, “lift the whole entence and write it down as the answer” as one teacher described. The weak students were instructed to read the whole text and to “choose either the second or third paragraph”of the passage to be rewritten as the summary. This teacher had to act on what could be accomplished within the constraints of the term given and the curriculum. The aim was for the students to accumulate as many points possible, for a passing grade. With a clear conscience, the teachersaid that this method was effective. Another teacher revealed that if it were up to the teachers, they would send the students back to kindergarten or lower primary school, “they do needthe very basic.” One divulged a shocking situationthrough a rhetorical question, “Do you know that some of them do not even know howto write?” When probed further, it was found that they do not even know how to write the alphabets. The teacher then added, “They need special classes for that…my class is an English PMR class, not alphabet writing class! So how do I teach them English when they don’t evenknow the alphabets?” Most of the teachers did not apply a specific approach in teaching the students how to write but with the conditions of the class, time constraint and a strict curriculum, they employed what-worked-best method. On the perspective of the students, being surrounded by others of varying language capabilities, they were completely reliant on their teacher to cater to all of their learning needs. This situation created a drawback on the above-average students. They were at risk of under-achieving their potential in English language acquisition. At the same time, the weak students were reluctant to participate in classroom activities. Factors like embarrassment and fear affected their participation. Reading - Learning transcends content. Despite the barriers of L2 learning, these teacherstried to be innovative. One of the teachers employed a method to engage reluctant students. For example, on the topic of monsoon rain, which was part of the Form 3 curriculum, she used the 2004 tsunami disaster as a preamble on natural disasters. Then she explained to the class that the tsunami, is a natural disaster but is unpredictable unlike seasonal monsoon rain. She ensued to describe the monsoon rain and how it affects Asian countries. Finally, she drew them to the text on monsoon rain. Refer to Fig. 1. This teacher had also used humour to create excitement on the topic. She knew they were listening the moment they started to laugh on cue. At this point, it would be easier to introduce new vocabularyand encourage the use of the dictionary other than infer meaning from the text. If the teacher had not usethis method, then most of the students would not understand the text at all. CONCLUSION The ever-increasing demand for learning the English language in Uzbekistan is demonstrative of the great need for creating effective methodologies for teaching English. Our course paper is devoted to interactive approaches to course design (topic-based, skills-based). It consists of introduction, three parts. Conclusion and references. Part one of the course paper depicts approaches to course design. Part two of the course paper portrays examples of forward design approaches in language teaching and part three is about humanistic approaches or designer methods of different methodologists. With the new technological improvements, video-based observation research is becoming a promising method in primary care and HFE research. Video recording has been under-utilized as a data collection tool because of confidentiality and privacy issues. However, it has many benefits as opposed to traditional observations, and recent studies using video recording methods have introduced new research areas and approaches. As mentioned in the chapters above, data can also be collected using questionnaires and surveys, which at the same
|
