Tài liệu Việc sử dụng ngôn ngữ thứ nhất khi dạy tiếng anh trên lớp học của giáo viên trung học phổ thông

THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES NGUYEN THI THU HIEN HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS’ EMPLOYMENT OF FIRST LANGUAGE IN THEIR ENGLISH CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION (Việc sử dụng ngôn ngữ thứ nhất khi dạy tiếng Anh trên lớp học của giáo viên Trung Học Phổ Thông) M.A THESIS Field: English Linguistics Code: 8220201 THAI NGUYEN – 2019 THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES NGUYEN THI THU HIEN HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS’ EMPLOYMENT OF FIRST LANGUAGE IN THEIR ENGLISH CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION (Việc sử dụng ngôn ngữ thứ nhất khi dạy tiếng Anh trên lớp học của giáo viên Trung Học Phổ Thông) M.A. THESIS (APPLICATION ORIENTATION) Field: English Linguistics Code: 8220201 Supervisor: Nguyen Thi Hang, Ph.D. THAI NGUYEN – 2019 STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP The thesis entitled “High school teachers’ employment of first language in their English classroom instruction” has been submitted to School of foreign languages, Thai Nguyen University for the Master of English language. I hereby declare that this thesis and the work presented in it are my own and have been generated by me as the result of my own original research. All references and all sources of information used in it have been specifically acknowledged. My thesis does not contain work extracted from a thesis, dissertation or research paper previously presented for another degree or diploma at this or any other universities. Signature: .................................. Name: Nguyen Thi Thu Hien Date: ........./............/2019 Approved by Signature: Dr. Nguyen Thi Hang i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to acknowledge my indebtedness and render my warmest thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Nguyen Thi Hang, who made this work possible. I am grateful to her for her patience, her encouragement and insightful suggestions. My special thanks are definitely to high school teachers in Quang Ninh province who agree to participate in my study. During my Data collection, they always provide me with great help. I would like to extend my thanks to my family: my mother, my husband and my daughter, who are always by my side and encourage me to accomplish this thesis. ii ABSTRACT This study investigates the practice of code switching among English language teachers at high school in Vietnam with practical experience in English as a foreign language. It places a focus on the situations in which teachers use their first language within their English instruction in their English classroom, and the reasons why teachers utter Vietnamese when giving instruction of English in their classes. An ethnographic research design is applied in the study. The research is based on the data analysis of four typical high school teachers’ code switching from three sources of information: class observations, class recordings, and interviews with teachers. It was found that the teachers practiced code-switching very commonly in their English instruction in different situations such as presenting vocabulary, presenting pronunciation, presenting grammar rules, correcting mistakes and keeping class management. Specific examples were illustrated and interpreted in each situation to provide the context where the teachers practised code switching. At the same time, the reasons why they code switched were revealed. These ranged from the teachers’ personal reasons to those for students’ sake: students’ English proficiency, time saving strategy and teachers’ habits. Among which, students’ low level of English was the most popular factor that teachers took into consideration when deciding to use their first language frequently. Based on the findings of the study, recommendations are provided for English teachers for situations where teachers’ code-switching could be encouraged and many other situations, their code-switching should generally be avoided. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ......................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................... ii ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. iv ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................v PART A. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................1 1. Rationale ..............................................................................................................1 2. Aims of the study .................................................................................................2 3. Scope of the study ................................................................................................2 4. Structure of the study ...........................................................................................3 PART B. DEVELOPMENT .....................................................................................3 CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................3 1.2. Code-switching in classroom instruction .........................................................6 1.2.1. Viewpoint supporting the use of L1 in language classes ............................6 1.2.2. Viewpoint against the use of L1 in language classes. ................................7 1.3. Studies of teachers’ using L1 in language classrooms .....................................8 1.4. Summary .........................................................................................................10 CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY .........................................................................11 2.1. Methodology of the study ...............................................................................12 2.2. Participants......................................................................................................13 2.3. Data collection ................................................................................................13 2.3.1. Classroom observations ...........................................................................14 2.3.2. Post-observational interviews ..................................................................15 2.4. Data analysis ...................................................................................................16 2.5. Summary .........................................................................................................17 CHAPTER 3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................17 3.1. Code-switching situations ...............................................................................17 3.1.1. Explaining new words ..............................................................................18 3.1.2. Presenting grammar rules ........................................................................21 3.1.3. Correcting mistakes ..................................................................................22 3.1.4. Dealing with class management ...............................................................24 3.2. Reasons for teachers’ code-switching ............................................................25 3.2.1. Students’ English proficiency ...................................................................26 3.2.2. A time saving strategy ..............................................................................28 3.2.3. Teachers’ habits .......................................................................................29 3.3. Summary .........................................................................................................33 PART C. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................34 1. Conclusion .........................................................................................................34 2. Recommendations for the teachers ....................................................................35 3. Limitations and Recommendations for further studies ......................................37 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................38 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... I LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of teacher participants………………………………………13 Table 2. Summary of teachers’ code-switching situations…………………….. 18 Table 3. Summary of reasons for teachers’ code-switching…………………… 26 iv ABBREVIATIONS EFL: English as a foreign language FL: Foreign language L1: Language one L2: Language two TL: Target language v PART A. INTRODUCTION 1. Rationale There have been ongoing debates about teachers’ use of languages, particularly whether they should use their first language in their English classes. On the one hand, using the first language (L1) in foreign language classrooms is discouraged by advocates of the target language (TL) use only (Chauron, 1988; Mcdonald, 1993). These authors contend that students must be exposed to a significant amount of TL input if they want to develop it better. This explains why teachers of English can sometimes receive criticism for using their first language in their classroom instruction. At the other end of the spectrum, a number of scholars including Eastman (1992), and Addendorff (1993), Code-switching amongst Luzuspeaking teachers and their pupils: Its functions and implications for teacher education, Language and Education, 7(3), 141-161. feel that switching from TL to L1 can be an effective strategy for teachers to help improving their students’ TL proficiency if L1 is deliberately utilized in classrooms. Cook (2001, pp.402-423) also provides guidelines for teachers when employing L1 in classroom instructions, which are “efficiency”, “learning”, “naturalness” and “external relevance”. These contrasting viewpoints reflect what I have observed and questioned for years during my teaching career at Van Lang high school in Ha Long, which has driven me to investigate the English teaching setting of high schools in Vietnam, where the teachers’ use of L1 in instruction is a common element. From my own experience and my observation of other English teachers’ teaching practice, it is evident that Vietnamese teachers use both L1 and English in different phases in their language classroom. It is a common perception that when the teachers use Vietnamese, their students might better comprehend the instructions. Especially in classes with English low-level students, if L1 is not used, tasks and activities must be kept simplest to ensure that the instructions are understandable, which might result in teachers treating high school students like kids rather than intelligent and sophisticated people (Gunn, 1 2003). In other cases, some teachers resort to Vietnamese with a view to saving time and effort of explaining and understanding, which may somehow solve the problem of class time limit. However, it would turn out to be negative if this practice becomes a habit and both students and teachers accept Vietnamese as a matter of fact in a language classroom. This issue has given me a desire to understand when and for what reasons teachers at high school employ L1 in classroom instruction. The study entitled “High school teachers’ employment of first language in their English classroom instruction” will hopefully give high school teachers an opportunity to reflect on their own teaching practice and use code switching as an effective strategy by utilizing Vietnamese deliberately in classroom instruction. Besides, it raises awareness of language alternation in classroom instruction, not only among teachers of the high school chosen in the research but also among language teachers in other similar teaching and learning contexts in Vietnamese. 2. Aims of the study The study aims to investigate English language teachers at a high school in Vietnam with practical experience in English as a foreign language (EFL). It places a focus on the situations in which teachers use their first language (Vietnamese) within their English instruction in their English classroom. Moreover, the study provides the evidence of reasons why teachers utter Vietnamese when giving instruction of English in their classes. Research questions:  When do high school teachers employ their first language in their classroom instruction?  Why do high school teachers employ their first language in their classroom instruction? 3. Scope of the study This study focuses on teachers’ use of their first language in their classroom instruction of English. It will be conducted during the academic year of 2018 – 2019. 2 4. Structure of the study The study is composed of three main parts as follows. Part A: Introduction provides the background to the study, the aims of the study which is followed by the research questions, the significance of the study and the organization of the study as well. Part B: Development consists of three chapters Chapter 2: Literature Review is an overview of the related topics that provides the theoretical background to the study including theoretical background of code switching. Some previous studies about teachers using L1 in foreign language classes are mentioned in this chapter to be the references of the study. Chapter 3: Methodology describes the research design, the data collection instruments used and the procedures of data collection, the description of the participants and data analysis. Chapter 4: Findings and discussion analyses all the data collected from the study, including the results from observation notes, recordings and interview transcriptions. Part C: Conclusion and Recommendation concludes the thesis by summarizing the findings, discussing the contribution of the study, limitations and suggestions for further studies. PART B. DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW Using the first language in foreign language classes has received great attention from language researchers. This chapter, consisting of four sections, 3 reviews relevant matters related to code-switching as the background for the study. First, it briefly discusses an overview of the notion of bilingualism and one of its main characteristics - the phenomenon of code-switching. The next section provides a number of different viewpoints in regard to the practice of code-switching in classroom instruction of English. These main viewpoints come from those who are for and against the L1 use. The third section aims to synthesise previous studies of teachers’ L1 using in language classrooms. The chapter ends with a summary of the main points presented. 1.1. Bilingualism and code-switching Bilingualism is the phenomenon of speaking and understanding two or more languages. The term can refer to individuals (individual bilingualism) as well as to an entire society (social bilingualism). There have been different views on bilingualism and bilinguals. One of the most common views is bilingualism is defined based on the level of language proficiency of the speaker of the two languages. Accordingly, bilinguals are divided into three groups as follows. According to Mackey (2000), bilinguals refer to speakers who can use two languages equally fluently. This means if someone is called a bilingual, he or she must master the second language, more or less, than their mother tongue in all the four skills: listening, reading, writing and speaking. With this definition, the number of bilinguals is limited. At the other end of the spectrum, those educators like Haugen (1953) claims that bilinguals are those who master one language and at the same time can show certain level of proficiency of another language. In his view, bilinguals refer to anyone who can demonstrate their ability of using second language (even at a basic level). The last category of bilinguals is proposed by Edwards (2004) and Mackey (2000) who believe that bilinguals are those who are able to use two languages alternately. In this study, I adopt the third definition which emphasizes on the teachers’ 4 alternate use of English and Vietnamese in their English classes to be bilinguals. The teachers’ use of both languages is known as one of the three main features of bilingualism, the phenomenon of code-switching, which occurs when a speaker alternates between two or more languages in conversation. Instances of codeswitching, like the following examples, commonly occur around the classroom context. Examples: (a) Cuối tuần này đi picnic đi. (b) Keep silent please. Cả lớp trật tự được chưa? (c) Giờ tôi không thể nhớ chính xác cái moment ấy như thế nào […] In the above examples, the speaker starts in one language (Vietnamese in this case), then he or she shifts to English. His/her switches maybe forth and back. This phenomenon has been long discussed; however, there has not been an agreed definition. Nunan and Carter (2001) simply define code switching as “a phenomenon of switching from one language to another in the same discourse”. Simon (2001) describes foreign language teachers’ code-switching as the teachers’ choice of using the language being taught and the teachers’ and students’ first language. Another definition of code-switching proposed by Hoffmann (1991) is “the alternate use of two languages or linguistic varieties within the same utterance or during the same conversation” (p. 110). This definition is supported by Muysken (1995) who defines bilingualism as “the alternative use by bilinguals (or multilinguals) of two or more languages in the same conversation”. In this perspective, code-switching is identified by Gardner-Chloros (2009) as “the use of several language dialects in the same conversation or sentence by bilingual people” (p. 4). Similarly, code-switching is used to refer to the phenomenon in which “speakers switch backwards and forwards between distinct codes in their repertoire” (Bell, 2014, p. 111). 5 In the language classroom context, code-switching has been defined as “the systematic, alternating use of two or more languages in a single utterance or conversational exchange” (Levine, 2011, p. 50). More specifically, G. Cook (2010) refers to the teacher’s code-switching as the use of the first language in his/her L2 classroom. G. Cook (2010) also sees translation as one means for a bilingual to codeswitch. However, he notes that teachers’ L1 use does not necessarily involve translation because translation is not the only tool for a bilingual to use. In the context of the language classroom in Vietnam, teachers’ code-switching seems to be a common practice in their classroom instruction of English, and it is seen as “the practice of using two languages within the same utterance and between utterances and turns” (Nguyen, 2013; Grant & Nguyen, 2017). 1.2. Code-switching in classroom instruction Teachers’ code-switching in classroom instruction involves their alternate use of the first language (L1) and the second language (L2). There have been disputes among scholars on teachers’ using only L2 and on their using both the L1 and L2 in the FL classrooms. The viewpoint that approves of the teachers’ use of two languages means their code-switching is, to a great extent, accepted. In contrast, there are those who disparage this practice, viewing that a degree is a more of hindrance than a help if language teachers insert their L1 into their instruction in class. These two contrasting views are, in turn, reviewed as follows. 1.2.1. Viewpoint supporting the use of L1 in language classes The advocates of L1 employment in language classroom base their support on such ideas that teachers can use L1 with specific purposes. Tang (2002), for example, claims that L1 can be used by teachers to give instructions and explain complex grammar and difficult ideas. This is a common view of the supporters of the Bilingual Approach, i.e. the one which advocates L1 use. Miles (2004, p.8) states that “the Bilingual Approach might argue that to make the separation or distinction between L1 and L2, explanations in L1 are necessary, because the teaching of grammar is so 6 complex, that without L1 use, there would be little or no comprehension on the students’ part, especially at lower levels.”. Sharing the same opinion, Nunan (1997) believes that the exclusion of L1 in lower-level monolingual classes is practically impossible. More specifically, Cook (2001) also provided two reasons for employing the first language in an FL class, which are efficiency and naturalness. He proposed various ways for teachers to use their native language positively in their FL classes such as to convey meaning, explain grammar, organize tasks, manage the classroom, establish and maintain contact with individual students an administer tests. Another reason leading to teachers’ use of their mother tongue is the fact that non-native speakers account for the vast majority of teachers of English across the world (Hawks, 2001, cited in Miles, 2004, p. 9). These teachers normally find it hard, or even impossible to carry out the English-only teaching in the classroom; thus, the insistence on the monolingual approach may result in their reduced ability to communicate and consequently their reduced teaching performance (Miles, 2004, p.9). 1.2.2. Viewpoint against the use of L1 in language classes. Although the use of L1 tends to gain 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 provide evidence to support their argument. One of the first arguments is that the use of L1 may have negative effects on the instructors’ use of L2 because if instructors use L1, the quantity of comprehensible L2 input decreases, which is thought to do harm to learners’ L2 learning. Years ago, Mitchell, (1983) argued that adult L2 learning should take place in the same way as child L1 learning and that the L2 should be ‘‘largely acquired rather than consciously learned, from message-oriented experience of its use’’ (p.41). Later, Polio & Duff (1994) viewed the use of L1 as characteristic of the old- fashioned grammar translation method, which largely focused on translating from L2 to L1 as 7 a way of learning the L2. Other authors who are of the viewpoint against the use of L1 believe that L2 teaching should take place without interference from L1. According to Cummins (2007), the dominant approach in 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 (Cook, 2001). 1.3. Studies of teachers’ using L1 in language classrooms Studies of teachers’ use of L1 in classroom vary. Duff & Polio (1990) found that although instructors acknowledge the importance of teaching in L2, most of them still use L1 to a certain degree in their classrooms Studies have also found a large variability of L1 use among teachers. They examined the use of L1 in foreign language classes taught at the University of California and found L1 use ranging from 0 to 90%. They also found that teachers used L1 for a range of purposes, from administration to grammar instruction and classroom management. Other researchers, Nguyen (1999) and Zacharias (2003) reported their studies on the use of L1 in L2 teaching and concluded that most of the respondents held supportive views on the role of L1 in the English classroom. Zacharias (2003) further pointed out the possible uses of L1 in the process of teaching L2 including explaining the meaning of new words and grammatical points, giving instructions, checking learners’ understanding and giving feedback to individual learners. Many studies investigating teachers’ code-switching in classroom instruction have found out the reasons why teachers of English switch to Vietnamese when giving instruction. There were different factors that led to the teachers’ code-switching found in a number of studies (Greggio & Gil, 2007; Kang, 2013; Kim & Elder, 2008; Macaro, 2001; Rolin-Ianziti&Brownlie, 2002; Üstünel&Seedhouse, 2005). Such factors 8 examined in these research studies are grouped into two main categories: teacher factors and student factors. Kim and Elder (2008) looked into the practices and perceptions of two cases of native speaker teachers (one is French and the other is Korean) of the TL in FL classrooms in New Zealand. Four factors that caused teachers to code-switch were shown in the analysis of their participants’ lesson transcripts. The first factor was the teachers’ attitude towards TL use, i.e., their opinion about language teaching and learning, their awareness of language use. The second factor was the teachers’ physical or mental state (e.g., the teachers’ impatience), the third factor was the teachers’ language educational background, and the fourth factor was the teachers’ time pressure. Other teacher factors arose from the classroom needs, e.g., to encourage students to speak (Üstünel&Seedhouse, 2005) to make sure of students’ comprehension (Greggio& Gil, 2007), or to perform procedural instruction (Macaro, 2001; Rolin-Ianziti&Brownlie, 2002). Teachers code-switched to their first language (Arabic) to deal with a cultural concept of, for example, Muslim people’s religious cultural behaviour of performing ablution which occurs before praying because this concept does not have an exact equivalent in English (Khresheh, 2012). In particular, Le (2014) conducted a case study of a teacher in the Vietnamese university context, and found that the teacher code switched because she underestimated the students’ ability in the target language. Furthermore, based on the evidence of the teacher’s unnecessary switches, he claimed that many of the teacher’s switches from English to Vietnamese in his study were habitual and automatic. The student-related factors that caused teachers to code-switch were found in far fewer studies. Kim and Elder (2008) found that the teachers in their study codeswitched because of the students’ poor level of English and the students’ physical or emotional state, for example when they are unwell or unhappy. Other authors found that teachers code-switched because they wanted their students to be relaxed or less stressed (Greggio& Gil, 2007; Kang, 2013; Rolin-Ianziti&Brownlie, 2002). In these studies, the students felt more comfortable or more relaxed in many situations when 9 their teacher code switched. In other words, their emotional state can be seen as a motivation for their teachers to code-switch. This is a reason for teachers’ to codeswitch as Kim and Elder (2008) pointed out. In sum, authors of interest have exploited various aspects in regard to teachers’ L1, also known as their code-switching. Good examples of these authors include Macaro (2001) who examined the attitudes and perceptions of instructors and students regarding the role of L1 in different contexts, Cook (2001) explored the benefits for teachers’ use of their mother tongue teaching learners a foreign language. Specifically, in the context of Vietnamese teaching and learning English, Nguyen (2013), Grant and Nguyen (2017) provided an entire picture of teachers’ codeswitching, looking at the types and functions of code-switching, the situations where their switches occur, the reasons for their switching and even the effects of their switching on students language behaviour. They found that teachers switched forth and back in many situations, when they dealt with both teaching content (grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation) and classroom process. They, in their study, also concluded that reasons for teachers’ switching vary, ranging from their personal reasons (i.e. linguistic needs and teachers’ habitual and experiential practice) to students’ reasons (i.e. students’ language ability and motivation). 1.4. Summary In general, there were three main issues discussed in this chapter: bilingualism and code-switching, code-switching in classroom instruction, and studies of teachers’ using L1 in language classrooms. About bilingualism, there seems to be no perfect definition of bilingualism that serves all contexts. In this study context of FL education, the definition which emphasizes on the teachers’ alternate use of English and Vietnamese in their English classes to be bilinguals was adopted. Also, code switching was defined as a common practice of using two languages (English and Vietnames) in classroom instruction. There have been debates on the teachers’ use of L1 in language classes. While many researchers advocated that teachers can use L1 with specific purposes, others argued that the use of L1 should be limited in L2 10 instruction. However, the use of the L1 occurs naturally and unavoidably in practice. As a result, the code-switching phenomenon frequently occurs in the FL classes. It appears in various situations including grammar and vocabulary presentation, classroom management, mistake correction, or teacher-student communication. Moreover, the reasons why teachers of English switch to Vietnamese when giving instructions were also discussed in this chapter. Teacher factor and student factor are the two main mentioned points that cause code switching in classroom instruction. CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY This chapter aims to briefly discuss ethnography as a theoretical approach that the writer has applied to the study. It then, in the second section, presents the participants involved in the study. The chapter continues with detailed descriptions regarding the procedures in which the writer collected data and analyzed the obtained information in the next two sections. A summary of the points presented closes the chapter. 11