Monolingual and bilingual approach in language classrooms - Essay Example

?LTOP3 What are the arguments for and against using the first language in the room? What evidence is there to show that using the first language really helps the learning/teaching process? How would you use the student’s first language in your teaching? What criteria would you use to decide when to use the first language in the classroom? What strategies would you use to limit the use of the first language and encourage use of the target language? 1. Introduction 2. Historical view of L1 and L2 use in language classroom 2.1 Support for monolingual approach in language classrooms 2.2 Support for bilingual approach in language classrooms 2.3 Evidence that L1 helps learning L2 3. Implications 3.1 Deciding when and how to use L1 3.2 Encourage the use of target language 4. Conclusion 200 References 1. Introduction As our world has become smaller, more countries have recognized the importance of English becoming an international language. They have seen the importance of upgrading their language teaching skills. Researchers, and teachers have worked hard to improve English skills. Government policies across the world such as ‘Teaching English through English’ (TETE) had begun in Korea (Nunan, 2003; Kang, 2008). As learning English has become more popular in many countries, teachers have asked whether it is better to teach English through a monolingual approach or a bilingual approach. "Monolingual approach is teaching English by only using English; and the bilingual approach is teach the target language which in this case is English (L2) using both the mother tongue (L2) and the target language.(L2)" (Atkinson, 1993; Edstrome, 2006). Learning English by using the mother tongue has been considered a less efficient method in some countries. Parents and governments have the tendency to favour only an English language teaching syllabus but there are teaching professionals who advocate that teaching using only L2 may not be the most efficient and profitable way of teaching. The importance lies in deciding what is the best teaching method; and whether or not L1 should be used in teaching. The teaching approach depends on the teachers and the parents. All circumstances need to be taken under consideration to determine what is best for learners (Atkinson, 1993). A brief historical background of both approaches will be presented including the pros and the cons of L1 bilingual approach and the L2 approach. Emphasis will be made showing that L1 helps target language learning. To conclude a format will be introduced showing strategies of when and how to use students' native language and strategies how to limit the use of L1 use in order to maximize the use of L2. 2. Historical view of L1 and L2 use in language classroom When teaching L2 (English)as a second language began several hundred years ago, using the target language was well accepted (Auerbach, 1993). This phenomenon was due to emphasizing writing competence rather than speaking competence. From the 19th century, there was a reversed phenomenon and speaking became more important that writing. The monolingual approach took precedence in language learning. (Baron, 1990; Crawford, 1991; Auerbach, 1993).Each wave of immigration considered speaking English part of the process of assimilation. The U.S government attempted to Americanize immigrants considering speaking good English as patriotic (Baron, 1990, p. 155) The earlier form of teaching in colonial times stressed monolingual teaching in order homogenize the language (Phillipson, 1992; Hawks, 2001). It was possibly a major influence that the L1 varied depending on the immigrants' nationality. Using both languages was seen as non efficient and abnormal way of teaching the language so that L2 was their only tool to teach the target language (Pennycook, 1994). The Makere report, presented at Makere University in Uganda at a conference in 1961, gives an excellent example in how much the monolingual approach was favoured. There are five main tenets: 1. English is best taught in a monolingual classroom . 2. English is best taught by a native speaker. 2. The earlier English is started the better the student succeeds in English and other academic subjects. 3. The more English is taught, the better academic result a student has. 4. If other languages are used in class, English standards will drop. Phillipson (1992) introduced these 5 tenets as modern language teaching myths. These tenets are still being used as part of the language teaching curriculum today. They are so closely related so that it makes a strong case for those of whom insist monolingual language teaching. The concept that the ideal teacher must be a native speaker (2) implies that native speakers are favored as they find jobs. This means English is considered a superior language than the learners’ native language. The earlier English is taught, the better the results (3) implies that as the learner get older, their knowledge in the native language will interfere with L2 acceptation. The more English is taught, the better the results (4) also involves that L1 less important than English. Lastly, tenet 5, if other languages are used too much, standards of English will drop implies L1 is not only inferior to English but also plays a negative role in language learning. After this conference, it was concluded that the best way to learn a language was communicative teaching which stresses more L2. (Wringe, 1989; Phillipson, 1992; Pennycook, 1994; Hawks, 2001). This flow in monolingual English teaching had been dominant until late 1990s, when a shift into a bilingual approach as social changes were taken into account( according to the learners’ need and want). The historical background shows that both approaches have been used interchangeably, the theoretical background will show the importance of each approach in detail. 2.1 Support for monolingual approach in language classrooms Researchers have suggested only use of the target language in language teaching enhances language proficiency. (Halliwell, 1992; Edstrome, 2006; Harmer, 2007). Parents from Asian countries have only wanted a monolingual approach for their children. They prefere native speaker instructors, those who teach without any previous training, without having examined their area of study, back in their home countries. As a result, there are situations of native looking (Western like) 'instructors" with no training in language teaching who have a low level of language fluency (they might come from Germany, Denmark or France) The could have had studied something completely different than teaching English as a foreign language. Perhaps those who had studied music or art in University, would come to Asian countries to teach. They would not be able to give the needed help to learners - especially for younger learners. Most of the times, teachers and parents believe that the monolingual approach would help learners to think in English when they are exposed to English only classrooms. This phenomenon is well demonstrated through Auerbach’s (1993) investigation. Auerbach (1993) surveyed in the U.S TESOL conference asking if students should be allowed to use their first language in ESL (English as a second language) classroom. In their responses, 80% responded no. Some confirmed that it was hard to make English only classrooms. As mentioned previously, these ideas were influenced by many researchers. Krashen (1985) was one of the significant researchers to support monolingual approach in language learning. He claimed that when learners use less L1, this allows them to maximize the exposure to the target language, which is directly related to learner outcome. Harmer (2007) further argues that using L1 in L2 classroom will restrict the L2 exposure and they would use L1 more than intended. Rationale of this point of view is that learners who are more exposed to the target language will learn more quickly and internalize it by making it as if it were their own language. Although Cook (2001) was not complete supporter of the monolingual approach, it is worthwhile to consider some of his major principles raised briefly described below: 1. The target language learning should be based on L1 learning which is maximum exposure to the language. 2. Separation & distinction of the native language and L2 will maximize the learner efficiency. 3. Learners should be able to feel the importance of L2 while using it continuously. Cook (2001) considered L2 acquisition similar to that of the target language and stressed the exposure of the language (Krashen, 1985; Lewis, 1993). Small children would listen to their L1 from very early age, then after a certain period of exposure and internalization; they would begin to talk as their linguistic competences grew. Linguistic competence growth, which came along with Communicative language Approach, influenced adult favouring monolingual approach in language learning as well as young learners (Phillpson, 1992). Cook’s second point of view, criticize translation in language learning. According to the researchers supporting this idea, it is unnatural and impossible to make a word to word connection. They affirm that each language point can be taught in the target language according to their level by using language lexicons, language maps, pictures or time lines (Fotos, 1994). The last point from Cook (2001) highlights, the importance for learners to realize the importance of the language. That is to say, they may feel English more important as they use more (Pachler & Field, 2001). Monolingual approach by its fundamental principle is against the translation method. It is highly suitable for the classes with multiple native languages. Research and through classroom observation, it has been shown that the bilingual approach remains more effective. 2.2 Support for bilingual approach in language classrooms In last 20 years, great change in language education had occurred. Target language is a resource to learning a foreign language. (Canagarajah, 2007). Use of L1 along with L2 has been extensively recommended for multiple reasons. The advantage of translation, the negotiation of meaning between L1 and L2 , the enhanced L2 competence and the authentic atmosphere of the language learning all contribute to the success of learning L2. (Medgyes, 1994; Swain and Lapkin, 2000; Cook, 2001; Turnbull, 2001). Much research has been done observing young learners but very little has been done concerning adult learners. As Irujo (1991) claimed, if the bilingual approach is to be the main standard in ESL classrooms, it should also prove to be effective for adult learners. (Several studies stand as evident that L1 helps learning L2 will be considered in next section). Recently, many believe that both children and adults can benefit from the bilingual approach (Rivera, 1988, 1990). They introduce learners’ mother tongue as stepping stone to the second language rather than a criteria which should be avoided and neglected. Chavez (2003) suggests strictly avoiding L1 of language students is not suitable for foreign language classroom since language learning itself is the comparison and findings of the differences and similarities of L1 and the target language. Chavez (2003) adds that the distance between languages should not be kept as it is not a learning method in itself. Speaking L1 makes speaker to speak what he/she really want to say which creates a learning atmosphere in the language classroom (Bolitho, 1983; cited in Harbord, 1992). Similarly, several researchers have suggested bilingual approaches in language teaching to allow learners to be more communicative, humanistic and create realtionships (Karshen, 1985; Harbord, 1992; Atkinson, 1993). Also, it allows instructors to manage the class more easily since learners may use their L1 to build up their knowledge and cooperate with classmates (Cook, 2001). In favour of bilingual approach and discredit monolingual approach, Harbord (1992) raised three important points: 1) Bilingual approach is favoured and preferred by language learners. 2) Humanistic approach. 3) Can use classroom time more efficiently. The bilingual approach makes the learner more comfortable to verbalize their thoughts and create a desire to use L2 (Harmer, 2007). Using L1 will make class atmosphere less aggressive and more open so that students are willing to participate. Appropriate use of translation will help learners to understand better in shorter period (Atkinson, 1993; Naimushin, 2002; Harmer, 2007). They will be able to create different mapping systems and lexicons using language one. Some problems from monolingual classrooms are easily found in the classrooms. First, English teachers are not all native speakers (Hawks, 2001). When government insists English teachers to teach in English all of sudden, this can be problematic. Not many non- native teachers are able to speak English fluently so that they can teach English. If this type of instructor is asked and required to teach English by using monolingual approach, he will become anxious, and in the worst case he might prevent students from learning (Pachler & Field, 2001). Second, native speakers might not be ideal for learners. Being a native speaker does not mean that he/she is a better teacher than non-native ones (Phillipson, 1992). Non- native speaker may lack pronunciations and authenticity of expression, but, on the contrary, learners may benefit from the teacher who had to go through the same procedures as they do. The teachers, who had similar problems as learners, would be able to help and show the best way. Last but not least, the concept of maximum language exposure , which is often mentioned from the monolingual approach, is relatively vague. Language exposure in relationship to the level of competence. In fact, it seems quite awkward to say monolingual approach can maximize the language exposure. Typically language classes in non English speaking countries take places 1-2 hours a class, 3 times a week. Furthermore, Phillipson (1992) and Pachler & Field (2001) suggest that importance and the effectiveness lies on the method of teaching not the length of exposure. 2.3 Evidence that L1 helps learning L2 Some may argue teachers who use L1 are lazy or lack will power. Instructors may feel guilty themselves using their mother tongue (Auerbach, 1999; Burden, 2000). There is supporting evidence proving the necessity of using L1 in the classroom.. Auerbach (1993) pointed out that English only classrooms will make learners very uncooperative and maybe upset them so that they would refuse to learn. She supports her idea by giving reports from Teachers at Centro Presente, a bilingual program for Central Americans in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Collected data through the interview showed that learners often stopped attending class in monolingual EFL (English as a Foreign Language) classrooms. When they carried out bilingual classes, many returned going began to class. English only language classrooms are not idealistic because they result in less participation, intimidation, language/culture shock and drop outs (Valdes, 1998). Similarly, Shamash (1990) examined ESL learners near Vancouver by asking them to write about their lives in L1 or L1 + L2. Their compositions were reconstructed and corrected by bilingual instructors or learners, which made learners gradually become confident in using L2 without getting intimidated. This activity also helped to build up learner – instructor relationship and the rapid benefits. Shamash (1990) suggests "a natural bridge for overcoming problems of vocabulary, sentence structure and language confidence" (p. 72) when using both languages. Also use of L1 allows a ‘social atmosphere’ so that they feel they can be part of the class by participating and freely expressing themselves (Auerbach, 1993; Shamash, 1990; Wigglesworth, 2003; Harmer, 2007). Harbord (1992) further states that L1 use can result in facilitating: teacher – student communication and rapport, and facilitate learning. Use of L1 in language classrooms results in win-win situation since learners can simply ask the necessary questions in their native language. Wigglesworth (2003) findings show that bilingual instructors keep the tension low between learners and teachers. Less stress in bilingual classes, learners tend to enrol more in bilingual classes than in monolingual classes (Auerbach, 1993; Strei, 1992; Wigglesworth, 2003). Strei (1992) reports significantly high re-enrollment rate of Haitians when language classes were held in both L1 and L2. Apart from this social linguistic point of view, there is also evidence in learners’ linguistic attainment. Gonzalez (1986) studies the influence of L1 when learning L2. Subjects were Hispanic immigrants from Mexico. Mexican American 6th graders who had a high level in reading Spanish, were able to read at the same level in the target language. The learners who were taught both in Spanish and English performed significantly better than only English language learners. Their language ability of L2 was similar to that of L1. For instance, students who were good readers in Spanish scored higher in English reading. The results were carried out with speaking. The finding reports that relationship between L1 and L2 were stronger than when there were just two different skills of L2. Other observation also reveals the effectiveness the use of L1 in language teaching; and claims that children treated by the bilingual approach show better outcomes in academic assessment than using English exclusive classes. (Cummins et al., 1984). Carlisle (1989) observed the effect of L1 use in language classroom suggesting use of L1 will facilitate L2 writing proficiency than only using L2 as a classroom medium. One group had instruction only through English while another group had instruction carried out in both their L1 and L2. Subjects were 4th and 6th elementary Hispanic students. Groups taught by the bilingual approach scored significantly higher in written productivity, syntactic completion and metaphoric use. Frequently, teachers and researchers who support bilingual approach in language classrooms often suggest that the use of L1 will help time management for foreign language classrooms (Harbord, 1992). As a bilingual English teacher and having experienced English only classes, simple definition in L1 sometimes works much better than long confusing explanations. 3. The uses of L1 in teaching L2 There are some concerns that overuse and reliance of L1 will not help EFL students. In next section, paper will cover, when and how to use L1 by considering which criteria. 3.1 Deciding when and how to use L1 When instructors decide to use L1 to facilitate learning, a methodology must be established. ‘How and When to use L1 in language classrooms’. Harmer (2007) suggested five points: 1) Use the teaching method that acknowledge the students’ L1 2) Use proper L1 and L2 activities 3) Consider the levels 4) Set up a clear general agreement defining the rules of the use of the native language 5) Use encouragement and persuasion Some teachers may think that it is not appropriate to use learners’ L1 in L2 classrooms, however, these prejudices should not be an excuse for denying already existing learners’ L1(Atkinson, 1993). In some cases, especially when learners do not share same L1, showing understanding of students’ L1 helps facilitating the classroom atmosphere (for further information for language choice in multilingual classes see Baron, 1990, 23-25; same L1 see Willis, 1996; Scrvenor,1994). So, when teachers’ attitude toward L1 use is positive and not seeing it as a negative factor to be endured, learners will always be influenced by their social atmosphere (Bolitho, 1983; Cook, 1999). Secondly, choosing activities that can be done by both languages help learning (Harbord, 1992; Cook, 1999; Harmer, 2007). For example, instructor can show a picture to one student in a group then ask them to pass the description to student2 and student2 would pass it to student3. Description can be either in their TL or L1. The game ends when all groups guess what the picture was about and last student draws it on the paper. Picture can be both be concrete (in beginner level) or abstract (advanced class). Also, instructors can use writing in both languages after listening. These activities naturally involve translation which help in the learning process. (Ellis, 1992; Ur, 1996). The third suggestion is to consider their level before deciding when and how to use their L1. Despite the positive effect in using L1 in language teaching, the learners’ level should be considered as priority. The need for L1 is more for lower levels and less for advanced learners. What we needs to be taken into account is to use the amount of L1 according to the needs of the student so as they learn more in L2, they have to rely less on L1. They will likely understand more in English so the class will largely based on English. Using L1 needs certain guidelines. Before avoiding and limiting their use of L1, students need to know why there is a need to use the target language and how it helps in learning L2. It would be helpful if students use their L1 to read the instructions for reading exercises but L1 would not be a big help in class conversations. As mentioned above, advanced level student would feel that the use of L1 slows down their language development. Student can discuss and decide both advantages and disadvantages of using L1 and L2 . Teachers can contribute and give their own experience, knowledge and authority (Baron, 1990). Teachers can use encouragement and persuasion to use TL. Many teachers discover that it is not easy to make learner speak in TL. In many cases, teachers end up saying English? English please? Now, let’s say that in English….. This might not have been a problem has the exercise been explained in L1. instructors Davis Atkinson (1992) also suggested an interesting method in using L1 in a beneficial way: eliciting language – asking how to say X in English; checking comprehension check in inductive way – check whether they have understood reading passage or listening activities; discussion between learners – when they share same L1; and testing in L1- can maximize reliability and validity of test result. 3.2 Encourage the use of target language To answer the concerns about over use and over reliance of learners’ L1, there are some suggestions made by Paul Nation (2003). These options may help language classroom to limit the L1 and promote L2 while setting up a social atmosphere (Nation, 1997; Harmer, 2007). Some suggestions from Nation (2003) based on natural shyness that learner would go through when they begin to learn L2 and their cognition are shown as follow; 1) Choose manageable tasks that are within the learners' proficiency with pre-teaching the language items and skills needed. 2) Make the L2 an unavoidable part of the task. 3) Set up a monitoring system to remind learners to use the L2. 4) Set friendly atmosphere. Deciding different teaching exercises determines how and when a learner speaks. There is a necessity of taking into account the background of each target language. Target languages from Asia will only speak English when they are confident to do so. Pre-teaching may help working with cultural barriers. Trying to use both languages when designing syllabus will help learners to speak L2 eventually. (Retelling activities, travel stories and role plays; Nation, 2003, 8). Teachers can encourage the use of L2 and limit the use of L1 without learners becoming aware of the difference. Guiding and self monitoring when and how to use L1 will also help. Learners will have to think about their own attitude in language learning. When learners have to work with other learners it becomes easier to challenge. Making the social atmosphere for students to speak is also important. 4. Conclusion Throughout the paper, the use of L1 in foreign language classrooms was illustrated: a brief history of mono language teaching was presented; followed by empirical evidence that use of L1 enhances learners’ L2. Methodology of when and how to use the target language was recommended; and the importance of a taking into account the cultural background of the target language. The pros and cons in using L1 in second language classrooms were presented but overall, teachers need to show respect for learners’ L1 when encouraging use of L2. Being an English teacher requires more than language fluency. References Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching in the target language: A problem in the current orthodoxy. Language Learning Journal, 8, 2–5. Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English Only in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27 (1), 9-32. Baron, D. (1990). The English only question: An official language for Americans?. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Burden, P. (2000). The Use of the Students’ Mother Tongue in Monolingual English “Conversation” Classes at Japanese Universities. The Language Teacher, 24 (6), 5-10. Canagarajah, S. (2007). The ecology of global English. International Multilingual Research Journal, 1 (2), 89–100. Carlisle, R. S. (1989). The writing of Anglo and Hispanic elementary school students in bilingual, submersion, and regular programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 257-280. Chavez, M. (2003). The diglossic Foreign Language classroom: Learners’ views on L1 and L2 functions. In C. Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of Foreign Language classrooms: Contributions of the native, the near-native and the non-native speaker. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33 (2), 185-209. Cook, V. (2001). Using the First Language in the Classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57 (3), 402-23. Crawford, J. (1991). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services. Cummins, J., Swain, M., Nakajima, K., Handscombe, J., Green, D., & Tran, C. (1984). Linguistic interdependence among Japanese and Vietnamese immigrant students. In C. Rivera (Ed.), Communicative competence approaches to language proficiency assessment: Research and application, 60-81. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2008). Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilin­gual education. In J. Cummins & N. J. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd Ed.), Vol. 5: Bilingual education . New York: Springer Science and Business Media. Edstrom, A. (2006). L1 use in the L2 classroom: One teacher’s self-evaluation. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 275–292. Ellis, R. (1992). Second Language Acquisition & Language Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Fotos, S. S. (1994).Integrating Grammar Instruction and Communicative Language Use through Grammar Consciousness-Raising Tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (2), 323-351. Gonzalez, L. A. (1986). The effects of first language education on the second languageand academic achievement of Mexican immigrant elementary school children inthe United States. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign. Halliwell, S., (1992). Teaching English in the Primary Classroom. Longman: London. Harbord, J. (1992). The Use of the Mother Tongue in the Classroom. ELT Journal, 46 (4) 30-55. Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. (5th Ed.).Pearson Education Limited: Essex. Hawks, P. (2001). Making Distinctions: A Discussion of the Mother Tongue in the Foreign Language Classroom. Hwa Kang Journal of TEFL, 7, 47-55. Kang, D. (2008). The Classroom Language Use of a Korean Elementary School: EFL teacher: Another look at TETE. System 36, 214-226. Science Direct. Krashen, S.D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Longman: London and NewYork. Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach. Language Teaching Publications: London. Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. Hong Kong: Macmillan. Naimushin, B. (2002). Translation in Foreign Language Teaching. Modern English Teacher, 11 (4). Nation, I.S.P. (1997). L1 and L2 use in the classroom: a systematic approach. TESL Reporter, 30 (2), 19-27. Nation, I.S.P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Asian EFL journal, 5 (2), 1-8. Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia - Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37 (4), 589–613. Pachler, N & Field, K. (2001). Learning to Teach Modern Foreign Languages in the Secondary School. Routledge: London. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Pennycook, A. (1994). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. Longman: London & New York. Rivera, K. (1988). Not "either/or" but "and": Literacy for non-English speakers. Focus on Basics, 1 (3/4), 1-3. Rivera, K. (1990). Developing native language literacy in language minor-ity adult learners. ERIC Digest. (Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse on Literacy Education, Center for Applied Linguistics) Scrivenor, J. (1994). Learning teaching. Oxford: Heinemann. Shamash, Y. (1990). Learning in translation: Beyond language experience in ESL. Voices, 2(2), 71-75. Strei, G. (1992). Spring. Advantages of native language literacy programs: Pilot project, TESOL Refugee Concerns Newsletter, p. 7. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4 (3), 251–274. Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but ... The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57 (4), 531–540. Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Valdes, G. (1998) The World outside and inside Schools: Language and Immigrant Children. Educational Researcher, 27 (6), 4-18. Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Bilingual initiatives in the ESL classroom. In G. Wigglesworth (Ed.), The kaleidoscope of adult second language learning: Learner, teacher and researcher perspectives, Sydney: NCELTR. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, England: Longman. Wringe, C. (1989). The Effective Teaching of Modern Languages. Longman: London & New York. Read More