1
PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study
In the process of foreign language teaching, the issue of the mother tongue (MT)
itself has been debated for many years. The various views are reflections on the
methodological changes in English language teaching, which have in such way brought
different perspectives on the role of mother tongue. For a long time, many popular
English language-teaching methods tend to discourage the use of the first language
(L1) in the second language (L2) classroom. As a result, the English only approach has
become a dominant and often understood to be the hallmarks of good language
teaching. Despite the almost undeniable acceptance of the monolingual belief to EFL
classes, recent years have witnessed a considerable shift of views among the ELT
professionals concerning the utility of students’ mother tongue (MT) in the L2
classroom. What the reasons for the ignorance of MT use are, when and how the MT
can be applied in the classroom and how much L1 should be used in the classroom are
currently main seeking among scholars, linguists and teachers.
In the global scale, there have been various studies focusing on this topic such
as the studies conducted by Schweers (1999) at the University of Puerto Rico, Beressa
(2003) at Adama Teachers College, Tang (2002) at a university in Beijing, Duff and
Polio (2009) at University of California, Al-Nofaie (2010) in Saudi public schools. It
is obvious that most of them have investigated this issue at high level of education. In
addition, these studies emphasized mainly the use of the first language from two sides:
teachers and learners. In Vietnamese context, however, it is rather difficult to find
research in this topic. Kieu Hang Kim Anh (2010) investigated the attitudes of
Vietnamese University teachers toward Vietnamese use in English language teaching.
Some other research is carried out by graduate students as their M. A thesis like the
works by Tran Ngoc Thuong (2010) on teachers’ and students’ attitude toward the use
of the MT at a high school, or Do Thi Khanh Van (2010) with her emphasis on the role
2
and use of the L1 in learning vocabulary in English classes at a university. Comes to
the conclusion, there still exists huge gaps on the reality of using the mother tongue in

In practice, L1 can be used by both students and teachers in L2 classroom. However,
within the framework of this minor thesis, the study only focuses on teachers’ use of
the MT in English classes for young learners. Specifically, the study aims at
investigating the amount of L1 use by teachers of different levels and the reasons
underlying their L1 using. In addition, teachers’ belief about L1 use is also addressed
in order to find out the concordance to their practices.
4. Methods of the study
The study is carried out in form of a qualitative multi case study approach in
which three teachers teaching three different levels for young learners will be
investigated in order to compare and contrast their MT use in L2 classroom. Three
research methods, including classroom observation, stimulated recall interview, and
semi- structured interview are used to reach the aim of the study. The researcher
believes that the combination of different methods to collect data could provide more
reliable and valid information for analysis. Classroom observations are used to
discover the amount and in which sections Vietnamese was used. Stimulated recall
interview was applied to gain insights into teachers’ rationale of using the MT in the
classroom. The recall interviews were fully transcribed and analyzed qualitatively
according to emerging themes. The semi-structured interviews are to explore teachers’
opinions of the use of the first language in the classroom, and then compared with
teacher’s practices. Semi structured interviews were conducted after finishing all
observations and stimulated interviews. As in the case of stimulated recall, semi
structured interviews were transcribed fully.
5. Layout of the thesis
4
This thesis consists of three parts, namely Introduction, Development and
Conclusion.
Part I, the Introduction, presents the rationale, the aims, the scope, the method and the
design of the study.
Part II, the development, consists of three chapters. Chapter 1, the Literature review,
presents background of the study. This includes major arguments against and for the

the purposes of this study, the researcher referred to children from the ages of five to
twelve. Therefore, children as young as three and four would not be under consider in
this study.
1.2. History of the use of L1 in L2 classroom
Looking at the literature related to language teaching methods, it is easily seen
that the role of L1 in L2 teaching is one of the most long-standing controversies in the
6
history of language pedagogy. The use of the L1 keeps changing periodically and
regularly.
The ideas of using L1 in L2 classroom were favored during era of the Grammar
Translation Method (GTM). According to Larsen- Freeman (2000), its purpose is to
support students to read and understand foreign language literature, and translate each
language into the other. It is believed that everything in English should be taught by
translating from the target language into the MT and vice versa (Larsen- Freeman,
2000:74). Therefore, the language most used in the class is the students’ native
language. Patel and Jain (2008) also state that, in GTM, because of the translation into
the MT, students’ understanding become better and quicker (p. 75). It is obviously that,
in this method, students’ L1 is the medium of the instruction and its role in the L2
classroom is very crucial.
In the late of the nineteenth century saw the emergence of the Direct Method,
which pays its whole attention to the spoken language and naturalistic principle of
language learning. The Direct Method is based on the belief that languages were best
learned in a way that imitated a child’s natural L1 language learning. In this light, it is
argued that a foreign language could be taught without translation or the use of the
learners’ native tongue and meaning was conveyed directly through demonstration,
visual aids and action (Richards and Rodgers, 1986: 9). Therefore, learners should be
immersed in L2 through the use of L2 as a means of instruction and communication; so
it is clearly that there is no ground for L1 in Direct Method.
The move away from L1 use was later reinforced by the appearance of Audio-
lingual method (1940s- 1960s) which saw language learning as a process of ‘habit

argument.
8
The first principle is based on the way in which L1 is acquired. It is believed
that monolingual L1 children cannot fall back on another language. L2 learning can
follow a process similar to L1 learning which means L2 learners should not rely on
other language, claim that exposure is vital in the learning of L2. In other words,
learners of L2 should be exposed to an L2 environment as much as possible. Krashen
(1981), a pivotal promoter of the only-L2 use in the classroom and an expert in the
field of linguistics, shared this idea when claiming that humans master language only
in one way by understanding messages or reviving comprehensible input. What derives
from the comprehensive input is that one can learn a language successfully by exposing
the target language, and L1 should be banned in the classroom.
Regarding the second principle, the supporters of the monolingual approach
indicated that the main obstruction to L2 learning is the interference from L1
knowledge (Cook, 2001). The interference is a major source of difficulty in the target
language learning and to avoid that, the separation of L1 and L2 should be made.
Krashen (1981) also suggested that errors in learners’ L2 performance result from L1.
Based on research findings, he reported that “a high amount of first language
influence” is found in “situations … where translation exercises are frequent”
(Krashen, 1981: 66).
A further argument is that using L1 might affect students' learning process
negatively, since it reduces the exposure learners get to the L2 and reduces their
opportunities for using the target language (Atkinson, 1987; Philipson, 1992; Polio &
Duff, 1994; Cook, 2001; and Deller & Rinvolucri, 2002). Atkinson (1987) said that
one could ‘learn English by speaking English’ or in other words to learn a foreign
language a person needs to encounter and use it. He then stated that ‘every second
spent using L1 is a second not spent using L2’ (p. 12). In agreement with the previous
view, Auerbach (1993) also indicated that "the more students are exposed to English,
the more quickly they will learn; as they hear and use English, they will internalize it
9

1999; Auerbach, 1993). The use of L1 in L2 classroom is a common feature and is
natural acts, which make a positive contribution to the learning process (Nation, 1993).
There is now a belief that the L1 can be a classroom resource (Atkinson, 1987; Cook,
2001) and that substantial attention and research should be focused on.
The supporters of the bilingual approach have given much of attempts to
discredit the Monolingual Approach by focusing on three points: it is impractical,
native teachers are not necessarily the best teachers and exposure alone is not sufficient
for learning.
Phillipson (1992:191) claimed that impracticality is the biggest problem of
English only in the classroom because non-native English teachers across the world
outnumber native English teachers. These teachers, sometimes, may not confident or
competent enough to use the foreign language for full range of classroom functions
(Cameron, 2001: 200). Cameron further stated that only English policy might be
against the natural communication between teacher and students who share a common
language. Another reason for the monolingual approach’s impracticality is the
practically impossible elimination of L1 in lower-level monolingual classes (Cameron,
2001: 199). In addition, Monolingual teaching can also create tension and a barrier
between students and teachers because in fact there are many occasions when it is
impossible and inappropriate (Pachler & Field, 2001: 86). When something in a lesson
is unclear to a student, and then it is clarified by the use of L1, that barrier and tension
can be reduced or removed.
Concerning the belief supported by the Monolingual Approach that native
teachers are the best teachers, Phillipson (1992) said that being native teachers do not
necessarily means that the teacher is more qualified or better at L2 teaching. He also
claimed that non- native teachers could achieve all of the characteristics such as
11
fluency and appropriate use of language in the process of training. He went further in
arguing that non-native teachers seem to be better than native ones as they themselves
have experienced the process of learning L2. Therefore, they could provide a better
learner model, teach language-learning strategies more effectively, supply more

in the L2 classroom: as a learner preferred strategy, a humanistic approach, and an
efficient use of time. Another author, Auerbach (1993) presented benefits of the L1 in
the way that it can reduce anxiety, enhance the affective environment for learning,
facilitate incorporation of learners’ experiences into the learning process, promote
learner-centered curriculum development, and allow language to be used as a meaning-
making tool. She also claimed that use of L1 is beneficial for learners at all skill levels,
not only, as some have argued, for low-level learners.
In conclusion, researchers have found that evidence from both research and
practice suggested that the rationale used to justify English only in the classroom is
neither conclusive nor pedagogically sound (Auerbach, 1993: 15). It should be
apparent that the use of the mother tongue in and of itself in texts and in the classroom
is not the problem (Weschler, 1997). The mother tongue can and should be used as an
integral element in an English language program. It can supply the student with the
essential sense of need to learn the language as well as the tools and motivation to do
so effectively. As Atkinson (1987: 247) pointed out that ‘although the mother tongue is
not a suitable basic for a methodology, it has, at all levels, a variety roles to play which
are at present, consistently undervalued’.
1.4. Use of L1 in L2 classroom
As far as the proponents of L1 are concerned, teachers can take advantages of
their students’ L1 in many occasions. Atkinson (1987) listed appropriate uses for the
L1 in the L2 classroom. They are (1) Eliciting language; (2) Checking comprehension
13
of a concept behind structure, a reading or listening text; (3) Giving complex
instructions to basic levels; (4) Co-operating among learners; (5) Explaining classroom
methodology; (6) presentation and reinforcement of the language; (7) Checking for
sense; (8) Testing; (9) Developing circumlocution strategies.
On the other side, Cook (2001) mentioned the positive applications of the MT in
a different way. He focused on three main uses of the MT namely teacher conveying
meaning (check meaning of words, sentences and explain grammar), teacher
organizing the class (organizing tasks, maintaining discipline, contacting with

more studies need to be carried out to address this issue.
1.6. Empirical researches
Al-Buraiki (2008) investigated teachers' attitudes and practices regarding the use
of the L1 in young learner English classrooms in Oman. The researcher found that the
L1 was commonly used in English lessons, though for a range of purposes and with
varying degrees of frequency. The study also showed that, overall, the teachers in this
study believed that the L1 had a role to play in the young learner English classroom.
Furthermore, they identified different factors which influenced their decision to use the
L1 such as the time available, learners’ knowledge of concepts, vocabulary and
grammar, learners’ proficiency, and learners’ age.
Drosatou (2009), in his M.A thesis, focused on teachers’ and learners’ beliefs
about the use of Greek and English in the English language classroom for young
learners, by relating them, also with their actual practices. The findings revealed that
giving instructions, presenting/ explaining grammatical item and disciplining the
classroom were the first, second and third sections that MT was most used. Learners,
on the other side, used MT to respond to their teachers or to ask questions/ help from
teachers / peers. By drawing a connection between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs and
15
their practices, it is observed that although the teachers were aware of the benefits of
TL use, they hesitate to use it in the classroom.
Al-Nofaie (2010) noticed that the participants preferred to use Arabic with
beginners and low-proficiency level students. The results revealed that teachers and
students generally had positive attitudes towards the use of Arabic in the classroom.
The learners' level and the teachers' professional experience also affect the degree to
which teachers resort to L1.
Tang (2002) studied the use of the L1 by Chinese teachers of English as well as
their learners’ attitudes towards it. The results showed that both teachers and learners
responded positively to using the L1 as a supportive and facilitating teaching tool.
Schweers (1999) investigated the attitudes towards using the L1 of teachers and
learners in an EFL context where the L1 was Spanish. This study also showed that the

concise and persuasive when reflecting different behaviors of various teachers from
different English classroom levels.
17
In general, qualitative multi-case study research was considered to be the most
appropriate approach for the present study. It was believe that the study could
contribute somehow for further investigation in teacher’s use of L1 in L2 classroom.
2.2. Setting and Participants
2.2.1. Setting
The study was conducted in an English Centre. The centre addresses children with age
range from three to twelve years old. Students are divided into classes due to their age
and sometimes their level. The center’s purpose is building complete English learning
environment, emphasizing learning English at school and at home. The children are
taught in a modern environment with electronic board, touch and talk pen, safe and
comfortable classroom, rational light, complete series of course book with varieties of
CD, DVD, CD-ROM. There are three kinds of course book. ‘Talky Talky English’- the
series of book focusing on theme is written for preschooler. Phonics series with 12
books focus on the consonants, vowels, R- vowels, diphthongs, consonant digraphs and
blends. The last course book series are the Popodoo Book levels A, B, C with 20 units
in each level. The units are organized from easy to complex content which emphasize
on vocabulary, conversation, sentences, grammar, MTV- songs and chants. Children
from five to six years old learn natural phonics with the selected parts in Popodoo
Book A which focus on pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary and also simple sentences
(speaking and listening) while younger students (below 5) learn ‘Talky Talky English’.
Children from six to eight learn the Phonics and the whole Popodoo Book level A and
those who above nine also learn the same book with children from six to eight but with
faster pace, expanding parts and harder content for each lesson. In this English centre,
Vietnamese is the only mother tongue and English as the foreign language.
2.2.2. Participants
Since teachers are core participants of this research, they were chosen under
voluntary agreement, so that the researcher could make sure about their commitment in

sections. The researcher observed three different level English classes (each class will
be observed four times). The researcher played as non- participant observation.
2.3.2. Stimulated Recall (Appendix 2)
To find out the reasons why teachers used the mother tongue in the classroom,
stimulated recall (SR) interview was applied. SR is a research method towards the
investigation of cognitive processes through inviting participants to recall their
concurrent thinking during an event when prompted by video and audio recordings
(Fox- Turnbull, 2009: 204). SR is a valuable tool since it provided an opportunity for
real life context. In addition, the use of multimedia sources in recall section has the
benefits of replaying and reintroducing cues that were present during the task (Sime,
2006). By using this method, the researcher could assess participants’ reflection on
mental processes and their explanation for their decision making.
In this study, SR was conducted during 24 hour after the observed lesson in
order to make sure that the information was fresh and the research would get the best
information. Because of the limited time, the researcher could not interview teacher in
all four observed lessons, just two of them will be chosen to implement an interview.
Since the researcher was afraid that teachers’ proficiency under study was not good
enough to express all of their thinking, so the interview was conducted in Vietnamese.
Another reason for applying Vietnamese in interview is that both participants and the
researcher are Vietnamese, so it is easily to exchange idea and to dig deeply the
information. The researcher audio taped each SR interview and then transcribed.
2.3.3. Semi structured Interview (See Appendix 3)
Interviews are a valuable tool in themselves. The use of interview results in
clearer and sharper research questions. The data derived from interviews can be quite
rich and in-depth (Paltridgle & Phakiti, 2010). In this research, the interview employed
to seek teachers’ opinions of the use of the first language in the classroom. A semi-
20
structured interview was conducted with three teachers after finishing all observations
and stimulated interviews. As teachers’ responses might vary in the topic questioned, a
list of prepared questions was used as a guide. Therefore, some changes could be

This chapter will include the results obtained from data collected by the use of
classroom observation, SR interview and semi structure interview. The above results
then will be also analyzed and discussed according to the literature and other empirical
researches mentioned in chapter 1.
3.1. Findings
3.1.1. Case 1 (teacher in class for 5-6 years old students)
Question 1: How much L1 is used and in which sections do teachers use it in the
classroom?
As presented in the Methodology part, classroom observation was held to
examine the amount of L1 use and occasions on which teacher actually used L1. After
observing four English lessons of this teacher, the research counted the times that the
teacher used Vietnamese and English in all four lessons. The result was shown in the
table below.
Table 1: Teacher’s use of Vietnamese in English classroom for 5-6 years old students.
Uses L1 L2 Note
Greeting 0 15
Presenting/ explaining new vocabulary items, grammar structures, the aim
of the lesson
5 13
Comparing and/or contrasting English and Vietnamese languages (e.g.,
phonology, morphology, grammar)
0 0
Giving instructions 18 10
Checking understanding of concept, talk, text, instructions 3 38
Eliciting language 6 20
Talking about learning/ methodology 0 0
Giving feedback 3 25
Disciplining and control 12 8
Informal, friendly talk with students 10 4
Other uses 8 10

The first reason is given based on the age/ level of student and the structure of
language used. When asked about the reason of using L1, she stated that because her
24
students were too young, so they could not understand the long and complex sentences.
In this teacher’s thought, students at this age are at low proficiency level since this is
the first time they learn English, so they only understand short and simple sentences or
phrases. Therefore, she only used English in short and simple sentences, and
Vietnamese in long and complicated sentences. In general, using Vietnamese in some
cases supported students understanding the issues.
Another reason for the use of the L1 was proposed was the immediate effect of
Vietnamese to the students. Regarding this point, she shared that many times she used
English in the class but students have no reaction to her saying even they understand
what she said. She argued
‘You know, in this situation, I say stand up but student do nothing, so I have to
use Vietnamese instead. In fact, many times I used English but students have no
reaction to my saying, but when I said the same sentence in Vietnamese they follow my
sayings. I don’t know why but it seems that Vietnamese have some power in the
classroom’.
The next stated reason was that using Vietnamese is as a habit. She claimed that
‘I can not control my talk every second. Many times, it is like a habit, just saying
Vietnamese to Vietnamese people.’ In this sense, teaching includes maintain the
relationship between teachers and students, so it is natural to use Vietnamese in the
classroom because both teacher and students are Vietnamese.
The last reason, also the interesting one is that in some cases, the teacher have
not trained students to listen to English. In her idea, teacher can use English in the
classroom if students have been trained to listen to them. Once students listened to
English sentences many times, they can understand what teacher said. For example,
this teacher trained students sentences such as ‘what does this word mean in
Vietnamese?’ or ‘which one is big letter, which one is small letter? …Now use your
25