VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

Đỗ THị KHáNH VÂN
A research into the role and the use of first language in
General-English classes at Hanoi University of Industry
(Nghiên cứu về vai trò và việc sử dụng ngôn ngữ thứ nhất
trong các lớp học Tiếng Anh cơ bản ở Tr-ờng Đại học Công
nghiệp Hà Nội).
MA THESIS
English LANGUAGE
60 22 15 Hà NộI NĂM 2010
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

Đỗ THị KHáNH VÂN
A research into the role and the use of first language in
General-English classes at Hanoi University of Industry
(Nghiên cứu về vai trò và việc sử dụng ngôn ngữ thứ nhất

Chapter 2: The study 18
2.1. Design of the study 18
2.1.1. Research hypotheses 18
2.1.2. Data collection instruments 18
2.1.3. Participants 21
2.1.4. Procedures 21
2.2. Analytical framework 23
Chapter 3: Analysis and discussion 24
3.1. Data preparation 24
3.2. Scoring the data 24
3.2. Results of the tests 25
3.4. Results of classroom observation 31
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS 37
ii

1. Concluding remarks 37
2. Implications 37
3. Suggestions for further studies 38
Reference
Appendixes
1 INTRODUCTION
1. Problem statement
Among a number of experts in the field of second language acquisition, there are
increasing contradicting views about whether to use the mother tongue of the students (L1)
in the foreign language (L2) classroom or learning environments.
The monolingual approach suggests that the target language ought to be the sole medium
of communication, implying the prohibition of the native language would maximize the

universities in Vietnam as well as at Hanoi University of Industry in particular.
The reason the researcher focused on vocabulary acquisition is that the acquisition
of vocabulary has a central role in learning a second language (Sökmen, 1997), and is of
great significance to language learners, really important for the four language skills (Cook,
1991). Words are the building blocks of a language since they label objects, actions, ideas
without which people cannot convey the intended meaning so second language learners
need to have a substantial vocabulary size (Nation, 2001). The prominent role of
vocabulary knowledge in second or foreign language learning has been recently recognized
by theorists and researchers in the field. Accordingly, numerous types of approaches,
techniques, exercises and practice have been introduced into the field to teach vocabulary
(Hatch & Brown, 1995). The study of Ringbom in 1987 clearly indicates that L1 clearly
has a very important role to play in the deliberator learning vocabulary (Nation, 2001).
Auerbach (1993) claims that the use of the learner‟s L1 in the L2 classroom will have a
positive effect on learners‟ second language learning, especially in the area of vocabulary.
However, what effects the use of L1 in English vocabulary teaching can cause to students‟
learning is still an unanswered question that the researcher is endeavoring to discover.
2. Aims of the study
The issue this paper examined in more detail is in what ways the use of students‟
L1 in the classroom hinders or facilitates their learning of vocabulary of second language
(in this case English).
The debate over whether English language classrooms should include or exclude
students' native language has been a controversial issue for a long time (Brown, 2000).
Although the use of mother tongue was banned by the supporters of the Direct Method at
the end of the nineteenth century, the positive role of the mother tongue has recurrently
been acknowledged as a rich resource which, if used judiciously, can assist second
language teaching and learning (Cook, 2001). Still, so many teachers have questions about
whether to provide L1 support, as TESOL programs at all levels on the market today
provide neither explicit training nor adequate theoretical information on the subject.
Teachers are left to work things out on their own.
3

with the same class in different lessons. During the process of teaching experiments,
observations of classroom interactions were made by the teacher researcher and some tests
were delivered to student. The records of the observation and the tests‟ results presented
the effectiveness of Vietnamese using in students‟ learning English vocabulary.
4 5. Organization of the study
The study consists of three chapters. Before we can begin with the experiments,
chapter 1 examines the issue of L1 use in a language classroom in detail, and more
particularly in vocabulary lessons, so as to be able to place these experiments in the proper
context. Chapter 2 deals with the study which included two experiments from the design to
analytical framework. In chapter 3 results of the observations and tests will be found
together with some discussion about English learning and teaching. First of all, we should
have a review of the issue in literature.
5 DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1: Literature review
This chapter starts with historical view of the problem, then important findings and
arguments from opponents and proponents of an English-only policy will be looked at,
followed by a quick view of the action research method.
1.1. The historical view of the issue
A look at the history of L1 use in the L2 classroom quickly reveals periodic but
regular changes in how it is viewed (Auerbach, 1999, p12). Several hundred years ago
bilingual teaching was the „norm‟, with students learning through translation. The use of
L1 to study L2 was almost universal and readily accepted, in part because language
teaching placed an emphasis on the written word above the spoken word. In the 19
th

teacher risked undermining him/herself, as the students being the better speakers would
control the communication.
The emphasis on monolingual teaching of English also inherently implied that the
native speaker was the ideal teacher. This was closely tied not only to political agendas,
but also to the economics of the global EFL field (Pennycook, 1994, p176). English
speakers could control all the employment opportunities, by being seen as the „ideal
teacher‟.
The appearance of the Direct Method of teaching just over a hundred years ago also
contributed greatly to the consolidation of the idea that all L1 languages should be
excluded from the classroom (Harbord, 1992, p350) & (Pennycook, 1994, p169). The
premise of the Direct Method was that second language learning mirrored first language
acquisition: lots of oral interaction, little grammatical analysis and no translation. The
Direct Method would soon be discredited when it failed in the public education system
(Brown, 1994, p44), but it would have a lasting influence on ESL/EFL classrooms.
Also pivotal in forwarding the argument that L1 should not be used in the
classroom was Krashen, who advocated maximum exposure to the target language. He
stated that all the lessons or as much as possible should be in L2 (English in our case), and
that there was a definite relationship between comprehensible input in L2 and proficiency
(Krashen, 1985, p14). Crucially though, this perhaps implied that time spent using L1
would only detract from learning. He even suggested that the reason exposure was not
always successful in facilitating proficiency, was because learners had access to their L1
either in class, or out of it (Krashen, 1985, p14). This idea that the L2 lesson should be
taught in L2, in order to maximize exposure, and thereby learning, is perhaps the key
concept which monolingual supporters have based their approach on.
The Makere report in 1961 further reinforced the idea of using nothing but English
in the classroom. There are five basic tenets originating from this report, which have been
called into question, but which were taken as the „truth‟, at the time. They are:
7
Many researchers now believe that the search for a „best method‟ is a futile effort
(Lewis, 1993, p189), because there can never be one method that suits all (Nunan 1999, in
8 Pracek, 2003). Many methods and many techniques have their place, depending on the
differing circumstances of the teaching environment. By excluding the students‟ L1, we are
severely limiting the number of methods and techniques available to teachers.
1.2. The current mixed view
1.2.1. Support for the Monolingual Approach
There is some strong support for the Monolingual Approach to teaching in the
literature and advocates usually organize their support around 3 claims:
1. The learning of an L2 should model the learning of an L1 (through maximum
exposure to the L2).
2. Successful learning involves the separation and distinction of L1 and L2.
3. Students should be shown the importance of the L2 through its continual use
(Cook, 2001, p412).
According to Cook 2001, these are some of the fundamental principles of the
Monolingual Approach.
While the research may not be entirely convincing, it is considered likely that L2
acquisition is similar to L1 acquisition, which, crucially, is based on the notion of exposure
as being the determining factor for learning (Lewis, 1993, p54). Children learn their first
language through listening and copying what those around them say, and exposure to the
language is vital in the development of their linguistic skills. The Communicative
Approach generally favored a monolingual approach with adults for similar reasons,
justified on the pretence of maximizing communication in L2 (Phillipson, 1992, p185).
Many teachers themselves have come to believe that as the classroom is often the students‟
only exposure to English that exposure should be maximized (Burden, 2000, p5).
In regards to Cook‟s second point, supporters of the Monolingual Approach have
stated that translating between L1 and L2 can be dangerous as it encourages the belief that

and error often lead to what has been dubbed an „interlanguage‟, where a mix of L1 and L2
is used to communicate and establish the correct way of communicating in the L2
(Weschler, 1997, p2). One area in which there is strong support for a Monolingual
Approach is the multilingual classroom. Unless the teacher is capable of speaking all the
respective L1s in the classroom, there would seem to be no benefit of L1 use (Hawks,
2001, p49) and indeed it would probably hinder learning.
1.2.2. Support for the Bilingual Approach
Despite growing opposition to the English-only movement, its supporters remain
steadfast in their determination to use English as the target language and the medium
(Auerbach, 1993, p9) even though there are few specific references referring to actual
benefits derived from excluding the L1 from the classroom (Hawks, 2001, p48).
10 However, there is now a belief by some that the use of L1 could be a positive resource for
teachers and that considerable attention and research should be focused on it (Atkinson,
1987, p241). There is also strong evidence that it is popular and students tend to prefer
teachers who understand their L1 (Briggs, 2001, p1). A study by Schweers, 1999 found
88.7% of Spanish students studying English wanted L1 used in the class because it
facilitates learning. Students also desired up to 39% of class time be spent in L1
(Schweers, 1999, p7).
Much of the attempt to discredit the Monolingual Approach has focused on three
points: it is impractical, native teachers are not necessarily the best teachers, and exposure
alone is not sufficient for learning.
The biggest problem with the Monolingual Approach to teaching is that it is really
impractical (Phillipson, 1992, p191). One reason the exclusion of L1 is impractical is that
the majority of English teachers are not native speakers (Hawks, 2001, p50). Sometimes
these teachers‟ own English is not very good, and by insisting on an English only policy,
we can severely undermine their ability to communicate and consequently their ability to
teach. Another reason it is impractical is that to enforce the sole use of the TL can often

struggling lower-level students. Increasing the amount of L2 instead of a simple
explanation in L1 is likely to have a negative effect and simply add to the frustration on the
student‟s part (Burden, 2000, p6).
In addition to trying to discredit the Monolingual Approach, some researchers have
attempted to demonstrate the positive effects of using L1 and have attempted to categorize
when it should be used. Humanistic views of teaching have speculated that students should
be allowed to express themselves, and while they are still learning a language it is only
natural that they will periodically slip back into their mother tongue, which is more
comfortable for them. They will also naturally equate what they are learning with their L1
so trying to eliminate this process will only have negative consequences (Harbord, 1992,
p351) and impede learning.
One often widely misunderstood point which proponents of L1 use such as
Auerbach, 1993 have been criticized for is that they are promoting the indiscriminate and
wide use of L1 in the classroom. Supporters of the Bilingual Approach have been quick to
clarify by stating that they do not support widespread and indiscriminate use of L1 in the
classroom (Auerbach in Polio, 1994, p157). In fact much research has focused on the
specific situations in which L1 should be used, and situations when it should not be used.
Mitchell 1988, surveyed teachers and found situations where grammar was being explained
were the area that most teachers felt L1 use was acceptable. Other areas such as
disciplining students, explaining instructions for activities, and giving out background
12 information were also areas where L1 use was considered acceptable (Mitchell, 1988,
p29).
Other researchers have suggested the use of L1 in situations such as eliciting
language, checking comprehension, giving instructions and helping learners cooperate with
each other (Atkinson, 1987, p243).
Harbord, 1992, concluded that there are three reasons for using L1 in the
classroom. They are: facilitating communication, facilitating teacher-student relationships,

this study is being done. But before looking deeper into the issue in the particular situation,
it is necessary to have a quick view of approaches to vocabulary teaching and learning.
1.3. Approaches to vocabulary teaching
Sökmen (1997) states that vocabulary teaching was based on a top-down,
naturalistic, and communicative approach which emphasized implicit and incidental
learning of vocabulary. The implicit approach, which includes inferring from the context
and guessing, is commonly used in foreign language teaching classrooms. Teachers often
encourage students to guess the meaning of the words by looking at the context where the
words are located. They rarely use L1 in the classroom because they are concerned that
students may just rely on their L1. Nevertheless, more studies show that implicit teaching
may not be appropriate for LPL, it could cause more difficulties in the process of learning.
Several studies of vocabulary acquisition show that the combination of implicit and
explicit vocabulary instruction is an effective way for acquiring vocabulary (Sökmen,
1997). Ramachandran and Rahim‟s (2004) study shows that explicit instruction which uses
L1 could encourage ESL students whose English proficiency is at the elementary level to
recall and retain the words more effectively.
Whilst L1 is normally overlooked in TEFL, it seems that many teachers believe that
English should be taught in English because it is the only way to expose students to the
target language in the classroom. Anyway, students‟ preference and progress can be the
strongest base for teachers‟ choice of what language to use.
1.4. Adults L2 vocabulary acquisition model
Based on the characterization of the unique learning conditions adult L2 learners
face, Jiang (2000) proposed a three-stage psycholinguistic model of adult L2 vocabulary
acquisition.
In the first, lexical association stage, adult learners recognize an orthographic or
phonological form, or both, as a word. They understand the word‟s meaning within an
existing semantic structure, which is closely linked to their L1. To help themselves
remember this L2 word, the learners associate it with its L1 translation. However, unlike a
L1 word whose entry contains all four types of lexical knowledge, that is, meaning and
syntax in the lemma structure, and morphology and phonology/orthography in the lexeme

steady state of lexical processing in advanced L2 learners.
To sum up, the analyses above challenge the complete rejection of L1 in the L2 vocabulary
teaching (especially for adult L2 learner). Many modern teaching methods treat L2 in
isolation from L1, whether it is the communicative approach, the audio-lingual method, the
mainstream EFL methods, or the older direct method, L1 is shunned in the classroom
15 (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). In fact, L1 is present in L2 learner‟s mind, whether the teacher
wants it to be there or not, and the L2 knowledge that is being created in their mind is
connected in all sorts of ways with their L1 knowledge.
1.5. Action research
Kemmis and McTaggart defined action research as “deliberate, solution-oriented
investigation that is group or personally owned and conducted. It is characterized by
spiraling cycles of problem identification, systematic data collection, reflection, analysis,
data-driven action taken, and, finally, problem redefinition. The linking of the terms
“action” and “research” highlights the essential features of this method: trying out ideas in
practice as a means of increasing knowledge about or improving curriculum, teaching, and
learning” (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988).
Similarly, Watts stated that action research is a process in which participants
examine their own educational practice systematically and carefully, using the techniques
of research.
Steps of an action research are shown in the figure below, which was adapted from
Susman, 1983. 16

time to talk with others about teaching and teaching strategies and share their thoughts
which develop stronger relationships between them.
Besides, it offers potential for school change. As teachers get into action research,
they are more apt to look at questions that address school concerns. Development of
priorities for school-wide planning and assessment efforts arise from inquiry with potential
to motivate change for improvement‟s sake.
17 One more benefit is, action research helps teachers reflect on their own practice.
They can also investigate what effect their teaching is having on their students, how they
could work better with other teachers, or ways of changing the whole school for the better.
Last but not least, action research improves communications as team work within
the school or district brings individuals together for a shared purpose. Educators involved
in action research become more flexible in their thinking and more open to new ideas
(Pine, 1981). Studies by Little (1981) suggest positive changes in patterns of collegiality,
communication, and networking.
For all the advantages above, the researcher decided to apply this method in this
study with the intent that the research will inform and change her practices in the future
while posing some implications for potential changes in to English teaching at her school.
Like any other action researches, this study will not provide all the answers to our
questions about how students learn or what educators can do to improve practice, but it
happened at the place where the question arises; it happens where the real action is taking
place; and it allows for immediate action.
Chapter 2: The study
In this chapter, the study will be describe in detail, beginning with its design, with
the analytical framework closely behind and the data analysis process as the last part.
2.1. Design of the study
2.1.1. Hypotheses
The study is conducted in order to find evidence for the acceptance or rejection of

test 1 was the diagnosing test, test 2 tested students‟ understanding of words and test 3
measured students memory of the words they learned. Experiment 2 included 4 tests: tests
4 and 5 dealt with students comprehension of words taught in experimental lessons(which
used Vietnamese) as well as in control lessons (which used English only in definitions and
explanations of words); and tests 6 and 7 handled their memory of those words. All the
tests had the same format: multiple choice tests with four alternative answers. The test
consisted of two parts: (1) vocabulary in direct translation from English to Vietnamese and
vice versa (10 items), and (2) vocabulary in context (10 items). The first task of tests –
vocabulary in direct translation was to examine students‟ ability to recognise the words and
link them with their L1 equivalents and whether they could pick out the correct English
translation for Vietnamese words among words of the same category or similar forms. This
could be seen as a later phase of their lexical association stage in Jiang‟s three-stage
psycholinguistic model of adult L2 vocabulary acquisition. The second task was included
in the tests for the purpose of testing students ability to use the suitable words in contexts,
that is to link the words directly to their conceptual representations. Students being able to
19 do this would be considered in the second stage of L2 vocabulary acquisition when they
can use the word more fluently and automatically with significant influence of L1.
In the first test, all 20 words were taken from the previous units of the book New
Headway Elementary that students had learnt not long before. In tests 2 to 7, the words
were taken from the units of the book that students learnt during research time.
2.1.2.2. Classroom observations
The observation was chosen for its advantages. One of the advantages of
participant observation is its ability to facilitate the collection of 'rich' information that is
frequently not available from other sources (Babbie, 1995). As such, it can be used to
supplement, inform or contradict theorised research and it can greatly enhance the
available knowledge on a subject as a result. It can be used either as a preliminary step in a
research study by which the researcher observes events 'as they occur' in order to formulate

were girls. They share the same mother tongue (L1) - Vietnamese and English is their L2.
Two classes were assigned as an experimental group (receiving L1 in vocabulary
instructions) and the other two classes were assigned as a control group (receiving no L1 in
vocabulary instructions).
There is no obvious difference between the two selected groups (with the mean
scores of the two groups in the pretest not significantly different), showing that they have
roughly the same English proficiency, and we may take it for granted that the subjects have
roughly the same English vocabulary size.
The second experiment was conducted with the participation of only 26 students,
10 girls and 16 boys, from a class of experimental group.
2.1.4. Procedures
To achieve the goal, the research focused on the participation and perception of the
students as well as what students could keep in their memory through their learning of
vocabulary with and without Vietnamese support. The plan involved conducting lessons
with two different research groups and two groups of lessons with the same class using
different approaches so as to see how students reacted to these approaches.
Two experiments were carried out in order to collect the data. In the first
experiment, the teacher applied different teaching approaches to the two groups: the
experimental group received L1 support in teacher‟s instruction and explanation while the
control group received no treatment.
The books they had in hand were slightly different. The New Headway Elementary
(NHE) (Soars & Soars, 2004) was used with the control group, which has the word list at
the end of the book with the part of speech, but there is no definition given. The same
21 course book was used with the experimental group but with the addition of translation of
difficult words at the bottom of each page and a word list at the end of the book with
Vietnamese meaning.
In regards to teaching techniques, for experimental group, the new words were